text:
Underwater basket weaving

Underwater basket weaving is an idiom referring pejoratively to supposedly useless or absurd college or university courses and often generally to refer to a perceived decline in educational standards.

The term also serves as an intentionally humorous generic answer to questions about an academic degree. It is also used to humorously refer to any non-academic elective course, specifically one that does not count towards any graduation requirements.

Possible origin of the phrase

In weaving willow baskets, a trough of water is needed in which to soak the dried willow rods. They are then left to stand until pliable and ready to be used in weaving. The weaving is, however, usually not done under water (see counterexample below). An issue of The American Philatelist from 1956 refers to an Alaskan village where "Underwater basket weaving is the principal industry of the employables among the 94 Eskimos here. By way of explanation – the native reeds used in this form of basketry are soaked in water and the weavers create their handiwork with their hands and raw materials completely submerged in water throughout the process of manufacture".

Early use
The phrase in its pejorative sense has been used since at least the mid-1950s. According to a 1953 article in the Boston Globe on "Hepster Lingo", "Any snap course in school is 'underwater basket weaving. In a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times in 1956, a correspondent bemoaned an alleged decline in academic standards among college football programs and mentioned "majoring in underwater basket weaving, or the preparation and serving of smorgasbord, or, particularly at Berkeley, the combined course of anatomy and panty-raiding". The following year, an article in the National Review mentioned that "the bored students in the educationists' courses call those dreary subjects 'underwater basket-weaving courses, and another year on a newspaper column noted that "One seaside university is bowing to the stern educational demands of the times by eliminating its popular course in underwater basket weaving". An article in the Daily Collegian at Penn State University in 1961 refers to a parody in which "a typical Miami coed majoring in underwater basket weaving was interviewed". An article from 1976 refers to football players so dumb that they had to take underwater basket weaving, and another 1976 article refers to underwater basket-weaving as "an old old family joke".

Current use
In recent years, many subjects in the humanities have adopted scientific methodologies under the category of social sciences. Some of the courses offered in these subjects have drawn criticism; for instance, an op-ed expressed concern over the lack of rigor and scientific relevancy in coursework at the University of Minnesota. Such criticism has been accused of stereotyping the social sciences as underwater basket weaving subjects.

Dave Ramsey, American personal finance writer and radio host, has used the self-invented term "German Polka History" to describe university degree programs that are unlikely to result in a career and which he thus advises people against pursuing. He uses the term along with a degree in "Left-Handed Puppetry" as an umbrella description to avoid singling any specific degree for ridicule.

Notable uses
"Some of the boys she knew from college were trying to dodge the draft by taking graduate courses, "underwater basket weaving and things like that," as Vonda contemptuously put it."

- Rick Atkinson, The Long Gray Line

"This is no surprise, as normal office job functions generally require little knowledge of underwater basket-weaving, 19th century Hungarian clog art, or other things of academic interest."

- Jacob Lund Fisker, Early Retirement Extreme: A Philosophical and Practical Guide to Financial Independence

The phrase was used during the Vietnam War era to describe the sort of major that many young men who would otherwise not have entered college undertook to escape the draft. US Senator Gordon L. Allott referred in 1968 to "the situation that we were in after World War II where we had universities setting up courses in underwater basket weaving, and all this sort of thing". Senator Robert Byrd used the phrase in 1969 when questioning the use of funds to offer professional training to Cuban refugees. The University of Portsmouth had a joke syllabus for underwater basket weaving on the Technology faculty pages, and another joke syllabus proposal was posted by a University of Central Arkansas student magazine.

US punk band NOFX referred to an underwater basket weaving course in their song "Anarchy Camp".

"Moral of the story: writing "underwater basket weaving" will not give you an edge in the admissions process, so just be honest!"

- MIT

The phrase appears in the MIT application process as a humorous example suggesting students should simply state their current interests.

As a taught course
Since 1980, Reed College in Portland, Oregon has occasionally offered an underwater basket weaving class during Paideia, its festival of learning that offers informal, non-credit courses.

The Student Resource Center at the University of Arizona offered a submerged snorkeling basket-weaving course in spring 1998. In early 2009, a Rutgers University scuba diving instructor offered a one-off course. Underwater Basket Weaving is a trademark of the US Scuba Center Inc., which offers a specialty class designed to improve or more fully enjoy diving skills from which participants can "take home a memorable souvenir."

As an April Fools joke, Coursera offered an online course on underwater basket weaving as of April 1, 2013. The class was supposed to "consist of short lecture and demonstration videos, between 8 and 10 minutes in length, short quizzes, and practical weaving exercises."

title: Underwater basket weaving


text:
Earl of Athlone

The title of Earl of Athlone has been created three times.

History
It was created first in the Peerage of Ireland in 1692 by King William III for General Baron van Reede, Lord of Ginkel, a Dutch nobleman, to honour him for his successful battles in Ireland including the Siege of Athlone. The title also had the subsidiary title of Baron Aughrim. These titles became extinct in 1844 upon the death of the 9th Earl. The Earls also bore the Dutch nobility title Baron van Reede (hereditary in male line; still extant in the Netherlands).

The second creation was in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, as a subsidiary title of the Dukedom of Clarence and Avondale, and was conferred in 1890 upon Prince Albert Victor of Wales, the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. When he died in 1892, the title became extinct.

The third creation was in 1917, also in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, for the former Prince Alexander of Teck, younger brother of Queen Mary and greatuncle of Queen Elizabeth II, along with the subsidiary title of Viscount Trematon. The earldom was given after the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, when members of the British royal family were forced to renounce their German royal titles. Alexander had two sons who predeceased him, and the titles became extinct after his death.

Earls of Athlone, first creation (1692)

 * Godard van Reede, 1st Earl of Athlone (1630–1703)
 * Frederick Christiaan van Reede, 2nd Earl of Athlone (1668–1719)
 * Godard Adriaan van Reede, 3rd Earl of Athlone (1716–1736)
 * Fredrik Willem van Reede, 4th Earl of Athlone (1717–1747)
 * Fredrik Christiaan Reinhart van Reede, 5th Earl of Athlone (1743–1808)
 * Frederik Willem van Reede, 6th Earl of Athlone (1766–1810)
 * Reynoud Diederik Jacob van Reede, 7th Earl of Athlone (1773–1823)
 * George Godard Henry van Reede, 8th Earl of Athlone (1820–1843)
 * Willem Gustaaf Frederik van Reede, 9th Earl of Athlone (1780–1844)

Earls of Athlone, second creation (1890)

 * Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward, 1st Duke of Clarence and Avondale, 1st Earl of Athlone (1864–1892)

Earls of Athlone, third creation (1917)

 * Alexander Augustus Frederick William Alfred George Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone (1874–1957)

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

title: Earl of Athlone


text:
Crystal Cavern

Crystal Cavern(s), also known throughout the years as Alabama Caverns and McClu(n)ney Cave, is a small cavern containing crystal formations located in Clay, Alabama, USA.

History
The cavern was discovered in 1840 by a Thomas McCluney. It was mined for saltpeter during the Civil War (1861 to 1865).

The cavern was a tourist attraction for Clay. It opened and closed in 1927 as Alabama Caverns, but had reopened and been renamed to "Crystal Caverns" by 1941, when the WPA Guide to Alabama recorded that it was electrically lit, that its admission price was 25 cents, and that it had "beautiful formations" including what appeared to be "metallic draperies". In 1946, however, biologist Edward McCrady described it as "the poorest commercialized cave [he'd] ever seen". In the early 1960s, the facilities were upgraded. The Congressional Record of 1966 recorded it as having camping facilities that included showers and restrooms, and described it as a "fairyland". It closed as a tourist attraction in the late 1960s, and is now privately owned.

During the Cold War, the cavern was designated as a fallout shelter for up to 1045 people.

Geology
The cavern is part of the Chickamauga Limestone, lies approximately 100 feet above the Copper Ridge Dolomite, and formed along a strike joint when the Appalachian Mountains folded at the end of the Paleozoic. It was reported in 1933 as extending as a narrow passage for 800 feet, with several right angle turns, and having a maximum height of either "about 80 feet" or "67 feet". Cave formations included "onyx crusts and rosettes", stalactites and stalagmites, and "a petrified waterfall". Two named formations were the "Capitol Dome", part of a wall resembling the United States Capitol dome, and the "Family Loft", a high recess containing two large columns along with smaller stalagmites. Siliceous dolomite extruded from the walls and at one point formed a bridge. This was formed by a solution channel (a void in the limestone which allows passage of water) above and below the dolomite bed.

The cavern contained a spring in a pit which, in 1933, was about 20 feet above the water table, and fed by a "slight drip during wet seasons". In 1946, McCrady reported the pool to be less than a foot deep, and clear.

Fauna
The cavern has been the sole reported location of the pseudoscorpion Aphrastochthonius pecki, described in 1968, and one of two local locations reported for Peck's cave snail (Glyphyalinia pecki), which was described in 1966. The McCluney cave cricket (Euhadenoecus insolitus), a regional species, was described in 1978 from a pair of specimens collected at the cavern by Peck in 1965. A white salamander was seen in the cave's pool by Walter B. Jones, however McCrady found the pool devoid of life, and believed the salamander to have accessed the cave via one of its many cracks.

title: Crystal Cavern


text:
Genoese

Genoese, Genovese, or Genoan may refer to:

 * a person from modern Genoa
 * a person from the Republic of Genoa (c. 1100–1805), a former state in Liguria
 * Genoese dialect, a dialect of the Ligurian language
 * Ligurian language, a Romance language of which Genoese is the prestige dialect, and thus also known by that name

title: Genoese


text:
Curtiss OX-5

The Curtiss OX-5 was an early V-8 American liquid-cooled aircraft engine built by Curtiss. It was the first American-designed aircraft engine to enter mass production, although it was considered obsolete when it did so in 1917. It nevertheless found widespread use on a number of aircraft, perhaps the most famous being the JN-4 "Jenny". Some 12,600 units were built through early 1919. The wide availability of the engine in the surplus market made it common until the 1930s, although it was considered unreliable for most of its service life.

