text:
Hula

Hula is a Hawaiian dance form expressing chant (oli) or song (mele). It was developed in the Hawaiian Islands by the Native Hawaiians who settled there. The hula dramatizes or portrays the words of the oli or mele in a visual dance form.

There are many sub-styles of hula, with the two main categories being Hula ʻAuana and Hula Kahiko. Ancient hula, performed before Western encounters with Hawaii, is called kahiko. It is accompanied by chant and traditional instruments. Hula, as it evolved under Western influence in the 19th and 20th centuries, is called auana (a word that means "to wander" or "drift"). It is accompanied by song and Western-influenced musical instruments such as the guitar, the ukulele, and the double bass.

Terminology for two additional categories is beginning to enter the hula lexicon: "Monarchy" includes any hula which were composed and choreographed during the 19th century. During that time the influx of Western culture created significant changes in the formal Hawaiian arts, including hula. "Ai Kahiko", meaning "in the ancient style" are those hula written in the 20th and 21st centuries that follow the stylistic protocols of the ancient hula kahiko.

There are also two main positions of a hula dance: either sitting (noho dance) or standing (luna dance). Some dances utilize both forms.

Hula dancing is complex, with many hand motions used to represent the words in a song or chant. For example, hand movements can signify aspects of nature, such as the swaying of a tree in the breeze or a wave in the ocean, or a feeling or emotion, such as fondness or yearning. Foot and hip movements often pull from a basic library of steps including the kāholo, kaʻo, kāwelu, hela, ʻuwehe, and ʻami.

There are other related dances (tamure, hura, 'aparima, 'ote'a, haka, kapa haka, poi, Fa'ataupati, Tau'olunga, and Lakalaka) that come from other Polynesian islands such as Tahiti, The Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga and New Zealand; however, the hula is unique to the Hawaiian Islands.

Five hula genres can be placed across a spectrum with "the most ancient" on the left and "the most modern" on the right side. The Hula pahu and hula 'āla'apapa subcategories are ancient, originating before the introduction of Christianity. Thanks to well-preserved documentation, guidelines for performers to bring the poetic text back on stage remain clear in manuscript sources. On the other side of the continuum, hapa haole songs are relatively modern and they were also disseminated as notated sheet music, the joint effort of contemporary ethnomusicologists and songwriters. The other the two hula types, hula ku'i and hula 'ōlapa are a challenge to editors in terms of textualizing and representing them within a critical edition. These two genres reflect the social transformation and westernization within the region, influenced by American economics and politics. More importantly, the same strophic text format is applied in both genres, constructed with two or four lines of text, with each of them commonly set to a uniform number of beats. During performance, it is a usual practice that the songs are separated into stanzas which are repeated by a brief rhythmic interlude. Among the genres of hula, the corresponding melodic structure and the strophic musical structure make modern hula ku'i and hula 'ōlapa distinguishable from the others.

Hula kahiko

Hula kahiko, often defined as those hula composed prior to 1894 which do not include modern instrumentation (such as guitar, ʻukulele, etc.), encompasses an enormous variety of styles and moods, from the solemn and sacred to the frivolous. Many hula were created to praise the chiefs and performed in their honor, or for their entertainment. Types of hula kahiko include ālaapapa, haa, ōlapa, and many others. Today hula kahiko is simply stated as "Traditional" Hula.

Many hula dances are considered to be a religious performance, as they are dedicated to, or honoring, a Hawaiian goddess or god. As was true of ceremonies at the heiau, the platform temple, even a minor error was considered to invalidate the performance. It might even be a presage of bad luck or have dire consequences. Dancers who were learning to do such hula necessarily made many mistakes. Hence they were ritually secluded and put under the protection of the goddess Laka during the learning period. Ceremonies marked the successful learning of the hula and the emergence from seclusion.

Hula kahiko is performed today by dancing to the historical chants. Many hula kahiko are characterized by traditional costuming, by an austere look, and a reverence for their spiritual root.

Chant (Oli)
Hawaiian history was oral history. It was codified in genealogies and chants, which were memorized and passed down. In the absence of a written language, this was the only available method of ensuring accuracy. Chants told the stories of creation, mythology, royalty, and other significant events and people.

The ʻŌlelo Noʻeau (Hawaiian saying or proverb), " 'O 'oe ka luaʻahi o kāu mele," translates loosely as "You bear both the good and the bad consequences of the poetry you compose" The idea behind this saying originates from the ancient Hawaiian belief that language possessed mana, or "power derived from a spiritual source" particularly when delivered through oli (chant). Therefore, skillful manipulation of language by haku mele (composers) and chanters was of utmost reverence and importance. Oli was an integral component of ancient Hawaiian society, and arose in nearly every social, political and economic aspect of life.

Traditional chant types are extremely varied in context and technical components, and cover a broad range of specific functions. Among them (in vague descending order of sacredness) exist mele pule (prayer), hula kuahu (ritual dance), kūʻauhau (cosmogeny), koʻihonua (genealogy), hānau (birth), inoa (name), maʻi (procreation/genital), kanikau (lamentation), hei (game), hoʻoipoipo (love), and kāhea (expression/call out). An important distinction between oli, hula, and mele is as follows: mele can hold many different meanings, and is often translated to mean simply, song. However, in a more broad sense, mele can be taken to mean poetry or linguistic composition. Hula (chant with dance) and oli (chant without dance) are two general styles in which mele can be used/performed. Generally, "all mele may be performed as oli (chant without dance), but only certain types such as name chants, sex chants, love chants, and chants dedicated to the [ 'aumakua] gods of hula (ritual dance), may be performed as hula (chant with dance)."

Hawaiian language contains 43 different words to describe voice quality; the technique and particularity of chanting styles is crucial to understanding their function. The combination of general style (with or without dance) and the context of the performance determines what vocal style a chant will use. Kepakepa, kāwele, olioli, ho'āeae, ho'ouēuē, and  'aiha'a are examples of styles differentiated by vocal technique. Kepakepa sounds like rapid speech and is often spoken in long phrases. Olioli is a style many would liken to song, as it is melodic in nature and includes sustained pitches, often with  'i'i, or vibrato of the voice that holds vowel tones at the ends of lines.

A law passed in Hawai'i in 1896 (shortly after American overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom) banned the use of 'Ōlelo Hawai'i in schools. This, in combination with a general usurpation of Hawaiian social, political, and linguistic autonomy resulted in a mass decline of the Hawaiian language, to the near brink of extinction. As a result of Americanization, including the spread of Christianity, many traditional chants became viewed as pagan and were ultimately forgotten. But a cultural resurgence beginning in the late 1960s, and carrying through to today has revitalized many Hawaiian practices, including spoken language and chant, and has been furthered by increasing support from various institutions, including Pūnana Leo Hawaiian language immersion schools, funded by the Hawai'i State Department of Education as well as major hula competitions such as the Merrie Monarch Festival, which officially began in 1971.

In hālau hula (hula schools) asking permission to enter the space in order to partake in the knowledge of the kumu (teacher) is a key component to being a student. Many hālau use a variation of "Kūnihi," an oli kāhea, most typically done in an olioli style. Students often stand outside the entrance and chant repeatedly until the kumu decides to grant them permission to enter, and uses a different chant in response. This is an example of how oli is integrated into modern day cultural practices, within the context of hula training.

Oli is universally considered as the most typical type of indigenous music that is not constructed onto meters. In fact, the artistic expression of oli varies according to the circumstances where the performance is conducted, which is also the reason why there are five different articulatory vocal techniques were developed in oli repertoire. These five styles are:

 * kepakepa: A conversational patter that is expected to be performed swiftly, where the syllables are usually too short to allow pitches to be identified.
 * kawele: Comparing with the kepakepa, syllables are sustained a bit longer in kawele, but yet to be easily identified in pitches. It tends to be a more suitable form for recitation and declamation among Olis.
 * olioli: It is regarded as the most commonly used kind of oli, which the sustained pitch monotone carries the poetic form in a more vocally-embellished way.
 * ho'āeae: It uses sustained pitches more often and there can be multiple pitches following fundamental configuration throughout the musical context.
 * ho'ouweuwe: it is exclusively applied as the laments in funeral.

Oli performer does not purposely learn repertoire with the aim of merely learning the melodies, but the performative techniques. The most important thing for performer to master is decide which style the poetic text can be perfectly fitted into and figure out the way that can flawlessly combine both the text and the oli style according to the given context, such time limits and the particular situation where the oli is delivered.

Instruments and implements

 * Ipu—single gourd drum
 * Ipu heke—double gourd drum
 * Pahu—sharkskin covered drum; considered sacred
 * Puniu—small knee drum made of a coconut shell with fish skin (kala) cover
 * Iliili—water-worn lava stone used as castanets
 * Ulīulī—feathered gourd rattles (also ulili)
 * Pūili—split bamboo sticks
 * Kālaau—rhythm sticks

The dog's-tooth anklets sometimes worn by male dancers could also be considered instruments, as they underlined the sounds of stamping feet.

