text:
User talk:Anthere/Archives 2021/Gaia theory

Théories Gaïa The Gaia theory is a broadly inclusive name for a group of ideas that living organisms on a planet modify the nature of the planet to make it more suitable for life. This set of theories holds that all organisms on a planet regulate the biosphere to the benefit of the whole. Because they may choose to do so selfishly for only the benefit of their own species, perhaps as parasites, these theories are also very significant in green politics.

While there were a number of precursors to Gaia theory, the first scientific form of this idea was proposed as the Gaia Hypothesis by James Lovelock, a British chemist, in 1970. While controversial at first, various forms of this idea became accepted to some degree by many within the scientific community.

Predecessors to the Gaia theory
There are some mystical, scientific and religious predecessors to the theory, which had a Gaia-like conceptual basis.. Many religious mythologies had a view of Earth as being a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. (e.g. some Native American Indian religions).

Lewis Thomas held that Earth should be viewed as a single cell; he derived this view from Johannes Kepler's view of Earth as a single round organism. Teilhard de Chardin, a paleontologist and geologist, believes that evolution unfolded from cell to organism to planet to solar system and ultimately the whole-universe as we humans see it from our limited perspective. De Chardin later influenced Thomas Berry and many Catholic humanist thinkers of the 20th century. Buckminster Fuller is generally credited with making the idea respectable in Western scientific circles in the 20th century. Building to some degree on his observations and artifacts, e.g. the Dymaxion Map of the Earth he created, others began to ask if there was a way to make Gaia theory scientifically sound.

None of these ideas are considered scientific hypotheses; by definition a scientific hypothesis must make testable predictions. As the above claims are not testable, they are outsides the bounds of science. These are conjectures and perhaps can only be considered as social and maybe political philosophy; they may have implications for theology.

Range of views
Gaia theory is a spectrum of hypotheses, ranging from the undeniable to radical. At one end is the undeniable statement that the organisms on the Earth have radically altered its composition. A stronger position is that the Earth's biosphere effectively acts as if it is a self-organizing system which works in such a way as to keep its systems in some kind of equilibrium that is conducive to life. Biologists usually view this activity as an undirected emergent property of the ecosystem; as each individual species pursues its own self-interest, their combined actions tend to have counterbalancing effects on environmental change. Proponents of this view sometimes point to examples of life's actions in the past that have resulted in dramatic change rather than stable equilibrium, such as the conversion of the Earth's atmosphere from a reducing environment to an oxygen-rich one.

An even stronger claim is that all lifeforms are part of a single planetary being, called Gaia. In this view, the atmosphere, the seas, the terrestrial crust would be the result of interventions carried out by Gaia, through the coevolving diversity of living organisms. Most scientists do not hold this view; however such a view is considered within scientific possibility.

The most extreme form of Gaia theory is that the entire Earth is a single unified organism; in this view the Earth's biosphere is consciously manipulating the climate in order to make conditions more conducive to life. Scientists contend that there is no evidence at all to support this last point of view, and it has come about because many people do not understand the concept of homeostasis. Many non-scientists instinctively see homeostatis as an activity that requires conscious control, although this is not so.

Much more speculative versions of Gaia, including all versions in which it is held that the Earth is actually conscious or part of some universe-wide evolution, are currently held to be outside the bounds of science.

Strong Gaia theories
Several types of strong theories may be defined. Lovelock's core initial 1979 hypothesis was that the biomass modifies the conditions on the planet to make conditions on the planet more hospitable - the Gaia Hypothesis proper defined this "hospitality" as a full homeostasis. Lovelock's initial teleological hypothesis was that Gaia atmosphere is kept in homeostasis by and for the biosphere.

Lovelock suggested that life on Earth provides a cybernetic, homeostatic feedback system operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota, leading to stabilization of global temperature and chemical composition.

With his initial hypothesis, Lovelock claimed the existence of a global control system of surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity. His arguments were:

 * The global surface temperature of the Earth has remained constant, despite an increase in the energy provided by the sun
 * Atmospheric composition remains constant, even though it should be unstable
 * Ocean salinity is constant

Since life started on Earth, the energy provided by the sun has increased by 25%; however the surface temperature of the planet has remained constant when measured on a global scale. Furthermore, he argued, the atmospheric composition of the Earth is constant. The Earth's atmosphere consists of 79% nitrogen, 20.7% oxygen and 0.03% carbon dioxide. This composition should be unstable, according to Lovelock, and its stability can only have been maintained with removal or production by living organisms.

Ocean salinity has been constant at about 3.4% for a very long time. Salinity stability is important as most cells require a rather constant salinity degree and do not tolerate much values above 5%. Salinity is partially controlled by evaporation processes, which mostly take place in lagoons.The only significant natural source of atmospheric carbon dioxide is volcanic activity, while the only significant removal is throught the weathering of some rocks. During weathering, a reaction causes the formation of calcium carbonate. This chemical reaction is enhanced by the bacteria and plant roots in soils, where they improve gazeous circulation. The calcium carbonate can be washed to the sea where it is used by living organisms with carboneous tests and shells. Once dead, the living organisms shells fall at the bottom of the oceans where they generate deposits of chalk and limestones. In short, a rock was weathered, the resulting carbon dioxide processed by a living organism, and returned to a rock through sedimentation process. Part of the organisms with carboneous shells are the coccolithophores (algua), which also happen to participate in the formation of clouds. When they die, they release a sulfurous gaz (DMS), which act as particles on which water vappor condense to make clouds.

Lovelock sees this as one of the complex processes that maintain conditions suitable for life. The volcanoes make the CO2 enter the atmosphere, CO2 participate in limestocks weathering, itself accelerated by temperature and soil life, the dissolved CO2 is then used by the algua and releasd on the ocean floor. CO2 excess can be compensated by an increase of coccolithophoride life, increasing the amount of CO2 locked in the ocean floor. Coccolithophoride increase the cloud cover, hence control the surface temperature, help cool the whole planet and favor precipitations which are necessary for terrestrial plants. For Lovelock, coccolithophoridees are one stage in a regulatory feedback loop. Lately the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increase and there is some evidence that concentrations of ocean algal blooms are also increasing.

The initial Gaia Hypothesis was highly criticized by orthodox scientists for being teleological.

An even stronger claim states that biota manipulate their physical environment to creat optimal conditions. It is sometimes refers to as optimizing Gaia.

 * "the Earth's atmosphere is more than merely anomalous; it appears to be a contrivance specifically constituted for a set of purposes". (Lovelock and Margulis 1974).

Optimizing Gaia asserts that the biota manipulate their physical environment for the purpose of creating biologically favorable, or even optimal, conditions for themselves.

 * "...it is unlikely that chance alone accounts for the fact that temperature, pH and the presence of compounds of nutrient elements have been, for immense periods, just those optimal for surface life. Rather, ... energy is expended by the biota to actively maintain these optima". (Lovelock and Margulis 1974)

Another strong theory is the one called Omega Gaia, and proposed by Teilhard de Chardin's. Teilhard de Chardin claims that the Earth is evolving through stages of geosphere, biosphere, and noosphere, culminating in the Omega Point.

Standard Gaia theories
In 1988, Lovelock presented a new version of the Gaia Hypothesis which was abandoning any attempt to argue that Gaia intentionally or consciously maintained the complex balance in her environment that life needed to survive. This new hypothesis was more acceptable by the scientific community. He supported his new hypothesis with the metaphor of Daisyworld. Using computer simulations of the Daisyworld parameters (no atmosphere, taking into account different albedos for each daisy type) and a mathematical approach, Lovelock proved that the controlled stability of the climate by life was not being teleological. The new Gaia hypothesis stated that Gaia was homeostatic, ie that the biota influence the abiotic world in a way that involves homeostatic feedback.

Weak Gaia theories
A version of Gaia theory was developed by Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist, in 1979. Her model is more limited in scope than the one that Lovelock proposed. In particular, that only homeorhetic and not homeostatic balances are involved, and that there is no special tendency of biospheres to preserve their current inhabitants, and certainly not to make them comfortable. Accordingly, the Earth is not a living organism which can live or die all at once, but rather a kind of community of trust which can exist at many discrete levels of integration.