Design and development
The OX-5 was the last in a series of Glenn Curtiss designed V engines, which started as a series of air-cooled V-twins for motorcycles in 1902. A modified version of one of these early designs was sold as an aircraft engine in 1906, and from then on the company's primary market was aircraft. The basic design had slowly expanded by adding additional cylinders until they reached the V-8 in 1906. They also started enlarging the cylinders as well, but this led to cooling problems that required the introduction of water cooling in 1908. These early engines used a flathead valve arrangement, which eventually gave way to a cross-flow cylinder with overhead valves in 1909, leading to improved volumetric efficiency. By this point engine design was a team effort; the team included Charles M. Manly, whose earlier Manly–Balzer engine had held the power-to-weight ratio record for 16 years. Curtiss continued the development of their V8 engines with demand for higher power outputs being largely driven by the US Navy’s requirement for seaplanes. By 1912 Curtiss V8’s were developing 75 hp and were known as the Curtiss Model O. The Curtiss O was further developed into the 90 hp Curtiss OX. OX series production began in 1913. The OX-5 was built between 1915 and 1919 and was by far the most popular OX variant.

Like most engines of the era, the OX-5's high-temperature areas were built mostly of cast iron, using individual cylinders bolted to a single aluminum crankcase, wrapped in a cooling jacket made of a nickel-copper alloy. Later versions used a brazed-on steel jacket instead. Cylinder heads were also attached to the crankcase, using X-shaped tie-downs on the top of the head attached to the block via four long bolts. Fuel was carbureted near the rear of the engine, then piped to the cylinders via two T-shaped pipes, the cylinders being arranged so the intake ports of any two in a bank were near each other. The cylinders had one intake and one exhaust valve, the exhaust valve operated by a pushrod from a camshaft running between the banks and inlet valve operated by a pull rod/tube working from the same camshaft. This arrangement caused the outer exhaust valves to have a rather long rocker arm. The push/pullrods were arranged one inside the other, the exhaust valve rod being on the inside and the intake valve rod a tube around it. The aluminum camshaft bearings were a split type bolted together and held in place by lock screws. The pistons were cast aluminum.

The OX-5 was not considered particularly advanced, nor powerful, for its era. By this point rotary engines such as the Oberursel or Gnome-Rhône were producing about 100 hp, and newer inlines were becoming available with 160 hp or more. Nevertheless, the OX-5 had fairly good fuel economy as a result of its slow RPM, which made it useful for civilian aircraft. The OX-5 was used on the Swallow Airplane Swallow, Pitcairn PA-4 Fleetwing II, Travel Air 2000, Waco 9 and 10, the American Eagle, the Buhl-Verville CW-3 Airster, and some models of the Jenny. The primary reason for its popularity was its low cost after the war, with almost-new examples selling as low as $20. It was often used in boats as well as in aircraft.

Reliability
The engine was considered unreliable, but unreliable is a relative term: aviation engine technology had not fully matured at the end of World War I. Certainly the JN4 with the OX-5 was underpowered, but the OX-5 proved a much better engine than the Hall Scott A7A that was the Achilles heel of the Standard J-1, the substitute primary trainer. In particular the valve gear was fragile, and it had no provisions for lubrication other than grease and oil applied by hand, leading to an overhaul interval as short as fifty hours. Additionally the engine featured a single spark plug in each cylinder, and a single ignition system, in an era when ignition equipment was less reliable, with dual ignition already being fitted to more advanced aviation powerplants like the French V-form Hispano-Suiza 8 and the inline-six cylinder series of Mercedes D.I through D.III German engines. Built by several contractors in large numbers, the OX-5 suffered from uneven quality control. However, while the overwhelming majority of training accidents in the U.S. were in JN-4s, this was because JN-4s were flown by the vast majority of trainee pilots, and the accident rate in the US for primary training was four times less than the advanced training rate in France (virtually all US airmen getting advanced training in France), approximately 2800 flying hours in the US primarily in OX-5 powered JN-4s per fatality to 761 hours per fatality in France in other types. Very few fatal accidents were caused by engine failure, although the lack of power may have been the cause of the many stall and spins that took about forty five percent of training lives. Anyone seeing a JN-4 today struggling into the air with an OX-5 can see very quickly that the JN-4 had to be flown in a narrow envelope. Also, the replacement of the A7A in Standard J-1s was contemplated, but the cost of $2,000 per aircraft compared with the need (by the time the J-1s were grounded in June 1918 JN-4s were in sufficient supply) led to the rejection of this idea. The successful civilian post-war use of the OX-5 (even in civilian purchased and converted J-1s) was due to its relative reliability in the more aerodynamically advanced designs of the 1920s, its simplicity of operation, and its low cost. By comparison the Hall Scott A7A created such a bad impression during the war that very few, if any, were used by civilian operators.

The OX-5 itself would be replaced by the well-proven Wright Aeronautical-built version of the 150 hp Hispano-Suiza HS-8a V8 engine in the nearly 930 examples of the later production Curtiss JN-4H Jenny biplanes.

Engines on display

 * A Curtis OX-5 engine is on public display at the Aerospace Museum of California.
 * A Curtis OX-5 modified for marine use, reportedly in a Chris Craft, is on public display at the Iowa Great Lakes Maritime Museum.

title: Curtiss OX-5


text:
PLF

PLF may stand for:

Science and technology

 * Payload fairing
 * Plant Load Factor

Organisations

 * Pacific Legal Foundation
 * Pakistan Labour Federation
 * Palestinian Liberation Front
 * Patrick Leigh Fermor
 * Phil Lesh and Friends
 * Popular Liberation Forces
 * Pretty Lights Family
 * The Princess Louise Fusiliers

Transport

 * Pala Airport, Chad (by IATA code)
 * Passenger load factor
 * Passenger locator form

Other

 * Premium large format theater, a type of auditorium with higher-end amenities
 * Central Malayo-Polynesian languages (by ISO 639 code)
 * Parachute landing fall
 * Precision livestock farming

title: PLF


text:
Talk:James the Great

Message
-

To User:Viajero:

How is linking to placenames named after Saint James wrong? I think the links provide good information. -- Error 02:37, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Saint James Patron of Chile?
According to my references (what i've learned at school and sunday mass) the patron of Chile the Blessed Virgin Mary (as Virgen del Carmen o Nuestra Señora del Carmen) instead of Saint James. Saint James could be the patron of Santiago de Chile, but Santiago no es Chile ;-)

If I'am wrong, pls correct me, otherwise I intend to correct the article. Baloo rch 21:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dating Cuzco painting
The good new image of Sant'Iago of the Cuzco school of colonial Peru is 18th century. A quite different, more iconic, bejewelled and hieratic 17th century approach to Saint James can be seen in this Cuzco painting: the contrast in styles is self-evident. His wide-brimmed hat is 18th century, too; such fine straw "Panama hats" are still made in the northern part of Peru, today called Ecuador. --Wetman 08:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"...also called Saint James of Compostela"
I never heard that St. James was called 'of Compostela'. Santiago de Compostela is the city in Spain. It is thought to mean 'campus stellae', that is, 'star field', or maybe 'compositum', 'graveyard', and that is clearly referred to a place, not a person. --Pinzo 04:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Saint James, or Sant Iago, called "of Compostela" because that's where his shrine is? The city named for the shrine. Cf. Saint Martin of Tours, etc. A help to the reader. --Wetman 07:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, the city is "Santiago de Compostela" but this doesn't change the name of the saint. There is a "Santiago de Chile" also, and you don't call him St. James of Chile!!!. Martin_of_Tours was so called because he was bishop of Tours, but when St. James died Compostela didn't even exist. --Pinzo 01:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Why, of course it is the same Sant Iago: doubtless in English it would have been more correct to have said Saint James in Compostela. Similarly it's the same "Our Lady" wherever located, but it may be useful to distinguish her at Guadelupe from her at Fatima. But isn't it useful for the reader as it stands? If not, edit the opening to serve the reader better. --Wetman 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)--Wetman

 * There are a lot of cities in the world named after St. James, but that doesn't change his name. He is known as St. James the Great or St. James the Moor-Slayer or St Iago, or Santiago etc; but he is NOT known as St. James of Compostela, this is something I had never heard before and AFAIK is just wrong.
 * The fact that there is a city named after him and the word 'compostela' is irrelevant here, in the header. There is the link and an explanation later in the text (maybe a See also would be useful).
 * The situation of "Our Lady" is an exception, because St. Mary is treated almost as a different person in every place she is venerated, she sometimes takes the name of that place.
 * I would delete the offending words again, and add a nice See also if you agree... :-/ --Pinzo 01:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Saint Nicholas of Cusa is also Saint Nicholas of Bari. And in precisely the same way, familiarly identified by the places where he is most venerated... or is he an "exception" too? Keep the reader in mind, and connect "James" and "Compostela" in whatever fashion suits your personal point-of-view, so that the reader knows which James is being referred to. As for "offending" words and the rest, it's only arguing over a phantom after all, like St George. --Wetman 01:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, maybe another exception... Anyway, let's put it simple: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia St. Nicholas of Myra is also called St. Nicholas of Bari, ok; but about St. James the Greater it doesn't give any alternate name. Do you have any reference where he (the saint) is called of Compostela?. Because this is the first and only place where I heard of it. BTW, in the CE he is the Greater not the Great, And that makes sense, since the other St. James, is the Lesser. --Pinzo 05:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if no more arguments I will delete it again, ok? --Pinzo 00:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Saint James of Compostela is now a redirect here, the better to serve the Wikipedia reader. --Wetman 04:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That's ok to me. Done. --Pinzo 20:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

San Diego
Diego is Spanish for James. Santiago is also a version of San Diego. The comment on the page that it is not the same is incorrect.evrik 19:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Diego is not James
"Santiago" is not a shortened version of "San Diego". Diego was/is a Saint in his own right. Interestingly, Diego was at one time a varient of Santiago, see http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/83fall/sandiego.htm but they are two different saints entirely.