Dress/Outfits
Traditional female dancers wore the everyday pāū, or wrapped skirt, but were topless. Today this form of dress has been altered. As a sign of lavish display, the pāū might be much longer than the usual length of tapa, or barkcloth, which was just long enough to go around the waist. Visitors report seeing dancers swathed in many yards of tapa, enough to increase their circumference substantially. Dancers might also wear decorations such as necklaces, bracelets, and anklets, as well as many lei (in the form of headpieces (lei poʻo), necklaces, bracelets, and anklets (kupeʻe)), and other accessories.

A skirt of green kī (Cordyline fruticosa) leaves may also be worn over the pāū. They are arranged in a dense layer of around fifty leaves. Kī were sacred to the goddess of the forest and the hula dance Laka, and as such, only kahuna and aliʻi were allowed to wear kī leaf leis (lei lāʻī) during religious rituals. Similar C. fruticosa leaf skirts worn over tupenu are also used in religious dances in Tonga, where it is known as sisi. However, Tongan leaf skirts generally use red and yellow leaves.

Traditional male dancers wore the everyday malo, or loincloth. Again, they might wear bulky malo made of many yards of tapa. They also wore necklaces, bracelets, anklets, and lei.

The materials for the lei worn in performance were gathered in the forest, after prayers to Laka and the forest gods had been chanted.

The lei and tapa worn for sacred hula were considered imbued with the sacredness of the dance, and were not to be worn after the performance. Lei were typically left on the small altar to Laka found in every hālau, as offerings.

Performances
Hula performed for spontaneous daily amusement or family feasts were attended with no particular ceremony. However, hula performed as entertainment for chiefs were anxious affairs. High chiefs typically traveled from one place to another within their domains. Each locality had to house, feed, and amuse the chief and his or her entourage. Hula performances were a form of fealty, and often of flattery to the chief. During the performances the males would start off and the females would come later to close the show off. Most kahiko performances would begin with an opening dance, kai, and end with a closing dance, hoi, to state the presence of the hula. There were hula celebrating his lineage, his name, and even his genitals (hula mai). Sacred hula, celebrating Hawaiian gods, were also danced. All these performances must be completed without error (which would be both unlucky and disrespectful).

Visiting chiefs from other domains would also be honored with hula performances. This courtesy was often extended to important Western visitors.

Hula auana
Modern hula arose from adaptation of traditional hula ideas (dance and mele) to Western influences. The primary influences were Christian morality and melodic harmony. Hula auana still tells or comments on a story, but the stories may include events since the 1800s. The costumes of the women dancers are less revealing and the music is heavily Western-influenced.

Songs
The mele of hula auana are generally sung as if they were popular music. A lead voice sings in a major scale, with occasional harmony parts.

The subject of the songs is as broad as the range of human experience. People write mele hula auana to comment on significant people, places or events or simply to express an emotion or idea.

While the whole Hawaiian repertoire can be mainly categorised into two sides, hua kahiko and hula 'auana, the sound accompaniments have been regarded as one of the symbolic signs to distinguish them. In indigenous Hawaiian music, poetic text has always been an essential artistic element. It was documented that early Hawaiian musicians did not really focus on elaborating pure instrumental music but simply used the nose-blown flute that can only produce no more than four notes. However, after the Hawaiian culture met with Western music, some Hawaiian musicians developed several instrument-playing techniques in which the traditional Hawaiian repertoire was embedded. For example, the appearance of a Hawaiian guitar-playing method, named "steel guitar", was attributed to the perfect combination happened when guitarist is muting the strings with a steel bar; another guitar-playing approach, "slack key guitar", requires musician to tune the guitar by slackening the strings and pluck out main melody with the high-pitched strings when the lower-pitched strings are also worked on for the production of constant bass pattern.

Instruments
The musicians performing hula auana will typically use portable acoustic stringed instruments.
 * used as part of the rhythm section, or as a lead instrument
 * Steel guitar—accents the vocalist
 * Bass—maintains the rhythm

Occasional hula auana call for the dancers to use implements, in which case they will use the same instruments as for hula kahiko. Often dancers use the Ulīulī (feathered gourd rattle).

Regalia

The traditional Hawaiian hula costume includes kapa cloth skirts and men in just the malo (loincloth) however, during 1880s hula 'auana was developed from western influences. It is during this period that the grass skirt began to be seen everywhere although, Hula 'auana costumes are usually more western-looking, with dresses for women and pants for men.

Regalia plays a role in illustrating the hula instructor's interpretation of the mele. From the color of their attire to the type of adornment worn, each piece of an auana costume symbolizes a piece of the mele auana, such as the color of a significant place or flower. While there is some freedom of choice, most hālau follow the accepted costuming traditions. Women generally wear skirts or dresses of some sort. Men may wear long or short pants, skirts, or a malo (a cloth wrapped under and around the groin). For slow, graceful dances, the dancers will wear formal clothing such as a muumuu for women and a sash for men. A fast, lively, "rascal" song will be performed by dancers in more revealing or festive attire. The hula kahiko is always performed with bare feet, but the hula auana can be performed with bare feet or shoes. In the old times, they had their leis and other jewelry but their clothing was much different. Females wore a wrap called a "paʻu" made of tapa cloth and men wore loincloths, which are called "malo." Both sexes are said to have gone without a shirt. Their ankle and wrist bracelets, called "kupeʻe", were made of whalebone and dogteeth as well as other items made from nature. Some of these make music-shells and bones will rattle against each other while the dancers dance. Women perform most Hawaiian hula dances. Female hula dancers usually wear colorful tops and skirts with lei. However, traditionally, men were just as likely to perform the hula. A grass skirt is a skirt that hangs from the waist and covers all or part of the legs. Grass skirts were made of many different natural fibers, such as hibiscus or palm.

Training
Hula is taught in schools or groups called hālau. The teacher of hula is the kumu hula. Kumu means "source of knowledge", or literally "teacher".

Often there is a hierarchy in hula schools - starting with the kumu (teacher), alaka'i (leader), kōkua (helpers), and then the 'ōlapa (dancers) or haumana (students). This is not true for every hālau, but it does occur often. Most, if not all, hula hālau have a permission chant in order to enter wherever they may practice. They will collectively chant their entrance chant, then wait for the kumu to respond with the entrance chant, once he or she is finished, the students may enter. One well known and often used entrance or permission chant is Kūnihi Ka Mauna/Tūnihi Ta Mauna.

Legendary origins
There are various legends surrounding the origins of hula.

According to one Hawaiian legend, Laka, goddess of the hula, gave birth to the dance on the island of Molokai, at a sacred place in Kaana. After Laka died, her remains were hidden beneath the hill Puu Nana.

Another story tells of Hiiaka, who danced to appease her fiery sister, the volcano goddess Pele. This story locates the source of the hula on Hawaii, in the Puna district at the Hāena shoreline. The ancient hula Ke Haa Ala Puna describes this event.

Another story is that Pele, the goddess of fire, was trying to find a home for herself running away from her sister Namakaokahaʻi (the goddess of the oceans) when she finally found an island where she couldn't be touched by the waves. There at a chain of craters on the island of Hawai'i she danced the first dance of hula signifying that she finally won.

Kumu Hula (or "hula master") Leato S. Savini of the Hawaiian cultural academy Hālau Nā Mamo O Tulipa, located in Waianae, Japan, and Virginia, believes that hula goes as far back as what the Hawaiians call the Kumulipo, or account of how the world was made first and foremost through the god of life and water, Kane. Kumu Leato is cited as saying, "When Kane and the other gods of our creation, Lono, Kū, and Kanaloa created the earth, the man, and the woman, they recited incantations which we call Oli or Chants and they used their hands and moved their legs when reciting these oli. Therefore this is the origin of hula."

19th century
American Protestant missionaries, who arrived in 1820, often denounced the hula as a heathen dance holding vestiges of paganism. The newly Christianized alii (royalty and nobility) were urged to ban the hula. In 1830 Queen Kaʻahumanu forbade public performances. However, many of them continued to privately patronize the hula. By the 1850s, public hula was regulated by a system of licensing.

The Hawaiian performing arts had a resurgence during the reign of King David Kalākaua (1874–1891), who encouraged the traditional arts. With the Princess Lili'uokalani who devoted herself to the old ways, as the patron of the ancients chants (mele, hula), she stressed the importance to revive the diminishing culture of their ancestors within the damaging influence of foreigners and modernism that was forever changing Hawaii.

