text:
User talk:AC

Hello, AC. Welcome to Wikipedia.

A few tips for you to start going. (I'll send more if I see that I can help you :-)

 * Check out Welcome, newcomers + the links in there.
 * Sign your stuff on talk pages with ~ It will convert to your username + the time.
 * If puzzled, put a question on Village pump, or feel free to ask me on my talk page if it's a very general question.
 * Have fun.

-- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:15 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Gary Groth
AC, do you have a reference (issue #/date) for that Gary Groth quote? Is it from the Peter Bagge zine "I Hate Comics?" --Gothamgazette 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Ahem, that's "I Like Comics!" #1, (tho' there's a little caricature of Groth on the cover saying "I hate comics!". Yes, the quote's from there, but I was a dope and didn't check the wording, so the lead in might not be "a man should", possibly it's something slightly different.  Please correct it if its mistaken; if not I'll check it soon.

 * At any rate, the quote seems to fit the paragraph, prior versions of which seemed a little prejudiced. --AC 07:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I agree that it was biased (not a Freudian slip, I promise). Thanks for digging that up!--Gothamgazette 03:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have undertaken the tweaks as discussed. Dgabbard (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Attitude
The attitude you're slinging at me on Talk:Comics is getting annoying.

First of all, please stop calling me "Tv". Either address me by my user name, or take the trouble to find out what my first name is and use that if you want to be more informal than that. Making up a nickname for someone (especially someone you apparently dislike) is disrespectful and rude.

You seem to have a problem with the fact that Wikipedia has conventions and guidelines, and that I'm trying to follow them. "That's how we do things on Wikipedia" is sufficient reason to do it that way. It's not begging the question, it's appealing to all the prior discussions and the agreements that came out of them about how to do things here.

As one obvious example, there's the suggestion in the second bullet-point at the top of this page, for how to sign your comments on Talk pages, which really aids the readability of them. Either you didn't bother to read that, or you don't care, or you want to do things your own way just to be difficult. What's the deal with that?

I'm sorry if you don't like my style of writing here, but if you expect it to literally parrot other web sites, you're going to be disappointed, because they aren't encyclopedias. But Wikipedia is, which if you think about it, means it's going to include phrases that don't appear a lot in Google, because there's no need for them in other kinds of writing. There's a certain sort of precision needed for the housekeeping bits of an encyclopedia, and yeah, sometimes the result is a bit "dorky". Sorry. If you don't like the "tree of knowledge" approach, you've come to the wrong place, because that's what Wikipedia is all about.

AC here, long time no see Mr. V! Thanks a heap for the helpful tip on signatures, which unfortunately I'd never seen til now. Of course if failing to employ said trifle invalidates all one could say, then we may note that you must have been too busy to sign your own message above, and thus we're all sent to nit limbo.

On being both annoyed and disrespected; I'm afraid that our customs differ because annoying respect is hardly oxymoronic, unnatural, or unwholesome, at least not among the more democratic tribes. To annoy a king, super-cleric, judge or imperious power is by definition (their own) rather criminal. But freedom to annoy is the democratic way, or how else could all our totally incompatible creeds and customs coexist, especially in the endless weirdness of our USA. Here to cause no offense is to have never existed at all. The song accompanying the sermon is the excellent Shagg's "Philosophy of the World", amen.

Anyway TV, there's no malice in it, so until somebody passes broad and sweeping annoyance-crime laws, let a rugged tolerance be your shelter.

On Wikipedian conservatism being it's own justification, the counter to that is as ancient as liberalism; just because it's old or customary don't make it good enough to live forever. Rather it's the constant testing of the customary that's exactly what makes any such system viable.

On your writing style, you'd be happily wrong, since I certainly do appreciate it. It's mostly correct, it flows along, it's usually clear, it's competant, and much better than all sorts of halting gobledygook that clogs up early revisions here.

BUT... it's rare for any good thing not to have it's own peculiar weaknesses, and the good that you write, although it far outweighs it's own badness even with a couple of bad free-riders thrown on the balance for good measure... isn't limitless. Concede that, and it'd be possible to inquire as to particulars rather than stonewalling at mere opinion.

On our encyclopedias and trees, you no comprende Senor. If anyone's interested, please check out Robert Darnton's essay "Philosophers Trim the Tree of Knowledge: the Epistomological Strategy of the Encyclopédié", which can be found in his 'The Great Cat Massacre, and other episodes in French Cultural History', 1984 Vintage Books.

PS: if need be it may take another year to reply. Tempus fugit...

AC 07:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User Name
I would like to assume your handle. Would you be willing to give it up by requesting its deletion? Aconnelly 18:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, nope! If it's any consolation, I think "Aconnelly" is a perfectly good handle...

AC 2/16/06

AfD discussion
List of Marvel Comics endearments has been nominated — unfortunately, I believe — for deletion. As a contributor to that article, you might want to comment, pro or con, at | its "Articles for Deletion" discussion. --Tenebrae 05:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; as a result of which I posted a 'Keep' comment. It should be salvaged, though it's not at present a well written article. Think I'll edit it some now... --AC 08:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

anti-copyright
Hi AC, I have replied to your "rant" on the anti-copyright talk page. Your rant is a bit harsh given that you don’t know me "not interested in consensus".... I would have responded earlier if I would have seen your post, please feel free to post on my talk page (makes things easier). The article needed some serious clean-up and removal of long tagged non-ref material. Please feel free to add as you see fit (I am not sure what's stopping you). --SasiSasi (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * My opinion wasn't without qualifiers "S. ...by not discussing large deletions beforehand, seems not interested in consensus", (italics added). Glad to learn I was mistaken as to your editorial bent. More on  Talk:Anti-copyright soon...  --AC (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

JP1 Remotes
Hi AC, it appears that you added the line "In 2000 a group ..." to the JP1 remote article and then tagged yourself with a tag. The group in question was really 2 people, myself (Rob Crowe) and Dan Nelson (HW Hackr). Here's where the discovery happened: http://www.remotecentral.com/cgi-bin/mboard/rc-remote/thread.cgi?1556

I'd rather not edit the article myself as JP1 is my project, so I'll leave it to you to figure out how you want to incorporate the info. Robman94 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Tnx! I've accordingly added stuff as per the above reference.  --AC (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bill Wolverton

The article Bill Wolverton has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Inks.LWC, I'm puzzled.   There are references:  the Bill Wolverton stub article had references to two books and a link to a relevant WP article with more references about author BW's famed study, an additional link to which seems redundant.  Granted the book references aren't complete, (no pub, year, et al. -- this article is a stub), but both are accurate.  There's additional references on the 'talk' page.

 * It seems like what you probably meant to say was that the references in question didn't meet whichever exacting recent format and media type specifications WP's seemingly ever changing regulations require in a 2011 stub article. If so, please kindly try to describe what is specifically needed.--AC (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Journalista!

The article Journalista! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (media) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:AC


text:
User talk:Darkfairy86

hey. does anybody want to talk?

Hello Darkfairy, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela

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

title: User talk:Darkfairy86


text:
Han system

Han (藩, "domain") is a Japanese historical term for the estate of a daimyo in the Edo period (1603–1868) and early Meiji period (1868–1912). Han or Bakufu-han (daimyo domain) served as a system of de facto administrative divisions of Japan alongside the de jure provinces until they were abolished in the 1870s.

Pre-Edo period
The concept of han originated as the personal estates of prominent warriors after the rise of the Kamakura Shogunate in 1185, which also saw the rise of feudalism and the samurai noble warrior class in Japan. This situation existed for 400 years during the Kamakura Shogunate (1185–1333), the brief Kenmu Restoration (1333–1336), and the Ashikaga Shogunate (1336–1573). Han became increasingly important as de facto administrative divisions as subsequent Shoguns stripped the Imperial provinces (kuni) and their officials of their legal powers.

Edo period
Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the preeminent warlord of the late Sengoku period (1467–1603), caused a transformation of the han system during his reforms of the feudal structure of Japan. Hideyoshi's system saw the han become an abstraction based on periodic cadastral surveys and projected agricultural yields, rather than delineated territory. Hideyoshi died in 1598 and his young son Toyotomi Hideyori was displaced by Tokugawa Ieyasu after the Battle of Sekigahara in October 1600, but his new feudal system was maintained after Ieyasu established the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1603. The han belonged to daimyo, the powerful samurai feudal lords, who governed them as personal property with autonomy as a vassal of the Tokugawa Shogun. Ieyasu's successors further refined the system by introducing methods that ensured control of the daimyo and the imperial court. For instance, relatives and retainers were placed in politically and militarily strategic districts while potentially hostile daimyo were transferred to unimportant geographic locations or their estates confiscated. They were also occupied with public works that kept them financially drained as the daimyo paid for the bakufu projects.

Unlike Western feudalism, the value of a Japanese feudal domain was now defined in terms of projected annual income rather than geographic size. Han were valued for taxation using the Kokudaka system which determined value based on output of rice in koku, a Japanese unit of volume considered enough rice to feed one person for one year. A daimyo was determined by the Tokugawa as a lord heading a han assessed at 10,000 koku (50,000 bushels) or more, and the output of their han contributed to their prestige or how their wealth were assessed. Early Japanologists such as Georges Appert and Edmond Papinot made a point of highlighting the annual koku yields which were allocated for the Shimazu clan at Satsuma Domain since the 12th century. The Shogunal han and the Imperial provinces served as complementary systems which often worked in tandem for administration. When the Shogun ordered the daimyos to make a census of their people or to make maps, the work was organized along the borders of the provinces. As a result, a han could overlap multiple provinces which themselves contained sections of multiple han. In 1690, the richest han was the Kaga Domain, located in the provinces of Kaga, Etchū and Noto, with slightly over 1 million koku.