Hey, bud, no one is saying the saints were the SAME, the NAMES have the same origin.

Saint Didacus was named that AFTER his death and beatification. Didacus was never a name in its own right before a Latin name was invented for the Saint. Didacus doesn't exist in any other Romance name.

Here is how the Latin name for St. James became Diego in Spanish or Tiago in Portuguese. Sanctus Jacobus Santo Iago (K-sound often became a G-sound) Santiago. THEN we lose the SAN because in modern Spanish the title Saint for males became San (see San Francisco, San Antonio) Tiago (still a name in Portuguese) Diago Diego, Diego.

Please let's kill this Didacus myth. Arthurian Legend 01:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Iago is Diego is James

 * Translation of James
 * View name Diego

 * In Old-Spanish, perhaps, but no longer. 18:56, 12 January 2006 [12.47.174.185]
 * I think that St. James pre-dates old spanish ... evrik 15:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

How can someone NO LONGER have the same origin? That doesn't change. Diego still means James because of Santiago. Think of the Portuguese cognate, Tiago. It's the same name, bud. Arthurian Legend 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Images
Is there a general preference for wither of these two images?

(but of course the caption texts are no arguments) Arnoutf 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because you're just doing this to WP:Point. I like the vampire comment. Pretty funny. See you next week. --evrik (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * NEVER EVER AGAIN EDIT MY COMMENTS FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED BLATANT VANDALISM. Arnoutf 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I didn't edit your comments. I edited the incorrect label on the image. I think you're taking this too personally. --evrik (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I made these labels, it was my edit. The problem with editing another persons' texts is that it allows you to distort his arguments. Anyway, let's try to come to solution because this is not working. Arnoutf 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The one in the middle is a "Croix fleury with a sharpened foot". The other two are crosses of Saint James. There is some room for variation and artistic licence in heraldry.
 * In my view not all three are propper Saint James's crosses. In the Spanish tradition Saint James is "Santiago de espada", Sant Iago of the sword. The cross is therefore one that ends in a sword. In heraldry there has never been anything like a "Vampire staking cross". A "croix au pied fiché", a cross with a sharpened foot, is nevertheless not uncommon in heraldry. All depictions of the crosses of Saint James in heraldry or as jewels of the Orders of Knighthood show a foot in the shape of a sword.
 * There are hundreds of beautifull legends around the crusades and the eldest coats of arms. They are worth to be included on Wiki but the story that these crosses were sharpened "at the time of the Crusades, when the crusaders carried small crosses with pointed lower arms, capable of being thrust into the ground at a time of daily devotions" is in all probability just a legend.

A serious source, Jhr. J.L.M.Graafland and the famous heraldic artist A.Stalins depicted yet another Cross of Saint James. Robert Prummel 22:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * This why the different versions are featured at Cross of St James. The argument here seems to be about which is the best to use in this article. What gets me is that Arnoutf an image well after the others were made and posted and is upset because that one image isn't getting placed in the article. --evrik (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, indeed the vampire staking thing was a making a point discussion (as was Evrik calling the true cross of StJames merely that of the order) Note that this (not funny I agree) joke was vandalised by Evrik who swapped the captions. I made it a blatant show of making a point to expose the weakness of his arguments, but as you may have seen I added a line directly below that no argument whatsoever is to be made from these captions.
 * I have never stated that pied fiche does not exist. Only that the cross of stJames should have a true sword blade and not the pied fiche.
 * I hadn't seen the Graafland Stalins cross before; seems like a cross-fleury with blade and hilt. Interesting version.
 * I am not upset about not the possibility that the cross drawn by me is not the one that is used, I just suggest to use the same cross, that is also the cross of the order of Santiago everywhere. What I don't get is that Evrik cannot come to terms that we should use the same cross for the order and for stJames as the article text states they are the same. Apparently he has decided that there is a difference and that the pied fiche is the correct version of the Saints cross; and that is cross is the correct one. Note that he is the only one ever making links to this image, and while I admit I did not know of the order of Santiago cross when I made my version of StJames cross (looking for StJames made that do) I do not mean to push my version; but Evrik (the only one ever accusing me of this) is adamant that HIS version should be used (clear case of pot calling the kettle black IMHO). As can be noted above I suggested not to use my version but use the Image:Cross_Santiago.svg instead verywhere (a suggestion that has still received no answer from Evrik). Arnoutf 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

 * When did you become owner of this article? You were seriously hurt that I didn't think that Image:StJamesCross.gif wasn't a good image. You then started attacking everywhere where File:St James Cross.svg was placed. You then went and created Image:StJames Cross.png. Let's see you've been edit warring, working against consensus and even after articles were sourced you were violating WP:Dick. --evrik (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am no more owner of this article than you. But also no less.
 * I do not demand that StJamescross.gif is everywhere, I do however think that Stjamescross.png should be removed. Indeed I went and created a .png version as that was suggested by you.
 * I replaced all 4 installments of your version once; which you reverted immediately. I did not re-revert (only where I removed them altogether as there was no source for its inclusion). You may call a single image replace an edit war. Reverting without edit summary (which you did, not me) is in my book more of an edit war.
 * Consensus as slowly evolving on this page is that the flower ended, sword blade cross is the best version (see repsonse by Guille and Robert Prummel) So it seems to be 3 to 1 in favour of the sword. Who is working against consensus?
 * A source is only as good as what it is saying. If a source does not say anything on the topic, the source is not a valid source (e.g. the manual of Microsoft Windows is not a reliable source for early Sumerian History articles). Simply providing a source is not enough, it needs to contain relevant information.
 * In brief, you are the one who cannot cope with your cross being removed from pages, as soon as this happened you started to shout wild allegations against me and started calling me names. Arnoutf 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that Evrik has been changing the cross proposed by him on April 13th 2007, well after this discussion started. So everything before April 13 has been referring to this version of that image. The version before april 13 had some kind of tassles, where now it suddenly has the fleur de lis endings. So I think the discussion is from now on going to be limited to the 'fitch' or the 'sword blade' shape of the bottom end of the cross. Arnoutf 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fitch is fine. The fitch has been on there several months now. It is accurate. --evrik (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is plainly untrue. In this article the fitch was replaced by a sword shape version on october 22 2006, and that version has been up until you removed it april 4. You and who else are saying the fitch is fine? Arnoutf 07:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As no arguments have followed for over a week and three editors have voiced preference of a sword shape over the fitch, which is favoured by only one editor, I will change the image on May 1st, unless compelling arguments are made before that time. Arnoutf 07:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 * What three editors? You and the mice in you pocket? --evrik (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your last remark is either insulting or an indication that you have not read discussion above (assuming you can read and count up to three). Arnoutf 09:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Who were the three again?--evrik (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Me, Robert Prummel (somewhere halfway down) and Guille (top of the discussion).Arnoutf 07:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bull
Removed from the main article for discussion
 * Thus the possibility that the relics at Santiago de Compostela predate the cult there of St James is no longer open to discussion for believing Roman Catholics. (The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1966 has this to say: "The genuineness of the relics at Santiago de Compostela, his famous shrine in Spain, is seriously disputed despite the fact that Pope Leo XIII referred to them as authentic in his bull Omnipotens Deus in 1884." Apparently the discussion is still open.)

Santiago WL in "Sanit James and Hispania"
I decided to remove the WikiLink to Santiago in that particular spot. The only other "Santiago" that needs to be linked to in this article is Santiago de Compostela; Santiago itself only contains a little blurb about this article before redirecting back here, and anyone who uses that particular WL will already have learned it all from this article. SingCal 03:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

United States?
How is he the Patron Saint of the United States? 67.188.172.165 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

