text:
George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax

George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax, (6 October 1716 – 8 June 1771) was a British statesman of the Georgian era. Due to his success in extending commerce in the Americas, he became known as the "father of the colonies". President of the Board of Trade from 1748 to 1761, he aided the foundation of Nova Scotia, 1749, the capital Halifax being named after him. When Canada was ceded to the King of Great Britain by the King of France, following the Treaty of Paris of 1763, he restricted its boundaries and renamed it "Province of Quebec".

Early life
The son of the 1st Earl of Halifax, he was styled Viscount Sunbury until succeeding his father as Earl of Halifax in 1739 (thus also styled in common usage Lord Halifax). Educated at Eton College and at Trinity College, Cambridge, he was married in 1741 to Anne Richards (died 1753), who had inherited a great fortune from Sir Thomas Dunk, whose name Halifax took.

Career

After having been an official in the household of Frederick, Prince of Wales, Halifax was made Master of the Buckhounds, and in 1748 he became President of the Board of Trade. While filling this position he helped to found Halifax, the capital of Nova Scotia, which was named after him, and he helped foster trade, especially with North America.

About this time he attempted, unsuccessfully, to become a Secretary of State, but was only allowed to enter the Cabinet in 1757. In March 1761, Halifax was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and during part of the time which he held this office he was also First Lord of the Admiralty.

He became Secretary of State for the Northern Department under Lord Bute in October 1762, switching to the Southern Department in 1763 and was one of the three ministers to whom King George III entrusted the direction of affairs during the premiership of George Grenville. In 1762, in search of evidence of sedition, he authorised a raid on the home of John Entick, declared unlawful in the case of Entick v. Carrington.

In 1763, he signed the general warrant for the "authors, printers and publishers" of The North Briton number 45, under which John Wilkes and 48 others were arrested, and for which, six years later, the courts of law made Halifax pay damages. He was also mainly responsible for the exclusion of the name of the King's mother, Augusta, Princess of Wales, from the Regency Bill of 1765.

Together with his colleagues, Halifax left office in July 1765, returning to the Cabinet as Lord Privy Seal under his nephew, Lord North, in January 1770. He had just been restored to his former position of Secretary of State when he died.

Cricket
Like his friends John Russell, 4th Duke of Bedford, and John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, Halifax was keen on cricket. The earliest surviving record of his involvement in the sport comes from 1741 when he led Northamptonshire in a match against Buckinghamshire at Cow Meadow in Northampton. In the same season, Sandwich and Halifax formed the Northamptonshire & Huntingdonshire team which twice defeated Bedfordshire, first at Woburn Park and then at Cow Meadow.

Social, moral and cultural impact
Halifax, who was Lord-Lieutenant of Northamptonshire and a Lieutenant General, was very extravagant. During the House of Commons election for Northampton in 1768, he spent £150,000 bribing voters to support his candidate, George Brydges Rodney, and was financially ruined by the effort.

He was a political patron of playwright and civil servant Richard Cumberland. He left no legitimate male children, and his titles became extinct on his death. Horace Walpole, 4th Earl of Orford, spoke slightingly of him and his mistress, Anna Maria Faulkner, including alleging that Halifax had "sold every employment in his gift". His mistress had kept a low profile while he was in Ireland, but she was understood to have sold positions.

Politics
Halifax was opposed to slavery, and refused to invest his money in any cause that was linked to the TransAtlantic slave trade. There were numerous occasions in which colonists in North America came into conflict with Parliament, and on every one of those occasions he publicly voiced support for the colonists, thus leading to him becoming a popular figure in Britain's North American colonies, including the Province of Massachusetts Bay, the Province of North Carolina and the Colony of Virginia. Halifax supported expanding the franchise so that a larger portion of people in the Kingdom of Great Britain would be able to vote in parliamentary elections. His mistress had kept a low profile while he was in Ireland, but she was alleged to have sold positions which was a political scandal for part of Halifax's career.

Memorials
Halifax was buried in the parish church of Horton, Northamptonshire; an effigy bust and plaque features in the north transept of Westminster Abbey. An obelisk is erected at Chicksands Wood in the parish of Haynes, Bedfordshire, inscribed to his memory.

Collections
University College London holds over 4000 tracts in its Lansdowne and Halifax tracts collections, the latter being named after Halifax. The tracts were published in England between 1559 and 1776, and relate to the union between England and Scotland, the Civil War and the Restoration. Many of the tracts were written by Daniel Defoe and Jonathan Swift under pseudonyms.

Related locations
The municipality of Halifax and Halifax County, Nova Scotia, are named in his honour, as are the Halifax River in Central Florida; the town of Halifax and Halifax County, North Carolina; Halifax, Virginia, Halifax, Vermont in the United States; and Dunk Island in Queensland and Montague Island in New South Wales.


text:
Talk:Sestina

This article is part of WikiProject Poetry. Please read the guidelines set out there before editing the page.

I'm having difficulty explaining how the sestina works: what we had before didn't explain it at all, so I think my attempt is an improvement, but can anyone help me clarify it? Also, I didn't know how to reference the web site I got those stanzas from--the fellow's web site says the poems are free to be used for any non-commercial purpose...is that acceptable for here? I feel like I should know the answers to this, but my mind will not deliver them up today, it seems. Jwrosenzweig 23:41, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How to section
I'm not a fan at all of the "how to" section, which I believe has several faults. It needlessly duplicates the description of the changing word order that appears earlier on (and it fails to follow the pattern all the way through to the final stanza) -- if that description is poor, surely we can fix it rather than repeat it? It adds some advice for how to write a sestina....but we could have pages of advice for how to write poetry -- should we really advise what kind of words to use when constructing this kind of poem? Finally, the style becomes, in my opinion, a bit too informal and chatty. Should this section be preserved at all? If some of it is worth saving, can we better integrate it into the article? I'd like to see this article expand and become more informative, but I don't think this section is the right approach. Jwrosenzweig 09:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the 'How to section' refers to, but assuming it provides a description of that about the sestina whicht is fixed, then it seems fairly straightforward to me except that diagram of the retrogradatio cruciata (sp) with the spiral which I find completely inscrutable. I have no idea what relationship the arrows and their start-points and end-points have to the actual position of the end-words in stanza 2 (based on their positioning in stanza 1). The only thing that makes sense is that the word ending line 6 in stanza 1 ends line 1 in stanza 2 and sure enough the diagram has a line (semi-circular) starting at the 6 and pointing to the 1. No other line in the diagram seems to bear any explainable relationship to the movement of any other endword from stanza 1 to stanza 2. I may be simply missing something glaringly obvious, but if not, then the text of the article should explain the diagram. If I am, someone PLEASE explain it to me, preferably in words of one syllable or in extremis 2.

Also, what is the source of the diagram? A citation is really required. Ken M Quirici 18:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kquirici (talk • contribs)

 * Do you query it? Span (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'query'? I'm asking two questions altho I may not have been clear (for which my apologies):

1. what exactly does the diagram MEAN? How can it be read to derive the sequence of end words in verse 2 for example from the end words in verse 1? The verbal description is very simple. The diagram is exceedingly obscure however intriguing it may be.

2. where does it come from? I saw it on a google search of sestina (I admit my search was far from thorough) but it was sourced to the Wikipedia article on 'sestina'. A text description of the sestina that for example comes from Brittanica 1911 (public domain) ought still to be sourced. Still more a diagram which is outside (WAY outside) the standard form of description of poetic forms. It looks vaguely like it was taken from a Renaissance text on the occult (I'm not seriously suggesting this, I'm just trying to capture its oddness smack up front in the 'sestina' article.

If you wrote the article (Span or whoever did write it) more apologies due for any offence in appearing to derogate your work. Ken M Quirici 02:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kquirici (talk • contribs)

I just saw how the diagram describes the order of lines in the current verse whose last words supply the last words of the next verse - follow the arrows starting with 6 to get the sequence of current-verse line-numbers whose last words are the last words of lines 1 thru 6, in that order, of the next verse. Very nice. Extremely dumb of me not to see before. My apologies for the brouhaha. Ken M Quirici 15:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kquirici (talk • contribs)

 * No, I wouldn't say it's obvious. If you know how it works I guess you can see it. It's a fair question about sourcing. And yes, the Britannica citation should certainly be included. I didn't add the diagram. We could take it down if there is a copyright question. I can the exploration to my to do list - please follow it up if you have info. All best wishes Span (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Sorry, reading your comment again I see that you were not suggesting that some Britannica text is used here. Looking at the image file, |an editor - ZooFari - says he made the diagram himself. Image sourcing is usually cited on the file (if you click on the image on a Wikipedia article). Hope that helps. Span (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Diagram
I'm not at all sure that the diagram helps matters at all. I suggest deleting it. Span (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

-Diagram part 2- Ok, some explanation on the diagram, if anyone else comes to this page and has similar sentiments on why its up and is staying up. It doesn't have to do with movement, but choice. 6-1-5-2-4-3 is the order for the second stanza, which is also the way the spiral goes.

