text:
User talk:Piedachu~enwiki

¡Bienvenida a la wikipedia!

4lex 21:26 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Piedachu~enwiki


text:
Talk:List of governors general of Canada

Payette's resignation date
Did she resign as governor general of Canada on January 21 or January 23, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop form shopping. https://www.gg.ca/en/governor-general/former-governors-general says January 21. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not forum shopping, for either date. Trying to bring consistency among them. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You cross-posted it to multiple locations looking for editors to side with you. Talk:Governor General of Canada Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board and in Talk:Julie Payette. You make the claim than an editor is an WP:SPA, and from the implication, a CoI editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean about the SPA/COI stuff. Anyways, I'm content if we're using the same resignation date, through out all related articles to this topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the link at Talk:Julie Payette#Resignation date where you make a veiled accusation about the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mary-simon-official-photo-gg05-2021-0048-004 8x10.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mary-simon-official-photo-gg05-2021-0048-004 8x10.jpg

Viceroys
Both this page, and the official government of Canada website, claim that the first Governor General of Canada was Samuel de Champlain in 1627. However, this page also features a list of multiple "Viceroys of New France" prior to Champlain. If no source claims them as Governor Generals, aren't they irrelevant to this page? Or am I missing something, I admit I am not very knowledgeable about the subject. 69.156.5.6 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this note at Monarchy of Canada has some relevance. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  22:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


text:
Peking duck

Peking duck is a dish from Beijing that has been prepared since the Imperial era. The meat is characterized by its thin, crispy skin, with authentic versions of the dish serving mostly the skin and little meat, sliced in front of the diners by the cook. Ducks bred especially for the dish are slaughtered after 65 days and seasoned before being roasted in a closed or hung oven. The meat is often eaten with spring onion, cucumber, and sweet bean sauce, with pancakes rolled around the fillings. Sometimes pickled radish is also inside. Crispy aromatic duck is a similar dish to Peking duck and is popular in the United Kingdom.

History
Duck has been roasted in China since the Southern and Northern dynasties. A variation of roast duck was prepared for the emperor of China in the Yuan dynasty. The dish, originally named "shāo yāzi" (燒鴨子), was mentioned in the Complete Recipes for Dishes and Beverages (飲膳正要) manual in 1330 by Hu Sihui (忽思慧), an inspector of the imperial kitchen. The Peking roast duck that came to be associated with the term was fully developed during the later Ming dynasty, and by then, Peking duck was one of the main dishes on imperial court menus. The first restaurant specialising in Peking duck, Bianyifang, was established in the Xianyukou, close to Qianmen of Beijing in 1416.

By the Qianlong period (1736–1796) of the Qing dynasty, the popularity of Peking duck spread to the upper classes, inspiring some poets and scholars who enjoyed the dish. For instance, one verse of Dūmén zhúzhīcí, a Beijing local poem, was "Fill your plates with roast duck and suckling pig".

In 1864, the Quanjude (全聚德) restaurant was established in Beijing. Yang Quanren (楊全仁), the founder of Quanjude, developed the hung oven to roast ducks.

By the mid-20th century, Peking duck had become a national symbol of China, favored by tourists and diplomats alike. For example, Henry Kissinger, the secretary of state of the United States, met Premier Zhou Enlai in the Great Hall of the People on 10 July 1971, during his first (secret) visit to China. After a round of inconclusive talks in the morning, the delegation was served Peking duck for lunch, which became Kissinger's favourite. The Americans and Chinese issued a joint statement the following day, inviting President Richard Nixon to visit China in 1972. Following Zhou's death in 1976, Kissinger paid another visit to Beijing to savor Peking duck. Peking duck, at the Quanjude in particular, has also been a favorite dish for various political leaders ranging from Cuban Fidel Castro to former German chancellor Helmut Kohl.

Two notable restaurants in Beijing which serve this dish are Quanjude and Bianyifang, both centuries-old establishments which have become household names, each with their own style: Quanjude is known for using the hung oven roasting method, while Bianyifang uses the oldest technique of closed oven roasting.

Raising the duck
The ducks used to prepare Peking duck originated in Nanjing. They were large, had black feathers, and lived in the canals that linked the city to major waterways.

With the relocation of the Chinese capital to Beijing, supply barge traffic increased in that area. Often these barges spilled water into side-canals, providing a habitat for the ducks. By the time of adoption of five-spice powder, a new breed of duck had been domesticated by Chinese farmers. Nowadays, Peking duck is prepared from the American Pekin duck (Anas platyrhynchos domestica).

Newborn ducks are raised in a free range environment for the first 45 days of their lives, and force fed 4 times a day for the next 15–20 days, resulting in ducks that weigh 5–7 kg (11–15 lbs). The force feeding of the ducks led to an alternate name for the animal, "Peking stuffed duck".

Cooking the duck
Fattened ducks are killed, plucked, eviscerated and rinsed thoroughly with water. Air is pumped under the skin through the neck cavity to separate the skin from the fat. The duck is then blanched in boiling hot water for two to three minutes before it is hung up to dry. This tightens the skin. While it is hung, the duck is glazed with a layer of syrup with honey, and the duck's inside is rinsed once more with water. A second layer of glaze/marinade of soy sauce, five-spice powder, and more maltose is then applied inside and out, and the duck is left to stand for 24 hours in a cool, dry place (or a refrigerator). It is then roasted in an oven until the skin turns shiny brown.

Besides two traditional methods to prepare Peking duck, recipes have been compiled by chefs all around the world to produce the dish at home.

Closed-oven style
Peking duck is traditionally roasted in a closed oven. Bianyifang, a restaurant in Beijing, China, is famous for keeping this tradition. The closed oven is built of brick and fitted with metal griddles. The oven is preheated by burning Gaoliang sorghum straw at the base. The duck is placed in the oven immediately after the fire burns out, allowing the meat to be slowly cooked through the convection of heat within the oven. Controlling the fuel and the temperature is the main skill. In closed-oven style, duck meat is combined well with the fat under the skin, and therefore is juicy and tender.

Open-oven style
The open oven was developed in the imperial kitchens during the Qing dynasty and adopted by the Quanjude restaurant chain. It is designed to roast up to 20 ducks at the same time with an open fire fueled by hardwood from peach or pear trees. The ducks are hung on hooks above the fire and roasted at a temperature of 270 C for 30–40 minutes. While the ducks are roasting, the chef may use a pole to dangle each duck closer to the fire for 30-second intervals. In open-oven style, the fat is usually melted during the cooking process, so the skin is crispy.

Serving

Peking duck is traditionally carved in front of the guests and served in three stages. First, slices of duck skin are served with sugar and sweet bean sauce as a dip. Duck skin is best enjoyed hot and crisp to the bite. The meat is then served with steamed pancakes and an assortment of vegetable dishes, typically julienned cucumber and spring onion. Traditionally, diners dip slices of duck into the condiments and wrap into the pancake with cucumber and any other ingredients. The wrap is then eaten by hand or with chopsticks. The carved duck (鸭架) – the remainder of the roast duck, with choice cuts removed – can be cooked in three ways. The traditional way is in a broth with ingredients such as Chinese cabbage and soft tofu. The carved duck can also be chopped and stir-fried in sweet bean sauce, or rapidly sautéed and served with salt and pepper (椒鹽). Otherwise, the carved duck is packed to be taken home by the customers.

Reheating
Whole Peking ducks can be ordered as takeaway. The ducks can be reheated at home with an oven or stove. When an oven is used, the duck is heated at a temperature of 150 C for 20 minutes, and then at 160 C for another 10 minutes. The stove method involves submerging the duck in boiling water before placing it on a griddle 70 cm above the cooking fire. The water is replaced every 3–4 minutes until the duck is piping hot. To reheat the Peking duck with oil, the duck is sliced into thin pieces and placed in a strainer held over a wok of hot oil. The duck is then rinsed several times with the oil.

Notable restaurants
A number of restaurants in Beijing specialise in Peking duck. Examples include Quanjude, Bianyifang, Changan Yihao (長安一號), Dayali, Beijing Xiaowangfu (北京小王府) and Dadong Kaoyadian (大董烤鴨店). Some restaurants, in particular Quanjude and Bianyifang, have long histories of serving high quality duck that they are now household names, or Lao zihao (老字号), literally "old brand name". In addition, Quanjude has received worldwide recognition, having been named a China Renowned Trademark in 1999.

Duck Chang's Restaurant, established in 1975 in Virginia, United States, was the first Chinese restaurant to prepare and serve Peking duck without a 24-hour advanced notice. In 2018, the James Beard Foundation awarded Sun Wah BBQ in Chicago, Illinois, with their America's Classics award, specifically citing Sun Wah's three-course "Beijing Duck Feast" in their announcement of the award.

Crispy aromatic duck
Crispy aromatic duck (香酥鴨 xiāng sū yā) is a similar dish to Peking duck. It is popular in the United Kingdom, where it was created in the latter half of the twentieth century.

The duck is first marinated with spices, then steamed until tender, and finally deep fried until crispy. The meat has less fat and is drier and crispier compared to that of Peking duck.

In Germany, some Asian fusion restaurants also serve crispy aromatic duck (Knusprige Ente), sometimes also labeled as Peking duck (Peking-Ente, also Pekingente). The duck is marinated with spices and deep-fried, served together with stir-fried vegetables (Wokgemüse) over fried noodles or with rice.

title: Peking duck


text:
User talk:Travllight

Hello. Every edit is listed on Special:Recent changes and I happened to notice your edit on the talk page. I'm not sure how long you've been editing, but you can check out the Help page for answers to most questions (or you can leave a message on my talk page, I don't mind :). One last thing, you can "sign" your name by typing three tildes ; add another tilde and it appends the date and time for you. Welcome aboard! -- Notheruser 21:52 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Travllight


text:
User:Travllight

So, you have stumbled upon my user page.

Let me warn you in advance that I'm extremely new to Wiki; I only started participating in late July 2003. The reason I came here is that I was looking for an outlet for my Harry Potter obsession. I read book five, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, loved it, and now I have no new Harry Potter material to read until JK Rowling comes out with a new book, or at least until the third movie is out.

