text:
Talk:Strict liability

Oldest discussion
strict liability you need to know the right understanding of it before you do any thing about law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.94.237 (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Older discussion
This article is terrible, i just got redirected from no-fault liability to this article! They are different!

This article mistates the law.

Strict liability is avilible in some instances for gross negligence (torts), hiring incompetent or uninsured contractors (corperations), contracting for a nuisance/ultahazardous activity (corporations), and via respondeat superior.

The previous text, I belive mistook a different criminal law doctrine for one that is actually applicable in tort and corporations law.

This is the previous text: Strict liability is an attribute of some crimes. Crimes which require no mens rea are considered to be of strict liability. These are offenses in which to do anything wrong is considered blameworthy, regardless of intent. Many traffic offenses are strict liability crimes. Statutory rape is also often considered to be a crime of strict liability.

Reid 05:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) Strict liability, simply put, means that there is no mens rea rquired

This section also oversimplifies tort law. There are two catagories for liability - one is for inherently dangerous activities and one is for ultrahazardous activities. Inherently dangerous activities involves a nondelegable duty and ultrahazardous activities involves strict liability. The two concepts are blended into one in this definition.
 * At present, this is at a level of generality so that, albeit simplified, it relates to many different jurisdictions. The moment you introduce distinctions known only to one jurisdiction, it loses it utility to the other jurisdictions. So, if you introduce this U.S. element, we would have to introduce all our very different rules. It is a bit like the nuclear arms race. David91 07:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a new section on what was discussed above - strict liability in criminal law, especially as it applies to traffic and statutory rape offenses. Please let me know on here if I made any mistakes (I'm new!). Thanks in advance : ) --Teh Janitor 08:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Strict liability in contract law
The article gives the impression that strict liability is a concept limited to tort and criminal law. In fact, contract law in many countries, as well as the United Nations Sales Law (CISG) adopts a strict liability standard with certain exceptions. “Contract liability is strict liability.”, to quote the Second Restatements of Contracts.

I believe the article should reflect this. Unfortunately, as I wasn't trained in a strict liability country, I'm not the one to do it, but I do hope that someone more savvy will feel encouraged to do it. Ildottoreverde (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing language removed
I removed the following language:

 * Statutory rape is another example of a strict liability offence. This prevents defendants from raising defences along the line of 'I did not know he/she was underage.' Again, the prosecutor need only prove that the defendant engaged in the sexual activity. The onus rests on the defendant to demonstrate that he genuinely and reasonably believed that the other party was not underage.

Statutory rape in at least some U.S. jurisdictions is not a "strict liability offence." This is unsourced material, so it's a bit difficult to evaluate whether the verbiage is even true anywhere. At any rate, the sentence beginning with the words "The onus rests on the defendant [ . . . ]" is simply incorrect, and directly contradicts the concept of strict liability. Assuming for the sake of argument that statutory rape is a strict liability crime with respect to the element of whether the defendant believed the other party was underage, then there's nothing for the defendant to prove -- the defendant's belief would be irrelevant, as his/her belief would not be a valid defense.

There is another problem with this verbiage. If we take the view that statutory rape is not a strict liability crime, then (at least in the United States) there is no requirement that the defendant "reasonably" believed what he or she believed. If the jury is convinced that the defendant genuinely believed what he or she says he believed, that is a valid defense -- even if that belief is irrational or unreasonable. This is a very important point. For an application of this rule in the context of tax law, for example, see Cheek v. United States. And the burden of proving the defendant's mens rea is on the prosecution, not on the defense.

The vehicle traffic offense example is a much better example of a strict liability offense in the United States. I made some edits to that example as well. Yours, Famspear 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: As to whether any U.S. jurisdictions do in fact treat statutory rape as a strict liability offense with respect to whether the defendant was aware that the other party was under age, I don't know the answer. And I don't know anything about jurisdictions outside the U.S. either. Yours, Famspear 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation removed
I removed the following section
 * It should be noted also that the motivation for this principle is partly financial: most defendants against whom this priciple is brought are large corporations who are in a better position to recoup the loss financially than other parties involved. For instance: if a design flaw is found in a vehicle that causes an accident, the auto manufacturer has more funds available to compensate the victims of the crash than does the driver of the vehicle, despite that s/he may also have been negligent in some way. It is expected that the cost of this responsibility to strict liability is incorporated into the organization's cost of doing business and therefore comes to rest on the entire customer base of that organization instead of just the driver of the car, who may not be able to compensate. Similar to the way insurance works, the principle of strict liability acts to distribute the impact of disastrous occurrences.

Not only is this unsoureced, I is very unlikely to be true. Why are "large corparations" responsible for off-setting the cost of a poor individuals misfortune? This contradicts many countries justification for private proporty. Using this rationale, why aren't "large corparations" required to absorb all monatory damages of anything in which they are at least 1% responsible? This is not like insurance policies, as the current text claims, as these are volentary. One chooses to pay into it. The large corperation does not choose to be a part of it, someone just decided that they had plenty of money so they ought to share it.--Tmchk | Talk 09:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for an answer to the following strict liability issue: if a firm A makes a product B, which then leaves its premises (suppose it can be proved that other products in the same batch are not defective); subsequently B is damaged; it is then bought by C, who is injured by it; is A still liable? if it cannot be determined where the damage occurred, is anyone liable?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.250.49 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolute liability should not direct to strict liability
A search for 'absolute liability' gets directed to strict liability it is manifestly erroneous as absolute liability as laid in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) means strict liability without exceptions. Hence there is a need to have a seperate article on absolute liability. LegalEagle (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes
yes, no? ==

I'm having a hard time understanding these two consecutive sentences:
 * Under absolute liability, only an actus reus is required.
 * With strict liability, an actus reus, unintentional or not is all that is required.

Didn't that just say exactly the same thing twice, not making any differentiation between them at all?

Why do I think this article has been edited way too much (often), and too little (well). Shenme (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an edit on this point (my first on Wikipedia) because the mistake seemed so glaring. I'm looking for a way to flag the article as in need of the attention of an expert as well. Yndus (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
I've deleted the sentence: ... "Sometimes a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs." ... because it's wrong! See Norwich City Council v Harvey. Arrivisto (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Cyclist - Car section
Should the Cyclist - Car section be expanded to include that Denmark, Germany and France also have similar laws:

https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/blog/road-injury/what-drivers-and-cyclists-should-consider/#:~:text=Automatic%20liability%3A%20Drivers%20are%20responsible,responsible%20for%20collisions%20with%20cyclists. 112.213.190.29 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No respect for those who contribute!
Question: Before unnecessarily destroying the work of volunteer contributors, shouldn't administrators properly investigate? Only among the incivility of the animal kingdom do those who are stronger destroy randomly/intuitively and without verification. If these are the rights in Wikipedia, I prefer the civilization of the extra-wikipedia world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph77237 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC) (also editing as 95.75.78.144)

 * Any editor can and should remove content that doesn't improve articles, not just administrators. This is not incivility or meant as disrespect; it's an appropriate editorial process that maintains article quality. People do also sometimes remove good content for bad reasons, but that's not what happened in this case; the problems with the added material are described in great detail in the thread below. Sometimes reasons aren't well-communicated in edit summaries, which is why editors are encouraged to discuss disputed changes on talk pages rather than repeatedly undoing each other with terse or hostile edit summaries.
 * It sounds like you're having a rough time getting started on Wikipedia, which I'm sorry about. It can take some time to get accustomed to Wikipedia's style and editing processes, which is different in many ways to technical writing. You seem to have legal expertise and I'm sure are capable of making welcome additions to legal articles. Other editors are here to help you do that, if you can take constructive criticism and work with them in a friendly and cooperative fashion. It helps to focus on content and put our egos aside. -- Beland (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent Changes
A lot of changes have been made to the article over the past month. It's great to have editors who are interesting in updating and developing an old, underdeveloped article. With that in mind, please take note that changes should accord with the Manual of Style. Among other issues, some new content is not clear and understandable, the present lead of the article is bloated and difficult to read, the changes introduce formatting errrors and there are citations in a heading, paragraph length has become an issue, and there are overcite issues that make it difficult to read recently added material.