Meiji period
In 1868, the Tokugawa Shogunate was overthrown in the Meiji Restoration by a coalition of pro-Imperial samurai in reaction to the Bakumatsu. One of the main driving forces of the anti-Tokugawa movement was support for modernization and Westernization in Japan. From 1869 to 1871, the new Meiji government sought to abolish feudalism in Japan, and the title of daimyo in the han system was altered to han-chiji (藩知事) or chihanji (知藩事). In 1871, almost all of the domains were disbanded and replaced with a new Meiji system of prefectures which were directly subordinate to the national government in Tokyo.

However, in 1872, the Meiji government created the Ryukyu Domain after Japan formally annexed the Ryukyu Kingdom, a vassal state of the Shimazu clan of Satsuma since 1609. The Ryūkyū Domain was governed as a han headed by the Ryukyuan monarchy until it was finally abolished and became Okinawa Prefecture in March 1879.

title: Han system


text:
User:Darkfairy86

hey. im 17, im from columbus ohio... i dont know what to write here so im just going on and on. im on yahoo my id is unstitched86 and if you view my profile for unstitched86 on yahoo you will find my photo. i like to help people with problems of any sort so if you want to talk, let me know

title: User:Darkfairy86


text:
Kenny Everett

Kenny Everett (born Maurice James Christopher Cole; 25 December 1944 – 4 April 1995) was an English radio DJ and television entertainer. After spells on pirate radio and Radio Luxembourg in the mid-1960s, he was one of the first DJs to join BBC Radio's newly created BBC Radio 1 in 1967. It was here he developed his trademark voices and comical characters which he later adapted for television.

Everett was dismissed from the BBC in 1970 after making a flippant comment on air after a news item concerning a government minister's wife. He was later re-instated at the BBC, working both on local and national radio, but, in the autumn of 1973, when commercial radio became licensed in the UK, he joined Capital Radio. Starting in the late 1970s, he transitioned to television where he made numerous comedy series on ITV and BBC, often appearing with Cleo Rocos, whose glamour and curvaceous figure was often used to comic effect. Rocos would be his assistant in the 1987 BBC gameshow Brainstorm. He was a highly versatile performer, able to write his own scripts, compose jingles and operate advanced recording and mixing equipment. His personality also made him a regular guest on chat shows and game shows such as Blankety Blank.

Everett openly supported the UK's Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher and made a public appearance at the Young Conservatives conference in 1983. However, as a closeted gay man, he would face criticism for the hypocrisy of supporting a Conservative government that enacted Section 28, a clause of the Local Government Act which made it illegal for councils to promote gay rights and issues. He was diagnosed with HIV in 1989 and died in 1995.

Early life
Maurice James Christopher Cole was born on Christmas Day 1944 at 14 Hereford Road, Seaforth, 5 mi north of Liverpool city centre. From a Roman Catholic family, he attended St Bede's, the local secondary modern school, in Crosby (now part of Sacred Heart Catholic College). Cole later attended a junior seminary at Stillington, North Yorkshire, near York, with an Italian missionary order, the Verona Fathers, where he was a choirboy. After he left school, he worked in a bakery and in the advertising department of The Journal of Commerce and Shipping Telegraph.

Radio London, Radio Luxembourg and BBC Radio 1
During 1963 he sent copies of his short, home-produced radio shows to Tape Recording Magazine, and they suggested sending a tape to the BBC. "The Maurice Cole Quarter of an Hour Show" led to an appearance, in May 1964, as a guest on the BBC Home Service show "Midweek", and a few weeks later to an audtion at Broadcasting House. Nerves got the better of him, and it didn't lead to a job offer, but they suggested he send a tape to the producers looking for presenters for the soon to be launched pirate station Radio London. Everett then began his broadcasting career, on 25 December 1964 (his 20th birthday), as a DJ for Radio London. Before taking to the airwaves, he was advised to change his name to avoid legal problems. He adopted the name "Everett" from a childhood hero, the American comic actor Edward Everett Horton.

Everett teamed with Dave Cash for the Kenny & Cash Show, one of the most popular pirate radio programmes. His offbeat style and likeable personality quickly gained him attention, but in November 1965 he was dismissed after some outspoken remarks about religion on air. Like most of the pirate stations, Radio London carried sponsored American evangelical shows and Everett's disparaging remarks about The World Tomorrow caused its producers to threaten to withdraw their lucrative contract with the station. After a spell at Radio Luxembourg, and another dismissal, Everett returned to Radio London in June 1966. He accompanied The Beatles on their August 1966 tour of the United States, sending back daily reports for Radio London.

Johnny Beerling, a BBC producer, secretly visited Radio London in February 1967, and observed Everett at work: "I saw this man Everett doing everything. In the old way of doing things, the DJ sat in one room with a script. Someone else played the records and somebody else controlled the sound. Yet I see this man who has control of everything." An audition tape submitted to the BBC was assessed in March 1967 by a panel: "Member one: 'A pseudo-American voice. Sounds experienced and seems to fancy his luck. Yes.'

Member two: 'By far the most original of the young DJs. I found the stilted bits in bad taste but with suitable restraint and encouragement, Kenny Everett could be one of the BBC's best DJs. Yes.'

Member three: 'Without the hard sell and the occasional phoney American accent, a good pop DJ. Must be made to curb the funnies and the voices. Yes.'

Member four: 'I found the continuous changes of voices irritating and his personality supercilious but he certainly has some talent. Should be available but would need very firm production. Yes.'"

Everett was heard in May 1967 on the BBC's soon to be discontinued BBC Light Programme previewing the Beatles' forthcoming album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. He later produced their 1968 and 1969 Christmas records.

Everett was one of the DJs on the new pop music station Radio 1 from its launch at the end of September 1967.. While at Radio 1, he continued to develop his distinctive presentation style, encouraged by producer Angela Bond, who had persuaded her superiors to give him his first programme, although he later reacted against her as a representative of the BBC. Everett's Radio 1 show featured zany voices, comical characters, multi-tracked jingles and trailers, all of his own creation and compilation. It was Everett who had persuaded Johnny Beerling and station controller Robin Scott, at a lunch meeting before his appointment, of the importance of the new station having jingles. Everett's shows on Radio 1 included Midday Spin and in late 1967 he took over his own show on Sunday mornings from 10 am to noon.

In July 1968, Everett briefly took over a daily show for Radio 1, entitled Foreverett. This went out from 6.45-7.30 pm on a Monday to Friday evening. At the time, this was becoming a gruelling schedule for Everett, so in early 1969 he took over a Saturday show from 10 am to noon.

In 1970, Everett again found himself dismissed, this time after suggesting on air that Mary Peyton, the British Transport Minister's wife, had bribed her driving test examiner. The remark was a spontaneous quip, following a news item describing how Peyton had finally passed after many attempts. The BBC thought the comment "indefensible", although shortly before the incident Everett had given a controversial interview with Melody Maker contrary to a BBC embargo preventing him from giving interviews. In negotiations with the record companies and the Musicians' Union over needle time, a limit on the playing on-air of commercially recorded music, the MU representatives would complain about Everett, the one BBC broadcaster who persistently mocked them. In fact, in the year after Everett's death, it was stated that the bribery quip was merely an excuse and that the real reason was because he threatened to go public on the restrictive practices and deals with the Musicians' Union that were not only frustrating him and his listeners, but also making Radio One much less popular than the pirate stations it had been set up to displace.

Following an interview on the BBC Radio Solent children's show Albert's Gang, Everett submitted weekly shows to the station that he had pre-recorded at home. This afforded the BBC the opportunity to vet the shows before broadcast. Everett was then heard on various BBC local radio stations before being reinstated at Radio 1 in April 1973. Here he recorded a weekly show from his home in Llandovery, Wales and it went out at 1:00 on a Sunday afternoon.

Capital Radio
During this time, legislation had been passed allowing the licensing of commercial radio stations in the UK. One of the first, Capital Radio, began broadcasting to London and the home counties in October 1973. Everett joined the station and was given a weekend (recorded) show, where he further developed his distinctive ideas. From January 1974, following poor audience figures which in turn followed a difficult start for Capital during a time of industrial strife, the station changed to a more pop-based, rather than light music, format, with Everett presenting the breakfast show with his former colleague and friend from the pirate station Radio London (Big L) days, Dave Cash, and so reactivating the "Kenny and Cash" show. When Cash moved to the lunchtime slot in 1975, Everett continued alone on the breakfast show. Everett had a great love of sound recording equipment, in particular using reel-to-reel tape recorders and mixing equipment, often adding sound-on-sound to his recordings and stereo/multi-track recordings of his pseudo-singing voice. These were broadcast on air regularly and he often created his own radio jingles. Everett created many comedy characters on The Breakfast Show with Cash on Capital.

In May 1975, Everett found early mornings too much for his lifestyle and he vacated the breakfast show to Graham Dene and moved to less high-pressure weekend timeslots at Capital on Saturday and Sunday lunchtimes. Here he further developed his style and his cult following, and featured both what he thought the best in music (Queen, Chris Rainbow) and the worst, which led to the popular Kenny Everett's World's Worst Record Show programmes, later released as an album in 1978, with slightly different tracks.

In 1975, Everett played a pivotal role in getting Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" released as a single. In 1976, he also presented a pre-recorded programme on Saturday lunch-time for Radio Victory in Portsmouth, later providing Captain Kremmen to the station for transmission in Dave Christian's late show. The series was also heard on Beacon Radio in the Midlands.

BBC Radio and back to Capital
On 5 February 1980, Everett made his only appearance on the BBC Radio 4 show Just a Minute, where he spoke on the subject of marbles for 90 seconds. The extended improvisation was imposed by Nicholas Parsons as a practical joke.