So, what will I do here? I am a fairly avid writer; there is no need to worry that I'll only be contributing to the Books > Magical section. Some areas in which I have written in the past include web development, computer security, and bioinformatics (these all relate to my job).

I'm also active in some discussion boards around the novels written by Robert Jordan.

As I said, I am very new to this place, so feel free to give me a push in the right direction.

title: User:Travllight


text:
Ahad Ha'am

Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg (18 August 1856 – 2 January 1927), primarily known by his Hebrew name and pen name Ahad Ha'am (אחד העם, lit. 'one of the people', ), was a Hebrew journalist and essayist, and one of the foremost pre-state Zionist thinkers. He is known as the founder of cultural Zionism. With his vision of a Jewish "spiritual center" in Eretz Israel, his views regarding the purpose of a Jewish state contrasted with those of prominent figures within the Zionist movement such as Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism. Unlike Herzl, Ahad Ha'am strived for "a Jewish state and not merely a state of Jews".

Biography
Ginsberg was born in Skvyra, in the Kiev Governorate of the Russian Empire (present-day Ukraine) to wealthy Hasidic parents. The town was located in the Pale of Settlement, which constituted an area in the Russian Empire in which Jews were legally allowed to reside. Ginsberg felt little affection for the town, describing it as "one of the most benighted spots in the Hasidic districts of Russia." Jewish segregation in the Russian Empire as well as his strong Orthodox upbringing served to cultivate an identity fundamentally based in Jewish Nationalism. At eight years old, he began to teach himself to read Russian. His father, Isaiah, sent him to heder until he was 12. When his father became the administrator of a large estate in the village of Gopitshitza in the Kiev Governorate, he moved the family there and took private tutors for his son, who excelled at his studies.

From a young age, Ginsberg was interested in the Haskalah movement. He was critical of the dogmatic nature of Orthodox Judaism, and began to distance himself from Orthodoxy by the time he was 16. Still, he remained loyal to his cultural heritage, especially the ethical ideals of Judaism. Ginsberg felt uncomfortable with taking the identity of mitnagid (non-Hasidic Orthodox jew) or maskil (Jewish Enlightener), so he simply referred to himself as "Ohev Yisrael", or "Lover of Israel". He married his wife Rivke at the age of 17. They had three children, Shlomo, Leah, and Rachel. In 1886 he settled in Odessa with his parents, wife and children, and entered the family business. In 1908, following a trip to Palestine, Ginsberg moved to London to manage the office of the Wissotzky Tea company. He settled in Tel Aviv in early 1922, where he served as a member of the Executive Committee of the city council until 1926. Plagued by ill health, Ginsberg died there in 1927.

Childhood education
Ginsberg's childhood education was fundamentally steeped in Orthodox Judaism. At the age of 3, he was sent to Heder. He had a desire to learn the Russian alphabet, but had to do so in secret as his family forbade instruction in languages other than Hebrew; according to Ginsberg, "my mother's father had with his own ears heard one of the great tsaddikim [Hasidic leaders] say that the sight of a foreign letter made the eyes unclean." Still, he was able to persuade some of his classmates to teach him the letters of the Russian alphabet. From a young age, Ginsberg displayed intellectual independence from the doctrine of Hasidism. He attempted to further his knowledge of Russian by reading street signs on his way home from Heder. His learning of Russian was exposed, however, when he returned home late, and his habit was subsequently banned. Ginsberg was also interested in algebra and geometry and began to teach himself the subjects using a book he found in his father's study. His pursuit was cut short again, though, when his grandmother told his parents he was practicing witchcraft after witnessing algebraic formulae written on the windows of the family's home.

Teen years and early adulthood
After moving the family to Gopitshitza, Ginsberg's father took tutors for his son. Asher excelled in the study of the Talmud, which contributed heavily to his affinity for the moral, ethical, and mystical teachings of Judaism. Additionally, his aptitude for Talmudic learning gave hope to his father that Ginsburg would become a rabbi. His hopes were diminished, however, as Asher broke away from Hasidism around the time of the family's move to Gopitshitza. Although he displayed obvious intelligence, Ginsberg's father forbade him from attending high school, which would later complicate his attempts to enroll in a university. Ginsberg displayed an interest in literature outside of Hasidism, particularly medieval Jewish works, the Bible, and Haskalah literature. His father did not forbid his reading outside of Hasidism, but did limit it heavily.

In his late teens and early twenties, Ginsberg dedicated himself to the study of religion, as well as subjects outside of Judaism such as Russian and German. During his first visit to Odessa in 1878, he became acquainted with another young man staying in the same hotel as him. There, he was introduced to the literature of Russian philosopher Dmitry Pisarev, who inspired him greatly. He returned home with the goal of enrolling in a university, and resolved to master the subjects required in a high school curriculum. However, he found that he had little time or desire to master the "intrinsically unimportant details" that students were required to learn in order to pass their exams, and abandoned the idea of enrolling at a Russian university. His subsequent attempts to attend university in Breslau, Berlin, Vienna and Leipzig faced various roadblocks, and his lack of higher education caused deep frustration. He experienced dissatisfaction with his lack of higher education, and this in part inspired his move to Odessa.

Zionist activism
In his early thirties, Ginsberg returned to Odessa where he was influenced by Leon Pinsker, a leader of the Hovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion) movement whose goal was settlement of Jews in Palestine. Unlike Pinsker, Ginsberg did not believe in political Zionism, which he fought, 'with a vehemence and austerity which embittered that whole period'. Instead he hailed the spiritual value of the Hebrew renaissance to counter the debilitating fragmentation (hitpardut) in the diaspora, he believed that the ingathering of Jews in Palestine was not an answer. Kibbutz galuyot was a messianic ideal rather than a feasible contemporary project. The real answer lay in achieving a spiritual centre, or 'central domicile', within Palestine, that of Eretz Israel, which would form an exemplary model for the dispersed world of Jewry in exile to imitate; a spiritual focus for the circumferential world of the Jewish diaspora. He split from the Zionist movement after the First Zionist Congress, because he felt that Theodor Herzl's program was impractical. In an essay entitled The First Zionist Congress (1897), he supports: "'the emancipation of ourselves from the inner slavery and the spiritual degradation which assimilation has produced in us, and the strengthening of our national unity by joint action in every sphere of our national life, until we become capable and worthy of a life of dignity and freedom at some time in the future.'"His criticism of political Zionism would give way to the development of his doctrine of cultural Zionism. From 1889 to 1906, Ginzberg flourished as a preeminent intellectual in Zionist politics.

Journalism career
Ginsberg's literary career began after moving to Odessa in 1886, adopting the pen name "Ahad Ha'am". His first article was published in 1889. Ginsberg wrote a number of articles and essays during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries focused on the Jewish community and the direction of Zionism. He was mainly a proponent of a moderate movement focused on cultural Zionism in contrast to the practical Zionism he observed when visiting Palestine. Some of his famous essays include "Truth from Eretz Israel" and "Lo zu haderekh" (This is not the way).

He also founded the Hebrew monthly newspaper Ha-Shiloaḥ, a prominent Hebrew-language literary journal in the early twentieth century, and was chief editor from 1896 to 1902 before stepping down.

After his move to Tel Aviv in Palestine he published a 4-volume collection of his essays called "Al Parashat Derakhim" as well as a 6-volume collection of his edited letters.

Ha-Shiloah
With the collapse of his family business in 1896, Ginsberg had to turn to Hebrew literature to be his main source of income. He subsequently accepted a position as Director of the Ahiasaf Publishing Company, moving to Warsaw to be at the company's headquarters. Ginsberg had to help produce the company's annual almanac for 1896, but he soon switched focus to a more appealing project, a monthly Hebrew journal where he would take the role of chief editor.

Ginsberg named the publication Ha-Shiloah after a river in the Bible. The river in the Bible was known for water that goes softly, and he wanted his monthly to reflect the slow, methodical development of Hebrew literature he hoped his monthly would curate.

Ginsberg's desire for a respected Hebrew journal drove him to run the monthly with a high standard and tight control. His goal was to create a journal that was Judeocentric with the same quality of respected European journals at the time. To create this standard, prose and fictional writings were kept to separate sections, and had to maintain the theme of focus on the Jewish experience. Ginsberg's editorial style was also thorough and aggressive, often omitting entire pages of articles and restructuring whole essays where he deemed fit. Though the journal was respected by Western scholars, the sales were small and dwindled every year. Ginsberg eventually resigned in October 1902 when he predicted either the paper would be closed, or he would be fired.

Despite Ha-Shiloah's low sales, Ginsberg's strict curation and editorial style led to him being recognized as a key contributor in the development of a new, secular Hebrew essay writing style that is now known as the Odessa Style. This style is often described as being clear, succinct, positivist, and anti-romantic, and it almost entirely focuses on Jewish topics. As editor of Ha-Shiloah from 1896 until 1902, Ahad Ha'am established the Odessa Style as a benchmark for Hebrew writing.

Visits to Palestine
Asher Ginsberg travelled frequently to Palestine and published reports about the progress of Jewish settlement there. The essays were generally critical, focusing on the shortcomings of the movement. They reported on hunger, on Arab dissatisfaction and unrest, on unemployment, and on people leaving Palestine. In an essay soon after his 1891 journey to the area he warned against the 'great error', believing the movement was doomed to failure with resistance in land purchases, local attitudes, economic feasibility, and lack of nationalist motivation.

Truth from Eretz Israel
Asher Ginsberg first visited Palestine (the Ottoman Vilayet (province) of Beirut and the Sanjak (district) of Jerusalem) in 1891, to observe the progress of the First Aliyah, or the first wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine (1882-1903). When he returned home, he published a series of five essays in the St. Petersburg-based Hebrew paper Ha-Melitz entitled "Truth From Eretz Israel". The essays were a comprehensive critique of the immigration efforts from both logistical and ethical perspectives, presenting a somber report of future Jewish colonization efforts there.

