text:
William Ward

William Ward or Willie Ward or Will Ward may refer to:

Sports

 * William Ward (American football) (1874–1936), American football coach at the University of Michigan in 1896
 * William Ward (Australian cricketer) (1863–1948), Australian cricketer
 * William Ward (cricketer, born 1787) (1787–1849), English cricketer, scorer of the first-ever double-century
 * William Ward (cricketer, born 1874) (1874–1961), English cricketer
 * William Ward (tennis) (born 1986), New Zealand tennis player
 * Willie Ward (1909–1987), American baseball player
 * Billy Ward (rugby league) (1888–?), rugby league footballer of the 1910s for Great Britain, England, and Leeds
 * William Ward (1893–1968), American boxer who fought under the name Kid Norfolk

Military

 * William Ward (Royal Navy officer) (1829–1900)
 * William Ward (Texas soldier) (died 1836), American lieutenant-colonel during the Texas Revolution
 * William E. Ward (born 1949), American general officer of the United States Army; inaugural combatant commander of United States Africa Command
 * William F. Ward Jr. (1928–2018), United States Army general
 * William H. Ward (1840–1927), American army officer and Medal of Honor recipient
 * William Thomas Ward (1808–1878), American army general and congressman from Kentucky

Politics

 * William Ward (1677–1720), Member of Parliament for Staffordshire, 1710–1713 and 1715–1720
 * William Ward (mayor) (1807–1889), English Mayor of Oxford
 * William Ward (MP for Morpeth) (fl. 1553–63), MP for Morpeth, and for Carlisle
 * William Ward (Pennsylvania politician) (1837–1895), American politician, U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania
 * William Ward (police officer) (1921–2006), Pittsburgh Police Chief in 1986
 * William Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley (1867–1932), British politician, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Governor-General of Australia
 * William Ward, 3rd Earl of Dudley (1894–1969), British Conservative politician
 * William Ward, 3rd Viscount Dudley and Ward (1750–1823), British peer and politician
 * William Ward Jr. (1865–1949), American politician from Pennsylvania
 * William D. Ward, American politician, member of the Florida House of Representatives
 * William Dudley Ward (1877–1946), British Liberal politician and Olympic sailor
 * William F. Ward (born 1951), American lawyer and politician (Pennsylvania)
 * William John Ward (1880–1971), Canadian farmer and politician in Manitoba
 * William L. Ward (1856–1933), American politician, US Representative from New York
 * William T. Ward (Wisconsin legislator), member of the Wisconsin State Assembly for 1850
 * William W. Ward (1903–?), American politician, member of the Wisconsin State Assembly

Religion

 * William Ward (bishop) (1761–1838), Anglican clergyman and the Bishop of Sodor and Man
 * William Ward (missionary) (1769–1823), British pioneer, Baptist missionary
 * William Ward (priest) (c. 1560–1641), English Roman Catholic martyr
 * William George Ward (1812–1882), English Roman Catholic theologian and mathematician
 * William Hayes Ward (1835–1916), American clergyman, editor, and Orientalist
 * William Humble Ward, 10th Baron Ward (1781–1835), clergyman

Other fields

 * William Ward (astronomer) (1944–2018), American astronomer
 * William Ward (engraver) (1766–1826), English engraver
 * William Ward (frontiersman) (1752–1822), frontiersman, early settler of western Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio
 * William Ward (goldsmith), English goldsmith and financier
 * William Ward (physician) (1534–1604?), English physician and translator
 * William Ward (Utah architect) (1827–1893), architect in Utah
 * William Ward, 1st Earl of Dudley (1817–1885), British peer and benefactor
 * William Ward, 4th Earl of Dudley (1920–2013), British peer
 * William Ward, 10th Baron Dudley (1685–1740)
 * William Arthur Ward (1921–1994), American motivational writer
 * William Ayres Ward (1928–1996), American Egyptologist
 * William Erskine Ward (1838–1916), British Indian Civil Service officer
 * William Henry Ward, American inventor
 * W. R. Ward (William Reginald Ward, 1925–2010), English historian

title: William Ward


text:
User:Publius~enwiki

J'y suis, j'y reste.

...

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

title: User:Publius~enwiki


text:
Lord Mayor's Show

The Lord Mayor's Show is one of the best-known annual events in London as well as one of the longest-established, dating back to the 13th century. A new lord mayor is appointed every year, and the public parade that takes place as their inauguration ceremony reflects that this was once one of the most prominent offices in England and subsequently the United Kingdom.

The show is named after the Lord Mayor of the City of London, a city and ceremonial county within Greater London and the historic centre of the wider metropolis. This is distinct from the Mayor of London, the elected head of the Greater London Authority (a position which has existed only since 2000). The City is London's main financial district, widely known informally as 'the Square Mile'.

The Lord Mayor's Show is centred on a street parade, which in its modern form is a light-hearted combination of traditional British pageantry and elements of carnival. On the day after being sworn in, the Lord Mayor and several others participate in a procession from Guildhall, via Mansion House and St Paul's Cathedral, in the heart of the City of London, to the Royal Courts of Justice on the edge of the City of Westminster, where the new Lord Mayor swears allegiance to the Crown. Until 1882, the procession went to Westminster Hall.

Origin and date of the show
The office of Lord Mayor dates from 1189, and it was a requirement of the charter establishing it that the mayor travelled to the royal enclave at Westminster to present himself to the monarch's representatives, the senior judges as Barons of the Exchequer, to take an oath of loyalty to the sovereign upon beginning his term. The event is officially listed in the City's Civic Calendar as 'The Procession to the Royal Courts of Justice and Presentation of the Lord Mayor to the Chief Justices'; when the Royal Courts moved from Westminster to the Strand location in 1882, the route was shortened. Originally, this journey was mostly made by barge on the River Thames, the usual method of transport for this route in those days. Pageantry and display gradually grew around the trip, comparable to the far less frequent Royal Entry parades that usually followed a coronation or royal wedding.

In the 16th century the "show" become a major entertainment for Londoners. This rests significantly on the shoulders of the Lord Mayors Sir Rowland Hill and his friend Sir John Gresham, in revival of the Marching Watch or Mid Summer Watches in London. In these pageants 15,000 citizens all in bright harness, with coats of white Silk or Cloath, and Chains of Gold, passed through London to Westminster, and round St. James's Park, and on to Holborn. The long daylight of June caused the civic government to fear disorder; the Watch was originally a show of the city's policing force with armed men marching in the streets., but it evolved into an annual festival of street pageantry which reached its spectacular peak in Hill's time and evolved into the Lord Mayor's Show. These developments are recorded in Lady Long's household-book at Hengrave, Suffolk, which notes that Henry VIII watched these marches from Mercers Hall with Jane Seymour; "the presence of more than 300 demi lunces and light horsemen" were a particular highlight.

In London, the show occurred annually on 29 October. In 1751, Great Britain replaced the Julian calendar with the Gregorian calendar; the Lord Mayor's Show was then moved to 9 November. In 1959, another change was made: the Lord Mayor's Show is now held on the second Saturday in November. The Lord Mayor's Show has regularly been held on the scheduled day, having only been cancelled twice, firstly in 1852, when the show made way for Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington's funeral and secondly in 2020 when the show was cancelled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The modern Lord Mayor's procession is a direct descendant of that first journey to Westminster.

The Lord Mayor's transport and the origin of parade floats
Formerly, the route was varied each year so that the procession could pass through the Lord Mayor's home ward; since 1952, however, the route has been fixed. The Lord Mayor rode on horseback or went on a barge via the River Thames, based on the route chosen. The river transport for the Lord Mayor's Show gave rise to the word "float" when used in the context of parades.

On more than one occasion, floats have been used as puns on the Lord Mayor's name; in 1616 John Leman had a lemon tree in the procession, while the following year William Cockayne had an artificial cock crowing and flapping its wings. More recently, Sir Murray Fox in 1974 had a large model of a fox in the procession.

Lord Mayor Gilbert Heathcote was unseated from his horse by a drunken flower girl in 1710, breaking his leg. A stand-in coach was used for some years until 1856, the last occasion on which barges were used. In 1757 Sir Charles Asgill, a banker who became the next Lord Mayor, commissioned Joseph Berry of Leather Lane in Holborn to make the Lord Mayor's State Coach which is still used today. The original cost of £1,065.0s.3d. equates to around £120,000, but the replacement value has been estimated at £2 million.

The side panels of the Lord Mayor's State Coach were painted by Cipriani, who also painted those for the monarch's Gold State Coach. It is pulled by six horses, two fewer than the monarch's. The escort to the Lord Mayor's coach recalls the waterborne transport of the Lord Mayor. They are liveried watermen carrying oars: formerly, the Mayor's barge was rowed by members of the Company of Watermen and Lightermen. Riding postillion on the Lord Mayor's State Carriage are two winners of the annual Doggett's Coat and Badge rowing race.