In October 1981, Everett returned to BBC Radio, this time on Radio 2, on Saturdays from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 pm. The show ended in December 1983, a couple of weeks after he made a risqué on-air joke about Margaret Thatcher

Everett returned to Capital Radio in June 1984, reviving his Saturday lunchtime show. In May 1985, he was called in to replace Graeme Garden for one episode of the Radio 4 game show I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. After Capital split its frequencies in 1988, he returned to daily broadcasting on Capital Gold, as part of a strong presenting line-up including Tony Blackburn and David Hamilton. Everett presented daytime shows on weekdays until 1994, when his health deteriorated to the point he was unable to continue. During that same year, he was awarded the Special Gold Award at Sony's Radio Academy Awards for his contribution to radio.

Timeline

 * Kenny & Cash Show, Radio London, 1964–65
 * Kenny Everett Audio Show, Radio Luxembourg, 1966
 * Midday Spin, BBC Radio 1, 1967
 * Kenny Everett Radio Show, BBC Radio 1, Sundays 10 am - noon, December 1967 - June 1968
 * Foreverett, BBC Radio 1, Monday to Friday 6.45 p.m. – 7.30 pm, 22 July 1968 – 6 December 1968
 * Everett is Here, BBC Radio 1, Saturdays 10 a.m. – noon, 25 January 1969 – 18 July 1970
 * Kenny Everett Radio Show, BBC Local Radio, 1971
 * Kenny Everett Radio Show, BBC Radio 1, Sundays 1 p.m. – 3 p.m.,1973
 * Kenny Everett Radio Show Capital Radio, Late 1973
 * Breakfast Show, Capital Radio, 1974–75
 * Kenny Everett Audio Show/Cassette, Capital Radio, 1975–1980
 * Kenny Everett Audio Show/Cassette, Radio Victory, 1975–76
 * Captain Kremmen, Capital Radio, Radio Victory, 1976–80 (episodes repeated later on Capital Gold)
 * Kenny Everett Radio Show, BBC Radio 2, Saturdays 11 a.m. – 1 p.m., 1981–1983
 * Kenny Everett Audio Show, Capital Radio, Saturdays 11 a.m. – 1 p.m., 1984–1988
 * Weekday afternoons, Capital Gold, 1 p.m. – 4 p.m., 1988–1993
 * Weekday mid-mornings, Capital Gold, 9 a.m. – noon, 1993–1994

Television
Everett's first screen appearance was in the 1965 film Dateline Diamonds, which had a plot based around the pirate ship MV Galaxy. He also appeared in several television series, beginning in 1968 with a production for Granada Television called Nice Time which was co-presented by Germaine Greer and Jonathan Routh. In 1970 he made three series for London Weekend Television (LWT): The Kenny Everett Explosion, Making Whoopee and Ev; and he also took part (along with such talents as Willie Rushton and John Wells) in the 1972 BBC TV series Up Sunday.

Although never a regular presenter on Top of the Pops, in 1973 Everett made seven appearances (six as solo host, and one as a co-host), in the months leading up to his departure from the BBC to join Capital Radio. Also in 1973, Everett provided the voice of the cat 'Charley' in the Charley Says animated series of public information films. Everett was the announcer on the original version of ATV's "big box game" Celebrity Squares, which ran on ITV from 1975 to 1979.

He was a frequent panel guest on the BBC quiz show Blankety Blank. On his first appearance in 1979, he unexpectedly bent Terry Wogan's microphone, the so-called Wogan's Wand. This became a running joke whenever Everett appeared on the show. He also hosted two short-lived quiz shows late in his career, Brainstorm and Gibberish. He was a team captain on That's Showbusiness.

The Kenny Everett Video Show
In 1978, London's Thames Television offered him a new venture, which became the Kenny Everett Video Show. This was a vehicle for Everett's characters and sketches (his fellow writers were Ray Cameron, Barry Cryer and Dick Vosburgh), interspersed with the latest pop hits, either performed by the artists themselves, or as backing tracks to dance routines by Arlene Phillips' risqué dance troupe Hot Gossip (which featured Sarah Brightman).

Various pop and TV stars made cameo appearances on the show, including Rod Stewart, Elkie Brooks, Billy Connolly, Kate Bush, Cliff Richard, Freddie Mercury, Terry Wogan and Suzi Quatro. Classical musicians such as Julian Lloyd Webber also appeared.

There were also the stories of Captain Kremmen, a science fiction hero voiced by Everett and originally developed for his Capital Radio shows, who travelled the galaxy battling fictional alien menaces, along with his assistant Dr Gitfinger and his voluptuous sidekick Carla. In the first three series these segments were animations created by the Cosgrove-Hall partnership (responsible for the successful children's cartoon series Danger Mouse, among many others). In the fourth series (Video Cassette), Kremmen was featured as live action with Anna Dawson playing Carla; the segments were comedy shorts rather than the earlier stories.

Other characters included: ageing rock-and-roller Sid Snot, unsuccessfully flipping cigarettes into his mouth—at one point Everett managed to catch one in his mouth, to the amusement of the studio crew; Marcel Wave, a lecherous Frenchman played by Everett wearing an absurdly false latex chin; and "Angry of Mayfair", a right-wing, upper-middle-class City gent complaining of the permissive, risqué content of the show, banging the camera's lens hood with his umbrella before storming off, turning his back to the camera to reveal him wearing women's lingerie in lieu of the entire back half of his suit.

He also created the never-seen character of "Lord Thames", supposedly the owner of Thames Television (the company was actually owned by two conglomerates). The character was often the butt of Everett's rants and was said to symbolise his contempt for senior management at the company, claiming they lived behind an ancient, cobweb-covered door marked as the "Office of Saying 'No'". Thames never disciplined him for these comments, unlike prior employers such as the BBC.

The show ran for four series on ITV. The last episode of Series 3 ended with Everett giving a farewell speech as the set and scenery was being stripped down by the crew. The final shot before the closing credits was Everett himself being picked up and placed inside an oversized dustbin.

The fourth series was retitled The Kenny Everett Video Cassette and was more of a comedy programme than the previous three series, which relied more on music acts.

The Kenny Everett Television Show
Everett fell out with Thames regarding the management of his show, including the scheduling against the BBC's top-rated Top of the Pops on Thursday evenings. The BBC offered him a live-audience sketch-format comedy programme, starting with a Christmas special on BBC1 in 1981, followed by five primetime series between 1982 and 1988. The writing team was bolstered by the addition of Andrew Marshall, David Renwick and Neil Shand and the production standards were raised by the heavier investment from the corporation.

Thames Television claimed copyright on Everett's characters and tried to prevent their use by the BBC. Although this action failed, it did lead to the creation of new characters such as General Cheeseburger whose monologues were seen as a satire on US foreign policy, agony aunt Verity Treacle, mime artist Maurice Mimer whose drawings turn into real objects, upper class socialite Jeremy Mince who was perpetually drunk on champagne, orange-haired punk Gizzard Puke (intended to replace Sid Snot) and the spooneristically named Cupid Stunt, a blonde glamorous American B-movie actress with pneumatic breasts. Played in full drag but with no attempt to disguise Everett's beard, she told a cardboard cut-out of chat show host Michael Parkinson (and later Terry Wogan depicted as a skeleton in a suit) about her latest trashy film projects and lurid tales of life on set with male stars such as Burt Reynolds. Her final action in each sketch was to uncross her legs then swing them wildly to recross them (brazenly giving viewers an eyeful of her racy red lingerie) as she uttered the catchphrase "It's all done in the best possible taste!" Inept TV handyman Reg Prescott became another firm viewers' favourite, as each week he managed to visibly injure himself with tools while attempting to demonstrate DIY tips. Revived characters from the previous series included Sid Snot, Marcel Wave, Brother Lee Love, Angry of Mayfair and the Constable. Each episode in season 3 featured a version of "Snot Rap – Part II" by one or more of Everett's main characters.

Brazilian-born Cleo Rocos co-starred in the BBC series. She often appeared in nothing more than frilly underwear and high heels.

Timeline

 * Nice Time, Granada Television, 1968
 * The Kenny Everett Explosion, LWT, 1970
 * The Kenny Everett Video Show, Thames Television, 1978–1980
 * The Kenny Everett Video Cassette, Thames Television, 1981
 * The Kenny Everett Television Show, BBC1, 1981–1988
 * Brainstorm, BBC1, 1988
 * That's Showbusiness (team captain), BBC1, 1989–1991
 * Gibberish, BBC1, 1992

Video
In 1981, Everett, Cryer and Cameron teamed up with Brothers Music to target the emerging home video market with a VHS release called The Kenny Everett Naughty Joke Box, which was followed a year later by another Brothers Music VHS release called The New Kenny Everett Naughty Video. Produced and directed by co-writer Ray Cameron, this 'too rude for television' production would get a nationwide Freeview broadcast under the name Kenny Everett Naughty Video by That's TV in January 2022. The video was recorded with an audience (in-vision beside Everett for much of the time), while co-writer Barry Cryer has an on-screen role, appearing as a guest alongside Lionel Blair and Willie Rushton. Sheila Steafel, Cleo Rocos, Debbie Linden, Linda Lusardi and Jane Score also feature in the cast, while Nikolai Grishanovich turns up at the end to make a comment about the Soviet Union. Characters appearing in the video include Gizzard Puke, Marcel Wave, Sid Snot and a caricature of an Australian called Bris Troop, while the video has a running joke about people at a line of urinals.

Film
Everett made one foray into film with 1984's Bloodbath at the House of Death, a spoof of contemporary horror films, which was penned by Everett's usual writing partners Barry Cryer and Ray Cameron (who also directed the film). Vincent Price was featured as the villain, credited only as the "Sinister Man", and a number of other popular comedians and actors also appeared, including Pamela Stephenson, Gareth Hunt and Don Warrington. Several regulars from Everett's television series also appeared.