"Truth from Eretz Israel" raised concerns about the Turkish government and native Arab population, both of whom would heavily resist the transformation of Palestine into a Jewish state. The essay also questioned the survival and prosperity of Jewish settlers currently in Palestine. The reliance on viticulture was unproven and currently unsustainable for Jewish farmers. This, along with inflated land prices, raised additional barriers to any goal of Zionism. Ahad Ha'am ultimately believed the Hovevei Zion movement would be a failure because the new villages were dependent on the largesse of outside benefactors, and the impoverished settlers of his day would struggle to build any Jewish homeland.

The series of essays is considered to be among the first works to seriously address the "Arab Issue" within the Zionist movement. Ahad Ha'am warned of future enmity between Arabs and Jews when relations would turn sour: "From abroad we are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all desert savages, like donkeys, who neither see nor understand what goes on around them. But this is a big mistake. The Arab, like all children of Shem, has a sharp intellect and is very cunning. The cities of Syria and Eretz Israel are full of Arab merchants who also know how to exploit the public and to proceed furtively with all those with whom they deal, exactly as in Europe. The Arabs, and especially those in the cities, understand our deeds and our desires in Eretz Israel, but they keep quiet and pretend not to understand, since they do not see our present activities as a threat to their future. Therefore they try to exploit us as well, to extract some benefit from the new visitors as long as they can. Yet they mock us in their hearts. The farmers are happy to have a new Hebrew colony founded in their midst since they receive a good wage for their labor and get wealthier from year to year, as experience shows; and the owners of large properties are also happy with us, since we pay them a huge price-more than they dreamed possible-for stony and sandy land. However, if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place..."

He reported of the early Zionist settlers:

"'They were slaves in their land of exile, and they suddenly find themselves with unlimited freedom, the kind of wild freedom to be found only in a country like Turkey. This sudden change has engendered in them an impulse to despotism, as always happens when 'a slave becomes a king,' and behold they walk with the Arabs in hostility and cruelty, unjustly encroaching on them, shamefully beating them for no good reason, and even bragging about what they do, and there is no one to stand in the breach and call a halt to this dangerous and despicable impulse. To be sure our people are correct in saying that the Arab respects only those who demonstrate strength and courage, but this is relevant only when he feels that his rival is acting justly; it is not the case if there is reason to think his rival's actions are oppressive and unjust.'"

Ahad Ha'am believed the solution was to bring Jews to Palestine gradually, while turning it into a cultural centre. At the same time, it was incumbent upon Zionism to inspire a revival of Jewish national life in the Diaspora. Only then would the Jewish people be strong enough to assume the mantle of building a nation state.

The series was criticized heavily within the Zionist movement, with many claiming that the essays provided a one-sided view of the Jewish national efforts, and others claiming that the series defamed Jewish settlers, both generally and specifically in Palestine. Asher Ginsberg's critiques of the Hovevei Zionists, an organization of which he was a member, cemented his reputation as an internal critic and moral compass for Zionism.

Importance of Hebrew and Jewish culture
Ahad Ha'am's ideas were popular at a very difficult time for Zionism, beginning after the failures of the first Aliya. His unique contribution was to emphasize the importance of reviving Hebrew and Jewish culture both in Palestine and throughout the Diaspora, something that was recognised only belatedly, when it became part of the Zionist program after 1898. Herzl did not have much use for Hebrew, and many wanted German to be the language of the Jewish state. Ahad Ha'am played an important role in the revival of the Hebrew language and Jewish culture, and in cementing a link between the proposed Jewish state and Hebrew culture.

Cultural Zionism
The ideas perpetuated through Ginsberg's essays and criticisms regarding the Zionist movement constituted what is known today as Cultural Zionism. This ideology promoted cultural and linguistic revival throughout the Jewish diaspora, and allowed for, but did not require, the creation of a Jewish state which would serve as a cultural and spiritual center for the diaspora. Ginsberg and the ideology of cultural Zionism placed importance on issues plaguing Judaism as an identity rather than the problems of individual Jews. His first article criticizing practical Zionism, called "Lo zu haderekh" (This is not the way) published in 1888 appeared in HaMelitz. In it, he wrote that the Land of Israel will not be capable of absorbing all of the Jewish Diaspora, not even a majority of them. Ahad Ha'am also argued that establishing a "national home" in Zion will not solve the "Jewish problem"; furthermore, the physical conditions in Eretz Yisrael will discourage Aliyah, and thus Hibbat Zion must educate and strengthen Zionist values among the Jewish people enough that they will want to settle the land despite the greatest difficulties. The ideas in this article became the platform for Bnei Moshe (sons of Moses), a secret society he founded that year. Bnei Moshe, active until 1897, worked to improve Hebrew education, build up a wider audience for Hebrew literature, and assist the Jewish settlements. Perhaps more significant was Derekh Kehayim (1889), Ahad Ha'am's attempt to launch a unique movement from a fundamentalist perspective incorporating all the elements of a national revival, but driven by force of intellect.

He eclipsed nationalists like Peretz Smolenskin arguing assimilative individualism in the west further alienated Russified Jewry, who were seeking to reduce migration: isolating it beggared Eastern European Jewry. Even those in Hovevei seeking to restrict emigration would, he feared, bring the extinguishment of national consciousness; and atomisation of Jewish identity. Only anti-Semitism had made Jews of us. Derekh argued that nations had waxed and waned throughout history, but nationalism had all but vanished from Jewish consciousness. Only a small group of nobles kept it going.

Throughout the 1890s Ahad Ha'am worked to keep the flame of nationalism alive. Emphasis fell on moral concepts, honor of the flag, self-improvement, national revitalisation. A departure occurred in Avdut betokh herut discussing pessimism about the future for independent Jewishness. Critic Simon Dubnov alluded to this but was compromised by his westernised idealizing of French Jewry. For the movement, the preoccupation with assimilation at Odessa was fatal for Ahad Ha'am's progressive Zionism. The requirement arose in 1891 for a "spiritual centre" in Palestine; Bnei Moshe's implacable opposition to his support for Vladimir (Zeev] Tiomkin's ideal community at Jaffa compounded the controversy in Emet me'eretz Yisrael (The Truth from the Land of Israel).

In 1896, Ginsberg became editor of Hashiloah, a Hebrew monthly, a position he held for six years. After stepping down as editor in 1903, he went back to the business world with the Wissotzky Tea Company.

In 1897, following the Basel Zionist Congress calling for a Jewish national home "recognized in international law" (völkerrechtlich), Ahad Ha'am wrote an article called Jewish State Jewish Problem ridiculing the idea of a völkerrechtlich recognized state, given the pitiful plight of the Jewish settlements in Palestine at the time. He emphasized that without a Jewish nationalist revival abroad, it would be impossible to mobilize genuine support for a Jewish national home. Even if the national home were created and recognized in international law, it would be weak and unsustainable.

In 1898, the Zionist Congress adopted the idea of disseminating Jewish culture in the Diaspora as a tool for furthering the goals of the Zionist movement and bringing about a revival of the Jewish people. Bnei Moshe helped to found Rehovot as a model for self-sufficiency, and established Achiasaf, a Hebrew publishing company.

Political influence
Asher Ginsberg's political influence was relatively small when compared to the impact and proliferation of his published works. His desire to be seen as a neutral, apolitical commentator led to him often staying on the sidelines of political events. He spoke at many conferences and advised prominent leaders but would avoid opportunities for responsibility and leadership whenever they were presented.

Ginsberg's first significant political action was founding the Bnei Moshe, a secret political organization, in 1889, and assuming leadership. He also joined the Odessa committee, a committee advocating for the immigration of Jewish people to Israel, along with many of his Bnei Moshe brethren from 1891 to 1895.

Ahad Ha'am's influence in the political realm was more from his influence on political leaders and his spiritual authority rather than his official functions. For the "Democratic Fraction", a party that espoused cultural Zionism (founded in 1901 by Chaim Weizmann), he served "as a symbol for the movement's culturalists, the faction's most coherent totem. He was, however, not – certainly not to the extent to which members of this group, especially Chaim Weizmann, would later contend – its chief ideological influence." Though the party wished for Ahad's participation or even endorsement, he would remain uninvolved.

Ahad Ha'am was a talented negotiator. He used his skills in compromise during the "language controversy" that accompanied the founding of the Haifa Technikum (today: the Technion) and in the negotiations culminating in the Balfour Declaration. Ahad Ha'am was also a close advisor to Chaim Weizmann and other British Zionists at the time of the negotiations. After the Balfour Declaration he held a position on the Zionist "Political Committee", along with being a powerful advisor to the British Zionists as they battled anti-Zionist efforts.

Ahad Ha'am Versus Theodor Herzl

Ahad Ha'am had the potential to represent a political alternative to Herzl after the first Zionist Congress. His critique of the congress, along with his success in convincing the 160 delegates of the All-Russian Zionism Conference to support his beliefs, provided a strong foundation for a countermovement to Herzl's vision. Despite this strong support, Ahad's choices to not join the second Congress and defend his position, as well as call for the dissolution of Bnei Moshe in 1895 and 1897, resulted in Herzlian Zionism becoming the dominant approach. Ahad Ha'am and Theodor Herzl would remain rivals for years, and their conflicting views would spark disagreements between Eastern and Western Zionists throughout the early twentieth century.

Legacy and commemoration
Many cities in Israel have streets named after Ahad Ha'am. In Petah Tikva there is a high school named after him, Ahad Ha'am High School. There is also a room named after him at the Beit Ariela Library, Ahad Ha'am Room.

Published works

 * Ten Essays on Zionism and Judaism, Translated from the Hebrew by Leon Simon, Arno Press, 1973 (reprint of 1922 ed.). ISBN 0-405-05267-7
 * Essays, Letters, Memoirs, Translated from the Hebrew and edited by Leon Simon. East and West Library, 1946.
 * Selected Essays, Translated from the Hebrew by Leon Simon. The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1912.
 * Nationalism and the Jewish Ethic; Basic Writings of Ahad Ha'am, Edited and Introduced by Hans Kohn. Schocken Books, 1962

title: Ahad Ha'am


text:
Parqués

Parqués is the Colombian version of a board game in the cross and circle family (the category that includes Pachisi). The game is described as a "random thinking" game: the moves depend on the roll of the dice but players must consider possible strategies before executing their move. The objective of the game is to advance all the pieces to the end. Once in the safety zone player can use 2 dice until they are one space away from home, where they will then just use one die.