When a lot of changes are made to an article that depart from the style guide, despite the work involved, it sometimes becomes necessary to revert an article to a prior form to bring it back into compliance. It is best that the style guide be followed to avoid that sort of unfortunate possibility. (Notifying recent contributors: ) Arllaw (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Reasons for the changes: if I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia, giving greater prominence to the Anglo-Saxon one in this case, must rearrange all the regulations even if only by indicating them, which entails the indication of at least one source for each nation. Furthermore, at least for the criminal law parts, they were full of serious errors. Personally I spent a lot of time without profit or personal ego: I had read the entry and it was wrong.  As for the language: law is technical, otherwise it would not be necessary to obtain a degree and a qualification. Joseph77237 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My comment is not about reasons for the changes. I was noting that the article has a lot of issues as a result of the changes. Those issues have reached the point that the article is best fixed by reverting to a version that existed prior to the changes. It is important that changes to articles be compliant with the Manual of Style. Given the amount of work that it would take for other editors to fix the problems, the best way to preserve the changes is to revisit the article and edit the content such that it complies with the Manual of Style. A significant number of lawyers edit Wikipedia, yet edit in compliance with the Manual of Style. Arllaw (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I only corrected the parts of the entry in which I have a degree and qualification: I don't know the other parts (vaccines and non-contractual civil liability) well and I preferred not to change the content: I only indicated the academic sources in the notes, in case someone more expert wants to modify them. Greetings. Joseph77237 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All people are welcome to edit as part of this project. Expertise is appreciated. But all editors are expected to edit in accord with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, and even well-intentioned noncompliant edits are subject to possible reversion.
 * The issue of compliance with the style guide, with not rendering an article unintelligible through noncompliant changes, is separate from one of content. If the style issues are corrected such that the article becomes readable, discussion of the content may or may not be necessary. But if the style issues are not resolved, the effort to bring the article into compliance would be such a burden to other editors that reversion remains an appropriate option, and quite probably the best option. At this point, with no indication that the author of the changes will correct the issues created within the article, it is a remedy that I have come to favor. Arllaw (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is objectively illogical to think of judging a technical item without being technically specialized in that subject (R. Alexy, R. Perelman, "Argumentative Logic [...]"), on the basis of the 5 pillars style manual: the 5 pillars lend themselves to misinterpretations:<> (J. Cutter-R. Rorty-U. Eco, "Interpretation and overinterpretation"); the result is to provide a wrong/useless entry to those who consult Wikipedia.    A doctor cannot write an economics article: it is prohibited by law;  as well as being harmful to those who use it: they learn nonsense. Joseph77237 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to write in jargon and in a format of your own choosing, you may do so on any site that permits dense, unreadable, jargon-laden content. If you want to write for Wikipedia, the content you create must comply with the required elements of the style guide, and are better if they also comply with best practices. It does not matter if you regard that as illogical. Wikipedia runs the site and we thus abide by its rules. Arllaw (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The rules cannot be interpreted by anyone: you must be a law graduate and have a legal qualification to do so; the interpretative criteria (interpretation: literal, teleological, systematic, historical, comparative, logical, etc.[Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Philosophy of Law; Anglo-American Philosophy of Law Joseph77237 (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ...require a title validated by law: only in the jungle does the strongest win (the lion/tiger/et similia); and if the law of the jungle applies in Wikipedia, I am not the strongest, so I resign myself to succumbing.  Greetings. Joseph77237 (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia makes a lot of resources available to new editors, so that they can learn how to edit with a proper encyclopedic tone, format properly, get a solid understanding of the style guide, and the like. You may want to take the time to work through some of those resources, as editing in compliance with the style guide will both improve your contributions and help you avoid frustration. This intro is a good place to start, and this overview links to many other helpful articles. If you choose, you may still bring your edits into compliance. Arllaw (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Intro
Greetings! I see you restored the intro paragraph I deleted with the edit summary "It is "long"(?!), because it explains to the user the difference between strict liability and other forms of objective liability".

A good maximum length for a well-written English paragraph is probably around 5 sentences. This paragraph is 15 sentences, which is too long no matter how well it explains its concepts. If it was well written (sorry to be harsh, but I'll be candid for clarity), I would have simply broken it into shorter paragraphs. Unfortunately it does a poor job communicating these concepts to readers unfamiliar with them. The first sentence has several problems:

"'Strict liability' is roughly identified with 'objective responsibility': the latter actually includes the former, adding vicarious responsibility (liability) and collective responsibility (liability)."

 * Considers the subject as words rather than as the concept itself, violating MOS:LEADSENTENCE
 * Does not bold the subject of the article as required by MOS:BOLDLEAD
 * Does not follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; it introduces several concepts which are not explained in the body.
 * Does not define "objective responsibility" or "collective responsibility". Wikipedia does not have articles on these concepts, and it's unclear they are legal terms commonly used to define strict liability.
 * Uses confusing sentence structure with referents "former" and "latter" and uses the confusing construction "responsibility (liability)". Which is meant? Are they the same or different? This is never explained.
 * The relationship "is roughly identified with" is not explained, leaving the reader confused about the relationship between the two purported types of liability.

The paragraph which previously was first does a much better job providing a clear, brief, jargon-free definition:

"In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant."

The second sentence also has major problems: "In fact, in strict liability' the offense is attributed to Tizio without investigating the latter's mens rea."

 * Does not follow the rules of English punctuation, as there is an unbalanced double quotation mark.
 * The phrase "In fact" is redundant or contentless and should not be used. Facts can just be stated; using this phrase makes it sound like the article is attempting to be persuasive.
 * The technical term "mens rea" is used without being explained. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia, which targets a general audience, not a specialist audience. The good version of the intro uses the more accessible term "criminal intent" and links to mens rea for readers interested in more detail on that concept.
 * It's unclear what noun "the latter" is referring to?
 * It's unclear who or what "Tizio" is referring to; this is not even explained later. It's presumably not Tizio, the desk lamp.

This paragraph rambles a lot, uses the passive voice too much, and says weird things about the scientific impossibility of determining intent, punishing everyone in advance for future accidents, and using human beings for the good of society. It contains several instances of what appear to be direct quotes, but they do not have inline citations as required by WP:V. If it had interesting material, I might try to tidy it up, but the gist of the paragraph seems to boil down to what the previous version of the intro and some parts of the body already say in far fewer words.

For these reasons and because two other editors have also objected to this content, I have removed it again. If you think the existing intro needs improvement (something I would agree with), please try to do so in a way that responds to these criticisms rather than just re-adding the text which other editors object to. You might try proposing small additions here so you wouldn't end up wasting a large amount of time going in a direction that might not work out. -- Beland (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Strict criminal liability
I have restored the old version of Strict liability because the new version was very difficult to read, and was not a good summary of Strict liability (criminal), as required by Summary style. I do agree the old version of this section focuses too much on only the US and UK, and that the main article could use expansion to cover more jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the very long list of citations to national laws in the second paragraph of the new version is not very helpful, as it's unclear what point it's trying to make about how strict liability relates to intentional vs. unintentional deaths.