Great Twelve Livery Companies
The Great Twelve City Livery Companies — the Mercers, Grocers, Drapers, Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, Merchant Taylors*, Skinners*, Haberdashers, Salters, Ironmongers, Vintners and Clothworkers — participate as of right and the other livery companies by invitation, though the Lord Mayor's "mother company" is always included: in 2019 the Haberdashers' Company.

Privileged regiments of the City of London and others
Other participants include bands and members of "privileged regiments" of the City of London such as the Honourable Artillery Company and The Royal Fusiliers. Privileged regiments have the right to march through the City with bayonets fixed, colours flying, and drums beating.

The many other participants lend a unique flavour to the occasion which include organisations that the Lord Mayor wishes to support or has belonged to, such as charities, old schools and business associations before becoming Lord Mayor. St John Ambulance participates, for instance, as do the Zurich Guilds.

Gog and Magog are two woven willow giant reproductions of a pair of statues in the Guildhall. These popular icons reflect the pre-Roman legendary past of the City of London and they too are paraded by volunteers from The Guild of Young Freemen each year. The most recent representations were created by members of the Worshipful Company of Basketmakers.

Schedule
The procession begins at the Guildhall where the Lord Mayor receives with the new Sheriffs personal gifts from a restricted group of relevant City institutions, usually including the Lord Mayor's own Livery Company and Ward Club and then there is a breakfast. The Lord Mayor is escorted to their coach in Guildhall Yard by the Court of Aldermen and sets off to Mansion House, the official residence of the Lord Mayor. There the Lord Mayor awaits the show to pass from the terrace. The Lord Mayor joins the rear of the show, after having watched a flypast by the Royal Air Force.

The route of the outward parade in 2013 was from Guildhall, along Princes Street to Bank junction and past Mansion House. From there the procession travelled down Poultry, Cheapside, New Change, St Paul's Churchyard, Ludgate Hill, Fleet Street and the Strand.

Along the route, the Lord Mayor stops at St Paul's Cathedral in order to receive a blessing from the Dean on the Cathedral steps. Upon arrival at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, the Lord Mayor takes the oath of allegiance. The return procession then reassembles on Aldwych and returns via Essex Street to Temple Place then along the Victoria Embankment and Queen Victoria Street back to Mansion House where the Lord Mayor takes review of the Pikemen and Musketeers of the Honorable Artillery Company. The Lord Mayor then re-enters Mansion House via the steps to the Terrace with the Aldermen and entertains guests and volunteers who have co-ordinated the event.

The parade, which typically begins at about 11 am, concludes at about 3:30 pm. The procession is over 3 miles (roughly 5 km) long but the route itself is much shorter; the head of the procession reaches the end of the route before the Lord Mayor even leaves Mansion House. In the evening, a fireworks display is held subject to weather conditions.

Televising
The Lord Mayor's Show is televised live by the BBC in a special programme typically broadcast on BBC One, it has been broadcast on the BBC since 1937 making it the longest running television broadcast worldwide. The broadcast is focused around Mansion House, watching the procession as it passes and the Lord Mayor watches, it starts just before the Lord Mayor arrives and ends when he leaves, interviewers abound the proceedings, the blessing at St Paul's Cathedral and the Oath at the Royal Courts of Justice are left out completely.

title: Lord Mayor's Show


text:
Norwegian Wood

Norwegian Wood may refer to:

 * "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)", a 1965 song by the Beatles
 * Norwegian Wood (novel), a 1987 novel by Haruki Murakami
 * Norwegian Wood (film), a 2010 Japanese film based on the novel
 * Norwegian Wood (music festival), an annual music festival in Oslo, Norway
 * For woodland in Norway, see Geography of Norway

title: Norwegian Wood


text:
Ordinance of Nullification

The Ordinance of Nullification declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within the borders of the U.S. state of South Carolina, beginning on February 1, 1833. It began the Nullification Crisis. Passed by a state convention on November 24, 1832, it led to President Andrew Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, the Nullification Proclamation on December 10, 1832, which threatened to send government troops to enforce the tariffs. In the face of the military threat, and following a Congressional revision of the law which lowered the tariff, South Carolina repealed the ordinance.

The protest that led to the Ordinance of Nullification was caused by the belief that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 favored the North over the South and therefore violated the Constitution. This led to an emphasis on the differences between the two regions and helped set the stage for conflict during the antebellum era, eventually leading to the American Civil War.

title: Ordinance of Nullification


text:
National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry

The National Grange, a.k.a. The Grange, officially named The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, is a social organization in the United States that encourages families to band together to promote the economic and political well-being of the community and agriculture. The Grange, founded after the Civil War in 1867, is the oldest American agricultural advocacy group with a national scope. The Grange actively lobbied state legislatures and Congress for political goals, such as the Granger Laws to lower rates charged by railroads, and rural free mail delivery by the Post Office.

In 2005, the Grange had a membership of 160,000, with organizations in 2,100 communities in 36 states. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C., in a building built by the organization in 1960. Many rural communities in the United States still have a Grange Hall and local Granges still serve as a center of rural life for many farming communities.

History
The commissioner of the Department of Agriculture commissioned Oliver Kelley, after a personal interview with President Andrew Johnson, to go to the Southern states and to collect data to improve Southern agricultural conditions. In the South, poor farmers bore the brunt of the Civil War and were suspicious of Northerners like Kelley. Kelley found he was able to overcome these sectional differences as a Mason. With Southern Masons as guides, he toured the war-torn countryside in the South and was appalled by the outdated farming practices. In the western states, Kelley deplored the lack of "progressive agriculture", with illiterate "ignorant" farmers who were "using a system of farming [that] was the same as that handed down by generations gone by". He saw the need for an organization that would bring people together from across the country in a spirit of mutual cooperation. After many letters and consultations with the other founders, the Grange was born. The first Grange, Grange #1, was founded in 1868 in Fredonia, New York. Seven men and one woman co-founded the Grange: Oliver Hudson Kelley, William Saunders, Francis M. McDowell, John Trimble, Aaron B. Grosh, John R. Thompson, William M. Ireland, and Caroline Hall. In 1873 the organization was united under a National Grange in Washington, D.C.

Paid agents organized local Granges and membership in the Grange increased dramatically from 1873 (200,000) to 1875 (858,050). Many of the state and local granges adopted non-partisan political resolutions, especially regarding the regulation of railroad transportation costs. The organization was unusual at this time, because women and any teen old enough to draw a plow (aged 14 to 16 ) were encouraged to participate. The importance of women was reinforced by requiring that four of the elected positions could be held only by women.

Rapid growth infused the national organization with money from dues, and many local granges established consumers' co-operatives, initially supplied by the wholesaler Aaron Montgomery Ward. Poor fiscal management, combined with organizational difficulties resulting from rapid growth, led to a massive decline in membership. By the turn of the 20th century, the Grange rebounded and membership stabilized.

The Granger movement supported efforts by politicians to regulate rates charged by the railroads and grain warehouses. It claimed credit for the ideas of the Cooperative Extension Service, Rural Free Delivery, and the Farm Credit System. The peak of their political reputation was marked by the Supreme Court decision in Munn v. Illinois (1877), which held that grain warehouses were a "private utility in the public interest," and so could be regulated by public law. However this achievement was overturned later by the Supreme Court in Wabash v. Illinois (1886). The Grange also endorsed the temperance cause to avoid alcohol, the direct election of Senators and women's suffrage.

Partisan politics
While the Grange was not a political party, Grangers were involved in several political movements in the Midwestern United States in the late 19th century, such as the Reform Party of Wisconsin.

Decline in membership
Grange membership has declined considerably as the percentage of American farmers has fallen from a third of the population in the early 20th century to less than two percent today. Between 1992 and 2007, the number of Grange members fell by 40%, largely due to the National Grange no longer offering insurance for its members. Washington has the largest membership of any state, at approximately 13,000.

Today
, the Grange continues to press for the causes of farmers, including issues of free trade and farm policy. In its 2006 Journal of Proceedings, the organization's report on its annual convention, the organization lays out its mission and how it works towards achieving it through fellowship, service, and legislation: "The Grange provides opportunities for individuals and families to develop to their highest potential in order to build stronger communities and states, as well as a stronger nation."

In February 2024, the National Grange revised their Mission Statement: "Strengthening individuals, families, and communities through service, education, nonpartisan grassroots advocacy, and agricultural awareness."

As a non-partisan organization, the Grange supports only policies, never political parties or candidates. Although the Grange was founded to serve the interests of farmers, because of the shrinking farm population the Grange has begun to broaden its range to include a wide variety of issues, and anyone is welcome to join the Grange.

