text:
History of rail transport in Great Britain

The railway system of Great Britain started with the building of local isolated wooden wagonways starting in the 1560s. A patchwork of local rail links operated by small private railway companies developed in the late 18th century. These isolated links expanded during the railway boom of the 1840s into a national network, although initially being run by over one hundred competing companies. Over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries, many of these were amalgamated or were bought by competitors until only a handful of larger companies remained. The period also saw a steady increase in government involvement, especially in safety matters, such as the Railway Inspectorate.

The entire network was brought under government control during the First World War, during which time a number of advantages of amalgamation and central planning were demonstrated. However, the government resisted calls for the nationalisation of the network. In 1923, almost all the remaining companies were grouped into the "Big Four": the Great Western Railway, the London and North Eastern Railway, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the Southern Railway. The "Big Four" were joint-stock public companies. During the 1920s and 1930s, rising competition from road transport reduced revenues, leading to a lack of investment and thus a period of slow decline. The "Big Four" cooperated closely during the Second World War and continued to run the railway system up until 31 December 1947.

From the start of 1948, the "Big Four" were nationalised to form British Railways. Though there were few initial changes to services, usage increased and the network became profitable. A rapid introduction of diesel and electric rolling stock to replace steam was enacted under the 1955 Modernisation Plan. However, declining passenger numbers and financial losses in the late 1950s and early 1960s prompted the controversial Beeching cuts, which saw the closure of many branch and main lines alike. High-speed intercity trains were introduced in the 1970s. During the 1980s, severe cuts in rail subsidies and above-inflation increases in fares were enacted, decreasing losses. Following the sectorisation of British Rail, InterCity became profitable.

Between 1994 and 1997, railway operations were privatised, under which the ownership of the track and infrastructure passed to Railtrack, whilst passenger operations were franchised to individual private sector operators (originally there were 25 franchises) and the freight services were sold outright. Since privatisation, passenger volumes have increased to their highest ever level, but whether this is due to privatisation is disputed. The Hatfield accident set in motion a series of events that resulted in the ultimate collapse of Railtrack and its replacement with Network Rail, a state-owned, not-for-dividend company. By 2018, government subsidies to the rail industry in real terms were roughly three times that of the late 1980s, while train fares cost more than under British Rail.

Before 1830: The pioneers
A wagonway, essentially a railway powered by animals drawing the cars or wagons, was used by German miners at Caldbeck, Cumbria, England, perhaps from the 1560s. A wagonway was built at Prescot, near Liverpool, sometime around 1600, possibly as early as 1594. Owned by Philip Layton, the line carried coal from a pit near Prescot Hall to a terminus about half a mile away.

Another wagonway was Sir Francis Willoughby's Wollaton Wagonway in Nottinghamshire built between 1603 and 1604 to carry coal.

As early as 1671 railed roads were in use in Durham to ease the conveyance of coal; the first of these was the Tanfield Wagonway. Many of these tramroads or wagon ways were built in the 17th and 18th centuries. They used simply straight and parallel rails of timber on which carts with simple flanged iron wheels were drawn by horses, enabling several wagons to be moved simultaneously. The first public railway in the world was the Lake Lock Rail Road, a narrow gauge railway built near Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.

The early wooden railways were improved on in 1793 when Benjamin Outram constructed a mile-long tramway with L-shaped cast iron rails. These rails became obsolete when William Jessop began to manufacture cast iron rails without guiding ledges – the wheels of the carts had flanges instead. Cast iron is brittle and so the rails tended to break easily. Consequently, in 1820, John Birkenshaw introduced a method of rolling wrought iron rails, which were used from then onwards.

The first passenger-carrying public railway was opened by the Swansea and Mumbles Railway at Oystermouth in 1807, using horse-drawn carriages on an existing tramline.

In 1802, Richard Trevithick designed and built the first (unnamed) steam locomotive to run on smooth rails. The first commercially successful steam locomotive was Salamanca, built in 1812 by John Blenkinsop and Matthew Murray for the gauge Middleton Railway. Salamanca was a rack and pinion locomotive, with cog wheels driven by two cylinders embedded into the top of the centre-flue boiler.

In 1813, William Hedley and Timothy Hackworth designed a locomotive (Puffing Billy) for use on the tramway between Stockton and Darlington. Puffing Billy featured piston rods extending upwards to pivoting beams, connected in turn by rods to a crankshaft beneath the frames which, in turn, drove the gears attached to the wheels. This meant that the wheels were coupled, allowing better traction. A year later, George Stephenson improved on that design with his first locomotive Blücher, which was the first locomotive to use single-flanged wheels.

That design persuaded the backers of the proposed Stockton and Darlington Railway to appoint Stephenson as Engineer for the line in 1821. While traffic was originally intended to be horse-drawn, Stephenson carried out a fresh survey of the route to allow steam haulage. The Act was subsequently amended to allow the usage of steam locomotives and also to allow passengers to be carried on the railway. The 25-mile (40 km) long route opened on 27 September 1825 and, with the aid of Stephenson's Locomotion No. 1, was the first locomotive-hauled public railway in the world.

1830–1922: Early development
In 1830, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway opened. Being was the world's first inter-city passenger railway and the first to have 'scheduled' services, terminal stations and services as we know them today, it set the pattern for modern railways. The railways carried freight and passengers with also the world's first goods terminal station at the Park Lane railway goods station at Liverpool's south docks, accessed by the 1.26-mile Wapping Tunnel. In 1836, at the Liverpool end the line was extended to Lime Street station in Liverpool's city centre via a 1.1 mile long tunnel.

Many of the first public railways were built as local rail links operated by small private railway companies. With increasing rapidity, more and more lines were built, often with scant regard for their potential for traffic. The 1840s were by far the biggest decade for railway growth. In 1840, when the decade began, railway lines in Britain were few and scattered but, within ten years, a virtually complete network had been laid down and the vast majority of towns and villages had a rail connection and in some cases even two or three. Over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries, most of the pioneering independent railway companies amalgamated or were bought by competitors, until only a handful of larger companies remained (see Railway Mania).

Other nations quickly sought to obtain British expertise in this field to develop their own railways. The British-built Patentee class locomotive Le Belge was constructed for the first main line on the European mainland, the Brussels-Mechelen line, while Adler, another Patentee class locomotive, hauled the first commercially successful passengers and goods trains in Germany. To several of these customers, Britain's pioneering railway industry was associated with power, daringness and rapidity.

The period also saw a steady increase in government involvement, especially in safety matters. The 1840 "Act for Regulating Railways" empowered the Board of Trade to appoint railway inspectors. The Railway Inspectorate was established in 1840, to enquire into the causes of accidents and recommend ways of avoiding them. As early as 1844, a bill had been put before Parliament suggesting the state purchase of the railways; this was not adopted. It did, however, lead to the introduction of minimum standards for the construction of carriages and the compulsory provision of 3rd class accommodation for passengers – so-called "Parliamentary trains".

The railway companies ceased to be profitable after the mid-1870s. Nationalisation of the railways was first proposed by William Ewart Gladstone as early as the 1840s, and calls for nationalisation continued throughout that century, with F. Keddell writing in 1890 that "The only valid ground for maintaining the monopoly would be the proof that the Railway Companies have made a fair and proper use of their great powers, and have conduced to the prosperity of the people. But the exact contrary is the case." The entire network was brought under government control during the First World War, and a number of advantages of amalgamation and planning were achieved. However, the Conservative members of the wartime coalition government resisted calls for the formal nationalisation of the railways in 1921.

1923–1947: The Big Four
On 1 January 1923, almost all the railway companies were grouped into the Big Four: the Great Western Railway, the London and North Eastern Railway, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the Southern Railway companies. A number of other lines, already operating as joint railways, remained separate from the Big Four; these included the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway and the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway. The "Big Four" were joint-stock public companies and they continued to run the railway system until 31 December 1947.

The competition from road transport during the 1920s and 1930s greatly reduced the revenue available to the railways, even though the needs for maintenance on the network had never been higher, as investment had been deferred over the past decade. Rail companies accused the government of favouring road haulage through the construction of roads subsidised by the taxpayer, while restricting the rail industry's ability to use flexible pricing because it was held to nationally agreed rate cards. The government response was to commission several inconclusive reports; the Salter Report of 1933 finally recommended that road transport should be taxed directly to fund the roads and increased Vehicle Excise Duty and fuel duties were introduced. It also noted that many small lines would never be likely to compete with road haulage. Although these road pricing changes helped their survival, the railways entered a period of slow decline, owing to a lack of investment and changes in transport policy and lifestyles.

Several highpoints and innovations did occur during this period. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Southern Railway invested heavily into railway electrification; by the end of 1929, the Southern operated over route miles (277+1/2 mi) of third rail electrified track and in that year ran 17.8 million electric train miles. During 1933, the Great Western Railway introduced the first of its diesel-powered railcars, an early move towards the long term future of the passenger trains. On 3 July 1938, the London and North Eastern Railway's Class A4 4468 Mallard set a world speed record of 126 mph.

During the Second World War, the companies' managements joined together, effectively operating as one company, to assisting the country's war effort. The railway network suffered heavy damage in some areas due to German Luftwaffe bombing, especially in cities such as London and Coventry; 482 locomotives, 13,314 passenger and 16,132 freight vehicles were damaged. This damage put a severe strain on the railways' resources and a substantial maintenance backlog developed. After 1945, for both practical and ideological reasons, the government decided to bring the rail industry into the public sector.