The quality of writing in these two paragraphs is (again, sorry to be harsh) poor. It uses way too much Latin, the grammatical structure is twisty and hard to follow (one sentence has two colons!) and the word choice and tone is weird, as if this text had been transliterated from another language without accounting for typical English flow, or is using an archaic or highly stilted register. It also contains many capitalization errors and presumably non-English constructions like "Section 4°".

If you want to add material to this section, I would actually consider adding it to Strict liability (criminal) first. Though you might try listing some bullet points on the talk page first to get help with putting ideas into readable English prose. The restored version though better is still not an ideal summary of the main article and could use some tweaking, especially if the main article is expanded with better geographic coverage. -- Beland (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

 * versari in re illicita = Latin formula that dates back to Roman law Avanti Cristo (before Christopher Columbus/Amerigo Vespucci); and is the "Mother" of strict liability, felony murder, preternatural crime etc. Joseph77237 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hoo justified the changes by indicating academic sources; I certainly don't intend to be a watchdog over the voice: if someone wants to change only for derogatory purposes, go ahead.  Greetings. Joseph77237 (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. By "Hoo", are you referring to a person named "Hoo" or asking a question misspelling "Who" or making a comment misspelling "You" or something else? Lack of sources is not an objection to keeping this material in the article. I certainly don't mean to be derogatory. If this text was acceptable after only fixing grammar and capitalization and whatnot, I would have simply fixed it. I removed it instead because the ideas it is expressing are either unclear or on the wrong article. -- Beland (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume your reference to "versari in re illicita" is in regard to your recent changes to Criminal law, not this article. I'll reply on Talk:Criminal law. -- Beland (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand. Wikipedia is your property.  You could have said it before: I would have saved myself hours of research work. Joseph77237 (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm an editor who tries to follow Wikipedia's editing standards. When somebody edits without knowing or without caring about Wikipedia's standards, they have the opportunity to clean up after themselves.
 * You continue to have the option of cleaning up the article in compliance with Wikipedia's standards. If that's too much work for you, why do you believe that it's appropriate to pass a burden of your creation on to others? Arllaw (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia can be read all over the world: each reader can verify whether you are telling the truth or not. Joseph77237 (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also review Wikipedia's principles of etiquette, WP:ETIQ. Arllaw (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yours is called "misinterpretation":
 * 1) https://classiccharacterscourse.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/eco-interpretation-and-overinterpretation.pdf
 * 2)https://www.academia.edu/19613640/Emilio_Betti_GENERAL_THEORY_OF_INTERPRETATION
 * Good continuation and goodbye Joseph77237 (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misdirecting your ire. I am sorry, however, that you have struggled with editing and encourage you to utilize the many resources that have been directed to your attention, such that things go much more smoothly in the future. Arllaw (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Strict liability


text:
Talk:The Glass Menagerie

Low Importance?
How did an article about a major twentieth century play come to be rated "low importance"? Are the majority of wikipedia editors teenagers who think that internet memes are the height of cultural achievement?76.68.39.253 (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Please just change the priority, instead of insulting people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.132.44 (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't change the priority on a whim. The Stick Man (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
They say that Jim is a saviour comparable to chuck norris(aka GOD) and that it is considered ironic when he does not actually save them. I dont quite agree with that because like chuck he was physically there for only a small amount of time and during that time he bettered the lives of all there. He forced Amanda and Laura to get out on their own or do whatever and he helped laura overcome her shyness.

The sentence structure of this article is poor, it would be nice if soeone with knowledge of the play could make it flow better. Sentences such as "Williams has not always been so loved. The end of the play is tragic" are fairly poor.

"A bitched lobotomy" is priceles.

I wish before you belittle someones work, you check to see that yours is spelt right.

Frustrated student.

-It is not said that Jim O'Conner was a catholic. Amanda just assumed so because of his Irish background. However he was engaged to a catholic girl. So it can be possible he was Catholic. If he 100% was is not certain though.

I don't quite like the last paragraph on 'the dance hall' under symbolism. The Paradise Dance Hall has already been discussed earlier in the section, under setting, and the phrasing of this paragraph is awkward and unprofessional. Any objections to cutting the material? Cherylline 11:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes
Can you please include a 1-2 sentence plot synopsis for those who don't feel like reading a frickin novel to find out what the play's about!!! (i.e. SYNOPSIS)
 * Perhaps you could try Cliff's Notes? NickBurns 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This literature is a play, not "a frickin novel". And, it isn't even a very long play; I think Of Mice and Men might be a little bit longer, though I admittedly haven't seen that in play form.  --Luigifan 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If one re-reads the original comment, it is evident the person is aware this article discusses a play, and is simply complaining about the lengthy plot summary (what one Wikipedia template calls "overly detailed"). Has this issue been addressed? Lawikitejana (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Gentleman Caller
If memory serves -- and I only read this play once, in high school, 15 years ago -- the character of Jim is called "The Gentleman Caller". While he was named in the dialogue, in stage directions and in line headings, he is only referred to by this nondescript character name. If this is true, he needs to be referred to as such in our character list and the distinction needs to be made in the article somewhere. — Music Maker  03:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC) he is referred to as the gentleman caller, but he is called jim very frequently in the play itself76.116.99.168 19:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC) BLESS MY EYES FRESH SUPPLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LIKE PIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MEAT PIES!!!!!!!!!!!!! BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Washington controversy
Not sure if this is of interest, but the play, when first performed by a touring group in DC, was put on in the National theatre, which at the time was segregated. There was a certain amount of controversy with Williams protesting vocally, but powerless to do anything about it because of contracts he had signed months earlier. Here is my source if anyone thinks it's interesting enough I'll write it up. --Kick the cat 00:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would definately add it, the article could use some beefing up.--TyGuy92 (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Parodies section
I added something to the Parodies section of this article about a show called Bouffon Glass Menajoree. Included in that description of the show was the external link to the production. It was edited out as spam. It is clearly a parody of this play, and should be in the section. I am putting it back in, and leaving the external link in the external link section.

There's a song that alludes to The Glass Menagerie. Does anyone know what it is? It used to be in the Trivia/Parodies section.The idea of the play came from fco Mna

Ptbarnum 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC) fco

Perhaps you mean "Shakespeare's Sister" by The Smiths? It always made sense to me... Tom is referred to as Shakespeare, and the song doesn't seem to refer to A Room of One's Own that a cursory glance suggests. Salubrious (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ANSWERS WANTED
Here are a few questions to ponder... What does the fire escape symbolize?

What importance does Jim have in the play?

Wikipedia isn't really meant for getting homework answers. Why don't you try the numerous sites out there that are, e.g. Sparknotes Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Why, to your opinion, is Laura so terribly shy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.180.107 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unrepresented
I added Mr Wingfield to the characters list due to his undeniable importance in the play however i'm sure the edit could be improved. (89.243.71.218 (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)) esto que estan viendo aqui es una porqueria de pagina no la usen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.163.45 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Can you please talk English?