The Junior Grange is open to children 5–14. Regular Grange membership is open to anyone age 14 or older. The Grange Youth, a group within the Grange, consists of members 13 1/2 to 30.

In 2013, the Grange signed on to a letter to Congress calling for the doubling of legal immigration and legalization for undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. However, this position has been somewhat revised, and the Grange now emphasizes an expansion in the H-2A visa program to increase legal immigration and address the crisis-level labor shortage in agriculture. They support the enforcement of immigration law but urge discretion with regard to the impact on labor availability.

Rituals and ceremonies
When the Grange first began in 1867, it borrowed some of its rituals and symbols from Freemasonry, including oaths, secret meetings, and special passwords necessary to keep railroad spies out of their meetings. It also copied ideas from Greek, Roman and Biblical mythology. Small, ceremonial farm tools are often displayed at Grange meetings. Elected officers are in charge of opening and closing each meeting. There are seven degrees of Grange membership; the ceremony of each degree relates to the seasons and various symbols and principles.

During the last few decades, the Grange has moved toward public meetings and no longer meets in secret. Though the secret meetings do not occur, the Grange still acknowledges its rich history and practices some traditions.

Organization
The Grange is a hierarchical organization ranging from local communities to the National Grange organization. At the local level are community Granges, otherwise known as subordinate Granges. All members are affiliated with at least one subordinate. In most states, multiple subordinate Granges are grouped together to form Pomona Granges. Typically, Pomona Granges are made up of all the subordinates in a county. Next in the order come State Granges, which is where the Grange begins to be especially active in the political process. State Masters (Presidents) are responsible for supervising the administration of Subordinate and Pomona Granges. Together, thirty-five State Granges, as well as Potomac Grange #1 in Washington, D.C., form the National Grange. The National Grange represents the interests of most Grangers in lobbying activities similar to the state, but on a much larger scale. In addition, the National Grange oversees the Grange ritual. The Grange is a grassroots organization; virtually all policy originates at the subordinate level.

The motto of the Grange is In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity"). Indeed, the word "grange" comes from a Latin word for grain, and is related to a "granary" or, generically, a farm.

Notable people

 * D. Wyatt Aiken (1828–1887), South Carolina. Member of the United States House of Representatives
 * Harold J. Arthur (1904–1971), Vermont. 68th Governor of Vermont
 * Nahum J. Bachelder (1854–1934), New Hampshire. 49th Governor of New Hampshire
 * Charles J. Bell (1845–1909), Vermont. 50th Governor of Vermont
 * Robert Bergland (1928–2018), Minnesota. 20th United States Secretary of Agriculture
 * Charles F. Brannan (1903–1992), Colorado. 14th United States Secretary of Agriculture
 * Frank Carlson (1893 - 1987), Kansas. 30th Governor of Kansas, United States Senator
 * Ezra S. Carr (1819–1894), California. 7th California State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Professor of Agriculture at the University of California, Berkeley
 * Norman Jay Coleman (1827–1911), New York. 1st United States Secretary of Agriculture
 * Henry C. Groseclose (born 1892), Virginia. Founder of the Future Farmers of Virginia and Future Farmers of America
 * Aaron B. Grosh (1803–1884), Founder of the National Grange. First Chaplain of the National Grange
 * Caroline A. Hall (1838–1918), Founder of the National Grange
 * Mark Hatfield (1922 - 2011), Oregon. 29th Governor of Oregon, United States Senator
 * William M. Ireland (???–1891), Founder of the National Grange. First Treasurer of the National Grange
 * Oliver Hudson Kelley (1826–1913). Agriculturalist, organizer. Primary founder of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry. First Secretary of the National Grange
 * Evander M. Law (1836–1920). Confederate general and organizer of the Alabama Grange
 * David Lubin (1849–1919), California. Founder of the California Fruit Growers Union and U.S. delegate to the International Institute of Agriculture
 * Cyrus G. Luce (1824–1905), Michigan. 21st Governor of Michigan
 * James W. Marshall (1810–1885). Discoverer of California Gold. Charter member of Pilot Hill Grange #1 California
 * Francis Marion McDowell (1831–1894). Founder of the National Grange. Second Treasurer of the National Grange
 * James Nesmith (1820–1885), Oregon. United States Senator from Oregon
 * Herschel D. Newsom (1905–1970), Indiana. 16th Master of the National Grange
 * Krist Novoselic (born 1965), Washington. Bass guitarist for the rock band Nirvana
 * Walter M. Pierce (1861 – 1954), Oregon. 17th Governor of Oregon
 * Gifford Pinchot (1865–1946), Pennsylvania. 28th Governor of Pennsylvania
 * Frederick Robie (1822–1912), Maine. 39th Governor of Maine
 * Robert P. Robinson (1869–1939), Delaware. 57th Governor of Delaware
 * Norman Rockwell (1894–1978), Vermont. American painter
 * Eleanor Roosevelt (1884–1962), New York. First Lady of the United States of America
 * Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), New York. 32nd President of the United States of America
 * Ellen Alida Rose (1843–?), agriculturist, suffragist
 * William Saunders (1822–1900). Botanist, landscaper, designer of Soldiers Cemetery in Gettysburg, PA. Founder of the National Grange. First Master/President of the National Grange
 * John Strentzel (1813–1890), California. California pioneer, father-in-law of John Muir
 * John R. Thompson (1834–1894). Founder of the National Grange. First Lecturer/Program Director of the National Grange
 * John Trimble (1831–1902). Founder of the National Grange. Third Secretary of the National Grange
 * Harry S. Truman (1884–1972), Missouri. 33rd President of the United States of America


text:
User talk:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley

''This page discusses outing problems with a page that had serious errors and verifiability problems. The debate has concluded. Given the errors propagated in this discussion and the availability of more recent cases to discuss, it may be best to delete this page and User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley which explains the errors. This page is mostly about the implications of outing. Generic comments could be moved to Wikipedia_talk:outing if needed.''

This page now redirects to Meta. The original is still in the page history, which I propose is deleted. Angela.

 * Not only are interwiki redirects evil for more reasons than I can be bothered to go into right now, the page that it redirected to didn't even exist. That's just silly. I have reverted the page. -- Oliver P. 03:34, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Ok, it was "evil and silly", but I suggest that if people want to address the issue, they create that page at Meta rather than defending this page to get their view across. Angela.

 * I have changed the link to point to an article (as yet nonexistent) in my user space, both for the reasons Oliver has stated, and because the meta is a fossil that lacks active discussion, mainly because few people follow RecentChanges there. Louis Kyu Won Ryu

Summary of positions (for keeping track of who wants what)

 * undelete
 * Camembert
 * Andrewa
 * Wiwaxia

 * keep deleted
 * mav
 * Delirium
 * Adam Bishop
 * Angela
 * Kosebamse
 * Daniel Quinlan 22:55, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
 * RickK 04:40, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Noldoaran

No comment on whether it should be deleted, but I'll add my belief that perceived trolling should not be a sufficient reason for bypassing VfD. Martin 18:57, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