Practitioners merged Hawaiian poetry, chanted vocal performance, dance movements and costumes to create the new form, the hula kui (kui means "to combine old and new"). The pahu appears not to have been used in hula kui, evidently because its sacredness was respected by practitioners; the ipu gourd (Lagenaria sicenaria) was the indigenous instrument most closely associated with hula kui.

Ritual and prayer surrounded all aspects of hula training and practice, even as late as the early 20th century. Teachers and students were dedicated to the goddess of the hula, Laka.

20th century hula dancing
Hula changed drastically in the early 20th century as it was featured in tourist spectacles, such as the Kodak Hula Show, and in Hollywood films. Vaudeville star Signe Paterson was instrumental in raising its profile and popularity on the American stage, performing the hula in New York and Boston, teaching society figures the dance, and touring the country with the Royal Hawaiian Orchestra. However, a more traditional hula was maintained in small circles by older practitioners. There has been a renewed interest in hula, both traditional and modern, since the 1970s and the Hawaiian Renaissance.

In response to several Pacific island sports teams using their respective native war chants and dances as pre-game ritual challenges, the University of Hawaii football team started doing a war chant and dance using the native Hawaiian language that was called the ha'a before games in 2007.

Since 1964, the Merrie Monarch Festival has become an annual one week long hula competition held in the spring that attracts visitors from all over the world. It is to honor King David Kalākaua who was known as the Merrie Monarch as he revived the art of hula.

Films

 * Kumu Hula: Keepers of a Culture (1989) Directed by Robert Mugge.
 * Holo Mai Pele - Hālau ō Kekuhi  (2000) Directed by Catherine Tatge
 * American Aloha : Hula Beyond Hawaii  (2003) By Lisette Marie Flannery & Evann Siebens
 * Hula Girls (2006)
 * The Haumana (2013)
 * Kumu Hina (2014)

Books

 * Nathaniel Emerson, The Myth of Pele and Hi'iaka. This book includes the original Hawaiian of the Pele and Hi'iaka myth and as such provides an invaluable resource for language students and others.
 * Nathaniel Emerson, The Unwritten Literature of Hawaii. Many of the original Hawaiian hula chants, together with Emerson's descriptions of how they were danced in the nineteenth century.
 * Amy Stillman, Hula `Ala`apapa. An analysis of the `Ala`apapa style of sacred hula.
 * Ishmael W. Stagner: Kumu hula : roots and branches. Honolulu : Island Heritage Pub., 2011. ISBN 978-1-59700-621-7
 * Jerry Hopkins, The Hula; A Revised Edition: Bess Press Inc., 2011. ISBN 978-1-57306-312-8
 * Nanette Kilohana Kaihawanawana Orman, ʻʻHula Sister: A Guide to the Native Dance of Hawaiiʻʻ. Honolulu: Island Heritage Pub., 2015. ISBN 1-61710-257-1.

title: Hula


text:
Talk:Jones Act

Hiya Secret London. I think my stubbification of Jones Act hit at the same time as your deletion of the earlier nonsense. It now shows in the delete log and as a new page creation by me. No problem, except it now looks as if I created this rather thin article from scratch, which I did not. Oh well. That's life. Anjouli 18:08, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be Jones-Shafroth Act?
There is a much better known "Jones Act" that governs the rights of workers in navigable waters to obtain damages from their employers. Perhaps this should go to Jones-Shafroth, and a new page be made here, or this turned into a disambiguation page. -- Smerdis of Tlön 22:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * 18 months later, but this has been completed. Newyorkbrad 13:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

AGF revert of conversion into a redirect
I've reverted this edit, converting this disambiguation page into a redirect to one of the disambiguated items, leaving the other three disambiguated items out in the cold. Jones law is a common term here in the Philippines, referring to Jones Law (Philippines), a 1916 law concerning the governance of the Philippine Islands. I'm not sure whetherr re-doing the Jones Law redirect or leaving this one as a disambiguation page is a better solution for that case, but that leaves the question of the impact for people looking articles about for the other two terms disambiguated here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Jones Law and Jones Act are different enough terms. I'd be fine with Jones act going to Merchant Marine Act of 1920 and Jones law going to Jones Law (Philippines). In the interest of BRD, I'll make that change now and if disagreed we can revert and discuss some more, but I think those two terms are quite separate and search traffic shows Jones Act specifically is most often looking for Merchant Marine Act of 1920 based on subsequent feeds. TY — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Jones Act


text:
Talk:Post-structuralism

Pomo generator
Removed link to an essay created by a "pomo generator." Either the link is meant to add to the article by pointing to the common accusation that poststructuralist prose is so obscure that it can be, humorously, mimicked exactly by a simple algorithm. Or it's meant to dupe the foolish into believing it's a genuine piece of poststructuralist writing. If the former, then the link should be marked as such and the reader should also be directed to the Sokal hoax. The latter is vandalism in this context.

24.63.27.250 (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Between two camps
At the end of the section "between two camps" the sentences do not make sense. I lack the understanding to put them together.24.122.81.209 (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)R. Huxley 10-03-11

Merge French Theory into this article ? VOTE.
French Theory is only an American and then French name for a part of post-structuralist Fr. philosophers (see for instance : here. I suggest this article to be merged into Post-structuralism] (here)]. This merge would provide [[French Theory the context it lacks to be fully understood. NB : fr:WP pages about these two movements are exactly inverted. (A big one for FT and a small for P-S.)

Your opinion ?
 * 1) Support. --  Hedgehog in the bell (click to ring)   09:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (Proposer)

I redirected it here. The supposed article was only 2 sentences. There was nothing there to merge Bhny (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Post-structuralism" refers to... what, again?
Bhny's recent revision calls attention to some problems with the definition we have here. Bhny removes a claim that post-structuralism is about denying the possibility of scientifically studying human beings. Bhny's decision makes sense given the article as it stands. Considering the history of the field, however, I think we do need to deal with post-structuralism as something to do with the "human sciences".

I don't think that post-structuralism is exclusively or even primarily about privileging reader over author—if anything, that relationship has more to do with post*modernism*, which I think I still think is different. I'd like us to work on a more positive definition of "post-structuralism", one which might point towards post-structuralism as a creative *expansion* of structuralism.

Also, I find the first sentence as it is— "Post-structuralism is a label formulated by American academics to denote the heterogeneous works of a series of French intellectuals who came to international prominence in the 1960s and '70s." —to be a little dismissive. I do agree that American academics had a major role in popularizing (and maybe even reifying) "post-structuralism", but I'm not sure that this is the best first sentence. The entire rest of the article belies the implication that post-structuralism is a class so heterogeneous that we cannot define it independently from its status as an academic trend.

The term "structuralism" has clear meaning, revolving around the basic idea that culture is made of structures, and that elements of these structure gain value in relation to each other. These elements & relations can exist on many different levels. In linguistics, for example, you have letters, phonemes, and words. And you can scale up to ideas, myths, etc., in anthropology. These two fields were the major areas of "stucturalism" in France. Perhaps structuralism was never have been as popular as post-structuralism—I'm not sure! At any rate, post-structuralism must involve a critique of these "human sciences".

We should keep in mind here that "structuralism" is really not the major or dominant way of studying humans—structuralism is a late-breaking innovation in the human sciences. So is the post-structuralist critique primarily a critique of structuralism? Or is it a critique of the human sciences, inspired by structuralism but loosening some of the rules? Or is it something else: a new form of philosophical discourse that talks about anything it wants to talk about, using vocabulary from the human sciences, structuralism in particular, while being critical of these?

The article is most likely to be useful (and distinct from "French Theory", which is clearly moreso a cultural phenomenon in American academia) if we tighten the definition and become more clear about the relationship of individual authors to the idea.
 * I would say that Deleuze & Guattari are consummately post-structuralist—their Capitalism and Schizophrenia collaboration uses a non-stop flow of structuralist authors and concepts, while at the same time reworking these concepts, analyzing them locally, and arguing against totalization.
 * Derrida must also be included, as the lead popularizer (with his 1966 essay/lecture "Structure, Sign & Play")
 * Foucault denied the label of "post-structuralist", and we shouldn't discount that fact. The key text would be The Order of Things (1966), which I think is arguably structuralist, not too much post about it. "Structuralist history." The question on the table is still: what causes structures to change across history? But Foucault doesn't really say; he moreso analyzes the structures themselves. Now, I haven't read The Archaeology of Knowledge, so maybe that book reflects Foucault's post-structuralist turn. I'm not sure that there's clear evidence of post-structuralism from any of Foucault's historical works.
 * Jean Baudrillard would definitely be included, because he examines "cultural structures" but with lots of (weird) spin. So, we're getting a structuralist matrix where 'things gain value in relation to each other', but we're also getting backstory on the history of the structure, the role of media used to convey it, and how the structure functions to affect or not affect people's everyday lives under capitalism.
 * Julia Kristeva also seems to fit quite well, using analyses that border on "structuralist", no "post", but add dimensions of meaning and causality from outside the structure (this is based on my readings of Kristeva on 'abjection' and 'femininity'... not sure I'm qualified to comment on her corpus as a whole...)
 * Judith Butler, definitely. (And I think she also belies the idea that post-structuralism much be French.) Gender Trouble is analysis of the structure of gender (again, sticking to structuralist definition of elements/relations) with analysis that questions the boundaries of the structure itself (arguing that "sex" is also governed by signifiers and is not pure signified).
 * Jacques Lacan is a bit of a wild-card, partly because much of his writing comes from during the "structuralist" era (before 1966). Based on what I've read it does make sense to include him, although one might make a case for no "post", or for his thought being different enough as to just be something else.