The movement of the words through the whole sestina is: 1-2-4-5-3-6. That is, if a word is in the first position (end of the first line) in the next stanza it will be in the second position (end of the second line).

If we look at it from a different perspective, that of choice, we see the spiral emerge. First we take the 6th word, then the 1st, then the 5th, then the 2nd, then the 4th, then the 3rd. The spiral then shows the connection between the second stanza and the first by looking back at the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.217.138.52 (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the diagram is a great visualization of the 2nd stanza, but beyond that, it confuses more than clarifies. Why is the 2nd stanza highlighted instead of the 3rd? It would be more useful if the spiral pattern could be shown for each of the stanzas, instead of 1 arbitrary stanza. Sah65 (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I guess if you can understand the transition from the first stanza to the second you can get the principle of rotation. We have given the text for the first two stanzas, so the diagram (supposedly)  illustrates what's going on. Span (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Seamus Heaney's "Sestina"
Why is "Two Lorries" by Seamus Heaney included as an example of a sestina? It's not really a sestina at all and is more likely to confuse than elucidate matters for anyone who is unsure about what can be quite a complicated form to get to one's head around. There are plenty of other true sestinas to choose from so why not pick one of those instead? Please understand that this is not a matter of literary criticism, simply an attempt to make the information in the article more accessible.

90.208.242.173 (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Mike

 * It is a sestina but feel free to change it to a poem with full line endings. Span (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to Auden's "Paysage Moralisé", which I think tallies better with the information in the article. 90.208.242.173 (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Mike

 * The poem is still under copyright and too long to include the whole. I've pared it down to the first two stanzas. It shows the idea of a progression of line endings. Span (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Auden's poem will be out of copyright before Heaney's, so not sure why that's an issue! Is there any possibility of recourse to fair use policy, seeing as the poem is being used as an educational aid and not in a commercial context? I think it's important that the entirety of the poem be quoted in order to demonstrate the full progression of the line endings, which is the key to the sestina and the reason I objected to Heaney's so-called sestina in the first place. Perhaps one of Petrarch's or Dante's sestinas may be suitable if we can't agree on an English poem, as rhyme, rhythm and language are less important than orthography in terms of a paradigmatic sestina. Though I think it would be a shame to deny Auden a place due to copyright infringement which is unlikely to be challenged...

90.208.242.173 (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Mikr

 * I think Auden is a good choice. The issue is only the use of the full poem. I put in two stanzas of Heaney. Sestinas are pretty long poems. Guidelines encourage short excepts. What counts as 'short' is the subject of much discussion. We discussed this at length at Larkin (GA) a short while ago. Also, there isn't that much text in this article so the poem would greatly dominate. It's not ideal, but I think that having two stanzas shows the principle of rotation. There are a tonne of webpages out there, if people want to find out more. I am personally doubtful if the diagram helps much, but others seem to think it assists. Hey ho. The page certainly needs much work. It's very stuffily written with no rope thrown out to the reader. A simpler, readable (ref'd) account of how it works with some discussion of what sestinas are for and what they are good at would be a great improvement. Cited discussion of three or four poems with links would also help the page fog to lift a bit. It's on my list, but I a have a very long list. Best wishes Span (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Major expansion / re-working
This is just a small notice to flag up the fact that I am currently undertaking a major expansion and re-working of the article. It's my intention to bring the quality up to that of a GA, and possibly an FA (within time). Any queries or concerns about my edits can be put here (or on my talk page) and I'll get back as soon as possible! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Who knew there would be so much to write about a mediaeval poetic form, eh? Despite coming across content that I didn't even know it existed (and which it seems, many other sources are unaware of either...), I think the article is approaching the stage at which it can be put into GAN and stand a fair chance of passing. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Some notes
In reply to MasterOfHisOwnDomain's request for suggestions on improvement, here are some quick notes.
 * "[L]ike many imported forms, the sestina, regardless of the way it is tailored, would seem to be one that gives more structural pleasure to the contriver than to the apprehender." (Paul Fussel, Jr.: Poetic Meter and Poetic Form, p 155) Every article needs dissent, and someone had to say this.
 * The lines near the end of Spencer's 8th Æglogue August, beginning "Ye wastefull woodes..." are a sestina variation, in which the end-words repeat: 123456, 612345, 561234... with a tornada of (1)2(3)4(5)6. This will be profitably mentioned near his buddy Sidney's variant sestina. In fact, if the "earliest" English sestina doesn't have to be a sestina (Sidney's 1590 double sestina), then really Spencer's (1579 quasi-sestina) should take that prize.
 * I think clarification on rime is in order. By my lights, a traditional sestina explicitly does not rime. Rimed versions (such as Swinburne was fond of) should be considered variants. Also, I think it would be useful to explain near the top that the repeated words more or less take the place of (both positionally and functionally) riming words one would normally expect at the end of a French form.
 * "nor do the lines follow any metrical pattern, although they are traditionally cast in iambs" is, I believe, utterly false. True there is not one universal meter that all sestinas follow, but each language certainly has a norm, and it is metrical. Princeton (1993, p 1146) states that all the lines are "unrhymed, and all decasyllabic (Eng.), hendecasyllabic (It.), or alexandrine (Fr.)." Iambs are not mentioned (though arguably they may be assumed for the English decasyllable). Focusing primarily on iambs is Anglocentric which is quite understandable in the English Wikipedia, but should not be allowed to stand in a Featured Article. On a side note I assume (contra Princeton) that the original sestina was decasyllabic, not alexandrine, but I don't have a reference right now, so that's just speculation you might follow up on.
 * (The alexandrine existed long before, but did not come to ascendancy until the mid 16th century. Gasparov (A History of European Versification 1996 p 128) to me implies that Daniel would have composed in the décasyllabe or just possibly the octosyllabe, but almost assuredly not the alexandrine. This is just for the early history -- I'm not casting doubt on Princeton's assertion that in French it is now written in the alexandrine. Clearly a better reference is needed.) Phil wink (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mostly vindicated! Kastner beginning on page 281 has some useful history. The book is quite old, but is listed by Gasparov, so should be pretty good. Gasparov also has more on fixed forms, pp 148-62 with sestina at 159 where he characterizes it as having 11-syllable lines, but this is surely in reference to the Italian, not Provençal verse. Since the sestina seems to have hit its apogee in the Italy of Dante and Petrarch, I propose that this should be presented as the "standard" sestina, even though it is not the first. Phil wink (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just this moment copied those exact pages from Gasparov (now in my sandbox)! He has some interesting things to say about the sestina, definitely, and I haven't heard "tautologous rhyme" or "parola-rima" beore either - those will have to be included. I think you're right to say that the Italian form is probably, and should be presented as, the standard, after which there are many different alterations and experimental versions (with Swinburne taking things to the extreme...); Gasparov says as much in: "[it] received its established form in the poetry of Dante and Petrarch" (my emphasis), so he could be used to support this. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

All for now. Good luck. Phil wink (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For an example sestina, why not use Edmund Gosse's "Sestina"? I presume it's in PD by now, its subject is Arnault Daniel, and it's widely available (I see it reprinted for instance in Hollander's Rhyme's Reason and Williams's Patterns of Poetry).
 * Thanks for this, wasn't expecting a response quite so quickly, and you've raised some very good points - I will try to resolve them over the coming days. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just been working out "The Complaint of Lisa" in Excel. What is said in the article about the pattern repeating at stanza 11 is true for 12-line double sestinas that follow the 6-line pattern, but properly expanded. However Swinburne doesn't in fact follow this pattern. True, each stanza ends lines 1 & 2 with the 12th, then 1st repeating words of the previous stanza (as we'd expect) but after that, Swinburne varies the repeating pattern for each stanza -- as far as I can see it is therefore not a pattern, but the repeating words repeated in an ad lib order (other than the aforementioned first 2 lines). Even so, it is still true that not all words appear in each line, but this seems to be a deficiency, not of the pattern, but of Swinburne's own lack of Excel. See below.