"Lynn Margulis, tells us that Earth is not homeostatic but homeorhetic: that is, the composition of Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere are regulated around "set points" as in homeostasis, but those set points change with time... Gaia is just symbiosis as seen from space." - from Greenpeace apparently in reference to Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Planet: A New View of Evolution.

A system in homeostasis tends to move towards constant values for its parameters, whereas a system in homeorhesis will always exhibit similar dynamic behavior, without necessarily converging to a constant state. There is strong evidence that plants are selected for the microclimate effects which they can have locally to themselves, and good evidence that these patterns also exist on some wider scales, with symbiotic relationships existing for larger scale climate modification.

Other reductionist theories suggest that Gaia is co-evolutive. Co-evolution in this context has been thus defined: "Biota influence their abiotic environment, and that environment in turn influences the biota by Darwinian process."

The weakest form of the theory has been called influential Gaia. It barely states that biota influence certain aspects of the abiotic world, e.g. temperature and atmosphere.

All of these theories are more acceptable from an orthodox sience perspective, as they assume non-homeostasis. It states the evolution of life and its environment may affect each other. An example is how the activity of photosynthetic bacteria during precambrion times have completely modified the Earth atmosphere to turn it aerobic, and as such supporting evolution of life (in particular eucaryotic life). However, these theories do not claim the atmosphere modification has been done in coordination and though homeostasis.

In 1988, Lovelock presented a new version of the Gaia Hypothesis which was abandoning any attempt to argue that Gaia intentionally or consciously maintained the complex balance in her environment that life needed to survive. This new hypothesis was more acceptable by the scientific community. He supported his new hypothesis with the metaphor of Daisyworld. Using computer simulations of the Daisyworld parameters (no atmosphere, taking into account different albedos for each daisy type) and a mathematical approach, Lovelock proved that the controlled stability of the climate by life was not being teleological. The new Gaia hypothesis stated that Gaia was homeostatic, ie that the biota influence the abiotic world in a way that involves homeostatic feedback.

Gaia in biology and science
Buckminster Fuller is generally credited with making the idea respectable in Western scientific circles in the 20th century. Building to some degree on his observations and artifacts, e.g. the Dymaxion Map of the Earth he created, others began to ask if there was a way to make Gaia theory scientifically sound.

The first such attemp was the Gaia Hypothesis by James Lovelock, a U.K. chemist. While controversial at first, various forms of this idea became accepted to some degree by many within the scientific community. A variant of this hypothesis was developed by Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist, in 1979. Her version is sometimes called the "Gaia Theory" (note uppercase-T). Her model is more limited in scope than the one that Lovelock proposed.

Whether this sort of system is present on Earth is still open to debate. Some relatively simple homeostatic mechanisms are generally accepted. For example, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, plants are able to grow better and thus remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but the extent to which these mechanisms stabilize and modify the Earth's overall climate are not known.

The Gaia hypothesis is sometimes viewed from significantly different philosophical perspectives. Some environmentalists view it as an almost conscious process, in which the Earth's ecosystem is literally viewed as a single unified organism. Some evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, view it as an undirected emergent property of the ecosystem; as each individual species pursues its own self-interest, their combined actions tend to have counterbalancing effects on environmental change. Proponents of this view sometimes point to examples of life's actions in the past that have resulted in dramatic change rather than stable equilibrium, such as the conversion of the Earth's atmosphere from a reducing environment to an oxygen-rich one.

Depending on how strongly the case is stated, the hypothesis conflicts with mainstream neo-Darwinism. Most biologists would accept Daisyworld-style homeostasis as possible, but would not accept the idea that this equates to the whole biosphere acting as one organism.

A very small number of scientists, and a much larger number of environmental activists, claim that Earth's biosphere is consciously manipulating the climate in order to make conditions more conducive to life. Scientists contend that there is no evidence to support this belief, which has only come about because most people do not understand the concept of homeostasis. Many non-scientists instinctively see homeostasis as an activity that requires conscious control, although this is not so. This leads to some confusion on both sides, and the labels mysticism and scientism are applied to some adherents of the theory.

Gaia in the social sciences
A social science view of Gaia theory is the role of humans as a keystone species. If they act to prevent climate change, primate extinction, etc., then they might make a homeostasis with their own cognition.

Gaia in politics
Some radical political environmentalists who accept some form of the Gaia theory call themselves Gaians. They actively seek to restore the Earth's homeostasis - whenever they see it out of balance, e.g. to prevent manmade climate change, primate extinction, or rainforest loss. In effect, they seek to cooperate to 'become' the "system consciously manipulating to make conditions more conducive to life". Such activity 'defines' the homeostasis, but for leverage it relies on deep investigation of the homeorhetic balances, if only to find places to intervene in a system which is changing in undesirable ways.

Gaians are attempting to create a new ideology which fuses conclusions from science and politics; they see this as a a protoscience of human ecology. These ideas include the idea of humans as the keystone species, say act to prevent climate change, primate extinction, etc., and might deliberatly make a homeostasis with their own cognition. deliberately maintaining the balances of the entire biosphere. One is not passively asking "what is going on", but rather, "what to do next", e.g. in terraforming or climate engineering or even on a small scale as gardening. Changes could thus be planned, consented to by many people, and very deliberate, as in urban ecology and especially industrial ecology. See arcology for more on this 'active' view. Gaians argue that it is a human duty to act as such - committing themselves in particular to the Precautionary Principle.

Such views began to influence the Green Parties, Greenpeace, and a few more radical wings of the environmental movement. These views dominate some such groups, e.g. the Bioneers. Some refer to this political activity as a separate and radical branch of the ecology movement, one that takes the axioms of the science of ecology in general, and Gaia theory in particular, and raises them to a kind of theory of personal conduct or moral code.

Semantic debate
The question of "what is an organism" and at what scale is it rational to speak about organisms vs. biospheres, give rise to a semantic debate. We are all ecologies in the sense that our (human) bodies contain gut bacteria, parasite species, etc., and to them our body is not organism but rather mre of a microclimate or biome. Applying that thinking to whole planets:

The argument is that these symbiotic organisms, being unable to survive apart from each other and their climate and local conditions, form an organism in their own right, under a wider conception of the term organism than is conventionally used. It is a matter for often heated debate whether this is a valid usage of the term, but ultimately it appears to be a semantic dispute. In this sense of the word organism, it is argued under the theory that the entire biomass of the Earth is a single organism (as Johannes Kepler thought).

Unfortunately, many supporters of the various Gaia theories do not state exactly where they sit on this spectrum; this makes discussion and criticism difficult.

Much effort on behalf of those analyzing the theory currently is an attempt to clarify what these different hypotheses are, and whether they are proposals to 'test' or 'manipulate' outcomes. Both Lovelock's and Margulis's understanding of Gaia are considered valid scientific theories, and are now a part of biology proper.

More speculative versions of Gaia, including all versions in which it is held that the Earth is actually conscious, are currently held to be outside the bounds of science. The views of self-proclaimed political Gaians are in this category.


text:
User:Anthere/Soupente

Hi there -- I created WikiLove. Can I withdraw some WikiMoney from your account now? :-) --Eloquence 03:38 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * Of course I did it only for the money. ;-) No, actually I found it quite strange that we didn't have an article about it yet. Let's hope it helps. --Eloquence 16:49 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

I had been loathe to lobby on my own account about my page on the French Wikipedia, but I wanted to respond to your comment ("I think Daniel will be welcome, provided he proves one or two of his books have not been published at his account, plus one or two articles in serious and famous books or other publications. Articles on his grand father will not be welcome I guess.") on Talk:Daniel C. Boyer to set some things straight:

1. My book The Octopus Frets: political poems was self-published; my book The Tailgating Spinster was published by Fiji Island Mermaid Press.