I don't know much about the other authors here. I wonder about Marshall McLuhan. And, actually Jorge Luis Borges, although the time period for him doesn't fit either. Also I'm sure there are many contemporary "post-structuralists" not represented. Another confusing issue is: has post-structuralism 'sunk in' within certain parts of the academy? And if so could we really distinguish "post-structuralists" from everyone else?

Anyway, the article needs focus and improvement. And if you're reading this, please share your thoughts; we need as many voices as possible contributing to this work. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

 * P.S. We also have to deal with the problem where some authors (such as Derrida) call themselves post-structuralist when they use the vocabulary and ideas of structuralism, and others (such as Deleuze) prefer to interpret and redefine "structuralism" from within. (Worth reading: Deleuze's "How do we recognize structuralism?")

Gang of Four?
Bhny (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Where it mentions a gang of four in the scholars from both movements section. It actually only mentions three individuals. No idea who the fourth individual should or shouldn't be. But it's definitely an oversite that will want correcting at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.249.202 (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hyphen
What's with the hyphen? Based on a cursory review of works referencing poststructuralism, it appears that the hyphen was used 10+ years ago, but contemporary publishing and the current NOAD don't. Has there been a discussion about this elsewhere? czar  ·   ·  08:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I missed the archive page: Talk:Post-structuralism/Archive_1 and Talk:Post-structuralism/Archive_1. The scholarly ref usage numbers have shifted in favor of dropping the hyphen, and I'm suspicious of citogenesis for the opposite effect in regular search results.  czar   ·   ·  08:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

American "academics"
We should use this term only in ironic quotation marks. Academics belong to a culture, for instance European culture, Japanese culture, Indian culture. But since the very definition of the American Way of Life is the ABSENCE of culture (cf. Baudrillard, de Toqueville et. al), one should not speak of American academics, merely of American publicists or opinion multiplicators. 93.219.144.39 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We go by what the reliable sources say. Unless your analysis is shown to be something other than original, it qualifies as fringe in terms of actual implementation. czar   ·   ·  17:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Matrices (Mathematical Construct) and Post-Structural Symbology
I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so forgive me if this is the wrong section. Here is an idea...

Matrices hold some data of indefinite size. However, numbers are always changing from one snapshot to another. Does there exist a mathematical construct that defines and stores entries (ie. data) but has no "solid construct"? Consider a matrix or an equation using any symbol set to be a "solid construct". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vektor-k (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

--Vektor-k (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Frame Problem and Post-Structuralism
Suppose the existence of an axiom(alpha). Find a frame(beta) such that a finite-state Turing machine can find a solution for every frame(beta) within time(gamma). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vektor-k (talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

0. Why do very fine-grained solutions in small symbol-sets produce very complex-dynamical structures in the entailing laws realm? For example, a simple sum-of-squares solution can produce some very advanced physics effects in the case of classical geometry (you can make a square simply by defining a point).

1. Perhaps a better question based on (0) is to ask: Why are there axioms in the first place? Are axioms mere mental content? It seems that human as well as non-human species use a set of rules to survive. A bird will always fly away from an incoming train, even if they aren't taught to... although a human child needs to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vektor-k (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

--Vektor-k (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Post-structuralism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050728125303/http://www.brocku.ca:80/english/courses/4F70/poststruct.html to http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/poststruct.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Post-structuralism. 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/20091206043349/http://poststructuralism.info/ to http://www.poststructuralism.info/

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) 23:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Technobabble
Am I the only one who thinks this article contains a lot of confused technical jargon, which often barely comes together to make a coherent point, or doesn't make one at all in places?

The too-long quotation in the #Controversy section stands out as an example. I suspect that the sheer length of the Wallace quote and the lack of any secondary follow-up about it in the article may be due to the fact that neither the editor who included it nor others who have modified the article since have any idea what it means, or how to summarize it. I don't even get a clear understanding after reading that section whether "deconstructionism" is, or isn't a synonym for Post-structuralism, and that's a coin-flip. (Wallace says yes, Wikipedia's deconstructionism redirect says no.) This article should take a stand in Wikipedia's voice on the issue, or if there's a controversy about it, then it should say that.

I choke on phrases like, "the idea that presence and unity are ontologically prior to expression" and if that is an idea that is important to understanding Post-structuralism and deserves to be in the article, then we had better have some additional explanation in the section citing secondary sources explaining what it means. And if it isn't, then that phrase (and the entire quotation, I suspect) should be struck. I understand this section in the same way that I understand "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," insofar as they both follow the rules of grammar, but after I finish reading them, I'm not quite sure what has been said. (Well, actually, in the latter case, I am pretty sure what has been said, even if it is fantastical, and raising the former to the standard of the latter would be an improvement.)

The lead is a bit better than that, inasmuch as the writing is clear, so I understand what it is saying, but it lacks a clear definition of what Post-structuralism is, which is the job of the first sentence. I get something out of the lead as far as prior influences of Post-structuralism, and situating it in time and place. I can see what Post-structuralism is "associated with", I see what its "predecessor" theory is about, I see what Post-structuralist authors don't like about the predecessor theory, I see a list of who those predecessor-theory-rejectionists are, and I see as an apparent afterthought, yet another predecessor theory that was also apparently rejected. And after reading all that, I still don't know what Post-structuralism is. That is a pretty poor foundation for trying to understand the rest of the article, which only gets more arcane, and in places descends into technobabble and gibberish.

Almost the only thing in the article that made absolutely clear sense to me upon first reading, was the Sokal quote in the #Controversy section, saying that a lot of the writing in this domain was "gibberish" and lacked intellectual rigor. I had actually heard of Sokal before, as the author of the famous hoax article produced as a protest against this trend, and published in a social science journal somewhere.

In any case, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not produce gibberish, and the article should be able to make a clear statement in the first sentence about what Post-structuralism is, with some amplification in the rest of the lead, and then go into more detail in the body. Anything that is gibberish, too vague, too technical or jargon-filled to be comprehensible by an intelligent layperson should be rewritten or removed. Sokal's goal in perpetrating his hoax was in part to defend sociology from the trendiest aspects of itself, in his words: "sloppy sociology, like sloppy science, is useless, or even counterproductive." He could well have been speaking of some Wikipedia articles in that sentence. We should heed his words, and tighten up this article significantly.

I invite any sosh-jockeys out there to at least tighten up the lead, and if someone wants to do some significant slashing-and-burning in the article, including removing of sourced material if it's incomprehensible, you won't hear any objection from me. Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Amusing/illuminating post-script:
 * I followed the link to the Hemingway App located at Make technical articles understandable, and according to instrutions, pasted the Controversy section into the app (the whole page is editable). It returned the following analysis of the complexity of the text in that section:
 * Readability: Grade 16. Poor.
 * 2 of 18 sentences are hard to read.
 * 12 of 18 sentences are very hard to read.
 * The "hard to read" is probably based strictly on simple measures like length and complexity of sentence parsing, and not for the reasons explained above, but I thought it was an amusing counterpoint to the more serious topic above. Anyway, back to more serious topics...

Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I read through the article for the first time and while I am no expert, the prose made sense to me and the basic ideas (as I understand them) are there. I agree that the article could certainly use more development, especially in the theory section. The lead could present the basic ideas more simply and use more concrete language. The Wallace quote is huge, WP:UNDUE, and without any context, is the opposite of a good summary style. But it doesn't look like babble to me.
 * To address a couple of your points, post-structuralism is an approach to literary criticism that goes beyond the structuralist approach by rejecting one or more principles of structuralist theory. There are multiple ways to do this, so it is not a single unified approach; analogous to post-Newtonian physics, it is defined by what in large part by what it is not. The Wallace quote "the idea that presence and unity are ontologically prior to expression" refers to the structuralist idea that for text to have a solid meaning through structure, the author has to have a coherent and unified "self" that can produce such prose and meaning. Post-structuralism may reject that, and consider the author as a bundle of conflicting viewpoints, who produces context-dependent prose that may or may not have the meaning you think it does. The extracted meaning may also be context-dependent on the state of the reader. --Mark viking (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Mark viking's comments are much better than the article itself! Can we use his comments as the bones of a new lede?Sbelknap (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working to improve this article! Please feel free to use anything I have written here, or a paraphrase, whatever works to clarify the exposition. -- 19:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

please see if the tag is no longer appropriate. The article has been considerably re-written and (post)-structured. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There has been a good bit of work on the article since 2017, mostly improvements, and I never thought it was gibberish even back then. I would be in favor of removing the article-wide technical tag. Individual sections could be tagged or improved if there are still problems. -- 20:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is considerably improved. One challenge in writing this article is that some quite reasonable and educated people would consider the project of post-structuralism to be utter nonsense. Perhaps that point could be better made. I agree with removing the tag. Sbelknap (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree with removal as well. Thanks to all for improvements. Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

confusion
I feel like this confusion in the article perfectly sums up how my minor studies in Rhetoric went... they're such weird abstract ideas of things.. if my professors can't teach it easily, this Wiki page editing will be a challenge! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8500:5FA6:5109:DFC9:D113:A61C (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Neostructuralism
This article needs substantial revision by an expert. It seems to illustrate M. Frank's view that post-structuralism is a bad term because it can not be understood independently from structuralism. (Frank proposed the alternate term "neostructuralism.") The poststructuralism/neostructuralism discourse began with the events of May 1968 in France as (essentially) a continuation of structuralism, with an increased emphasis on the shortcomings of the concepts of linking and hierarchy.

I expect that most people who have studied (and to the extent possible, understood) structuralism, post-structuralism, critical theory, and postmodernism would agree that this article is terrible. Do other editors agree that this article would benefit from deletion of 90% of its content - boiling it down to its essence - and then starting over?Sbelknap (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

French thinkers of the 1970s
The article doesn't say much about French post-structuralists of the 1970s, such as Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Baudrillard, and others and their influence on postmodernism, and how it spread to America (Rorty) and around the world in the 1980s. SEP and this article may be helpful. Mathglot (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

= meta-warring / beyond warring / how to describe reality =

In biology (but this is an example; it's not solely biological)
For example one species might evolve empathy (brain wiring, neuro endocrinology, etc.) which is usually beneficial, but sometimes neutral or very few times disadvantageous or even harmful.

There's no human biased purpose in nature. Things (organisms and biosystems) do evolve but always percentages of noise, and tolerated mistakes or even few lethal mistakes exist.

We shouldn't beautify science. We should focus on the data and less on the unfalsifiable Freudian psychoanalysis of science.

___

1. Mechanisms (solutions to  problems) never evolve perfectly in nature (a. because they don't have to (they have to be good enough), b. because any solution has limitations). 2a. Beneficial traits are sometimes disadvantageous, but nature (usually) tolerates that. If we become extremely hominocratic (homino- used because homo- has different meanings in Greek and Latin)/human-biased/human-centered in our reasoning, we might construct erroneously specific explanations when actually the cloud of possible interactions of traits is the main idea. 2b. Percentages of noise (arbitrary interactions and usages of a trait, not so beneficial, and probably not the reason the trait evolved), tolerable disadvantage and a usually small percentage of lethal (or very harmful) disadvantage should be mentioned. 3. There is a cloud of events related to each adaptational trait. Nature judges the overall cloud of possible interactions and usages of each trait; each interaction and usage has a different degree of significance. Humans oversimplify nature sometimes. We should analyze the cloud of possible interactions and usages (each one labelled with a degree of significance) of the adaptational traits, and how change occurs (for example in the environment).

Now a meta thing.

Some (especially) hypermous/high-order traits (for example behavioral, biochemical, etc.), are the result of the collaboration of many simpler traits. In this case the cloud of possible usages and interactions and the significance labeling of usages and component subtraits might become vague at the edges: a. some observed phenomena might be provisional (for example due to a recent environmental change), b. some observed phenomena (behavioral, biochemical, etc.) might be two (or more) orders of magnitude hypermous, being the result of a wider connectome of traits than the one we proposed (shared submechanisms might be falsely attributed to fewer processes), c. some fringe observed phenomena might be too hard, too fringe, too significantly weak or too conflicting for nature to manage; so we might observe something that cannot be expressed easily by a simple phrasing (we shouldn't say nature wanted this; instead we can say nature couldn't properly manage this process, resulting to some disadvantageous or arbitrary occurrences). This is extremely important to mention. Most people construct simple to tell stories. Even the complex reality can be expressed though. Though it's very hard to create causal diagrams with a huge amount of parts; especially when you know that a percentage of them: a. regulates an already complex process, b. some parts of the interactions might be the uncontrolled dispersion of the main network (nature can tolerate small dispersion events which are arbitrary thus not necessarily beneficial; the problem is that species never stop evolving and the environment isn't static, thus things can go wrong; a process might be nonbeneficial or a mismanaged dispersion event; this is extremely important to mention, for example many biochemical interactions and behavioral patterns have a percentage of dispersion events [not the main reason a process evolved]).

Very male dominated treatment of a subject ...
This reads, in one respect, like something from the Victorian era, before the mainstream discovered that women have minds too.

Even I have heard, for example, of Judith Butler, who surely deserves a passing mention on this subject. Surely there must be others, both as advocates and as critics.

Personally I do not know enough to redress this, particularly I am short of sources other than Butler, but hope other editors will do so... 2A01:4B00:F998:9A00:4D92:B807:A367:F8EF (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Post-structuralism


text:
Robert Nelson (insurrectionist)

Robert Nelson (August 8, 1794 – March 1, 1873) was an Anglo-Quebecer physician and a leading figure in the Lower Canada Rebellion in 19th century Quebec (Lower Canada).

Nelson was born in Sorel (near Montreal) to William Nelson, an immigrant to Colonial America from Newsham, North Yorkshire. His mother, Jane Dies, was a teacher and daughter of an important land owner in the New York area. He studied medicine in Montreal and later at Harvard University, in the state of Massachusetts. During the War of 1812, he was surgeon for the Deschambault Corps and the Indian Braves Corps.

In 1827, Robert Nelson entered politics at the invitation of his brother, Wolfred Nelson, also a doctor and member of the Parti Patriote. On November 24, 1837, Nelson was arrested with other politicians. He was freed soon after, not being involved with the rebels, unlike his brother, Wolfred, who participated in the Battle of Saint-Denis. His arrest, however, led him to join with the rebels who fled to the United States. The leaders of the Patriotes voted for the quick establishment of a provisional government and the launch of an attack from the United States. Some important Patriotes voted against this idea, including Louis-Joseph Papineau. Robert Nelson was made General of the army and elected future President of the Republic of Lower Canada.

On February 28, 1838, Nelson encamped at Alburg, Vermont with some 300 men. He proclaimed the independence of the Republic of Lower Canada and distributed copies of a declaration of independence. Soon after, they were arrested by the U.S. Army for violation of the law of neutrality of the United States. A jury, sympathetic to the Patriotes cause, acquitted him and others.

After this failed attempt, Robert Nelson and other insurrectionists decided to take the time to organize a new strike. A clandestine paramilitary association, known as the Frères chasseurs, was set up to overthrow the British colonial governments of Lower and Upper Canada and establish sovereign and democratic republics in their place. A second invasion started on November 3, 1838. Things didn't go as planned and the invasion forces were forced to retreat.

Nelson and others were eventually granted amnesty by the British colonial government and allowed to return home.

Robert Nelson died in 1873 at the age of 78 in Staten Island, New York. He was interred in the Notre-Dame-des-Neiges Cemetery in Montreal.