 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|1
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|2
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|3
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|4
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|5
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|6
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|7
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|8
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|9
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|10
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|11
 * align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|12
 * 1: breath||12: me||5: sunflower||8: bed||9: thee||11: done||3: way||4: death||2: her||6: sun||12: me||7: day
 * 2: her||1: breath||12: me||5: sunflower||8: bed||9: thee||11: done||3: way||4: death||2: her||6: sun||12: me
 * 3: way||9: thee||6: sun||7: day||6: sun||6: sun||7: day||9: thee||5: sunflower||9: thee||8: bed||6: sun
 * 4: death||11: done||4: death||6: sun||10: dead||10: dead||8: bed||6: sun||1: breath||3: way||4: death||3: way
 * 5: sunflower||4: death||7: day||4: death||1: breath||4: death||12: me||5: sunflower||3: way||8: bed||3: way||9: thee
 * 6: sun||7: day||1: breath||12: me||2: her||2: her||1: breath||10: dead||8: bed||1: breath||5: sunflower||11: done
 * 7: day||2: her||2: her||10: dead||7: day||7: day||2: her||1: breath||7: day||7: day||9: thee||5: sunflower
 * 8: bed||8: bed||3: way||2: her||4: death||1: breath||10: dead||7: day||10: dead||5: sunflower||10: dead||8: bed
 * 9: thee||3: way||10: dead||3: way||3: way||12: me||5: sunflower||12: me||9: thee||10: dead||2: her||4: death
 * 10: dead||10: dead||9: thee||11: done||12: me||8: bed||6: sun||11: done||11: done||4: death||1: breath||2: her
 * 11: done||6: sun||11: done||1: breath||5: sunflower||5: sunflower||9: thee||8: bed||12: me||11: done||11: done||10: dead
 * 12: me||5: sunflower||8: bed||9: thee||11: done||3: way||4: death||2: her||6: sun||12: me||7: day||1: breath
 * }
 * ...the envoi going (12: me) 10: dead / (8: bed) 9: thee / (7: day) 4: death / (3: way) 6: sun / (2: her) 1: breath / (11: done) 5: sunflower Phil wink (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's highly irregular, kudos for the discovery. I hadn't really looked into it much myself, beyond the fact it's a key example of the double sestina - except it sort of isn't. Not sure how to reconcile this with the article's current content. Unless I just throw Swinburne out of the proverbial window and find someone who has some resemblance to the form ... MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view, the only way to handle these deviations is also the most illuminating way: At the outset, firmly establish the "norm", stating that over time many variations have been played on this theme -- but without any details of these at the beginning, so that the reader can conceptualize this one standard form (and we know that task alone will be difficult enough). Then -- either in a "Variant" section or, better yet, gradually unrolled as appropriate within the "History" section -- explain the ways various poets have bent the rules to their own ends. The "freaks" must not be thrown out; rather we need to see clearly their relationship to the central tradition.
 * As regards Swinburne specifically, I notice Enid Hamer says that "Neither poet [Swinburne nor Drummond of Hawthornden(!)] follows the complicated laws of the Italian practice for the order in which the end-words shall recur." (The Meters of English Poetry p 293) This seems to apply to all Swinburne's sestinas, not just the double, but I have not personally verified this. PS: if you choose to use any of these references, but don't have the books to hand, let me know and I'll be happy to slap a full into the reference section. Phil wink (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be a good way of doing it; I will try that. Thanks for the offer of providing those references, but because I've got a university library at hand for the moment I should be able to find them without much of a problem (will get back to you on whether that proves to be the case though ...). Nonetheless, even you providing the titles will prove really helpful - I've only heard of a few of them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Then you'll find better sources than I have. My library is focused on meter, so most of my stanza info is in tiny secondary chapters. (FYI, Hamer and Fussel are not recommended on meter. Also, though Gasparov is good, it might better be entitled A Genealogy of European Meters, so in general not quite the history you'd need for this article.) I have not read them, but I notice the following works which might be of interest to you: G9, G20, G43, G53, and especially L72, as cited in...
 * (publisher and ISBN is for the original printed edition)
 * ...which is now a generation old, but utterly priceless. And free! Phil wink (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that is a very useful resource - and thank you for those pointers. I will attempt seek those out and add them to the sources I've already gathered. The article will have quite the bibliography once all this is done ... MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 12: me||5: sunflower||8: bed||9: thee||11: done||3: way||4: death||2: her||6: sun||12: me||7: day||1: breath
 * }
 * ...the envoi going (12: me) 10: dead / (8: bed) 9: thee / (7: day) 4: death / (3: way) 6: sun / (2: her) 1: breath / (11: done) 5: sunflower Phil wink (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's highly irregular, kudos for the discovery. I hadn't really looked into it much myself, beyond the fact it's a key example of the double sestina - except it sort of isn't. Not sure how to reconcile this with the article's current content. Unless I just throw Swinburne out of the proverbial window and find someone who has some resemblance to the form ... MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view, the only way to handle these deviations is also the most illuminating way: At the outset, firmly establish the "norm", stating that over time many variations have been played on this theme -- but without any details of these at the beginning, so that the reader can conceptualize this one standard form (and we know that task alone will be difficult enough). Then -- either in a "Variant" section or, better yet, gradually unrolled as appropriate within the "History" section -- explain the ways various poets have bent the rules to their own ends. The "freaks" must not be thrown out; rather we need to see clearly their relationship to the central tradition.
 * As regards Swinburne specifically, I notice Enid Hamer says that "Neither poet [Swinburne nor Drummond of Hawthornden(!)] follows the complicated laws of the Italian practice for the order in which the end-words shall recur." (The Meters of English Poetry p 293) This seems to apply to all Swinburne's sestinas, not just the double, but I have not personally verified this. PS: if you choose to use any of these references, but don't have the books to hand, let me know and I'll be happy to slap a full into the reference section. Phil wink (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be a good way of doing it; I will try that. Thanks for the offer of providing those references, but because I've got a university library at hand for the moment I should be able to find them without much of a problem (will get back to you on whether that proves to be the case though ...). Nonetheless, even you providing the titles will prove really helpful - I've only heard of a few of them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Then you'll find better sources than I have. My library is focused on meter, so most of my stanza info is in tiny secondary chapters. (FYI, Hamer and Fussel are not recommended on meter. Also, though Gasparov is good, it might better be entitled A Genealogy of European Meters, so in general not quite the history you'd need for this article.) I have not read them, but I notice the following works which might be of interest to you: G9, G20, G43, G53, and especially L72, as cited in...
 * (publisher and ISBN is for the original printed edition)
 * ...which is now a generation old, but utterly priceless. And free! Phil wink (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that is a very useful resource - and thank you for those pointers. I will attempt seek those out and add them to the sources I've already gathered. The article will have quite the bibliography once all this is done ... MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (publisher and ISBN is for the original printed edition)
 * ...which is now a generation old, but utterly priceless. And free! Phil wink (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that is a very useful resource - and thank you for those pointers. I will attempt seek those out and add them to the sources I've already gathered. The article will have quite the bibliography once all this is done ... MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Altered graphic?
There was some discussion regarding confusion about the graphics. I wonder if this isn't a little more clear. I've put in a little more labeling and tried to clarify how the spiral creates a new order. The cost is that it requires the end-words to be represented by letters -- rather than numbers which I suspect are a little more usual and which the article currently favors (since numbers are here used in the spiral we won't want 2 sets of numbers meaning two different things!). Phil wink (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work! That is a definite improvement - the labelling certainly would help the un-initiated reader, and removes the need for a caption to explain the elements. Truth be told, I still find it difficult to visualise the sestina as a spiral despite sitting down with Fry's The Ode Less Travelled (which has the same type of graphic) - but no doubt some people find it useful. I don't see any way in which the current/original is superior to this, so it should be replaced. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My only gripe is that the label under Stanza I would perhaps be more accurate as 'end-word', rather than 'word'. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Phil wink (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the "retrogradatio cruciata" graphic, to one which is hopefully a little clearer. Also, I think in the first graphic my replacement of end-word numbers for letters was a mistake, so I have re-uploaded a new version. Here's my reasoning: 1) various sources use either letters or numbers for the end-words, but by far the most I'm seeing are numbers, so these are closer to a "standard" nomenclature; 2) if we get into rime schemes, we'll definitely want to reserve letters for rimes (very standard) -- better something else (numbers) is used for the end-words; 3) numbers may better mesh with any number symbolism which might creep into the article. So now I think we should make the whole article consistent and use only 1 system (numbers) for end-words -- thus I think we should remove the letters from the table; they now add nothing and can only confuse. Phil wink (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If not more clear, the replacement graphic is at least much more informative - well done on that. I'm not so sure about the letters v. numbers debate; I tend to think that they're another way for the reader to conceptualise the end-word pattern - some people just prefer to think of it alphabetically than numerically. This would probably be why some publications choose to have both, in order to to let the reader opt to foreground whichever method they find clearer. Hence, I personally would prefer the letters to remain. Also, being capitalised, they would be less likely to conflict with an identification of rime. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Notes on the new "English" section