Memory Play?
What's a memory play? There isn't even a wikipedia entry for the term. We can't use that term to explain what the glass menagerie is, if it doesn't exist outside the play itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.132.44 (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC) It's how Tom himself describes the play, so there wouldn't be an article on that. And what Tom means is that this play has been recreated from his memory. The Stick Man (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential rewrite of ending, averted?
I'm in the middle of watching Sweet Tornado: Margo Jones and the American Theater, in which it is claimed that Eddie Dowling tried to get Tennessee Williams to change the play's ending to a more upbeat one, including having Laura standing — standing — "with braces removed, and the gentleman caller standing again at the door -- orthopedics do such wonderful things!" is the quote of Williams they include. The program says Jones went to bat for the original ending and threatened to go to the critics to expose the "wire-pulling" behind the scenes if the changes were made, which of course, we know now, they were not. I know we can use television as a reference just as one can a printed source, but is there a printed source as well? Lawikitejana (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

subsequent productions
I added a note to the bottom of the list documenting the Flat Rock Playhouse revival in October of 2018. Somebody saw fit to summarily remove this bit of data without any apparent justification. Who decides which productions will be recognized in Wikipedia? Is the State Theater of North Carolina too humble to include?

https://www.flatrockplayhouse.org/show/the-glass-menagerie/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0AB:8D00:4D94:6195:587D:5E3 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:The Glass Menagerie


text:
William Tell

William Tell (Wilhelm Tell, ; Guillaume Tell; Guglielmo Tell; Guglielm Tell) is a folk hero of Switzerland. According to the legend, Tell was an expert mountain climber and marksman with a crossbow who assassinated Albrecht Gessler, a tyrannical reeve of the Austrian dukes of the House of Habsburg positioned in Altdorf, in the canton of Uri. Tell's defiance and tyrannicide encouraged the population to open rebellion and a pact against the foreign rulers with neighbouring Schwyz and Unterwalden, marking the foundation of the Swiss Confederacy. Tell was considered the father of the Swiss Confederacy. Set in the early 14th century (traditional date 1307, during the rule of Albert of Habsburg), the first written records of the legend date to the latter part of the 15th century, when the Swiss Confederacy was gaining military and political influence. Tell is a central figure in Swiss national historiography, along with Arnold von Winkelried, the hero of Sempach (1386). He was important as a symbol during the formative stage of modern Switzerland in the 19th century, known as the period of Restoration and Regeneration, as well as in the wider history of 18th- to 19th-century Europe as a symbol of resistance against aristocratic rule, especially in the Revolutions of 1848 against the House of Habsburg which had ruled Austria for centuries.

Legend
The first reference to Tell, as yet without a specified given name, appears in the White Book of Sarnen (German: Weisses Buch von Sarnen). This volume was written in c. 1474 by Hans Schriber, state secretary (Landschreiber) Obwalden. It mentions the Rütli oath (German: Rütlischwur) and names Tell as one of the conspirators of the Rütli, whose heroic tyrannicide triggered the Burgenbruch rebellion.

An equally early account of Tell is found in the Tellenlied, a song composed in the 1470s, with its oldest extant manuscript copy dating to 1501. The song begins with the Tell legend, which it presents as the origin of the Confederacy, calling Tell the "first confederate". The narrative includes Tell's apple shot, his preparation of a second arrow to shoot Gessler, and his escape, but it does not mention any assassination of Gessler. The text then enumerates the cantons of the Confederacy, and says was expanded with "current events" during the course of the Burgundy Wars, ending with the death of Charles the Bold in 1477.

Aegidius Tschudi, writing c. 1570, presents an extended version of the legend. Still essentially based on the account in the White Book, Tschudi adds further detail. Tschudi is known to habitually have "fleshed out" his sources, so that all detail from Tschudi not found in the earlier accounts may be suspected of being Tschudi's invention. Such additional detail includes Tell's given name Wilhelm, and his being a native of Bürglen, Uri in the Schächental,  the precise date of the apple-shot, given as 18 November 1307 as well as the account of Tell's death in 1354. It is Tschudi's version that became influential in early modern Switzerland and entered public consciousness as the "William Tell" legend. According to Tschudi's account, William Tell was known as a strong man and an expert shot with the crossbow. In his time, the House of Habsburg emperors of Austria were seeking to dominate Uri, and Tell became one of the conspirators of Werner Stauffacher who vowed to resist Habsburg rule. Albrecht Gessler was the newly appointed Austrian Vogt of Altdorf, Switzerland. He raised a pole under the village lindentree, hung his hat on top of it, and demanded that all the townsfolk bow before it.

In Tschudi's account, on 18 November 1307, Tell visited Altdorf with his young son. He passed by the hat, but publicly refused to bow to it, and was consequently arrested. Gessler was intrigued by Tell's famed marksmanship, but resentful of his defiance, so he devised a cruel punishment. Tell and his son were both to be executed; however, he could redeem his life by shooting an apple off the head of his son Walter in a single attempt. Tell split the apple with a bolt from his crossbow. Gessler then noticed that Tell had removed two crossbow bolts from his quiver, so he asked why. Tell was reluctant to answer, but Gessler promised that he would not kill him; he replied that, had he killed his son, he would have killed Gessler with the second bolt. Gessler was furious and ordered Tell to be bound, saying that he had promised to spare his life, but would imprison him for the remainder of his life.

Tschudi's continues that Tell was being carried in Gessler's boat to the dungeon in the castle at Küssnacht when a storm broke on Lake Lucerne, and the guards were afraid that their boat would sink. They begged Gessler to remove Tell's shackles so that he could take the helm and save them. Gessler gave in, but Tell steered the boat to a rocky place and leaped out. The site is known in the "White Book" as the "Tellsplatte" ("Tell's slab"); it has been marked by a memorial chapel since the 16th century. Tell ran cross-country to Küssnacht with Gessler in pursuit. Tell assassinated him using the second crossbow bolt, along a stretch of the road cut through the rock between Immensee and Küssnacht, which is known as the Hohle Gasse. Tell's act sparked a rebellion, which led to the formation of the Old Swiss Confederacy. According to Tschudi, Tell fought again against Austria in the 1315 Battle of Morgarten. Tschudi also has an account of Tell's death in 1354, according to which he was killed trying to save a child from drowning in the Schächental River in Uri.

Chronicles
There are a number of sources for the Tell legend later than the earliest account in the White Book of Sarnen but earlier than Tschudi's version of ca. 1570.

These include the account in the chronicle of Melchior Russ from Lucerne. Dated to 1482, this is an incoherent compilation of older writings, including the Song of the Founding of the Confederation, Conrad Justinger's Bernese Chronicle, and the Chronicle of the State of Bern (in German, Chronik der Stadt Bern). Another early account is in Petermann Etterlin's Chronicle of the Swiss Confederation (German: Kronika von der loblichen Eydtgenossenschaft) of 1507, the earliest printed version of the Tell story.

The Chronicon Helveticum was compiled by Aegidius Tschudi of Glarus in the years leading up to his death in early 1572. For more than 150 years, it existed only in manuscript form, before finally being edited in 1734–1736. Therefore, there is no clear "date of publication" of the chronicle, and its date of composition can only be given approximately, as "ca. 1570", or "before 1572". It is Tschudi's account of the legend, however, which became the major model for later writers, even prior to its edition in print in the 1730s,

Popular veneration
A widespread veneration of Tell, including sight-seeing excursions to the scenes of his deeds, can be ascertained for the early 16th century. Heinrich Brennwald in the early 16th century mentions the chapel (Tellskapelle) on the site of Tell's leap from his captors' boat. Tschudi mentions a "holy cottage" (heilig hüslin) built on the site of Gessler's assassination. Peter Hagendorf, a soldier in the Thirty Years' War, mentions a visit to 'the chapel where William Tell escaped' in his diary.

The first recorded Tell play (Tellspiel), known as the Urner Tellspiel ("Tell Play of Uri"), was probably performed in the winter of either 1512 or 1513 in Altdorf.

The church of Bürglen had a bell dedicated to Tell from 1581, and a nearby chapel has a fresco dated to 1582 showing Tell's death in the Schächenbach.

The Three Tells
The Three Tells (die Drei Tellen, also die Drei Telle) were symbolic figures of the Swiss Peasant War of 1653. They expressed the hope of the subject population to repeat the success story of the rebellion against Habsburg in the early 14th century.