title: Robert Nelson (insurrectionist)


text:
Talk:W and Z bosons

Updated W boson mass
I updated the mass of the W boson with the Wired article "Physicists Pinpoint W Boson, Narrow Search for Higgs" to set the mass at 80.387 GeV ±0.019 GeV, however, its main reference is this Science 2.0 blog entry "An Exquisite New W Mass Measurement From CDF !", which has the world average mass for the W boson at 80.390 GeV ±0.016 GeV. The Wired article only talks about the preliminary CDF II results, not the world average. Unfortunately, if I remember correctly, the Wired article counts as a reliable source, while the blog entry doesn't. Am I wrong? If so, please update the mass to reflect the latter mass, instead of the former. Thanks. -- Hi  Ev  06:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I reverted the change to the mass. While Wired may be considered a reliable reference in Wikipedia in general, I think in this instance it's incorrect to update the mass based on an article in a nonscientific magazine. CDF has yet to publish a peer-reviewed article with their finding. Plus the result that should be listed on this page is not the CDF measurement but the world average updated to include the CDF result. This will be (as was preliminarily listed by CDF) 80.390 GeV/c^2 +- 16 MeV/c^2. --Certain (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I don't have a high number of edit, so I don't now if I can comment for this question, but I think, like a physicist, that we cannot change the mass of W before the publication on the Particle Data Group. --Gianluigi (come to Mars) 01:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 * As a particle physicist, I can say I wouldn't quote as fact something that hasn't yet been published in a journal. Certainly not in an encyclopedia. Plus there's a good chance the uncertainty can change before publication---a preliminary analysis is just that: preliminary. However, since this was on a blag, it seems everyone who read the story is going to come here and update the mass prematurely.--Certain (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Another further update can be seen here, with a mass of 80387 +- 17 MeV/c2 (0.02% precesion).--Almuhammedi (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be obvious from everyone above listing slightly different values that this page should not be updated until a new world average incorporating the new D0 and CDF measurements (yes, D0 is now presenting a new measurement: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.0293.pdf) is published in a proper journal (not just the arXiv). Links to science blogs, conference presentations, or working group pages with preliminary results are not acceptable sources for the mass of a fundamental particle, in my opinion. --Certain (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Scientific Inquiry - Questions
The article should note that this phenomenon, from what I read, takes place in a bubble chamber and that there may very well be footage showing this as it happens. That the description for the Z boson lacks completely, almost like implying a "magical" existence You may want to improve on these points! No science can insist on "shamanism". An update note. one may consider to alter the description to this: 1. n0 → p+ + W− 2. W− → e− + ν(e), that is, for both of these, instability/decay splits these particles as matters of natural processes So if this happens in a bubble chamber then it must be possible to film it. 2nd valid note is that W− has a different role in "Unified Physics", throwing out some word-dressing. Thus, by this, the drawing absolutely has potential for improvement. This should be clear! It should also be clear that the W bosons (2) have no controversy in being particles themselves, but that the explanation they enter into, may have it. I may come across as shaky, but this is about a culture that has problems with presenting itself so I put the claim back to the community that the community can't accept a scant standard on some and where they (from USA) are in control, they flaunt NASA "miracles" and all other while of course sitting with closet-notions of Military Complex USA, financial radicalism and outrageous sinking of SS Kursk! Are you reading me, please??? 62.16.242.218 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The process you write above, where a neutron spits out a W- which then in turn becomes an electron and neutrino, happens all the time. This is ordinary beta decay of the free neutron (assuming the neutron is free-- otherwise it's beta decay of a neutron in some neutron-rich nuclide). It has no chance of being "filmed" in a bubble chamber, as the lifetime of the the W- is3 x 10^-25 seconds, which at the speed of light gives it a chance to go a distance of about 0.1 fm (far less than the radius of a neutron) before it decays. This is a track too short to see. For this reason, W lifetimes are never measured directly, but usually via the width of the relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution of their decay energies. The shape of this distribution allows the decay energy (in this case the mass of the W- particle that decays) to be measured indirectly. The W happens to have about a 3.1 GeV decay energy width, which corresponds to a 80 GeV decay energy, which is then taken to be the mass of the original W particle. S  B Harris 03:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Something Missing
Correct me if I'm wrong but "The W+, W−, and Z0 bosons, together with the photon (γ), comprise the four gauge bosons of the electroweak interaction." is incomplete. I believe the gluons are also gauge bosons. --~hb2007 13:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

-- The gluon is a gauge boson, but not one of the "electroweak interaction" like the sentence indicates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.17.205 (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Z boson decay
There were a few comments regarding this section being a little confusing (collected below). I tried to improve it, but I guess it could still use some work. 157.82.231.50 (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

comment 1
In the formulae, for calculating the 'branching ratios', of Z-boson decays into fermions, the 'weak mixing angle' term x~1/4. The BRs listed in the table, do not correspond, to the formulae according to which they are supposedly calculated -- with the exception of "hadrons", interpreted as the relative sum, of both quark branches. 24.143.65.75 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

comment 2
I think the following sentence from the article is wrong.
 * The decay width of a Z boson to a fermion–antifermion pair is proportional to the square of the weak charge T3 − Qx, where T3 is the third component of the weak isospin of the fermion, Q is the electric charge of the fermion (in units of the elementary charge), and x = sin2θW, where θW is the weak mixing angle.

This approach misses contributions in the order x2. The calculation giving right numbers, starting from the Z-fermion vertex, might be beyond the scope of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.47.46 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

comment 3
The branching ratios of the Z boson into leptons and neutrinos is shown in a confusing way: For leptons the ~3% apply to each family separately, but for neutrinos the 20% apply to all three kinds of neutrinos. That should either be made clear, or the lepton contributions should be summed up so it's consistent with the other table rows and the numbers are comparable. --89.247.147.46 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

W1, W2, W3
I don't see any discussion here of the W1, W2, and W3, which I assume to be underlying fields that constitute W and Z bosons. Since other articles mention these fields, I believe a discussion in this article would be warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.166.192 (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

SI units
I guess the Higgs vacuum formula must be in SI: $$M_W = \tfrac{1}{2}vg \frac{1}{c^2q_P \pi \sqrt {\alpha_W}} = \frac{v}{2\pi c^2} \tfrac{\sqrt{\alpha / \alpha_W}}{s_W}$$ using $$\alpha_W \approx 1/128$$??? At least this fits dimensions and quantities closely. If so, should not the α factor be in the formula anyway? Ra-raisch (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Electron properties
"Since such an electron is not created from a nucleon,..." I was under the impression that a down quark could transform into an up quark and an electron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.8.110 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole paragraph is a write-off in my opinion. It is too detailed for a lede and contains numerous errors. It should be a general introduction to the Z boson, but instead it talks only in the context of neutral-current electron–neutrino scattering. The one above it isn't any better. I suggest just deleting both. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

W- Boson in beta decay
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but in the article it states that a w- is ~80x more massive than a neutron, then later states that during beta decay the neutron emits a w-, which then further decays into an electron (~1/2,000 the mass of the neutron) and a neutrino (~1/500,000 the mass of an electron, or one billionth the mass of the neutron). Where did this extra mass come from, and then go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plattitudes (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I came here with exactly the same question.78.33.185.122 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * and IP: the force carrier article—linked from the second phrase in the introduction—must, in principle, explain this thing. It currently does not, because it is Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

… can decay to a lepton and neutrino
Do user watching (and editing) the article know that a neutrino is a lepton? Perhaps “can decay to a charged lepton and neutrino”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed a bunch of clueless writing myself. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Sans-serif abomination
Can anybody realize what “l+νl” means with the (Wikipedia default) sans-serif font and without looking at the source code? cannot, and my first guess was $|·|$ misplaced due to a typo or a wrecker script (or bot). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Add Decays Into Info. It's Missing.
Some pages of quantum particles like the Higgs boson include what particles they decay into. This is very valuable information. Please add it to this page and others. 172.58.43.239 (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The pages that have Decays Into info already put it in the "Infobox particle" section. 172.58.43.239 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 172.58.43.239 (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Mass of the boson significantly higher than SM prediction (7 sigmas)

Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry: Do we have finally found new physics with the latest W boson mass measurement? :-) Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:W and Z bosons


text:
AKS primality test

The AKS primality test (also known as Agrawal–Kayal–Saxena primality test and cyclotomic AKS test) is a deterministic primality-proving algorithm created and published by Manindra Agrawal, Neeraj Kayal, and Nitin Saxena, computer scientists at the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, on August 6, 2002, in an article titled "PRIMES is in P". The algorithm was the first one which is able to determine in polynomial time, whether a given number is prime or composite and this without relying on mathematical conjectures such as the generalized Riemann hypothesis. The proof is also notable for not relying on the field of analysis. In 2006 the authors received both the Gödel Prize and Fulkerson Prize for their work.

Importance
AKS is the first primality-proving algorithm to be simultaneously general, polynomial-time, deterministic, and unconditionally correct. Previous algorithms had been developed for centuries and achieved three of these properties at most, but not all four.
 * The AKS algorithm can be used to verify the primality of any general number given. Many fast primality tests are known that work only for numbers with certain properties. For example, the Lucas–Lehmer test works only for Mersenne numbers, while Pépin's test can be applied to Fermat numbers only.
 * The maximum running time of the algorithm can be bounded by a polynomial over the number of digits in the target number. ECPP and APR conclusively prove or disprove that a given number is prime, but are not known to have polynomial time bounds for all inputs.
 * The algorithm is guaranteed to distinguish deterministically whether the target number is prime or composite. Randomized tests, such as Miller–Rabin and Baillie–PSW, can test any given number for primality in polynomial time, but are known to produce only a probabilistic result.
 * The correctness of AKS is not conditional on any subsidiary unproven hypothesis. In contrast, Miller's version of the Miller–Rabin test is fully deterministic and runs in polynomial time over all inputs, but its correctness depends on the truth of the yet-unproven generalized Riemann hypothesis.