2. My article Are You Crazy?: Mental Illness and Whiteness was published in the journal Race Traitor&lt;/i> (No. 9, Summer 1998); this article was reprinted in the book Surrealist Subversions: Rants, Writings & Images by the Surrealist Movement in the United States (you can see its listing on Amazon.com), along with my new article "Seattle 1999: Just the Beginning" and my drawing "The Breakfast Club." I had two articles published in The Salvador Dali Collectors Magazine ("Vinyl Dali," (Vol.5, No.1) and "Dali's Foray into New Medium was 'Smokin" (Vol.6, No.1).  My response to an inquiry was published in Groupe de Paris du Mouvement Surréaliste, "Ecoutons Voir: Réponses à l'enquête sur le rêve, le langage et l'image" (supplement to S.U.RR No.4) (this was one of my few things published in the French language), and my response to an inquiry was published in New York Arts Magazine (an internationally-distributed art magazine).  In terms of drawings or illustrations my work has appeared in Psycho magazine, The Improper Bostonian, New York Nights, and four of my drawings appeared in Snow Monkey'' magazine (Vol.3, Issue 2). 3.  The irony of the comment about my grandfather is that he was much more well-known than I am; it is difficult to go into any library (at least here in the United States) which does not have one of his books in it. Which would certainly not be true of me.

--

http://abe.midco.net/baike/800x600project/cereusjbanks.htm

 * No, I'm not the author; I just found the link somewhere and thought it was cool. I like the ones on grafitti, books, and tulips also.  :-)  Koyaanis Qatsi

-

Yes, the deletion log is (presently) just a page, so you can take all the text out of the old deletion log and paste it into the new one if you like. (The pages are protected so only sysops can edit them.) The custom here on en.wiki seems to be to move everything out of the deletion log into an archive page each month; if anyone does make an edit, the pre-edit version is saved in the history, so also you could just clear the page. It doesn't really matter from a technical point of view. --Brion 02:13 21 May 2003 (UTC)

- That's a good start at local food, Anthere. :-) I tweaked it some; I hope it doesn't appear to advocate local food, but I do think it's a principle of sustainability and I don't know how to say that NPOV.  People interested in sustainability are interested in local food.  ... Also, should we mention that some people buy local food as part of a bartering system, intending to lower the amount of money they need?  I have several friends who do that--some of them poor by choice, others not.  Koyaanis Qatsi

 * Hi, it's a tripod you want. I like your pictures, but especially the third one.  :-)  Koyaanis Qatsi

Bonjour Anthere!

Est-ce que Tu as lu Talk:List of French Monarchs? (and that's my French capability for the moment -- a hard day, and my speech is not nearly as good as my reading comprehension!) Triton has quoted you! You should feel honored! une autre femme

- How are you these days? I've discovered roots music lately and am in heaven, listening to all these old 33s, 45s, and 78s that people have digitized. Koyaanis Qatsi - I can hardly believe it -- but could it be that you are not familiar with the tilde trick for signing (  for signature without timestamp, ~ for signature with timestamp)? Or are you just lazy? :) --Eloquence 00:24 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've uploaded a flower for you at [[media:Lavender02.jpg]]. Enjoy :). WikiLove, MB 14:51 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

- I'm fine, thanks. Working on the film still a bit, finishing it up. Watching some films and slowly getting back into reading. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 20:16 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please, take it easy on the edit wars. These articles are not worth getting in such a huge fuss over. Maybe take a break from Wikipedia for a while... come back to it later when you're not so angry. -- Wapcaplet 00:02 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry Wapcaplet. But did you look at the edits he did ? At the whole paragraphs he removed ? Till the point the article looks like nothing ? He wanted a one article. He got it. Now, he wants to remove anything that is not fitting with his pov. He is stripping the entire article, carefully written by dozen of contributors. He is insulting me. And this is ok ? I do not think so. Anthere

I am not going to take any sides in this... I think you're both being kind of stubborn. I just think if you both take a break you will feel better when you come back to it later on, maybe then we can discuss it rationally. -- Wapcaplet 00:11 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * This is precisely why I asked several times for the page to be protected. I see that sysops are not very much in a hurry to help users in need. I can't say I appreciate that. I don't ask you to take side. But when you have time, please quietly read the edits he is proposing. I don't necessarily say they are all bad, but some are just non acceptable. Many very important points are removed. Only the scientific point of view is kept. These articles were the result of a work of several people. They stand there many many months with consensus on them. What he is doing is very bad. And his attacks are just as bad. If you care, please do work between his version and the previous one.

I'm not sure I'm cool-headed enough to do any edits on this right now, either :) I know RK's not cooperating, but continual revert-wars are just going to make the situation worse. Maybe if you leave it alone for a while, he'll let it rest too. Seriously! Take a break! Go watch TV or read a book or something. Wikipedia is not everything, and the world's not gonna end if the articles on Gaia theories aren't totally accurate. For your own happiness and sanity, please :) -- Wapcaplet 00:22 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Regarding edit wars: Post to Current disputes over articles or the Village pump. MB 01:18 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've uploaded a flower for User:Angela at [[media:Sagittaria.jpg]]. MB 03:00 5 Jun 2003 (UTC) (trillium)

Regarding protection of pages, try wikipedia talk:protected page (or the village pump or the page of sympathetic sysops). Unfortunately, by the time I saw the page, it was already a mess of reverts and moves, which didn't help... Martin

I think it's technically a misspelling in this case (although of course you're right about the deity). I took a look at the edit history for Gaia hypothesis and noticed that the first entry was where The Epopt moved the article, with the comment "oops! misspelled it". Took a look in Google for '"Gaia hypothesis" Lovelock' and '"Gaea hypothesis" Lovelock', found 4460 hits for the former and only 18 for the latter (one of which is Wikipedia) so I assume this is the spelling Lovelock himself used in his writing. Apparently the Gaea spelling had just been propagated from the original typo. - Hephaestos 17:01 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I accidentally removed a part of your contributions to Knowledge, and I also at first misunderstood some of what you wrote. You may have noticed the recent flurry of editing by me on that article. However, I want you to know that I put back what I mistakenly took out. RK 02:11 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Any chance you could start using the tilde trick to sign you messages? In case you don't know, signs like this MB, and ~ signs like this MB 21:22 6 Jun 2003 (UTC). If you want your sig to be ant, you can change that in you Preferences. It's just that if someone wants to respond to you here, or look at your user page, this make things much easier. Thanks. MB 21:22 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Ant- thanks for the suggestion re. Organic gardening... Sounds agood idea to create a page summarising the subject of 'organic gardening' linked to a kind of 'contents page' for an encylopedia within an encyclopedia on the subject of organic gardening. Could we perhaps merge the list of organic gardening and farming topics pages, although they are different subjects in many ways there is alot of cross-over, and it would make more sense to have a one page List of topics relating to organic gardening and farming rather than 2 seperate lists diverging or replicating the same work. What do you think? quercus robur 11:35 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Merci, Anthère de ta confiance à propos du libéralisme et l'affaire Faré.

D'abord sur la question du nom du user/utilisateur Fare/Faré, j'ai bien l'impression que toutes ces variations ce concernent de la même personne, mais je n'y attache pas de grande importance. Disons que c'est plutôt une question de l'accentophobie qui est si bien rependu parmis les anglophones.

Au niveau de l'entourloupe (=troll??), ça prendrait de demander si c'est quelque chose qui arrive souvent. Encore, il ne faut pas y attacher trop d'importance. Quand ça mène à un lien vide, ça devrait servir d'une façon temporaire ou d'en faire un "redirect" sur l'article anglaise ou d'écrire un "stub" qui donnerait plusieurs liens.

À mon avis il faut se demander quand un problème est vraiment secondaire, pour voir s'il'y a des moyens faciles pour le résoudre. Comme ça on peut se dévouer au vrai problème.

Mon Grand dictionaire Anglais-Français Larousse nous donne les traductions directes liberalism=libéralisme et libertarianism=doctrine libertaire ou même "convictions libertaires", dont ce dernier est toujours au pluriel. J'ai l'impression que le mot "libertarianisme" n'existe pas dans le bon français, ou au moins il ne parait pas dans mon Petit Robert.