1948–1994: British Rail

From the start of 1948, the railways were nationalised to form British Railways (latterly "British Rail") under the control of the British Transport Commission. Though there were few initial changes to the service, usage increased and the network became profitable. Regeneration of track and stations was completed by 1954. Rail revenue fell and, in 1955, the network again ceased to be profitable. The mid-1950s saw the hasty introduction of diesel and electric rolling stock to replace steam in a modernisation plan costing many millions of pounds but the expected transfer back from road to rail did not occur and losses began to mount. This failure to make the railways more profitable through investment led governments of all political persuasions to restrict rail investment to a drip feed and seek economies through cutbacks.

The desire for profitability led to a major reduction in the network during the mid-1960s. Dr. Richard Beeching was given the task by the government of re-organising the railways ("the Beeching Axe"). This policy resulted in many branch lines and secondary routes being closed because they were deemed uneconomic; the closure of one-third of all stations, typically serving rural communities, removed much feeder traffic from main line passenger services. The closure of many freight depots that had been used by larger industries such as coal and iron led to much freight transferring to road haulage. The sweeping closures were extremely unpopular with the general public at that time and remain so today.

Passenger levels decreased steadily from the late fifties to late seventies. Passenger services then experienced a renaissance with the introduction of the high-speed InterCity 125 trains in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The 1980s saw severe cuts in government funding and above-inflation increases in fares, but the service became more cost-effective. Investment was made into the electrification of the East Coast Main Line (ECML) and the InterCity 225 electric high speed train introduced during the late 1980s. In the mid 1980s, British Rail begun to replace its large fleet of first generation DMUs with a new rolling stock, namely the Pacer and Sprinter families.

During 1972, British Rail was reorganised; under sectorisation, three passenger sectors were created: InterCity, operating principal express services; London & South East (renamed Network SouthEast in 1986) operating commuter services in the London area; Provincial (renamed Regional Railways in 1989) responsible for all other passenger services. Following sectorisation, InterCity became profitable and one of Britain's top 150 companies, operating city centre to city centre travel across the nation from Aberdeen and Inverness in the north to Poole and Penzance in the south.

Between 1994 and 1997, British Rail was privatised by the Conservative government under John Major. Ownership of the track and infrastructure passed to Railtrack, passenger operations were franchised to individual private sector operators (originally there were 25 franchises) and the freight services sold outright (six companies were set up, but five of these were sold to the same buyer).

1995 onwards: Post-privatisation
Since privatisation, numbers of passengers have grown rapidly; by 2010 the railways were carrying more passengers than at any time since the 1920s. and by 2014 passenger numbers had expanded to their highest level ever, more than doubling in the 20 years since privatisation. Train fares cost more than under British Rail.

The railways have become significantly safer since privatisation and are now the safest in Europe. However, the public image of rail travel was damaged by some prominent accidents shortly after privatisation. These included the Southall rail crash (where a train with its faulty Automatic Warning System disconnected passed a stop signal), the Ladbroke Grove rail crash (also caused by a train passing a stop signal) and the Hatfield accident (caused by a rail fragmenting due to the development of microscopic cracks).

Following the Hatfield accident, the rail infrastructure company Railtrack imposed over 1,200 emergency speed restrictions across its network and instigated an extremely costly nationwide track replacement programme. The consequential severe operational disruption to the national network and the company's spiralling costs set in motion the series of events which resulted in the ultimate collapse of the company and its replacement with Network Rail, a state-owned, not-for-dividend company.

Since April 2016, the British railway network has been severely disrupted on many occasions by wide-reaching rail strikes, affecting rail franchises across the country. The industrial action began on Southern services as a dispute over the planned introduction of driver-only operation, and has since expanded to cover many different issues affecting the rail industry; as of February 2018, the majority of the industrial action remains unresolved, with further strikes planned. The COVID-19 pandemic of the early 2020s caused a massive drop in passenger numbers,

As of 2018, government subsidies to the rail industry in real terms were roughly three times that of the late 1980s.

Historiography, restoration and memory

 * Beeston, Erin. Spaces of Industrial Heritage: a history of uses, perceptions and the re-making of Liverpool Road Station (University of Manchester, 2020) online.
 * Biddle, Gordon. "British Railway History: Jack Simmons' Last Thoughts." Journal-Railway And Canal Historical Society 34.5 (2003): 324-326 online.
 * Boughey, Joseph. "From Transport's Golden Ages to an Age of Tourism: LTC Rolt, Waterway Revival and Railway Preservation in Britain, 1944–54." Journal of Transport History 34.1 (2013): 22-38.
 * Boyes, Grahame, and Matthew Searle. "A Bibliography of the History of Inland Waterways, Railways and Road Transport in the British Isles, 2007." Interchange 39 (2006): 4-20.
 * Burman, Peter, and Michael Stratton, eds. Conserving the railway heritage (Taylor & Francis, 1997).
 * Carter, Ian, ed. British railway enthusiasm (Manchester University Press, 2017).
 * Mom, Gijs. "What kind of transport history did we get? Half a century of JTH and the future of the field." Journal of Transport History 24.2 (2003): 121–138.
 * Reeves, Christopher D. "Policy for conservation of heritage railway signal boxes in Great Britain." Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 7.1 (2016): 43-59 online.
 * Strangleman, Tim. "Constructing the Past: Railway History from below or a Study in Nostalgia?." Journal of Transport History 23.2 (2002): 147–158.
 * Taylor, James. "Business in Pictures: Representations of Railway Enterprise in the Satirical Press in Britain 1845–1870." Past & Present 189.1 (2005): 111–145; cartoons unveiled big business as greedy and corrupt. online.


text:
The Topper (comics)

The Topper was a UK comic published by D. C. Thomson & Co. Ltd that ran from 7 February 1953 to 15 September 1990, when it merged with The Beezer.

A strip named "Mickey the Monkey" originally appeared on the front cover. In 1973, it was replaced by "Send for Kelly", by "Danny's Tranny" in 1975, briefly by "The Whizzers from Oz" in 1979, and again in 1979 by "Tricky Dicky". "Beryl the Peril" took over on 24 May 1986, and remained there until the merger with The Beezer.

Unlike most other comics at the time, which were half tabloid size, the Topper was for many years full tabloid. It changed to A4 in 1980, one year before The Beezer.

Two comics were merged into The Topper during its run: these were Buzz in 1975 and Sparky in issue 1276 (16 July 1977). In issue 1260 on 26 March 1977, "Big News" was announced on the front cover redirecting the reader to page 7 of the comic. The announcement was that starting from issue number 1261 the comic would include a "Special Pull-out section" that brought back classic Topper Characters such as Splodge and Big Uggy. These lasted until issue 1276, when the pull out section was used for the Sparky comic, creating the "Special Sparky Pull-Out". The Sparky Pull out section was continued until the change to the A4 format.

The Topper also produced an annual collection, The Topper Book.

Rebrand, closure and reprints
In the late 1980s and 1990s, with the expansion of children's television and video games taking a greater share of children's time, sales of comics began to fall. So D. C. Thomson decided to modernise the Topper, relaunching it as Topper '89 from February 1989.

In September 1990, it was decided to merge the Topper with another of D. C. Thomson's long-running comics, The Beezer and the two comics combined as Beezer and Topper. This continued in publication until 1993; it subsequently closed, with a small amount of content from the combined comic subsequently relocating into other D. C. Thomson publications The Beano and The Dandy.

Despite the closure of the Topper as a standalone title, The Topper Book continued as an annual, separate from The Beezer Book, until the 1994 annual (published 1993, the year new issues of Beezer and Topper ceased).

Vintage stories from the Topper appeared alongside stories from other D. C. Thomson publications in Classics from the Comics, a compilation magazine series which ran from 1996 to 2010.

In March 2012, the Royal Mail launched a special stamp collection to celebrate Britain's rich comic book history. The collection featured The Beano, The Dandy, Eagle, The Topper, Roy of the Rovers, Bunty, Buster, Valiant, Twinkle and 2000 AD.

Famous creators
Well known creators who worked for The Topper include:
 * Gordon Bell
 * Paddy Brennan
 * David Law
 * Tom Paterson
 * Dudley D. Watkins
 * John Dallas
 * Malcolm Judge
 * Robert Nixon
 * David Parkins

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

title: The Topper (comics)


text:
User:Niganit

Who is Niganit?
My American name is Richard J. Wersinger. Some call me Rich, some Mr. Wersinger, some Mr. W. Some time ago, my daughter even called me Dad. But that is another long story for a future posting. My Dad, until the day he died, called me Richie, and my Mom and sister call me Richard. And, sweetly, my dear bride of five years (married 30 May 2003) addresses me as "My Sweetheart."

Niganit, I am told, is an American Indian, Lenni Lennape (Delaware Indians) word or name meaning, roughly, "Foremost One." It was bestowed upon me when I was inducted into the Vigil Honor of the Order of the Arrow of the Boy Scouts of America in 1966.

So, I have found real joy and genuine happiness in my life here in the beautiful Pacific Northwest since 1998.

I have contributed to Wikipedia's Mac Plus entry in July 2003.

Teaching Stuff
From July 1999 until December 2005, I taught at Heald College, Portland, Oregon campus and maintain a Web site for my Students at MrWteaches. They can find info about their courses, about their teacher (that's me!), and their assignments.

Blessings, Rich

title: User:Niganit


text:
Talk:Orestes

Comments
I'd hesitate to cut out so much from this article w/o putting it up for some kind of discussion. But I think that four paragraphs from the turn of the century Britannica:

 * The legend of Orestes is the subject of a lengthy monograph by T. Zielinski, Die Orestessage tind die Rechtfertigungsidee in Neue Jahrbiicher für des klassische Altertum, ii. (1899). Orestes, according to Zielinski, is the son of the sky-god Zeus/Agamemnon (the two are identified as the same symbolic being) who overcomes his wife, the earth-goddess Gaia/Clytemnestra (also identified with each other). With the assistance of the dragon Aegisthus (who is only symbolically a dragon), Gaia/Clytemnestra slays her husband, whose murder is in turn avenged by his son.