James the Great
James the great is patron saint of about thirty nine different things —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.207.77.6 (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Renamed
With a certain level of surprise a learned this article was suddenly renamed without any discussion. Of course WikiPolicy is to be bold; but I think this is a bit too bold. At least provide a good edit summary, and usefull explanation why it was deemed useful/necesary to rename this article. Arnoutf 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 * It was renamed to reflect his biblical name, to make him conform with the other Apostle James, son of Alphaeus, and because "James the Great" never was a good translation of "Jacobus Maior". Str1977 (smile back) 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Some references:
 * Primary Resource: The discussion revolved around a preference for the name because it is the New Testament version of the name - which is the primary source of info and reason for the notability of James. I could give you the NT references for "James, son of Zebedee" if you like, but I cannot find any for "James the Great."  The traditional materials that speak of James "the Great" are generally much later.
 * A Secondary Resource: W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1984), only speaks of "James the brother of John" (see pp. 90 & 202).
 * A Tertiary Resource: The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everet Ferguson (New York: Garldand Pub, 1997) speaks of James as the "son of Zebedee" and "Son of Thunder," but not "the Great."
 * Online resource: The catholic encyclopedia calls him, at the very opening of the article on James the Great, "the son of Zebedee and Salome." It goes on to explain that he was called "The Greater" to distinguish him from "the Lesser" - with no explanation on where "the Greater" came from.  On wikipedia, James and James have been otherwise distinguished, esp. since it is not exactly clear who the Lesser is.
 * That is all I have on hand. I will check my other library and see what I come up with.  Hope that helps.  Pastordavid 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've generally heard him referred to as "James, son of Zebedee". ElinorD 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok; you make a convincing point, I see why renaming may be in order. I think he is generally known as James the Great by people interested in the Camino de Santiago (Way of St James) - which is why I have this page watched; but I can live very well with your arguments and sources and if explained in this way, agree with the renaming, thanks for providing them here. Arnoutf 08:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The second part of moving a page involves cleaning up [all the double redirects] that one has created. To leave that to other editors is discourteous. A note to this effect has been left at the Talkpage of the mover. --Wetman 04:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. But nobody's perfect. Str1977 (smile back) 06:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wetman, that was probably my fault. I wasn't sure if Str1977 was going to take care of that or if he needed me to.  I think I got them all.  -- Pastordavid 06:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I was thrown off by the claim that James the Lesser was James son of Alpheus, because I thought it was James the Brother of Jesus who was of the Seventy Apostles (the lesser) as apposed to James son of Zebedee of the Twelve (the Greater) and the lesser and greater nominatives are referring to the 12 being greater than the 70. 173.10.110.108 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Article in need of introduction
I think the article is in serious need of a good introduction. I propose to make a setup soon, please feel free to comment. Arnoutf 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We need a section on the historical figure
While the introduction now duly mentions the biblical James, the article proper does not. This is weird. The introduction should be a summary. I suggest we start the article proper with a section on the historical James, before we go on with the Spain section. Arnoutf 10:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Name in Tiberian Hebrew, Greek, Latin
Other Biblical saints have their birth names and then the two most influential versions in Indo-Europeans languages; Greek and Latin. I know that Saint James is Sanctus Jacobus in Latin, can we add the other ones? Arthurian Legend 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hagios Iakovos in Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.110.108 (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
Just reading about the morphing of the name to (eventually) San Diego and others. I realize that it would be a very short article but I'm wondering if it shouldn't be separate. A bit much for here anyway. But very interesting. The city of San Diego could link to it (for example) and others.Student7 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure it is actual morphing, it seems more a translation issue. SantIago in Spanish; Saint Jacques in French (coquille st Jacques), Sankt Jakob in German, Saint James in English etc. Arnoutf (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The scallop
Is it known why he got a scallop attributed to him? Hexmaster (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Several myths are available. The most common one is that after being beheaded in Jerusalem his body was shipped to Spain (where he had preached) by his disciples. Before arriving a storm wrecked the ship and the body was. It was found a few days later washed ashore, covered in a protective layer of Scallops and thus undamaged. (several variants exist). Bit of trivia: French word for Scallop - Coquille St Jacques is literary Shell of St James. Arnoutf (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why Is There No Mention
Why is there almost no mention except for the lead of what he actually did according to the bible, it seems that 90% of this article are traditions that the catholics have added to him and almost none about his story according to the gospels and early acts 216.121.228.48 (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is only limited information in the bible. Most of his importance is in the traditions. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it clear that the Acts reference is to him?
Since there is so much confusion of similarly-named characters in the New Testament, is it even clear that the reference in the Book of Acts to a James being put to death actually means the apostle? If it is, some source should be given in support. -- 77.189.70.109 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Acts 12:2 is very clear. And that citation is already there.  --Nlu (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Expand discussion of St. James in Haiti?
There is mention in the section on St. James in Kongo of Kongo traditions having gone to the new world, and to Haiti in particular. Saint James (Sen Jak) is extremely popular in Haiti. (see, e.g., Cosentino, Donald J. [2006] "It's All for You, Sen Jak" in *Invisible Powers: Vodou in Haitian Life and Culture* ed. Michel, Claudine and Patrick Bellegarde-Smith. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.) Vodou practitioners often identify images of Saint James with the Vodou divinity Ogoun. I imagine some information about his role in Haiti might not go amiss on the main St. James page, though perhaps just linking to the Wiki page on Ogoun is enough? This is my first time in the Wikipedia chat world, so I'm interested to know what those of you more experienced in editing, and who take regular care of this page might think. Zloop (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Mary Salome is the mother of James, not Salome.
The mother of James son of Zebedee is not Salome, but Mary Salome. I think it would be necessary to have a look to the references about this articule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.19.186 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Date of death
I'm a little concerned about the statement "died 44 AD". The date of death is based on legend and really can't be cited as fact. That needs to be indicated right at the start when the date is first mentioned. Nobody knows the exact dates of early Christians. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I tend to agree. Would "....reportedly died 44 AD" be ok (that is concise but may be to firm about the date). Alternatively but more wordy "... according to legend died 44 AD" might perhaps do Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * "According to legend" or "according to tradition" would be better. "Reportedly" doesn't correctly signal that the story is a structure with a religious purpose, but instead gives the impression that it is some kind of historicity-only statement which is reported by journalists. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Section: "In the New Testament"
Section: In the New Testament blasphemes – most specifically the first three paragraphs – against my skeptical mind the following ways: Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * it is written like a mythos (which is an essential part of religions and to be respected) were facts, there should be some signalling "according to tradition" to distinguish tradition/mythos from historical reality (which is rather irrelevant for beliefs/faiths),
 * it speculates wildly by citing the worthless source "probably",
 * one source cannot be enough for this kind of texts, in the first run, the text should be labelled "according to the Catholic encyclopedia", in the longer run, more sources are needed.

Acoma Pueblo
According to the article on Acoma Pueblo their patron saint is Saint Stephen, not James, son of Zebedee. אביהו (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James, son of Zebedee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100101094841/http://www.archicompostela.org/peregrinos/Estadisticas/peregrinanos.htm to http://www.archicompostela.org/peregrinos/Estadisticas/peregrinanos.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James, son of Zebedee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151129033008/http://www.peregrinossantiago.es/esp/wp-content/uploads/informes/peregrinaciones2010.pdf to http://www.peregrinossantiago.es/esp/wp-content/uploads/informes/peregrinaciones2010.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What is a Compostela?
The text currently reads: Some 237,886 pilgrims registered in 2014 as having completed the final 100 km walk (200 km by bicycle) to Santiago to qualify for a Compostela. Apparently "A Compostela" is an award given fro completing the last 100 km of the pilgrimage, but that's only implied by the text. Needs a bit more explanation. TwelveGreat (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Agree that needs explanation. But I think wikilinking to the relevant section of Camino de Santiago: Camino_de_Santiago, as I just did, should do. Arnoutf (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement below to rename this article, so this request is granted. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 15:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

James, son of Zebedee → James the Great – 1-this makes a contrast to James the Less. 2-this is a more common name for him (WP:COMMONNAME). 3-not many people search for “James, son of Zebedee“, but many people search for “James the Great“ in Google. 4- this name is more appropriate for WP:JR/SR. Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. AGREE deisenbe (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Support. Common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How do I add a church to those in England called St Jamea
I'm unsure how to do this but as I was looking at the list of churches in England called after St James, I saw that my church is not listed. If someone could do that, I would be grateful. It's St James Church, Stretham, Cambridgeshire. Thank you for your time. Stay safe. Skippycat12 Skippycat12 (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:James the Great


text:
Enochian magic

Enochian magic is a system of Renaissance magic developed by John Dee and Edward Kelley and adopted by more modern practitioners. The origins of this esoteric tradition are rooted in documented collaborations between Dee and Kelley, encompassing the revelation of the Enochian language and script, which Dee wrote were delivered to them directly by various angels during their mystical interactions. Central to the practice is the invocation and command of various spiritual beings.

Dee's journals detail the two men's interactions with these entities, accompanied by the intricate Enochian script and tables of correspondences. They believed that these revelations granted them access to insights concealed within Liber Logaeth, often referred to as the Book of Enoch.

Enochian magic, as practiced by Dee and Kelley, involved a range of rituals and ceremonies designed to evoke angelic and other spiritual entities. These practices, meticulously recorded in Dee's journals, aimed to harness the energies and wisdom of these entities for transformative and practical purposes. This Renaissance occult tradition involved the interaction between human practitioners and the ethereal realm, characterized by the use of the Enochian language and symbols.

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn would later integrate elements of Enochian magic into its system. This adaptation reignited interest in Enochian practices, further embedding them within broader Western esoteric traditions. Debates have arisen regarding the accuracy and interpretation of these adaptations, one example of the evolution of Enochian magic across diverse historical and contemporary contexts.

Background

In the early 1580s, John Dee's pursuit of understanding the secrets of nature left him dissatisfied with his progress. Seeking a more profound wisdom encompassing both natural and artificial truths, Dee's journey evolved into a spiritual exploration. Dee wrote:

"I have from my youth up, desired and prayed unto God for pure and sound wisdom and understanding of truths natural and artificial, so that God's wisdom, goodness, and power bestowed in the frame of the world might be brought in some bountiful measure under the talent of my capacity... So for many years and in many places, far and near, I have sought and studied many books in sundry languages, and have conferred with sundry men, and have laboured with my own reasonable discourse, to find some inkling, gleam, or beam of those radical truths. But after all my endeavours I could find no other way to attain such wisdom but by the Extraordinary Gift,  and not by any vulgar school, doctrine, or human invention."

In response, Dee turned his attention toward the supernatural as a means to acquire the knowledge he sought. He used scrying, employing individuals known as scryers or crystal-gazers to act as intermediaries between himself and angelic beings. Dee's initial attempts with various scryers proved underwhelming, until he encountered Edward Kelley in 1582. Operating under the pseudonym Edward Talbot due to a forgery conviction, Kelley's remarkable abilities caught Dee's attention and impressed him greatly.