Colombian culture
Parqués is the Colombian version of Parcheesi, which itself is a version of Pachisi (which originated in India). The meaning of the word may be a translation of the pachisi word, also influenced by similar games such as Parcheesi. Parqués as a word in another context has no meaning. Although it could be argued that the game's origin is Spanish (from Parchís) due to the similarity between both games, there is wide agreement in Colombia that the game is completely Colombian. Parqués stems directly from Pachisi in the same way as Parcheesi, Parchís or Ludo. There is no proof to the claim that it stems from a country other than India, up to date. Moreover, no Parqués game is played in any other Latin American countries. Parqués is a mixture of the original Indian game and the influences of local Colombian culture.

In Colombia, people from all parts of the country play the game and there are local variations of it. It is very popular; played by both children and adults. Adults usually play the game by betting money on the first piece, on capturing pieces, or on winning the game, to make gameplay more interesting. There are boards for 4, 6 and 8 players. The boards usually contain pictures of soccer teams, singers, actors, or other cultural figures on the jail boxes. Also, most boards are made by fans of the game, by drawing and framing them.

The board itself is usually placed on a box covered by glass. The use of glass is to allow dice to be thrown more easily. There are versions of the board that are made of paper to make it portable.

Gameplay

Parqués is played with two dice; two to eight players can compete in the same match, depending on what type of game board is used. Each player is given four pieces and uses a specific color. That color is useful to identify the pieces, the jails and the arrival squares of each player. The most common colors are red, blue, yellow and green, usually arranged in that order. The game can also be played with fewer than four pieces.

The jail box is where the pieces are placed at the beginning of the match and it is where they go whenever an opponent "captures" them. The player throws the dice three times and attempts to get a pair in order to "free" the pieces.

Once the pieces are freed, they are placed in a special box next to the jail. This box is called "Home", or "Salida" (literally, "exit" in Spanish. It means it is the place where the pieces exit or get out from the jail).

If a player does not roll any pairs during his turn, the dice are passed to the player on the right. Otherwise, the first player frees the pieces and wins an extra turn to move them. The player throws again and must move the points of the dice with either 1 or 2 pieces.

For example:

The player rolls 5-3
 * The player can move 8 squares forward with one piece         or
 * The player can move 5 squares with one piece and 3 with another

If some points cannot be used, they are forfeited. After the player makes a move, the turn must be passed to the player on the right (anti-clockwise)

The pieces cannot advance backwards, and they cannot be in any of the four boxes before their "Home" box.

Throws and turns
Each player can throw the dice once. There are some exceptions to this rule:

 * If the player has all his pieces in jail, he can throw up to three times until he frees them with a pair. If doubles are not rolled during the three tries, he passes the turn.
 * If the player throws a pair during any turn, he wins an extra turn.
 * If the player throws three consecutive doubles, he is rewarded by moving any piece of his/her to the goal. If the die hits a chest piece the person who rolled has to roll again

Capturing pieces
The player can capture an opponent's piece by placing his own piece on the same box as the other player's piece. However, he cannot capture a piece that is on a safe or a home box. Capturing in Colombia is called "eating" ("comer" in Spanish). The captured piece is sent to the player's jail (nest).

However, the player can capture pieces on his home box. When he frees any piece from jail, the pieces placed on his home are captured, that is, sent to its jail, losing all their advances.

When a player avoids capturing a piece, it usually happens by mistake. On that case, an opponent must point the mistake out to all the players. The piece that did not capture its opponent must go to jail. Capturing opponents is mandatory and therefore takes priority above any other possible plays including the chance to leave jail.

Special boxes
There are three types of special boxes.

 * Home: (Salida) where the pieces are placed when freed.
 * Safe: (Seguro) the pieces cannot be captured on this box
 * Arrival: (Llegada) a player must move his pieces through nine final boxes to try to win the game. These boxes are usually the same color as that player's pieces. The ninth box is the last box in the game for each person. If a piece reaches that box, it is removed from the game. When all of a player's pieces are out of the game, the player wins.

Variations

 * Vuelta obligada (mandatory restart): If the player has its piece near the end and he gets the exact value to capture a piece in the four boxes before his HOME box, he must capture it and move that piece from there in subsequent moves, losing all the advance of the piece.
 * Cielo robado (stolen heaven): if the player gets the exact value to capture a piece on alien arrival boxes, he can win the game from there, as if they were his own arrival point.
 * De piedra en piedra (from stone to stone): the player can only move its pieces on the safe and home boxes. Thus, he can only move when the dice values are exactly 7, 5, 10 or 12, depending on the position of his pieces. Capturing can only be done in SAFE boxes, never on home.
 * Con Policía (With Policeman): An additional piece is placed on each safe and players are able to capture pieces by moving this "policeman" to the position required. If a player fails to realize the move, his most advanced piece is sent to jail. Sometimes, to make things more interesting, the policeman is allowed to move backwards also.

Parcheesi

 * Parcheesi is also played with 2 dice it has the same goal: be the first to advance all the pieces to the end.
 * Parqués has 8 safe boxes and 96 in total; Parcheesi has 16 and 68, respectively.
 * In Parcheesi, doublets (pairs) also have the same special purpose (getting an extra turn).
 * Capturing is done the same way.
 * In Parcheesi, 5 has a special meaning, allowing to get pieces out of the nest. It is different from Parqués, where 5 is a regular value.
 * It is not possible more than 2 pawns in the same square; Parqués has no restriction of this type.
 * Parcheesi game has blockades, supporting different variations concerning the way to break them.
 * If all the pawns are outside the jail, the values below the dice can also be used. For example, if the player gets 6-6, 1-1 can be moved also. For example, with 2 pawns he could move 7 with one pawn and 7 with another one. With 3 pawns he would move 6-1-7, respectively. With 4 he could move 6-6-1-1. Therefore, with this type of play, the player would always move 14. If all of the 14 cannot be used, the turn is forfeited.
 * If a player gets three consecutive doublets, he can get a pawn out of the game, as in Parqués.
 * After eating a pawn, it is possible to advance the score left with the same pawn (this is forbidden in Parqués)
 * When a player sends another player's pawn to jail, he gains 20 points that he may move with only one of his pawns.
 * When a pawn gets the arrival square, the player gains 10 points he can use to move a single pawn. If he cannot do it, the points are lost.

Variations by country:

 * Človeče nehnevaj sa: Slovakia
 * Člověče nezlob se: Czech Republic
 * Ludo: England
 * Mens Erger Je Niet: Netherlands
 * Mensch ärgere dich nicht: Germany
 * Non t'arrabiare: Italy
 * Parcheesi: USA
 * Parchís: Spain
 * Parqués: Colombia
 * Petits Chevaux: France

title: Parqués


text:
Battle of Sävar

The Battle of Sävar was fought on Saturday, 19 August 1809, between Swedish and Russian forces, during the Finnish War; it was the last pitched battle to be fought in Sweden. After the Russian conquest of eastern Sweden (present-day Finland) in 1808, the Swedish forces retreated to actual Sweden. In March the following year, Russian emperor Alexander I launched a threefold attack on Sweden, to force the country into the Continental System and to cede Finland to the Russian Empire; despite early advantages at Kalix and the Åland Islands, the attack failed to achieve a quick ending to the war. After further campaigning in northern Sweden, with battles such as Skellefteå and Hörnefors, the Russian forces under Nikolay Kamensky occupied all of Västerbotten by June.

The Swedes, who were ready to cede Finland, disputed Alexander I's demands of having the border at the Kalix River. To improve the terms, a Swedish expedition to Västerbotten was prepared, under the command of Johan af Puke, to cut off Kamensky from Russian-occupied Finland by landing at Ratan (a village north of Umeå); Fabian Wrede would simultaneously come from the south, by which Kamensky would be crushed between the two Swedish forces. The Swedes landed at Ratan on 17 August and the army, led by Gustaf Wachtmeister, marched south towards Umeå. Wachtmeister, however, was excessively cautious and failed to reach Umeå before Kamensky had already passed through the city and marched straight at him, to break free.

On the 19th, the Swedish army was attacked in a disadvantageous position at Sävar and, instead of withdrawing across the river, Wachtmeister chose to fight over the vital heights of Krutbrånet. More fighting occurred further south towards Ytterboda as Kamensky sent a diversion force to attack the Swedish flank. Around midday, Wachtmeister withdrew his troops at Krutbrånet across the river to Sävar, even though he still had five battalions in reserve - while Kamensky was down to his last. Kamensky sent another force over the river of which half attacked the Swedes near Ytterboda, who had thus far been very successful, and the other assaulted Sävar itself. As he was now cut off from the Swedes at Ytterboda, and with intensified Russian pressure across the river, Wachtmeister chose to retreat; the battle was, along with the Battle of Oravais the previous year, the bloodiest of the war.

Instead of retaking a position at Djäkneboda, as planned, Wachtmeister fell back to Ratan, which allowed the Russians to use the main road north - Kamensky had thus managed to slip out of the intended trap; he sent a force the following day to attack the Swedes at Ratan, to cover his retreat. Wrede received word of the Swedish landing on the 19th (as the battle of Sävar had already ended) and set march north the following day. He took Umeå on the 24th, as the last Russian battalion marched north. The Swedish expedition had failed to destroy Kamensky's army, but it had been forced out of Västerbotten. According to the subsequent Treaty of Fredrikshamn, the Swedes ceded Finland to Russia all the way to the Torne River; the somewhat weaker Russian demands were most likely a result of the Västerbotten expedition.