 * The religion of Zeus/Agamemnon (as in, Agamemnon's royal lineage) is then reformed under the influence of the cult of Apollo, who slays the dragon (Python) birthed by Gaia on Parnassus, the seat of one of her oldest sanctuaries. Parnassus becomes the holy mountain of Apollo, and Orestes himself an hypostasis (identified with) of Apollo "of the mountain," just as Pylades is Apollo "of the plain"; similarly Electra, Iphigeneia and Chrysothemis are hypostases of Artemis. Zeus being firmly seated on his throne as the result of the slaying of the dragon by Orestes, the theological significance of the myth is forgotten, and the identifications Zeus-Agamemnon and Gaia-Clytaemnestra are abandoned.

 * In the Homeric Oresteia the soul of the murdered wife has no claim to vengeance, and Orestes retires unmolested in Argos. But the Apolline religion introduces the theory of the rights of the soul and revenge for bloodshed. Apollo, who has urged Orestes to parricide and has himself expiated the crime of slaying the dragon, is able to purify others in similar cases. Hence Orestes, freed from the guilt of blood, is enabled to take possession of the throne of his father. This is the Deiphic Oresteia. But a new idea is introduced by the Attic Oresteia. The claim that Apollo can in every case purify from sin is met by Athens with a counterclaim on behalf of the state. It is the community of which murdered and murderer were members which has the right to exact revenge and retribution, an idea which found expression in the foundation of the Areopagus. If the accused is acquitted, the state undertakes to appease the soul of the murdered person or its judicial representative, the Erinyes.

 * Others attach chief importance to the slaying of Neoptolemus (Pyrrhus) by Orestes at Delphi; according to Radermacher (Das Jenseits im Mythos der Hellenen, 1903), Orestes is an hypostasis of Apollo, Pyrrhus the principle of evil, which is overcome by the god; on the other hand Usener (Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, vii., 1899, 334) takes Orestes for a god of winter and the underworld, a double of the Phocian Dionysus the "mountain" god (among the Ionians a summer-god, but in this case corresponding to Dionysus), who subdues Pyrrhus ?the light,? the double of Apollo, the whole being a form of the well-known myths of the expulsion of summer by winter. S. Reinach (reviewing P. Mazan?s L?Orestie d?Eschyle, 1902) defends the theory of Bachofen, who finds in the legend of Orestes an indication of the decay of matriarchal ideas.

--- all of this stuff is more Aryan race mythology from the turn of the century. My understanding is that just about all anthropologists and archaeologists no longer believe in a race of superhuman, patriarchal conquerors who destroyed a peaceful, goddess worshipping civilization, and replaced its female god with a male god; whether you want to root for the winners or the losers, it just didn't happen. This was romantic turn of the century mythmaking, and it's not surprising that this stuff was in a turn of the century encyclopedia, but it no longer is believed, at least by scholars.

The bit about Orestes symbolizing the replacement of private vengeance by rule of law might be worth saving, but a new bridge text might be needed that doesn't talk about Aryan sky gods and non-Aryan earth goddesses. -- IHCOYC 18:53 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This article is confusing and contradictory. Someone please clean it up! Mat334 20:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to say this is a great article. In particular, this paragraph:
 * "Orestes appears also as a central figure in various legends connected with his madness and purification, both in Greece and Asia. In these Orestes is the guilt-laden mortal who is purified from his sin by the grace of the gods, whose merciful justice is shown to all persons whose crime is mitigated by extenuating circumstances. These legends belong to an age when higher ideas of law and of social duty were being established; the implacable blood-feud of primitive society gives place to a fair trial, and in Athens, when the votes of the judges are evenly divided, mercy prevails."

answers a question I've been wondering about for some time and had never found an answer to. Specifically, in her respected book "Mythology", Edith Hamilton writes that Athena's vote in the trial was triggered by both mercy and respect for Orestes' penance. When I went back and read Aeschylus and Euripides, their texts gave much more superficial reasons for Athena's vote (principally, because Orestes was male and Athena felt it was the natural order to vote for him). I could never reconcile this with Hamilton's interpretation, but the above article paragraph explains it quite well, suggesting that Hamilton was taking the broader context of the myth into account when describing it. Enlightening for me, anyway.

restructure
Hope this makes sense. The first sentence could probably use some work and the last section is a bit dodgy, but I think its looking better. John 00:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I made some minor edits, but I didn't want to do very much because, not being familiar with the story, I wasn't sure how to resolve certain ambiguities. Also this is my first day on wikipedia and I don't want to look like an idiot :-) In "other literature", where it says "whose merciful justice", I assume we are talking about the gods, but then when we see "whose crime is" it seems like gramatically it should refer to the gods but actually does not. Anyone who knows care to rewrite that sentence? --Nick Urban 09:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't worry too much about looking "like an idiot." There are many out there in front of you that will make it difficult for you to look that bad.  But most importantly, Be bold!.  Welcome. John (Jwy) 17:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good article and it gives some insight to what happened, but it was very jumpy. You skipped over a lot of important things that happened in the story. And some of the things that you said happened a little differntly but it could also be the trasnlation text that you read it from. Though overall it was not too bad. I didn't want to make any changes to it beacause I did not write the article but I would go back a brush up on some of the things that you have wriiten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.229.129 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology is incorrect
Orestes isn't derived from oreibates. They are both derived from oros "mountain." Orestes simply means "of or from the mountains." A mountaineer (in the sense of "mountain-climber") is something else altogether. Ifnkovhg (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I have edited the section accordingly, and requested a reference for the metaphoric meaning. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 07:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

incorrect synopsis of Homer's account
In the Odyssey Homer doesn't say that Clytemnestra killed Agamemnon because he had sacrificed their daughter to the gods. Homer says that Agamemnon was killed by his cousin Aegisthus who had seduced Clytemnestra while he was off fighting. I think whoever wrote this is confusing Homer's version of the story with that of other myths. Foscolo (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to go through this article and remove all of the remaining Murrayite nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.151.61 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I choose you, Mr. 99.103.151.61! Protonk (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Iphigenia
If i remeber correctly, Iphegneia (or however you want to spell it) was killed by Agamemnon in sacrifice for favorable winds to sail his fleet to Troy. How is she able to save Orestes if she was killed. If i missed something please let me know, but Agamemnon kills her before leaving for Troy. He is murdered after returning. Orestes kills his wife and lover in revenge and gets tortured by fureis. Then he is sent to get a statue. Right? So Iphegenia is dead and still is a priestess? Thoth19 (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Thoth19
 * According to Euripides, Iphigenia was not killed but was taken by Artemis to Tauris. Alagos (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments and questions
1. When did patriarchy replaced matriarchy in Ancient Greece?

2. "He was said to have died of a snakebite in Arcadia."

Orestes or Alete? It's not clear.

3. "There is extant a Latin epic poem, consisting of about 1000 hexameters"

I think this sentence should start with "There is an extant Latin epic poem". I'm not 100% sure.

4. "According to some sources, Orestes fathered Penthilus by his half-sister, Erigone."

What is the source for this claim?

ICE77 (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Rethinking Revenge
— Assignment last updated by Lemurred (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Orestes


text:
Whiting Awards

The Whiting Award is an American award presented annually to ten emerging writers in fiction, nonfiction, poetry and drama. The award is sponsored by the Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation and has been presented since 1985. , winners receive US$50,000.

The nominees are chosen through a juried process, and the final winners are selected by a committee of writers, scholars, and editors, selected each year by the Foundation. Writers cannot apply for the prize themselves, and the Foundation does not accept unsolicited nominations.

title: Whiting Awards


text:
Talk:Man in the Moon

Man in the moon in different cultures
Is there a list of cultures where the "man in the moon" perception is commonplace? Is it an English-centric thing, or is it present in different languages/cultures? Personally I've never heard of such a thing except in English-language sources, but I only speak two languages, so that may be misleading. (The article does mention other cultures, but only to list what non-man objects those culture recognize in the moon, and without any sources.)

The written description is somewhat hard to follow to anyone not versed in moon crater names. For people who have problems "seeing" the face, it might be beneficial to include an actual drawing that, superimposed to an actual image of the moon, outlines the position of the perceived "facial features". Hniksic 10:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i probably would, but it's harder to see the face close up in a picture... i've never seen anything but a human face... -hexhunter 16:32 GMT 30.09.05

 * Certainly not unique to English, but I suspect it may be a European thing. However, what the article doesn't explain is the origin myth of the man in the moon. --MacRusgail 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm... the most obvious man in the moon reference seems to be missing... as in the rhyme. The man in the moon Came down too soon, And asked the way to Norwich. He went by south, And burnted his mouth By eating cold plum porridge. I'm new to changing things and so thought that someone else might like to change the page. Thanks, Phipli 19:48 BST 9th Aug 2006

Pictures
I agree with the post that the highlighting would be useful. However, I believe that one of the eyes is improperly referred to. At the top of the article, it states that "the figure's eyes are the Mare Imbrium and Mare Serenitatis". But in the diagram with the four pictures of the moon, the two eyes circled are Mare Imbrium and Mare Tranquillitatis (for reference, see http://media.skytonight.com/documents/GettingStartedNorth.pdf)