 * First, MOHOD, thanks for cleaning up after me. I care about accuracy and clarity, but not much about MoS. So I'll try to make my edits worth cleaning up!
 * To match English I envision at least Occitan and Italian subsections before it. I think these are preferable to, say, France and Italy; for example it is easier to explain that the form traveled from Occitan to Italian to French, than from France to Italy to France.
 * Obviously, the new Spenser/Sidney/Drummond paragraph assumes that the Form section will come first. It exemplifies my ideal of a lot of structural information in History that can nevertheless be presented very briefly because the foundation has been laid. Incidentally, I still prefer Form, History, then Effect.
 * I also intend to expand the now tiny Swinburne paragraph a bit later.
 * Sidney still needs work, specifically: My sense is that the New Arcadia (confusingly the first to be published) was published in 1590 with none of these poems. The 3 poems in question (which are said I think rightly by Shapiro to come from the Old Arcadia) were then interpolated into the 1593 printing. But I don't know. Until we get better sources these questions remain:
 * 1) Did Sidney really introduce the form into English? (Probably unanswerable: his Arcadian poems seem to have been written 1577-80, and Spenser's published in 1579 -- without further information, there's no way to choose.)
 * 2) What about the 3rd sestina? Where is it? What is its form? (I just don't have it in front of me, so I don't know.) Found it; noted in article. Phil wink (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) What are the publication dates of Sidney's 3 sestinas? If my suspicion above is correct, the existing Norton reference to 1590 is incorrect (MY Norton gives 1593 for "Ye Goatherd Gods"). Corrected in article, but still would be good to know just when the 2 single sestinas were first published (I assume 1593, but don't know). Phil wink (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, Hamer was wrong about Drummond's structure so I've removed the . I guess I'll take her full citation out, too. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the content Phil. I've had work and other commitments, so haven't been able to spend much time on the article or Wikipedia generally in recent days. Hopefully, I'll be able to do a bit more in the coming weeks. Some of the statements seem like they need references, are you able to provide them? Or, for instance, are all the poems linked to (i.e., on an online poetry repository)? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Drummond's sextains can be found on pp 43 & 83 here. "Ye Goatherd Gods" is available in a facsimile of the 1590 original on page 95v-96v here. Sidney's 2nd and 3rd on pp 570 & 575 here. If there are other references you need, let me know and I'll try to find them. Phil wink (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know exactly how you wish to reference specific poems within the article, so I'll just note here that the 2 Swinburne poems are on pp 46-8 ("Sestina") and pp 60-8 here. I'll also mention that the Gleeson White citation I've added has a little info that may usefully be compared with Kastner on pp lxviii-lxx. Finally, I can certainly add more about the 5 other sestinas anthologized by White, or the other double-sestina mentioned by him (which I've found, and more or less shares Swinburne's structure -- or lack thereof). But perhaps it's better to get on with the 20th century. Phil wink (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Sestina


text:
Brewster, Florida

Brewster is a ghost town in southwest Polk County, Florida, United States, ten miles south of Mulberry. It is at an elevation of 143 feet above sea level and has been uninhabited since the early 1960s. The population is 3, according to the 2010 Census.

The village of Brewster was founded in 1910 and for decades flourished from phosphate mining. It was largely a company town for American Cyanamid. The town had its own schools, movie theater, medical clinic, post office, which was established in 1913 and discontinued in 1961.

The inventor of the digital computer, John Vincent Atanasoff, though born in Hamilton, New York, grew up in Brewster.

The village was officially closed down by the company in 1962. Much of Brewster was demolished at the time, but some abandoned buildings remain, including a smokestack which rises prominently in the area as a landmark. The deed to Brewster was turned over to the state of Florida in partial payment of a judgment against American Cyanamid for environmental damages.

title: Brewster, Florida


text:
John Hasbrouck Van Vleck

John Hasbrouck Van Vleck (March 13, 1899 – October 27, 1980) was an American physicist and mathematician. He was co-awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1977, for his contributions to the understanding of the behavior of electronic magnetism in solids.

Education and early life
Van Vleck was born to mathematician Edward Burr Van Vleck and Hester L. Raymond in Middletown, Connecticut, while his father was an assistant professor at Wesleyan University, and where his grandfather, astronomer John Monroe Van Vleck, was also a professor. He grew up in Madison, Wisconsin, and received an A.B. degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1920, before earning his Ph.D. at Harvard University in 1922 under the supervision of Edwin C. Kemble.

Career and research
He joined the University of Minnesota as an assistant professor in 1923, then moved to the University of Wisconsin before settling at Harvard. He also earned Honorary D. Sc., or D. Honoris Causa, degree from Wesleyan University in 1936.

J. H. Van Vleck established the fundamentals of the quantum mechanical theory of magnetism, crystal field theory and ligand field theory (chemical bonding in metal complexes). He is regarded as the Father of Modern Magnetism.

During World War II, J. H. Van Vleck worked on radar at the MIT Radiation Lab. He was half time at the Radiation Lab and half time on the staff at Harvard. He showed that at about 1.25-centimeter wavelength water molecules in the atmosphere would lead to troublesome absorption and that at 0.5-centimeter wavelength there would be a similar absorption by oxygen molecules. This was to have important consequences not just for military (and civil) radar systems but later for the new science of radioastronomy.

J. H. Van Vleck participated in the Manhattan Project. In June 1942, J. Robert Oppenheimer held a summer study for confirming the concept and feasibility of a nuclear weapon at the University of California, Berkeley. Eight theoretical scientists, including J. H. Van Vleck, attended it. From July to September, the theoretical study group examined and developed the principles of atomic bomb design.

J. H. Van Vleck's theoretical work led to the establishment of the Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Laboratory. He also served on the Los Alamos Review committee in 1943. The committee, established by General Leslie Groves, also consisted of W. K. Lewis of MIT, Chairman; E. L. Rose, of Jones & Lamson; E. B. Wilson of Harvard; and Richard C. Tolman, Vice Chairman of NDRC. The committee's important contribution (originating with Rose) was a reduction in the size of the firing gun for the Little Boy atomic bomb, a concept that eliminated additional design weight and sped up production of the bomb for its eventual release over Hiroshima. However, it was not employed for the Fat Man bomb at Nagasaki, which relied on implosion of a plutonium shell to reach critical mass.

The philosopher and historian of science Thomas Kuhn completed a Ph.D. in physics under Van Vleck's supervision at Harvard.

From 1951, Van Vleck was Hollis Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy at Harvard. He concurrently held the first deanship of Harvard's Division of Engineering and Applied Physics until 1957.

In 1961/62 he was George Eastman Visiting Professor at University of Oxford and held a professorship at Balliol College.

In 1950 he became foreign member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1966 and the Lorentz Medal in 1974. For his contributions to the understanding of the behavior of electrons in magnetic solids, Van Vleck was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 1977, along with Philip W. Anderson and Sir Nevill Mott. Van Vleck transformations, Van Vleck paramagnetism and Van Vleck formula are named after him.

Van Vleck died in Cambridge, Massachusetts, aged 81. He was buried at Forest Hill Cemetery.

Awards and honors
Van Vleck was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1934, the United States National Academy of Sciences in 1935, and the American Philosophical Society in 1939. He was awarded the Irving Langmuir Award in 1965, the National Medal of Science in 1966 and elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society (ForMemRS) in 1967. He was awarded the Elliott Cresson Medal in 1971, the Lorentz Medal in 1974 and the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1977.