By the 18th century, the Drei Tellen had become associated with a sleeping hero legend. They were said to be asleep in a cave at the Rigi. The return of Tell in times of need was already foretold in the Tellenlied of 1653 and symbolically fulfilled in the impersonation of the Three Tells by costumed individuals, in one instance culminating in an actual assassination executed by these impersonators in historical costume.

Tell during the 16th century had become closely associated and eventually merged with the Rütlischwur legend, and the "Three Tells" represented the three conspirators or Eidgenossen Walter Fürst, Arnold von Melchtal and Werner Stauffacher.

In 1653, three men dressed in historical costume representing the Three Tells appeared in Schüpfheim. Other impersonations of the Three Tells also appeared in the Freie Ämter and in the Emmental.

The first impersonators of the Three Tells were Hans Zemp, Kaspar Unternährer of Schüpfheim and Ueli Dahinden of Hasle. They appeared at a number of important peasant conferences during the war, symbolizing the continuity of the present rebellion with the resistance movement against the Habsburg overlords at the origin of the Swiss Confederacy. Unternährer and Dahinden fled to the Entlebuch alps before the arrival of the troops of general Sebastian Peregrin Zwyers; Zemp escaped to the Alsace. After the suppression of the rebellion, the peasants voted for a tyrannicide, directly inspired by the Tell legend, attempting to kill the Lucerne Schultheiss Ulrich Dulliker.

Dahinden and Unternährer returned in their roles of Tells, joined by Hans Stadelmann replacing Zemp. In an ambush, they managed to injure Dulliker and killed a member of the Lucerne parliament, Caspar Studer. The assassination attempt — an exceptional act in the culture of the Old Swiss Confederacy — was widely recognized and welcomed among the peasant population, but its impact was not sufficient to rekindle the rebellion.

Even though it did not have any direct political effect, its symbolic value was considerable, placing the Lucerne authorities in the role of the tyrant (Habsburg and Gessler) and the peasant population in that of the freedom fighters (Tell). The Three Tells after the deed went to mass, still wearing their costumes, without being molested. Dahinden and Unternährer were eventually killed in October 1653 by Lucerne troops under Colonel Alphons von Sonnenberg. In July 1654, Zemp betrayed his successor Stadelmann in exchange for pardon and Stadelmann was executed on 15 July 1654.

The Three Tells appear in a 1672 comedy by Johann Caspar Weissenbach. The "sleeping hero" version of the Three Tells legend was published in Deutsche Sagen by the Brothers Grimm in 1816 (no. 298). It is also the subject of Felicia Hemans's poem The Cavern of the Three Tells of 1824.

Modern reception

Throughout the long nineteenth century, and into the World War II period, Tell was perceived as a symbol of rebellion against tyranny both in Switzerland and in Europe.

Antoine-Marin Lemierre wrote a play inspired by Tell in 1766 and revived it in 1786. The success of this work established the association of Tell as a fighter against tyranny with the history of the French Revolution. The French revolutionary fascination with Tell was reflected in Switzerland with the establishment of the Helvetic Republic. Tell became, as it were, the mascot of the short-lived republic, his figure being featured on its official seal. The French Navy also had a Tonnant-class ship of the line named FRENCH SHIP Guillaume Tell, which was captured by the British Royal Navy in 1800.

Benito Juarez, President of Mexico and national hero, chose the alias "Guillermo Tell" (the Spanish version of William Tell) when he joined the Freemasons; he picked this name because he liked and admired the story and character of Tell whom he considered a symbol of freedom and resistance.

Tschudi's Chronicon Helveticum continued to be taken at face value as a historiographical source well into the 19th century, so that Tschudi's version of the legend is not only used as a model in Friedrich Schiller's play William Tell (1804) but is also reported in historiographical works of the time, including Johannes von Müller's History of the Swiss Confederation (German: Geschichte Schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft, 1780).

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe learned of the Tell saga during his travels through Switzerland between 1775 and 1795. He obtained a copy of Tschudi's chronicles and considered writing a play about Tell, but ultimately gave the idea to his friend Friedrich von Schiller, who in 1803–04 wrote the play Wilhelm Tell, first performed on 17 March 1804, in Weimar. Schiller's Tell is heavily inspired by the political events of the late 18th century, the French and American revolutions, in particular. Schiller's play was performed at Interlaken (the Tellspiele) in the summers of 1912 to 1914, 1931 to 1939 and every year since 1947. In 2004 it was first performed in Altdorf itself.

Gioachino Rossini used Schiller's play as the basis for his 1829 opera William Tell. The William Tell Overture is one of his best-known and most frequently imitated pieces of music; in the 20th century, the finale of the overture became the theme for the radio, television, and motion picture incarnations of The Lone Ranger, a fictional American frontier hero.

Around 1836 the first William Tell patterned playing cards were produced in Pest, Hungary. They were inspired by Schiller's play and made during tense relations with the ruling Habsburgs. The cards became popular throughout the Austrian Empire during the Revolution of 1848. Characters and scenes from the opera William Tell are recognisable on the court cards and Aces of William Tell cards, playing cards that were designed in Hungary around 1835. These cards are still the most common German-suited playing cards in that part of the world today. Characters from the play portrayed on the Obers and Unters include: Hermann Geszler, Walter Fürst, Rudolf Harras and William Tell.

In 1858, the Swiss Colonization Society, a group of Swiss and German immigrants to the United States, founded its first (and only) planned city on the banks of the Ohio River in Perry County, Indiana. The town was originally dubbed Helvetia, but was quickly changed to Tell City to honor the legendary Swiss hero. The city became known for its manufacturing, especially of fine wood furniture. William Tell and symbols of an apple with an arrow through it are prominent in the town, which includes a bronze statue of Tell and his son, based on the one in Altdorf, Switzerland. The statue was erected on a fountain in front of city hall in 1974. Tell City High School uses these symbols in its crest or logo, and the sports teams are called "The Marksmen." The William Tell Overture is often played by the school's pep band at high school games. Each August since 1958, Tell City's centennial year, the town has held "Schweizer Fest," a community festival of entertainment, stage productions, historical presentations, carnival rides, beer garden, sporting events and class reunions, to honor its Swiss-German heritage. Many of the activities occur on the grounds of City Hall and Main Street, at the feet of the Tell statue.

John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of Abraham Lincoln, was inspired by Tell. Lamenting the negative reaction to his action, Booth wrote in his journal on 21 April 1865 "with every man's hand against me, I am here in despair. And why; For doing what Brutus was honored for and what made Tell a Hero. And yet I for striking down a greater tyrant than they ever knew am looked upon as a common cutthroat." (He himself was shot to death, without standing trial, days later.)

Following a national competition, won by Richard Kissling, Altdorf in 1895 erected a monument to its hero. Kissling casts Tell as a peasant and man of the mountains, with strong features and muscular limbs. His powerful hand rests lovingly on the shoulder of little Walter, but the apple is not shown. The depiction is in marked contrast with that used by the Helvetic Republic, where Tell is shown as a landsknecht rather than a peasant, with a sword at his belt and a feathered hat, bending down to pick up his son who is still holding the apple.

The painting of Tell by Ferdinand Hodler (1897) became iconic. Tell is represented as facing the viewer, with his right hand raised, the left holding the crossbow. The representation was designed as part of a larger scene showing "Gessler's death", one of seven scenes created for the Swiss National Museum competition. Hodler's depiction of Tell was often described as sacral, and compared to classical depictionons of God Father, Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus, or the Archangel Michael. In Tell's bearded face, Hodler combines self-portrait with allusion the face of Christ.

The first film about Tell was made by French director Charles Pathé in 1900; only a short fragment survives.