This article would benefit from pictures highlighting the various features of each 'image'. I for one, can see none of them. This makes me sad. :( -- Run!  22:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I suggest you swipe and upload locally this image. 68.39.174.238 15:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * That link takes me to what I assume is a missing image page on the german wikipedia. This makes me sad :( -- Run!  21:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh nevermind, turns out it's the Netherlands wikipedia, not the german one. I decided to use the cross-language link from this article instead and found it on the german wikipedia anyway. Cheers. -- Run!  21:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The position of the "bowl" and "pestle" seem to be somewhat off in the rabbit image. Compare . --207.245.10.221 20:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The outlines on the lower-left image: Is that it? Is that the traditional, "classic" Man in the Moon that many people see? 163.192.21.44 16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it more than just a face? I was wondering what the Man in the Moon was and before I came here I saw this page http://www.planetfusion.co.uk/~pignut/see_man.html -

i have to say, from england, the man-in-the-moon's face is totally different to what you have delineated. i'm not at home right now and i cant see any good pictures on line either, but honestly, the face is not vague at all- he looks like a jolly fat farmer- almost like a buddha face actually- really smiling- and really detailed. i was surprised to see what other people consider to be the face.Good european 22:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 149.175.110.83 07:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation
This page should be a disambiguation-page, because of some films, like Puck 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Man in the Moon (1960 film), a romantic comedy
 * The Man in the Moon, with Reese Witherspoon, Jason London, Sam Waterston
 * The Man in the Moon (2004 film), a short fantasy thriller directed by Joe White
 * The Man in the Moon (1960), a television movie
 * Is it really sensible to do that when none of those articles exist yet? I'm genuinely unsure on that particular aspect of disambiguation pages so I don't know. -- Run!  21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redlinks on disambiguation pages are fine. The two dab links that are at the top of this article already would go along with them, so it wouldn't be completely redlinks — in any case, it would go at Man in the Moon (disambiguation) rather than this article, because the subject of this article is the primary topic.--SB | T 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The disambiguation should also include the phrase Man on the Moon, which is easily confused.--MacRusgail 14:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only culture
The fact that some people around the world see different pictures in the moon is not only because of culture. In different countries they actually see the moon differently. For example, Australians are seeing it up-side-down compared to Europeans... because compared to them they are standing up-side-down! 201.50.214.34 23:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Woman in the moon
In Bulgaria people regard the moon as a woman, not as a man. They see it's "face" as a woman that is a bit sad or worried. look at some pictures and you will find that the moon can also appear as a woman. 83.228.121.186 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh brother; does it ever end? The myth is about the man IN the moon, not the gender OF the moon, which is historically regarded as female anyway.  This is not an appropriate place for revisionist feminism. Signed 173.181.5.250

 * Notice that the original comment was in 2008. "Does it ever end?" Then why are you replying to a 4.5 year old comment that everyone else has ignored?  Stepho  talk 03:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Jewish origins???
192.118.76.130 (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding: "One tradition, both Christian and Jewish, claims him as Cain" -- what are your sources for this? Certainly, citing Dante's Inferno does not prove any Jewish connection!
 * Regarding: "There is also a Talmudic tradition that Jacob is on the moon" -- what are your sources?

Popular Culture
I deleted this from the intro:

 * "It may have also been referenced in the cult comedy series The Mighty Boosh. Sometimes during the show, the moon will spin round to reveal the face of a man who will make comments or tell vague stories."

Just moving it here in case someone feels like adding a "man in the moon in popular culture" section later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.236.235.151 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If a Popular Culture section is added, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic probbaly needs a mention for Nightmare Moon. 92.28.207.151 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Origins???

 * Regarding: "One tradition, both Christian and Jewish, claims him as Cain" -- what are your sources for this? Certainly, citing Dante's Inferno does not prove any Jewish connection!

You are quite right to question this. From what I can find now, the myth seems to be medieval Christian in origin. The only Jewish connection seems to be the original story of Cain, which has no lunar component. The statement was badly phrased, if not wholly incorrect.

 * Regarding: "There is also a Talmudic tradition that Jacob is on the moon" -- what are your sources?

Wolfson, Elliot R. "The Face of Jacob in the Moon" in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response? S. Daniel Breslauer, ed. This essay has 35 pages on the identification of Jacob with the moon in Jewish lore, including the idea that Jacob's face is engraved on the moon.

Harley, the Rev. Timothy, FRAS [Fellow, Royal Astronomical Society]; Moon Lore; 1885. "... though the Jews have a Talmudic tradition that Jacob is in the moon, and though they believe that his face is plainly visible, the Hebrew Scriptures make no mention of the myth."

I've edited the article to add the references and change the inaccuracy. Thanks.

D.Helber (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please identify which tractate and page in the Talmud that book says Jacob is inscribed in the moon? I wasn't able to find it when going through the limited preview, and a citation of the original source would be better than a secondary one. Althepal (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:P&G logo.jpg
The image File:P&G logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Máni - mannlegr???
Where does this come from? The name Máni simply means "Moon", but sounds very similar to the Old Norse for "human" mannligr.??? Máni has the same root as mánuðr (Icelendic: mánuður) that means month. But Máni has nothing to do with mannligr (Icelandic: mannlegur). --194.144.23.124 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Take it out. --88.149.99.14 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Skeleton, Dragon and Angel! Oh My LSD!
So there's no reference for the ridiculous skeleton, dragon and angel entries? More power to you, person who takes the brown acid and can see this stuff. But why is this here? What's the cultural reference? Historical reference? Please give something other than a report of your own experiences of browse the NASA website while doped up, or just remove this. 67.124.149.181 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Since the moon is perceived up the other way in the southern hemisphere, there is a strong potential for alternative "faces" to be interpreted there - some mention of that might be very useful. In particular, if one takes the example image and rotates it so the top-left corner points straight down (135 degrees rotation anticlockwise), a simple face is apparent. This is the most common face people "see" in places like New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.26.162 (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The moon flips completely from up to down between moonrise and moonset and depending on the viewer's angle, it has little to do with hemisphere. I have several pictures of the moon taken in the northern hemisphere, and none match the orientation provided on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.24.186 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know what "other cultures" see in the moon?

 * The Japanese see a rabbit. Actually, I've never been able to see a human face, but I can see the rabbit just fine.   — Gwalla | Talk 00:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's also a movie with this title. Anyone want to stub it? --Alex Cohn 22:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even with the lines you draw on it, I still can't see this "man" in the moon. I've tried so hard to see it. I've always seen a wolf howling at the moon myself, but I've never heard anything about what anyone else sees before today. I'm going to have to call shenanigans. I think you're making this up.76.29.225.28 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Images?
There is a textual description of some of the things that people see in the moon, but it would be helpful if there were images to illustrate. (Think of those star maps where constellations are drawn in.) Augurar (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Discovery of a 3D holographic image of a Man on the Moon
A recent discovery of a Buddha form on the Moon is reported in http://sun-faced-buddha-moon-faced-buddha.blogspot.com. The discovery sheds new light on the phrase "Finger pointing to the Moon", a phrase that has been a topic of deep philosophical interpretation and discussion for centuries. Zenfinder (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Crackpot dead link. Hyacinth (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Southern Hemisphere perspective, with pictures
I have an old (2007) blog post with an illustration of the Man in the Moon as I've always seen it in Australia. It refers to an earlier version of this Wikipedia article, but don't let that -- nor the tongue-in-cheek tone -- distract you.

I won't add my interpretation to the article, as that would be uncomfortably close to original research. Better to leave it to others to paraphrase and to decide what is verifiable.

For evidence that other Australians see the Man in much the same way, here's a similar interpretation from another blogger (whom I don't know), and you can see in the comments that various people agree.

The interpretations differ in detail as one would expect, but they are united in declaring the Man in the Moon to be a face with eyes in Mare Nubium and Mare Tranquillitatis. Perhaps that is all that needs to be said.

118.210.64.39 (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Personally, I've never been able to see any face in the moon without looking at a diagram. I'm Australia too.  Stepho  talk 14:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am the user who commented above as 118.210.64.39. Just to say I've re-written parts of the aforementioned blog post, giving it a more formal, less tongue-in-cheek tone. 118.210.79.253 (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

From Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable
"E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898. Man in the Moon (The). Some say it is a man leaning on a fork, on which he is carrying a bundle of sticks picked up on a Sunday. The origin of this fable is from Num. xv. 32–36. Some add a dog also; thus the prologue in Midsummer Night’s Dream says, “This man with lantern, dog, and bush of thorns, presenteth moonshine;” Chaucer says “he stole the bush” (Test. of Cresseide). Another tradition says that the man is Cain, with his dog and thornbush; the thorn-bush being emblematical of the thorns and briars of the fall, and the dog being the “foul fiend.” Some poets make out the “man” to be Endym’ion, taken to the moon by Diana.

1.Man in the moon. The nameless person at one time employed in elections to negotiate bribes. Thus the rumour was set flying among the electors that “the Man in the Moon had arrived.” 2.I know no more about it than the man in the moon. I know nothing at all about the matter."

Just passing through looking for a picture of the man with sticks which doesn't appear so much at the full moon but at a phase. But I thought this ref might be helpfulJeremy (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Man in the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030040543/http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/mnillusion.html to http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/mnillusion.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Examples and occurrence globally"
Are there citations to support the bits about Christ's crown of thorns and the cowled death's head? I'm not finding anything. PurpleChez (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ruhollah Khomeini
There was also a political myth that said Ruhollah Khomeini's face is on the Moon just before the 1979 Iranian revolution. Aminabzz (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Need references from reliable sources - WP:FACT, WP:RS.  Stepho  talk 21:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The Gypsy on the Moon
My grandmother just told me a story about how her grandfather told her stories about the "gypsy on the moon." She states that this was before the time of "the man on the moon" myths in the united states. Has anyone else heard of this "gypsy on the moon?" Could it be that image of the lady described in the front image on the wiki page? Ive been researching it for awhile and i've gotten no leads except for this page depicting the woman. 2600:1700:2BB0:E35F:70BB:FB88:680A:2609 (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Man in the Moon


text:
Patrick Nagel

Patrick Nagel (November 25, 1945 – February 4, 1984) was an American artist and illustrator. He created popular illustrations on board, paper, and canvas, most of which emphasize the female form in a distinctive style, descended from Art Deco and pop art.