Personal life
J. H. Van Vleck met Abigail Pearson, a student at University of Minnesota, during his professorship there, and married her on June 10, 1927. He and his wife Abigail were also important art collectors, particularly in the medium of Japanese woodblock prints (principally Ukiyo-e), known as Van Vleck Collection. It was inherited from his father Edward Burr Van Vleck. They donated the collection to the Chazen Museum of Art in Madison, Wisconsin in 1980s.

Publications

 * The Absorption of Radiation by Multiply Periodic Orbits, and its Relation to the Correspondence Principle and the Rayleigh–Jeans Law. Part I. Some Extensions of the Correspondence Principle, Physical Review, vol. 24, Issue 4, pp. 330–346 (1924)
 * The Absorption of Radiation by Multiply Periodic Orbits, and its Relation to the Correspondence Principle and the Rayleigh–Jeans Law. Part II. Calculation of Absorption by Multiply Periodic Orbits, Physical Review, vol. 24, Issue 4, pp. 347–365 (1924)
 * The Statistical Interpretation of Various Formulations of Quantum Mechanics, Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 207, Issue 4, pp. 475–494 (1929)
 * Quantum Principles and Line Spectra, (Bulletin of the National Research Council; v. 10, pt 4, no. 54, 1926)
 * The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities (Oxford at Clarendon, 1932).
 * Quantum Mechanics, The Key to Understanding Magnetism, Nobel Lecture, December 8, 1977
 * The Correspondence Principle in the Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, vol. 14, pp. 178–188 (1928)

Oral histories

 * Oral history interview with John H. Van Vleck on 2 October 1963, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics - Session I
 * Oral history interview with John H. Van Vleck on 4 October 1963, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics - Session II
 * Oral history interview with John H. Van Vleck on 28 February 1966, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics - Session I
 * Oral history interview with John H. Van Vleck on 19 January 1973, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics - Session II
 * Oral history interview with John H. Van Vleck on 28 January 1977, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics

Archival collections

 * J. H. Van Vleck papers, 1853-1981 (1920-1980), Niels Bohr Library & Archives

title: John Hasbrouck Van Vleck


text:
Tuczno

Tuczno (Tütz, earlier Tietz) is a town and former pre-diocesan Catholic see in Wałcz County, West Pomeranian Voivodeship in northwestern Poland, with 2,014 inhabitants (2004).

It is the home of the restored Tuczno Castle, which is a popular place for conferences.

There is a Michael Jackson Street in Tuczno, the first of its kind in Poland.

History
The first written evidence of Tuczno dates from year 1306. In 1338, Tuczno Castle was erected.

During the middle ages the town was variously controlled by Poland, Pomerania, Brandenburg (Neumark) and the State of the Teutonic Order. From 1466 (Second Peace of Thorn), when it was ceded by the Teutonic Order, Tuczno became definitively part of the Polish Poznań Voivodeship. From 1569 it was part of the Greater Poland province of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

In 1772 it was annexed by Prussia in the First Partition of Poland, becoming part of the Netze District, then the Province of West Prussia (Province of Prussia 1829–1878, then West Prussia again). In 1871 Prussia became part of the German Empire. After World War I it was part of the rump of West Prussia which remained with Weimar Germany – Posen-West Prussia – and was incorporated into the Province of Pomerania by the Nazis in 1938. It became part of Poland again in 1945 as part of the Recovered Territories.

Landmarks

 * Tuczno Castle
 * Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Ecclesiastical History
In 1923.05.01 was established the permanent Apostolic Administration of Tütz (German; Tuczno in Polish) on canonical territories split off from the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Gniezno and Diocese of Chełmno, but when the Apostolic Administration (exempt) was promoted on 1930.08.13, it was also renamed after its new see, as Territorial Prelature of Schneidemühl (German; in 1945 renamed in Polish Piła).

title: Tuczno


text:
HLF

HLF may refer to:

 * HLF (gene), Hepatic Leukemia Factor - a human gene and the protein encoded by it
 * Hapag-Lloyd Flug, former German airline, ICAO code
 * Herbalife, US MLM company, NYSE symbol
 * Heritage Lottery Fund, a British grant-giving organisation
 * Hillfoot railway station, in Scotland
 * Hiram Leong Fong, former United States Senator from Hawaii
 * Histoire littéraire de la France, a history of French literature
 * Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an American Islamic charity
 * Huddersfield Literature Festival, in England
 * Hultsfred Airport, in Sweden
 * Hyderabad Literary Festival, in India

title: HLF


text:
Borough of Halton

Halton is a local government district with borough status in the ceremonial county of Cheshire, North West England. The borough was created in 1974 and contains the towns of Runcorn and Widnes and the civil parishes of Daresbury, Hale, Halebank, Moore, Preston Brook, and Sandymoor. Since 1998, Halton Borough Council has been a unitary authority, being a district council which also performs the functions of a county council. Since 2014, it has been a member of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

The neighbouring districts (clockwise from west) are Liverpool, Knowsley, St Helens, Warrington and Cheshire West and Chester.

History
The River Mersey marks the boundary of the historic counties of Lancashire (to the north) and Cheshire (to the south). Before 1974, Widnes was administered by the Municipal Borough of Widnes in Lancashire, and Runcorn by Runcorn Urban District Council in Cheshire.

The 1969 Redcliffe-Maud Report recommended reforms to local government in England, including the abolition of all existing local government areas. They were to be replaced by mostly unitary authorities with the exception of three two-tier metropolitan areas to be called Merseyside, SELNEC and West Midlands. Runcorn and Widnes would form part of the new Merseyside Metropolitan Area under a district called 'St Helens-Widnes'.

The proposals were broadly accepted by the then Labour government but set aside by the incoming Conservative government following the 1970 general election which it had fought on a manifesto pledge to introduce a system of two-tier local government. The Local Government Act 1972 created new metropolitan counties around Liverpool (as Merseyside) and Manchester (as Greater Manchester) but Runcorn and Widnes would not be allocated to either. Instead, Widnes and Warrington would be moved into the non-metropolitan county of Cheshire, with Widnes joining Runcorn to create the new non-metropolitan district of Halton. The name of the new district was inspired by the ancient Barony of Halton which had possessed land on both sides of the river. The district was established on 1 April 1974. In addition to Runcorn Urban District and the Municipal Borough of Widnes, parts of Runcorn Rural District and the parish of Hale from Whiston Rural District were incorporated into Halton.

On 1 April 1998, Halton became a unitary authority, independent of Cheshire County Council. However, it continues to be served by Cheshire Police and Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service, and forms part of Cheshire for ceremonial purposes. On 1 April 2014, Halton became part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, joining the local authorities of Liverpool, Sefton, Wirral, Knowsley and St Helens; the five metropolitan district councils which constitute the county of Merseyside. As a unitary authority, Halton's status is similar to the metropolitan district councils.

Population growth
The population of Halton is. Although the borough was only created in 1974, the change in population since 1801 has been calculated by adapting historical census data to modern boundaries.

Religion
In the 2021 census, Christianity was the main religion in Halton at 58.6%, above the national average for England of 46.3% but down from 75% in 2011. 35.2% stated that they had 'no religion'. Those stating their religion as Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh or other amounted to 1.6%.

Ethnicity
In the 2021 census, 96.5% of Halton residents identified as White and 3.5% as non-White or mixed. 95.2% were born in the United Kingdom.

Governance

Halton Borough Council is a unitary authority responsible for most local government functions within the area. The Labour Party has controlled the council since it was created in 1974.

On 1 April 2014, Halton became one of the six constituent local government districts of the Liverpool City Region under the Combined Authority.

Since the 2024 general election, the borough has been split into the two constituencies of Widnes and Halewood and Runcorn and Helsby, and held by Derek Twigg and Mike Amesbury respectively, both of the Labour Party.

Economy
In 2021, the borough's total GVA was £4.0 billion with a total GDP of £4.5 billion. GVA per capita in Halton was £31,390 and GDP per capita was £34,985, the highest in the Liverpool City Region.

In 2022, there were 67,000 jobs in Halton, including the self-employed. The borough is an industrial, scientific and logistics hub with a higher proportion of jobs in these industries, and proportionally fewer jobs in hospitality and education compared to Great Britain. Proportionally more jobs were full-time roles.