Music
Everett released three singles in the 1960s. In 1965 - a comedy collaboration with fellow Radio London DJ Dave Cash, "The B Side"//"Knees" (Decca Records). In 1968 a solo single, written by Harry Nilsson "It's Been So Long" (MGM Records), and in 1969 "Nice Time" (Deram Records) which was used as the title theme for the second series of the Granada TV show. In 1977, Everett collaborated with Mike Vickers to release the single "Captain Kremmen", using a previously published instrumental by Vickers, "Retribution" as its backing. It entered the UK charts on 12 November, and peaked at number 32 two weeks later. In 1983 Kenny Everett released the single "Snot Rap", ostensibly sung by two of his TV characters, Sid Snot and Cupid Stunt. This would peak at number 9 in the UK charts for the week ending 16 April, and peaked at number 91 in Australia. A sequel single, "Snot Rap II (Rapping Again)", once again performed in character, was released in March 1985, but failed to chart.

Personal life
Everett married the singer and psychic Audrey "Lady Lee" Middleton at Kensington Register Office on 2 June 1969. By September 1979, they had separated, and he stopped publicly denying his homosexuality in the late 1980s. His co-host David Cash, in the documentary Unforgettable Kenny Everett, states that "Once I got to know him socially off the ship, it was very obvious that his sexual tendencies were homosexual and he looked at it as bad and so he fought it all the way." One of his first boyfriends, a waiter called Dave Nealon, was a match found for Everett by his former wife. In 1985 after coming out, he introduced his "two husbands"—Nikolai Grishanovich and Pepe Flores—to the media; Everett contracted HIV from Grishanovich, who died of AIDS in 1991.

Politics
During the 1983 general election campaign, the Young Conservatives invited Everett to their conference in an attempt to attract the youth vote. Egged on by film director Michael Winner, Everett bounded onto the stage, wearing the enormously oversized foam rubber hands familiar from his mock-evangelical character Brother Lee Love. He shouted slogans such as "Let's bomb Russia!" and "Let's kick Michael Foot's stick away!" to loud applause. (Michael Foot was the ageing leader of the Labour Party at the time, who used a walking stick.) Everett later said he regretted the appearance and said that he had taken the foam hands to the rally because the Tories "asked me first".

In an interview on Ireland's The Late Late Show with Gay Byrne and Sinéad O'Connor in February 1989, Everett was challenged by O'Connor about his support for the Conservative Party in the light of his homosexuality and the party's Section 28 addition to the Local Government Act. Everett clarified that he was not a "full Tory", but that he had been appalled by the actions of Arthur Scargill, whom he saw as "inciting violence" and "rabble rousing" and who he thought looked like "Hitler reborn". He had consequently supported the actions of Margaret Thatcher in opposing Scargill. He said he would stand up for gay rights if he were asked providing "it was a jolly occasion", but he also felt that being in a minority and in the public eye, he could do more for gay rights by showing that he was funny and human rather than by marching in the streets.

Friendship with Freddie Mercury
Everett became close friends with Freddie Mercury, the lead singer of Queen, after they met on Everett's breakfast radio show on Capital Radio in 1974.

In 1988, Middleton, who had subsequently remarried actor John Alkin, published an autobiography with a foreword from Everett. After its publication and newspaper serialisation, however, Everett denounced the book for outing him. Mercury reportedly sided with Middleton. The fallout resulted in Middleton and Everett communicating only via their lawyers.

A year later, Everett and Mercury were reconciled when both were suffering with health issues due to complications with HIV. Mercury died in November 1991.

Death
Everett was diagnosed as HIV positive in 1989 and he made his condition known to the public in 1993. He died from an AIDS-related illness on 4 April 1995, aged 50.

A Catholic requiem mass was held at Church of the Immaculate Conception in Mayfair, London. His body was cremated at Mortlake Crematorium.

Legacy
In 1981 Everett co-wrote a semi-fictitious autobiography entitled The Custard Stops at Hatfield. It was published by Willow Books, an imprint of Collins, in September 1982.

In 1996, a compilation album entitled Kenny Everett at the Beeb was released as part of the BBC Radio Collection series of cassette tapes. The album, narrated by Barry Cryer, is a chronological look at Everett's BBC Radio career that combines clips from his various series with interviews that he gave on programmes such as Desert Island Discs.

Everett is the subject of a 1997 episode of the Thames Television series Heroes of Comedy which covers his life and career from his beginnings on pirate radio until his death. Celebrities such as Steve Wright, Cliff Richard, Cleo Rocos, Barry Cryer, Jeremy Beadle, Terry Wogan and Barry Took appear and talk about their experiences, collaborations and friendships with Everett and his influence on them.

On 18 November 2007, ITV1 broadcast a tribute show to Everett entitled Licence to Laugh. This celebrated the 30 years since he first appeared on ITV with the Kenny Everett Video Show (Thames Television). Friends and colleagues revealed what it was like to know and work with the man they affectionately dubbed "Cuddly Ken". Additionally, contemporary celebrities such as Chris Moyles and Chris Tarrant talked about their love for the funny entertainer and discussed the ways in which Everett had influenced them and their work. It also featured archive footage.

The documentary When Freddie Mercury Met Kenny Everett, broadcast on Channel 4, tells the story of the relationship between the two men from the moment they met in 1974 when Mercury was a guest on Everett's radio show, through lovers and drug taking to when both died of AIDS. It features affectionate interviews by many people who were close to him.

In March 2010 the BBC confirmed that it was producing a 90-minute TV biographical film called Number One in Heaven, to be written by Tim Whitnall and focusing on Everett's unhappiness at secondary school.

On 3 October 2012 the BBC broadcast a 90-minute TV biopic called The Best Possible Taste which focused on the performer's relationship with his wife, singer Lee Middleton. Oliver Lansley played the part of Everett and Katherine Kelly that of Middleton.

In 2013, ''Hello Darlings! The Authorized Biography Of Kenny Everett'' written by James Hogg and Robert Sellers was published by Bantam Press.

Everett was portrayed by Dickie Beau in the 2018 Oscar-winning film Bohemian Rhapsody, a biographical musical drama about the life of Freddie Mercury.

title: Kenny Everett


text:
Talk:Cataphract

Pyrrhus of Epeiros
Can anybody provide a citation for the claim that Pyrrhus of Epeiros used Kataphraktoi against the Romans? AFAIK not even the Seleukid Empire used them at that time (only 3 or 4 decades later) - could it be that Sarissophoroi or even Hetiaroi are meant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.253.198 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Pyrrhus did not have any cataphracts in his army, in the sense of the cataphract cavalry of this article. I corrected that.

GK1973 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed
The cataphract finally passed into history on May 29, 1453, when the last nation to refer to its cavalrymen as cataphracts fell.[citation needed]

citation needed?? Ever heard of what happened at that date mate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.28.31 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

East Asian cataphracts
I came across a picture a while back of an East-Asian (possibly Korean?) cavalryman fitted out like a cataphract. Anyone know what these might have been called, so that I can find out more about them? Searches along the lines of East Asian heavy cavalry aren't turning up anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Greek meaning
I changed the meaning of the word cataphract in greek (i.e. 'closed from all sides'). Being a native greek speaker :-) i know what the words mean.

Regards, Stelios
 * Ancient Greek is different from Modern, remember . . . UnDeadGoat 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient is bit different from Koiné. But during hellenistic period was spoken koiné, very similar byzantine and modern demotic that has only some venetian and turk words more). Artificial Katharevousa (rencostruction of ancient greek grammar) is no more used from 1976. Howewer vocabulary of demotic has into the ancient word also. Example you can use the word feggari (Moon) in common language but also Selene in a poem. The abandonment of the accents is just the result of the reform of 1976 The word in object is probably born in Koiné greek and no in ancient greek. It is very improbable that the ancient greeks that live in mountains and sea area know the heavy cavalry. Surely they know the cataphract in Persian empire as mercenaries and after the 460 BCE with persian wars. The Macedonians fought the scytians and Tracian (famous cataphract cavalry) indeed the Macedonian oplites used long pike very efficient against cavalry as the swiss fantery after centuries later but they spoke koiné. --Andriolo (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC) literally means "Covered up to bottom". We use a similar expression also in italian "fino in fondo" "to the bottom" that means completely, absolutely covered. The translation proposed of the article is correct. --Andriolo (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Modern Greek is no more Ancient Greek than Italian is Latin. Modern and Attic Classical Greek are mutually unintelligible. And Koine Greek is a 3rd, neither Classical Attic nor modern Demotic Greek. Kata- is a prefix implying intensity or completeness, identical in its 4 letters with the preposition kata, which literally means down, but ironically is used like the English word "up" for intensity or completeness, as in "He ate up the food."  (PeacePeace (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC))

Edit attribution
The "heavy edit to remove the incorrect Byzantine specificity" was by me. (Unfortunately my dial-up connection isn't very reliable, and Wikipedia no longer preserves logins across dialups, so I didn't notice that I was no longer logged in when I did the edit.) -- B.Bryant 08:35 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Camels have another drawback as cataphract transports: they tire very quickly when heavily loaded. Boys of eight to ten years old are used as jockeys in Middle Eastern camel races.

Dup extracts
From a dup, possibly useful bits:

 * Horsemen who constitued Bizantine and Persian Heavy Cavalry. Cataphracts were of high social rank and were mainly nobles.