He produced many illustrations for Playboy magazine. His cover for the rock group Duran Duran's Rio album has been acclaimed as one of the greatest album covers of all time.

Early life and education
Nagel was born in Dayton, Ohio, on November 25, 1945, but was raised and spent most of his life in the Los Angeles area. After serving in the United States Army with the 101st Airborne in Vietnam, Nagel attended the Chouinard Art Institute in Los Angeles in 1969, and in that same year he received his Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from California State University, Fullerton.

Illustration and design
In 1971, Nagel worked as a graphic designer for ABC Television, producing graphics for promotions and news broadcasts. The following year, he began work as a freelance artist for major corporations and magazines, including Architectural Digest, Harper's Magazine, IBM, ITT Corporation, MGM, Oui, Rolling Stone, United Artists, and Universal Studios.

Nagel produced album covers for recording artists such as Tommy James, Charlene, Thelma Houston and Cissy Houston. Nagel's 1982 painting for the album cover of rock group Duran Duran's hit album Rio became one of his better known images.

He worked for many commercial clients, including Intel, Lucky Strike cigarettes, Ballantine's Whiskey, and Budweiser.

Nagel contributed to Playboy magazine between August 1975 and July 1984, with one of his paintings being published in every issue, most notably in the Playboy Advisor, Playboy Forum and Playboy After Hours columns. This helped to improve his exposure to a wider audience and encouraged the popularity of "the Nagel Woman" image. He created roughly 285 pieces of art work for Playboy during his career. In the early part of his time with Playboy he was given very specific illustration instructions, but that ended sometime between 1977 and 1978; thereafter, Nagel chose his theme and approach and submitted his work for approval before publication. In 1993, roughly nine years after Nagel's death, his widow Jennifer Dumas went into litigation with Playboy over the rights to the artwork published in the magazine. See Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Dumas.

The Nagel woman
In 1977, Nagel made his first poster image for Mirage Editions, with whom he printed many images, his most famous being those of "Nagel women". The "Nagel woman" was developed over time and increased in popularity after Nagel began publishing his work with Playboy in 1975. The women were drawn as "Nagel's ideal woman". His female figures tended to have black hair, and bright white skin. Nagel worked with many models, including Playboy Playmates Cathy St. George, Tracy Vaccaro and Shannon Tweed, and also painted several celebrity portraits, including those of Joan Collins and Joanna Cassidy.

There has been much discussion about the inspiration for Nagel's style; since little is known about Nagel's art background, there is no definite answer to this.

"'Like some of the old print masters (Toulouse-Lautrec and Bonnard, for example), Nagel was influenced by the Japanese woodblock print, with figures silhouetted against a neutral background, with strong areas of black and white, and with bold line and unusual angles of view. He handled colors with rare originality and freedom; he forced perspective from flat, two-dimensional images; and he kept simplifying, working to convey more with fewer elements. His simple and precise imagery is also reminiscent of the art-deco style of the 1920s and 1930s- its sharp linear treatment, geometric simplicity, and stylization of form yield images that are formal yet decorative.'"

Art historians have speculated that he may have been influenced by Japanese-style art, but there is no specific evidence for that. His mapmaking experiences in Vietnam possibly did more to steer him into high contrast imagery than anything else.

Death
Nagel died February 4, 1984, after participating in a 15-minute celebrity "aerobathon" to raise funds for the American Heart Association in Santa Monica. An autopsy determined his cause of death was a heart attack, and a further autopsy revealed that Nagel had a congenital heart defect that went undetected his entire life. He was survived by his wife, Jennifer Dumas, and his daughter from a previous marriage, Carole Nagel LaVigne. Against his parents' wishes and through no direction attributable to him, Patrick Nagel was cremated and his ashes scattered over the Pacific Ocean.

Legacy
Nagel's works "capture the emotional state of an era: 1980s American desire, collective materialistic aspiration, a Less than Zero state of mind", said Alex Israel, whom Duran Duran hired to create the album art for their 2015 release Paper Gods, which visually references Nagel's famous Rio cover.

Art market
Nagel prints flooded the market in the 1980s. Nagel's manager, Karl Bornstein, president of Mirage Editions Inc., continued publication of Nagel's works after his death, including open edition prints and mass-market posters. In addition, in 1991, the FBI discovered and dismantled a counterfeiting ring which flooded the market with forged serigraphs. While this contributed to Nagel's cultural ubiquity—Nagel artwork was in a reported two million homes worldwide—it also served to exploit the brand and ultimately, dramatically lowered its value.

By 2019, the market showed signs of a comeback, with one of his original works from 1982 selling for $112,500 at auction, nearly doubling its estimated value, while limited-run silkscreen posters can go for several thousand dollars. Nagel has also had a resurgence in the form of collaborations with mass-market brands. In 2020, fast fashion retailer Forever 21 launched an apparel collection featuring Nagel portraits.

In popular culture

 * Moonbeam City a 2015 cartoon series featuring the voices of Rob Lowe and Elizabeth Banks, presented a retro-futuristic world reminiscent of the late 1980s, populated by characters modeled after the works of Nagel.
 * Grand Theft Auto: Vice City appropriated Nagel's visual style for its distinctive packaging and advertising campaign. The game became a cultural touchstone and the fastest-selling game in history at the time.
 * In the 2010 film Hot Tub Time Machine a Nagel painting is prominently displayed in the ski lodge.
 * In the 2017 Marvel film Thor: Ragnarok after Thor reunites with The Hulk and the Hulk transforms back to Dr. Bruce Banner, Dr. Banner wears a shirt emblazoned with a Nagel painting. (Duran Duran's Rio T-Shirt)
 * In the 2007 animated series Xavier: Renegade Angel, a character refers to Patrick Nagel's death during the time-travel sequence of the episode "World of Hurt, BC".
 * In the 2011 American Dad! episode "Fart-Break Hotel", teenager Steve travels back in time after being enamoured by a Nagel painting. Steve discovers that he is the model in the painting, with the shock returning him to his time.
 * Dirty Sanchez's 2004 song Fucking on the Dancefloor, contains the lyric "You're as fake as a beauty shop Nagel" referencing the cheaply produced, mass-market posters that flooded the |art market in the 80s and were hung in low-rent beauty salons around the world.
 * According to author Neil Gaiman, the character Desire in his acclaimed comic book series The Sandman was visually inspired in part by "the sexy, androgynous prints created by artist Patrick Nagel that seemed to be everywhere in the early 1980s".

title: Patrick Nagel


text:
Wright Brothers flights of 1909

Airplane inventors Wilbur and Orville Wright are famed for making the first controlled, powered, heavier-than-air flights on 17 December 1903 at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Lesser-known are other flights of theirs which played an important role at the dawn of aviation history. In 1909 Wilbur was invited by the Hudson-Fulton Celebration Committee to make paid exhibition flights to help mark 300 years of New York history, including Henry Hudson discovering Manhattan and Robert Fulton starting a successful commercial steamboat service on the Hudson River. The committee wanted the Wrights to demonstrate flights over the water around New York City. Orville was making flights for customers in Germany, so Wilbur, who had just finished training U.S. Army pilots, accepted the job.

The flights
Another acclaimed aviator, Glenn Curtiss, had agreed to participate. Curtiss had recently set the world airspeed record in France, and the Wrights had just filed suit against him for patent infringement of their control systems. The public's anticipation was fueled by news of the patent disputes. These flights would be a showdown between the two fliers.

They were both scheduled to make a series of flights from Governors Island in New York harbor. On September 29, Wilbur took off at 9:15 AM in windy conditions. Curtiss felt his airplane could not handle the winds and he declined to fly. When Curtiss admitted defeat to the wind, Wilbur is supposed to have said to him, 'It looks pretty good. I think I will take a little spin in a few minutes.' He flew for about two miles, which took a little longer than seven minutes.

Later that day Wilbur took off again, at 10:18 AM. He flew over the ocean liner Lusitania and a flotilla of other watercraft on hand for the Hudson-Fulton celebration, many blowing their horns and tooting their whistles when the Flyer appeared overhead. As Wilbur flew toward the Statue of Liberty, many onlookers feared he would crash into it, but he skillfully circled the statue as planned. This flight caused a sensation in the press and became an iconic event, despite lasting less than five minutes.

Still unable to fly in the gusty weather, Curtiss had to depart for St. Louis due to a prior agreement. He was supposed to have flown up the Hudson River for several miles and returned to Governors Island.

Wilbur knew that if the engine failed and he had to set down, his skids would bite into the water, throwing him forward into the wires crisscrossing between the forward struts and possibly injuring him. As the wood-and-cloth wings would begin to settle and sink under the weight of the engine, they could drag him down before he could disentangle himself. So when Wilbur arrived on Governors Island, south of Manhattan, on the morning of September 29, he and Charlie Taylor, his mechanic, had made a strange modification to the Flyer: Beneath the lower wing, they had slung a bright red canoe, which Wilbur had purchased a few days earlier from the H&D Folsom Arms Company. A top-of-the-line Indian Girl canoe made by the Rushton Canoe Company, it featured a sturdy 16-foot frame made of northern white cedar, which Rushton claimed was nearly a third lighter than other cedars.