Background
Following the Convention of Olkijoki, signed on 19 November, the Swedish army withdrew over the Kemi River in December and thus abandoned the eastern part of the kingdom (present-day Finland), after nine months of fighting. In March the next year, in the midst of the Swedish revolution (in which Gustav IV Adolf was overthrown and subsequently replaced by his uncle Charles XIII), Alexander I ordered a threefold attack on actual Sweden, to force the country into submission; he demanded that Sweden would enter the Continental System, while also ceding its eastern territorium to the Russian Empire. The offensive, in which about 30,000 Russians participated, forced the Swedish armies to withdraw from Åland and Umeå, while another force capitulated at Kalix, in Norrbotten. Despite the early triumphs, however, another convention was signed, which deprived the Russian emperor from achieving a quick victory.

Angered by the prolonged negotiations, Alexander I ordered a continued offensive in northern Sweden; in May, a small Swedish force was quickly overwhelmed at the Battle of Skellefteå—after an heroic defence which saved the vital provisions—leading to the Russian capture of Umeå. Västerbotten, all the way from the Kemi and Öre Rivers, was thus occupied by the Russians who, after being denied the Swedish magazines, suffered greatly from the lack of provisions. These could not be brought overseas, since the Swedes had naval supremacy over the Bothnian Bay. After a Swedish counterattack at the Battle of Hörnefors by Johan August Sandels, in July, the fighting once again died out in favor of the prolonged, but ongoing, peace negotiations. Many Russian deserters seized the opportunity to surrender themselves to the closest Swedish forces. The same month, Nikolay Kamensky replaced Pavel Andreyevich Shuvalov as the overall commander of the Russian army; he made plans to force the crossing at the Öre River (behind which Sandels' army was positioned) and march into Ångermanland the following month, to collect provisions.

Västerbotten expedition
Sweden, while having accepted the loss of its eastern territorium, disputed the Russian demands by Alexander I of having the border (between Sweden and Russian–Finland) established behind the Kalix River; to somehow improve the terms, a Swedish council of war on 19 July decided upon a large combined naval–land operation against Kamensky's troops occupying Västerbotten. The Swedes mustered 10,300–11,000 men (including naval personnel), under the Supreme Command of Johan af Puke, as part of a fleet which would land 6,800 men under Gustaf Wachtmeister behind enemy lines. Simultaneously, Fabian Wrede and Sandels (with 4,000 men) would advance from the Öre River in the south, the Russian army would thus be caught between the hammer and anvil. Kamensky's forces around Umeå counted about 8,000 men, excluding 3,500 who either served on the Russian flotilla or patrolled the coastline between Umeå and Uleåborg. The Swedish fleet anchored outside Ratan on 16 August and started disembarking the troops the following day accordingly. Puke ordered Wachtmeister to rapidly march south to retake Umeå. On his way, Wachtmeister received false intelligence of an enemy threat to the north, against which he unnecessarily dispatched the whole Uppland Regiment with two guns. Further south, at Djäkneboda and the nearby passage, about 420 Russians were quickly beaten back by the Swedish vanguard of 220 men, after having lost 10 men in captured. As Wachtmeister feared enemy counterattacks along the way, he had his army march at a remarkably slow pace of 2.5 km an hour, during which only minor engagements occurred; he reached Sävar around midday on the 18th and there decided to rest his troops for the whole day and night—against the given orders by Puke which advocated for a quick march to Umeå—he was soon informed that Kamensky had turned about and was marching right at him.

Kamensky had received news of Wachtmeister's landing in his rear on the 17th and immediately cancelled his incipient southern campaign and marched north, to confront him; he left three battalions (1,200 men) against Wrede to mask the withdrawal, supported by a reserve of 1,000 men at Umeå. Contrary to his Swedish foe, Kamensky marched rapidly with his army, which went through Umeå the following day. Without the essential land support, an attempt made by the Swedish fleet to destroy the bridge going over the Ume River, to slow down the Russian troop movements, could easily be repulsed the same day; the two Swedish forces lacked in communication as well as cooperation, with neither general willing to make any significant movements before the other. Kamensky reached Täfteå the next day, after which he continued on towards Sävar to attack the Swedish general. Wachtmeister had dispatched a battalion northwest to Tväråmark to secure a side road towards Sävar, where he remained in a disadvantageous position which was exposed from the south; had he instead marched to Umeå as planned, or even Täfteå, he would have gained a much superior position to defend.

Battle
Wachtmeister had 4,644 men and 10 guns at his dispositional, as several dispatchments had been sent elsewhere to cover his flanks and rear, while Kamensky's army counted between 5,000 and 6,000 men with 8 guns. Only the first out of three Swedish divisions was deployed west of the rather fordable Sävar River, which runs south to north through the village, while the second and third initially remained on the east side. The first brigade established outposts to the west of Sävar, as well as on the vital wooded heights further southwest, called Krutbrånet—referred to, by Wachtmeister, as "virtually a fortress"—on which the main confrontation would take place. The distance between Krutbrånet and the Sävar bridge was about 1 km over mainly open fields and valleys, which were split by a small stream (Oxbäcken) which ran in a north-western direction from the river.

Additional Swedish outposts were established along the river to the south, towards Ytterboda—about 6 km south of Sävar and 2 km east of the river—to observe possible crossings; the wadable river bay with its overgoing ferry was of particular strategic interest to both sides. The pathway between the two villages went over Finnberget (Finnish mountain), where much of the fighting on this side would take place. The bulk of the Russian army, which was hungry, exhausted and desperate to break through the Swedish trap, was marching northeast, from Täfteå, on the main road running over Krutbrånet; 600 men had been diverted to force the crossing at the ferry, northwest of Ytterboda, to fall upon Sävar in the Swedish flank (an additional 250 was sent over later). The battlefield was, apart from the fields around Sävar and a few lakes, mainly covered in woods and some bogland which could only be traversed after certain difficulty.

Fighting over Krutbrånet
At 06:30, the vanguard of the first Russian column encountered the outposts of a Södermanland battalion just south of Krutbrånet. The few Swedes resisted bravely and even brought a few prisoners back, as they were eventually forced to withdraw. When Kamensky had 1,200 men at hand, he ordered a general attack towards Krutbrånet, from where the whole Swedish battalion concurrently counter-attacked; it came down to a bitter bayonet struggle, until the Swedes were eventually overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the Russian attack, which had increased to about 2,500 men. A renewed attack by the Swedish battalion, reinforced with another, was repulsed. Sometime past 08:30, Kamensky was finally able to deploy his artillery near the road on the heights, which made him the master of the summit. The Swedes retook a position slightly north, at the down slope of Krutbrånet, just south of the small stream. The two armies faced each other in rough lines—as much as the terrain allowed—north to south, in a distance of less than 200 m: The Russian formation stretched from the river in the east to the nearest lake in the west (Kesen); the Swedes, who were outnumbered, had their left to the river and the right just past Krutbrånet, opposite the Russian centre.

Wachtmeister, alarmed by the gunfire coming from Krutbrånet, sent reinforcements which allowed battalions without ammo to march back to Sävar to resupply. From his centre, Kamensky observed the Swedish movements and ordered his left wing to sweep around the Swedish right, in an attempt to separate them from the main body. As a result, the Swedish right wing drifted further apart from the centre towards the lake and beyond, where the fighting resumed in a confusing state with shifting luck. The two lines would eventually reach a length of about 2 km. Kamensky then launched an attack on the exposed Swedish centre but was checked as Swedish reinforcements came over the stream. Swedish counterattacks—mainly done by a Jönköping battalion supported by a gun—along the main road towards the Russian artillery in the centre, managed to win ground and temporarily push the Russians back. Wachtmeister failed to organize a concentrated attack to exploit the advance, as his battalions arrived successively while also fighting uphill at a disadvantage of two against three. Deprived from the essential support, the Swedish attacks stranded against the last Russian centre-reserve, but two Russian major generals had already been wounded, one of them mortally. The Russian artillery at Krubrånet completely dominated the battle, as it fired upon the Swedish troops marching across the field towards the heights; the elevated position, however, neglected the chance for their round shot to strike multiple battalions at once. Between 10:00 and 11:00, Wachtmeister ordered additional troops to reinforce the Swedish right, to roll up the Russian left wing all the way to their centre and capture the guns at the summit. A Swedish battalion then suddenly retreated near Krutbrånet, creating a large gap in the line which had to be filled by a Kronoberg battalion, initially instructed to support the right, to prevent a centre collapse. The Russians were repelled, as were two following attacks made by them. Without the necessary support on the right, however, the Russians managed to circumvent the Swedish flank and march into the rear of their enemies, threatening to cut them off from Sävar. At 11:30, Wachtmeister dispatched orders to his battalions near Krutbrånet to withdraw across the river. The lack of ammunition among the battalions was a contributing factor. The battalions withdrew successively, as they received the order, resulting in several rear attacks made by the pursuing Russians. The Swedes established defences in front of Sävar to cover the retreat, while the bridge was broken down and troops waded across the river.

Fighting towards Ytterboda
At 06:30, Wachtmeister received a report from the Swedish outpost (25 men) observing the ferry in the south, which informed him that a Russian column (600 men) alongside some Cossacks had forced the crossing half an hour earlier. The outpost fought a retreating action for over an hour, until it was reinforced by a Swedish Jäger battalion (250 men) sent by Wachtmeister, which temporary halted the Russian advance. The Russians soon gathered their strength and once again pushed the Swedes in front of them, towards Sävar. At this time, Kamensky dispatched two additional companies (250 men) over the river. After receiving additional reports from the retreating Swedes, Wachtmeister, who thought it had only been a Russian reconnaissance force, committed his elite units—the Queen's battalion followed by the Svea battalion—to their assistance. The two forces fighting towards Ytterboda would thus, so far, be equally matched.

The Swedes marched in a formation resembling a line which stretched all the way to the closest lake (Finnsjön) to the east; around 08:00 the first guard battalion, while assembling the withdrawing Jäger battalion, encountered the enemy about 2.5 km from Sävar, at Finnberget. In their hasty advance, the Swedes endured the enemy fire until they were approximately 10 m away, at which distance they unleashed a volley of their own. The Russians, shaken by the Swedish attack, withdrew south over Finnberget, under fierce fighting. Around 12:00, as the Russians had been pushed behind Ytterboda, the fighting died out as only a few Russians could be seen further ahead, at the river bank. The Swedes marched back to Finnberget to await ammunition, while half of the Jäger battalion was sent back to Sävar with captured Russian soldiers.