 * The byzantine cataphract (circa late 800s a.d.) had extremely advanced equipment for his time. He was armed with a recurve horsebow that was slung across his back when travelling and a quiver of arrows at the left hip attached to the saddle by the means of a leather thong. This bow was far more powerful than the bows used by the common archers. It was made of a strong wood and laminated with thinner strips of springier wood. This gave it a huge armour peircing punch that could pierce a shield at a fairly close range. The cataphracts were also armed with a long-sword. This was of high spring steel and was suitable for both quick thrusts and wide slashes due to its light weight and high manuverability.

 * The heavy cavalry was also armed with a long lance. This was strong enough to take a heavy impact yet light enough to be flung at an enemy.

 * The cataphract had a round shield or perhaps a longer kite shield of the Norman type. Also this awesome soldier had extremely high quality armour, even for later times. He was wrapped in scale armour or chain mail that covered him from head to knee. His horse also had a scale or chain barding that covered it's whole body and even plate armour riveted to the neck.

His helmet was of the conical type with a nasal to protect his face.

Stan 23:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Image copyright info
It's important the copyright info can be found for the recent picture uploaded to accompany this article... Nick04 14:13, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Introduction
I think the introduction is blurry. The term Cataphract was used until the Middle Ages, not only in Antiquity, so not only by the "Greek and later Latin speaking people", but by states such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Kingdom of Spain to designate the heavy armoured cavalry. AdoniCtistai 11:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I support merging in Heavy cavalry. Tom Harrison Talk 12:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I support merging this article in Heavy cavalry too. AdoniCtistai 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 * It might be keept, as long as it strictly refers to the history of Greek heavy armoured cavalry, to be something simmilar to the article Hippeis. However, this could cause confusion, as the term Cataphract had ceased to be used soley by the Ancient Greeks, or only by Greek speakers. AdoniCtistai 13:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Currently Oppose merging due to thsi article being much larger than the Heavy cavalry article. It would be a shame to loose information on the Kataphraktoi and at the same time I fear that the merger would drown the Heavy cavalry's general meaning in Cataphract information. Similar reason I sure why the Knights article was not merged with the category article. It would be nice though to incorporate elements from this article and the myriad of other armoured horse articles within the Heavy cavalry page to flesh it out.--Dryzen 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose this merger because heavy cavalry ought to be expanded to include the whole of its history, not just its Roman and Persian history. Cataphract is not synonymous with heavy cavalry. Knights were also heavy cavalry, for example. Srnec 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * "Cataphract is not synonymous with heavy cavalry" - than please tell me what are the differences, by copy-pasting from the article? And if you suggest to "expand heavy cavalry as to include the whole of its history, not just its Roman and Persian history" than wouldn`t we get to the same proposale I`ve made, as for this article to strictly refer to the history of Greek heavy armoured cavalry, pretty much like Hippeis does? AdoniCtistai 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I oppose for the same reason. Stephen Aquila 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - cataphract is an expansion of a particular type of heavy cavalry. The entry should be amended to remove unnecessary duplicate information that already exists under heavy cavalry. Deathwing 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * "cataphract is an expansion of a particular type of heavy cavalry" - which "particular type" ? You could either argumentate with your own words, or copy-paste from the article. AdoniCtistai 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This article is big enough to warrent the maintainment of its own independence.--KrossTalk 15:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * And to contain what? Phrases like "The term, being a purely military one, should be seen from a literal point rather than a practical one"? Than I ask again, what is the difference between cataphract and heavy-cavalry? This is soooooooooooo funny!!!!!! I was the one who proposed the merge, and I was too the one which eidted the article in an attempt to make it more clear. I was the one who changed the beggining of the article. Here is how it looked like before I changed it LOOK!. Can you read what is says: "The word cataphract (from the Greek κατάφρακτος) was what Greek- and later Latin-speaking peoples used to describe heavy cavalry." So, for THE THIRD time, what is the difference between cataphract and heavy cavalry? AdoniCtistai 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Today the term cataphract is only used to describe the heavy cavalry of the Greeks, Romans, and Persians of Antiquity and the Byzantines of a later date. It never describes the knights of the Middle Ages, though they were certainly heavy cavalry, not light. Furthermore, would the term "cataphract" be used to describe the heavy cavalry elements used in some Germanic armies, like that of the Ostrogoths? While cataphract may originally be merely the Greek for heavy cavalry, it is clear that today it would not be used to describe much other than the cavalry of the Hellenised world. See the article on heavy cavalry. Srnec 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Serves pretty much the same purpose as knight, dragoon, sipahi and hussar. Like pointed out by others, cataphract is a type of heavy cavalry. It's no different than keeping siege engine and trebuchet separate. Peter Isotalo 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with Isotalo. Cataphracts were a type of heavy cavalry. If we merge them, valuable informationa bout the cataphracts will be lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsaces (talk • contribs) 10:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary def. of Cataphract
Cat·a·phract n. (kăt"ȧ*frăkt)

 * 1) (Mil. Antiq.) Defensive armor used for the whole body and often for the horse, also, esp. the linked mail or scale armor of some eastern nations.

 * 1) A horseman covered with a cataphract.
 * I wonder if a Knight would be included in this? lol.... AdoniCtistai 10:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Archers and slingers, cataphracts, and spears. Milton.

 * 1) (Zoöl.) The armor or plate covering some fishes.

I would like to point out that cataphracts (or at least, what many scholars translate the armoured cavalry dating vaguely from the 4th to 8th century to) where also used in China roughly from the last years of the Three Kingdoms Era to the Early Tang when the heavily armoured cataphract horse was superceded by the much faster horse archer.

Semi-Lobster 9:20 04 November 2006

Counter -tactics
Quite a nice article this - I think that a small section on tactics used to neutralise Cataphracts would add value too - how did people fight against them? Having said that - the article is quite long anyway.--Gavinio 10:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Cavalry effective against tightly formed infantry?
Hi, i was wondering how effective a cavalry charge was against infantry in general? More specifically disiplined men who are in a tight formation that maybe the Romans would have fought in or phalanx-like tightness? I was under the impression cavalry would not charge headlong into infantry that stands its ground, yet the article gives examples of the cataphracts charging masses of infantry like the romans even when in the testudo formation. It also says they would have cavalry charge infantry in "knee to knee" form, which i take to mean side by side? i thought cavalry had to have a good amount of space to manuver so there was by necessity a lot of space between horses? finally the article makes mention of cavalry charging, reforming and charging again. My question is once you commit your horse to the initial charge how are you able to disengage it from the melee and get away? it would seem that if you penetrated into the infantry formation and they didn't run then you'd have a hard time wheeling your horse 180 degrees and getting away. did they only charge formations a couple to a few ranks deep? seems like any deeper and the cavalry would be caught and bogged down by the people around it. thanks Dmcheatw 23:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The short answer to the question of "is cavalry effective against infantry" is that it depends on the infantry and the cavalry. With excellent discipline, such as the Romans were famous for, then cavalry had a hard time being effective.  But Europeans made cavalry the dominant military unit for nearly a thousand years.  If it was easy to make cheaper to equip and train infantry units defeat them then this would not have occurred.

 * If a cavalry unit charged disciplined infantry that did not break then the cavalry would wheel away before making contact. That last part answers your other question about multiple charges.  A cavalry unit that failed to do so, such as the result of insufficient discipline and/or coordination, would get attacked by the infantry.

 * If the cavalry penetrated into the infantry formation then it was hard for the infantry to survive. Being on horseback is such an advantage against infantry.  And the morale issue is important.  Being overwhelmed by men on thousand pound steeds and clad head-to-toe in metal armour is rather demoralizing.

 * "Knee to knee" is possible amongst well disciplined cavalry that have trained together. In fact it makes the cavalry charge more effective, because there are no openings to be exploited by the enemy.

Mercutio.Wilder 04:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Additionally, as noted in the article, missile fire was used prior to the charge to make the infantry formation loosen Mercutio.Wilder 04:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

 * almost forgot about this thread. thanks for the responses, that was pretty much along the lines of what i was thinking but i've never worked with horses to any great extent so i wasn't sure how the situation actually would play out.Dmcheatw 06:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have done a lot of research and found that yes, cavalry can charge home head on into the front of solid infantry, and if they did it was ideally followed up on by lighter cavalry or infantry

Polish Winged Hussar (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Polish Winged Hussar

How did Cataphracts charge
Hi all, greetings from Bulgaria! There are a couple of things I was wondering about, concerning heavy cavalry (more precisely it's tactics) and I assumed (correctly) that the article about cataphracts could help me. So - was it ever an accepted tactic for the cavalry to engage units of infantry, which did not rud but stood their ground during the horsemen's charge? Were lances discarded after the initial impact with the enemy, or they were often used as a primary weapon during the following melee?

The lances were supported by a chain attached to the horse's neck, and at the end by a fastening attached to the horse's hind leg, so the full momentum of horse was behind the thrust. One reason for this was the lack of stirrups; although the Roman saddle had four horns to secure the rider (Driel-Murray & Connolly), the impact of a lance might well unseat them. This seems interesting and logical, but on both of the illustrations in the article the horsemen are holding their spears with high rear end and blade facing downward. I cannot imagine how the spear could be strapped to the horse's rear leg to prevent unseating the rider upon impact.

I have never come across any mention of chains, the assertion is not referenced (unlike the horned Romano-Celtic saddle), the whole idea sounds impractical to me.

The long kontos-kontarion lance was usually wielded with two hands, which is why many cataphracts had either no shields or just a small one strapped to the upper arm.

Nikephoros II Phokas re-introduced the super-heavy cavalryman to the Byzantine army. These were called the klibanophoroi and were heavily protected with mail, lamellar, splinted and soft (quilted) armour, and rode armoured horses. They were very expensive and were few in number. They were drawn up in a blunt wedge formation with lighter armoured mounted-archers in the centre. Their role seems to have been to deliver a mounted shock to break open the enemy's formation after which more conventional cavalry would be used to exploit the break-through.