The canoe’s light weight (approximately 60 pounds) and sturdy construction attracted mostly Adirondack hunters and anglers used to portaging around rapids and waterfalls. Wright was drawn not only by these features but also by the canoe’s aerodynamic shape. To reduce drag, Wilbur had removed the Flyer’s second passenger seatback, and for waterproofing had tightly sealed the open canoe top with nailed-down canvas. In essence, the canoe turned the Flyer into the world’s first floatplane. Wilbur hoped that in the event the engine failed and the airplane ended up in the water, the canoe would keep the aircraft afloat. With luck, as the airplane glided into the water, the canoe might even hold the craft upright. As the airplane floated, the pilot would have time to extricate himself and swim away. The addition of a life vest next to him, which he could don before swimming clear, suggests that Wilbur had characteristically thought the matter through and come up with a contingency plan.

A blown engine cylinder that afternoon prevented any more flights. This series of flights marked Wilbur's last flying before a public audience.

On Monday, October 4, Wilbur took off at 9:53 AM. He flew north over the Hudson along the west shore of Manhattan, passing Grant's Tomb, then returned by the same route, finishing the 21 mile, 33-minute flight with a safe landing on Governor's Island. As many as a million people witnessed the flight. This was the exact flight that Curtiss had been unable to make. Before the flight, Wilbur attached a red canoe to the bottom of the airplane as a safety precaution in case of an emergency landing in the water. After Wilbur's death in 1912, Orville put the canoe in Hawthorn Hill, his estate in Oakwood, Ohio, as a memento. This first airborne canoe was later moved to Carillon Historical Park in Ohio and exhibited in a room adjacent to the Wright Flyer III in Wright Hall.

The flight around the Statue of Liberty was duplicated on May 26, 2003 by the Dayton 'Wright B Flyer, Inc.' group, with a replica of the Wright airplane as a part of the celebrations of the anniversary of the Wright brothers' first flight.

title: Wright Brothers flights of 1909


text:
Talk:Commoner (disambiguation)

Commoners
I think this definition is not quite precise enough. As shown by the example of Sir Alexander Ramsey (cited in the article on Princess Alexandra), having a title does not stop one being a commoner. I think that, in terms of royal marriages, "commoner" actually means one who is not of royal blood, rather than one who is not of noble blood. Opinions? Deb 19:10 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Sir Alexander Ramsay had a Knighthood. Just having a Knightood did not mean that you were no longer a Commoner. If you were a Lord (i.e. a Peer - Baron, Earl, Viscount, Marquis, Duke, or Lord Of Parliament) you would not be a Commoner. Anyone can be a Knight (as long as their male). Princes and Kings can Knighted. That title has NOTHING to do with Royal blood.Indisciplined (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I do not believe that the category of "commoner" has any legal consequences in England at the present time, so it is slightly misleading to say "in British law...." since that implies that there is some currency to the idea. It might be that the more popular meaning is really "correct" simply because it is the current usage. I may, of course, be wrong about it and would be interested to have some law cited at me to the contrary. There is also no such thing as "British law". Francis Davey 01:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The fruits of legal research suggest that there *might* be a distinction, although I am not sure if the one made on this page is either correct or right -- as I will explain. However searching through a standard legal encylopedia (Halsbury's) for English law, the vast majority of usages of the word "commoner" are for people who have rights of common. Surely this should be under this entry and the usage of commoner that is here put somewhere else?

 * What difference does being a commoner make? Well, in the first place the procedure used at a trial for impeachment is different -- but since there haven't been any of those for such an inordinate time, I do not believe that makes any real difference and it only appears to have made a difference to procedure.

 * As to sitting in the House of Commons, things were always more complicated than is expressed below, eg many people were unable to sit (eg clergy), but I believe that Irish peers were. Now of course being a peer does not stop you sitting (nor does being a clerk). In theory Prince Charles could sit as an MP of the House of Commons, although whether he would get elected is another matter.

 * Otherwise, the only difference I can find is that -- according to Halsbury's -- mesne process etc cannot be levied against a peer. I doubt that is anymore correct, or it shouldn't be.

 * Speaking as a practising lawyer, it worries me that we have here defined in "law" a term, which appears to have no practical application and is never used except by people obsessed with royalty etc. Whereas "commoner" does mean something useful and practical. Francis Davey 01:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is entirely wrong. In British law, a Commoner is someone who is not a Peer or the Sovereign. No Commoner is a Peer, and no Peer is a Commoner. Any member of the Royal Family who is not a Peer (e.g. The Princess Royal, Princes William and Harry, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie) is a Commoner, and can legally vote and stand in elections for the House of Commons. Proteus 13:53 GMT 1st December 2003
 * Can you back this up with a reference please ? I'm pretty sure you are correct but would like some evidence. If you are able to cite a reference, and are therfore certain, then just go ahead and rewrite the page. theresa knott 14:27, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * From the BritFAQ of the usenet group alt.talk.royalty:

 * "Who is a Commoner in Britain?

 * Anyone who is not the sovereign or the holder of a substantive (as opposed to courtesy) peerage. This includes all members of the royal family who are not peers, and all members of peerage families except the actual peer: for example, Prince William of Wales, the Princess Royal, the earl of Arundel (son of a duke) are all commoners.

 * While this definition is legally correct, it seems counter-intuitive to many, in part because it is so different from the continental usage. This tends to generate confusion and debates, and use of the word should perhaps be avoided where possible."

 * I'll probably rewrite the page when I have some time. Proteus 11:16 GMT 4th December 2003

This page could use some discussion of commoners in countries other than the UK. I believe most monarchies have such a distinction. Nate 04:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Titles do not determine anything. A person can have all the titles they want, granted by any monarchy, however, if that person is not descended directly from royalty or noblity recently or sometime in the past the title means nothing. They are still a commoner. In the past, to be a commoner was to be without royal or noble blood and it had nothing to do with titles. RosePlantagenet 03:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * No, that's total nonsense. To re-state: A Peer is a reigning monarch or current holder of a Peerage. Anyone else is a Commoner. It really is that simple. It has nothing to do with Royal Blood. Very few modern Peers claim descent from Royalty. Instead there ancestors got their hereditary titles as reward for service or for having held high office. Holding such a title means your are a Peer and not a Commoner.

 * Historically, holding a peerage in Britain gave you and automatic seat in the House of Lords, but barred you from sitting in the other chamber of Parliament, the one legally reserved for Commoners, and therefore known as The House of Commons. Any member of the House of Commons who inherited a Peerage therefore ceased to be a Commoner and legally lost the right to their seat there (in the 1960s a new law was passed allowing Lords to legally give up their titles, and become commoners again, in order that they could sit in the Commons, see Tony Benn). Since the early 21st Century reforms to Parliament, it is for the first time possible for a Peer to sit in the House of Commons.

 * 'Peer' in Britain is the holder of a specific kind of office. Anyone who does not hold such an office is by default a Commoner. Indisciplined (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely the fact that Prince William of Wales is a member of the royal family contradicts any other laws about this peerage nonsense? --Camaeron 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Ironic, yes. But he's legally a commoner till they make him a Duke, or he gets the top job Indisciplined (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's counter-intuitive to many, especially to the many royals and titles fans who eagerly participate in royals websites, to say that anyone but the monarch and peers is a commoner. They can't accept it. Those fans want to believe that "Lady This" or "Prince That" cannot possibly be on the same level as "Mr. That" or "Miss This." But it's true. In practice, ANY member of the royal family (even non-royals, such as the children of Princesses Margaret and Anne) is regarded by the royals fan base as a royal and not as a mere commoner, and anyone called "Lord" or "Lady" is thought not to be a commoner either. This is especially true among Americans, who have no experience of titles and who don't understand the concept of "courtesy" titles. They don't get it. So, this article needs to be rewritten with this problem in mind; it needs to address the confusion directly. And while discussing the differences between British and Continental usages is very important, it should also be kept in mind that most people anxiously concerned about the matter, and who might be consulting an English-language Wiki article, are British royals fans whose interest is in the British royal family and peerage.Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(GS) I have another aspect of the status of "commoners" in the UK that I have not seen here. I'm happy to have it repiated, but I think a factor has been forgotten. By my understanding, a "commoner" must also be a landowner. If someone is not a landowner, they rank below commomner. Historically that would have been peasant, serf, labourer or similar, and likely quite skilled people like blacksmiths, cartwrights, shipwrights and so on.

Two Definitions of 'Commoners'
There are, in my opinion, two different definitions of 'commoners': the "more common" definition is anyone who is not of royal title or of nobility (with peerage - real or even courtesy). The 'royal' definition, a more continental Europe one, seems to be anyone who is not royal. For example, the Countess Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde (Queen Elizabeth II's great-great-grandmother on Queen Mary's side) was a member of nobility and would certainly be classified as someone with peerage by British definition, but she was viewed as a commoner among the 19th century German and continental European royals using the second definition, as the royals thumped their noses at her. --JNZ (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a confusion between British & (Old) German Law. Under the later there were two definitions of nobility: High nobles & Low Nobles. The former were nobles 'for time out of mind' while the later were those of "recent" creation and had usualy held letters of patent. All high nobles are equals (peers) irrespective of their particular title (if they have one). 'Royals' under German law are high nobles and as such it was illegal to marry out of their class. Although all ruling Princes in Germany were High nobles -- many other high nobles were not rulers and could be little more than a Lord of Manor but still be the peer of an ruling prince.

Low Nobles held letters of patent (from ruling princes) were recent creations (post 1400) and often they were more likely to have a 'title'. For continental (& German) nobility - a title was not a requirement for being a noble, but all titled persons were nobles (either high or low). Countess Claudine was NOT a commoner (under German Law) but she was a Low Noble and therefore not a peer to a High Noble - so her marrage was morganatic - under German Law.