Subsequently, however, the Russians turned about and counter-attacked, while three additional companies—which Kamensky had just sent over the river—marched at the Swedish battalions from the back; the left wing of the Queen's battalion (merged with the remaining jäger company) shattered after 15 minutes of desperate fighting, as it was simultaneously hit in both the flank and rear. The Svea battalion then arrived and immediately initiated a bayonet charge which threw the Russians away, after which the two battalions consolidated. At 15:00 they received orders from Wachtmeister to carefully pull back towards Sävar (at this time the Swedish main army had already begun their retreat). The Svea battalion marched off first, while the Queen's battalion remained near Ytterboda for another hour or two, to reassemble dispersed troops. It soon became evident to the Swedes, with Sävar occupied by the enemy, that they were completely cutoff and isolated. The two battalions, largely separated from each other, successfully paved their way through the encirclement with the bayonet and reached the main army at Ratan either late at night or the following day, with about 70 captured Russians.

Retreat from Sävar
Sometime past 12:00, as Wachtmeister withdrew his forces across the bridge (to the initial Swedish line of defence), Kamensky pushed his army forward to the opposite side of the river bank; the strong Swedish position, with their guns blazing from the heights at Sävar, denied every attempt made by him to cross the river. Kamensky contemplated his next move, for he still had to break through the Swedish lines to escape the trap. He then received intelligence of a wadable—and unguarded—crossing at the river delta (between Sävar and Ytterboda), just before the southern bay. Kamensky sent his last viable reserve of six companies (500–600 men) over the crossing, of which half were ordered towards Sävar, and the others to attack the Swedes near Ytterboda. He also stretched his forces further north, along the river, to threaten the Swedish right flank; around 13:00, his jägers occupied the river bank north of Sävar, with its wadable crossing, and started harassing the Swedes who stood ready to defend it.

Meanwhile, a Swedish courier whom Wachtmeister had dispatched south towards Ytterboda—with the orders to withdraw to Sävar—hastily returned and notified the general of the approaching Russians at his left flank. As Wachtmeister turned his left wing to face the southern threat, the Russians, while sustaining heavy losses from canister shot, forced the crossing near the destroyed bridge. While seemingly attacked frontally and in both his flanks, Wachtmeister ordered a general retreat towards Djäkneboda at 14:45. Three Swedish battalions with two guns acted as rearguard and exchanged fire with the Russian forces occupying Sävar, until they likewise withdrew around 16:00. The Russians, apart from some Cossacks, were too bloodied and exhausted to pursue. It has since been the very last pitched battle to be fought in Sweden.

Casualties
Generalstaben estimates the Swedish losses at Sävar to about 482 killed or captured (29 officers), and 362 wounded (37 officers); in total, 844 men. Kamensky stated that 265 unharmed Swedes had been captured and that an additional 300 wounded had been "collected at the battlefield"; if the reported number of 270 captured can be considered accurate, a conclusion can be drawn at about 212 Swedes killed. The report of Swedish losses at Sävar—included in Generalstaben's work—however, also occasionally includes losses sustained the following day at Ratan. Kamensky, on the other hand, estimated the total Swedish losses to about 2,000 men. The Swedish regimental losses were (from highest to lowest): The Engelbrechten Regiment (141); the Queen's Life Regiment (139); the Södermanland Regiment (136); the Jönköping Regiment (127); the Life Grenadier Regiment (98); the Svea Life Guards (95); the Kronoberg Regiment (46); the Västmanland Regiment (21); the Life Guards of Horse (19); the jägers of the Uppland Regiment (17); the Svea Artillery Regiment (4); the Kalmar Regiment (1).

According to Generalstaben, Kamensky reported his losses as 612 killed (5 officers), 738 wounded (33 officers) and 260 captured (1 officer); in total 1610 men, which includes the casualties sustained at Ratan (estimated by Kamensky as 150); Hornborg, however, believes that the figure of 612 killed Russians should instead be "killed and missing" and that it already accounts for the 260 captured; leaving 1,350 Russian casualties in total. Furthermore, he assumes that no more than 800 Russians were killed or wounded at Sävar which, together with an additional 200 captured, would give a total of about 1,000 losses. Hornborg also believes that the Russian casualty figure at Ratan, presented by Kamensky, is unreliable and that it should undoubtfully be a lot larger; other sources puts these as high as 500–700. In his work on the Finnish War, Alexander Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky gives Kamensky's total losses as: One major general and four officers killed, one major general and 33 officers wounded and no less than 1,500 privates killed or wounded; leaving around 1,389 losses (after excluding the ones lost at Ratan). Other authors believes that the Russians had lost three major generals, about 30 to 40 officers and between 2,000 and 3,000 privates in total during the expedition.

Aftermath
Wachtmeister's decision to retreat, as well as his indecisiveness in the battle, has since been strongly criticised by many: Instead of instantly withdrawing his troops behind the river, he half-heartedly attempted to retake an advantageous position held by the enemy while being heavily outnumbered (2,300–2,800 against 3,850), with only two guns in support against eight; at the decisive moment at Krutbrånet, he still had five battalions in reserve. Once having pulled his forces across the river, Wachtmeister held an advantageous position from where his artillery could finally dominate the field. His final position was, even as the enemy demonstrated against both his flanks, most likely too strong to be taken had he made an effort to defend it. The dissatisfaction after the battle among soldiers and officers was evident—for the army did not feel beaten—only the general. Wachtmeister motivated his decision to retreat with the high amount of losses sustained (perhaps influenced by the king's earlier request for him not to waste the last Swedish reserve). The Russians, on the other hand, had suffered greater losses, but they were led by a general determined to win; despite having the clock against him, Kamensky led an exhausted and hungry army to victory, against all odds.

Expedition outcome
Wachtmeister initially planned to make a stand at Djäkneboda, which was an utmost advantageous position, but he determined that the risk of being outflanked was too great and instead marched on towards Ratan; this enabled the Russians to use the main road to retreat. To cover the Russian retreat north and force the Swedes to embark their ships, Kamensky attacked the following day at 15:00, with about 3,000 men. Wachtmeister, despite having almost 6,000 men at his dispositional (excluding the naval personnel), made no serious attempt to counterattack. After five hours of fighting and fruitless negotiations, Kamensky withdrew with his army to Djäkneboda from where he observed Wachtmeister; apart from some minor skirmishing near Djäkneboda, the Swedish army remained idle until the 22nd, when it embarked the fleet. Wrede and Sandels had received word of the Swedish landing at Ratan on the afternoon of the 19th—as the battle of Sävar was already decided—and they set march north towards Umeå the next day; the march went slow since the retreating Russians had destroyed all bridges behind them. The Swedes reached the Ume River the following day, on the 21st, just as the last Russian battalion was in the process of crossing. A small skirmish occurred, which was followed by an artillery duel across the river. The fighting had cost both sides a little more than ten dead and some wounded. A small Swedish force crossed the river to Umeå and attacked the Russian field hospital, taking some prisoners. On the 22nd, as Wrede made preparations to storm the city, Kamensky ordered a general retreat as he feared being cutoff once again, had Puke landed further north. The last Russian battalion left Umeå on the 23rd and Djäkneboda the following day, after which the retreat continued towards Piteå, where Kamensky arrived on the 29th. Wrede marched into Umeå on the 24th. Instead of immediately sailing north to cut off the Russian retreat, Puke was contented with securing Umeå; Wachtmeister once again disembarked at Ratan on the 28th and marched towards the city, where the fleet likewise sailed the next day. The two forces were thus finally united at the given destination, albeit a little too late.

Even though Kamensky had been temporarily forced out of Västerbotten all the way to Piteå, the expedition had failed to reach its mail goal to have the Russian army destroyed; the excessive cautiousness and inadequate coordination displayed between the two Swedish forces was a deciding factor. The expedition had cost the Swedes a total of 1,077 men in dead, wounded or captured, while the Russian casualties reached between 1,539 and 1,610 men. On 25 August, Kamensky fended off a Swedish attack on his fortifications at the Pite River, aimed to cut off his supply lines north. The Swedes lost 23–25 men to 33–50 Russians—it would be the last action of the war. On 2 September, the two sides agreed to an armistice which would be in effect until the Treaty of Fredrikshamn was signed: Sweden ceded its eastern territorium (Finland) all the way from the Torne River, including the Åland Islands; Kamensky's retreat from Västerbotten, which was initially met with disappointment from many of his countrymen, had most likely contributed to Alexander I's softer demands. The peace was followed up by the Treaty of Jönköping, which ended the Dano–Swedish War, and the Treaty of Paris in which Sweden agreed to enter the Continental System against the United Kingdom (while retaining Swedish Pomerania), leading to an inactive war between the two former allies.

title: Battle of Sävar


text:
Princess Michael of Kent

Princess Michael of Kent (born Baroness Marie-Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz, 15 January 1945) is a member of the British royal family who is of German, Austrian, Czech and Hungarian descent. She is married to Prince Michael of Kent, who is a grandson of King George V. Princess Michael of Kent was an interior designer before becoming an author; she has written several books on European royalty.

Early life and ancestry
Princess Michael was born Freiin (Baroness) Marie-Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz, on 15 January 1945, in Karlsbad, a town then in German-populated Sudetenland, now known as Karlovy Vary in the Czech Republic. She was born at the family estates of her Austrian maternal grandmother, Princess Hedwig von Windisch-Graetz (1878–1918), shortly before the defeat of Nazi Germany and end of the Second World War in Europe. The expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia followed later that year.

By birth she is a member of the, uradel Silesian nobility who can trace their noble ancestry from 1288. The ancestral seat of the family was Reibnitz Castle, in present-day Poland. On her father's side, Princess Michael is a descendant of the Burggrafen von, Herrand III von and Nostitz family, who are also ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II.

She is the younger daughter of Freiherr Günther Hubertus von Reibnitz (1894–1983) by his second wife, Countess Maria Anna Carolina Franziska Walburga Bernadette Szapáry von Muraszombath, Széchysziget und Szapár (1911–1988), who was the daughter of Count Friedrich Szapáry von Muraszombath, Széchysziget und Szapár, the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador to Saint Petersburg at the outbreak of the First World War.