Urselius 13:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The formatting of the article
I don't like it. The introduction (that part of the article, above the "content") is far too big for a section, aimed to provide basic definition of the thing that is being explored in the following article. "Equipment, tactics and history" could also be split, because virtually the whole article is concentrated under this headline.

Best regards :)

Under "Related Cavalry"
"The tough skin of elephants afforded them considerable protection and the armour worn made them almost invulnerable to projectiles. Cavalry were also frightened by the smell of the elephants[citation needed] which allowed them to be used as massive organic fortifications against cavalry maneuvers on the battlefield. The Parthians and Sassiands also did this."

It's pointless to say they are organic fortifications, most fortifications in the field, siege-towers etc. were built of wood, therefore organic.

Aksel 89 Oct 27th 5:30PM 2008

East Asian Cataphracts
I could kiss whoever added the info on Asia. I've been hoping for a long time that someone knew something about this and I wasn't just crazy. Wish you would have cited it, though, so I could get my hands on the relevant literature. :P 76.208.120.38 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please maintain uniform spelling of Armor/Armour
After just rewriting this grammatical abomination, it's stunning to see that no one picked out the alternating spelling of the word: armor, constantly switching back and forth between British and American conventions throughout the article. Please, in the future stick to ONE variant and make this article more consistent. The same is true for various other words which changed between Z's and S's for words with the "ise/ize" suffix and so on.

For now I've maintained American spelling conventions throughout the entire article for the sake of uniformity. Consistency is quality after all. Let's keep it that way.

Gamer112 (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Complete Overhaul...
Changes I've made:

 * Condensed introduction to fit encyclopaedic standards. The previous incarnation was more like a short story and far too detailed for an introduction.

 * Divided article into appropriate sections. Self-explanatory, the previous edition was a jumbled mass of facts and figures under one banner, "Equipment, tactics and history", which is just poor form.

 * Heavily expanded upon the 'Origins and Beginnings' of Cataphract cavalry. Previous editions had absolutely no mention of the role of Selective Breeding, Animal Husbandry, the Indo-Iranians or the Median Empire in the evolution of the horse to be physically able to support the design and role of a cataphract; let alone any explanation as to how the Indo-Iranian steppe peoples of Central Asia passed these traditions and knowledge of heavy cavalry onto the Ancient Iranian peoples.

 * Etymological data was also lacking, there were no references to the origin of "Clibanarii" and what exactly it meant in Greek or Latin respectively, as was the argument on the distinctions between Clibanarii and Cataphractarii and whether they constituted different forms of cavalry. All that has been fixed.

 * I removed much useless deliberation on the "what-ifs" and "possibilities" of Cataphracts and their use and deployment in Antiquity.

 * I've added appropriate in-line citations for my inclusions and tried to reference previous material from sources that seem to match the general gist of it, but I couldn't cover every previous bit of original work as I really wasn't sure as to the origin. I've tried to remove as much of it as possible.

 * Expanded upon the article's numerous references to the Ancient Persians (Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids), as it was lacking in a balanced presentation of Eastern (which is where cataphract cavalry was born essentially) and Western perspectives on cataphracts.

 * Added and corrected numerous links throughout the article to better reflect related content on Wikipedia.

 * Removed 2 pictures, added 4 new ones. Finally managed to find a desperately needed, free-use image of an ACTUAL cataphract (as opposed to the numerous vague and low-quality rock carvings this article was littered with before), in this case a fairly accurate historical recreation that at least shows the user what a cataphract should appear like instead of having them rely on imagination alone.

 * Related Cavalry section to me is questionable in its inclusion. There wasn't much I could do with this, it was a confusing list of POSSIBLE analogues in military units fielded by ancient armies that may have been variations of, or inspired by, the cataphract. I say may because there is no definitive proof Clibanarii were distinct from Cataphracts and not just another term for them, likewise relating cataphracts to war elephants is dubious at best but I have left it in there for now.

 * I have made a few mentions of the greater strategic, cultural and political implications cataphracts made later on in the Middle Ages, especially relating to the rise of Feudalism in Europe and Knights. There is plenty of attributable information from notable historians out there regarding how the late Sassanid and Byzantine Empire's usage of cataphracts, particularly the social standing attached to them and connotations of nobility, inspired it's neighbours, particularly the Germanic, Frankish, Slavic and Turkic ones, to adopt their own heavily armored cavalry corps that were intrinsically attached to the upper classes. This then paved the way for Feudalist, medieval states to rise up which were wholly led by elite castes of noble, mounted warriors in many societies across Europe (partly because standing armies were reduced to miltia and assorted rabble during the Dark Ages). It needs some expansion and detail but it's a very valid and very important theme that needs to be underlined in this article (after Feudalism forever changed the political and cultural divisions of Europe forever). Perhaps attached to the Related Cavalry section.

 * Cataphracts in East Asia I left as is, save for rewording it for encyclopaedic conventions and adding little tidbits which I could source from articles. This section out of all needs the most improvement and verifiable sources attached to it.

If anyone has any objections, corrections, or remarks in regards to any changes I've made, then by all means bring them up.

Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo Helm?
I didn't know late Roman cavalry officers wore Anglo-Saxon ceremonial spangenhelms. Saethwyr (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the re-enactor is wearing gear based on the Sutton Hoo burial of an Anglo-Saxon king of the early 7th century (probably Raedwald). However, the helmet isn't a spangenhelm, neither is it a true 'ridge helmet.' If anything it could be characterised as a 'pseudo-ridge helmet.' The fore to aft ridge is there, but unlike in true ridge helmets where the ridge served to attach the two halves of the skullcap together the ridge on the Sutton Hoo helmet is purely decorative, as the skull was of a single piece. The apparent "sections" are just an assembly of pieces of thin, tinned-bronze, embossed with decoration applied to the outer surface of the helmet.Urselius (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of references and off-topic excursions

 * I removed the whole section Indo-Iranian Origins. It digresses a lot from the topic, is almost unreferenced in all its assertions and features a discernable drift to attribute the development of the cataphract to the Iranian people. The referenced section "Early armoured riders" shows that this is not so. Note that the move is not against the incorporation of prerequisites of the cataphract like animal breeding and certain social factors. I am very much in favour of that, but these questions have to be tackled in close connection to the rise of the cataphracts, otherwise it is merely WP:SYN which it is now.
 * I reintroduced the referenced material on the early Roman experience. In fact, the Roman legions were victorious in their first encounters with eastern cataphracts and the Roman foot-soldiers also continued to score successes after Carrhae. In the course of the first centuries, the Sarmatian threat on the Danube frontier, and not just the Parthians/Sassanids, played an integral role at the gradual adoption of heavy cavalry.
 * Last but not least, the article should get more clear about what a cataphract actually is. Because, as it happened, armoured riders not conventionally known by that name were also known to the Assyrians as well as the Romans from an early date. Where to integrate them? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Spread to Central Asia and the Near East
I have a few issues with the information presented in this section:

- It tends to assume the reader is already highly-educated & well-versed on a number of civilisations present in the Near East during Classic Antiquity, as well as jumping to the conclusion that using complex and obscure terminology (Chorasmian, Khwarezm, Nimrud, the personal names of Assyrian Kings) is perfectly understandable by an average audience. There is simply not enough context or background information presented in this section to sufficiently explain the relevance of half of the terms mentioned nor tie this information in with the rest of the article. It seems detached from the rest of the article and highly specified on a select few historical tidbits, when the introductory sections of the article should be building up a general idea of where and how cataphracts came into fruition, not specifying how "an Assyrian king named X armed some of his men with bows in 7XX BC..." and trailing off on irrelevant tangents. Only be specific when necessary, don't go into trivial details that only niches of the Wikipedia audience are going to comprehend.

- The last paragraph seems to be not only contradictory but misleading. It claims that even by the 4th and 3rd Centuries BC virtually no one within the Eastern or Western Hemispheres of the Ancient World was using cataphracts or very heavily-armoured cavalry in battle and the rudimentary records of heavy cavalry employed in Classic Antiquity by the Assyrians, Persians, Eastern Iranian groups seemed to have had absolutely zero influence so far on the evolution of warfare. Wrong. Plain wrong.

The Achaemenids had prominently displayed cataphracts to the Greeks on numerous occasions, most notably at Gaugamela (where a contingent of Scythian cataphract mercenaries were deployed ), not to mention the Selecuid Empire practically embraced these heavily-armored horsemen traditions (as they did with many Persian traditions) and developed their own Cataphract corps from mercenaries sourced from conquered Persia. Development of Greek Cataphracts:

Not to mention Alexander the Great's famous Companion Cavalry, which served as his elite shock troops and were from all accounts partially or fully armored, with the rider wearing a bronze cuirass and the horse being draped in leather and felt to protect it from missiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamer112 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

During the 3rd Century especially, Scythian incursions on the Pontic-Caspian steppe were gaining the attention of Greco-Roman Civilisation, particularly once the Scythians established themselves in Tanais. Phillip II of Macedon led a major campaign against the Scythians in 342BC in which he faced numerous heavily-armoured horsemen and defeated Scythian king Areas. Strabo also prominently recounts the first century of Greek contact with the Scythians in Western Asia.

- It seems to over-emphasize the importance of the contributions the Assyrians made in relation to the developement of the Cataphract. Aside from scant reliefs found in Nimrud, we have virtually no idea if the Assyrians continued to use heavily-armored cavalary, if they ever developed them to a stage where the horse was entirely clad in armor as well and for how long or in which engagements these horsemen served. Furthermore the Assyrians never practiced selective animal husbandry or horse-breeding, which was absolutely vital to the future developement of true cataphract horses.