Je ne dirais pas que liberalism et libéralisme sont exactement des faux amis, mais ça serait aussi inexacte de dire qu'ils sont parfaitement exacte, l'une à l'autre. La version anglaise et la version française ont chacunes leures propres evolutions. Pour l'anglais on a l'impression que le libéralisme d'aujoud'hui est compris comme le contraire de ce qu'il était anciennement. Je comprends bien la volonté des "libertarians" de se distingués de ce mélanges. L'article actuel liberalism anglais devrait se co-ordonner avec libéralisme. Pour les deux, ils devraient avoir l'objectif de démèler tous les sens de ce mot assez confus.

J'ajoute un peu sur "ilk". Tu a suggéré la traduction "clique", mais ça fonctionne pas. Une clique comprend une groupe de personnes qui travaillent ensembles pour arriver à quoi que soit leur but commun. Les gens ou les choses du même "ilk" n'ont pas besoin d'avoir d'associations personelles ensemble. Je suggererais plutôt ";type" pour traduction, comme dans "Ce gars est un drôle de type." ☮ Eclecticology 19:48 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

- Let's start an ilk, Anthere. :-) Anyway, here's a link on biopiracy you may find interesting.  Koyaanis Qatsi 22:52 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Je viens de regarder le home page de Faré. C'est avec plaisir que je peux bel et bien annoncer qu'il est un des vôtres en 19ème de Paris.

Les liens qu'il donne pour le "libertarianisme" sont aussi bien de la France que du Québec. Il me semble que le mot en français est un anglicisme moderne. Peut-être que l'Académie française n'est pas encore prête pour ce mot, mais ça serait une bonne idée de l'accepter dans le même sens que le mot anglais libertarianism, mais certainement pas comme traduction de l'anglais liberalism.

L'intolérence est tres spéciale comme problème. Il est presque impossible de leur faire controller leurs gueules sans qu'ils commencent à nous accuser de prendre une position complètement contraire à nos croyances. En anglais on a l'expression, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

J'hésite naturellement de me mêler dans le débat. De préférence ça prendrait quelqu'un de plus expérimenté que mois dans les subtilités de l'économie politique, mais je comprend que ces gens n'auront pas l'esprit de se combattre avec ceux qui argumentent d'une façon plus libertine que libérale.

Santé! ☮ Eclecticology 20:34 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I read through the biopiracy page with interest. It seems to be mostly your work.

It appears to me to have a rather novel POV and I was thinking of adding some background, but my background is mainly USA so I'm hesitant to change much, especially if it's well researched. Wondering what your opinion is and what level of ownership you feel of the page. Kat 20:30 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Martin

Do you think Open Campaign is more acceptable that way ?

 * It's better. I need to follow the external link you added to find out more, really. :) Btw, sorry if my talk page is too big... Martin

I added some notes wrt world production at Talk:Agriculture. Kat 15:43 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, User:Jimfbleak split the ag page the other day, moving much material to USA_Agriculture. I think it's a fine thing to make the scope and perspective of the project more global.

I have maintained for some years now that agriculture is among the most geographically relative of all topics. The growing techniques that work for us will not work on farms a few dozen miles from us where the soil and topography is different. As I travel throughout North America I see farming operations that are quite different than ours even though the same crops and livestock are grown. So having a balanced North American perspective is hard, and having a balanced global perspective is all the more difficult.

Anyway, I have no experience of farms in Europe or the UK, much less Africa or Asia. I correspond with some people in Austraila and New Zeland so I have at least some idea for those places. So, I cannot write what I do not know and hope that you and others who are familiar with these places will fill in the gaps.

Kat 22:20 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I originally moved most of the US stuff from agriculture to make it more global, but I left the history bit in because it seemed that the development of farming in N. Am was of global importance. As I said, I've no expertise in this area, but I think it's an arguable case.  jimfbleak 06:11 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Anthere, Left a note for you at Talk:Monoculture Kat 17:29 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

--- Why do you think you were "rejected" for Adminship on en.wiki? You were already, seconded, thirded, 4th, 5th and 6th before you finally accepted. It is only a technical matter and limited developer resources why your account hasn't been switched to "sysop" here yet. Heck since you stated your request as a side statement inside a longer statement to me there is a good chance a developer didn't ever notice what you said. I will make things clear on our Admin request page. You are a great Wikipedian and will make a great Admin too. :) --mav

 * You are a sysop now, that's for sure. Have fun! --Eloquence 18:38 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I'd congratulate you... but knowing your feelings, perhaps commiseration would be more appropriate? :) Martin

Everyone, a little WikiLove, please! We're all here to make Wikipedia a better resource, remember. --Brion 01:57 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Henceforth, until you hear from me otherwise, you may sign Pizza Puzzle alongside your name in any argument u might have with RK. Pizza Puzzle

I strongly recommend that the both of you take a break for a few days, at least from the pages that you're conflicting over. Regardless of who's "right", you're not going to get anything useful done with tempers and rhetoric running high. Wikipedia will still be here when you return. --Brion 03:03 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That's a damselfly, not a dragonfly, but it's a great picture anyway. :-) Thanks for posting them.  Koyaanis Qatsi 03:14 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, they're both Odonata, and commonly confused, so you're not far off. A dragonfly at rest will typically have its wings horizontal (the one picture I have, with one pair of wings down, is atypcial); a damselfly at rest has its wings held vertically, above the body.  Other than that, they're very similar in life cycles (they start life in river bottoms and molt up to 15 times before becoming the winged creatures flying about above water), they live from months to years before leaving the water, they both date back hundreds of millions of years.  Some fossils show that dragonflies used to reach up to 2.5 feet across.  And this is probably more information than you wanted.... of all that we studied in entomology, the only things I remember are dragnonflies, damselflies, and carnivorous plants....  Best, Koyaanis Qatsi 03:25 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Too many bugs. Have another. ;) Hephaestos

- You've got mail. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 04:06 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, I was currently avoiding looking at my mail box. It contains only messages about Vandalism, Trolling, poor and non acceptable english, harassment and banning. Oh, btw, I am gonna set up my banning page. Since I am in the pipe :-) Okay, I'll read your mail anyway before going to sleep.

 * Well maybe I could post them here, instead; I just couldn't convince myself the photos would be useful to some article, since the articles already have suitable pictures. Koyaanis Qatsi 04:18 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Hold on. I go. Just a page and archives to do.

 * Let's ban Brion because we don't like his haircut. Then you can ban me and I'll try to have mav ban you, and then I'll have more time to work on a novel idea and you'll have more time to take photos.  Koyaanis Qatsi 04:29 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

By all means. I release all my pictures into the public domain, so it's not a problem. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

Keep your chin up, Anthere, it doesn't seem as if RK has won any friends at all. Go ahead and edit away at the Gaia articles if you see that something needs to be done, I'll support you. --Dante Alighieri 03:57 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Keep your chin up: good advice. :-) On another note, what kind of camera did you say you have?  I think I mentioned that I'm using a Nikon FM2 but get the focus a bit wrong once or twice a roll.  Also, it's expensive after awhile.  I'd like a good digital camera, and from the pics you're uploading, I'd say yours qualifies.  Koyaanis Qatsi 06:20 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Martin was named sysop only with the suggestion of Ed. Not with the numerous supports offered to current new admin. Danino has questioned Martin right to be a sysop. Martin thus commented Danino words by

 * Thirdly, I should note that my sysop powers were the result of a fairly informal decision by Ed Poor, rather than the general acclamation that has greeted recent sysops. As such I feel somewhat lacking in democratic accountability! :) While I wish to retain my deletion and undeletion powers solely for the purpose of merging page

histories or moving page titles, I would like to announce here that I will no longer take any other sysop-restricted actions, until further notice. I hope you can all trust me to keep my word on this matter.

I consider that by "further notice" is meant being backed up by more people than Ed. Which is why I put him on the list for being a sysop. How else can people support him being a sysop than here ? Or, is there a page where sysops whose status is questionned can be supported ? Removing him just prevent people from supporting his current status.User:anthere

Or were could this be publicly listed ?