While the algorithm is of immense theoretical importance, it is not used in practice, rendering it a galactic algorithm. For 64-bit inputs, the Baillie–PSW test is deterministic and runs many orders of magnitude faster. For larger inputs, the performance of the (also unconditionally correct) ECPP and APR tests is far superior to AKS. Additionally, ECPP can output a primality certificate that allows independent and rapid verification of the results, which is not possible with the AKS algorithm.

Concepts
The AKS primality test is based upon the following theorem: Given an integer $$n\ge 2$$ and integer $$a$$ coprime to $$n$$, $$n$$ is prime if and only if the polynomial congruence relation

holds within the polynomial ring $$(\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z)[X]$$. Note that $$X$$ denotes the indeterminate which generates this polynomial ring.

This theorem is a generalization to polynomials of Fermat's little theorem. In one direction it can easily be proven using the binomial theorem together with the following property of the binomial coefficient:
 * $${n \choose k} \equiv 0 \pmod{n}$$ for all $$0<k<n$$ if $$n$$ is prime.

While the relation ($$) constitutes a primality test in itself, verifying it takes exponential time: the brute force approach would require the expansion of the $$ (X + a)^n$$ polynomial and a reduction $$\pmod{n}$$ of the resulting $$n + 1$$ coefficients.

The congruence is an equality in the polynomial ring $$(\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z)[X]$$. Evaluating in a quotient ring of $$(\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z)[X]$$ creates an upper bound for the degree of the polynomials involved. The AKS evaluates the equality in $$(\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z)[X]/(X^r -1)$$, making the computational complexity dependent on the size of $$r$$. For clarity, this is expressed as the congruence

which is the same as:

for some polynomials $$f$$ and $$g$$.

Note that all primes satisfy this relation (choosing $$g=0$$ in ($$) gives ($$), which holds for $$n$$ prime). This congruence can be checked in polynomial time when $$r$$ is polynomial to the digits of $$n$$. The AKS algorithm evaluates this congruence for a large set of $$a$$ values, whose size is polynomial to the digits of $$n$$. The proof of validity of the AKS algorithm shows that one can find an $$r$$ and a set of $$a$$ values with the above properties such that if the congruences hold then $$n$$ is a power of a prime.

History and running time
In the first version of the above-cited paper, the authors proved the asymptotic time complexity of the algorithm to be $$\tilde{O}(\log(n)^{12})$$ (using Õ from big O notation)—the twelfth power of the number of digits in n times a factor that is polylogarithmic in the number of digits. However, this upper bound was rather loose; a widely-held conjecture about the distribution of the Sophie Germain primes would, if true, immediately cut the worst case down to $$\tilde{O}(\log(n)^6)$$.

In the months following the discovery, new variants appeared (Lenstra 2002, Pomerance 2002, Berrizbeitia 2002, Cheng 2003, Bernstein 2003a/b, Lenstra and Pomerance 2003), which improved the speed of computation greatly. Owing to the existence of the many variants, Crandall and Papadopoulos refer to the "AKS-class" of algorithms in their scientific paper "On the implementation of AKS-class primality tests", published in March 2003.

In response to some of these variants, and to other feedback, the paper "PRIMES is in P" was updated with a new formulation of the AKS algorithm and of its proof of correctness. (This version was eventually published in Annals of Mathematics.) While the basic idea remained the same, r was chosen in a new manner, and the proof of correctness was more coherently organized. The new proof relied almost exclusively on the behavior of cyclotomic polynomials over finite fields. The new upper bound on time complexity was $$\tilde{O}(\log(n)^{10.5})$$, later reduced using additional results from sieve theory to $$\tilde{O}(\log(n)^{7.5})$$.

In 2005, Pomerance and Lenstra demonstrated a variant of AKS that runs in $$\tilde{O}(\log(n)^{6})$$ operations, leading to another updated version of the paper. Agrawal, Kayal and Saxena proposed a variant which would run in $$\tilde{O}(\log(n)^{3})$$ if Agrawal's conjecture were true; however, a heuristic argument by Pomerance and Lenstra suggested that it is probably false.

The algorithm
The algorithm is as follows:

 * Input: integer $n > 1$.

 * 1) Check if n is a perfect power: if $n = a^{b}$ for integers $a > 1$ and $b > 1$, then output composite.
 * 2) Find the smallest r such that $ord_{r}(n) > (log_{2} n)^{2}$.  If r and n are not coprime, then output composite.
 * 3) For all 2 ≤ a ≤ min (r, n−1), check that a does not divide n: If a|n for some 2 ≤ a ≤ min (r, n−1), then output composite.
 * 4) If n ≤ r, then output prime.
 * 5) For $a = 1$ to $$\left\lfloor \sqrt{\varphi(r)}\log_2(n) \right\rfloor$$ do
 * if (X+a)n ≠ Xn+a (mod Xr − 1,n), then output composite;
 * 1) Output prime.

Here ordr(n) is the multiplicative order of n modulo r, log2 is the binary logarithm, and $$\varphi(r)$$ is Euler's totient function of r.

Step 3 is shown in the paper as checking 1 < (a,n) < n for all a ≤ r. It can be seen this is equivalent to trial division up to r, which can be done very efficiently without using gcd. Similarly the comparison in step 4 can be replaced by having the trial division return prime once it has checked all values up to and including $$\left\lfloor \sqrt{n} \right\rfloor.$$

Once beyond very small inputs, step 5 dominates the time taken. The essential reduction in complexity (from exponential to polynomial) is achieved by performing all calculations in the finite ring
 * $$R = (\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z)[X]/(X^r -1)$$

consisting of $$n^r$$ elements. This ring contains only the $$r$$ monomials $$\{X^0,X^1,\ldots,X^{r-1}\} $$, and the coefficients are in $$\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z$$ which has $$n$$ elements, all of them codable within $$\log_2(n)$$ bits.

Most later improvements made to the algorithm have concentrated on reducing the size of r, which makes the core operation in step 5 faster, and in reducing the size of s, the number of loops performed in step 5. Typically these changes do not change the computational complexity, but can lead to many orders of magnitude less time taken; for example, Bernstein's final version has a theoretical speedup by a factor of over 2 million.

Proof of validity outline
For the algorithm to be correct, all steps that identify n must be correct. Steps 1, 3, and 4 are trivially correct, since they are based on direct tests of the divisibility of n. Step 5 is also correct: since (2) is true for any choice of a coprime to n and r if n is prime, an inequality means that n must be composite.

The difficult part of the proof is showing that step 6 is true. Its proof of correctness is based on the upper and lower bounds of a multiplicative group in $$\mathbb{Z}_{n}[x]$$ constructed from the (X + a) binomials that are tested in step 5. Step 4 guarantees that these binomials are $$\left\lfloor \sqrt{\varphi(r)}\log_2(n) \right\rfloor$$ distinct elements of $$\mathbb{Z}_n[x]$$. For the particular choice of r, the bounds produce a contradiction unless n is prime or a power of a prime. Together with the test of step 1, this implies that n is always prime at step 6.

Example 1: n = 31 is prime
{{pre|style=white-space:pre;overflow:auto; Input: integer n = 31 > 1.
 * 1=

(* Step 1 *) If (n = a{{sup|b}} for integers a > 1 and b > 1), output composite. For ( b = 2; b <= log{{sub|2}}(n); b++) { a = n{{sup|1/b}}; If (a is integer), Return[Composite] }    a = n{{sup|1/2}}...n{{sup|1/4}} = {5.568, 3.141, 2.360}

(* Step 2 *) Find the smallest r such that O{{sub|r}}(n) > (log{{sub|2}} n){{sup|2}}. maxk = ⌊(log{{sub|2}} n){{sup|2}}⌋; maxr = Max[3, ⌈(Log{{sub|2}} n){{sup|5}}⌉]; (* maxr really isn't needed *) nextR = True; For (r = 2; nextR && r < maxr; r++) { nextR = False; For (k = 1; (!nextR) && k ≤ maxk; k++) { nextR = (Mod[n{{sup|k}}, r] == 1 {{!!}} Mod[n{{sup|k}}, r]==0) }    }     r--; (*the loop over increments by one*) r = 29

(* Step 3 *) If (1 < gcd(a,n) < n for some a ≤ r), output composite. For (a = r; a > 1; a--) { If ((gcd = GCD[a,n]) > 1 && gcd < n), Return[Composite] }    gcd = {GCD(29,31)=1, GCD(28,31)=1, ..., GCD(2,31)=1} ≯ 1