discussion
Was deleted by Mav without being listed on VfD, in violation of our process, with the justification that the article constituted "trolling". The article does not fit any of the 9 criteria for speedy deletion, so it should be undeleted pending debate in any case; I would suggest that there is ample reason to keep it indefinitely owing to Hubley being far more famous than many other persons whose biographies have been kept. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 04:20, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Unencyclopedic, hard to verify, and as mav correctly stated, trollish (= may inflame useless debate). No reason to keep. And Louis, it's usually not a good idea to create an article to prove a point. One of the reasons that there IS a mailing list is to keep some things out of Wikipedia's article namespace because they may need to be discussed but are not appropriate for Wikipedia itself. A mailing list discussion is a mailing list discussion is a mailing list discussion. Kosebamse 18:18, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From VfD: Craig Hubley - there must be many things wrong with "outing" a banned user for whatever reason. I can't see how this is appropriate for an encyclopedia at all. Adam Bishop 00:41, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * a) There was much more to the article than the supposed "outing". b) Since Hubley had publicly and deliberately acknowledged authorship of an article signed by 142.177.etc., it isn't outing.  c) User:Maveric149 had already identified, publicly, the relationship, in a post that is unlikely to be removed and that will remain indefinitely in the public eye.  Therefore, this article did no further harm even if (b) is held to be irrelevant. Louis Kyu Won Ryu
 * Unless any of this can be verified through an independent source (ie, something that's not his website and not the Wikipedia grapevine), this should certainly be deleted. There are probably lots of other reasons to delete it, but that one should do, I think. --Camembert 01:03, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I believe that the two sources you identify are independent and corroborating. For what else could we ask?  In any event, Hubley, owing to the sheer volume of his Usenet participation, is worthy of an article, just like Tim May; regardless of what we may say about his participation in Wikipedia. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 05:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't want to say much more about this, but: The article was about person X. The personal website of person X can hardly, therefore, be considered an independent source. And as much as I like the Wikipedia grapevine, I don't think it makes a good reference (and it too, of course, can hardly be considered independent of this subject). "For what else could we ask?" Well, is there another encyclopaedia or a biographical dictionary or a respected and truly independent website or even just a newspaper article or something of that sort that verifies what was in the article? If so, maybe we can have the article. If not, it's a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. --Camembert
 * Why is usenet participation relevant to worthiness of an article? That seems like a really bad indicator of worthiness to me. He's just some guy posting on usenet, who cares? Adam Bishop 16:42, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * His extensive authorship of relevant articles, regarless of the fact that they are published on UseNet rather than in print, his participation in standards discussions, as well as his activism, make him more important than many of our other biographical subjects. But your point may well stand.  I think that it is best addressed after the article is undeleted so we can see it, work on it, and decide what to do with it.  That's supposed to be the process, right? Louis Kyu Won Ryu
 * Already deleted. The creation of the page is trolling designed to stir things up. --mav 01:08, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Please don't ascribe motives, Mav. I am not a troll. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 05:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Undelete, to allow discussion, unless there are better grounds than the above (and there may be, it's a tricky subject, and it may not even be good to list them here, if so just say that). If we need to vary our procedures to provide immediate deletion of things like this (and we may), then that's one thing we need to discuss. Meantime, could a sysop please provide me a copy? TIA Andrewa 16:32, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I've e-mailed it to you. Angela 17:49, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * Received, thank you. Interesting. I would still undelete it for discussion, but I would vote to delete it if it were to be listed on VfD. I think abandoning our procedures is exactly what will encourage a certain sort of nuisance, and EofT is likely to be just the first of many IMO. It doesn't look all that damaging to me, especially if listed on VfD in the normal way. Andrewa 01:16, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * This article was already deleted when I saw it listed on VfD, so I don't even know what it looks like. It may or may not have deserved to be on Wikipedia, but given the amount of detail it was in, it certainly didn't deserve to be deleted off the cuff like that. Immediate deletion is for things like where the article title is Elia Kazan and the entire content is "I like rock candy with maple syrup". So undelete. Wiwaxia 23:34, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Oppose undeletion; this was clearly added simply because he was a banned user from Wikipedia (and that's what over half the article was discussing). "Some guy who posts on UseNet" is not a good criterion for inclusion either.  I posted over 4000 times on Kuro5hin and over 6000 times in Slashdot, so do I deserve an article now?  I don't think so. --Delirium 23:48, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * Although, ultimately, I don't think this article should be kept, I do think it should be undeleted and relisted on VfD for the standard five days so that everyone can see it and make their own minds up about it. This will also give the final deletion, if and when it comes, more authority. --Camembert 02:08, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * The "article" was created by Louis as a response to my "outing" of the multiple hard-banned user 142.177. This seemed to me to be a provocative act designed to piss 142.177 off (who has on several occasions stated that my assertion that he was in Hubley constituted slander and libel) and greatly annoy me. That aside, posting to UseNet and being a hard banned user in Wikipedia is not reason enough for him to have an article. Should there be an article on me because I have made 50,000 edits on Wikipedia? That certainly is far more important than posting to UseNet. --mav 03:38, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * It is, as a rule, never a goal of mine to, as you say, "piss [someone] off," though sometimes it is a side effect of my actions. My purpose in creating the article was to get your allegation out in the light where it can be examined.  If such allegations are going to be made, they should be made in public.  The article contents, I thought, were true, were fair to all concerned, and would serve as a point of focus for discussing fair outing in general and Mav's statements about 142 in particular. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 12:28, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have removed my name from the list of those in favor of undeletion because of my personal policy of refusing to become involved in numerical votes. If someone wishes to settle this based on a count, please don't include me. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 12:28, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Text of disputed article now available at: User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley

 * Unnecessary. I had no problem getting a copy when I asked for it, see above. But it doesn't seem to me to violate anything in Policies and guidelines, Draft privacy policy or even Wikiquette. Maybe these all need some work? Andrewa 01:46, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From VfD, December

 * User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley. Created in an attempt to circumvent the normal deletion process. This article was deleted at least 6 times already. Angela. 08:04, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Go for 7. Anjouli 14:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is a user sub page. It is to the user to decide whether one of his sub page should be deleted or not. Ask Kyu, or wait for him to come back. If found offensive meanwhile, just blank it. Anthère
 * I think it is not a good idea to give as a reason to delete that page that it was a circumvent to the normal deletion process. If it was thought *then* (when it was created) abnormal to do this, it should have been refused as an option at the time it was done. It was not declared against the rules then, it was accepted that Louis did so; it has no reason to be declared unproper now.
 * There is here confusion between the decision of the community to remove from the community space (meta) or the encyclopedia space, a page that is either non encyclopedic, or copyrighted, or defaming, or irrelevant, in short a candidate to deletion, AND the fact the community has the right to make a deletion decision over a page, created by a non-banned user, in his own space. If we delete user sub pages created willingly by users themselves, then we officially declare the user space is not remotedly owned by its user. Unless I am wrong, this is not the general opinion user hold on their own pages; that is why for most users, except for the talk page, it is thought bad etiquette to edit them but for typos or link fixing. So on one end many consider bad etiquette to have their personal pages edited, and on the other end we discuss deleting a personal page created by one user with tacit aggreement at that time. I think it is not a good idea :-) If it is done, we may need to change policy on user pages :-)
 * Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's just a user subpage. The worst thing about it was the insufficient fame of the person. On a user subpage, we can be as obscure as we want. And as for "circumvent[ion of]] the normal deletion process" . . . how is that any different from Mav's circumvention of the deletion process in deleting something that obviously didn't meet the criteria for allowed speedy deletion? Wiwaxia 15:07, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see nothing wrong with this page in the User: namespace. I'm unclear why the reason it was made is relevant. Seems to me that deleting a User: page only makes sense in copyvio (or perhaps inflammatory) situations. -Anthropos 16:31, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1) I'm new but I'd hate to think that there is an ongoing effort to police user subpages (beyond restricting illegal content or reasonable size restrictions, if any), 2) Deleting it from the original page may be appropriate but deleting tame information about Wikipedia persona-non-gratas (sp?) from sub pages is too Orwellian. Texture 17:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * This is not about policing subpages. It is about saying that it is wrong to out people. If User:142.177.etc wishes to remain anonymous, why can he not be allowed to do that? How can you justify a page created to out, or to support the outing, of this user? Angela. 23:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * No, a comment on Louis etc's talk page saying "this is wrong, you shouldn't do it" would be saying it's wrong. Deleting pages which reveal our superhero's secret identity is enforcement, so it is policing those pages. Not that I'm saying that's necessarily disallowed (after all, we already police user pages for copyvios), just that it is what is being proposed. Onebyone 00:09, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * It is wrong to "out" people. That said... this page does not appear to "out" someone who is currently anonymous nor was the page created by the person who did/(or did not) first "out" the person.  Those are the two circumstances I could not support.  Many gay performers have been "outted" as gay by the media and you would never find an encyclopedia that would omit that.  If Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein were to "out" the famous "Deep Throat", would this encylopedia fail to report that? Texture 00:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * To avoid duplicating my response to Texture, this is also discussed at User talk:Angela.
 * Delete. This article was deleted after discussion last month . -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 01:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * "Created in an attempt to circumvent the normal deletion process" doesn't make sense to me as an argument. The deletion process is designed to help the article space evolve towards its goal of being a good encyclopaedia. Deletion of a page from the article space means that the community has decided that the page is not a valid encyclopaedia article. It doesn't mean that it has decided that it should be obliterated from existence. There are no rules, as far as I am aware (apart from legal ones that are out of our hands), on what may or may not be kept by a user in their user area. If Louis Kyu Won Ryu wants to keep this page in his user area, there is no reason for him not to, unless he is forbidden to by law, or by some judgement that may be made by whoever owns the server(s). Furthermore, discussion of whether or not it is all right to "out" people is no longer relevant once a person has been "outed". Craig Hubley has been "outed". Regardless of whether that is good or bad, it is a fact. Deleting this page won't change that. -- Oliver P. 17:35, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I removed this from VfD as there seems to be no consensus over deleting it now it is in the user namespace. Angela. 01:53, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From User talk:Angela
Outing

I fail to understand your preoccupation with the article that is currently a subpage of my user page. You and several others have on an ongoing basis disregarded process and insisted upon removing this content, first from the encyclopedia, and now from user: space where we are supposed to be able to keep material relevant to the project. And while I will concede that the subject is only marginally encyclopedic (though it is more encyclopedic than many other articles that we have chosen to keep in the main namespace), it is certainly relevant to the *project*.