I think this is real real real bad.

 * Sigh. If Martin's sysop status was seriously questioned, it would be revoked. Just because our process of sysop nomination has been somewhat streamlined, that doesn't mean that sysops that were approved in the past will somehow have to be "reassessed". If you want to challenge Danny's disapproval, post a message to the mailing list. Martin chose the consequences himself, if you want him to go back to regular sysop activities, ask him to do so.

 * honesty required him to chose these consequences. I think posting on the list is not a good option. Everyone should agree on this, not only list readers. Plus, now the place to do it is *here*, not on the list any more. I will do the advertising here first :-))

 * No, I don't agree that "honestry required him to choose these consequences". He has the right to continue exercising his sysop privileges at any time until his sysop status is officially revoked. That never happened. --Eloquence

 * I wish people would stop making such a big fucking deal out of sysophood and non-sysophood. --Eloquence 21:49 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, you know perfectly well that I mostly agreed to be one just to see the content of deleted article :-) If I could see them, or if nothing was to be ever deleted (ok, I may dream :-)), I would probably not have fucking accepted to be one :-))))

 * The content of deleted pages is hidden for many good reasons. If we allow copyright infringements to remain visible, we will sooner or later get in big trouble for doing so -- other websites have been sued by organizations like Scientology and the Mormons. If we allow trolls and vandals to post junk to this site without removing it from their view, they will use it as their personal repository and discussion site and flood us with nonsense Because they will have a motivation to keep coming back, they will spam all our website's areas with their trolling and crapflooding. This exact thing is happening on Slashdot, where everyone can view comments that have been moderated down, so you have a subculture of trolls that keeps coming back to the site because it offers them a forum -- as a result, the signal/noise ratio is dismally low. Compare with Kuro5hin, where trusted users (similar to sysops on Wiki, but automated) can hide comments, and only other trusted users can see and unhide them. The result: Trolls and vandals are driven away because trolls want to be fed -- if they don't see the reaction to what they did, if it just disappears, so will they. What you are proposing is a very bad idea that threatens the Wikipedia community as a whole. I will do everything I can to prevent it from ever being implemented. --Eloquence 22:12 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I understand the need for some pages to disappear. Which is why I suggested categories for deleted pages (for example, deleted pages for cp reasons could be categorised as such, and not only would they be invisible, but they might also be permanently deleted from the db after a while, which would be interested for cp reasons). I see the point of your concern. I am just not sure it would apply to wikipedia.
 * I see not how this threat could destroy the whole community :-) But, admittedly, the votes for undeletions and the easyness to become a sysop is making an acceptable replacement :-)
 * I understood pretty well you would fight till "death" for this position of yours :-) You made that crystal clear. And there is little I can do against that since you are a developper and I am not, right ? While even though many disagreed with categories, they will exist because you agreed upon them :-) Ach, that is life ! No big deal :-) But, I just could not prevent myself to point out to that "fucking deal". And yes, I agree with you. I wish it would not be so important.

 * It's really a matter of cost/benefit analysis. What do we gain by making deleted pages visible? Little: the risk for abuse is minimal because of the massive peer review, the undeletion feature, and the Votes for undeletion page. What do we lose? A lot: either we risk being sued out of existence, or we make deletions a lot more complicated; we also risk attracting trolls who will fill our site up with nonsense. So the matter seems fairly clear and I would wish that you would just stop campaigning -- because it's annoying when people continue to complain about something even when it has been shown fairly conclusively that their arguments are flawed.

 * You know what Erik? On the mailing list, you kept saying the topic has been enough discussed not to be anymore. But I have no memory you ever explained your position so clearly. Really. Perhaps RK is right when he says I don't get things :-) Anyway, I am glad I raised the topic a last time, for I really understand your position now. Which I did not before. As long as I don't understand, I tend to keep asking :-) I can be very stubborn when I am not convinced. Now, I am, and I won't bother you again. Because I recognise some truth in this position of you. I say "your" because the comments on the mailing lists convinced me that it was a rather personal position. It works better if you want me to stop bugging you on a topic to explain me things clearly, rather than just saying "no, it has already been explained". Actually, when people talk to me nicely and explain things, I think I tend to be very malleable :-))) (sisisi). The votes for undeletions did not appear from nowhere you know ?

 * I did not implement categories, Magnus did. And believe me, developing for Wikipedia is not always fun, precisely because everything is so open and transparent, and users who know little or nothing about how things work often complain quite rudely when something is changed. And then you have to deal with certain people who are opposed to voting on principle and will complain even when an attempt is made to make a democratic decision. So we revert to a fake consensus process which almost never succeeds, and decisions are made without any kind of formalized approval process, and as a result, the same people who complain about using voting will complain again because no "clear consensus" was reached. This kind of mentality is very, very effective at preventing anything from getting done. But that will of course not stop these very same people from complaining that nothing is getting done! Ask Magnus through what trouble he had to go to finally get a category system approved that may see the light of day.

 * If I was the "benevolent dictator" of Wikipedia, the first thing I would do is abolish my own position, establish a democratic decision making process, and make it a bannable offense not to respect that process. The voting opponents would whine, but only for a limited time, and we would finally have a smoothly working system in place. --Eloquence 23:06 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Fortunately, you are not the benevolent dictator :-). Here is my position. I think you are right that when a group of people grow too big, decisions are very hard to take by sheer consensus, and yes, things tend to slow down, and decisions never to be taken. Hence, in some cases, I think vote is good. I spent a lot of time promoting your voting experiment on the french wiki, because we were one of the two international wikipedias having a big pb with the count system. It was leading to *great* silliness from french wikipedians. Hence, I supported this vote *greatly*.
 * Now, I must admit that in the end, that was a bad experience. Because contrary to what you say, this is the perfect exemple where a vote lead to NO change at all. Most french active wikipedians voted. They basically voted for the final choice. It was important to us. And many months later, we still are on the old system. I know this is just a technical matter quite well, but I now think I voted for nothing, I advertised the vote for nothing, and that allowing international to vote is a pure joke if the decision taken through the vote result in no change at all. Ok, I draw the line quite boldly to be clear (I will vote next time :-)). But since you say voting is good as it results in a decision to be taken, I say the goal is not for a decision to be taken, but to a decision result to be *applied* (in short, for things to move on). In this case, a decision was taken, but nothing was changed. Except for the sheer happiness of seeing we could collectively take a decision, the real goal : having things change, was not reached. Too bad. So, this may be a success for the english wikipedia, but this is a miss for the international ones, and a miss for the attempt of including us in global decision. 'cause it was not global really. In the end, we voted for an english issue. I'll pick up a very current parallel. It is just as if the french governement made a referendum for all french people asking "do you want gm food in your plate or not ?". Then 90% of people say no. Then the governement says "good, a decision was taken, this is very good. Now, people living in Paris will have no gm food in their plate, but the rest of France will go on having some for an unlimited time, but we do our best". Good ? Fair ? I hope you understand what I mean. This is no criticism toward anybody. *For me* this is a recognition of personal failure. This is also true as far as software is concerned. Our software are also drifting apart. I think the only way is to promote as much as I can transfert of editors from one to another and hope that a french will get involved in the soft development. There were many good things done in 18 months that I have been here, but many failures too.

 * Thinking about it. I am sure you will another day organize another wikipedia wide vote. If so, it might make sense perhaps to inspire from how international decisions are taken in meat space. You know, international conventions for example. Where there is a time for discussion. Then a time when nations can decide to sign or not sign. A time limit for the signatures. With a miniumum of signature to reach for the international decision to come to enforcement. And also, from the very beginning of the proposal, an official date where the convention upon which there will maybe be an agreement start being enforced. Perhaps there will be a lapse of time before the enforcement really start, but when it will, the convention will be enforced into all signatory nations at the same time. This is certainly not democratic and efficient that the convention be applied slowly over years one nation after another. When decisions taken are not applied; it is perhaps not worth to take them. I hope you will not see this as criticism toward you or anybody else, it is really not meant to be. I would like just as you that some decisions are taken, and am unhappy when things just get drown by slowlyness. And am aware in such a project, it is sometimes frustrating to see that some things are not moving. It was just an idea. Right ?