Compared to hundreds of records and first-hand accounts of Persian and Ancient Iranian cataphracts from both Eastern & Western sources, being utilised successively from the days of the Achaemenid Empire right up until the fall of the Sassanids, it seems almost trivial to place such a strong focus on the Assyrians within the opening sections. A slight rewording is needed to reiterate that it is the Ancient Iranian peoples who we can directly attribute the developement & use of cataphract-like cavalry at the earliest possible date.

Vague reliefs in the Nimrud do not constitute conclusive proof the Assyrians developed real Cataphract-like cavalry at an earlier date. Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ammianus Marcellinus, renowned Roman general and ancient historian, describing the sight of Persian cataphracts approaching Roman infantry in Asia Minor, circa 4th Century BC." Shouldn't this be AD?Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sisennus...
If you are magnanimous enough to forgive my ignorance, you may also enlighten it. Who was Sisennus? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sisennus is the Hellenic rendition of Sicinnus, a slave of Themistocles, who was present during the Second Persian invasion of Greece and recorded the outcome of numerous battles during the Greco-Persian Wars. Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The slave of Themistocles? I'd heard of him, but not that he ever wrote anything. Do you have a primary reference, or at least one a little easier of access? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to press, but you apparently have a reference for a Greek slave writing Latin in 480 BCE. This is remarkable enough that we do need a little more detail. Would you be kind enough to check your reference, and if possible give the relevant text with a primary reference? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The reconstructed cataphract?
It doesnt quite match the description the roman historians have given (No plates, only mail armor); instead it is deliberately made to resemble the muslim cavalry of the crusades era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.19.52 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC) 84.241.19.52 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Goshtaasp

Well, by all means quote some anachronistic descriptions of Cataphracts by the Romans stating otherwise. To me this 3rd century CE Roman rendition seems to confirm the reconstruction as rather accurate: http://parthia.com/images/heavyhorse.gif

Second, you do realise the Arab Caliphate, once conquering the Sassanid Empire, adopted and embraced many of the Persian traditions, systems of governance, laws, customs, military strategies and technologies? Resemblance between "Muslim" armies of the Medieval era and those the Sassanid or Parthian Empires is quite logical, not coincidental or as you claim some of kind of subtle, "deliberate" smear perhaps.

And third, there is no typical archetype of cavalry one can identify as being quintessentially "Muslim". I assume you're referring to those from the Caliphate armies (Abbasids & Fatimids), since you mention the Crusades, which for the most part were Light Cavalry and in complete contrast to European Knights/Paladins/Cavaliers, were very lightly armoured relying on leather or wooden shields and being fitted in chainmail.

Muslim Cavalry varied widely throughout the ages. Compare the Ottoman Sipahis to the Egyptian Mamluk Cavalry.Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture that you posted was of a parthian horseman, the reconstructed cataphract is suppoed to belong to the sassanid period and is historically inaccurate and distorted ; because the helmet is typical of the post islamic era , and the horse is covered in thick full body armored (which is quite contradictory) , the sassanids used lighter armor only for the frontal half of the horse as their charging was more systematic. The reconstructed cataphract simply does not match any of the types dating back to the pre-islamic era.

I know about all the sassanid contributions to the islamic caliphate and their successive states but you should realize for yourself how this reconstruction is a hijacking of the sassanid era achievements.

And i believe i was correct when i used the term muslim cavalry because the crusaders were driven back by a confederation of seperate muslim states, not by a caliphate.

Kermanii (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My edits
Let me start by saying that in view of both what you do and what you say, I don't believe in your good faith and I think you're just seeking conflict based on a WP:OWN issue you apparently have with the article. Hence, I will explain my edits for the record and will revert once, then I'll waste no more time on this. First of all, if you don't see how some of my rewordings that are better, but you don't see anything wrong with them either (as suggested by the fact that you characterize them as "pointless synonym switching" and "generally unnecessary rewording" in your edit summary), then it's dickish of you to revert. If no harm is done, why start a conflict? The "burden of evidence" rule does not mean that you must revert *any* change whose improving qualities you don't immediately grasp - which happens to be any change to your own precious edits - which you apparently assume to be perfect by default. In fact, the "burden of evidence" lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not with the editor who makes any change at all, as you claimed on my talk page ("the burden of proof lies with the editor making new changes to an article, particularly when you remove or otherwise alter other editor's changes that have been made previously"). BTW, that wording is particularly nonsensical, since any change that is done on a Wiki article "alters other editors' changes that have been made previously". You haven't really bothered to give any content-based argument against any of my edits, and instead follow the principle "I revert cuz I can". Now for the specific explanations of my specific edits:

1. "The genesis is undoubtedly Greek" -> "The origin of the word is Greek".

"Genesis" is less clear and less usual in etymological context than "origin". I added "of the word", because it's important to avoid the misinterpretation that it is the origin of the word, not the origin of the phenomenon that is Greek. "Undoubtedly" is superfluous and unnecessarily emphatic, it appears to suggest that someone has disputed it or that something else about the issue is doubtful, and nothing really is. The Earth is round, you don't need to write in the article Earth that "The Earth is undoubtedly round".

2. "Ancient Persian military such as that of the Medes" -> "Ancient Iranian military such as that of the Medes"

As I clearly explained in my edit summary, "Iranian" is a more general concept than "Persian". The Medes were Iranian, but as an ethnic group they were normally distinguished from the Persians both in classical sources and in modern literature. Hence, "Ancient Persian military such as that of the Medes" is wrong, just like "English legends such as those of the Scots". If one wants to unite them under a cover term, one should use "British legends".

3. "the Persian dynasties that followed them" -> the Persian dynasties that followed them (the Achaemenids, Arsacids, and Sassanids).

This is a specification and a clarification which adds information for the readers. Since we're talking about ancient military, I have not included Muslim dynasties. I can't fathom what you could dislike about it, except that it's a change to your precious text.

4. "The cataphracts deployed by the Byzantine Empire (most noticeably after the 7th century when Late Latin ceased to be the official language of the empire) were exclusively referred to as Kataphraktoi, due to the Byzantine Empire's strong Greek influence."

I added a clarification tag here, which you now have addressed by adding "as opposed to the Romanized term Cataphractos, which subsequently fell out of use". It's good that this time, you managed to abstain from simply reverting as is your custom, but the text is still not satisfactory. First of all, the correct Latin nominative singular is cataphractus, not cataphractos; the nominative plural corresponding to kataphraktoi would be cataphracti (and these two were, as a matter of fact, most likely pronounced identically by the eighth century). In case you thought that official Byzantine Late Latin would have generalized the accusative plural in -os, that's wrong, too; its grammar was basically identical to Classical Latin, and a similar confusion of cases may only have happened in Vulgar Latin, and that only of varieties north and west of the La Spezia-Rimini Line, which would have been quite irrelevant to the Byzantines. Second, it is just ridiculous to explicitly point out that the term cataphracti was replaced by kataphraktoi: the word doesn't change at all, only the language does (along with the alphabet and consequently the standard English transcription) - from Latin to Greek. The grammatical ending changes, because it simply has to according to the rules of the respective languages. Of course cataphracti "fell out of use" and was replaced by kataphraktoi - how could they use Latin grammar in the midst of a Greek sentence? Both the "Latinization" and "Hellenization" were absolutely automatic. It's like specifying that as Elsace went from French to German hands and the official language changed, "luck" stopped being referred to as "la chance" and began to be referred to exclusively as "die Chance", and "les compliments" fell out of use, whereas "die Komplimenten" replaced them. And by the way, it's rather sloppy to say that the Byzantine Empire had a "strong Greek influence", it simply had Greek as its primary spoken and, after one point, official language, and Greeks as its dominant ethnic group.

I will reiterate that I explained this for the benefit of third parties who might read this, not because I expect any meaningful reaction or constructive behaviour on your part - I absolutely don't. That'll be all from me.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Illyrian Cataphracts
The article mentions Illyrian cataphracts. This obviously sounded suspicious. So I checked the source and this is what it said: "At the turn of our era, cataphracts with defensive armament for horses were considered typical of the national army for Armenians, Albanians, and Midians (Strab. XI. 4.4–5), p. 502;XI.14.9, p. 530)."

There was also a footnote attached to this sentence: "The ethnic groups named here do not perfectly correlate with modern-day Albanians and Figure 5. A horseman with two-handed [dvuruchnyi] lance: an engraving on a sixth-century dish from Isola Rizza (from Boss 1993). Armenians. This is relevant to current politics of national history concerning the origins of “White Albanians.” For more on the politicization of debates about ancestral correlations, see Victor A. Shnirelman, The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in the Transcaucasus (Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, 2001)."

So this means that a previous author made a big mistake. It's clearly the Caucasian Albanians that are meant. Hence I shall edit the article to reflect this.

Titirius (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Frank cataphracts and frisian horses where are they ????
We must write something of the golden age of cataphract cavalry. The Franks and the heavy Frisian horses.

--Andriolo (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Cataphracts and the Strategikon
Maurice discusses horse armor among the standard cavalry equipment. So in theory all Byzantine cavalry were supposed to have at least some of the distinctive equipment of the cataphracts. In practice, the horse armor might have been an impediment to the cursores, but I think this suggests that the term cataphract fell out of use because all units were supposed to be cataphracts, and came back into use when, once again, only some units could be equipped as cataphracts. 71.191.229.110 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy-editing
I made a start copy-editing this (long) article in the Etymology section but gave up before bringing it up to anything like satisfactory standards. Much remains to be done to improve the English throughout the article, which is generally unpolished, unidiomatic, or unclear. (I also fixed some of the Greek, which in most instances should conform to ancient, not modern Greek rules of accentuation and aspiration.)Prohairesius (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Having trouble understanding a sentence
I've re-read the following sentence a few times, and I can't understand the meaning well enough to re-write it confidently:

"The successive Persian Empires that followed the Medes after their downfall in 550 BC took these already long-standing military tactics and horse-breeding traditions and infused their centuries of experience and veterancy from conflicts against the Greek city-states, Babylonians, Assyrians, Indo-Scythians, and North Arabian tribes with the significant role cavalry played not only in warfare but everyday life to form a military reliant almost entirely upon armored horses for battle."