There are plenty of more controversial and less relevant topics that are present on user subpages. In the entire history of the project, I know of none that have been deleted other than those removed at the behest of their creator.

I am disappointed that there has been no substantive discussion of Mav's outing of the user in question, the veracity of his statements, and the fairness of his making them. That there has instead been nothing but discussions of procedural matters regarding deletion and undeletion of my article is deeply troubling to me. These events, and the actions of you and those who throng to your side, have reduced my sense of pride in the project more than you can know.

I would like an explaination from you as to why you think Mav's actions were appropriate, and what exactly it is about my article that makes you want to censor it.

Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * If I have issues with the page, then surely I will have those same issues wherever it is placed ? whether in the main namespace or in your user space. It makes no difference. I still think it is wrong for it to be here.

 * I don't doubt it is more relevant, more encyclopedic, or less controversial than a lot of pages here but that is not the point. The point is that I do think it was unfair for mav to have outed Craig and it was more wrong for you to try to insert this information into Wikipedia.

 * If you want a discussion of the outing, why didn't you try to bring that up in a normal way rather than adding to the problem by creating this page? Are you actually against the outing? I see this page as being in absolute support of it. You seem to think that my desired deletion is in some way against you, rather than against the outing, which you assume everyone supports. This is not the case. If mav's comments could be removed, I would request that, but they can't ? they are on the mailing list. This article, however, could be removed, and I can't understand why you are averse to that if, as you claim, you believe the outing was wrong.

 * I think mav's actions were wrong, and I think this article is supporting those actions, which is why I would rather it were deleted. Can you offer any explanation of why you want it kept? Angela. 23:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Angela, it's over. Once someone is outed, they're outed. It's done. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Mav outed him and that's that. He can't take it back or undo the damage. The mailing list posts get indexed on Google just like everything else, c.f. http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008050.html. It's in google. It's in google's cache. There is nothing anyone can do to out him more than he already is outed, and so my actions did him no further harm.
 * Yes, but this page, in my mind, makes it worse. A

That said, if either Hubley or EofT had asked me to remove the material, I would have obliged. He/they haven't, and I think it would take a rather large stretch of the imagination to believe that he hasn't seen it.
 * I think it's quite likely he hasn?t seen it. A

Where was your condemnation of Mav when this broke in the first place? There was never any censure by anyone. You didn't say a thing! Nothing! You just obliquely supported deletion of the article (once it was created) without stating a single genuine reason, just bromides about process and procedure.
 * Nowhere. There was no point. It was too late. I couldn't do anything about that, whereas I can attempt to do something about this. A

Why did I create the article rather than some carefully worded mailing list post? First of all, the mailing list is not the community. It is supposed to be, mainly, a forum for involving Jimbo in discussions. This is not a matter for Jimbo, IMO, it is a matter for the community. I believe the mailing list is vastly overused (witness the recent posts to it about trivialities like whether to include "Halloween" on the 2002 year article) and try to move discussions away from it whenever possible. Participation in the mailing list is not representative of the community as a whole. Discussions there become circular and are poorly indexed once complete.
 * You could have made a discussion without adding to the outing and bringing to that outing to a new audience (ie- those who do not read the mailing lists). A

I think Mav's actions are wrong, and it absolutely boggles my mind that there has been zero discussion about the wrongness of those actions nor the policy we should have to guide us in the future. How could you have missed the point of the article? I specifically referred to Mav's outing in it and had a link to fair outing. It's hardly a subtle piece of prose. The rest was just biographical boilerplate. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree it was wrong. I just don't think keeping this page on view expresses that. I feel it supports it because it adds to that outing. Why can the page not be deleted and replaced with a discussion on the rights or wrongs of outings of users? Would that not be more useful now that you have got people's attention through VfD and VfU? Angela. 00:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Then for heaven's sake, Angela, fix it! It's a Wiki page, remember?  Go on, edit it!  It's OK, you have my permission, if that's what you need.  Make a fair outing article.  Remove the 142 reference from the Hubley article so it's just about him.  If you disagree with what Mav did, tell him on his talk page.  Start a policy discussion on the meta or the pump or the talk page.  Anywhere.  No one besides me has said anything thus far and I'm not here to talk to myself.  I took the first step.  The next step is up to others.Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

oh, hello Louis ! Anthère

 * Hi, Ant. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have a difficult time finding words in this discussion about "outting". I am against it and have much sympathy for your opinion. However, I see problems being an unbiased information source and ignoring facts. If George W. Bush is a cross-dresser and he is "outted" by a close confidant or distant photographer, it needs to be reported. No one has suggested hiding Roosevelt's disability, Kennedy's womanizing, or Hoover's inclinations despite the fact that all chose not to reveal them to the general public. The "outting" is wrong, but the "out" and the how is a fact to be reported. That said... I have a strong interest in privacy and can see what you are trying to support and strengthen. I will most times support you, I just don't on this. Texture 00:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, but this isn't about someone famous is it? It is about a Wikipedia user. What is wrong about wanting to protect others within the Wikipedia community? If someone "outed" me and created an article on who I was in real life, I would hope that in my absence people would vote to delete that. Perhaps people feel differently because the person concerned is supposedly banned, but I feel this makes it worse as he can not come here to defend himself as any edits he makes are reverted on sight by many people. Also, this does not need to reported, as you claim. If that were the case, wouldn't it be necessary to report the real name of every Wikipedia user? There is no benefit to doing this, only harm. Angela. 00:53, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I am split over this topic. I am strongly for individual privacy and anonymity.  I would not want to be "outted" for simply privacy reasons.  However, I am split because I support both privacy and free press.  I want privacy but not at the cost of a controlled media that cannot report known facts.  I even have issues with not reporting adult rape victims whose claims may be false and intending harm, although I support that one since the alternative is unacceptable.  I see nothing wrong with wanting to protect others in the community and I commend you for it.  This is not an issue of revealing the real name of each user. I don't agree that this specific user is not "famous".  This person is a celebrity in their postings, contributions, and banning.  The very definition is in significant public actions done, revealed, and consequences paid.  Celebrity is as celebrity does.  Had this person not created public interest and conflict of note, the page would not exist.  Even the anonymity is in question.  The article indicated that the person admitted to authorship of that user's postings.  I would provide more but I cannot access the subpage at this time.

 * If I provide conflict or notable contribution and am both "outted" and banned then do the following: 1)take action against the one who "outted" me for the misdeed 2)build me a page and provide a neutral accounting of all facts to the same level as any celebrity listed in this encyclopedia. If you take both actions I will feel protected and justifiably served. Texture 01:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Angela

If the matter of Mav's outing of Hubley is adequately addressed, and the appropriate policy discussions occur, then once everything is all settled, and the ongoing discussion placed in some accessible location, then I'll request the deletion of the subpage myself.

My current thinking is that if the subpage is deleted against my wishes, I will rehost it off the wiki and place a link to it from my user page. I have a web server that is crawled pretty regularly by google where I can put it where it will remain regardless of what anyone here decides. That is my current thinking, and I'll freely admit that I have arrived at that point out of anger. I may change my mind. Unfortunately, your listing on VfD has polarized my thinking and I am at present just as upset about what I see as censorship of my ideas as I am about Mav's initial actions that started this whole thing.

Louis Kyu Won Ryu 16:12, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Hello, the decision you took over the sub page is a good one imho :-). I am not sure if that will make much of a difference, but small steps by small steps is good :-) Anthère


text:
Sunset High School

Sunset High School is the name of several high schools in the United States:

 * Sunset High School (Crescent City, California)
 * Sunset High School (Encinitas, California)
 * Sunset High School (Hayward, California)
 * Sunset High School (Sunset, Louisiana), listed on the National Register of Historic Places
 * Sunset High School (Las Vegas, Nevada)
 * Sunset High School (Beaverton, Oregon)
 * Sunset High School (Dallas, Texas)
 * Sunset High School (El Paso, Texas), former high school in the El Paso Independent School District
 * Sunset High School (San Antonio, Texas)

title: Sunset High School


text:
Talk:Poul Nyrup Rasmussen

Untitled
The lost vote on the euro was not seen so much as a blow to his credibility, as the changes made to the early-retirement scheme. During the election a handout was distributed to a large proportion of voters, issuing a guarantee with his signature, that the retirement scheme would be left untouched.