 * Sorry for your personnal page, but the talk page is over 32ko.

 * So will be yours soon. Fortunately, this problem will soon be solved thanks to the section editing feature I implemented. Then you can just edit the last section of a page, which should always be reasonably short. --Eloquence 22:12 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * That sounds good. That will probably help me greatly :-)

 * Wikilove ant.

 * Hi anthere.
 * My withdrawal from most sysoping is entirely voluntary. I felt under no pressure to do so, but it seemed like the right thing to do. It's not permanent - just until further notice. Relax! :) I suffer no pain, and gain much wisdom, from the kind and considerate criticism of my peers. :) Martin 23:18 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I didn't intend to send you a metaphor; I just thought it was a nice picture. I hope you don't feel that way for long. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 06:06 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

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

title: User:Anthere/Soupente


text:
Talk:Bivalence and related laws

I felt the pages dealing with the differences between these 3 laws were confusing, so I've been bold and tried to improve them. However, I'm not quite an expert in these areas, so I acknowledge a (small, I hope) possibility that my understanding is totally flawed and my every edit on this matter needs to be reverted. If so, you would need to do the following:

Law of non-contradiction would need to be reverted to:

 * this edit

Principle of bivalence would need to be reverted to:

 * this edit

Law of excluded middle would need to be reverted to:

 * this edit

Having said that, I'm about 90% sure that my understanding is correct, so I will be disappointed if this is actually done. :-)

The crucial difference seems to be between bivalence and the excluded middle. The former says that P is either true or false, but the latter only applies to statements of the form (P or not-P), and says that all such statements are true. This is a different claim, and some people have rejected bivalence but not the excluded middle.

Evercat 19:20 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * There are many systems that reject bivalence but not the law of excluded middle, and they include really any many-valued system. I suppose Russell's "truth-gap" semantics for certain modal systems does this as well, since there are statements that may not have any truth-value whatever (i.e. "Pegasus flies").

 * Intuitionistic logic, on the other hand, rejects the law of excluded middle but retains bivalence.

 * I'm not entirely sure how clear this page is on the differences between the 3 principles, but at first glance, it doesn't seem too clear and perhaps introduces superfluousness to it (i.e. with the "Vagueness" section). Nortexoid 06:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how bivalence and excluded middle are distinct. (P or ~P) seems to me to be nothing more or less than the formalization of "either P is true or P is false". A statement can't be either true or false if it doesn't have a truth-value. Bivalence neither implies nor is implied by non-contradiction, unless you're understanding the "either ... or ..." construction to be an exclusive disjunction, which I don't think is the common usage of the term. A paraconsistent logic could deny non-contradiction but still accept bivalency or the excluded middle. Unnamed525 21:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Bivalence and excluded middle are distinct because some logics might allow (P or -P) to be true even though neither P or -P have a determinate truth value. Evercat 22:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Law of bivalence
Surely the law of Law of bivalence can be written:

(~(P and ~P)) and (P or ~P)

 * Surely that does not capture what the law of bivalence is.

title: Talk:Bivalence and related laws


text:
Charles A. Towne

Charles Arnette Towne (November 21, 1858 – October 22, 1928) was an American lawyer and politician who served in both houses of Congress. He represented Minnesota in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1895 to 1897 and in the U.S. Senate from 1900 to 1901. He also represented New York in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1905 to 1907. He was the last Democrat senator from Minnesota, before the state's Democratic Party merged with the Farmer-Labor Party to form the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party.

Early life
Charles Arnette Towne was born on November 21, 1858, near Pontiac, Michigan. He graduated from the University of Michigan. He studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1885.

Career
Towne began practicing law in Marquette, Michigan, in 1886. He moved to Duluth, Minnesota, in 1890.

Congress
Towne served in the United States House of Representatives from Minnesota as a Republican in the 54th congress. Towne also served in the United States Senate in the 56th congress, from Minnesota as a Democrat following the death of Cushman K. Davis.

Towne was appointed to the Senate by Governor John Lind to fill the vacancy, and served from December 5, 1900, to January 28, 1901, when the elected replacement took office. Towne represented Minnesota in the House from March 4, 1895, to March 3, 1897.

He switched parties in 1896 due to the free silver movement. He ran for re-election in 1896 as an Independent and lost.

Later career
In 1900, he declined the nomination for Vice President on the People's Party ticket.

Towne moved to New York City in 1901. He worked for the law firm Towne and Spellman at 115 Broadway in New York City.

Return to Congress
He was elected as a Democrat and served as a U.S. Representative in the 59th congress for the state of New York from March 4, 1905, to March 3, 1907. He was counsel to the emperor of Korea in 1907.

Arguments before Supreme Court
In December 1915, he and Benjamin F. Spellman represented L. Lawrence Weber as the appellant before the Supreme Court of the United States in the Weber v. Freed case concerning boxing match film distribution. The appeal was denied.

Personal life
Towne married Maude Irene Wiley of Lansing, Michigan, on April 20, 1887.

Towne lived at 790 Riverside Drive when he lived in New York City. Towne traveled to Tucson, Arizona, following an attack of bronchitis in October 1920. He did not move there until 1926.

He lived at the Santa Rita hotel, moved to the Desert Sanitorium and later moved into a home near Tucson.

Death and burial
Towne died of pneumonia in Tucson on October 22, 1928. He became ill while on tour speaking for Al Smith in Huron, South Dakota. Following hospitalization at Southern Methodist Hospital in Tucson, he died. He was buried at Evergreen Cemetery in Tucson.

title: Charles A. Towne


text:
William D. Washburn

William Drew "W.D." Washburn, Sr. (January 14, 1831 – July 29, 1912) was an American politician. He served in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate as a Republican from Minnesota. Three of his seven brothers became politicians: Elihu B. Washburne, Cadwallader C. Washburn, and Israel Washburn, Jr. He was also cousin of Dorilus Morrison, the first mayor of Minneapolis. He served in the 46th, 47th, 48th, 51st, 52nd, and 53rd congresses.

Washburn was born in Livermore, Maine. A graduate of Bowdoin College, he first studied law in the office of John A. Peters in Bangor, Maine, before moving to Minneapolis, Minnesota, around 1857. There he practiced law, and worked for the Minneapolis Milling Company (founded by his brother Cadwallader). His business ventures in lumber and flour milling allowed him to amass a large fortune, and by the 1880s, he was among the wealthiest men in Minnesota. Washburn served as the first president from 1883 to 1889 of what was to become Soo Line Railroad. He also founded the Pillsbury-Washburn Milling Company, which later became the Pillsbury Company, and was eventually absorbed by his brother's firm, General Mills.

Washburn built a mansion known as "Fair Oaks" in 1883. It was designed by E. Townsend Mix, who also designed Minneapolis's Metropolitan Building, and the outdoor landscape was laid out by Frederick Law Olmsted. The grounds included an artificial stream leading to a pond, a rustic footbridge, a greenhouse, and a carriage house. The home was demolished in 1924 to make way for a park, although the region is now part of the Washburn-Fair Oaks Mansion District, which was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1977.

Washburn served in the Minnesota House of Representatives in 1871. He was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1878 and served from March 4, 1879, to March 3, 1885. He was elected to the Senate in 1888 and served from March 4, 1889, to March 3, 1895.

Washburn was a founder of the First Universalist Church of Minneapolis in 1859. A major benefactor, he served as a trustee and President for much of his remaining life. He died in Minneapolis in 1912. His grandson C. Langhorne Washburn was to be active in the Republican Party from the 1950s through the 1970s.

William Washburn's son, Cadwallader Lincoln Washburn, was born in 1866. Cad became deaf as a child. His talent as an artist was noticed at an early age. Cad eventually became a noted artist and news correspondent who pioneered many new painting techniques in the west. The arts center at his alma mater, Gallaudet University, is named for Cad Washburn. Another son William Drew Washburn, Jr. also served in the Minnesota House of Representatives.

title: William D. Washburn


text:
Jenny Joseph

Jenny Joseph (7 May 1932 – 8 January 2018) was an English poet, best known for the poem "Warning".