Even though her children (through the grant of patent) were created a Dukes and Princes, she and her childeren would be Low Nobles....this doesn't seem to have bothered the British Royal Family who married one them. Jalipa (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 * There may be some confusion of the continental use of the word 'Countess' as opposed to it's use in Britain. Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde was a 'Countesss' as a courtesy title as the daughter of a peer. That would be equivalent to holding the courtesy title 'Lady' in Britain because your father was an Earl or Duke. Claudine was NOT actually a Peer in her own right. That makes her equivalent in rank to say Lady Diana Spencer before her marriage to Prince Charles. But where British Royals could marry Commoners freely with no consequence for inheritance rights, a German Prince who married outside his class would be classified as having entered into a Morganatic Marriage, and the children of that marriage were legally barred from the succession - as Claudine's were. Claudine's son was easily able to marry a British Princess, as there were no legal issues around the family's 'low' ancestory in Britain. For that reason, a whole stream of Morganauts (children of Morganatic Marriages) headed to Britain in the 19th Century (like the Tecks and Battenbergs), as the marriage prospects were considerably better than back home. Indisciplined (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved Kotniski (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Commoners in Great Britain → Commoners in the United Kingdom — As far as I know, this covers Northern Ireland and well as Great Britain. The Celestial City (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure but I don't think it does. There are separate articles for Peerage of Great Britain and Peerage of the United Kingdom Mhiji (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And the article on Peerage of Great Britain states that it was replaced by Peerage of the United Kingdom in 1801, so what is the objection to the proposal? Skinsmoke (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Peerage of Great Britain just refers to peerages established in the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800). I don't think that has any consequence on this article. There is also a Peerage of England and a Peerage of Scotland, again unrelated. The Celestial City (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article is wrong
even the cited sources disagree with this article. The first source makes the point that English law doesn't distinguish between nobility and commoners, this is reiterated when the three estates are listed as knight, parson, ploughman, none of which are peers. is commoner even a legal class in the UK? The claim that Kate Middleton is the 1st commoner to marry an heir in 350 means that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons is not a commoner, neither was Camilla 71.194.44.209 (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't know of a current legal use for the term "commoner" (as used in this article) which ever comes up in practice, nor can I immediately think of one. When I (rarely) use the term "commoner" in a legal context it refers to someone with a right of common. Even the Crown could (theoretically) be a commoner of that kind. Francis Davey (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I can't think of any valid meaning for the claim about Kate being the first commoner for 350 years... I don't think we should include it in the article; just because a few journalists have parroted it doesn't make it true or notable.--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Camilla is the granddaughter of a Baron, so she certainly has some noble blood. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is the daughter of an Earl, so again she has noble blood. While they are both technically commoners, it is obviously understandable that Kate Middleton could be branded "the first commoner to marry an heir in 350 years" by those that consider a commoner to be someone with no noble blood. 122.57.99.154 (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There was some discussion about this in the Guardian around the time of the recent royal wedding, it seems that there is no generally accepted definition of the term "commoner" in Britain, different people use it differently. Although Kate Middleton was undoubtedly a commoner, whether some other recent royal brides were is open to interpretation. This article raises problems, are we better off without it? PatGallacher (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are multiple issues with this article.The first sentence and a half seem full of dubious statements :"In British law, a commoner is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as Prince Harry of Wales or Anne, Princess Royal, is (technically) a commoner." What law? How can a member of the Royal Family be "technically" a commoner? The reference to a 19th century work does say that the younger sons of the sovereign are commoners until they are given peerages - this seems to be operating on the idea that anyone who could at that time have voted in the House of Commons was a commoner and everyone but the monarch and peers could vote in the House of Commons. It would need attention from a very expert person in British law and constitution to work out if this really is a matter of law or of some conventional wording. In any case, the term "commoner" is never applied to royalty and anyone who has "HRH" before their name is royal, also HM of course. To say that anyone who has a royal title such as HRH The Princess Royal is "technically a commoner" is quite ludicrous even if it is founded on some arcane text, it is never used that way, it is very misleading and it should be removed. In fact the article seems to be attempting to define "commoner" and coming up with what are at best extremely rarefied and obscure usages, that is if they are not downright false. I would answer PatGallacher's question "Is wikipedia better off without this article?" in the affirmative.Smeat75 (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Having thought about this further, I believe that all that needs to be said on the subject "Commoners in the UK" is succinctly stated by http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commoner?region=uk "commoner Pronunciation: /ˈkɒmənə/ noun 1one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy or to royalty: this is the story of the commoner who married a king 2a person who has a right over another’s land, e.g. for pasturage or mineral extraction: commoners' centuries-old grazing rights cattle and ponies owned by the commoners 3(at some British universities) an undergraduate who does not have a scholarship: a commoner’s gown

Origin: Middle English (denoting a citizen or burgess): from medieval Latin communarius, from communa, communia 'community', based on Latin communis (see common)"

This does not involve convoluted and tortured logic whereby we wind up being told that royal Princes and Princesses are "technically commoners." That dictionary definition is all that anybody needs to know on the subject and it is Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DICTIONARY. My intention is to nominate this article for deletion but I will leave it for a little while at least, partly for the reason that I am a very new editor and also to see if anyone wants to discuss it or objects.Smeat75 (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I'd go along with that. Francis Davey (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent discussion about deleting this article
This article was nominated for deletion and that discussion was closed by an admin with the comment:"The result was no consensus. To delete, that is. But consensus that this should be editorially improved, e.g. by making it a dab page."[]. I am not sure what articles a disambiguation page should link to, so I will not attempt to do that, but if others want to, or want to discuss it here, that would be fine. I am removing the tags on the article as it was considerably improved during the AfD discussion, and ask that the assertions about members of the royal family being "technically commoners", which have been deleted, be not put back into the article without a reliable source.Smeat75 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a go at a disambiguation page version. Mcewan (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good in my opinion, thank you for doing that.Smeat75 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a number of incoming links from redirects from the university terms Fellow Commoner, Gentleman Commoner etc and their variants. Explanation of these is not really appropriate for a disambiguation page but I have nevertheless inserted some notes from the previous text. It's possible that we should have an article about this usage Commoner (British universities) perhaps, or alternatively remove the incoming links (i.e. treat it as a dictionary problem). Mcewan (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I really wish someone would be thoughtful enough to notify WikiProject Disambiguation whenever the suggestion to "convert this to a dab page" comes up in a deletion discussion. No one who offered this suggestion made any reference to any of the relevant guidelines concerning the role of disambiguation pages on Wikipedia.  With regret, this is not performing that role correctly at the moment.  The function of a disambiguation page is to assist readers in navigation among multiple encyclopedia articles that might plausibly bear the same (or very similar) titles.  There are at most one, or maybe at a stretch two, articles on this list that might conceivably be entitled "Commoners in the United Kingdom."  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Legally / Technically a commoner
See Peerage and the Peerage law for some possible origins of this notion. Mcewan (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Commoner (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Artur Schnabel

Comment
Nice article, Camebert. Just stumbled across it. Schnabel is another musician I admire. And another musician admired by many of his contemporaries... ;-)  --  Viajero 19:12 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm certainly not going to argue about that one :-) Thanks--Camembert

 * Very gratifying to read the words of other Schabel enthusiasts! I totally agree with you. Schnabel is still for many people (certainly for me) the last word in musical profundity. My old professor, Ilse Graham (a German Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany), told me in the mid-1970s how her brother, Kurt Appelbaum, had studied the piano under Schnabel back in Berlin in the early 1930s. Ilse knew Schnabel well and told me that "one always had the feeling that he was on the side of Life" and that the most remarkable thing about his playing (in her view) was "the remarkable balance between intellect and intuition" which characterised it. I would agree with that! She also mentioned how he was an extremely witty man, and was equally "the neatest man I ever met" in terms of his dress sense. She also told me how powerfully he played Beethoven's Emperor Concerto (she heard him give a performance of this at the Royal Albert Hall, I think). But I always feel that Schnabel was at heart a mystic: music for him was his way of accessing a deep spiritual realm, a realm created from a mysterious and divinely vibrating intangible substance, called sound, and he was able to attune himself to those higher spiritual dimensions. His own compositions also always contain, in their slow movements, a sense of mystery, the sense of entering a strange new world. Anyway, I once asked Ilse whether Schnabel was a religious man, and she replied: "music was his religion". She further said that he "always gave the impression that he had a special line 'up there'" (meaning to the Divine). Does anyone else feel that this is so true? I still have not heard a better performance - more profound and utterly spiritual - than his two recorded performances of Beethoven's last piano sonata (Opus 111). Also, his four recordings of Beethoven's Fourth Piano Concerto are so filled with rippling vitality, power and are utterly entrancing. As you can see, I am intoxicated with Schnabel's life-filled and deeply penetrating playing. Personally, I think he stands alone -  perhaps matched by Cortot in a different repertoire, or Fischer. I hope these reminiscences of my old professor (long dead) might be of interest to followers of the great Artur Schnabel! - Tony (Dr. Tony Page) TonyMPNS

looking for music
Hello! I too enjoyed this article very much. A friend of mine is looking for the score of Schnabel's "Notturno für Singstimme und Klavier, nach einem Text von Richard Dehmel." I've had no luck finding it in on World Cat (which probably means that no North American library has it). Does anyone have any ideas about how to obtain it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skrebs (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Place of birth?
The Schnabel Music Foundation's biography of Schnabel (viewable here) says that Schnabel was born in Lipnik, Moravia. There is a town known as Lipník nad Bečvou in the Czech Republic's Olomouc Region (and the Wikipedia entry for the latter says that the Olomouc region corresponds to "the historical region of Moravia"). Could an authoritative source for identifying the birthplace as Lipnik, Poland, rather than Lipník nad Bečvou please be given? Some clarification would be appreciated. Reihe (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think much of the confusion about Schnabel's birthplace stems from the rather complicated changing geo-political history of that part of Central Europe in the 19th to 20th Century (which, I hasten to add, I am not an expert on).