Princess Michael's father was a Nazi Party member and served as a cavalry officer in the Waffen-SS during the Second World War. In response to the advances of the Red Army near the end of the war, the family abandoned their estates and moved to Bavaria, which was part of the American-occupied zone of Germany. Her parents divorced in 1946 and, along with her mother and elder brother Baron Friedrich von Reibnitz (born 1942), Princess Michael moved to Australia, where she was educated at Convent of the Sacred Heart, Rose Bay (now Kincoppal-Rose Bay). In the early 1960s, she lived with her father on his farm in Portuguese-ruled Mozambique. She then went from Vienna to London to study History of Fine and Decorative Art at the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Marriages
Her first husband was the English banker Thomas Troubridge (1939–2015), younger brother of Sir Peter Troubridge, 6th Baronet. They met at a boar hunt in Germany and were married on 14 September 1971 at Chelsea Old Church, London. The couple separated in 1973 and were civilly divorced in 1977. The marriage was ecclesiastically annulled by Pope Paul VI in May 1978.

One month after the annulment, on 30 June 1978, at a civil ceremony in Vienna, Austria, she married Prince Michael of Kent, the son of Prince George, Duke of Kent, and Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. Prince Michael is a grandson of King George V. Marie-Christine has named Lord Mountbatten as their matchmaker.

Michael presented Marie-Christine with a two-stone sapphire-and-diamond ring made from stones that belonged to his mother, Princess Marina. For the ball held after the wedding, she wore the City of London diamond fringe tiara and a cream dress from Bellville Sassoon. Upon their marriage, she was accorded the style and title of Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent, the female equivalent to her husband's title. After receiving Pope John Paul II's permission, the couple later received a blessing of their marriage in a Roman Catholic ceremony on 29 June 1983 at Archbishop's House, London.

Since the Act of Settlement 1701 prohibited anyone who married a Roman Catholic from succeeding to the throne, Prince Michael of Kent (at that time, 15th in the line of succession) lost his succession rights upon marrying Marie-Christine. Prince Michael was reinstated to the line of succession to the British throne on 26 March 2015 with the passing of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Their children are members of the Church of England and have retained their rights of succession since birth. Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have two children:
 * Lord Frederick Windsor, born 6 April 1979 at St Mary's Hospital, London. He married Sophie Winkleman on 12 September 2009 and they have two daughters: Maud (born 15 August 2013) and Isabella (born 16 January 2016).
 * Lady Gabriella Kingston, born 23 April 1981 at St Mary's Hospital, London. She married Thomas Kingston on 18 May 2019. Her husband shot himself on 25 February 2024 in the Cotswolds, Gloucestershire, leaving her widowed at 42 years old.

Marie-Christine was linked romantically by the press to John Warner and tycoons Ward Hunt and Mikhail Kravchenko. She also had a friendship with John W. Galbreath and Peter de Savary, the latter of whom gifted her a £150,000 parcel of land on Antigua.

Career
Before her marriage to Prince Michael, she worked as an interior designer. According to a report in The Observer's Pendennis column in September 2007, the Princess resumed decorating under her original company, Szapar Designs. In 1986, her first book Crowned in a Far Country: Portraits of Eight Royal Brides was published, after which she faced allegations of plagiarism and reached an out-of-court settlement with another author. Her second book Cupid and the King: Five Royal Paramours faced the same issues, which the Princess attributed to the researcher, who had allegedly submitted notes without due attribution. The book was to be published by Michael Joseph, but after the draft was submitted several months late, it was rejected and published by HarperCollins. From 2007 to 2011, the Princess served as president of Partridge Fine Art, a gallery in London's New Bond Street until it went into administration having suffered substantial multi-year losses. In 2008, the Princess was engaged as a consultant by Galerie Gmurzynska in Switzerland, and later became their international ambassador. She also served on the board of the Victoria and Albert Museum, and goes on lecture tours around the world where she talks about historical subjects at universities, museums and galleries to promote her books and endorse her charities. Marie-Christine, whose husband has a strong interest in Russia, was reportedly taking Russian lessons as of May 2012.

Royal and charitable activities
Prince and Princess Michael represented the Queen at the Belize independence celebrations and at the coronation of King Mswati III of Eswatini. Prince Michael also supports a large number of charities and organisations, and Princess Michael supports him in his work.

Since she was a teenager, Princess Michael has held a long and enduring passion for the conservation of cheetahs and she is international royal patron for the Cheetah Conservation Fund in Namibia. She is a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, a learned society dedicated to natural history and taxonomy.

Finances
Prince Michael has never received a parliamentary annuity or an allowance from the Privy Purse. The couple have had the use of a five-bedroom, five-reception grace and favour apartment at Kensington Palace. Queen Elizabeth II had paid the rent for the apartment at a market rate of £120,000 annually from her own private funds with the couple paying the nominal amount of £70 per week. The rent goes to the Grant-in-aid, provided by the Government for the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces. The rent is based on the current rate for commercially rented properties at Kensington Palace, and is recorded in the overall figures for commercial rents in the Grant-in-aid annual report. This rent payment by the Queen is "in recognition of the Royal engagements and work for various charities which Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have undertaken at their own expense, and without any public funding", according to a statement released by the British Monarchy Media Centre.

In 2008, it was announced that it had been agreed that Prince and Princess Michael would pay rent of £120,000 a year from their own funds from 2010. Members of Parliament on the public accounts committee had demanded the change after the Kents' rent had come to light. The Kents have lived in the apartment since 1979, paying only their utility bills prior to 2002.

Catholicism
Princess Michael of Kent is a Roman Catholic, and attended several events during Pope Benedict XVI's state visit to the United Kingdom in September 2010.

She attended Mass in Westminster Cathedral on Saturday, 18 September, where she was seated in the first row among other dignitaries, including Lord and Lady Nicholas Windsor, the Duke of Norfolk and former Prime Minister Tony Blair; the Pope gave them an audience after Mass.

On the last day of the Pope's visit, 19 September, she attended the open-air Mass of beatification for Cardinal John Henry Newman at Cofton Park, Birmingham. Princess Michael was personally involved in the beatification process and attended several other celebrations relating to his beatification before and after the Cofton Park Mass, including a commemorative concert of the Dream of Gerontius at Birmingham Town Hall on 18 September.

She also attended a civic dinner with invited dignitaries and bishops in Birmingham, before attending the Mass and meeting the Pope. Previously, in November 2008, the Princess attended the translation of remains of Cardinal Newman at Birmingham Oratory along with other guests of honour, including Francis Campbell, HM Ambassador to the Holy See; the Lord Mayor of Birmingham and Lady Mayoress; Sir Ivor Roberts, President of Trinity College, Oxford, and formerly British Ambassador to Italy; and Sir Derek Morris, Provost of Oriel College, Oxford. After the Translation Mass, Princess Michael was shown round Cardinal Newman's Room and Chapel and visited Newman's library.

Princess Michael of Kent represented the Duke of Edinburgh at the launching ceremony of the Green Pilgrimage Network in Assisi, Italy, on 1 November 2011. It was organised by the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), founded by the Duke of Edinburgh in 1995, in association with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), of which Prince Philip was formerly President. The Princess spoke on behalf of the Duke of Edinburgh and led the opening procession.

On 2 July 2024, The Times published a letter to the editor, co-signed by Princess Michael of Kent and other Catholic and non-Catholic public figures, calling upon the Holy See to preserve what they describe as the "magnificent" cultural artifact of the Catholic Church's Traditional Latin Mass.

Views and controversies
The Princess has a controversial history of statements and actions that have been accused of being racist.

The media claim she once declared to an American fashion magazine that she had "more royal blood in her veins than any person to marry into the royal family since Prince Philip". After being told about Princess Michael's lineage by Lord Mountbatten, Queen Elizabeth II reportedly joked that she was "a bit too grand for us".

In 2004, she was accused of racially insulting black diners at a restaurant in New York. A spokesperson acknowledged that the Princess had been angry at the group, who were seated at a table near her, but denied that she had told them to "go back to the colonies". In an interview with a newspaper she reflected on her encounter with "a group of rappers", which in fact included the TV reporter A. J. Calloway as well as a banker, a lawyer, and a music mogul.

In February 2005, she gave a series of interviews to promote her book, in one of which she said that Britons should be more concerned about the bloodlines of their children, and claimed that the British media were "excited" by Prince Harry's decision to wear a swastika for a fancy dress party because of the British press' "ownership structure". She claimed that "nobody would have got excited" had he worn the hammer and sickle.

In September 2005, she talked to Mazher Mahmood, a News of the World journalist posing as a fake sheikh and potential buyer for Nether Lypiatt Manor, Princess Michael and her husband's country home at the time. The Princess shared her opinions on Diana, Princess of Wales, describing her as a "bitter" and "nasty" woman. She went on to say that Charles, Prince of Wales, was "jealous" of his former wife's popularity, and that he had effectively married a "womb". She also added that the Prince's Duchy Originals jams were not homemade: "He's got factories. It's just got his name on it."

On hearing that research by Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth seemed to indicate that rank among female baboons is hereditary, the Princess is reported to have said: "I always knew that when people who aren't like us claim that hereditary rank is not part of human nature, they must be wrong. Now you've given me evolutionary proof!"

In January 2014, the Princess was interviewed by Conrad Black. She described the older generation of the royal family as "boring for most people". Princess Michael also said that she was "very fond of" Diana, Princess of Wales, but also stated that she had "little education", and both she and Sarah, Duchess of York, were abandoned by their mothers at a young age, which made it hard for them to deal with their status as royal figures.

In September 2015, the Princess was in the news for stating publicly that animals do not have rights because they do not pay taxes, have bank accounts or vote.

In December 2017, the Princess was criticised for wearing a blackamoor brooch with a stylised figure of an African man to a Christmas banquet at Buckingham Palace. Meghan Markle, later the Duchess of Sussex, a mixed-race American woman of African and European descent, and at the time the fiancée of Prince Harry, was present at the dinner. A spokesperson for the Princess later said that she "is very sorry and distressed that it has caused offence".