In the period October 2022 to September 2023, the employment rate in Halton was 76.6%, higher than the average rate for Great Britain of 75.8%. Unemployment was 2.9% compared to 3.7% for Great Britain.

However, people in Halton are qualified to a lower level than the average for the North West or Great Britain. In 2023, the gross median weekly wage for full time workers living in Halton was £664. Although higher than the regional median of £649, it is lower than the £682.60 for Great Britain.

Television
The area is served by BBC North West and ITV Granada with television signals received from the Winter Hill TV transmitter.

Radio
Radio stations for the area are:
 * BBC Radio Merseyside
 * Heart North West
 * Smooth North West
 * Capital North West & Wales
 * Greatest Hits Radio Liverpool & The North West (formerly Wire FM)
 * Hits Radio Liverpool
 * Dee Radio
 * Halton Community Radio, a community based station.

Newspapers
Local newspapers for the area are:
 * The Runcorn & Widnes Weekly News
 * Runcorn and Widnes World.

Twin boroughs
Halton is twinned with:
 * 🇩🇪 Marzahn-Hellersdorf, Berlin, Germany (since 25 May 1993)
 * 🇨🇿 Ústí nad Labem, Ústí nad Labem Region, Czech Republic (since 13 October 1993)
 * 🇵🇹 Leiria, Central Region, Portugal (since 1997)
 * 🇨🇳 Tongling, Anhui, China (since 1997)

Following an appeal in 1997, Halton residents donated 1,000 English books to Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem. In 1999, an historic Halton Transport bus was restored and gifted to the Czech Republic to mark the centenary of public transport in the city. Engineers from Halton have assisted with chemical decontamination in the city and also when the city flooded in 2002.

The first crazy golf course in Berlin, created in Marzahn-Hellersdorf in 2005, contains several Halton landmarks and was constructed with the assistance of exchange students from the borough.

Several roads are named after Halton's twin boroughs, including Leiria Way in Runcorn and Marzahn Way in Widnes. A Chinese friendship garden was created in the grounds of Runcorn Town Hall in 2006, including a bronze statue gifted by the twin city of Tongling.

title: Borough of Halton


text:
Henry Seymour Conway

Field Marshal Henry Seymour Conway (1721 – 9 July 1795) was a British general and statesman. A brother of the 1st Marquess of Hertford, and cousin of Horace Walpole, he began his military career in the War of the Austrian Succession. He held various political offices including Chief Secretary for Ireland, Secretary of State for the Southern Department, Leader of the House of Commons and Secretary of State for the Northern Department. He eventually rose to the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Forces.

Family and education
Conway was the second son of Francis Seymour-Conway, 1st Baron Conway (whose elder brother Popham Seymour-Conway had inherited the Conway estates) by his third wife, Charlotte Seymour-Conway (née Shorter). He entered Eton College in 1732 and from that time enjoyed a close friendship with his cousin Horace Walpole.

Early army career
Conway joined the Molesworth's Regiment of Dragoons on 27 June 1737 as a lieutenant. He was transferred to the 1st Foot Guards and was promoted to captain on 14 February 1741 and to captain-lieutenant (the equivalent of lieutenant colonel) on 10 May 1742.

During the War of Austrian Succession he served on the staff of Field Marshal George Wade at Dettingen in June 1743 and on the staff of the Duke of Cumberland at the Fontenoy in May 1745. Appointed colonel of the 48th Foot on 6 April 1746, he took part in Culloden later that month during the Jacobite Rebellion. His next battle, in July 1747, was at Lauffeld, in which he narrowly escaped death, being captured by the French but released on parole a few days later. In July 1749, he transferred from the 48th Foot to the 34th Foot, and served with his regiment in the garrison of Menorca in 1751.

Early political career
Conway was elected unopposed to the Irish House of Commons in 1741 for County Antrim, and to the British Parliament for Higham Ferrers in December 1741 on the recommendation of Sir Robert Walpole. He was elected in 1747 for Penryn and for St Mawes in 1754, both in the Boscawen interest. He was promoted to major-general on 12 March 1755.

In April 1755, he was unexpectedly appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland by William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington, the new Lord Lieutenant. He then finally took his seat for County Antrim in the Irish House of Commons in October 1755. It was hoped that he would resolve the conflict in Irish politics between the Speaker, Henry Boyle on the one side and George Stone, Archbishop of Armagh and John Ponsonby: ultimately, he reached a compromise, acceptable to the British Ministry, in which Boyle was bought off with an earldom and John Ponsonby became Speaker. He became a Groom of the Bedchamber in April 1757 to both George II and George III (until 1764).

Seven Years' War

Conway was the British military second in command on the Rochefort expedition in 1757, and repeatedly advocated an attack on Fort Fouras, but his colleagues would only agree a night attack (which failed). Ultimately the expedition returned to Portsmouth having achieved nothing. Though Mordaunt (the commander in chief) was acquitted by his court-martial, the affair damaged both their reputations. In his displeasure, George II refused to employ Conway on the 1758 campaigns. He was not employed again until the next reign, except that he was sent to sign a cartel for an exchange of prisoners at Sluys in 1759. On 21 April 1759 he became colonel of the 1st The Royal Dragoons and on 25 August 1759 he was promoted to lieutenant general.

In 1761, he served in Germany as deputy to John Manners, Marquess of Granby, the British commander in the army led by Ferdinand of Brunswick. At the Battle of Villinghausen in July 1761 he commanded a corps which was at the centre of the line and not attacked. He was also present at the Battle of Wilhelmsthal in June 1762, and captured the castle of Waldeck the following month. After peace preliminaries were signed at Fontainebleau in November, he supervised the embarkation of British troops from Europe, returning to England in March.

Later political career
Conway was re-elected to the House of Commons in April 1761, this time for Thetford and on 4 July 1761 he became a member of the Privy Council. having been previously appointed as a member of the Privy Council of Ireland in 1755. As a senior member of the Rockingham faction of the Whigs, he opposed the King's legal actions against the reformist John Wilkes in 1763 which resulted in his dismissal in 1764 as a Groom of the Bedchamber and as Colonel of the 1st Royal Dragoons. This led to the publication of accusation and counter-accusation in pamphlets, as it was feared that the government intended to purge the army of its political opponents.

He entered office with Lord Rockingham as Secretary of State for the Southern Department in July 1765 before switching to the Northern Department in May 1766, serving until January 1768, when he became a Minister without Portfolio. In these offices, Conway sought to urge a moderate policy towards the American colonies, being the principal supporter of the repeal of the Stamp Act, and opposing the taxation policies of Chancellor of the Exchequer Charles Townshend.

Return to the Army
Following his resignation in January 1768, Conway returned to the military, and was made a full general on 26 May 1772 and Governor of Jersey on 22 October 1772. He remained an important figure in the Commons, opposing the British attempt to suppress the American Revolt. He was rewarded with a cabinet position and the office of Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in the new Rockingham ministry in March 1782. His political career came to an end in 1784 when he lost his seat in parliament due to his opposition to the new government of William Pitt and he focused thereafter on his military responsibilities retaining his post as Commander-in Chief until his complete retirement in January 1793. He was promoted to field marshal on 18 October 1793 and died, at his home, Park Place at Remenham in Berkshire, on 9 July 1795.

Family
On 19 December 1747 he married Caroline, the widow of Charles Bruce, 4th Earl of Elgin and 3rd Earl of Ailesbury, and daughter of Lieutenant-General John Campbell, later the 4th Duke of Argyll. They had one daughter, the sculptor Anne Seymour Damer.

title: Henry Seymour Conway


text:
Sheldon Glashow

Sheldon Lee Glashow (, ; born December 5, 1932) is a Nobel Prize-winning American theoretical physicist. He is the Metcalf Professor of Mathematics and Physics at Boston University and Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics, emeritus, at Harvard University, and is a member of the board of sponsors for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Birth and education
Sheldon Glashow was born on December 5, 1932, in New York City, to Jewish immigrants from Russia, Bella (née Rubin) and Lewis Gluchovsky, a plumber. He graduated from Bronx High School of Science in 1950. Glashow was in the same graduating class as Steven Weinberg, whose own research, independent of Glashow's, would result in Glashow, Weinberg, and Abdus Salam sharing the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics (see below). Glashow received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Cornell University in 1954 and a PhD degree in physics from Harvard University in 1959 under Nobel-laureate physicist Julian Schwinger. Afterwards, Glashow became a NSF fellow at NORDITA and met Murray Gell-Mann, who convinced him to become a research fellow at the California Institute of Technology. Glashow then became an assistant professor at Stanford University before joining the University of California, Berkeley where he was an associate professor from 1962 to 1966. He joined the Harvard physics department as a professor in 1966, and was named Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics in 1979; he became emeritus in 2000. Glashow has been a visiting scientist at CERN, and professor at Aix-Marseille University, MIT, Brookhaven Laboratory, Texas A&M, the University of Houston, and Boston University.