A version of the legend was retold in P.G. Wodehouse's William Tell Told Again (1904), written in prose and verse with characteristic Wodehousian flair. The design of the Federal 5 francs coin issued from 1922 features the bust of a generic "mountain shepherd" designed by Paul Burkard, but due to a similarity of the bust with Kissling's statue, in spite of the missing beard, it was immediately widely identified as Tell.

Adolf Hitler was enthusiastic about Schiller's play, quoting it in his Mein Kampf, and approving of a German/Swiss co-production of the play in which Hermann Göring's mistress Emmy Sonnemann appeared as Tell's wife. However, on 3 June 1941, Hitler had the play banned. The reason for the ban is not known, but may have been related to the failed assassination attempt on Hitler in 1938 by young Swiss Maurice Bavaud (executed on 14 May 1941, and later dubbed "a new William Tell" by Rolf Hochhuth), or the subversive nature of the play. Hitler is reported to have exclaimed at a banquet in 1942: "Why did Schiller have to immortalize that Swiss sniper!"

Charlie Chaplin parodies William Tell in his famous 1928 silent movie The Circus. Salvador Dalí painted The Old Age of William Tell and William Tell and Gradiva in 1931, and The Enigma of William Tell in 1933. Spanish playwright Alfonso Sastre re-worked the legend in 1955 in his "Guillermo Tell tiene los ojos tristes" (William Tell has sad eyes); it was not performed until the Franco regime in Spain ended. In Switzerland, the importance of Tell had declined somewhat by the end of the 19th century, outside of Altdorf and Interlaken which established their tradition of performing Schiller's play in regular intervals in 1899 and 1912, respectively. During the World Wars, Tell was again revived, somewhat artificially, as a national symbol. For example, in 1923 the Swiss Post introduced horns for their coach service based on the overture of Rossini's Tell opera, and in 1931, the image of a crossbow was introduced as a logo indicating Swiss products. The Tell-Museum in Bürglen, Uri, opened in 1966.

After 1968, with ideological shift of academic mainstream from a liberal-radical to a deconstructivist leftist outlook, Swiss historians were looking to dismantle the foundational legends of Swiss statehood as unhistorical national myth. Max Frisch's "William Tell for Schools" (1971) deconstructs the legend by reversing the characters of the protagonists: Gessler is a well-meaning and patient administrator who is faced with the barbarism of a back-corner of the empire, while Tell is an irascible simpleton. Tell still remains a popular figure in Swiss culture. According to a 2004 survey, a majority of Swiss believed that he actually existed.

Schweizer Helden ("Swiss Heroes", English title Unlikely Heroes) is a 2014 film about the performance of a simplified version of Schiller's play by asylum seekers in Switzerland.

The Japanese historical fantasy manga series Wolfsmund, written and illustrated by Mitsuhisa Kuji and published by Enterbrain, is a retelling of the rebellion started by William Tell. The story revolves around the oppression that took place during the Middle Ages in the middle cantons of Switzerland.

In the 2019 Spanish comedy film The Little Switzerland, a Spanish town (Tellería) discovers the tomb of Tell's son and tries to become a Swiss canton (Tellstadt), affecting a Swiss identity.

Historicity debate

The historicity of William Tell has been subject to debate. François Guillimann, a statesman of Fribourg and later historian and advisor of the Habsburg Emperor Rudolf II, wrote to Melchior Goldast in 1607: "I followed popular belief by reporting certain details in my Swiss antiquities [published in 1598], but when I examine them closely the whole story seems to me to be pure fable."

In 1760, Simeon Uriel Freudenberger from Luzern anonymously published a tract arguing that the legend of Tell in all likelihood was based on the Danish saga of Palnatoki. A French translation of his book by Gottlieb Emanuel von Haller (Guillaume Tell, Fable danoise), published under Haller's name to protect Freudenberger, was burnt in Altdorf.

The skeptical view of Tell's existence remained very unpopular, especially after the adoption of Tell as depicted in Schiller's 1804 play as national hero in the nascent Swiss patriotism of the Restoration and Regeneration period of the Swiss Confederation. In the 1840s, Joseph Eutych Kopp (1793–1866) published skeptical reviews of the folkloristic aspects of the foundational legends of the Old Confederacy, causing "polemical debates" both within and outside of academia. De Capitani (2013) cites the controversy surrounding Kopp in the 1840s as the turning point after which doubts in Tell's historicity "could no longer be ignored".

From the second half of the 19th century, it has been largely undisputed among historians that there is no contemporary (14th-century) evidence for Tell as a historical individual, let alone for the apple-shot story. Debate in the late 19th to 20th centuries mostly surrounded the extent of the "historical nucleus" in the chronistic traditions surrounding the early Confederacy.

The desire to defend the historicity of the Befreiungstradition ("liberation tradition") of Swiss history had a political component, as since the 17th century its celebration had become mostly confined to the Catholic cantons, so that the declaration of parts of the tradition as ahistorical was seen as an attack by the urban Protestant cantons on the rural Catholic cantons. The decision, taken in 1891, to make 1 August the Swiss National Day is to be seen in this context, an ostentative move away from the traditional Befreiungstradition and the celebration of the deed of Tell to the purely documentary evidence of the Federal Charter of 1291. In this context, Wilhelm Oechsli was commissioned by the federal government with publishing a "scientific account" of the foundational period of the Confederacy in order to defend the choice of 1291 over 1307 (the traditional date of Tell's deed and the Rütlischwur) as the foundational date of the Swiss state. The canton of Uri, in defiant reaction to this decision taken at the federal level, erected the Tell Monument in Altdorf in 1895, with the date 1307 inscribed prominently on the base of the statue.

Later proposals for the identification of Tell as a historical individual, such as a 1986 publication deriving the name Tell from the placename Tellikon (modern Dällikon in the Canton of Zürich), are outside of the historiographical mainstream.

Comparative mythology
The Tell legend has been compared to a number of other myths or legends, specifically in Norse mythology, involving a magical marksman coming to the aid of a suppressed people under the sway of a tyrant. The story of a great outlaw successfully shooting an apple from his child's head is an archetype present in the story of Egil in the Thidreks saga (associated with the god Ullr in Eddaic tradition) as well as in the stories of Adam Bell from England, Palnatoki from Denmark, and a story from Holstein.

Such parallels were pointed out as early as 1760 by Gottlieb Emanuel von Haller and the pastor Simeon Uriel Freudenberger in a book titled "William Tell, a Danish Fable" (German: Der Wilhelm Tell, ein dänisches Mährgen). This book offended Swiss citizens, and a copy of it was burnt publicly at the Altdorf square. Von Haller underwent a trial, but the authorities spared his life, as he made abject apologies.

Rochholz (1877) connects the similarity of the Tell legend to the stories of Egil and Palnatoki with the legends of a migration from Sweden to Switzerland during the Middle Ages. He also adduces parallels in folktales among the Finns and the Lapps (Sami). From pre-Christian Norse mythology, Rochholz compares Ullr, who bears the epithet of Boga-As ("bow-god"), Heimdall and also Odin himself, who according to the Gesta Danorum (Book 1, chapter 8.16) assisted Haddingus by shooting ten bolts from a crossbow in one shot, killing as many foes. Rochholz further compares Indo-European and oriental traditions and concludes (pp. 35–41) that the legend of the master marksman shooting an apple (or similar small target) was known outside the Germanic sphere (Germany, Scandinavia, England) and the adjacent regions (Finland and the Baltic) in India, Arabia, Persia and the Balkans (Serbia).