Maybe someone with more experience in the subject can take it on. --Slashme (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Self-Contradictory statement?
Article says: "Traditionally, Roman cavalry was neither heavily armored nor decisive in effect; the Roman equites corps were composed mainly of lightly armored horsemen bearing spears and swords to pursue stragglers and rout enemies." The verb "rout" implies decisive victory, yet sentence also says "nor decisive." Also, the statement has no source. Did the editor mean to say that calvary was used to penetrate some particular formation causing a very local rout at some particular point, but calvary did not effect a decisive victory of the whole battle??? (PeacePeace (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC))

 * Roman light cavalry, like any other light cavalry, can capitalize on a battlefield victory by pursuing the retreating enemies, preventing their regrouping and causing further casualties. This sometimes includes turning hasty retreats into routs.  Light cavalry are best for this, as they are typically faster than all other troops.  Although these common tactics could extended and expanded the margin of a battlefield victory, often significantly, these tactics were not the cause the victory, thus, not "decisive" in their own right.  They perform only secondary, skirmishing-style roles during battles.
 * However, marking it citation-needed is okay. --A D Monroe III(talk)  01:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 * I've modified the description of Roman light cavalry to help avoid the confusion noted here. --A D Monroe III(talk)  20:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Clibanarii a foreign term?
Article says: "Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman soldier and historian of the fourth century, mentions the "cataphracti equites (quos clibanarios dictitant)" – the "cataphract cavalry which they regularly call clibanarii" (implying that clibanarii is a foreign term, not used in Classical Latin)."

Yet the article seems to continue & demonstrate that clibanarii is classical Latin! I suggest this discussion be clarified. Did the editor mean to say that though Ammianus implied it was not Classical Latin, Ammianus was wrong? (PeacePeace (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC))

Etymology
The long and complex final paragraph of the Etymology contradicts the first paragraph. It seems to head off on a great digression, as if a piece of speculative OR. Other than some usage examples, it contains no reliable source attribution and its only historical citation turns out to be to a wikipedia page, which is a no-no. I'm not sure it adds anything encyclopaedic and propose removal under WP:OR. Monstrelet (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Very much agree - The suggested etymology in that final paragraph is speculative in the extreme. 'Kataphraktos' had long been used of ships, eg by Thucydides (Thuc. 1.10), meaning ships 'covered over' with decks. The word is common in this sense in Polybius (eg Pol. 1.20.13), often qualified as 'naus kataphraktos' ('covered-over ship'), as opposed to '(naus) aphraktos', 'uncovered (undecked) ship'.
 * Polybius also uses 'kataphraktos' to refer to cavalry (qualified as 'kataphraktos hippos'), eg: Pol 16.18.6; 16.18.8
 * He gives the meaning ('covered over', 'fully armoured') explicitly: "Next came the 'cataphract' cavalry, both men and horses acquiring that name from the nature of their panoply", Pol 30.25.9
 * So clearly 'kataphraktos' means something like 'covered over' or 'fully protected' and the word has long usage in that sense before it was used specifically to refer to a type of cavalry. KoaxKoax (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the reference in the first paragraph to 'Sisennus' should presumably be to Sisenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sisenna); the reference is derived from the Lewis and Short dictionary entry for cataphractus. But the sentence quoted ('loricatos, quos cataphractos vocant') is from Livy, 35.48.3 (which though later than Sisenna is a better first use, since it actually exists).
 * I see 'Sisennus' was queried back in 2009, above, yet it is still there. KoaxKoax (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see 'Sisennus' was queried back in 2009, above, yet it is still there. KoaxKoax (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cataphract


text:
Talk:Abolition

Comments
Why revert the following?
 * Famous things that have been abolished,one main issue was slavery

&
 * Things that are a topic of debate over their possible abolition:

to slavery

Things that are a topic of debate over their possible abolition
They sound more like long sentences than concise proper headings to me. I didn't see these cases mentioned in the Manual. --Menchi 07:35 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * That does look horrible the way I left it; I went too fast that time. It does follow the manual of style for headings, though.  *grin*  I'm going to poke around a bit and see if there's anything in the style guide that's more suited to this article.  - Hephaestos 07:50 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that'll work better. - Hephaestos 07:55 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Suffering
When and where has it been proposed to abolish "Suffering"? Celcius 10:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * www.hedweb.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.108.59 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Classification
The classification in this article is bizarre, unless you take a US-centric point of view. For example, slavery has not been abolished world-wide, nor has alcohol (?). The death penalty has been abolished in many countries and is not really under debate. All Western countries have abolished the death penalty apart from the United States. This article needs a POV overhaul - it does not reflect an international POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.5.118 (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC) diddy j roc lil cris kayshaad jj maken a krump group so cum and check them out www.e.o.ncrew.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.45.139 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless opening sentence
The article's current opening sentence (if it is a real sentence) is utterly meaningless: Abolition is the act of making an existing legal practice, by making it illegal, or simply no longer letting it exist Laurel Bush (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree: This disambig page really needs to be cleaned up, it's not supposed to be a page for differing opinions. I placed the disambig-cleanup template on the page. Any help is appreciated! --Funandtrvl (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree also and restored definition in use in early November 2008. The concept of repealing the pre-exiting right got lost somewhere. -- Timberframe (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Laurel Bush (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
I'm making some attempts to turn this into a dab page, which it was nothing like (see MOS:DAB or other dabs). This pg should only be listing articles where someone may type in just the word 'abolition' and expect to arrive at that topic. It is not to be a list of all things some people may want abolished. Boleyn2 (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abolition


text:
List of cowboys and cowgirls

The following list of cowboys and cowgirls from the frontier era of the American Old West (circa 1830 to 1910) was compiled to show examples of the cowboy and cowgirl genre.

Cattlemen, ranchers, and cowboys

 * Harve Wilson (1867–1951)
 * Preston Nutter (1848–1936)
 * Calico Jones (1832–????)
 * Wilber Emery "W.E." Campbell (1847–1907)
 * John Chisum (1824–1884)
 * Charles Francis Colcord (1859–1934)
 * Robert Driscoll (1871–1929)
 * Jesse Lincoln "J.T." Driskill (1824–1890)
 * Andrew Drumm (1828–1919)
 * Frank "Pistol Pete" Eaton (1860–1958)
 * John King Fisher (1854–1884)
 * Charles Goodnight (1836–1929)
 * Montford T. Johnson (1843–1896)
 * Richard King (1824–1885)
 * Pete Kitchen (1822–1895)
 * Raymond Knight (rodeo organizer) (1872–1947)
 * George W. Littlefield (1842–1920)
 * Oliver Loving (1812–1867)
 * Willis McCutcheon (1836–1906)
 * James Alfred McFaddin (1840–1916)
 * George W. McJunkin (1851–1922)
 * Robert Benjamin "Ben" Masterson (1853–1931)
 * Frank H. Maynard (1853–1926)
 * Colonel George Washington Miller (1841–1903)
 * Zachary Taylor "Zack" Miller (1878–1952)
 * Burton C. Mossman (1867–1956)
 * Thomas O'Connor (1819–1887)
 * William "Bill" Pickett (1870–1932)
 * Abel Head "Shanghai" Pierce (1834–1900)
 * Will Rogers (1879–1935)
 * Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919)
 * Charles Angelo "Charlie" Siringo (1855–1928)
 * John Ware (~1845–1905)
 * Liam Leatherland (~1842–1859)
 * Jordan "Stomach" Cooper (~1870–1904)
 * Jack "Two-Shot" Lowe (1874–1892)
 * Nate Champion (1857–1892)

Wild West show and rodeo performers

 * Earl W. Bascom (1906–1995)
 * Yakima Canutt (1896–1986)
 * William Frederick "Buffalo Bill" Cody (1846–1917)
 * James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok (1837–1876)
 * Raymond Knight (1872–1947)
 * Texas Jack Omohundro (1846–1880)
 * Texas Jack, Jr. (1860–1905)
 * Jack Hoxie (1885–1965)
 * Gordon William "Pawnee Bill" Lillie (1860–1942)
 * May Lillie, née Manning (1869–1936)
 * Thomas E. "Tom" Mix (1880–1940)
 * Lucille Mulhall (1885–1940)
 * Annie Oakley (1860–1926)
 * Will Rogers (1879–1935)
 * Gabriel Dumont (1837–1906)
 * Brodie "Saltmine" Peele (~1923–1974)

Fictional

 * Quick Gun Murugan
 * Hopalong Cassidy
 * Rawhide Kid
 * Cisco Kid
 * Lucky Luke
 * Red Ryder
 * Shane
 * Tonto
 * Zorro
 * Barbarosa
 * Marlboro Man
 * Pecos Bill and Slue-Foot Sue
 * John Marston (video game character; Red Dead Redemption)
 * Sheriff Woody and Jessie (Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and Toy Story 3)
 * Yosemite Sam (animated)
 * Cole Cassidy
 * SpongeBuck SquarePants (SpongeBob Episode; "Pest of the West")
 * Cowboy Zombie (Plants vs. Zombies 2's Wild West)
 * Hol Horse
 * Arthur Morgan
 * John Marston
 * Sheriff Callie
 * Howdy Doody

title: List of cowboys and cowgirls