--None the less, it was my impression that the lost Euro campaign was seen as a blow to his authority, certainly within his own party. The early-retirement affair may have been far more serious, but that doesn't mean the Euro affair was irrelevant. So, if you want to put in information about the early retirement, I encourage you to do so, the article is fairly incomplete right now. Peregrine981 17:42, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The infobox on the right says he's cand.polit. This hardly belongs on english wikipedia, as cand. titles doesn't mean anything outside Denmark (or perhaps Scandinavia). I suggest it's removed.--Nwinther (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Poul Nyrup Rasmussen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091123194831/http://www.pes.org/downloads/PES-Manifest_EN.pdf to http://www.pes.org/downloads/PES-Manifest_EN.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515092540/http://www.pes.org/en/about-pes/how-does-pes-work/-president to http://www.pes.org/en/about-pes/how-does-pes-work/-president

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Poul Nyrup Rasmussen


text:
William J. Hardee

William Joseph Hardee (October 12, 1815 – November 6, 1873) was a career U.S. Army and Confederate States Army officer. For the U.S. Army, he served in the Second Seminole War and in the Mexican–American War, where he was captured and exchanged. In the American Civil War, he sided with the South and became a general. Hardee served in the Western Theater and quarreled sharply with two of his commanding officers, Braxton Bragg and John Bell Hood. He served in the Atlanta Campaign of 1864 and the Carolinas Campaign of 1865, where he surrendered with General Joseph E. Johnston to William Tecumseh Sherman in April. Hardee's writings about military tactics were widely used on both sides in the conflict.

Early life and career
Hardee was born to Sarah Ellis and Major John Hais Hardee Jr. at the Rural Felicity Plantation in Camden County, Georgia. One of his brothers was noted Savannah merchant Noble Hardee. He graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1838 (26th in a class of 45) and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the 2nd U.S. Dragoons. During the Seminole Wars (1835–42), he was stricken with illness, and while hospitalized he met and married Elizabeth Dummett. After he recovered, the Army sent him to France to study military tactics in 1840. He was promoted to first lieutenant in 1839 and to captain in 1844.

In the Mexican–American War, Hardee served in the Army of Occupation under Zachary Taylor and won two brevet promotions (to brevet major for Medelin and Vera Cruz, and to lieutenant colonel for St. Augustin). He served with the 2nd U.S. Dragoons, and was second in command to Seth Thornton, when they were ambushed and surrounded by Mexican troops and subsequently captured on April 25, 1846, at Carricitos Ranch, Texas, during the "Thornton Affair". He was exchanged on May 11. Now serving under Winfield Scott, Hardee was wounded in a skirmish at La Rosia, Mexico (about 30 mi above Matamoros) in 1847. After the war, he led units of Texas Rangers and soldiers in Texas.

After his wife died in 1853, he returned to West Point as a tactics instructor and served as commandant of cadets from 1856 to 1860. He served as the senior major in the 2nd U.S. Cavalry (later renumbered as the 5th U.S. Cavalry) when that regiment was formed in 1855 and then as the lieutenant colonel of the 1st U.S. Cavalry in 1860. In 1855 at the behest of Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, Hardee published Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics for the Exercise and Manoeuvres of Troops When Acting as Light Infantry or Riflemen, popularly known as Hardee's Tactics, which became the best-known drill manual of the Civil War. He is also said to have designed the so-called Hardee hat about this time.

Civil War
Hardee resigned his U.S. Army commission on January 31, 1861, after his home state of Georgia seceded from the Union. He joined the Confederate States Army as a colonel on March 7 and was given command of Forts Morgan and Gaines in Alabama. He was subsequently promoted to brigadier general (June 17) and major general (October 7). By October 10, 1862, he was one of the first Confederate lieutenant generals.

His initial assignment as a general was to organize a brigade of Arkansas regiments and he impressed his men and fellow officers by solving difficult supply problems and for the thorough training he gave his brigade. He received his nickname, "Old Reliable", while with this command. Hardee operated in Arkansas until he was called to join General Albert Sidney Johnston's Army of Central Kentucky as a corps commander. Johnston would withdraw from Kentucky and Tennessee, into Mississippi, before launching a surprise attack at the Battle of Shiloh in the spring of 1862. Hardee was wounded in the arm on April 6, 1862, during the first day of the battle.

Johnston was killed at Shiloh and Hardee's corps joined General Braxton Bragg's Army of Tennessee prior to the Siege of Corinth, Mississippi, until Department Commander P.G.T. Beauregard evacuated the town and withdrew to Tupelo. Beauregard was replaced by Bragg, who subsequently moved his army to Chattanooga before embarking on his Confederate Heartland Offensive into Kentucky. That campaign concluded with the Battle of Perryville in October 1862, where Hardee commanded the Left Wing of Bragg's army.

In arguably his most successful battle, at the Battle of Stones River that December, his Second Corps launched a massive surprise assault upon the right flank of Maj. Gen. William Rosecrans's army, driving it almost to defeat, but again, as had happened at Perryville, Bragg failed to follow up his tactical success, opting instead to withdraw before the arrival of Union reinforcements.

After the Tullahoma Campaign, Hardee lost patience with the irascible Bragg and briefly commanded the Department of Mississippi and East Louisiana under General Joseph E. Johnston. During this period, he met Mary Foreman Lewis, an Alabama plantation owner, whom he would later marry in January 1864.

Hardee returned to Bragg's army after the Battle of Chickamauga, taking over the corps of Leonidas Polk at Chattanooga, Tennessee, besieging the Union Army there. During the Chattanooga Campaign in November 1863, Hardee's Corps of the Army of Tennessee was defeated when Union troops under Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas assaulted their seemingly impregnable defensive lines at the Battle of Missionary Ridge. Hardee renewed his opposition to serving under Bragg and joined a group of officers who finally convinced Confederate President Jefferson Davis to relieve Bragg. Hardee was given temporary command of the Army of Tennessee before Joseph E. Johnston took over command at Dalton, Georgia. In February 1864, Johnston was ordered by the President to dispatch Hardee to Alabama, to reinforce General Polk against General Sherman's Meridian Campaign.

Following Sherman's withdrawal to Vicksburg, Hardee was once again sent back to Georgia, where he joined Johnston's army for the Atlanta Campaign. As Johnston fought a war of maneuver and retreat against Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman, the Confederacy eventually lost patience with him and replaced him with the much more aggressive Lt. Gen. John Bell Hood. Hardee could not abide Hood's reckless assaults and heavy casualties. After the Battle of Jonesboro that August and September, he requested a transfer and was sent to command the Department of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. He opposed Sherman's March to the Sea as best he could with inadequate forces, eventually evacuating Savannah, Georgia on December 20.

As Sherman turned north in the Carolinas Campaign, Hardee took part in the Battle of Bentonville, North Carolina, in March 1865, where his only son, 16-year-old Willie, was mortally wounded in a cavalry charge. Johnston's plan for Bentonville was for Hardee to engage one of Sherman's wings at Averasborough so that Johnston could deal with one wing piecemeal. The plan was unsuccessful. He surrendered along with Johnston to Sherman on April 26 at Durham Station.

Postbellum life
After the war, Hardee settled at his wife's Alabama plantation. After returning it to working condition, the family moved to Selma, Alabama, where Hardee worked in the warehousing and insurance businesses. He eventually became president of the Selma and Meridian Railroad. Hardee was the co-author of The Irish in America, published in 1868. He fell ill at his family's summer retreat at White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, and died in Wytheville, Virginia on November 6, 1873. He is buried in Live Oak Cemetery, Selma, Alabama.

title: William J. Hardee


text:
Talk:Ursus

 * Ursus is the best-selling beer in Romania, due to its flavour and reasonable price.

POV, Will Robinson! POV! POV!