Dee enlisted Kelley's services, focusing his energies on supernatural pursuits. These spiritual interactions were steeped in Christian piety and followed periods of purification, prayer, and fasting. Dee held a steadfast belief in the potential benefits these efforts could bring to humanity. Kelley's role in channeling angelic communications resulted in a voluminous output, with the angels dictating several books, often in a previously unknown language termed "Angelical", now more commonly called Enochian. Kelley's contributions laid the groundwork for Enochian magic, a system that intertwined mysticism and practical ritual within the landscape of Renaissance occultism.

Angelical
Called Angelical by Dee, the Enochian language is an occult constructed language — said by its originators to have been received from angels — recorded in the private journals of John Dee and his colleague Edward Kelley in late 16th-century England. The term "Enochian" comes from Dee's assertion that the Biblical patriarch Enoch had been the last human (before Dee and Kelley) to know the language.

The language found in Dee's and Kelley's journals encompasses a limited textual corpus. Linguist Donald Laycock, an Australian Skeptic, studied the Enochian journals, and argues against any extraordinary features. The phonology and grammar resemble English, though the translations are not sufficient to work out any regular morphology. Some Enochian words resemble words and proper names in the Bible, but most have no apparent etymology.

There have been several compilations of Enochian words made to form Enochian dictionaries. A scholarly study is Donald Laycock's The Complete Enochian Dictionary. Also useful is Vinci's Gmicalzoma: An Enochian Dictionary. Israel Regardie's Enochian dictionary is reprinted in Crowley, Duquette, and Hyatt, Enochian World of Aleister Crowley.

Since Dee is known to have been a spy for Elizabeth I's court, there are interpretations of his Angelic manuscripts as cryptographic documents - most likely polyalphabetic ciphers - designed to disguise political messages.

Manuscript sources
At the heart of Enochian magic's origin are manuscripts attributed to John Dee and Edward Kelley, notably the Five Books of Mystery and Liber Logaeth. These texts serve as pivotal foundations, encoding the intricate language, symbolism, and rituals intrinsic to Enochian magic.

These manuscripts have been enriched by a succession of scholars and practitioners. Individuals like Thomas Rudd (1583?–1656), Elias Ashmole (1617–1692), Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers (1854–1918), William Wynn Westcott (1848–1925), Aleister Crowley (1875–1947), and Israel Regardie (1907–1985) have contributed as guardians and commentators. As magicians, their roles extend beyond preservation, including writing commentaries, making adaptations, and revealing insights that have expanded the views on Enochian magic.

Five Books of Mystery
The Five Books of Mystery (Mysteriorum Libri Quinque) are documented within the manuscript Sloane MS 3188, a repository of the 'actions' or mystical practices detailed in Liber Logaeth. This manuscript served as a diary spanning from 22 December 1581 to 23 May 1583. It encompasses the first five Books of Mystery, along with an Appendix, notably concluding where Casaubon's A True and Faithful Relation commences. There are two transcripts of this manuscript available today: from Joseph Peterson and C. L. Whitby. The Five Books of Mystery serve as a comprehensive guide to Enochian magic, encompassing language, symbolism, rituals, and practical techniques. The five books are:

 * 1) Primus: The Magick of Enoch serves as an introduction to the celestial language known as Angelical, forming the bedrock of Enochian magic. Within its pages, foundational Enochian alphabets are revealed, allowing communication with angelic entities through the use of Angelic Keys. This book establishes the linguistic basis for Enochian magical operations, setting the stage for further exploration into the mystical realm as presented in the Five Books of Mystery.
 * 2) Secundus: The Mystical Heptarchy: This book delves deeper into the Angelical language, unveiling the intricate Great Table—an essential matrix of letters and symbols pivotal to Enochian magical workings. Within its pages, the concept of the Thirty Æthyrs is introduced, presenting metaphysical planes that serve as conduits for practitioners to interact with angelic beings. This book expands the realm of Enochian magic, providing a framework for engaging with celestial hierarchies and exploring the mystical dimensions of existence.
 * 3) Tertius: The Forty-Eight Angelic Keys shifts the focus to the construction and symbolism of temples. This book offers insights into their integral role within Enochian magic. It outlines the design and significance of temples, emphasizing sacred geometry and symbolism as vehicles for spiritual transformation. By exploring the intricate interplay between architecture and mysticism, this book provides practitioners with a practical understanding of how temples can serve as spaces for connecting with higher realms and channeling divine energies.
 * 4) Quartus:  Earthly Knowledge, Aid & Victory: This book explores the symbolism of Elemental Tablets and Watchtowers, shedding light on the interplay between metaphysical constructs and natural forces. It deciphers the intricate connections between classical elements and earthly energies, enhancing practitioners' comprehension of the intricate web woven by Enochian magic. Through the exploration of these symbols, individuals gain a deeper insight into the harmonious interaction between mystical and natural realms, enriching their journey into the profound intricacies of Enochian magic.
 * 5) Quintus: The Angels of the Four Quarters focuses on practical applications of Enochian magic. It offers rituals and ceremonies grounded in the Angelical language and its symbolism. This book serves as a guide bridging the gap between mystical theory and practical implementation in esoteric pursuits.

Liber Logaeth
Liber Loagaeth (lit. Book of the Speech of God, also known as Liber Mysteriorum, Sextus et Sanctus [The Sixth and Sacred Book of the Mysteries], referred to by Dee as The Book of Enoch) (1583) is preserved in the British Library mostly within what are known as the Sloane manuscripts, chiefly Sloane MS 3189 (but parts of Sloane MS 3188 and the Cotton MS Appendix I also contain the beginning and end of the book, with some copying of material in Sloane MS 3188 appearing in Sloane MS 3189).

Written up by Edward Kelley, it is composed of 73 folios (18 from Sloane MS 3188, 54 from Sloane MS 3189, and 1 (text only) from Cotton MS Appendix I). The book contains 96 complex magical grids of letters (94 of which are 49×49 grids of letters, one of which is a table composed of 49 rows of text, and one of which is a table of 40 rows of text and 9 rows of 49 letters). The final folio from Cotton MS Appendix I was 21 words consisting of 112 letters, which according to the text, was apparently able to be somehow reduced to 105 letters and arranged into five 3x7 tables, three on the front and two on the back (cf. Cotton MS Appendix I).

It is from Liber Logaeth that Dee and Kelley derived the 48 Calls or Keys (see below), and in which are concealed the keys to the Mystical Heptarchy, a related magical work by Dee. Dee himself left little information on his Sixth Holy Book apart from saying that it contained 'The Mysterie of our Creation, The Age of many years, and the conclusion of the World' and that the first page in the book signified Chaos. (Note that the title, The Book of Enoch, attributed to the text of Liber Logaeth, is not to be confused with the apocryphal Book of Enoch, which was considered lost in Dee's time.

Other manuscripts
Another manuscript is Sloane MS 3191, which comprises: 48 Angelic Keys; The Book of Earthly Science, Aid and Victory; On the Mystic Heptarchy; and Invocations of the Good Angels.

Two further manuscripts from Dee and Kelley's workings pertain to Enochian magic:
 * 1) Cotton MS Appendix XLVI Part I is the diary for 28 May 1583 – 15 August 1584 inclusive: The Sixth (and Sacred) Parallel Book of the Mysteries (not to be confused with "The Sixth and Sacred Book of the Mysteries", which is part of Liber Logaeth – see above) and "The Seventh Book of the Mysteries" (Kraków), beginning where A True and Faithful Relation begins. It includes the arrival of Prince Adalbert Laski, the journey to Kraków and the dictation of the 48 Calls or Keys (including descriptions of the 91 Parts of the Earth), as well as the Vision of the Four Watchtowers and also the Great Table.
 * 2) Cotton MS Appendix XLVI Part II is the diary for 15 August 1584 – 23 May 1587 (and 20 March – 7 September 1607) inclusive: The Book of Praha, The Royal Stephanic Mysteries, The Puccian Action, The Book of Resurrection, The Third Action of Trebon and the remaining Spirit Actions at Mortlake in 1607, ending where A True and Faithful Relation ends. (It may be seen that Casaubon's A True and Faithful Relation is equivalent to the Cotton MS Appendix in toto, i.e. Dee and Kelley's diaries from 28 May 1585-23 Sept 1607).

Meric Casaubon's 1659 edition of part of these diaries (Cotton Appendix MS XLVI), entitled A True & Faithful Relation of What Passed for Many Yeers between John Dee and Some Spirits, contains notorious transcription errors which in some cases were transmitted through many subsequent republications of the Dee/Kelly material; Casaubon's edition was intended to discredit Dee and Kelly by accusing them of dealing with the Christian Devil. An expanded facsimile edition of Casaubon was published by Magickal Childe in 1992.

Dee and Kelley's surviving manuscripts later came into the possession of Elias Ashmole, who preserved them and made copies of some, along with annotations.

The system
The Enochian magical system is a structured framework consisting of various essential components which are outlined in Aleister Crowley's Liber Chanokh. Key elements include the Elemental Tablets (including the "Tablet of Union"), the Angelical Keys, the Great Table (made up of the 4 Elemental Tablets and incorporating the Tablet of Union), and specific temple furnishings. These components provide the foundation for practitioners engaged in spiritual exploration within the Enochian tradition. The Angelical Keys of the 30 Aethyrs function as evocations to access mystical realms, while the Great Table symbolically represents the universe. The system also involves the setup of a designated temple space with requisite magical tools.

The Great Table
Enochian magic encompasses a system of symbolism and spiritual exploration, primarily centered around the Elemental Tablets and related elements. The core of this magical system is the Great Table, which consists of four Elemental Tablets, symbolizing the classical elements of earth, air, fire, and water. These tablets are inhabited by various spiritual beings and entities.