(* Step 4 *) If (n ≤ r), output prime. If (n ≤ r), Return[Prime] (* this step may be omitted if n > 5690034 *) 31 > 29 (* Step 5 *) For a = 1 to $$\left\lfloor\sqrt{\varphi(r)}\log_2(n)\right\rfloor$$ do If ((X+a){{sup|n}} ≠ X{{sup|n}} + a (mod X{{sup|r}} − 1,n)), output composite; φ[x_] := EulerPhi[x]; PolyModulo[f_] := PolynomialMod [ PolynomialRemainder[f, x{{sup|r}}-1, x], n]; max = Floor[Log[2, n]{{sqrt|φ[r]}}]; For (a = 1; a ≤ max; a++) { If (PolyModulo[(x+a){{sup|n}} - PolynomialRemainder[x{{sup|n}}+a, x{{sup|r}}-1], x] ≠ 0) { Return[Composite] {    }     (x+a){{sup|31}} = a{{sup|31}} +31a{{sup|30}}x +465a{{sup|29}}x{{sup|2}} +4495a{{sup|28}}x{{sup|3}} +31465a{{sup|27}}x{{sup|4}} +169911a{{sup|26}}x{{sup|5}} +736281a{{sup|25}}x{{sup|6}} +2629575a{{sup|24}}x{{sup|7}} +7888725a{{sup|23}}x{{sup|8}} +20160075a{{sup|22}}x{{sup|9}} +44352165a{{sup|21}}x{{sup|10}} +84672315a{{sup|20}}x{{sup|11}} +141120525a{{sup|19}}x{{sup|12}} +206253075a{{sup|18}}x{{sup|13}} +265182525a{{sup|17}}x{{sup|14}} +300540195a{{sup|16}}x{{sup|15}} +300540195a{{sup|15}}x{{sup|16}} +265182525a{{sup|14}}x{{sup|17}} +206253075a{{sup|13}}x{{sup|18}} +141120525a{{sup|12}}x{{sup|19}} +84672315a{{sup|11}}x{{sup|20}} +44352165a{{sup|10}}x{{sup|21}} +20160075a{{sup|9}}x{{sup|22}} +7888725a{{sup|8}}x{{sup|23}} +2629575a{{sup|7}}x{{sup|24}} +736281a{{sup|6}}x{{sup|25}} +169911a{{sup|5}}x{{sup|26}} +31465a{{sup|4}}x{{sup|27}} +4495a{{sup|3}}x{{sup|28}} +465a{{sup|2}}x{{sup|29}} +31ax{{sup|30}} +x{{sup|31}} PolynomialRemainder [(x+a){{sup|31}}, x{{sup|29}}-1] = 465a{{sup|2}} +a{{sup|31}} +(31a+31a{{sup|30}})x +(1+465a{{sup|29}})x{{sup|2}} +4495a{{sup|28}}x{{sup|3}} +31465a{{sup|27}}x{{sup|4}} +169911a{{sup|26}}x{{sup|5}} +736281a{{sup|25}}x{{sup|6}} +2629575a{{sup|24}}x{{sup|7}} +7888725a{{sup|23}}x{{sup|8}} +20160075a{{sup|22}}x{{sup|9}} +44352165a{{sup|21}}x{{sup|10}} +84672315a{{sup|20}}x{{sup|11}} +141120525a{{sup|19}}x{{sup|12}} +206253075a{{sup|18}}x{{sup|13}} +265182525a{{sup|17}}x{{sup|14}} +300540195a{{sup|16}}x{{sup|15}} +300540195a{{sup|15}}x{{sup|16}} +265182525a{{sup|14}}x{{sup|17}} +206253075a{{sup|13}}x{{sup|18}} +141120525a{{sup|12}}x{{sup|19}} +84672315a{{sup|11}}x{{sup|20}} +44352165a{{sup|10}}x{{sup|21}} +20160075a{{sup|9}}x{{sup|22}} +7888725a{{sup|8}}x{{sup|23}} +2629575a{{sup|7}}x{{sup|24}} +736281a{{sup|6}}x{{sup|25}} +169911a{{sup|5}}x{{sup|26}} +31465a{{sup|4}}x{{sup|27}} +4495a{{sup|3}}x{{sup|28}} ($$) PolynomialMod [PolynomialRemainder [(x+a){{sup|31}}, x{{sup|29}}-1], 31] = a{{sup|31}}+x{{sup|2}} ($$) PolynomialRemainder [x{{sup|31}}+a, x{{sup|29}}-1] = a+x{{sup|2}} ($$) - ($$) = a{{sup|31}}+x{{sup|2}} - (a+x{{sup|2}}) = a{{sup|31}}-a $$\max = \left\lfloor\log_2 (31) \sqrt{\varphi(29)} \right\rfloor = 26$$ {1{{sup|31}}-1 = 0 (mod 31), 2{{sup|31}}-2 = 0 (mod 31), 3{{sup|31}}-3 = 0 (mod 31), ..., 26{{sup|31}}-26 = 0 (mod 31)} (* Step 6 *) Output prime. {{samp|31 Must be Prime}} }} Where PolynomialMod is a term-wise modulo reduction of the polynomial. e.g. PolynomialMod[x+2x{{sup|2}}+3x{{sup|3}}, 3] = x+2x{{sup|2}}+0x{{sup|3}}

title: AKS primality test


text:
User talk:MichaelHamm

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

UtherSRG 18:14, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

PS. You can sign your name using three tildes, like. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

authors: Template namespace initialisation script

title: User talk:MichaelHamm


text:
Wolfred Nelson

Wolfred Nelson (10 July 1791 – 17 June 1863) was the mayor of Montreal, Quebec, from 1854 to 1856.

Biography
Nelson was born in Montreal. His father, William Nelson, was an immigrant to Colonial America from Newsham, North Yorkshire, England. His mother, Jane Dies, was a teacher and daughter of an important land owner in the New York area.

Along with his younger brother Robert Nelson, he was known as a member of the Patriotes and for his leading role in the Lower Canada Rebellion.

Nelson studied at the school of his father in William Henry. He became a physician in January 1811 and subsequently served in that capacity with the British troops on the War of 1812.

He moved to Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu where he opened a distillery. He entered politics when elected in William Henry in 1827. He supported the Parti Patriote.

In 1827, he was elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada, but he gave up active politics in 1830, without disavowing his reformist allegiance. He became a Patriote leader in the region of the Richelieu River valley, and supported the use of arms at the Assemblée des Six-Comtés in 1837.

In a prelude to the Lower Canada Rebellion of 1837, Nelson led 5,000 Patriotes in the two-day Assembly of the Six Counties in Saint-Charles, Lower Canada (present-day Quebec), on 23 and 24 October 1837, to protest the government's Russell Resolutions, taking place despite the 15 June Proclamation forbidding public assemblies. At one point he interrupted Papineau's speech, saying, "As for me, I am of a different opinion from that of M. Papineau. I claim the time has come to melt our spoons to make bullets." The conference delegates approved the Thirteen Resolutions, based on the republican document Rights of Man written by British and later American Revolutionary Thomas Paine, which was also adopted by proponents of both the American Revolution and the French Revolution. A Column of Liberty was also erected in Saint-Charles' Square.

On 16 November 1837, he and 25 others were charged with high treason. Louis-Joseph Papineau and Edmund Bailey O'Callaghan joined Nelson at Saint-Denis at some point before 23 November 1837, where Papineau and O'Bailey decided to resist arrest and escape to the United States (into Vermont) following the Battle of Saint-Denis.

On 28 February 1838, after having crossed the border from Vermont, Nelson, along with 300 to 400 Patriotes from a secret group called Frères Chasseurs, distributed copies of a declaration of independence written by Nelson's brother, Robert Nelson. Drawn from the American Declaration of Independence, the document listed the crimes that Great Britain had committed against Lower Canada, and defended the right to overthrow the government.

Later, he led a group of armed citizens who resisted arrest by the British army at St-Denis. He was arrested soon after. (See Lower Canada Rebellion.)

Exiled to Bermuda in 1838, Nelson was granted amnesty by the British colonial government and came back to Montreal in 1842. In 1844, he was elected to the new Parliament of the Province of Canada. In 1854, he became mayor of Montreal, and he died in June 1863. He is interred in the Anglican cemetery in Sorel-Tracy and is commemorated by a park in Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve borough.

Works

 * Report of Dr. Wolfred Nelson, one of the inspectors of the provincial penitentiary, on the present state, discipline, management and expenditure of the district and other prisons in Canada East, 1852 (exists also in French)
 * Rapport des Drs. Nelson et Macdonnell, et Zéphirin Perrault, ecr., avocat, sur l'Hôpital de marine et des émigrés de Québec, et correspondance relative aux services du Dr. Robitaille dans le dit hôpital, 1853
 * Practical views on cholera, and on the sanitary, preventive and curative measures to be adopted in the event of a visitation of the epidemic, 1854 (exists also in French)
 * Five years in Panama (1880-1885)

title: Wolfred Nelson