Research
In 1961, Glashow extended electroweak unification models due to Schwinger by including a short range neutral current, the Z0. The resulting symmetry structure that Glashow proposed, SU(2) × U(1), forms the basis of the accepted theory of the electroweak interactions. For this discovery, Glashow along with Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam, was awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics.

In collaboration with James Bjorken, Glashow was the first to predict a fourth quark, the charm quark, in 1964. This was at a time when 4 leptons had been discovered but only 3 quarks proposed. The development of their work in 1970, the GIM mechanism showed that the two quark pairs: (d.s), (u,c), would largely cancel out flavor changing neutral currents, which had been observed experimentally at far lower levels than theoretically predicted on the basis of 3 quarks only. The prediction of the charm quark also removed a technical disaster for any quantum field theory with unequal numbers of quarks and leptons — an anomaly — where classical field theory symmetries fail to carry over into the quantum theory.

In 1973, Glashow and Howard Georgi proposed the first grand unified theory. They discovered how to fit the gauge forces in the standard model into an SU(5) Lie group group, and the quarks and leptons into two simple representations. Their theory qualitatively predicted the general pattern of coupling constant running, with plausible assumptions, it gave rough mass ratio values between third generation leptons and quarks, and it was the first indication that the law of Baryon number is inexact, that the proton is unstable. This work was the foundation for all future unifying work.

Glashow shared the 1977 J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize with Feza Gürsey.

Criticism of superstring theory
Glashow is a skeptic of superstring theory due to its lack of experimentally testable predictions. He had campaigned to keep string theorists out of the Harvard physics department, though the campaign failed. About ten minutes into "String's the Thing", the second episode of The Elegant Universe TV series, he describes superstring theory as a discipline distinct from physics, saying "...you may call it a tumor, if you will...".

Personal life
Glashow is married to Joan Shirley Alexander. They have four children. Lynn Margulis was Joan's sister, making Carl Sagan his former brother-in-law. Daniel Kleitman, who was another doctoral student of Julian Schwinger, is also his brother-in-law, through Joan's other sister, Sharon.

In 2003, he was one of 22 Nobel Laureates who signed the Humanist Manifesto. Glashow has described himself as a "practising atheist" and a Democrat.

Glashow is one of the 20 American recipients of the Nobel Prize in Physics to sign a letter addressed to President George W. Bush in May 2008, urging him to "reverse the damage done to basic science research in the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill" by requesting additional emergency funding for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Works

 * The Charm of Physics (1991) ISBN 0-88318-708-6
 * From Alchemy to Quarks: The Study of Physics as a Liberal Art (1994) ISBN 0-534-16656-3
 * Interactions: A Journey Through the Mind of a Particle Physicist and the Matter of this World (1988) ISBN 0-446-51315-6
 * First Workshop on Grand Unification: New England Center, University of New Hampshire, April 10–12, 1980 edited with Paul H. Frampton and Asim Yildiz (1980) ISBN 0-915692-31-7
 * Third Workshop on Grand Unification, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, April 15–17, 1982 edited with Paul H. Frampton and Hendrik van Dam (1982) ISBN 3-7643-3105-4
 * "Desperately Seeking Superstrings?" with Paul Ginsparg in Riffing on Strings: Creative Writing Inspired by String Theory (2008) ISBN 978-0-9802114-0-5

Awards and honors

 * J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize (1977)
 * Nobel Prize in Physics (1979)
 * Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement (1980)
 * Member of the American Philosophical Society (2002)

title: Sheldon Glashow


text:
Halton, Buckinghamshire

Halton is a small village and civil parish in the Buckinghamshire district of the ceremonial county of Buckinghamshire, England, located about two miles north of Wendover and five miles southeast of Aylesbury.

Geography
Halton lies just outside the Metropolitan Green Belt so it has not been protected from postwar housing development. At its southern end it is contiguous with Wendover, but it retains a separate, older village centre anchored by St Michael & All Angels Church and a community hall. There is a separate, modern Catholic Church. The Parish also includes RAF Halton, a Royal Air Force (RAF) training station with a grass airfield used for glider training. Most modern housing in the village was built for RAF personnel, but some is now in private hands. A small shop mainly serves the RAF community. The base had a large military hospital employing hundreds of people, which was closed in 1995. The buildings remained until 2007/8 when they were demolished for the Princess Mary Gate housing scheme on land between Halton and Wendover.

In the Chiltern Hills above Halton is Halton House, a country house in the style of a French chateau, which is currently used as the main Officers' Mess for RAF Halton. It was originally built for Alfred de Rothschild in 1880. The RAF demolished its domed winter garden to build an accommodation block.

Facilities
Halton Community Combined School is a mixed primary school, which takes children from the age of four through to the age of eleven. The school has 91 pupils and was recently (Mar 2011) judged 'excellent' by OFSTED, despite having 70% of its pupils from Forces backgrounds who move frequently. The Halton Tennis Centre has a small number of future athletes combining competitive tennis training with home schooling. The Centre was formerly run by the RAF, who still train there. The school also contains Halton Preschool, which is a mixed preschool, which takes children from 2 to 4 in classes of 15 to 30.

Transport
The nearest railway station is Wendover, on the Chiltern Railways line between Aylesbury and London Marylebone (via Amersham). Journey times to London are under an hour. A single track railway line used to run from Halton, crossing the A413 by way of a level crossing, to a bay platform at the north end of Wendover station.

Route 8 is served by Arriva and is a bus from and to the Main Point at RAF Halton.

The Wendover arm of the Grand Union Canal flows through Halton on its course from Wendover to join the Grand Union beside Marsworth lock near Tring.

Popular culture
Halton gave its name to the Handley Page Halton, a cargo version of the Halifax bomber.

title: Halton, Buckinghamshire


text:
Diseconomies of scale

In microeconomics, diseconomies of scale are the cost disadvantages that economic actors accrue due to an increase in organizational size or in output, resulting in production of goods and services at increased per-unit costs. The concept of diseconomies of scale is the opposite of economies of scale. It occurs when economies of scale become dysfunctional for a firm. In business, diseconomies of scale are the features that lead to an increase in average costs as a business grows beyond a certain size.

Communication costs
Ideally, all employees of a firm would have one-on-one communication with each other so they know exactly what the other workers are doing. A firm with a single worker does not require any communication between employees. A firm with two workers requires one communication channel, directly between those two workers. A firm with three workers requires three communication channels between employees (between employees A & B, B & C, and A & C). Here is a chart of one-on-one communication channels required:

The graph of all one-on-one channels is a complete graph.

The number of one-on-one channels of communication grows more rapidly than the number of workers, thus increasing the time and costs of communication. At some point one-on-one communications between all workers becomes impractical; therefore only certain groups of employees will communicate with one another (e.g. within departments or within geographical locations). This reduces, but does not stop, the increase in unit costs; and also the organisation will incur some inefficiencies due to the reduced level of communication.

Duplication of effort
An organisation with just one person cannot have any duplication of effort between employees. If there are two employees, there could be some duplication of efforts, but this is likely to be minor, as each of the two will generally know what the other is working on. When organisations grow to thousands of workers, it is inevitable that someone, or even a team, will take on a function that is already being handled by another person or team. In colloquial terms, this is described as "one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing". General Motors, for example, developed two in-house CAD/CAM systems: CADANCE was designed by the GM Design Staff, while Fisher Graphics was created by the former Fisher Body division. These similar systems later needed to be combined into a single Corporate Graphics System, CGS, at great expense. A smaller firm would have had neither the money to allow such expensive parallel developments, nor the lack of communication and cooperation which precipitated this event. In addition to CGS, GM also used CADAM, UNIGRAPHICS, CATIA and other off-the-shelf CAD/CAM systems, thus increasing the cost of translating designs from one system to another. This endeavor eventually became so unmanageable that they acquired (and then eventually sold off) Electronic Data Systems (EDS) in an effort to control the situation. Smaller firms typically choose a single off-the-shelf CAD/CAM system, with no need to combine or translate between systems.