Within the Great Table, there is a structured hierarchy of spiritual entities. These include the Three Holy Names, representing potent sources of divine authority, and a Great Elemental King who governs each of the Elemental Tablets. Supporting these are the Six Seniors (also known as Elders), comprising a total of 24 figures reminiscent of the Twenty-Four Elders mentioned in the biblical Book of Revelation. Additionally, there are two Divine Names associated with the Calvary Cross; Kerubim, often depicted as angelic beings linked to the fixed zodiac signs; and Sixteen Lesser Angels, each with distinct roles and attributes.

Further intricacies emerge within the Elemental Tablets, which are divided into four sub-quadrants or sub-angles. These contain the names of archangels and angels responsible for overseeing specific quarters of the world, effectively populating the universe, both seen and unseen, with intelligent spiritual beings.

At the heart of each Elemental Tablet lies the Great Central Cross, consisting of two central vertical columns known as Linea Patris and Linea Filii, and a central horizontal line called Linea Spiritus Sancti. The exact significance of the Great Central Cross can vary among interpretations of Enochian magic.

Completing the symbolic representation of the five classical elements is the Tablet of Union, often referred to as the Black Cross. This grid of twenty squares is derived from within the Great Central Cross and serves to embody the element of Spirit.

The Thirty Æthyrs
The Thirty Aethyrs are an integral part of the Enochian magical system, representing a sequence of spiritual planes or realms that practitioners explore as they ascend from 30 (TEX, the lowest) to 1 (LIL, the highest). In the practice of Enochian magic, magicians document their visions, experiences, and impressions within each successive Aethyr, marking their progression through this mystical hierarchy.

One notable feature of the Aethyrs is the presence of "Governors". Each of the 30 Aethyrs is inhabited by three Governors, with the exception of TEX, which has four, totaling 91 Governors across the entire system. These Governors are considered angelic or spiritual entities associated with the Aethyrs and are believed to hold significant knowledge and power within their respective realms.

The Governors are distinguished by their unique sigils, which are mystical symbols representing their presence and authority. A crucial part of Enochian magical practice involves tracing these sigils onto the Great Tablet, a key tool in the Enochian system. By inscribing the sigils on the Tablet, magicians establish a connection with the Governors and the energies associated with each Aethyr.

The Angelical Keys
The Angelical Keys, also known as the Calls or Enochian Keys, are a central component of Enochian magic. These keys are a series of rhetorical exhortations which function as evocations when read in the Enochian language. They are used to effect the "opening of 'gates' into various mystical realms." These realms may include elemental realms, sub-elemental realms, or the Thirty Aethyrs, depending on which key is used.

There are a total of nineteen Angelical Keys in Enochian magic. The first eighteen keys are typically associated with opening gates to the realms of elements and sub-elements. In Enochian magic, these realms are often mapped onto the Great Tablet, a complex symbolic diagram used in Enochian ritual work.

The nineteenth key is specifically used to open gateways to the Thirty Aethyrs. The Aethyrs are envisioned as concentric rings that expand outward from the innermost Aethyr to the outermost. They are often viewed as a map of the entire universe, with each Aethyr providing access to unique spiritual insights and experiences. Exploring these Aethyrs is seen as a journey through different levels of spiritual consciousness and understanding.

The Temple
Temple "furniture" required for the performance of Enochian magic includes:
 * 1) The Holy Table: a table with a top engraved with a Hexagram, a surrounding border of Enochian letters, and in the middle a Twelvefold table (cell) engraved with individual Enochian letters. According to Duquette and Hyatt, the Holy Table "does not directly concern Elemental or Aethyrical workings. Angels found on the Holy Table are not called forth in these operations."
 * 2) The Seven Planetary Talismans: The names on these talismans (which are engraved on tin and placed on the surface of the Holy Table) are those of the Goetia. According to Duquette and Hyatt, "this indicates (or at least implies) Dee's familiarity with the Lemegeton and his attempt, at least early in his workings, to incorporate it in the Enochian system." As with the Holy Table, Spirits found on these talismans are not called forth in these operations.
 * 3) The Sigillum dei Aemeth, Holy Sevenfold Table, or 'Seal of God's Truth': The symbol derives from the grimoire called Liber Juratus or The Sworn Book of Honorius, of which Dee owned a copy. Five versions of this complex diagram are made from bee's wax, and engraved with the various lineal figures, letters and numbers. The four smaller ones are placed under the feet of the Holy Table. The fifth and larger one (about nine inches in diameter) is covered with a red cloth, placed on the Holy Table, and is used to support the "Shew-Stone" or "Speculum" (crystal or other device used for scrying). Scrying is an essential element of the magical system. Dee and Kelly's technique was to gaze into a concave obsidian mirror. Crowley habitually held a large topaz mounted upon a wooden cross to his forehead. Other methods include gazing into crystals, ink, fire or even a blank TV screen.
 * 4) A magician's ring engraved with the magical formula PVELLE.
 * 5) The magic rod "el", painted in three sections, the ends being black and the middle red.

Adaptation by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
Little else became of Dee's work until late in the nineteenth century, when it was incorporated by a brotherhood of adepts in England.

The rediscovery of Dee and Kelley's material by Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in the 1880s led to Mathers developing the material into a comprehensive system of ceremonial magic. Magicians invoked the Enochian deities whose names were written on the tablets. They also traveled in their bodies of light into these subtle regions and recorded their psychic experiences. The two major branches of the system were then grafted on to the Adeptus Minor curriculum of the Golden Dawn. According to Aleister Crowley, the magician starts with the 30th aethyr and works up to the first, exploring only so far as his level of initiation will permit.

According to Chris Zalewski's 1994 book, the Golden Dawn also invented the game of Enochian chess, in which aspects of the Enochian Tablets were used for divination. They used four chessboards without symbols on them, just sets of colored squares, and each board is associated with one of the four elements of magic.

Florence Farr founded the Sphere Group which also experimented with Enochian magic.

Criticism of the Golden Dawn adaptation
Paul Foster Case (1884–1954), an occultist who began his magical career with the Alpha et Omega, was critical of the Enochian system. According to Case, the system of Dee and Kelley was partial from the start, an incomplete system derived from an earlier and complete Qabalistic system, and lacked sufficient protection methods. Case believed he had witnessed the physical breakdown of a number of practitioners of Enochian magic, due to the lack of protective methods. When Case founded his own magical order, the Builders of the Adytum (B.O.T.A.), he removed the Enochian system and substituted elemental tablets based on Qabalistic formulae communicated to him by Master R.

In popular culture
Since horror writer H. P. Lovecraft, in his short work "The History of the Necronomicon" (written 1927, published after Lovecraft's death, in 1938), made John Dee the translator of one of the versions of his mythical book of forbidden lore, The Necronomicon (an example of Lovecraft's use of the technique of "pseudo-authenticity"), much has been written connecting Dee and Enochian magic with The Necronomicon. The fanciful connection between Dee and The Necronomicon was suggested by Lovecraft's friend Frank Belknap Long.

title: Enochian magic


text:
Ahmed Jibril

Ahmed Jibril (أحمد جبريل; c. 1937 – 7 July 2021) was a Palestinian militant and political leader who was the founder and leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC).

During the Syrian Civil War, Jibril was a notable supporter of the Assad government and PFLP-GC members helped government forces to fight the Syrian opposition. However, after clashes with rebels in Yarmouk Camp in Damascus, the PFLP-GC suffered defections and was forced to withdraw from the camp, and Jibril fled the city.

Early life
Born to a Palestinian father and Syrian mother, Jibril's year of birth is given by different sources as 1935, 1937 and 1938 and his place of birth as Yazur, Jaffa, Ramla and Ramallah in Mandatory Palestine as well as Iraq and Syria. When the First Arab-Israeli War began in 1948, his family moved to Homs, Syria, where he was raised. He graduated from the Homs Military Academy and served in the Syrian Army from 1956 until 1958, rising to the rank of captain before being expelled as a suspected Communist. In 1959, he founded the Palestinian Liberation Front. Beginning in 1965, he worked closely with the leadership of the Palestinian National Liberation Movement (Fatah), including Yasser Arafat. In 1967, he joined with George Habash to form the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Palestinian Marxist–Leninist and revolutionary socialist organization that combined Arab nationalism with the leftist ideology, and which was in conflict with Arafat.

Break from the PFLP
In 1968, Jibril broke away from the PFLP because of disputes over the more revolutionary Marxism advocated by Habash and Nayef Hawatmeh. He formed a new organization, the pro-Syrian "The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command" (PFLP-General Command).

Jibril never wavered from his belief that Palestine could only be liberated through military attrition. He joined George Habash and other splinter groups which opposed negotiations with the Israeli government. He launched a variety of inventive attacks, including the "Night of the Gliders" on 25 November 1987.

Leader of PFLP-GC
Samuel Katz's Israel vs. Jibril distinguishes the PFLP-GC and Jibril's strategy from the rest of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) by its emphasis on military training and equipment, and not on declarations and publicity stunts. This caused the group to fail to make a significant mark on the public debate. Since 1994's Oslo Accords, support for the PFLP-GC dwindled among Palestinians.

On 7 May 2001, the Israeli Navy seized a Palestinian boat filled with heavy weapons in the port of Haifa. Jibril is believed to have been behind the shipment of weapons, which were bound for the Gaza Strip.

During the Syrian Civil War, the PFLP-GC helped the Syrian Army to fight the Syrian rebels in and around Yarmouk Camp – a district of Damascus that is home to the biggest community of Palestinian refugees in Syria. Several members of the PFLP-GC's central committee opposed this alliance with the government and resigned in protest. By 17 December 2012, the rebels, which included Palestinians, had won control of Yarmouk. Jibril fled Damascus, reportedly for the Mediterranean city of Tartous. Palestinian left-wing groups—including the PFLP—berated Jibril and the PFLP-GC. One PFLP official said that Jibril "does not even belong to the Palestinian Left. He is closer to the extremist right-wing groups than to revolutionary leftist ones". On 18 December, the Palestinian National Council (PNC) denounced Jibril, saying it would expel him over his role in the conflict.