Early life and education
Jenny Joseph was born on 7 May 1932 in South Hill, Carpenter Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, to Florence (née Cotton) and Louis Joseph, an antiques dealer. The family were non-observant Jews. Her father's career led to the family relocating to Buckinghamshire, and Joseph was evacuated to Devon early during the Second World War. She later credited this experience with her fascination with the changing light.

She attended Badminton School in Bristol. She won a scholarship to study English literature at St Hilda's College, Oxford (1950).

Career
Her poems were first published when she was at university in the early 1950s. She became a journalist and worked for the Bedfordshire Times, the Oxford Mail and Drum Publications (Johannesburg, South Africa).

Her first book of poems, The Unlooked-for Season, won a Gregory Award in 1960, and she won a Cholmondeley Award in 1974 for her second collection, Rose in the Afternoon, published by J.M. Dent, London.

"Warning"
Joseph's best known poem, "Warning", was written in 1961 when she was 28. First published in The Listener in 1962, "Warning" was later included in her 1974 collection Rose In the Afternoon, in The Oxford Book of Twentieth Century English Verse, and in her Selected Poems (1992).

The poem became well known in America after Liz Carpenter (formerly the first woman executive assistant to Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson and Press Secretary to former First Lady Lady Bird Johnson), wrote an article for the Reader's Digest in the early 1980s, about enjoying life having recovered from an illness, closing the article with "Warning". The poem was adopted by the greeting-card industry, led by graphic designer and calligrapher Elizabeth Lucas. Joseph ascribed the popularity of the poem "to her business acumen and energy I owe a hospitable following in California and later throughout northern America, more social, as I said, than literary.

"Warning" was identified as the UK's "most popular post-war poem" in a 1996 poll by the BBC.

The opening lines "When I am an old woman I shall wear purple, With a red hat which doesn't go, and doesn't suit me" were the inspiration for the Red Hat Society.

Due to its popularity, an illustrated gift edition of "Warning", first published by Souvenir Press Ltd in 1997, has now been reprinted 41 times. "Warning" was included in the anthology Tools of the Trade: Poems for new doctors (Scottish Poetry Library, 2014) and a copy was given to all graduating doctors in Scotland in 2014.

Joseph herself hated the colour purple, which is why she included it in the poem.

In 2021, the Bodleian Libraries in Oxford announced that the one millionth image from their collections to be digitised by the Digital Bodleian project was Joseph's first draft of "Warning".

Personal life
In 1961, Joseph married Charles Anthony (Tony) Coles. The couple had three children – Martin, Nel and Bec – and ran the Greyhound, a west London pub, while Joseph continued writing. The couple separated and Joseph relocated to Gloucestershire. Her dedication of The Thinking Heart (1978) was: "To my children, preventers of literature, life-savers".

Awards and honours

 * 1960: Gregory Award for Unlooked-for Season
 * 1974: Cholmondeley Award for Rose in the Afternoon
 * 1986: James Tait Black Memorial Prize for her fiction Persephone
 * 1995: Travelling scholarship by the Society of Authors.
 * 1999: Fellowship of the Royal Society of Literature in 1999.

Commemoration
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography published an entry for Jenny Joseph in March 2022.

title: Jenny Joseph


text:
The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin

The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin is a British sitcom starring Leonard Rossiter in the title role. Three series were produced from 1976 to 1979, based on a series of novels written by David Nobbs. Nobbs adapted the screenplay for the first series from the first novel. Some of its subplots were considered too dark or risqué for television and were toned down or omitted. A fourth series, The Legacy of Reginald Perrin, also written by Nobbs, followed in 1996.

The story concerns a middle-aged middle manager, Reginald "Reggie" Perrin, who is revealed in the first series to be aged 46, and is driven to bizarre behaviour by the pointlessness of his job at Sunshine Desserts. The sitcom proved to be a subversion of others of the era, which were often based on bland, middle-class suburban family life.

The first novel in the series, The Death of Reginald Perrin, was published in 1975. Later editions were retitled to match the title of the television series. The Return of Reginald Perrin (1977) and The Better World of Reginald Perrin (1978) were written by Nobbs to be adapted for the second and third television series; Rossiter did not want to take the series forward unless it continued to be grounded in novels.

A new dramatisation of the original novels by Jon Canter, without the complications introduced in the TV series, was broadcast on BBC Radio Four in November 2022.

Series One (8 September – 20 October 1976)
The first series was based on Nobbs' novel The Death of Reginald Perrin, retitled The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin to tie in with the television series; it retains the replacement title.

Reginald Iolanthe Perrin is suffering a midlife crisis and tries to escape his dreary life. He lives at 12 Coleridge Close, part of the 'Poets Estate' in a south London suburb called Climthorpe, a development differing from those around it only by having its streets named after famous poets. From references, it would have approximately coincided with Teddington (although in episode 1, he is seen entering Norbiton railway station). He commutes to Sunshine Desserts, where he works as a sales executive. Each morning he is 11 minutes late (this increased to 17 then 22 minutes with subsequent series), yet each morning he gives a different excuse. These become increasingly bizarre ("defective junction box, New Malden" being one of the more plausible ones), reflecting the decline of British Rail and of his own mental health. He enters the office building under the Sunshine Desserts sign which, as the series progresses, loses more and more of its letters.

"Reggie", as he is known, daydreams in Walter Mitty style. Part of the narrative demonstrates what voices in his head are saying. Although he appears to love his wife, he fantasises about his secretary, Joan Greengross. As his behaviour becomes more erratic, Reggie is unable to dictate letters without uttering words like "breast". Far from being offended, Joan welcomes the attention, adjusting her posture to show off her figure.

The endless marketing campaigns for bizarre products, satirised in reports from the product research department, combine with Reggie's relations with his oppressive boss 'CJ' and his yes-man subordinates to drive him over the edge. Ceasing to care about the consequences, he dictates offensive and condescending replies to customers.

At home, things are no better. Despite his warm relationship with his wife Elizabeth, he suffers from impotence. As pressures at work build, relations with his dysfunctional relatives deteriorate. His brother-in-law Jimmy and son-in-law Tom are both presented as incompetent. Tom's political correctness emphasises his pomposity. After Reggie commits a few reckless acts, including getting out of his car in the lion enclosure at a safari park, he fakes suicide by leaving clothes and personal effects on a beach.

Before this he sends CJ an anonymous threat containing the words "blood will flow" and dumps loganberry essence into a stream while CJ is angling. CJ collapses and the incompetent company doctor, Doc Morrisey, pronounces him dead. CJ opens one eye and says, "You're fired!"

Assuming disguises, Reggie encounters more of the banal and pompous side of life. Only as a buck-toothed farm labourer does he find fulfilment working in a sewage works and looking after pigs. Missing his wife, he assumes the identity of Martin Wellbourne, returned from South America, and visits her. He realises he still loves her. Elizabeth, seeing through his disguise, is happy to have him back.

Series Two (21 September – 2 November 1977)
In the second series (novelised as The Return of Reginald Perrin), Reggie is tired of being Martin Wellbourne and wants to be Reggie again. He reveals his true identity to his family (though his wife and daughter already know). When CJ learns from Doc Morrisey that he is Reggie, he sacks them both. Elizabeth goes out to work at Sunshine Desserts and Reggie returns to the pig farm, but they are both sacked after Reggie's employer learns of his faked suicide and Elizabeth sends a rude letter telling the truth about Sunshine's products.

Reggie then opens a shop called Grot, where he sells useless products – like square hoops, round dice and Tom's wine (made from sprouts, nettles and the like) – hoping it will be an interesting failure. However, the products are snapped up as novelties and Grot becomes a huge success. Reggie relapses into alienation and tries to destroy Grot from within by hiring incompetents, but this backfires as they all display unsuspected talents. Reggie finally resolves to disappear again, this time accompanied by Elizabeth.