Still, I don't know enough about beer (let alone beer outside of the U.S.) to do anything but reduce this to "Ursus is a beer made in Romania". -- Khym Chanur 02:49, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

Order
The film character, while significant, is not more important than a Saint or a genus of bears, or, probably, even the beer. Please stop moving it to the top of the page.--SB | T 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ursus


text:
Talk:Order of precedence in England and Wales

Harry, former Prince and Duke of Sussex
The Duke of Sussex is no longer a member of the Royal Family per se; he is a relative of royals but he is not technically a "royal;" he has left that life. He should not be listed in an order of precedence. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Duke of Sussex is one of the sovereign's grandsons, as is Peter Phillips. Neither are working royals but then neither are retired royals. They should all still appear in the order of precedence. Geofpick (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sisters of a sovereign when not accompanied by her husband
I notice that a (currently vacent) spot exists for sisters and sisters-in-law of a sovereign when accompanying their husbands. However, there is no spot for these women on the list of female members of the royal family when not accompanying their husbands. It's not an urgent gap that needs filling as Princess Margaret has passed and this won't come into question until Charles becomes king and Anne and Sophie fit this description, but worth looking at in advance. Do they go in the same spot, after the sovereign's granddaughters? Based on the reasoning, sisters would go above any in-law daughters or granddaughters because they are born royal, while sister-in-law would probably go after the daughters-in-law (and maybe granddaughters-in-law?) Can anyone shed some light on this? Piratesswoop (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I see that Debretts (https://debretts.com/royal-family/tables-of-precedence/#TABLE_OF_PRECEDENCE_AMONGST_LADIES_IN_ENGLAND_WALES) puts sisters of the sovereign ahead of daughters and granddaughters, whereas the list on this page now puts sisters of the sovereign behind daughters and granddaughters. Note that the Debretts list is assuming the ladies are NOT accompanied by their husbands -- Sophie would presumably come ahead of Anne if accompanied by Edward -- but the relative placement of the sovereign's *siblings* and the sovereign's *descendants* seems to be a discrepancy. Does anyone know why this is, and which we should follow? mooncow 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Nephews and Nieces of the King
Will these be place on the order of precedence:
 * 1) First Marriage
 * 2) Lady Sarah McCorquodale
 * 3) Emily McCorquodale (born 2 July 1983)
 * 4) George McCorquodale (born 17 November 1984)
 * 5) Celia McCorquodale (born 1989)
 * 6) Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes
 * 7) The Honourable Laura Fellowes (born 19 July 1980)
 * 8) The Honourable Alexander Fellowes (born 23 March 1983)
 * 9) The Honourable Eleanor Fellowes (born 20 August 1985)
 * 10) Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer
 * 11) Lady Kitty Spencer (born 28 December 1990)
 * 12) Lady Eliza Victoria Spencer (born 10 July 1992)
 * 13) Lady Katya Amelia Spencer (born 10 July 1992)
 * 14) Louis Spencer, Viscount Althorp (born 14 March 1994)
 * 15) The Honourable Edmund Spencer (born 6 October 2003)
 * 16) Lady Lara Spencer (born 16 March 2006)
 * 17) Lady Charlotte Spencer (born 30 July 2012)
 * 18) Second Marriage
 * 19) Annabel Elliot
 * 20) Ben Elliot (born 11 August 1975)
 * 21) Alice Elliot (born 1977)
 * 22) Catherine Elliot (born 1981)
 * 23) Mark Shand
 * 24) Ayesha Shand (born 1995)

Just an idea. 86.191.234.132 (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Only the "blood" nephews and nieces have official precedence as members of the Royal Family. The people you mentioned above are accorded precedence based on their relations to peers only. The new female order of precedence in the main article is wrong though as Princesses  Beatrice and Eugenie,  Lady Louise and Zara Phillips were not given precedence as nieces of the King, but rather as granddaughters of a former Sovereign.177.76.165.28 (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wives of royal grandsons of former Sovereigns who are not Dukes
A revision on 17 July 2022 appears to have removed the Countess of Snowdon. Should she appear in the above category between the Duchess of Kent and Princess Michael of Kent, in the same way that her husband appears between the Duke of Kent and Prince Michael of Kent? The separation between herself and her husband presumably does not affect her precedence. She was removed from the template on 9th August 2020, so if she is restored to the Order of Precedence she should presumably also be restored to the template. Her own article has a succession box giving her precedence between Zara Tindall and Lady Sarah Chatto. Thoughts? Alekksandr (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Both George, Earl of Harewood and his wife Patricia, Countess of Harewood, grandson of a former sovereign who was not a duke and his wife, were denied place in the list here on this article while they were alive. I remember this because I argued for their inclusion. So, why is the Earl of Snowdon here included? Kowalmistrz (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Secretaries of State
Jeremy Hunt is not at present a Secretary of State, therefore his highest is rank Privy Counsellor, unlike Oliver Dowden who is a Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office @DrKay Shacharrz (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


text:
Karl Drais

Karl Freiherr von Drais (full name: Karl Friedrich Christian Ludwig Freiherr Drais von Sauerbronn; 29 April 1785 – 10 December 1851) was a noble German forest official and significant inventor in the Biedermeier period. He was born and died in Karlsruhe. He is seen as "the father of the bicycle".

Bicycle
Drais was a prolific inventor, who invented the Laufmaschine ("running machine"), also later called the velocipede, draisine (English) or draisienne (French), also nicknamed the hobby horse or dandy horse. This was his most popular and widely recognized invention. It incorporated the two-wheeler principle that is basic to the bicycle and motorcycle and was the beginning of mechanized personal transport. This was the earliest form of a bicycle, without pedals.

His first reported ride from Mannheim to the "Schwetzinger Relaishaus" (a coaching inn, located in "Rheinau", today a district of Mannheim) took place on 12 June 1817 using Baden's best road. Karl rode his bike; it was a distance of about 7 km. The round trip took him a little more than an hour but may be seen as the big bang for horseless transport. However, after marketing the velocipede, it became apparent that roads were so rutted by carriages that it was hard to balance on the machine for long, so velocipede riders took to the pavements (sidewalks) and moved far too quickly, endangering pedestrians. Consequently, authorities in Germany, Great Britain, the United States, and even Calcutta banned its use, which ended its vogue for decades.

Other inventions
Drais also invented the earliest typewriter with a keyboard (1821). He later developed an early stenograph machine which used 16 characters (1827), a device to record piano music on paper (1812), the first meat grinder (1840s), and a wood-saving cooker including the earliest hay chest. He also invented two four-wheeled human powered vehicles (1813/1814), the second of which he presented in Vienna to the congress carving up Europe after Napoleon's defeat. In 1842, he developed a foot-driven human powered railway vehicle whose name "draisine" is used even today for railway handcars.

Time as civil servant
Drais was unable to market his inventions for profit because he was still a civil servant of Baden, even though he was being paid without providing active service. As a result, on 12 January 1818, Drais was awarded a grand-ducal privilege (Großherzogliches Privileg) to protect his inventions for 10 years in Baden by the younger Grand Duke Karl. Grand Duke Karl also appointed Drais professor of mechanics. This was merely an honorary title, not related to any university or other institution. Drais retired from the civil service and was awarded a pension for his appointment to professor of mechanical science.

Upheaval
In 1820, trouble overtook Drais when the political murder of the author August von Kotzebue was followed by the beheading of the perpetrator, Karl Ludwig Sand. In 1822, Drais was a fervent liberal who supported revolution in Baden. Drais's conservative father, as the highest Judge of Baden, had not entered a plea for pardon in the beheading of Karl Ludwig Sand, and the younger Drais was mobbed by the student partisans everywhere in Germany due to his family ties. Therefore, Drais emigrated to Brazil where he lived from 1822 to 1827, and worked as a land surveyor on the fazenda of Georg Heinrich von Langsdorff. In 1827, he returned to Mannheim. Three years later in 1830, Drais's father died and the younger Drais was mobbed by jealous rivals.

In 1839, after surviving a murderous attack in 1838, he moved to the village of Waldkatzenbach in the hills of Odenwald and remained there until 1845. During this period, he invented the railway handcar (later known as the draisine). Finally, he moved back to his place of birth, Karlsruhe. In 1849, and still a fervent radical, Drais gave up his title of Baron and dropped the "von" from his name. Subsequently, after the revolution collapsed, he was in a very bad position. The royalists tried to have him certified as mad and locked up. His pension was confiscated to help to pay for the "costs of revolution" after it was suppressed by the Prussians.

Death
Drais's undoing had been the fact that he had publicly renounced his noble title in 1848, and adopted the name "Citizen Karl Drais" as a tribute to the French Revolution.

Karl Drais died penniless on 10 December 1851 in Karlsruhe. The house in which he lived last is just two blocks away from where at that time a young Carl Benz was raised.

In 1985, West Germany issued a commemorative postage stamp, a semipostal 50 Pf+25 Pf surcharge, in remembrance of the 200th anniversary of Karl Drais's birthday.

In 2017, Germany issued a commemorative postage stamp (0,70 Euro) in remembrance of the 200th anniversary of Karl Drais's first run of his "running machine" on 12 June 1817. The stamp shows the machine plus as its shadow, a bicycle.

Tributes
On 29 April 2010, Google celebrated 225th Birthday of Karl Drais with a doodle.

title: Karl Drais


text:
Cato's Letters

Cato's Letters were essays by British writers John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, first published from 1720 to 1723 under the pseudonym of Cato (95–46 BC), the implacable foe of Julius Caesar and a famously stalwart champion of Roman traditionalism (mos maiorum).

Purpose
The Letters are considered a seminal work in the tradition of the Commonwealth men.

They condemned corruption and lack of morality within the British political system and warned against tyrannical rule and abuse of power. For instance "all History affords but few Instances of Men trusted with great Power without abusing it, when with Security they could.”