Office politics
"Office politics" is management behavior which a manager knows is counter to the best interest of the company, but is in their personal best interest. For example, a manager might intentionally promote an incompetent worker, knowing that the worker will never be able to compete for the manager's job. This type of behavior only makes sense in a company with multiple levels of management. The more levels there are, the more opportunity for this behavior. In a small company, such behavior could cause the company to go bankrupt, and thus cost the manager their job, so they would not make such a decision. In a large company, one manager would not have much effect on the overall health of the company, so such "office politics" are in the interest of individual managers.

Top-heavy companies
As an organisation increases in size, it becomes costly to keep control of a sprawling corporate empire, and this often results in bureaucracy as executives implement more and more levels of management. As firms increase in size, managers will initially provide a net benefit to the firm and increase productivity; however, as a firm grows and covers a larger geographical area and/or employs more people, a principal–agent problem arises, leading to lower productivity. To counter this, executives introduce standards and controls in order to maintain productivity, and this necessitates the hiring of more managers to apply these standards and controls, hence the proportion of managerial to working class begins to lean towards managerial and the company becomes "top-heavy". However, these additional managers are not providing additional output: they are spending their time implementing standards and carrying out supervision that is unnecessary in smaller firms, hence the cost-per-unit has increased.

Supply-chain disruption
Global emergencies, such as COVID-19 in 2020, can easily disrupt supply chains. This disruption has a higher chance of affecting large organizations - especially when there are only a few large suppliers. Smaller organizations with robust, local supply networks can manage supply chain shocks because any localized shock has a smaller effect on the overall ecosystem.

Other effects which reduce competitiveness of large firms
These do not always increase the cost-per-unit, but do reduce the ability of a large firm to compete.

Cannibalization
A small firm only competes with other firms, but larger firms frequently find their own products are competing with each other. A Buick was just as likely to steal customers from another GM make, such as an Oldsmobile, as it was to steal customers from other companies. This may help to explain why Oldsmobiles were discontinued after 2004. This self-competition wastes resources that should be used to compete with other firms.

Isolation of decision-makers from the results of their decisions
If a single person makes and sells donuts and decides to try jalapeño flavoring, they would likely know on the same day whether their decision was good or not, based on the reaction of customers. A decision-maker at a huge company that makes donuts may not know for many months if such a decision is embraced by consumers or if it is rejected, especially if their research or marketing team fails to respond in a timely manner. By that time, the decision-makers may very well have moved on to another division or company and thus see no consequence from their decision. This lack of consequences can lead to poor decisions and cause an upward-sloping average cost curve.

Slow response time
In a reverse example, the smaller firm will know immediately if people begin to request other products, and be able to respond the next day. A large company would need to do research, create an assembly line, determine which distribution chains to use, plan an advertising campaign, etc., before any changes could be made. By this time, the smaller competitors may well have grabbed that market niche.

Inertia (Unwillingness to change)
This will be defined as the "we've always done it that way, so there's no need to ever change" attitude (see appeal to tradition). An old, successful company is far more likely to have this attitude than a new, struggling one. While "change for change's sake" is counter-productive, refusal to consider change, even when indicated, is likewise toxic to a company, as changes in the industry and market conditions will inevitably demand changes in the firm in order to remain successful. An example is Polaroid Corporation's delay in moving into digital imaging, which adversely affected the company, ultimately leading to bankruptcy.

Public and government opposition
Such opposition is largely a function of the size of the firm. Behavior from Microsoft, which would have been ignored from a smaller firm, was seen as an anti-competitive and monopolistic threat, due to Microsoft's size, thus bringing about government lawsuits.

Large market share
A small company with only a 1% market share could relatively easily double market share, and hence revenues, in a year. A large company with 50% market share will find it difficult to do so.

Large market portfolio
A small investment fund can potentially yield a higher return because it can concentrate its investments in a small number of good opportunities without driving up the purchase price as they buy in, and later sell them without driving down the sale price as they sell off. Conversely, a large investment fund must spread its investments among so many securities that its results tend to track those of the market as a whole. As the size of the market controlled grows, the results will be closer to market average.

Inelasticity of supply
A company which is heavily dependent on a resource supply of a fixed or relatively-fixed size will have trouble increasing production. For instance, a timber company cannot increase production above the sustainable harvest rate of its land (although it can still increase production by acquiring more land). Similarly, service companies are limited by available labor (and thus tend to concentrate in large, densely-populated metropolitan areas); STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) professions are often-cited examples.

Reputation
Larger firms have a reputation to uphold and as a result may place more restrictions on employees, limiting their efficiency. This will be seen amplified in a regulated industry, where a company losing its license would be an extremely serious event.

Other effects related to size
Large firms also tend to be old and in mature markets. Both of these have negative implications for future growth. Old firms tend to have a large retiree base, with high associated pension and health costs, and may be unionized, with associated higher salaries and labor rights. Mature markets tend to only offer the potential for small, incremental growth. (Everybody might go out and buy a new invention next year, but it is unlikely they will all buy cars next year, since most people already have them.)

Impact on smaller firms
While diseconomies of scale are typically associated with large mature firms, similar problems have been observed in the growth phase of small and medium-sized manufacturing companies. Mclean has observed that this can occur once the workforce exceeds around 20 employees. At this point business complexity grows more rapidly than revenue. The business experiences falling productivity, leading to rising variable costs along with rapidly rising overheads.

Solutions
Solutions to the diseconomies of scale for large firms may involve splitting the company into smaller organisations. This can either happen by default when the company is in financial difficulties, sells off its profitable divisions and shuts down the rest; or can happen proactively, if the management is willing.

To avoid the negative effects of diseconomies of scale, a firm must stick to the lowest average output cost and try to recognise any external diseconomies of scale. Moreover, on reaching the lowest average cost, a firm must either expand to other countries to increase demand for its products, or seek new markets or produce new products that do not compete with its original products. However, neither of these actions will necessarily eliminate communications and management problems often associated with large organisations.

A systematic analysis and redesign of business processes, in order to reduce complexity, can counter diseconomies of scale. (Of course, this phase of analysis and revamping in itself can be, and usually is, a diseconomy leading to hiring of new personnel and investment in new, competing systems.) This leads to increased productivity. Improved management systems and more effective control of labor and operations can lower overhead.

Example
Returning to the example of the large donut firm, each retail location could be allowed to operate relatively autonomously from the company headquarters.

For instance, the local management may decide on the following factors instead of relying on the central management: While a single, large, centrally-controlled firm may have higher ability to innovate and develop or market new products more effectively than when its resources are divided, it may lack the flexibility to offer individual customizations. Allowing the different retail locations to make decisions independent of the central management may allow them to meet local consumers' demands more efficiently.
 * 1) Employee decisions such as hiring, firing, promotions and wage scales, where the local management is directly involved and likely to have better understanding of each employee. For instance, employers may choose to offer higher wages and charge higher prices if they are in an affluent area.
 * 2) Purchasing decisions, with each location allowed to choose its own suppliers, which may or may not be owned by the corporation (wherever they find the best quality and prices).
 * 3) Research and marketing decisions. Each firm may decide to develop their own recipes or utilise different signature flavour unique to their locale. For instance, when fresh apple cider is available at bargain prices from local farmers in October, they may choose to market a cinnamon donut and hot apple cider combo.

In addition, if the employees own a portion of the local business, employees will also have a more vested interest in its success.

Note that all these changes will likely result in a substantial reduction in corporate headquarters staff and other support staff. For this reason, many businesses delay such a reorganization until it is too late to be effective. However, the whole company incurs reputation and legal risks arising from each unit.

Criticism
The empirical validity of diseconomies of scale as a rule of thumb has been criticised in recent years, following the increasing concentration of transnational corporations on the global level. The Cambridge economist Peter Nolan calculated that in almost all global production sectors, transnational corporations had merged and concentrated since the 1980s instead of succumbing to diseconomies of scale, leading to significant market power concentration and oligopolistic competition on the global level. This criticism suggests that earlier concerns on diseconomies of scale, e.g. voiced by Alfred Marshall, are increasingly invalid, as improvements to global supply chains, communication technology and reduction of transport costs allow benefits of scale (e.g. concentration of spending on R&D and market power) to trump diseconomies of scale.

title: Diseconomies of scale