In a 17 February 2017, Jibril did an interview with Al Mayadeen and expressed his hope that the Iranian military with others would fully back the future Palestinian war against Israel.

Talal Naji succeeded Jibril as the secretary-general of the PFLP-GC.

Personal life
Jibril's son, Jihad Ahmed Jibril, who headed the PFLP-GC's military wing and was in line to replace Jibril as leader of the group, was killed by a car bomb in Beirut on 20 May 2002.

Death
Jibril died of heart failure on 7 July 2021, in Damascus, Syria. After a funeral service in the Al-Othman Mosque in Damascus with his coffin draped in the Palestinian flag, he was buried in the Martyrs Cemetery of the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp.

title: Ahmed Jibril


text:
Jihad Ahmed Jibril

Mohammed Jihad Ahmed Jibril (1961 – 20 May 2002) was the son of Ahmed Jibril, founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). He was assassinated in Beirut on 20 May 2002.

Early life and education
Jihad Ahmed Jibril was born in Damascus, Syria, in 1961. He is the eldest son of Ahmed Jibril. He attended the Libyan military academy from 1981 to 1983 and graduated with the rank of a lieutenant colonel. He was studying law at Lebanese University when he was assassinated.

Political activity and attacks
Jibril became the leader of the military wing of the PFLP-GC and was the heir apparent of the organization before he was killed. He was also a member of the Popular Front's executive committee. Jibril was reported to have participated in an airborne attack on Israel in 1987, killing six Israeli soldiers.

Jibril was seriously injured in an explosion during an exercise in the Bekaa valley in 1997. He also experienced an assassination attempt in 2000 when his car came under fire near a PFLP-GC base south of Beirut.

Personal life
Jibril was married with two children; Ahmed (born 1992) and Ali (born 1996).

Death
Jibril was killed in a car bombing in Beirut on 20 May 2002. A 2 kg TNT booby trap had been put under the driver's seat of his car. The blast occurred in a crowded commercial center in Beirut's Mar Elias district. The bomb exploded nearly at 11:45 am when Jibril turned the ignition key. The assassination was blamed by his father and others on Israel, but it denied the allegations. In mid-June 2006, Lebanon authorities arrested a group of alleged spies who reportedly confessed to working for Israel and carrying out the attack. Other Israelis, one American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee, and one Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) agent were implicated in the assassination but never charged. Some Lebanese opponents of Hezbollah suspected the alleged spy ring was a Hezbollah fabrication.

Legacy
The Jihad Jibril Brigades, the paramilitary branch of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, bears his name in homage to his person.

title: Jihad Ahmed Jibril


text:
Talk:Jihad Ahmed Jibril

Untitled
I most often see a birth year reported of 1961, so I changed it from 1964. Chadloder 02:58, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jihad Ahmed Jibril. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107163649/http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020521/2002052122.html to http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020521/2002052122.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jihad Ahmed Jibril


text:
Talk:Standard Chinese

No such thing as "Standard Chinese"
The title should be "Standard Mandarin", not "Standard Chinese" There's no such language as "Chinese", just like there's no such language as "Indian". Unlike Japan or Korea, within the border of China exists multiple ethnicities, cultures and languages, not just a single people called "Chinese" or a single language called "Chinese" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.23.236 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the most appropriate title is "Standard Mandarin", as it is a more common term than "Standard Chinese", and Wikiepdia should reflect common usage.
 * If you search in Google books results from 2014 onwards, you will find 0 mentions in books to "standard Chinese":
 * https://www.google.es/search?biw=1366&bih=638&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2014&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk004__w06AKEuP52QSESnK1-oQx8RA%3A1593784705290&ei=gTn_XtGiEbnkgweC37jAAg&q=standard+Chinese&oq=standard+Chinese&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1423.2820.0.2905.9.8.0.1.1.0.150.587.1j4.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.4.354...0j0i19k1.0.GRUUFtzf5WE
 * If you seach in google books results from 2014 onwards of "standard Mandarin" you will find several results:
 * https://www.google.es/search?biw=1366&bih=638&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2014&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk00qqSSKTemeMNyL0gauAyAINlp_pg%3A1593784709130&ei=hTn_XtG2B_zIgweMy7-IAg&q=standard+Mandarin&oq=standard+Mandarin&gs_l=psy-ab.3...33076.34855.0.35063.10.9.0.1.1.0.169.1004.4j5.9.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.206...0.0.QfmiwkuA3x4
 * If you search on Google scholar results form 2016 onwards, there are hundreds of papers mentioning "standard Mandarin": ::https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2016&q=standard+Mandarin&btnG=
 * If you search on Google scholar results from 2016 onwards, there are only two mere papers mentioning "standard Chinese" language:
 * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2016&q=standard+Chinese&hl=es&as_sdt=0,5
 * Despite the current consensus in changing the title, it is impossible to do so. James343e (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you mean "Since there is consensus"? Read this lengthy discussion: Talk:Standard Chinese/Archive 3. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a very old discussion that occured over a decade ago. That doesn't necessarily reflect the current viewpoint of editors.James343e (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you wish to test the current consensus, the appropriate way is to open another move request. In the meantime, you might consider this ngram. Kanguole 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is an unreliable, outdated and old search engine (pre-2013) that also includes results for "Chinese" (as an adjective for its people and society, rather than its language). A dated (from 2014-onwards) search in Google Scholar or Google books is more reliable, as you can clearly see virtually no reasearch paper (from 2016 onwards) or current book (from 2014 onwards) employs the term "standard Chinese" for the language. James343e (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * research papers since 2016, books since 2014. Also, there's no such thing as "standard Chinese" people or society.  Kanguole 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving the page to Standard Mandarin was discussed and formally rejected, however long ago. You will have to open another move request. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is such thing as standard Chinese culture and technology. There are many articles that use the term "standard Chinese" to refer to Chinese cultural and technological products rather than its language. A few examples include but are not limited to:
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008981520920
 * https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.00920
 * https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8656953/James343e (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The second one is about the language. You've also ignored the recent links I posted. Best of luck with your requested move. Kanguole 14:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not ignored them, but rather pointed out that while "standard Mandarin" is exclusively used to denote the language, "standard Chinese" is also commonly used to denote non-linguistic aspects. So a brute comparison between "standard Mandarin" and "standard Chinese" on Google scholar is problematic due to the aforementioned reason. I have not created a requested move, nor am I convinced of the necessity to do so after this discussion. James343e (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps that's some progress. I've tried to help you out with some searches, but I will save any further discussion of this issue for a requested move discussion.  Kanguole 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph is wrong. New to Wikipedia.
This is my first time setting up an account and I would like to edit this article however it is locked.

Regarding the first paragraph:

Standard Chinese, also known as Modern Standard Mandarin, Standard Mandarin, Modern Standard Mandarin Chinese (MSMC), or simply Mandarin, is a standard variety of Chinese that is one of the official languages of China. Its pronunciation is based on the Beijing dialect, its vocabulary on the Mandarin dialects, and its grammar is based on written vernacular Chinese. The similar Taiwanese Mandarin is a national language of Taiwan. Standard Singaporean Mandarin is one of the four official languages of Singapore.

Mandarin is the official language of China, just like how Taiwan and Singapore are described as having one "national language" or four "official languages" respectively.

Mandarin is not ONE OF the official languageS of China. There isn't more than one OFFICIAL language (there are many non-official ones, known as dialects). Caps are intentional. Mandarin is THE official language of China. This should be clarified. And Mandarin is ONE dialect, not "the Mandarin dialectS." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsrain (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome That's correct. Although there are several official languages in the PRC the one and only nationwide official language is MSMC. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is true. On the second criticism, it is certainly common to use "Mandarin dialects" for the dialects in the Mandarin (官话) group (which includes the Beijing dialect) and this phrasing is essential to making sense of the second sentence.  Kanguole 23:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I included in the lede that it is the main official language, but included a mention that "There exist other regional official languages in China, for instance Portuguese is also an official language in Macau only, and English is an official language in Hong Kong only".James343e (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Chinese language in Malaysia
Why doesn't it say that Standard Chinese is a officially recognised minority language in Malaysia????? 2001:268:9ACE:1181:7090:42FF:FE48:1A31 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Misleading information, Cantonese not standard language of Hong Kong
The article contains misleading information. Modern Standard Chinese is based on the Mandarin variety of Chinese, yet it is not Mandarin, but a pluricentric language with different standard forms in mainland China, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Macau, and Hong Kong. Hong Kong and Macau have used Modern Standard Chinese in the formal written register even before 1997 and Cantonese is used as a colloquial form of Chinese only, although Modern Standard Chinese is read aloud in Cantonese phonology in Hong Kong and Macau. The standard language of Hong Kong officially is "Chinese" with not further specification.Einstein92 (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hong kong
misleading information,cantonese not standard language of hong ko

ng

41.113.177.146 (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Standard Chinese


text:
Talk:Old Hungarian script

Unicode
This script isn't part of Unicode or I just haven't found anything? How come some kind of support exists at Yudit (btw, written by a Hungarian author)? --193.77.86.240 09:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record: as the article states, nowadays it is part of Unicode. Of course, that only happened in 2015, as part of Unicode 8.0; at the time this question was asked, Yudit used a (documented) section of the BMP's Private Use Area. —Twice Nothing (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Odd source
What is source number 18 supposed to be? It leads to this site: Felvidék.Ma. "Sokol érsek 75 éves – nyugdíj Sokolnak, nyugalom a magyaroknak? - Felvidék.ma". I don't see how this is relevant.

~ Gibby01 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Old Hungarian script


text:
User:DragonTDC

Welcome to the Wikipedia.