Publication
The 144 essays were published originally in the London Journal, later in the British Journal. The Letters were collected and printed as Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious. A measure of their influence is attested by six editions printed by 1755.

Influence
A generation later their arguments immensely influenced the ideals of the American Revolution. According to Peter Karsten's Patriot-Heroes in England and America, Cato's Letters were the most common holdings on the bookcases of the founding fathers.

These letters also provided inspiration and ideals for the American Revolutionary generation. The essays were distributed widely across the Thirteen Colonies, and frequently quoted in newspapers from Boston to Savannah, Georgia. Renowned historian Clinton Rossiter stated "no one can spend any time on the newspapers, library inventories, and pamphlets of colonial America without realizing that Cato's Letters rather than John Locke's Civil Government was the most popular, quotable, esteemed source for political ideas in the colonial period."

The Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank founded by Edward H. Crane in 1977, takes its name from Cato's Letters.

Other pseudonymous "Cato letters"
Unrelated to the Trenchard and Gordon letters, two different letter-writers in eighteenth-century America also used Cato as a pseudonym in writing political letters for publication.

One "Cato" wrote a series of essays arguing against American independence in the Pennsylvania Gazette, which were published in April 1776. According to Thomas Paine biographer Moncure D. Conway, this "Cato" was Reverend Dr. William Smith, an influential Anglican minister in Philadelphia. His views were opposed in letters signed by "The Forester," apparently Paine.

Cato was later used as a pseudonym in a series of letters to the New York Journal in 1787 and 1788 opposing James Madison's views and urging against ratification of the United States Constitution (the view known as Anti-Federalism). Many historians attribute these letters to George Clinton, though their authorship has not been definitively proven. Alexander Hamilton published responses to these letters under the pseudonym "Caesar."

title: Cato's Letters


text:
User:Pradeepbansal

= Pradeep Bansal =

Web Site: Pradeep Bansal

title: User:Pradeepbansal


text:
Love and Rockets (band)

Love and Rockets are an English rock band formed in 1985 by former Bauhaus members Daniel Ash (vocals, guitar and saxophone), David J (bass guitar and vocals) and Kevin Haskins (drums and synthesisers) after that group split in 1983. Ash and Haskins had recorded and performed in another band, Tones on Tail, between 1982 and 1984.

Love and Rockets' fusion of underground rock music with elements of pop music provided an early catalyst for alternative rock. Their 1989 single "So Alive" reached No. 3 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. They released seven studio albums before breaking up in 1999 and reformed briefly in 2007 for a few live shows, before splitting again in 2009. They reformed in 2023, and announced several tour dates.

History
The band's name was taken from the comic book series Love and Rockets by the Hernandez brothers. Gilbert Hernandez later referred to the confusion caused by this in his book Love and Rockets X, as there were several different bands named "Love and Rockets" for a period.

Despite their previous band's status as a gothic rock act, Love and Rockets moved towards a slightly brighter and more pop-influenced sound, as demonstrated by their first minor hit being a cover of the Motown classic "Ball of Confusion" (reached #18 on the Canadian charts in January 1986). Their first studio album was 1985's Seventh Dream of Teenage Heaven (1985). Their second album, 1986's Express, continued in the same vein, adding even more of a pop feel to the mix. It included the dance hit "Yin and Yang (The Flowerpot Man)". The 1987 follow-up, Earth, Sun, Moon, had a more acoustic sound and spawned the minor hit "No New Tale to Tell". The following year, they released the single "The Bubblemen Are Coming" under the alias the Bubblemen.

In 1989 the band released their self-titled album, which presented a more AOR sound. The second single from the album was the T. Rex-inspired song "So Alive", which became a hit, reaching No. 3 on the Billboard Hot 100, a feat no Bauhaus-related band or artist has achieved before or since.

After a gruelling tour schedule in support of their big hit, Love and Rockets took a few years off before returning to the studio together. The result was a move to an electronic sound that had more in common with the Orb than their rock or goth roots. Their label, RCA Records, dropped them. They signed with Rick Rubin's American Recordings to release Hot Trip to Heaven in 1994, followed in 1996 by Sweet F.A.. In April 1995, during the recording of Sweet F.A., a fire broke out in the house owned by American Recordings, where the band were living and recording. None of the members were injured, but their visiting friend Genesis P. Orridge of Psychic TV was injured whilst escaping the fire. The band lost their gear (a photo of a burnt guitar was used for the album cover of Sweet F.A.) and months of work on the album. There was a lengthy legal battle between the band, their label, and the label's insurance company. Love and Rockets were found not responsible for the fire, but were left with a large legal bill. Lift came out in 1998 on Red Ant Records, and, after performing in Toronto in April, 1999, Love and Rockets disbanded.

Love and Rockets announced in October 2007 on their MySpace page that they would reform to play one song at "Cast a Long Shadow", a tribute to Joe Strummer and benefit for Strummerville, the Joe Strummer Foundation for New Music, on 22 December 2007 at the Key Club in West Hollywood, California. They covered the Clash's "Should I Stay or Should I Go", playing the song twice, the second time inviting members of the audience to join them onstage to sing along. They performed on 27 April 2008 at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, and also at Lollapalooza on 3 August 2008 in Chicago.

In an interview in June 2009, Ash emphatically stated that he had no further plans to play with Love and Rockets. "We've worked together since 1980. I really want to work with new people, I'm sure everybody feels the same."

A tribute album titled New Tales to Tell: A Tribute to Love and Rockets was released on 18 August 2009 featuring contributions from the Flaming Lips, Frank Black, Puscifer, A Place to Bury Strangers, Film School, Better Than Ezra, Johnny Dowd, the Dandy Warhols, Blaqk Audio, the Stone Foxes and Monster Magnet.

On 23 January 2023, Love and Rockets announced a reunion for an appearance at the Cruel World Festival in Pasadena, California on 20 May 2023, the band's first concert in 15 years. They later announced a 2023 U.S. tour in support of their appearance at Cruel World. A Bauhaus reunion was aborted in 2022 after Peter Murphy forced the band to cancel the tour as he entered rehab. Ash said that the 2023 tour would be the band's final.

In May 2024, it was announced Love and Rockets would be touring with Jane's Addiction.

Discography
Studio albums

 * Seventh Dream of Teenage Heaven (1985)
 * Express (1986)
 * Earth, Sun, Moon (1987)
 * Love and Rockets (1989)
 * Hot Trip to Heaven (1994)
 * Sweet F.A. (1996)
 * Lift (1998)

title: Love and Rockets (band)


text:
Lombardi Award

The Rotary Lombardi Award is an award for college football in the United States. Awarded by the Rotary Club of Houston, Texas annually to the college football player "who best embodies the values and spirit of NFL's legendary coach Vince Lombardi" the Rotary Lombardi Award program was created in 1970 shortly after the death of Lombardi. The committee outlined the original criteria for eligibility for the award, which remained in place until this day:

History
Following the death of highly regarded football coach Vince Lombardi in 1970 his widow, Marie, authorised the Rotary Club of Houston to establish the Rotary Lombardi Award. The award began as recognition to only interior line positions that Vince Lombardi played while an undergraduate at Fordham University, offensive and defensive guard, and later expanded to include linebackers and tight ends, with the addition of including non-performance values: leadership, courage, desire, respect for authority, and discipline.

To be considered for the award, players must be a NCAA FBS College Football team member and meet the following qualifications:

 * Be a down Lineman, end to end, either on offense or defense, setting up no further than ten (10) yards to the left or right of the ball at the time of the snap.
 * Be a Linebacker on defense, setting up no further than five (5) yards deep from the line of scrimmage.
 * Must not come out of the offensive backfield and set up on the line of scrimmage as a Blocker or a Receiver or listed in the program as an Offensive Back or Receiver.
 * Be eligible to participate in the current season.

The voting electorate is made up of the head coaches from all NCAA Division I schools, sports media personnel from across the country, and former winners and finalists of the Lombardi Award. The total number of voters is approximately 500. The Ohio State University holds the record for most Lombardi awards with six. Orlando Pace, the only two-time winner (1995 and 1996), is the most recent offensive lineman to be honored.

Net proceeds from the award activities are contributed to cancer research, awareness, and treatment, on the stipulation of Marie Lombardi.

Expansion of candidates, then retraction
In 2017, the presenting Rotary Club expanded the award's eligibility to include all positions. This lasted until 2021, when they reverted to the original criteria. The winners from 2017 through 2020 are not recognized by the current award committee, although 2020 winner Zaven Collins qualified under the original criteria.

Trophy
The main part of the trophy is a block of granite, paying homage to Lombardi's college days at Fordham University as an offensive lineman when his offensive line was referred to as the "Seven Blocks of Granite".

title: Lombardi Award