The Danish legend of Palnatoki, first attested in the twelfth-century Gesta Danorum by Saxo Grammaticus, is the earliest known parallel to the Tell legend. As with William Tell, Palnatoki is forced by the ruler (in this case King Harald Bluetooth) to shoot an apple off his son's head as proof of his marksmanship. A striking similarity between William Tell and Palnatoki is that both heroes take more than one arrow out of their quiver. When asked why he pulled several arrows out of his quiver, Palnatoki, too, replies that if he had struck his son with the first arrow, he would have shot King Harald with the remaining two arrows. According to Saxo, Palnatoki later joins Harald's son Swein Forkbeard in a rebellion and kills Harald with an arrow.

title: William Tell


text:
Abdel Basset Turki

Abdel Basset Turki al-Hadithi was Minister of Human Rights in the cabinet appointed by the Iraq Interim Governing Council in September 2003. He resigned in April 2004 in protest at the deaths of over 600 Iraqis during the siege of Falluja.

In November 2003 Turki demanded access to the captured "Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards", saying they were not all prisoners of war. He condemned human rights violations by US and allied troops in the Combined Joint Task Force 7. He called for victims to be paid compensation.

After the emergence of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal in May 2004, Turki stated that he had complained to Paul Bremer, the US head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in November 2003 of human rights violations in Iraqi jails but had "received no answer".

Abdel Basit Turki al-Sae'ed was Iraq's acting central bank governor from October 2012 until October 2014, during that period he was simultaneously the head of the country's Supreme Audit Board. This questionable appointment was followed after he led an audit in September 2012 of the central bank currency auctions convincing him that $800 million is "transferred illegally under false pretenses" outside of the country every week. This was related in the October 31st 2012 report from the US government's Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR). "Turki was not available for comment on his report".

In December 2014 the Supreme Court of Iraq concluded that the findings from Turki's audit report were unfounded. Again "Turki was not available for comment".

title: Abdel Basset Turki


text:
Nationalist Congress Party

The Nationalist Congress Party is one of the state parties in India. It refers to the Ajit Pawar faction after the 2023 split in the party when the Supreme Court of India granted the original party name and symbol to the Nationalist Congress Party (Ajit Pawar Faction). It was one of the major political parties in Maharashtra and was a recognised state party in Nagaland and Kerala. In July 2023, majority of the elected MLAs and MLCs of the party led by Ajit Pawar joined the National Democratic Alliance government, however, all MPs except two remained loyal to Sharad Pawar. This caused a direct split between the Ajit Pawar-led faction and the founder and president Sharad Pawar who formed the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) after EC recognised the Ajit Pawar faction as the original party.

The Nagaland state unit which was supporting the NDPP-BJP state government and the Jharkhand state unit of the party went with the Ajit Pawar-led NCP while the Kerala state unit of the party which was a part of the Left Democratic Front went with the Sharad Pawar-led NCP(SP).

Party formation and performance
The NCP was formed on 10 June 1999, by Sharad Pawar, P. A. Sangma, and Tariq Anwar after they were expelled from the Indian National Congress on 20 May 1999, for disputing the right of Italian-born Sonia Gandhi to lead the party. When the NCP formed, the Indian Congress (Socialist) – Sarat Chandra Sinha party merged into the new party.

Despite the NCP being founded on opposition to the leadership of Sonia Gandhi, the party joined the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) to form the government of Maharashtra in October 1999. In 2004, the party joined the UPA to form the national government led by Manmohan Singh. The NCP's leader, Sharad Pawar served as the Minister of Agriculture for both five-year terms of the Singh-led government. The party remained part of the Congress-led Maharashtra state government until 2014. On 20 June 2012, P. A. Sangma left the NCP to contest the presidential election, which he lost. In the April and May 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the UPA lost to the rival National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by Narendra Modi and the NCP was out of government for the first time in ten years. The NCP broke its alliance with the Congress Party just before the October 2014 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections to contest them on its own. In the assembly election the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) emerged as the largest party and formed a minority government, initially with support from the NCP.

In April 2019, voting took place for the 48 Lok Sabha seats from Maharashtra. The Congress and NCP had a seat-sharing arrangement. Similarly, despite their differences, the BJP and Shiv Sena once again contested the elections together under the NDA banner. The election was another landslide victory for the NDA, with the BJP and Shiv Sena winning 23 and 18 seats, respectively, out of the total of the state's 48 Lok Sabha seats. The Congress Party won only one seat in the state whereas the NCP won five seats from its stronghold of western Maharashtra.

During the October 2019 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections, the BJP–Shiv-Sena and NCP–Congress alliances remained intact for seat sharing. The BJP and Shiv Sena together gained the majority of seats in the assembly but could not form a government due to disagreements between the two parties. The BJP, with 105 seats, was far short of the 145 seats required to form a majority and declined to form a minority government. As a result, Shiv Sena started talks with the NCP and Congress to form a government. However, in a controversial move, on 23 November 2019, the BJP formed a government with support from the NCP, with Ajit Pawar as Deputy Chief Minister. This government collapsed three days later with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Pawar resigning their respective positions. Finally, the NCP came back into power at the state level as part of the Maha Vikas Aghadi coalition formed with Shiv Sena and the Congress. On 28 November 2019, the Governor of Maharashtra swore in Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray as the new Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Thackeray's cabinet included ministers from the NCP in key portfolios.

However, this alliance lost power in June 2022 after a rebel faction led by Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde gathered the support of a majority of Sena MLAs and reestablished the previous Sena-BJP coalition. Subsequently, on 20 July, NCP President Sharad Pawar dissolved almost all units of the party.

Party symbol
The election symbol of NCP is an analogue alarm clock. The clock is drawn in blue and has two legs and an alarm button. It is situated on a tri-coloured Indian flag.

2023 split
In July 2023, Ajit Pawar, along with many of his supporters, left the Sharad Pawar-led NCP and joined the ruling Shiv Sena-BJP government as a Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra. This caused the NCP to split into two factions, with Ajit Pawar claiming in a letter to the Election Commission that he had been elected party president on June 30. In his first meeting after the split, he expressed a desire to retain the party's symbol and name, urged Sharad Pawar to retire and give opportunities to new people, and criticised many of Sharad's decisions, including the formation of a government with the Shiv Sena instead of the BJP in 2019. On 7 February 2024, The Election Commission Of India (ECI) awarded the party name and symbol to the faction headed by Ajit Pawar. The faction led by Sharad Pawar will be henceforth known as Nationalist Congress Party (SharadChandra Pawar)

Controversies and criticism
The Nationalist Congress Party has been extensively criticized for several reasons such as political corruption, insensitive comments, links to the underworld, and moral policing.

NCP leader Sharad Pawar was accused of having links to the underworld. This was revealed by former Supreme Court lawyer Ram Jethmalani, who had confirmed that after the March 1993 bombings in Bombay, Dawood Ibrahim had called him from London, saying that he was prepared to come to India and stand trial, on the condition that he should not be subjected to any third degree treatment from the police. When Jethmalani had conveyed this to Sharad Pawar, the political leaders in power did not agree to this proposal. As per Jethmalani, their refusal to allow Dawood's return was due to their fears that he would expose their secrets.

In May 2005, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) workers stormed a pub in Pune, Maharashtra, broke window panes, damaged furniture, and thrashed visitors. The move came days after Pune Police had forced five pubs to shut before the closing time of 12:30 am.

On 29 November 2008, in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Mumbai, NCP leader and Deputy Chief Minister R.R. Patil was forced to resign after making insensitive comments after the attack. He was quoted as saying, "They (the terrorists) came to kill 5,000 people but we ensured minimal damage". When asked at a press conference whether the terror strike was an intelligence failure Patil said, "It is not like that. In big cities like this, incidents like this do happen. It's is not a total failure."

On 7 April 2013, NCP leader Ajit Pawar's statement at a speech in Indapur sparked controversy due to its alleged callousness. In response to a 55-day fast by activists protesting the Maharashtra governments inability to provide water during a drought, he asked whether he should "urinate into [the dam]" to make up for the lack of water in it. After a public outcry against his statement, he publicly apologized, saying that the comment was the "biggest mistake of [his] life".