Anyway, it is what is now Lipnik, a borough of what is now Bielsko-Biala in Poland. But which in Schnabel's time was "Kunzendorf" in "Bielitz" in the Silesian part of the Austrian (or Austro-Hungarian) Empire, in the region then also known as Galicia.

Hence the violinist Carl Flesch, who was a close friend of Schnabel, wrote in his memoirs that Schnabel was born "in Bielitz, in a corner of Galicia". Or, for the ultimate in authoritative sources, let's hear it from Schnabel himself (edited extract from "My Life and Music" - autobiographical lectures given at the University of Chicago, 1945; Dover/Smythe edition, 1988):

 * "I was born in a small Austrian village, which belonged to the Austrian part of Poland... my birthplace [Kunzendorf/Lipnik] was tiny and rather poor - a kind of suburb to a small town. This small town [Biala] was the twin to a larger town [Bielitz] which one reached over a bridge. The other town [Biala] belonged to the Austrian province of Silesia. Bielitz was the name of the largest, as long as it belonged to Austria; after the First World War it came to Poland and is now named Bielsko."

The Artur Schnabel exhibition at the Academie der Kuenste in Berlin in 2001 stated that Schnabel was born "in Lipnik in Bielitz in the Silesian part of the Austrian Empire (now Bielsko-Biala in Poland)". (Which is the correct summary, except that the German name for Lipnik was Kunzendorf, as it was called at the time of his birth. As Schnabel pointed out with Bielitz, the German placenames were changed over when it became Poland after the First World War with the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.)

Hope that helps. --Whimsical Oracle (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, the current article version says "today Lipnik, Moravia, Czech Republic" which is incorrect. I've edited it to revert back to "today Lipnik, Poland" or more precisely to "today Lipnik, Biala-Bielsko, Poland" (as I explained above).--Whimsical Oracle (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Article in need of improvement
I think the current article version is a good general essay on Schnabel, but there are some inaccurancies or misleading statements, eg.;

"Schnabel studied piano from the age of seven in Vienna under Theodor Leschetizky"

Actually, he had his first piano lessons at age 4, then at age 6 he was taught by a Professor Hans Schmitt in Vienna. He began studies with Leschetizky at aged 9, in 1891.

"...rather than playing the showy virtuoso pieces by composers like Franz Liszt which were popular in the late 19th century, he chose to concentrate on Germanic classics..."

This gives the impression to readers that he didn't play Liszt etc. Actually he did play Liszt in his prime before the war, until the 1930s when he dropped them from his repertoire to concentrate on the core Austro-Germanic classical composers. Arrau and Horowitz recalled hearing Schnabel performing the Liszt B minor sonata, the Mephisto waltz, the E-flat piano concerto (Schnabel himself mentions that in My Life And Music), as well as in other composers such as Chopin, Schumann, Weber, before the war. And Schnabel himself said, he was regarded as a Brahmsian before he was regarded as a Beethovenian.

"disregard his own technical limitations in pursuit of his musical ideals"

While it is true that, as with other great pianists, technical accuracy was less important to him than the bigger musical picture, the popularly held view that Schnabel was technically limited is debateable. This myth seems to have gained currency due to the well-known quip by Rosenthal that Schnabel had "no fingers", and also from his recordings of the 30s and 40s when he was past his prime. Arrau recalled Schnabel as being "flawless" before the 1930s, a view supported by Horowitz who heard Schnabel in a performance of the Chopin piano sonata no.2 and was mightily impressed by his technique in the final movement. A number of reasons have been suggested for Schnabel's evident deterioration in technique after the 1930s; eg. Arrau believed that it was because Schnabel was psychologically traumatized by being uprooted from his Germanic nourishing ground when he fled Germany in 1933 due to the rise of Nazism, while Horowitz thought Schnabel damaged his technique when he started playing too much Beethoven to the exclusion of everything else.

I hope people don't mind if I rewrite the article to take account of the above points, as well as expand on the biography (with references of course).--Whimsical Oracle (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Hello Whimsical Oracle. Thanks for your excellent comments. I think that what you are proposing (in order to improve the article) is very good indeed - especially your points about Schnabel's technique. I personally think his technique was in many instances unique - especially the manner in which he could create a legato that was so perfect that all the notes seem to blend into one flow of sound - extraordinary achievement on a piano! I have never, ever, heard any other pianist manage this feat so successfully. I think that the quip about "no fingers" hints at this: it was as if Schnabel was not playing individual notes with individual fingers (in the faster passages), but was passing his whole hand across an unbroken scan of notes that melt into each other. Yes, when he was younger, he was apparently a real virtuoso (in the usual sense) and could stagger people with his Liszt, etc. Also, even in the recordings, his playing has such unique vitality, such life - it is as if music is not "just music" any more: it is a living, breathing, "speaking" organism, communicating its emotions directly to us. With Schnabel, music becomes Life itself! I find that some pianists simply don't "get" Schnabel: they hear him rush and hit a few wrong notes, and they think his technique is terrible. But what they fail to appreciate is that he rushes because he is swept away on a flood-tide of excitement. He lives the music. When we are excited, we don't maintain a monotonous tone or same speed of speech - we speed up! He is not some sterile, bookish pedant. He IS the music he performs - and the rushing and note-fluffs are part and parcel of life, which is never perfect - always striving for something higher. Again (as I said in my much earlier comments above), Schnabel was essentially a mystic. It is the communicated spirit of the music that mattered far more to Schnabel than mere technical perfection. But after all this is said and done, his technique was remarkable - even in his final recordings (the Schubert Impromptus). Listen (again!) to the pearling legato in some of those cascading passages. He remains unrivalled to this day (do you sense that I am a Schnabel fan?!). Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS (talk)

 * Hello Tony, many thanks for your very interesting comments. I didn't realize the Rosenthal quip could be interpreted as a compliment - I see what you mean! I agree with your views and points made, which I think can be summed up, or was what was meant, by Leschetizky's oft-quoted remark that he was "a musician", not (merely) a pianist. Certainly I think there should be a subsection written about his technique and repertoire, as well as his legacy and influence on modern pianism (which is one of the reasons he remains much admired by pianists and pianophiles). I hope to do some editing of the article soon when I have the time, in the spirit of Wikipedia, and I hope you (and anyone else for that matter) will also contribute the benefit of your knowledge. Kind regards--Whimsical Oracle (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Whimsical Oracle, for your nice comments. I appreciate your words and what you are trying to do here. More power to you! All the best. From Tony. TonyMPNS (talk)

 * Thank you again, Whimsical Oracle, for the major improvements that you have now made to the Schnabel entry. It reads much better now. Thanks again. All the best. From Tony. TonyMPNS (talk)

 * Thanks Tony for your appreciation. I plan to do a lot more on it, but that's just a start. Kind regards, --Whimsical Oracle (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say that I think this is a great article! I happen to also be a great admirer of Schnabel, but, that aside, this article is very clearly and well written. The only thing that might be added is an overview of his key recordings... 69.122.71.171 (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro Unjustly Watered Down
Someone has drastically watered down the introductory comments on Schnabel as a musician of world-class level. Saying that he is merely 'sometimes' considered to be a world-class pianist of the 20th century is absurd, as is simply saying that his performances of Beethooven and Schubert have been 'praised'. Far too weak! Most serious books and reference works on music rank Schnabel as one of the greats of pianism in the 20th century (see Groves, for example), and his performances of Beethoven's sonatas are not simply praised but regarded as legends and held by many experts as the touchstone 'by which all other performances are measured.' (Penguin Cassette Guide). I shall change the wording to an appropriate re-formulation accordingly. Anoot7 (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Repertoire section - questioning the ending
I've just read this page and came across this statement at the end of the Repertoire section …

"Schnabel is known for his editions of the Beethoven piano sonatas in particular. His editions are widely considered to be the best and most informed. However, in Beethoven's Sonata op. 106 no. 29 he wrote in a repeated fingering (3-3) when it should clearly be (3-5). For this reason, Schnabel should henceforth be canceled."

Many questions arising from this … 1. Who wrote it? 2. What does "henceforth canceled" mean? 3. Why should Schnabel be "henceforth canceled"? 4. Does this violate Wikipedia policies?

I'm wondering if this was written in another language and this is a translation issue, or if it is a malicious edit. This paragraph seems extreme to me. Dalsegnomusic (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalsegnomusic (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Klaviersonate Nr. 23 f-moll op. 57 Appassionata - I. Allegro assai.ogg
 * Klaviersonate Nr. 23 f-moll op. 57 Appassionata - II. Andante con moto.oga
 * Klaviersonate Nr. 23 f-moll op. 57 Appassionata - III. Allegro ma non troppo.ogg

title: Talk:Artur Schnabel


text:
Talk:First canoe to fly

I wrote this on h2g2. I copied it over here

Researcher number U201497

Jodan

 * Can I ask why you titled it this way? It seems like a very confusing title, and the article is excellent enough that it ought to be read.  Can anyone suggest a better title?  I haven't looked at what we already have on the Wrights/early aviation/etc.  Jwrosenzweig 19:39 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wright Brothers flights of 1909? Evercat 19:43 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, since there have been no comments, I'll make the move... Evercat 18:45, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I originally titled it 'The First Canoe to Fly Around the Statue of Liberty' on h2g2, but the redirect is fine. I'm new to wikipedia, so any help is useful - Jodan

title: Talk:First canoe to fly