This being an English-language encyclopedia, we don't capitalize most nouns, even if they're considered important by certain people. Thus, it's "ceremonial magick" (I'll argue the k some other time) and "president of the club", not Ceremonial Magick and President of the Club.

I also made a few other edits, mostly to fit our style. Vicki Rosenzweig 03:06, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

title: User:DragonTDC


text:
Principle of indifference

The principle of indifference (also called principle of insufficient reason) is a rule for assigning epistemic probabilities. The principle of indifference states that in the absence of any relevant evidence, agents should distribute their credence (or "degrees of belief") equally among all the possible outcomes under consideration.

In Bayesian probability, this is the simplest non-informative prior.

Examples
The textbook examples for the application of the principle of indifference are coins, dice, and cards.

In a macroscopic system, at least, it must be assumed that the physical laws that govern the system are not known well enough to predict the outcome. As observed some centuries ago by John Arbuthnot (in the preface of Of the Laws of Chance, 1692),

 * It is impossible for a Die, with such determin'd force and direction, not to fall on such determin'd side, only I don't know the force and direction which makes it fall on such determin'd side, and therefore I call it Chance, which is nothing but the want of art....

Given enough time and resources, there is no fundamental reason to suppose that suitably precise measurements could not be made, which would enable the prediction of the outcome of coins, dice, and cards with high accuracy: Persi Diaconis's work with coin-flipping machines is a practical example of this.

Coins
A symmetric coin has two sides, arbitrarily labeled heads (many coins have the head of a person portrayed on one side) and tails. Assuming that the coin must land on one side or the other, the outcomes of a coin toss are mutually exclusive, exhaustive, and interchangeable. According to the principle of indifference, we assign each of the possible outcomes a probability of 1/2.

It is implicit in this analysis that the forces acting on the coin are not known with any precision. If the momentum imparted to the coin as it is launched were known with sufficient accuracy, the flight of the coin could be predicted according to the laws of mechanics. Thus the uncertainty in the outcome of a coin toss is derived (for the most part) from the uncertainty with respect to initial conditions. This point is discussed at greater length in the article on coin flipping.

Dice
A symmetric die has n faces, arbitrarily labeled from 1 to n. An ordinary cubical die has n = 6 faces, although a symmetric die with different numbers of faces can be constructed; see Dice. We assume that the die will land with one face or another upward, and there are no other possible outcomes. Applying the principle of indifference, we assign each of the possible outcomes a probability of 1/n. As with coins, it is assumed that the initial conditions of throwing the dice are not known with enough precision to predict the outcome according to the laws of mechanics. Dice are typically thrown so as to bounce on a table or other surface(s). This interaction makes prediction of the outcome much more difficult.

The assumption of symmetry is crucial here. Suppose that we are asked to bet for or against the outcome "6". We might reason that there are two relevant outcomes here "6" or "not 6", and that these are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. A common fallacy is assigning the probability 1/2 to each of the two outcomes, when "not 6" is five times more likely than "6."

Cards
A standard deck contains 52 cards, each given a unique label in an arbitrary fashion, i.e. arbitrarily ordered. We draw a card from the deck; applying the principle of indifference, we assign each of the possible outcomes a probability of 1/52.

This example, more than the others, shows the difficulty of actually applying the principle of indifference in real situations. What we really mean by the phrase "arbitrarily ordered" is simply that we don't have any information that would lead us to favor a particular card. In actual practice, this is rarely the case: a new deck of cards is certainly not in arbitrary order, and neither is a deck immediately after a hand of cards. In practice, we therefore shuffle the cards; this does not destroy the information we have, but instead (hopefully) renders our information practically unusable, although it is still usable in principle. In fact, some expert blackjack players can track aces through the deck; for them, the condition for applying the principle of indifference is not satisfied.

Application to continuous variables
Applying the principle of indifference incorrectly can easily lead to nonsensical results, especially in the case of multivariate, continuous variables. A typical case of misuse is the following example:
 * Suppose there is a cube hidden in a box. A label on the box says the cube has a side length between 3 and 5 cm.
 * We don't know the actual side length, but we might assume that all values are equally likely and simply pick the mid-value of 4 cm.
 * The information on the label allows us to calculate that the surface area of the cube is between 54 and 150 cm2. We don't know the actual surface area, but we might assume that all values are equally likely and simply pick the mid-value of 102 cm2.
 * The information on the label allows us to calculate that the volume of the cube is between 27 and 125 cm3. We don't know the actual volume, but we might assume that all values are equally likely and simply pick the mid-value of 76 cm3.
 * However, we have now reached the impossible conclusion that the cube has a side length of 4 cm, a surface area of 102 cm2, and a volume of 76 cm3!

In this example, mutually contradictory estimates of the length, surface area, and volume of the cube arise because we have assumed three mutually contradictory distributions for these parameters: a uniform distribution for any one of the variables implies a non-uniform distribution for the other two. In general, the principle of indifference does not indicate which variable (e.g. in this case, length, surface area, or volume) is to have a uniform epistemic probability distribution.

Another classic example of this kind of misuse is the Bertrand paradox. Edwin T. Jaynes introduced the principle of transformation groups, which can yield an epistemic probability distribution for this problem. This generalises the principle of indifference, by saying that one is indifferent between equivalent problems rather than indifferent between propositions. This still reduces to the ordinary principle of indifference when one considers a permutation of the labels as generating equivalent problems (i.e. using the permutation transformation group). To apply this to the above box example, we have three random variables related by geometric equations. If we have no reason to favour one trio of values over another, then our prior probabilities must be related by the rule for changing variables in continuous distributions. Let L be the length, and V be the volume. Then we must have
 * $$f_L(L) = \left|{\partial V \over \partial L}\right|f_V(V)=3 L^{2} f_V(L^{3})$$,

where $$f_L,\,f_V$$ are the probability density functions (pdf) of the stated variables. This equation has a general solution: $$f(L) = {K \over L}$$, where K is a normalization constant, determined by the range of L, in this case equal to:
 * $$K^{-1}=\int_{3}^{5}{dL \over L} = \log\left({5 \over 3}\right)$$

To put this "to the test", we ask for the probability that the length is less than 4. This has probability of:
 * $$Pr(L<4)=\int_{3}^{4}{dL \over L \log({5 \over 3})}= {\log({4 \over 3}) \over \log({5 \over 3})} \approx 0.56$$.

For the volume, this should be equal to the probability that the volume is less than 43 = 64. The pdf of the volume is
 * $$f(V^) {1 \over 3} V^{-{2 \over 3}}={1 \over 3 V \log({5 \over 3})}$$.

And then probability of volume less than 64 is
 * $$Pr(V<64)=\int_{27}^{64}{dV \over 3 V \log({5 \over 3})}={\log({64 \over 27}) \over 3 \log({5 \over 3})}={3 \log({4 \over 3}) \over 3 \log({5 \over 3})}={\log({4 \over 3}) \over \log({5 \over 3})} \approx 0.56$$.

Thus we have achieved invariance with respect to volume and length. One can also show the same invariance with respect to surface area being less than 6(42) = 96. However, note that this probability assignment is not necessarily a "correct" one. For the exact distribution of lengths, volume, or surface area will depend on how the "experiment" is conducted.

The fundamental hypothesis of statistical physics, that any two microstates of a system with the same total energy are equally probable at equilibrium, is in a sense an example of the principle of indifference. However, when the microstates are described by continuous variables (such as positions and momenta), an additional physical basis is needed in order to explain under which parameterization the probability density will be uniform. Liouville's theorem justifies the use of canonically conjugate variables, such as positions and their conjugate momenta.

The wine/water paradox shows a dilemma with linked variables, and which one to choose.

History
This principle stems from Epicurus' principle of "multiple explanations" (pleonachos tropos), according to which "if more than one theory is consistent with the data, keep them all”. The epicurean Lucretius developed this point with an analogy of the multiple causes of death of a corpse. The original writers on probability, primarily Jacob Bernoulli and Pierre Simon Laplace, considered the principle of indifference to be intuitively obvious and did not even bother to give it a name. Laplace wrote:
 * The theory of chance consists in reducing all the events of the same kind to a certain number of cases equally possible, that is to say, to such as we may be equally undecided about in regard to their existence, and in determining the number of cases favorable to the event whose probability is sought. The ratio of this number to that of all the cases possible is the measure of this probability, which is thus simply a fraction whose numerator is the number of favorable cases and whose denominator is the number of all the cases possible.

These earlier writers, Laplace in particular, naively generalized the principle of indifference to the case of continuous parameters, giving the so-called "uniform prior probability distribution", a function that is constant over all real numbers. He used this function to express a complete lack of knowledge as to the value of a parameter. According to Stigler (page 135), Laplace's assumption of uniform prior probabilities was not a meta-physical assumption. It was an implicit assumption made for the ease of analysis.

The principle of insufficient reason was its first name, given to it by Johannes von Kries, possibly as a play on Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason. These later writers (George Boole, John Venn, and others) objected to the use of the uniform prior for two reasons. The first reason is that the constant function is not normalizable, and thus is not a proper probability distribution. The second reason is its inapplicability to continuous variables, as described above.

The "principle of insufficient reason" was renamed the "principle of indifference" by, who was careful to note that it applies only when there is no knowledge indicating unequal probabilities.

Attempts to put the notion on firmer philosophical ground have generally begun with the concept of equipossibility and progressed from it to equiprobability.

The principle of indifference can be given a deeper logical justification by noting that equivalent states of knowledge should be assigned equivalent epistemic probabilities. This argument was propounded by Edwin Thompson Jaynes: it leads to two generalizations, namely the principle of transformation groups as in the Jeffreys prior, and the principle of maximum entropy.

More generally, one speaks of uninformative priors.

title: Principle of indifference