In April 2018, her daughter's former partner, Aatish Taseer, alleged that the Princess had owned a pair of black sheep that she named after Venus and Serena Williams.

Health
In 1985, Marie-Christine was hospitalised for one week to undergo treatments for "nervous exhaustion". In 2002, she was treated for skin cancer. In May 2021, it was reported that Princess Michael was suffering from blood clots after being diagnosed with COVID-19 six months earlier. She is known to have suffered from lung issues in her childhood.

Titles and styles
Since her marriage to Prince Michael, Marie-Christine has been styled as Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent. As Prince Michael was the only male line grandson of King George V not granted a royal peerage on marriage, the feminine style of Prince Michael of Kent was adopted.

Honours

 * : SMOM-gcs.svg Dame Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (September 2010)
 * : Dame of the Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mercy
 * House of Habsburg: Ordre de la Croix étoilée autro-hongrois.jpg Dame of the Order of the Starry Cross
 * House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (Castroan branch): ESP Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George Justicia BAR.svg Dame Grand Cross of Justice of the Two-Sicilian Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George (GCJCO)

 * Other
 * Honorary Freeman of the Worshipful Company of Gardeners
 * Honorary Freeman of the Worshipful Company of Weavers
 * Honorary Freeman of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths
 * Fellow of the Linnean Society of London (FLS)

title: Princess Michael of Kent


text: User talk:213.78.16.2

title: User talk:213.78.16.2


text:
Provençal dialect

Provençal (,, ; provençau or prouvençau ) is a variety of Occitan, spoken by people in Provence and parts of Drôme and Gard. The term Provençal used to refer to the entire Occitan language, but more recently it has referred only to the variety of Occitan spoken in Provence. However, it can still be found being used to refer to Occitan as a whole, e.g. Merriam-Webster states that it can be used to refer to general Occitan, though this is going out of use.

Provençal is also the customary name given to the older version of the Occitan language used by the troubadours of medieval literature, when Old French or the langue d'oïl was limited to the northern areas of France. Thus, the ISO 639-3 code for Old Occitan is [pro].

In 2007, all the ISO 639-3 codes for Occitan dialects, including [prv] for Provençal, were retired and merged into [oci] Occitan. The old codes ([prv], [auv], [gsc], [lms], [lnc]) are no longer in active use, but still have the meaning assigned to them when they were established in the Standard.

Some groups have called for Provençal's recognition as a full language, distinct from Occitan. The Regional Council of Provence has variously labelled Provençal as a dialect of Occitan or as a distinct language, depending on different lobbies and political majorities.

Subdialects
The main subdialects of Provençal are:
 * Rodanenc (in French Rhodanien) around the lower Rhone river, Arles, Avignon, Nîmes.
 * A Rodanenc subvariety, the Shuadit (or Judeo-Provençal), has been considered extinct since 1977. It was spoken by the Jewish community around Avignon. When Jews were granted freedom of residence in France the dialect declined.
 * Maritim or Centrau or Mediterranèu (Maritime or Central or Mediterranean) around Aix-en-Provence, Marseille, Toulon, Cannes, Antibes, Grasse, Forcalquier, Castellane, Draguignan.
 * Niçard in the lower County of Nice.

Gavòt (in French Gavot), spoken in the Western Occitan Alps, around Digne, Sisteron, Gap, Barcelonnette and the upper County of Nice, but also in a part of the Ardèche, is not exactly a subdialect of Provençal, but rather a closely related Occitan dialect, also known as Vivaro-Alpine. So is the dialect spoken in the upper valleys of Piedmont, Italy (Val Maira, Val Varaita, Val Stura di Demonte, Entracque, Limone Piemonte, Vinadio, Sestriere). Some people view Gavòt as a variety of Provençal since a part of the Gavot area (near Digne and Sisteron) belongs to historical Provence.

Orthography
When written in the Mistralian norm ("normo mistralenco"), definite articles are lou in the masculine singular, la in the feminine singular and li in the masculine and feminine plural (lis before vowels). Nouns and adjectives usually drop the Latin masculine endings, but -e remains; the feminine ending is -o (this is the opposite of the neighbouring Italian masculine gender). Nouns do not inflect for number, but all adjectives ending in vowels (-e or -o) become -i, and all plural adjectives take -s before vowels.

When written in the classical norm ("nòrma classica"), definite articles are masculine lo [lu], feminine la [la], and plural lei/leis [lej/lejz = li/liz]. Nouns and adjectives usually drop the Latin masculine endings, but -e [e] remains; the feminine ending is -a [ɔ]. Nouns inflect for number, all adjectives ending in vowels (-e or -a) become -ei/-eis [ej/ejz = i/iz] in some syntactic positions, and most plural adjectives take -s.

Pronunciation remains the same in both norms (Mistralian and classical), which are only two different ways to write the same language.

The IETF language tags register oc-provenc-grmistr for the Mistralian orthography and oc-provenc-grclass for the classical one.

Literature
Modern Provençal literature was given impetus by Nobel laureate Frédéric Mistral and the association, Félibrige, which he founded with other writers, such as Théodore Aubanel. The beginning of the 20th century saw other authors like Joseph d'Arbaud, Batisto Bonnet and Valère Bernard. It has been enhanced and modernized since the second half of the 20th century by writers such as Robèrt Lafont, Pierre Pessemesse, Claude Barsotti,, , , , , , Bernat Giély, and many others.

title: Provençal dialect


text:
Connexion by Boeing

Connexion by Boeing (CBB) was an in-flight online internet connectivity service from Boeing. This service allowed travellers to access a high-speed internet connection while on board a plane in flight through a wired Ethernet or a wireless 802.11 Wi-Fi connection. Connexion by Boeing was formed as a separate business unit of The Boeing Company. Major development on the service commenced with a partnership agreement between United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and American Airlines on June 13, 2001. Lufthansa joined the partnership as the International launch customer on June 17, 2001. United, Delta, and American subsequently withdrew from the partnership after the 9/11 terrorist attacks due to the severe drop in airline travel that occurred after the attacks.

Infrastructure
The infrastructure initially used a phased array Ku band antenna manufactured by Boeing and later a reflector antenna developed and manufactured by Mitsubishi Electric Corporation on the aircraft, leased satellite transponders, and ground stations. The service provided downlink speeds of up to 20 Mbit/s and uplink speeds up to 2 Mbit/s. Speed varied due to many factors including resource availability, aircraft location, and regulatory restrictions. A license from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was first received on December 27, 2001. The United Kingdom subsequently on July 24, 2002 granted Boeing a license for operating over its territory. Other nations followed in granting operating licenses for the service. The service coverage included North America, North Atlantic, Europe, the Middle East, Northern Pacific, Australia, and Asia. While other providers have provided in-flight internet, Connexion by Boeing accomplished it first for flights over water.

Ground stations were located in Vancouver Island Canada, Ibaraki Japan, Moscow Russia, Littleton, Colorado US, and Leuk Switzerland. Two supporting data centers were also used to control the service. These were located in Kent, Washington and Irvine, California.

First run
The service was first commercially demonstrated onboard two Boeing 747-400 aircraft that were operated by Lufthansa and British Airways in 2003. Service was provided between Frankfurt Airport - Washington Dulles and London Heathrow - New York JFK.

Connexion by Boeing was first launched as a commercial service May 17, 2004 with Lufthansa. Later in 2004, All Nippon Airways, Japan Airlines and Scandinavian Airlines signed on to the service. Other airlines which launched Connexion by Boeing service in 2005 include China Airlines, Singapore Airlines, Asiana Airlines and Korean Air. In the later months of 2005, El-Al Israel Airlines and Etihad Airways offered the service. In 2005 Connexion by Boeing launched the first in-flight live streaming TV service on an international route on Singapore Airlines, to be expanded to all current airlines in the first quarter of 2006. The service provided four channels of live TV to each aircraft, and available TV programming varied depending on geographical location. Flying out of Germany, the service provided access to live streaming TV for CNBC (Europe), EurosportNews, BBC World and EuroNews. MSNBC was available for flights over North America. Microsoft's Windows Media technology was used to generate the multicast TV streams, and users had to have Windows Media Player installed to watch them.

Cost
Original prices varied from airline to airline, but were typically $9.95 for one hour of access, $14.95 for less than three hours of access, $19.95 for 3 to 6 hours of access, and $29.95 for unlimited access, however, these prices were determined by the length of the flight rather than actual or desired access time. In comparison, the typical cost at that time of unlimited dial-up internet access for an entire month was $20. Various payment options were allowed: major credit cards, mobile phone, hotspot accounts and even frequent flyer miles. In an effort to get more passengers to use the service, new pricing was announced in January 2006.

Boeing offered free service starting on October 2, 2006 as part of its plan to discontinue the service on December 31, 2006.

Features
The service had a live helpdesk chat feature available for customers who have troubles with their connections. Connexion sponsors the business travel blog, InFlightHQ.

Connexion by Boeing also extended its internet service to include the maritime market in 2005. The first maritime vessels equipped with Connexion by Boeing service were provisioned in 2006.

The business unit also developed a small business jet version of its service in a partnership with Rockwell Collins.

Expansion and dissolution
On January 16, 2006 Boeing also certified other companies such as Korean Air based in South Korea to carry out the Connexion by Boeing modification.

On June 26, 2006 it became public that Boeing was exploring selling or shutting down Connexion By Boeing, having failed to attract sufficient customers. The lack of sufficient customers was speculated to be a direct result of the U.S. domestic carriers pulling from agreements with Connexion after 9/11. While the European market thrived on the service, no U.S. domestic carriers were able to justify the approximate $500,000 USD per plane investment and the weight cost of the additional hardware.

On August 17, 2006, Boeing announced that it would discontinue its Connexion service, stating that, "the market for this service has not materialized as had been expected."

While the consumer service offered by CBB officially ended December 31, 2006 at midnight, Connexion's government contracts for the same service to U.S. Government planes continue under the new name of Boeing Broadband Satcom Network (BBSN) and likely will for the next several years.

title: Connexion by Boeing