In 2021, Senior Inspector Sachin Vaze, an encounter specialist, was arrested for his involvement in the Antilia bomb scare. Through an investigation, Vaze revealed that he was acting at the behest of Anil Deshmukh, who was then minister of Home Affairs. Vaze and Deshmukh were also involved in collecting extortion money in December 2020 from members of the Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR). Deshmukh was also under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate for money laundering, following accusations made by the former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh.

On 23 February 2022, NCP President and leader Nawab Malik was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case and his alleged links with underworld don Dawood Ibrahim. He was charged and placed under arrest under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after several hours of grilling.

On 14 May 2022, Marathi television actress Ketaki Chitale was arrested by Mumbai Police for allegedly sharing an objectionable post about Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar. At the time of her arrest, NCP workers mobbed and attacked her and the officers who had arrested her. Chitale, who was molested, and her modesty was outraged by the NCP workers, and was later granted bail, was booked under IPC sections 500 (defamation), 501 (printing or engraving defamatory matter) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of the Indian Penal Code.

title: Nationalist Congress Party


text:
The Long Count Fight

The Long Count Fight, or the Battle of the Long Count, was a professional boxing 10-round rematch between world heavyweight champion Gene Tunney and former champion Jack Dempsey, which Tunney won in a unanimous decision. It took place on September 22, 1927, at Soldier Field in Chicago. "Long Count" is applied to the fight because, when Tunney was knocked down in the seventh round, the count was delayed due to Dempsey's failure to go to and remain in a neutral corner. Whether this "long count" actually affected the outcome remains a subject of debate.

Just 364 days before, on September 23, 1926, Tunney had beaten Dempsey in ten rounds by unanimous decision to lift the world heavyweight title, at Sesquicentennial Stadium in Philadelphia. The first fight between Tunney and Dempsey had been moved out of Chicago because Dempsey had learned that Al Capone was a big fan of his, and he did not want Capone to be involved in the fight. Capone reportedly bet $50,000 on Dempsey for the rematch, which fueled false rumors of a fix. Dempsey was favored by odds makers in both fights, largely because of public betting which heavily tilted towards Dempsey.

The rematch was held at Chicago's Soldier Field, and would draw a gate of $2,658,660. It was the first $2 million gate in entertainment history. Tunney received a record purse of $990,445.

The match was broadcast by announcers Graham McNamee and Phillips Carlin to more than 60 NBC radio stations. Despite the fact that Tunney had won the first fight by a wide margin on the scorecards, the prospect of a second bout created tremendous public interest. Dempsey was one of the so-called "big five" sports legends of the 1920s, and it was widely rumored that he had refused to join the military during World War I. He actually had attempted to enlist in the Army, but had been turned down; a jury later exonerated Dempsey of draft evasion. Tunney, who enjoyed literature and the arts, was a former member of the United States Marine Corps. His nickname was "The Fighting Marine".

The fight took place under new rules regarding knockdowns: the fallen fighter would have 10 seconds to rise to his feet under his own power after his opponent had moved to a neutral corner (i.e., one with no trainers). The Dempsey camp requested the new rule, which was not yet universal, be used. Dempsey, in the final days of training prior to the rematch, apparently ignored the setting of the new rule. Also, the fight was staged inside a 20-foot ring, which favored the boxer with superior footwork, in this case Tunney. Dempsey liked to crowd his opponents, and normally fought in a 16-foot ring that offered less space to maneuver.

The fight
Tunney was, by most accounts, dominating the fight from rounds one to six, using his familiar style of boxing from a distance while looking for openings and, at the same time, building a points lead. Up until the end of round six, nothing indicated this fight would be far different from their original meeting.

In round seven, however, the 104,943 in attendance witnessed a moment that would live on in boxing history. With Tunney trapped against the ropes and near a corner, Dempsey unleashed a combination of punches that floored the champion. Two rights and two lefts landed on Tunney's chin and staggered him, and four more punches put him on the canvas. It was the first time in Tunney's career that he had been knocked down.

Apparently dizzy and disoriented, Tunney grabbed on to the ring's top rope with his left hand. Dempsey, who often stood over downed opponents and rushed back at them after they got up, looked down on Tunney. Referee Dave Barry ordered Dempsey into a neutral corner to no avail; Dempsey remained standing near Tunney, observing his opponent. This gave Tunney precious seconds to recuperate. By the time Dempsey finally walked to a neutral corner, Tunney had been down for around 3 to 8 seconds. Barry could not start to count on Tunney until Dempsey reached the neutral corner, but he was still able to count to nine before Tunney got up. Some believe that if Dempsey had responded to the referee's order in time, he would have likely regained the world heavyweight crown with a seventh-round knockout. The validity of this argument has been debated to this day. In the fight film, a clock was superimposed that recorded Tunney's time on the floor as 13 seconds, from the moment he fell until he got up. Because of this delay, it became known as "The Long Count Fight".

By the eighth round, Tunney had resumed boxing from a distance, and he floored Dempsey with a punch. This time, however, the referee started counting right away, before Tunney had moved to a neutral corner. Tunney then dominated the final two rounds and went on to retain the world title by a unanimous decision. After the fight, Dempsey lifted Tunney's arm and said, "You were best. You fought a smart fight, kid." It was Dempsey's last career fight, and Tunney's next-to-last.

Controversy
Controversy over the match promptly erupted. A significant factor in prolonging the controversy was that, at the time, U.S. law prohibited the transportation of boxing match movies across state lines (the law had been passed in 1912 in reaction to riots that broke out after Jack Johnson's 1910 victory over James J. Jeffries ; the fight had been filmed, though was banned in areas of the US.) As a result, almost nobody was able to see the counts for themselves. Once the law was repealed, and it became possible for many to watch the footage and judge the fallen fighters' alertness (particularly Tunney's), the controversy dwindled.

To this day, however, boxing fans argue over whether Dempsey could or should have won the fight. What is not in dispute is that the public's affection for Dempsey grew in the wake of his two losses to Tunney. "In defeat, he gained more stature," wrote the Washington Post's Shirley Povich. "He was the loser in the battle of the long count, yet the hero."

Tunney said that he had picked up the referee's count at "two," and could have gotten up at any point after that, preferring to wait until "nine" for obvious tactical reasons. Dempsey said, "I have no reason not to believe him. Gene's a great guy."

Dempsey later joined the United States Coast Guard, and he and Tunney became good friends who visited each other frequently. Tunney and Dempsey are both members of the International Boxing Hall of Fame. In March 2011, the family of Gene Tunney donated the gloves he wore in the fight to The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.

title: The Long Count Fight


text:
Soyuz 27

Soyuz 27 (Союз 27, Union 27) was a 1978 Soviet crewed spacecraft which flew to the orbiting Salyut 6 space station, during the mission EP-1. It was the third crewed flight to the station, the second successful docking and the first visitation mission. Once docked, it marked the first time that three spacecraft were docked together.

The main function of the EP-1 mission was to swap Soyuz craft with the orbiting crew, in so doing freeing a docking port for a forthcoming supply tanker. Cosmonauts Vladimir Dzhanibekov and Oleg Makarov returned to Earth in the Soyuz 26 spacecraft after spending five days on the station. The descent module is displayed at the Sergei Pavlovich Korolyov Museum of Cosmonautics in Zhytomyr, Ukraine.

Mission parameters

 * Mass: 6800 kg
 * Perigee: 198.9 km
 * Apogee: 253.8 km
 * Inclination: 51.65°
 * Period: 88.73 minutes

title: Soyuz 27