Series Three (29 November 1978 – 24 January 1979)
In the third series (novelised as The Better World of Reginald Perrin), after seeing two men arguing pointlessly in a queue at the bank, Reggie and his wife open a community called Perrins for the middle-aged, middle class, designed to help them become "better, happier people". The project is a success until a group of people who have fallen afoul of the "Perrins Peace Keeping Force" trash the place.

Reggie is then hired by CJ's brother FJ at Amalgamated Aerosols, working directly under CJ. Reggie instantly returns to his eccentric ways and the final scene shows him contemplating another trip to the Dorset coast.

In the third series, the role of Reggie's son-in-law Tom is played by Leslie Schofield, replacing Tim Preece, who had played the role in the first two series. Preece returned to the role for The Legacy of Reginald Perrin (see below). Despite only being mentioned (rather than seen) in the previous series, Theresa Watson also became a regular cast member playing Pru, the wife of David Harris-Jones (Bruce Bould).

Christmas sketch (26 December 1982)
In 1982, as part of a BBC1 Christmas special called The Funny Side of Christmas, a short sketch featured the regular cast visiting Reggie's house on Christmas Day. Despite being annoyed at the continual interruption of his colleagues' arrival, he dispenses presents from beneath his own Christmas tree. In a final scene, Reggie's living room is shown empty, even of furniture. The sketch is unrelated to the regular series, which had finished three years earlier in 1979.

The Legacy of Reginald Perrin (22 September – 31 October 1996)
This follow-up series, made more than a decade after Leonard Rossiter's death, shows Reggie's legacy – a fortune left to friends and family, but with strange conditions. It failed with most viewers, as the loss of Leonard Rossiter removed some affection for the series. Despite a leading man in Geoffrey Palmer, it had no central character. Both book and series were titled The Legacy of Reginald Perrin.

In the series, Reggie's family and friends are told by lawyer Geraldine Hackstraw that each will inherit one million pounds, on the one condition that they do something totally absurd. The nature of their absurd task is left to the individuals, but it is to be judged by Ms Hackstraw. Most of them have fallen on hard times, having in the main been forced to retire or been made redundant due to their age.

After several pathetic solo attempts at being absurd (including both CJ and Doc asking out Geraldine), the potential legatees decide to pool forces, and, with Jimmy as leader, decide to mount a bloodless coup. They intend to reverse age roles, with such policies as pensions for the young. The policies are a success, but with the unexpected outcome of their losing the money in the bequest. As Geraldine points out, the idea has turned out not to be absurd after all (although Ms Hackstraw's final words to Jimmy as they parted mentioned that it was open for the group to come back to her with a more absurd plan to claim the bequest).

The series' characters and actors comprised all of the central characters of the earlier series, except Reginald Perrin and Tony Webster (Trevor Adams). It also included Patricia Hodge as Geraldine Hackstraw and Michael Fenton Stevens as Hank.

Cast

 * Leonard Rossiter as Reginald Iolanthe "Reggie" Perrin, a middle-aged middle manager suffering a nervous breakdown
 * Pauline Yates as Elizabeth Perrin, Reggie's wife
 * David Warwick as Mark Perrin, their son (series one only)
 * Sally-Jane Spencer as Linda Patterson, their daughter
 * Tim Preece (first two series and Legacy) and Leslie Schofield (third series) as Tom Patterson, Linda's husband (catchphrase: "I'm not a —— person.")
 * Sue Nicholls as Joan Greengross, Reggie's secretary
 * John Barron as C.J. (Charles Jefferson ), Reggie's boss C.J. is much given to Dundrearyisms and pompous statements beginning,"I didn't get where I am today by ..." – except when Reggie becomes his boss, whereupon he says, "I didn't get where you are today by ..."; also, "Neither Mrs C.J. nor I have ever..." and "We're not one of those dreadful firms that..." Barron also appears as C.J.'s brother F.J.
 * Trevor Adams as Tony Webster (catchphrase: "Great!")
 * Bruce Bould as David Harris-Jones (catchphrase: "Super!")
 * Geoffrey Palmer as Jimmy Anderson, Elizabeth's brother, an Army officer (catchphrase: "Bit of a cock up on the —— front.")
 * John Horsley as Doc (Gerald ) Morrissey, company doctor at Sunshine Desserts
 * Derry Power as Seamus Finnegan, "a poor tongue-tied labourer from the land of the bogs and the little people" with an unrecognised genius for management (series two and three only)
 * Joseph Brady as Kenny McBlane, Scottish chef at Perrin's (series three only)
 * Theresa Watson as Pru Harris-Jones, wife of David Harris-Jones
 * Patricia Hodge as Geraldine Hackstraw, Reggie's lawyer and executor of his will (Legacy only)
 * Michael Fenton Stevens as Hank Millbeck, Joan's lover and later husband (Legacy only)
 * David Ryall as Welton Ormsby, a redundant journalist who joins the old-age campaign (Legacy only)

Production
At the end of the first series, Reggie fakes suicide by leaving his clothes on a beach in West Bay, Dorset and running into the sea. Coincidentally, MP John Stonehouse faked his own death in this manner shortly before the book was published, although neither was inspired by the other; the novel was written before Stonehouse's faked suicide in November 1974, but not published until 1975. The phrase "do a Reggie Perrin" did enter the vernacular, however, assisted by the Stonehouse affair.

The series introduced catchphrases that entered popular culture in the UK, including Perrin's reflexive apology for a late arrival at the office; his boss CJ's "I didn't get where I am today ..."; the fawning junior executives Tony Webster and David Harris-Jones with their alternating "great/super"; and Perrin's brother-in-law Major Jimmy Anderson, an army officer with no grasp of organisation or leadership, coming to eat because of a "bit of a cock-up on the catering front" (caused in the original novel by his wife's alcoholism).

The first series included the character of Mark Perrin, Reggie's son, played by David Warwick. However, David Nobbs felt he diverted the comedy from Reggie, so he was written out by going on tour with a theatre group in Africa.

Although mainly produced on video and shot on studio sets, the series also incorporated innovative surreal escapism through film inserts, notably during scenes in which, whenever his mother-in-law is mentioned, Reggie visualises a hippopotamus trotting along.

Writer David Nobbs went on to create the Channel 4 comedy series Fairly Secret Army, whose lead character, Harry, was inspired by, if not directly related to, the Perrin character of Jimmy, and also played by Geoffrey Palmer.

Filming
Exterior views of the Perrin residence – 12 Coleridge Close, in the fictional suburb of Climthorpe – were shot at 6 Beaufort Close, Ealing, W5. Reggie's walk to work was shot on the corner of Audley Road and The Ridings, and on the corner of Ashbourne Close. All three roads are within about 100 yd of one another.

Many exterior scenes were filmed at sites in Cheltenham, including Eldorado Road and the Beehive public house.

The Sunshine Desserts office building was at 32–36 Telford Way, Acton (now demolished).

Reggie's faked suicide, which formed part of the title sequence, occurred at West Bay, Dorset, with the East Cliff visible in the very opening shot.

The first episode begins with commuters making their way to Norbiton railway station in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. The morning trains' constant lateness in the earlier series is usually blamed on incidents at actual stations along the railway from Norbiton and Kingston to Waterloo.

DVD releases
all edited

Remakes
A short-lived U.S. version was produced and broadcast on ABC in 1983 as Reggie, with Richard Mulligan in the title role.

Martin Clunes starred in a BBC revival of the series, titled simply Reggie Perrin. The supporting cast members were Fay Ripley, Wendy Craig, Geoffrey Whitehead, Neil Stuke, and Lucy Liemann. The series was written by Simon Nye and original series creator David Nobbs. It ran for two series from April 2009 to November 2010.

Stage musical adaptation
In 2019 it was announced that a stage musical adaptation was in development written by Jonathan Coe and David Quantick with Mike Batt writing the songs. Sean Foley, artistic director of the Birmingham Repertory Theatre also revealed he was involved with the adaptation.

title: The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin