text:
Padma Vibhushan

The Padma Vibhushan ("Lotus Decoration") is the second-highest civilian award of the Republic of India, after the Bharat Ratna. Instituted on 2 January 1954, the award is given for "exceptional and distinguished service". All persons without distinction of race, occupation, position or sex are eligible for these awards. However, government servants including those working with public sector undertakings, except doctors and scientists, are not eligible for these Awards. , the award has been bestowed on 336 individuals, including thirty-one posthumous and twenty-one non-citizen recipients.

During 1 May and 15 September of every year, the recommendations for the award are submitted to the Padma Awards Committee, constituted by the Prime Minister of India. The recommendations are received from all the state and the union territory governments, the Ministries of the Government of India, the Bharat Ratna and previous Padma Vibhushan award recipients, the Institutes of Excellence, the Ministers, the Chief Ministers and the Governors of State, and the Members of Parliament including private individuals. The committee later submits their recommendations to the Prime Minister and the President of India for the further approval. The award recipients are announced on Republic Day.

The first recipients of the award were Satyendra Nath Bose, Nand Lal Bose, Zakir Husain, Balasaheb Gangadhar Kher, Jigme Dorji Wangchuck, and V. K. Krishna Menon, who were honoured in 1954. The 1954 statutes did not allow posthumous awards but this was subsequently modified in the January 1955 statute. The "Padma Vibhushan", along with other personal civil honours, was briefly suspended twice, from July 1977 to January 1980 and from August 1992 to December 1995. Some of the recipients have refused or returned their conferments. P. N. Haksar, Vilayat Khan, E. M. S. Namboodiripad, Swami Ranganathananda, and Manikonda Chalapathi Rau refused the award, the family members of Lakshmi Chand Jain (2011) and Sharad Anantrao Joshi (2016) declined their posthumous conferments, and Baba Amte returned his 1986 conferment in 1991.

Most recently on 26 January 2024, the award has been bestowed upon five recipients; Vyjayanthimala, Chiranjeevi, Venkaiah Naidu, Bindeshwar Pathak (posthumous) and Padma Subrahmanyam.

He passes away on 18th July 2024(Thursday)

History
On 2 January 1954, a press release was published from the office of the secretary to the President of India announcing the creation of two civilian awards—Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian award, and the three-tier Padma Vibhushan, classified into "Pahela Varg" (Class I), "Dusra Varg" (Class II), and "Tisra Varg" (Class III), which rank below the Bharat Ratna. On 15 January 1955, the Padma Vibhushan was reclassified into three different awards: the Padma Vibhushan, the highest of the three, followed by the Padma Bhushan and the Padma Shri.

The award, along with other personal civilian honours, was briefly suspended twice in its history; for the first time in July 1977 when Morarji Desai was sworn in as the fourth Prime Minister of India, for being "worthless and politicized". The suspension was rescinded on 25 January 1980 after Indira Gandhi returned as Prime Minister.

The civilian awards were suspended again in mid-1992, when two Public-Interest Litigations were filed in the High Courts of India, one in the Kerala High Court on 13 February 1992 by Balaji Raghavan and another in the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) on 24 August 1992 by Satya Pal Anand. Both petitioners questioned the civilian awards being "titles" per an interpretation of Article 18 (1) of the Constitution of India.

On 25 August 1992, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a notice temporarily suspending all civilian awards. A Special Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India was formed comprising five judges: A. M. Ahmadi C. J., Kuldip Singh, B. P. Jeevan Reddy, N. P. Singh, and S. Saghir Ahmad. On 15 December 1995, the Special Division Bench restored the awards and delivered a judgment that the "Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are not titles under Article 18 of the Constitution of India".

Regulations
The award is conferred for "exceptional and distinguished service", without distinction of race, occupation, position, or sex. The criteria include "service in any field including service rendered by Government servants", but excludes those working with the public sector undertakings, with the exception of doctors and scientists. The 1954 statutes did not allow posthumous awards, but this was subsequently modified in the January 1955 statute; Aditya Nath Jha, Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq, and Vikram Sarabhai became the first recipients to be honoured posthumously in 1972.

The recommendations are received from all state and union territory governments, the Ministries of the Government of India, the Bharat Ratna and previous Padma Vibhushan award recipients, the Institutes of Excellence, the Ministers, the Chief Ministers, the Governors of State, and the Members of Parliament, including private individuals. The recommendations received during 1 May and 15 September of every year are submitted to the Padma Awards Committee, convened by the Prime Minister of India. The Awards Committee later submits its recommendations to the Prime Minister and the President of India for further approval.

The Padma Vibhushan award recipients are announced every year on Republic Day of India and registered in The Gazette of India—a publication released weekly by the Department of Publication, Ministry of Urban Development used for official government notices. The conferral of the award is not considered official without its publication in the Gazette. Recipients whose awards have been revoked or restored, both of which actions require the authority of the President, are also registered in the Gazette and are required to surrender their medals when their names are struck from the register.

Specifications
The original 1954 specifications of the award called for a circle made of gold gilt 1+3/8 inch in diameter, with rims on both sides. A centrally located lotus flower was embossed on the obverse side of the medal and the text "Padma Vibhushan" written in Devanagari script was inscribed above the lotus along the upper edge of the medal. A floral wreath was embossed along the lower edge and a lotus wreath at the top along the upper edge. The Emblem of India was placed in the centre of the reverse side with the text "Desh Seva" in Devanagari Script on the lower edge. The medal was suspended by a pink riband 1+1/4 inch in width divided into two equal segments by a white vertical line.

A year later, the design was modified. The current decoration is a circular-shaped bronze toned medallion 1+3/4 inch in diameter and 1/8 inch thick. The centrally placed pattern made of outer lines of a square of 1+3/16 inch side is embossed with a knob carved within each of the outer angles of the pattern. A raised circular space of 1+1/16 inch in diameter is placed at the centre of the decoration. A centrally located lotus flower is embossed on the obverse side of the medal and the text "Padma" written in Devanagari script is placed above and the text "Vibhushan" is placed below the lotus.

The Emblem of India is placed in the centre of the reverse side with the national motto of India, "Satyameva Jayate" (Truth alone triumphs), in Devanagari Script, inscribed on the lower edge. The rim, the edges. and all embossing on either side is of white gold with the text "Padma Vibhushan" of silver gilt. The medal is suspended by a pink riband 1+1/4 inch in width.

The medal is ranked fourth in the order of precedence of wearing of medals and decorations. The medals are produced at Alipore Mint, Kolkata along with the other civilian and military awards like Bharat Ratna, Padma Bhushan, Padma Shri, and Param Veer Chakra.

Recipients
The first recipients of the Padma Vibhushan were Satyendra Nath Bose, Nandalal Bose, Zakir Husain, Balasaheb Gangadhar Kher, V. K. Krishna Menon, and Jigme Dorji Wangchuck, who were honoured in 1954. , the award has been bestowed on 314 individuals, including seventeen posthumous and twenty-one non-citizen recipients.

Some of the conferments have been refused or returned by the recipients; P. N. Haksar, Vilayat Khan, E. M. S. Namboodiripad, Swami Ranganathananda, and Manikonda Chalapathi Rau refused the award. The family members of Lakshmi Chand Jain (2011) and Sharad Anantrao Joshi (2016) declined their posthumous conferments. Baba Amte returned his 1986 conferment in 1991.

Droupadi Murmu, President of India, announced the recipients of the prestigious Padma Awards on 24 April 2024. The awards, including Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Shri, honor individuals for exceptional contributions in various fields. The announcement highlights the nation's recognition of outstanding achievements and service to society.

title: Padma Vibhushan


text:
User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Outing

a few questions about the fairness of outing someone:
 * 1) has the person in question been contacted?
 * 2) where is the a trail of evidence?
 * 3) how has the evidence been handled?
 * 4) who has the power?
 * 5) does one outing deserve another?

-- 142.154.114.134 07:01, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * 1) do you mean the person who was outed or the person who did the outing? Either way, both parties are aware of the existence of this page.
 * 2) evidence of what? The only evidence that outing occured is on the mailing list, as the article stated.
 * 3) to do what?
 * 4) no. That's like asking "do two wrongs make a right".
 * 1) no. That's like asking "do two wrongs make a right".

-- Angela. 07:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Accidental outing is sloppy. Deliberate outing, generally, is a betrayal of trust, at least where the perp has obtained identity information as a result of an extension of trust. Outing someone based on, for example, the contents of server logs, is a betrayal of trust on the part of the server operator except perhaps if the release of information is consistent with a site's privacy policy (Fair outing). I would think that fair outing, if done at all, should be done in a deliberate, considerate, careful fashion; probably with prior notice; most assuredly not as the result of a whim of the moment.

There are cases where someone might, through investigation, seek to uncover the identity of someone in an effort to out them against their will. Such instances raise fewer ethical questions since they do not involve an extension of trust that was later betrayed. Within some communities, though, the right to anonymity is sufficiently entrenched that any community member responsible for such outing would be sanctioned.

Louis Kyu Won Ryu

 * As there was never a serious challenge to this view, fair outing now points to a outing policy. Debate it there not here. Housework 03:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

title: User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Outing


text:
Cave of Altamira

The Cave of Altamira (Cueva de Altamira ) is a cave complex, located near the historic town of Santillana del Mar in Cantabria, Spain. It is renowned for prehistoric cave art featuring charcoal drawings and polychrome paintings of contemporary local fauna and human hands. The earliest paintings were applied during the Upper Paleolithic, around 36,000 years ago. The site was discovered in 1868 by Modesto Cubillas and subsequently studied by Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola.

Aside from the striking quality of its polychromatic art, Altamira's fame stems from the fact that its paintings were the first European cave paintings for which a prehistoric origin was suggested and promoted. Sautuola published his research with the support of Juan de Vilanova y Piera in 1880, to initial public acclaim.

However, the publication of Sanz de Sautuola's research quickly led to a bitter public controversy among experts, some of whom rejected the prehistoric origin of the paintings on the grounds that prehistoric human beings lacked sufficient ability for abstract thought. The controversy continued until 1902, by which time reports of similar findings of prehistoric paintings in the Franco-Cantabrian region had accumulated and the evidence could no longer be rejected.

Altamira is located in the Franco-Cantabrian region and in 1985 was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO as a key location of the Cave of Altamira and Paleolithic Cave Art of Northern Spain. The cave can no longer be visited, for conservation reasons, but there are replicas of a section at the site and elsewhere.

Description
The cave is approximately 1000 m long and consists of a series of twisting passages and chambers. The main passage varies from two to six meters in height. The cave was formed through collapses following early karst phenomena in the calcareous rock of Mount Vispieres.

Archaeological excavations in the cave floor found rich deposits of artifacts from the Upper Solutrean (c.18,500 years ago) and Lower Magdalenian (between c.16,590 and 14,000 years ago). Both periods belong to the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age. In the two millennia between these two occupations, the cave was evidently inhabited only by wild animals.

Human occupants of the site were well-positioned to take advantage of the rich wildlife that grazed in the valleys of the surrounding mountains as well as the marine life available in nearby coastal areas. Around 13,000 years ago a rockfall sealed the cave's entrance, preserving its contents until its eventual discovery, which occurred after a nearby tree fell and disturbed the fallen rocks.

Human occupation was limited to the cave mouth, although paintings were created throughout the length of the cave. The artists used charcoal and ochre or hematite to create the images, often diluting these pigments to produce variations in intensity and creating an impression of chiaroscuro. They also exploited the natural contours of the cave walls to give their subjects a three-dimensional effect. The Polychrome Ceiling is the most impressive feature of the cave, depicting a herd of extinct steppe bison (Bison priscus ) in different poses, two horses, a large doe, and possibly a wild boar. Dated to the Magdalenian occupation, these paintings include abstract shapes in addition to animal subjects. Solutrean paintings include images of horses and goats, as well as handprints that were created when artists placed their hands on the cave wall and blew pigment over them to leave a negative image. Numerous other caves in northern Spain contain Paleolithic art, but none is as complex or well-populated as Altamira.

Discovery, excavation, scepticism
In 1879, following its discovery a decade earlier, amateur archaeologist Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola was led by his eight-year-old daughter María to the cave and realized that the markings on the walls constituted drawings. The cave was excavated by Sautuola and archaeologist Juan Vilanova y Piera from the University of Madrid, resulting in a much acclaimed publication in 1880 which interpreted the paintings as Paleolithic in origin. The French specialists, led by Gabriel de Mortillet and Émile Cartailhac, were particularly adamant in rejecting the hypothesis of Sautuola and Piera, whose findings were loudly ridiculed at the 1880 Prehistorical Congress in Lisbon.

Due to the high artistic quality, and the exceptional state of conservation of the paintings, Sautuola was accused of forgery, as he was unable to answer why there were no soot (smoke) marks on the walls and ceilings of the cave. A fellow countryman maintained that the paintings had been produced by a contemporary artist, on Sautuola's orders. Later, Sautuola found out the artist could have used marrow fat as oil for the lamp, producing much less soot than any other combustibles.

It was not until 1902, when several other findings of prehistoric paintings had served to render the hypothesis of the extreme antiquity of the Altamira paintings less offensive, that the scientific society retracted their opposition to the Spaniards. That year, Cartailhac emphatically admitted his mistake in the famous article, "Mea culpa d'un sceptique", published in the journal L'Anthropologie. Sautuola, having died 14 years earlier, did not live to witness his rehabilitation.

Cartailhac went on to write a pair of books about the cave, assisted by Henri Breuil's hand-drawn reproductions of the paintings. Breuil was both a Catholic priest and a competent draughtsman, whose connection with the cave is discussed in the first chapter of G. K. Chesterton's book, The Everlasting Man.

Further excavation work on the cave was done by Hermilio Alcalde del Río between 1902 and 1904, the German Hugo Obermaier between 1924 and 1925 and finally by Joaquín González Echegaray in 1968.

Dating and periodization
There is no scientific agreement on the dating of the archeological artifacts found in the cave, nor the drawings and paintings, and scientists continue to evaluate the age of the cave art at Altamira.

In 2008, researchers using uranium-thorium dating found that the paintings were completed over a period of up to 20,000 years rather than during a comparatively brief period.

A later study published in 2012 based on data obtained from further uranium-thorium dating research, dated some paintings in several caves in North Spain, including some of the claviform signs in the "Gran sala" of Altamira. The oldest sign found, a "large red claviform-like symbol of Techo de los Polícromos", was dated to $36.16 ka$ (corrected), i.e. still well within the Aurignacian. A red dotted outline horse, also in the Techo de los Polícromos chamber, was dated to $22.11 ka$ (beginning Solutrean), establishing that the paintings span a period of more than 10,000 years.

Visitors and replicas
During the 1970s and 2000s, the paintings were being damaged by the carbon dioxide and water vapour in the breath of the large number of visitors. Altamira was completely closed to the public in 1977, and reopened to limited access in 1982. Very few visitors were allowed in per day, resulting in a three-year waiting list. After green mould began to appear on some paintings in 2002, the caves were closed to public access.

A replica cave and museum were built nearby and completed in 2001 by Manuel Franquelo and Sven Nebel, reproducing the cave and its art. The replica allows a more comfortable view of the polychrome paintings of the main hall of the cave, as well as a selection of minor works. It also includes some sculptures of human faces that are not visitable in the real cave.

As well as the adjacent National Museum and Research Center of Altamira there are reproductions in the National Archaeological Museum of Spain (Madrid), in the Deutsches Museum in Munich (completed 1964) and in Japan (completed 1993).

During 2010 there were plans to reopen access to the cave towards the end of that year. In December 2010, however, the Spanish Ministry of Culture decided that the cave would remain closed to the public. This decision was based on advice from a group of experts who had found that the conservation conditions inside the cave had become much more stable since the closure.

Cultural impact
Some of the polychrome paintings at Altamira Cave are well known in Spanish popular culture. The logo used by the autonomous government of Cantabria to promote tourism to the region is based on one of the bisons in this cave. Bisonte (Spanish for "bison"), a Spanish cigarette brand of the 20th century, also used a Paleolithic style bison figure along with its logo.

The Spanish comic series Altamiro de la Cueva, created in 1965, is named for the Altamira Cave. The comic series depicts the adventures of a group of prehistoric cavemen, shown as modern people, but dressed in pieces of fur, similarly to the Flintstones.

The song "The Caves of Altamira" appears on the 1976 album The Royal Scam by jazz-rock band Steely Dan, later covered by soul group Perri.

The mid-20th-century modern dinnerware line Primitive, designed by Viktor Schreckengost for the American pottery company Salem China, was based on the bison, deer, and stick figure hunters depicted in the Altamira cave paintings.

The iconic bison image has been used for the cover of the poetry collection Songs for the Devil and Death by Scottish author Hal Duncan.

The protagonist in Satyajit Ray's film Agantuk was inspired by the charging Bison painting to leave his home and study tribal people.

In 2007, the caves were selected as one of the 12 Treasures of Spain, a contest conducted by broadcasters Antena 3 and COPE.

In 2016, British Director Hugh Hudson released the film Altamira (called Finding Altamira outside Spain) about the discovery of the caves, starring Antonio Banderas and with music by Mark Knopfler released on the soundtrack album Altamira.

title: Cave of Altamira


text:
Jacques Hébert

Jacques René Hébert (15 November 1757 – 24 March 1794) was a French journalist and leader of the French Revolution. As the founder and editor of the radical newspaper Le Père Duchesne, he had thousands of followers known as the Hébertists (French Hébertistes). A proponent of the Reign of Terror, he was eventually guillotined.

Early life

Jacques René Hébert was born on 15 November 1757 in Alençon, to goldsmith, former trial judge, and deputy consul Jacques Hébert (died 1766) and Marguerite Beunaiche de Houdrie (1727–1787).

Hébert studied law at the College of Alençon and went into practice as a clerk in a solicitor of Alençon, in which position he was ruined by a lawsuit against a Dr. Clouet. Hébert fled first to Rouen and then to Paris in 1780 to evade a substantial one thousand livre fine imposed for charges of slander. For a while, he passed through a difficult financial time and lived through the support of a hairdresser in Rue des Noyers. There he found work in a theater, La République, where he wrote plays in his spare time, but these were never produced. Hébert was eventually fired for theft and entered the service of a doctor. It is said he lived through expediency and scams.

In 1789, he began his writing with a pamphlet La Lanterne magique ou le Fléau des Aristocrates ("The Magic Lantern, or Scourge of Aristocrats"). He published a few booklets. In 1790, he attracted attention through a pamphlet he published, and became a prominent member of the political club of the Cordeliers in 1791.

Père Duchesne
From 1790 until his death in 1794, Hébert became a voice for the working class of Paris through his highly successful and influential journal, Le Père Duchesne. In his journal, Hébert assumed the voice of a patriotic sans-culotte named Père Duchesne and would write first-person narratives in which Père Duchesne would often relay fictitious conversations that he had with the French monarchs or government officials. Hébert and the Hébertists often expressed the view that many more aristocrats should be examined, denounced, and executed, as they argued that Revolutionary France could only be fully reborn through the elimination of its ancient and supposedly currently malignant nobility. In Le Père Duchesne number 65, where he writes of his reawakening in 1790, he defines aristocrats as "enemies of the constitution" who "conspire against the nation", showing his animus against them. Much of Hébert's celebrity came from his denunciations of King Louis XVI in his newspaper, as opposed to any office he may have held or his roles in any of the Parisian clubs with which he was involved.

These stories encouraged violent behaviors and utilized foul and sexualized language. Père Duchesne's stories were also witty, reflective, and resonated deeply in the poorer Parisian quarters. Street hawkers would yell, "Il est bougrement en colère aujourd’hui le père Duchesne!" ("Father Duchesne is very angry today!").

Although Hébert did not create the image of the Père Duchesne, his use of the character helped to transform the symbolic image of Père Duchesne from that of a comical stove-merchant into a patriotic role model for the sans-culottes. In part, Hébert's use of Père Duchesne as a revolutionary symbol can be seen by his appearance as a bristly old man who was portrayed as smoking a pipe and wearing a Phrygian cap.

Because he reflected both his audience's speech and dressing style, his readers listened to and followed his message. The French linguist and historian Ferdinand Brunot called Hébert, "The Homer of filth", because of his ability to use common language to appeal to general audiences. In addition, Père Duchesne's appearance played into the tensions of the revolution through the sharp contrast of his clothing and portrayal as a laborer against the crown and aristocracy's formal attire. Hébert was not the only writer during the French Revolution to use the image of Père Duchesne nor was he the only author in the period to adopt foul language as a way of appealing to the working class. Another writer at the time, Lemaire (fr), also wrote a newspaper entitled Père Duchêne (although he spelt it differently than Hébert) from September 1790 until May 1792 in which he assumed the voice of a "moderate patriot" who wanted to conserve the relationship between the King and the nation. Lemaire's character also used a slew of profanities and would address France's military. However, Le Père Duchesne became far more popular because it cost less than Jean-Paul Marat’s paper, L' Ami du Peuple. This made it easier to access for people like the sans-culottes. The popularity was also in part, due to the Paris Commune deciding to buy his papers and distribute them to the French military for distribution to soldiers in training. For example, starting in 1792, the Paris Commune and the ministers of war Jean-Nicolas Pache and, later, Jean Baptiste Noël Bouchotte bought several thousand copies of Le Père Duchesne which were distributed free to the public and troops. This happened again in May and June 1793 when the Minister of War bought copies of newspapers in order to "enlighten and animate their patriotism". It is estimated that Hébert received 205,000 livres from this purchase. The assassination of Jean-Paul Marat on July 13, 1793, who had written the bestselling paper L'Ami du peuple, allowed Le Père Duchesne to become the incontestible best-selling paper in Paris, which also played into the number of copies bought during those months.

Hébert's political commentary between 1790 and 1793 focused on the lavish excesses of the monarchy. Initially, from 1790 and into 1792, Le Père Duchesne supported a constitutional monarchy and was even favorable towards King Louis XVI and the opinions of the Marquis de La Fayette. His violent attacks of the period were aimed at Jean-Sifrein Maury, a great defender of papal authority and the main opponent of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Although the character of Père Duchesne supported a constitutional monarchy, he was always highly critical of Marie Antoinette. Knowing that the queen was an easy target for ridicule after the Diamond Necklace Affair, she became a consistent target in the paper as a scapegoat for many of France's political problems. By identifying Marie Antoinette's lavish excesses and alleged sexuality as the core of the monarchy's problems, Hébert's articles suggested that, if Marie Antoinette would change her ways and renounce aristocratic excesses, then the monarchy could be saved and the queen could return to the good will of the people. Despite his view that the monarchy could be restored, Hébert was skeptical of the queen's willingness to do so and often characterized her as an evil enemy of the people by referring to the queen as "Madame Veto" and even addressing King Louis XVI as, "drunken and lazy; a cuckolded pig". Initially, Hébert was trying to not only educate his readers about the queen, but also awaken her to how she was viewed by the French public. This gave Marie-Antoinette a pivotal role in Hébert's political rhetoric; as the Revolution unfolded, she appears in fourteen percent of his newspaper articles between January 1791 and March 1794. Many of the conversations that Père Duchesne carries with her in the newspaper are attempts at either showcasing her supposed nymphomania or attempts to beg her to repent and reverse her wicked ways. With the king's failed flight to Varennes, his tone significantly hardened.

At the time, many writers and journalists were greatly influenced by the proclamation of martial law on 21 October 1789. It invoked various questions and patterns of Revolutionary thinking and inspired various forms of writing such as Le Père Duchesne. The law prompted multiple interpretations all of which led to what became essential Revolutionary ideals.

In his newspaper, Hébert did not use himself as the prime example of the revolution. He used a mythical character called the Père Duchesne to be able to relay his message in a more subtle way. He was already well known by the people of Paris and only wanted his message to be received directly and clearly by his followers, not his enemies. Père Duchesne was a very strong, outspoken character with extremely high emotions. He constantly felt great anger but also would experience great happiness. He was never afraid to fully display exactly how he was feeling. He would constantly use foul language and other harsh words to express himself.

Revolutionary role
Following Louis's failed flight to Varennes in June 1791, Hébert began to attack both Louis and Pope Pius VI. On 17 July, Hébert was at the Champ de Mars to sign a petition to demand the removal of King Louis XVI and was caught up in the subsequent Champ de Mars massacre by troops under the Marquis de Lafayette. This put him in the revolutionary mindset, and Le Père Duchesne adopted a populist style, deliberately opposed to the high-minded seriousness and appeal to reason expressed by other revolutionaries, to better appeal to the Parisian sans-culottes. His journalistic voice expressed separation from and violent opposition to cultured elites in favor of a popular political allegiance to radical patriotic solutions to controlling the economy and winning the war. Le Père Duchesne began to attack prominent political figures like Lafayette, head of the National Guard; the deceased Comte de Mirabeau, a prominent orator and statesman; and Jean Sylvain Bailly, mayor of Paris. In a 1793 speech to the public, Hébert stated his beliefs regarding Lafayette. He noted that there were two Père Duchesnes who opposed each other deeply. The Père Duchesne that he said he identified with was the "honest and loyal Père Duchesne who has pursued traitors", while the Père Duchesne he had nothing to do with "praised Lafayette to the heavens".

As a member of Cordeliers club, he had a seat in the revolutionary Paris Commune, and during the Insurrection of 10 August 1792 he was sent to the Bonne-Nouvelle section of Paris. As a public journalist, he supported the September Massacres the next month. He agreed with most of the ideals of the radical Montagnard faction, even though he was not a member of it. On 22 December 1792, he was appointed the second substitute of the procureur of the commune, and through to August 1793 supported the attacks against the Girondin faction.

In April–May 1793 he, along with Marat and others, violently attacked the Girondins. On 20 May 1793, the moderate majority of the National Convention formed the Special Commission of Twelve, a Girondin commission which was designed to investigate and prosecute conspirators. At the urging of the Twelve, on 24 May 1793, he was arrested. However, Hébert had been warned in time, and, with the support of the sans-culottes, the National Convention was forced to order his release three days later. Just four days after that, his anti-Girondin rhetoric would help lead to their ousting in the Insurrection of 31 May – 2 June. On 28 August 1793, he proposed to the Jacobins to write an address taking up the demands of the enrages, and to have it taken to the Convention by the Jacobins, the 48 sections and the popular societies, a suggestion greatly applauded by Billaud-Varenne and others, ignoring Maximilien Robespierre's warning against a riot "which would fill the aristocrats with joy".

During all this, Hébert met his wife Marie Goupil (born 1756), a 37-year-old former nun who had left convent life at the Sisters of Providence convent at Rue Saint-Honoré. Marie's passport from this time shows regular use. They married on 7 February 1792, and had a daughter, Virginie-Scipion Hébert (7 February 1793 – 13 July 1830). During this time, Hébert had a luxurious, bourgeois life. He entertained Jean-Nicolas Pache, the mayor of Paris and Minister of War, for weeks, as well as other influential men, and liked to dress elegantly and surround himself with beautiful objects such as pretty tapestries—an attitude that can be contrasted to that of Paris Commune president Pierre Gaspard Chaumette. Where he got the financial resources to support his lifestyle is unclear; however, there are Jean-Nicolas Pache's commissions to print thousands of issues of Le Père Duchesne and his relationship to Delaunay d'Angers, mistress and wife of Andres Maria de Guzman. In February 1793, he voted with fellow bourgeois Hébertists against a Maximum Price Act, a price ceiling on grain, on the grounds that it would cause hoarding and stir resentment.

Dechristianization
Dechristianization was a movement that took hold during the French Revolution. Advocates believed that to pursue a secular society, they had to reject the superstitions of the Old Regime and, as an extension, Catholicism altogether. The trend toward secularization had already begun to take hold throughout France during the eighteenth century, but between September 1793 and August 1794, mostly during the Reign of Terror, French politicians began discussing and embracing notions of "radical dechristianization". While Robespierre advocated for the right to religion and believed that aggressively pursuing dechristianization would spur widespread revolts throughout rural France, Hébert and his followers, the Hébertists, wanted to spontaneously and violently overhaul religion. The writer and philosopher Voltaire was an inspiration to Hébert on this front. Like Voltaire, Hébert believed that the toleration of different religious beliefs was necessary for humanity to pass from an age of superstitions, and that traditional religion was an obstacle to this goal. Eventually, Hébert would argue that Jesus was not a demigod, but instead a good sans-culotte. Voltaire had also provided him with the basic tenets of a civic religion that would be able to replace traditional religion, which led to Hébert to being heavily involved in the movement. The program of dechristianization waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included the deportation of clergy and the condemnation of many of them to death, the closing of churches, the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, the large scale destruction of religious monuments, the outlawing of public and private worship and religious education, forced marriages of the clergy, and forced abjurement of their priesthood. On 21 October 1793, a law was passed which made all suspected priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death on sight.

On 10 November 1793, dechristianization reached what many historians consider the climax of the movement when the Hébertists moved the first Festival of Reason ("Fête de la Raison"), a civic festival celebrating the Goddess of Reason, from the Circus of the Palais Royale to the Cathedral of Notre Dame and reclaimed the cathedral as a "Temple of Reason". On 7 June, Robespierre, who had previously condemned the Cult of Reason, advocated a new state religion and recommended that the Convention acknowledge the existence of a singular God. On the next day, the worship of the deistic Supreme Being was inaugurated as an official aspect of the Revolution. Compared with Hébert's somewhat popular festivals, this austere new religion of Virtue was received with signs of hostility by the Parisian public.

Clash with Robespierre, arrest, conviction, and execution
After successfully attacking the Girondins, Hébert in the fall of 1793 continued to attack those whom he viewed as too moderate, including Georges Danton, Pierre Philippeaux, and Maximilien Robespierre, among others. When Hébert accused Marie Antoinette during her trial of incest with her son, Robespierre called him a fool ("imbécile") for his outrageous and unsubstantiated innuendos and lies.

The government was exasperated and, with support from the Jacobins, finally decided to strike against the Hébertists on the night of 13 March 1794, despite the reluctance of Barère de Vieuzac, Collot d'Herbois and Billaud-Varenne. The order was to arrest the leaders of the Hébertists; these included individuals in the War Ministry and others.

In the Revolutionary Tribunal, Hébert was treated very differently from Danton, more like a thief than a conspirator; his earlier scams were brought to light and criticized. He was sentenced to death with his co-defendants on the third day of deliberations. Their execution by guillotine took place on 24 March 1794. Hébert fainted several times on the way to the guillotine and screamed hysterically when he was placed under the blade. Hébert's executioners amused the crowd by adjusting the guillotine so that its blade stopped inches above his neck, and it was only after the fourth time the lever (déclic) was pulled that he was actually beheaded. His corpse was disposed of in the Madeleine Cemetery. His widow was executed twenty days later on 13 April 1794, and her corpse was disposed of in the Errancis Cemetery.

The importance of Hébert's execution was known by everyone involved in the revolution, including the Jacobins. Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, a prominent Jacobin leader, noted that following his execution, "the revolution is frozen", demonstrating how central Hébert and his followers, a large portion of sans-culottes, were to the longevity and success of the revolution.

Influence
It is difficult to completely ascertain the extent to which Hébert's publication Le Père Duchesne impacted the outcomes of political events between 1790 and 1794. French revolutionary historians such as Jean-Paul Bertaud, Jeremy D. Popkin, and William J. Murray each investigated French Revolutionary press history and determined that while the newspapers and magazines that one read during the revolution may have influenced their political leanings, it did not necessarily create their political leanings. One's class, for example, could be a significant determinant in directing and influencing one's political decisions. Therefore, Hébert's writings certainly influenced his audience to often dramatic extent, but the sans-culottes were but one element in a complex political mix, meaning that it is difficult to determine in what ways his writing changed the political outcomes of the French Revolution. That being said, his wide readership and voice throughout the Revolution means that he was a significant public figure, and Le Père Duchesne 's ability to influence the general population of France was indeed notable.

title: Jacques Hébert


text:
Talk:Senate of the Roman Republic

Organization
The history of the senate needs to be laid out into sections:

==Early Republic== ==Late Republic== ==Early Empire== ==Middle Empire== ==Late Empire== ==Byzantine== (?)

I can't do it justice -- my knowledge is rusty and I'm away from my Roman Senate primary material. But the point is the Senate went from an iron grip on the Republic, to an old boy's club, to a rubber stamp, to an irrelevant body of old men in Rome, to an even less relevant body of old men in Constantinople.

 * Reid 07:09, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

When was the Roman Senate revived in the Middle Ages? Wetman 01:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * "Revived"? Never heard of that. In the Middle Ages the Pope ruled Rome, he wouldn't have wanted any help. :-) Stan 04:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Colas de Rienzi. I know there was some kind of symbolic Roman Senate in the 1300s. I better check... Wetman 04:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * What do you mean by "old boy's club?" My Latin teacher refered to it as that.

Here's this, from http://www.factmonster.com/:
 * "Papal authority was challenged in the 12th cent. by the communal movement. A commune was set up (1144–55), led by Arnold of Brescia, but it was subdued by the intervention of Emperor Frederick I. Finally, a republic under papal patronage was established, headed by an elected senator. However, civil strife continued between popular and aristocratic factions and between Guelphs and Ghibellines. The commune made war to subdue neighboring cities, for it pretended to rule over the Papal States, particularly the duchy of Rome, which included Latium and parts of Tuscany. Innocent III controlled the government of the city, but it regained its autonomy after the accession of Emperor Frederick II. Later in the 13th cent. foreign senators began to be chosen; among them were Brancaleone degli Andalò (1252–58) and Charles I of Naples."

This needs looking into... Wetman 04:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article needs breaking up into subsections, at the moment it's one long chunk of prose and it's badly presented.

Style of dress
Are modern scholars sure that the purple stripe was on the right shoulder and not down the front of the tunic? I thought there was debate over that. Certainly the popular conception is down the front of the tunic.Binabik80 05:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pedarii
In what way were the pedarii "like parliamentary backbenchers"? It's true that neither pedarii nor backbenchers are currently out of magisterial/ministerial office, but the key fact about pedarii is that they had never held office. And in context, the article seems to be implying that pedarii are similar to backbenchers because they had no speaking rights, which is a bizarre claim to make about backbenchers. Furthermore, the primary purpose of a backbencher is to vote the way his party wants him to vote, while of course the pedarius, like everyone else in the political party-less Roman Senate, voted his conscience.

If no one responds in two days I'll remove the reference.Binabik80 05:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Having seen no objections, I've deleted the clause.Binabik80 02:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I would have to disagree that they were non-office holding Senators. From my understanding, the Senate consisted of ONLY former and current office holding magistrates, at elast until the times of Sulla and his heirs (when appointments became common). Anyway, I have transcribed this entry from the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law:

Senatores Pedarii. The term is not quite clear; its origin was obscure to ancient writers, as related by Gellius (Noct. Att. 3.18). Senatores Pedarii were either senators who had held a lower, non-curule magistracy or ex-magistrates who had not yet been enrolled into the list of senators by the censors. The term pedarii was perhaps connected somehow with the senate's way of voting by a division of the voters (pedibus in sententiam ire, see DISCESSIO). The senatores pedarii could participate only in this form of voting and were excluded from taking part in discussion. - O'Brien-Moore, RE Suppl. 6, 680; M. A. De Dominicis, Il ius sententiae senato rom., 1932.

So, as we can see, one way or another, they were former magistrates. But, as today, there were lesser civil service types in Rome. These were the vigintisexviri and such. Managers of sewage, street-sweeping, etc etc. But nevertheless magistrates. Of course, I think these were not what brought men into the Senate, but were considered stepping-stones. But surely there were enough quaestors and quaestores-elect to create a good deal of pedarii. After all, due to the nature of the republican beast, only so many would ever reach higher office. There were simply not enough offices to go around.

Of course, what this article does not mention is the possibility that these pedarii were in fact these lesser magistrates who were not even quaestorial. And thus were relegated to standing on the sides, so to speak.Cjcaesar

Last Mention
Can anyone tell me the source for the last known act(s) of the Roman Senate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjcaesar (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Senators (of Rome) are referenced quite late, even after 476 (I can't give you a reference sorry). There should be something about this in the article. Also there were synkletai of Constantinople much later; I'm not sure how much this title could be considered comparable though. m.e. (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Membership
How did one become a senator? By appointment? (By whom?) By election? (By which assembly?) What were the requirements for membership? Age? Wealth? Class? Presumably one had at least to be a Roman citizen (at least until the appointments made in the time of Julius Caesar). None of this seems to be mentioned under "Membership".

Under the Republic it was the first and most important duty of the censors to choose the senators. This was called the lectio senatus, when the whole membership was listed in a strict order of seniority according to office-holding seniority and social status (patricians outranking plebeians of the same ex officio seniority). This was the order in which the presiding magistrates who summoned a meeting of the Senate were required to ask for opinions on every matter. The first man on the list was called princeps senatus (= First Lord of the Senate). Sulla appears to have done away with the lectio and ordained the quaestorship as the qualification for automatic entry into the Senate. But the evidence is controversial. He certainly increased the number of annual quaestors to 20, and it is also certain that the censorship itself lapsed for a decade after Sulla's dictatorship (most of its functions being taken over by the consuls of 80 and 75 BC), and that when it resumed (70-69 BC) the lectio no longer determined the speaking order; a new custom had arisen (probably first established by Sulla in 81 or 80) according to which the senior consul chose the order of the consulars for the year. --Appietas 06:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Member for life ?
According to the section Membership, "A Senator's membership was for his lifetime" But since the most Republican offices have only one-year term, how can an office-holder remains senator after he left the office ?

--Siyac 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Magistrate and senator were different offices. As I understand it, the Senate was originally made up of the heads of the families whose wealth put them into the senatorial class of the the census. It wasn't exactly for life - a senator could be struck off the roll by the censors for falling below the property qualification, or for some kind of moral disgrace. Cato the Elder is supposed to have removed a senator on the grounds that he kissed his wife in public. As time went on new rules were introduced linking a seat in the senate with the holding of magistracies - I think under Sulla anyone who had reached the rank of praetor became a senator for life - but originally the two offices were separate. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable practices
The quorum required for formal enactment of senatorial resolutions (senatus consulta) is very well known to have been 100 or more, when the Senate numbered 300 members. I don't have all the evidence with me but the key and earliest text is the Letter of the consuls (of 186 BC) to the Teurani On Bacchanales (CIL i² 581), where the formula not less than 100 (C[entum]) senators appears three times. I'm not sure that the evidence is so clear after Sulla doubled the size of the Senate to 600, but logically the quorum should have remained the same or else been doubled to 200. --Appietas 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

When was the current building built?
I'm certain the building now standing in the Roman Forum dates from the reign of Diocletian, but the article claims that its from the first century. Can anyone clarify this? I know this information is in Amanda Claridge's Archaeological Guide to Rome, but I won't have access to a research library in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.44.11 (talk) 14:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I have moved and reorganized this page
This page appears to have fallen into neglect. I moved this page from Roman Senate to Senate of the Roman Republic. Since the article was mostly about the Senate of the Roman Republic (with almost nothing about the imperial senate), I moved this so that I could integrate it into my series on the Constitution of the Roman Republic. RomanHistorian (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I for one object to this and think it should be moved back. Either that, or the person who did the move needs to do a page on the senate of the Empire. If he is unable or unwilling to do so then I'm going to move it back. Kuralyov (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than the paragraph under "Decline of the Senate (1st century BC – 6th century AD)" (which I have moved to my entry on the History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic here), there was almost no information on this entry regarding the senate of the Roman Empire before I made my changes. The information that it did include was historical, and said nothing about the powers or structure of the senate after the fall of the republic. This entry has been neglected for some time. The only substantive differences between the entry before my changes and the entry after, is that now it has more information and more citations.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Well it's no good just objecting to moving a page. You need to think up ideas why it shouldn't; and there is no good reason if everything on the Roman Senate page is subsumed by better material on the Senate of the Roman Republic page.
 * On the other hand, RomanHistorian, Kuralyov is correct that you need a page which would cover the Senate in Imperial times. The RS page should have a subsection which describes in summary what the SotRR page says. The page as a whole ought to describe in brief how it changed, and what it did post Augustus. I think that the RS page can be substantially shortened. You can have 4 parts: one for an overview of what it did, one for what its historical origins and time in the Kingdom, one during the republic, and one for its history was after the Republics fall. It's hard work, but that's what you've got to do, and you're good at it (unlike people who just object to stuff!).  Wik idea  17:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Update on the Roman constitution series
I just wanted to mention my plans for my series on the Roman constitution. There was simply too much information to put on my original page, Constitution of the Roman Republic. There is also a significant amount of information available on the constitutions of the Roman kingdom and empire. Therefore, I am going to give this series somewhat of a matrix structure. Roman Constitution will be the main page of the series. Underneath this page will be Constitution of the Roman Kingdom, Constitution of the Roman Republic and Constitution of the Roman Empire. It surprised me, but apparently there actually was a constitution during the time of the kingdom and then again during the time of the empire.

Underneath the constitution pages, I will have pages on the Senate of the Roman Kingdom, Senate of the Roman Republic, Senate of the Roman Empire, Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Kingdom, Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Republic, Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Empire, Executive Magistrates of the Roman Kingdom, Executive Magistrates of the Roman Republic, and Executive Magistrates of the Roman Empire.

When this is done, I will create a new page called Roman Executive Magistrates, and then populate this page, along with Roman senate and Roman assemblies. All three pages will be condensed versions of their respective sub-pages. Right now, Roman senate and Roman assemblies consist almost exclusively of facts about the republic. Neither page has many citations. They also use a discussion format, and my revisions to these pages will use more of a discussion and analysis format. I am going to be more cautious with my revisions of these pages, because I assume that people will want to restore the original versions for whatever reason.

My hope is to use a discussion and analysis format for the entire series. My overall goal will be to produce a series that doesn't just discuss the facts associated with these offices and institutions. I want the series to tie everything together, and illustrate how everything operated under the overall constitutional system. Right now, the entries on these individual topics (such as roman consul and praetor) simply list facts without providing any deeper analysis or context. It is difficult to truly understand these topics unless you know how they all worked together under the constitutional system.

Also, I am not surprised that there hasn't been more work done on Wikipedia on this topic. It seems as though there are very few books on this subject, and many of those books are quite old. This is unfortunate because this subject is actually quite relevant to modern politics. Many modern governments are designed around a similar constitutional superstructure as was the Roman government. The government strengthened the entire Roman Empire.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the page
I have redone this entry, and integrated it into my series on the Roman Constitution. Before my change, 95% of this entry was about the senate of the Roman Republic. There was nothing on the senate of the Roman Kingdom, and hardly anything on the senate of the Roman Empire.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'conscript fathers' section
I removed the conscript fathers section. It was highly repetitive and lacking in context. Everything mentioned in it that was accurate is already mentioned elsewhere (under descriptions about Roman senators, since Roman senators and 'conscript fathers' are one in the same).RomanHistorian (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as we are including this much Latin, we could also mention patres conscripti as a formal term, and even the ancient dispute about its precise meaning under the kings. But it would be even more useful to remind the reader how little we are sure of about the Roman kingdom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite the translations of classicists, it did not mean "Conscript Fathers", a nonsense since the "Fathers" part were the original patricians. It was a formula meaning "Fathers" (patricians, and especially the clan chiefs) and "Conscripts" (all the others added). See Pompeius Festus Festus p.304 (ed.Lindsay):

"Who were called the Fathers and who the Conscripts in the Curia? At the time when the Kings had been driven from the City, the consul P.Valerius, owing to a lack of patricians, chose 164 men from the plebs to add to the number of Senators in order to fill up the ranks of the Three Hundred Senators, and he gave two distinct titles.". . Appietas (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

RELIGION OF THE FIFTH CENTURY SENATE
I read the following sentence with some surprise. "The dominant religion of the senate in the years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 was Chalcedon Christianity. This was different from both the dominant religion of the Ostrogoths (Arianism) and the official religion of the papacy and Constantinople (Nicene Christianity)."

Could this be expanded and a reference given? If it is correct. The adjective coming from Chalcedon is of course 'Chalcedonian'. Since the Catholic Church has always so far as I know recognized the Council of Chalcedon and most fifth century Emperors did so too, with some obvious exceptions such as Anastasius, the claim is likely to be incorrect. This section of the article generally seems to fall short of professional historical standards. We know the names of quite a lot of late fifth century and early sixth century senators for example. The fourth century section would benefit from more detail on the social and economic base of the senate and could perhaps consider whether senatorial aristocrats were to be found in all provinces or simply Rome and Gaul, where there is abundant evidence. There should also be some consideration of links between the Roman Senate and other late Roman municipal councils across the empire. Despite the unique prominence of the local bishop, the Roman Senate seems to have fared much better than its smaller counterparts in (say) Anatolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barchard (talk • contribs) 17:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

One question dealing with Lictors
Perhaps this is just my curiosity. Lictors followed the magistrates who held imperium wherever they went, including the Forum, his house, temples and the baths, but... were lictors allowed to be beside the magistrates inside the meeting place of the Senate? -- Pichote (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The lictors followed the magistrates everywhere. They were not bodyguards as much as they were symbols of magisterial power. I will just add, however, that no magistrate had imperium inside the city. Any magistrate with imperium had to surrender that imperium before entering the city. Whereas the rod of the fasces (which each lictor held) represented state power (specificaly, the power of coercitio or Coercion, and thus the power to punish), the blade represented imperium (thus, the power to execute). Therefore, any magistrate without imperium at any given instant (such as a Consul while inside the city) would have their lictors remove the axes from their fasces. Since Dictators were the only magistrates who did not have to surrender their imperium while inside the city, their lictors would not remove their axes (although the dictator could break with this tradition, as I believe Cincinnatus did). RomanHistorian (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Perfectly explained, thanks. -- Pichote (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits
I am reverting this article back to how it was before the edits by Appietas. It was a Good Article before. If Appietas' changes stand, it will lose that status. Appietas has demonstrated a poor understanding of Wikipedia policies and rules. A "Good Article" is one that satisfies the Good article criteria, not one where everyone necessarily agrees with the facts. I did remove his inaccurate edits, mostly because they were uncited (in addition to being wrong). As for his point about the veto, see below. As for the matter of the dictators, the senate authorized the Consuls to appoint a dictator (and could specify who the Consul was to appoint). Giving Consuls the power to appoint dictators whenever they wished would have been, to say the least, dangerous. Appietas may have more sources, but I have more citations and reliable sources. Given how narrow this topic is, there aren't many good books covering it. I used a couple of recent scholarly books to cite from. Appietas uses many dubious sources, strange websites, and contemporary authors who did not know the difference between historical fact and legend. Appietas needs to understand the difference between truth and fact on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, not "truth". If he thinks I am wrong about something, then change what I wrote and use a substantive source (something Appietas has not yet found apparently). Deleting most of the article because he doesn't like it, adding whatever 'facts' he thinks sounds right, and providing a few dubious sources, is not on par with Wikipedia standards.

My citations are in line with Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability in that

 * In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

My citations are also in line with Wikipedia's preference for more recent publications, as well as its preference for Secondary sources.

 * Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Primary sources (such as Livy or Cicero) are more prone to (Pro-Roman, Pro-aristocratic) bias, and without the advantage of 2,000 years of hindsight and scrutiny of the original works.

Ignoring the fact that Appietas' edits contain numerous factual errors, and ignoring the fact that his edits are very hard to read, lengthy, and thus make it less likely that non-experts would want to (or be able to) read this article, there are some obvious points that make this article less than that of GA status with his edits. First, the grammar is poor and difficult to understand. I see numerous run-on sentences, as well as strange and somewhat confusing terms I have never seen before such as "Caesar monarch" or "all military personnel were considered man-slayers" or "Gang of Three to overturn the Republic" (the 'Triumvirate' was not meant to overturn the republic, even if it did ultimately contribute to it). One example of a run on sentence (not to mention strange wording) comes from the beginning of the article:

 * The Senate gradually exerted more and more authority and in the 2nd century BC its authority reached a crisis and cross-roads point when by consensus of the ruling aristocracy the office of the Dictator was put to sleep and replaced by normal Senatorial decrees for external affairs and wars and by the enormously controversial Senatus consultum de re publica defendenda to meet internal crises and seditions, known better in modern discussions as senatus consultum ultimum ("Final Decree of the Senate"), which was a slang term in antiquity.

This violates the first criteria for GA, that it be well written. Second, and most importantly, there are few citations, which itself violates the second criteria for GA, that it be verifiable. The section on "The Secrecy of Senatorial Meetings", for example, contains what looks like about 7 paragraphs (difficult to tell due to his disordered grouping style) and only 3 citations. All three appear to come from contemporary (Appietas uses the term "primary") sources, which means that even these may be more legendary than historical. If Appietas disagrees with the facts I cited from reliable sources, then he should find reliable sources to contradict them. The fact that he doesn't like the facts I cite is irrelevant. The GA-version of this article contained numerous citations. Almost every paragraph had several citations. As for Appietas' interest in "primary sources", this is a dubious methodology for a Roman history article. It is similar to citing the Iliad for an article regarding Greek history. Many of these "primary sources" were based at least partly on legend (as most of Livy's first 10 books are, for example). The sources I used, such as Lintott, are recent sources, which explain things in line with the modern scholarly consensus, filtering out the legend.

In addition, I see scope issues, where Appietas is mentioning facts that belong on other articles, which itself makes this article unnecessarily long and difficult to read. One example is the paragraph he devotes to Triumphs, which should go in the article on Triumphs, not this article. Another is a mention of an incident between a mother and son in the 4th century (BC??). Another example is his discussion of the patronage system regarding the structure of Roman society. Maybe that has some indirect relationship to the senate, but this series isn't about Roman society, but rather Roman government. This goes to something else. Appietas treats this article almost like his personal blog. Some of what he adds was already on the article, only now with his changes has no citation (or a dubious one). Some of what he adds that does have reliable cites could easily be added to the article as it was before he came in and messed it up. One good example would be the meeting places of the senate, which might go well in the article as it was before, only not in the distracting and messy listing format that he uses.

I see numerous factual errors in Appietas' edits.

 * Consuls and Praetors could not enter the city without surrendering their imperium. The article suggests this is false, and cites no source, dubious or otherwise, to back it up. The same paragraph also says that the Curiate Assembly had to vote on the surrendering of imperium. This probably comes from the mistaken belief that the law that the Curiate Assembly passed granting a magistrate imperium had any legal basis. It did not, and was simply a symbolic custom from the time of the kings. The legal imperium powers were voted on by the Century Assembly. This is irrelevant though because, as I said, there is no citation for this claim.

 * I don't know how Appietas knows that when a general "eulogize[d] themselves" that "All of which was accepted with a grain of salt and a good deal of good humour and enjoyment." Again, no citation, dubious or otherwise.
 * I don't believe the Roman senate had senatorial committees, but again, no citation. Actually I think I could cite a statement in one of the books I use that said the senate did not have committees, but I am not going to cite a negative. I also don't know what the (uncited) paragraph on senatorial committees has to do with senate secrecy.

 * One edit says that senators could not be forced to attend senate meetings. Not only could they be forced to do so, but I mentioned and cited this fact in the prior version of the article, which was apparently deleted by Appietas. This particular edit of Appietas, as usual, has no citation.

 * Only Tribunes could veto the senate. Magistrates could not veto the senate. Lintott in particular mentions this. But Tribunes could not veto a law after it was passed, only before it was passed. The basis for the Tribuncian veto was their ability to interpose the sacrosanctity of their person to force someone to obey. Resistance against this was a capital offense. Thus they could use this power to stop the senate from voting on a bill, but once it passed (or if the Tribune left the room and the senate tried again) he couldn't do anything. The magistrate's veto derived from their legal rank, and thus they could only veto those whom they outranked. Since the senate had no magisterial rank, it could not be vetoed by any magistrate. RomanHistorian (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Self-styled Roman Historian here exhibits clearly why he's not competent to write a good article on a complex historical topic. He may well be able to fuss up a style which accords with Wiki GA guidelines, but that's something other than a reliable and accurate historical article. I'd ask others with some expertise on Roman history to get involved to help prevent his many clangers remaining in place. I'll keep rewriting and reversing when I can spare the time.

 * His distinction between truth and fact is comical, and he has no competence whatsoever to adjudicate between ancient sources which contain legendary elements and those which don't. As he himself confesses clearly enough, his knowledge is based solely on very limited secondary sources and English translations of one small fraction of Polybius, and what looks like a hasty and still immature understanding of their contents.

 * The question of the appointment of Dictators is as good a case in point as any. His version I corrected stated quite simply that the Senate appointed Dictators. Now he seems to be reversing that a little and recognizes that the Consuls appointed the Dictators.  But asserts they didn't really but had to be authorized by the Senate.  No they didn't have to be at all. This is seriously misleading, and underlines the mentioned incompetence.  The Senate had no right of appointment or authorization, it advised the magistrates and all powers of governance actually resided in the popular Assemblies and such executive powers as were delegated to the magistracies by election.

It's certainly important to understand how influential the Senate became, and make some attempt to explain why (he doesn't and cannot, I've just begun elements of this explanation), but the argument that the Senate's "authorization" of a Consul to appoint a Dictator equates with a senatorial appointment is entirely bogus, and could be applied to any other aspect of government where the Senate's advice amounted to its de facto control. In all cases it is important to be clear where the actual powers lay, however much influenced by de facto social and political customs, of which the Senate's increasing influence and authority was one of the most important. Again the Senate had no right whatsoever to name the Dictator in advance, and never did. This was the Consul's right and responsibility. He may consult the Senate over this, or not. When both consuls were dead or absent from the ager Romanus and it was decided that there was a need for a Dictator, a constitutional crisis arose. Which was resolved, as always, by reference to the sovereign powers of the voting Assemblies of the (male) population.

In all cases my comments and additions are based on reading the ancient sources in combination with expert modern texts. Despite RH's ignorant statement to the contrary there are many good modern texts covering the topic. His world view is that what he doesn't know doesn't exist, and anyone attempting to correct him is an enemy. I probably should and could add further citations, but in every case I have included many more of these than RH. As it is I see my additions as an ongoing work which can always be improved upon and I'm quite content for others to get involved and do so. But RH doesn't do this. He reverts and removes en bloc, and restores his own worst inaccuracies and mistakes.

 * I accept there are problems with my wording which could always be improved, but ditto RH does not seek to improve, but removes and restores his own verbiage in the apparent belief he is some sort of Hemingway. Which he isn't. One of the main problems with expression is that I've tried to retain as much of the existing article as I found it as possible. This often results in poor expression or repetition which should be correct.  Yesterday I spent some time improving the opening section in this respect.  Now all removed en bloc in accordance with RH's megalomaniac method.

 * A few final comments in response to issues raised by RH.

 * In general the secondary sources he cites are very good ones, or at least well reviewed and written by respected authors. There is a serious problem and gap between what they say and what RH reports them as saying.

 * The "Triumvirate" is a modern term coined by extreme pro-Caesarian apologists to make the entirely private compact between the three princes look respectable and pseudo-official. Gang of Three or more is an increasingly used modern term which recognizes the basic fact that the compact was formed to suppress the effective operation of the institutions of the free state or Republic and to divert its powers and resources to their personal and mutually allied ends.  Today the continued use of Triumvirate is a sure sign of an autodidact or Caesarian apologist.

 * Per information given RH's version has far less references than my own, and none from ancient sources of which he is entirely ignorant, yet has the arrogance and foolishness to pass sweeping comment and judgment about them because the valuable ancient sources I cite do not agree with his incomplete and erroneous understanding from secondary source readings. This is the attitude of a witch-doctor rather than an historian.

 * The listing formats I occasionally use are not messy and distracting. They provide simplicity and clarity.  It is RH's individual mind that is messy and distracted.

 * the comments on imperium are entirely erroneous and show an ignorance of the workings of the constitution. No imperia were attached to magistrates in the election by comitia, only civic potestates.

 * The arrogance and foolishness of his quote of a single sentence and request for a reference is beyond measure, and entirely at odds with the amount of his drivel goes unreferenced because it cannot be. Read Livy books 21-45 on the reception of returning generals from their provinces.

 * The senatorial committees are attested by the most important and immediately contemporary sources we have on Roman history, the contemporary inscriptions. Also occasionally but rarely in Livy's detailed history in bks.21-45. Only an ignorant autodidact could make this a point of objection.

 * Senators might be compelled to attend the Senate in the sense that a magistrate could abuse or coerce any citizen irregularly or illegally on the basis of their great powers. But in the sense RH gave that the senators were somehow legally obliged to attend and were threatened with some form of due punishment when they did not is a nonsense which had to be removed.  All in all RH takes too much semi- and mis-information from the period of the overthrow of the Republic when civic traditions were suppressed and violence ruled as if the norm. He also extracts out of context in such a way as to show his analytical incompetence or dishonesty.

RH's objections by anaylsis are embarassing. He fails to grasp that magistrates presided over and directed the meetings of the Senate, and that everything done under their competence, including the passage of senatorial acts and resolutions could be nullified by the intercession of any other magistrate(s) with equal or greater civic powers. I cite the source, he doesn't like it, he removes and cites Lintott contra. Lintott is a great historian so I doubt that he would slip up over this issue. More likely RH has misunderstood Lintott according to his custom. But I guess I can't quote the ipsa verba of the source which would be inadmissible foreign language content by the wiki rules. So are we reduced to accepting any twerp who misquotes modern texts as ultimate arbiter of serious historical fact?
 * In the matter of the powers of veto over senatorial acta by the magistrates, this is a simple constitutional fact inherent in the civic potestates of the magistrates, and attested by a 1st century BC senator and nobleman writing expressly from a constitutional point of view, Marcus Varro.

One final point. RH's reply here is too long, and he's repeated the entire tract below. This is perhaps a result of a need for grouped comment because he doesn't ever improve he simply slashes out my edits en bloc. It is also probably a deliberate tactic to prevent clear and easy to follow objection and reply, so that a minimum of members will wish to follow this dispute. Henceforth I'll endeavour to address individual matters in dispute under separate headers on this Talk page, which seems to be the practice elsewhere on wiki..Appietas (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits

 * Self-styled Roman Historian here exhibits clearly why he's not competent to write a good article on a complex historical topic. He may well be able to fuss up a style which accords with Wiki GA guidelines, but that's something other than a reliable and accurate historical article. I'd ask others with some expertise on Roman history to get involved to help prevent his many clangers remaining in place. I'll keep rewriting and reversing when I can spare the time.

 * His distinction between truth and fact is comical, and he has no competence whatsoever to adjudicate between ancient sources which contain legendary elements and those which don't. As he himself confesses clearly enough, his knowledge is based solely on very limited secondary sources and English translations of one small fraction of Polybius, and what looks like a hasty and still immature understanding of their contents.

 * The question of the appointment of Dictators is as good a case in point as any. His version I corrected stated quite simply that the Senate appointed Dictators. Now he seems to be reversing that a little and recognizes that the Consuls appointed the Dictators.  But asserts they didn't really but had to be authorized by the Senate.  No they didn't have to be at all. This is seriously misleading, and underlines the mentioned incompetence.  The Senate had no right of appointment or authorization, it advised the magistrates and all powers of governance actually resided in the popular Assemblies and such executive powers as were delegated to the magistracies by election.

It's certainly important to understand how influential the Senate became, and make some attempt to explain why (he doesn't and cannot, I've just begun elements of this explanation), but the argument that the Senate's "authorization" of a Consul to appoint a Dictator equates with a senatorial appointment is entirely bogus, and could be applied to any other aspect of government where the Senate's advice amounted to its de facto control. In all cases it is important to be clear where the actual powers lay, however much influenced by de facto social and political customs, of which the Senate's increasing influence and authority was one of the most important. Again the Senate had no right whatsoever to name the Dictator in advance, and never did. This was the Consul's right and responsibility. He may consult the Senate over this, or not. When both consuls were dead or absent from the ager Romanus and it was decided that there was a need for a Dictator, a constitutional crisis arose. Which was resolved, as always, by reference to the sovereign powers of the voting Assemblies of the (male) population.

In all cases my comments and additions are based on reading the ancient sources in combination with expert modern texts. Despite RH's ignorant statement to the contrary there are many good modern texts covering the topic. His world view is that what he doesn't know doesn't exist, and anyone attempting to correct him is an enemy. I probably should and could add further citations, but in every case I have included many more of these than RH. As it is I see my additions as an ongoing work which can always be improved upon and I'm quite content for others to get involved and do so. But RH doesn't do this. He reverts and removes en bloc, and restores his own worst inaccuracies and mistakes.

 * I accept there are problems with my wording which could always be improved, but ditto RH does not seek to improve, but removes and restores his own verbiage in the apparent belief he is some sort of Hemingway. Which he isn't. One of the main problems with expression is that I've tried to retain as much of the existing article as I found it as possible. This often results in poor expression or repetition which should be correct.  Yesterday I spent some time improving the opening section in this respect.  Now all removed en bloc in accordance with RH's megalomaniac method.

 * A few final comments in response to issues raised by RH.

 * In general the secondary sources he cites are very good ones, or at least well reviewed and written by respected authors. There is a serious problem and gap between what they say and what RH reports them as saying.

 * The "Triumvirate" is a modern term coined by extreme pro-Caesarian apologists to make the entirely private compact between the three princes look respectable and pseudo-official. Gang of Three or more is an increasingly used modern term which recognizes the basic fact that the compact was formed to suppress the effective operation of the institutions of the free state or Republic and to divert its powers and resources to their personal and mutually allied ends.  Today the continued use of Triumvirate is a sure sign of an autodidact or Caesarian apologist.

 * Per information given RH's version has far less references than my own, and none from ancient sources of which he is entirely ignorant, yet has the arrogance and foolishness to pass sweeping comment and judgment about them because the valuable ancient sources I cite do not agree with his incomplete and erroneous understanding from secondary source readings. This is the attitude of a witch-doctor rather than an historian.

 * The listing formats I occasionally use are not messy and distracting. They provide simplicity and clarity.  It is RH's individual mind that is messy and distracted.

 * the comments on imperium are entirely erroneous and show an ignorance of the workings of the constitution. No imperia were attached to magistrates in the election by comitia, only civic potestates.

 * The arrogance and foolishness of his quote of a single sentence and request for a reference is beyond measure, and entirely at odds with the amount of his drivel goes unreferenced because it cannot be. Read Livy books 21-45 on the reception of returning generals from their provinces.

 * The senatorial committees are attested by the most important and immediately contemporary sources we have on Roman history, the contemporary inscriptions. Also occasionally but rarely in Livy's detailed history in bks.21-45. Only an ignorant autodidact could make this a point of objection.

 * Senators might be compelled to attend the Senate in the sense that a magistrate could abuse or coerce any citizen irregularly or illegally on the basis of their great powers. But in the sense RH gave that the senators were somehow legally obliged to attend and were threatened with some form of due punishment when they did not is a nonsense which had to be removed.  All in all RH takes too much semi- and mis-information from the period of the overthrow of the Republic when civic traditions were suppressed and violence ruled as if the norm. He also extracts out of context in such a way as to show his analytical incompetence or dishonesty.

RH's objections by anaylsis are embarassing. He fails to grasp that magistrates presided over and directed the meetings of the Senate, and that everything done under their competence, including the passage of senatorial acts and resolutions could be nullified by the intercession of any other magistrate(s) with equal or greater civic powers. I cite the source, he doesn't like it, he removes and cites Lintott contra. Lintott is a great historian so I doubt that he would slip up over this issue. More likely RH has misunderstood Lintott according to his custom. But I guess I can't quote the ipsa verba of the source which would be inadmissible foreign language content by the wiki rules. So are we reduced to accepting any twerp who misquotes modern texts as ultimate arbiter of serious historical fact?
 * In the matter of the powers of veto over senatorial acta by the magistrates, this is a simple constitutional fact inherent in the civic potestates of the magistrates, and attested by a 1st century BC senator and nobleman writing expressly from a constitutional point of view, Marcus Varro.

One final point. RH's reply here is too long, and he's repeated the entire tract below. This is perhaps a result of a need for grouped comment because he doesn't ever improve he simply slashes out my edits en bloc. It is also probably a deliberate tactic to prevent clear and easy to follow objection and reply, so that a minimum of members will wish to follow this dispute. Henceforth I'll endeavour to address individual matters in dispute under separate headers on this Talk page, which seems to be the practice elsewhere on wiki..Appietas (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going to keep wasting time responding to your disordered attacks. Repeating what I already did is pointless. I could try to have you blocked because of your constant personal attacks in calling me "ignorant", although it isn't worth my time. I will just say this: most of what you added was uncited. Most of what was cited came from dubious websites or primary sources, and as I mentioned above, Wikipedia places secondary sources like Lintott above primary sources like Polybius. Therefore, unless you can come up with some secondary source, such as a recent historical book, to back up your factual claims, you have no case. Per Wikipedia policy, anything by Lintott takes precedence over Polybius, and if there is a conflict, Lintott wins. Likewise, anything with a Lintott citation wins against anything with no citation. If you think you are right, you will need the secondary sources to back it up. Your own interpretation of Polybius is original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia. You seem to have a habit of posting original research on other articles. The fact that you think I am "ignorant" or "not competent" or "immature" is irrelevant unless you can come up with these types of sources to prove that I am wrong. Your own indignation, or what you think is right, means nothing as to what should be on this article. To say nothing for the semi-vandalism you have caused to numerous other Roman history articles.RomanHistorian (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Vetoing senatorial decrees
I think most of this article has been cobbled together by the "Roman Historian" twerp. The discussion of the vetoing of senatorial decrees is ignorant of Roman history and the Republican constitution, which was based fundamentally on an annually changing government of executive officers (magistrates) invested with all civic and military powers in full legal and religiously sanctioned form. The authority of the Senate had a powerful social and political de facto basis, not legal. Its original and continuing role was as the community's supreme advisory council to the annual executive, and all its acta were always couched in language suitable to an advisory body, even when it became the de facto ruling council. It was the presiding magistrates whose powers were legally based (called potestates in the civic area, iura imperii in the military), and these powers of government included the ability to veto any senatorial decree with which they disagreed. This rarely happened because the presiding magistrate summoned and controlled meetings of the senate and directed which proposals should be voted upon in the first place (and when). However it did happen when two or more magistrates of equal rank presided (most commonly the consuls) and one of them disagreed enough with a decree to nullify it. The whole binding force of a senatorial decree passed without veto was based in the de facto situation that the current government (all the senior and most powerful annual magistrates, with all their coercive powers) agreed with it; so it better be obeyed - or else. The bogus claim that consular vetoes were not legally based ought to disqualify the author from writing articles like this one. He's evidently read something about the powers and sacrosanctity of the tribunate plebis in the forum and comitia and decided to introduce them "free form" into the Senate as well on the basis of a limited understanding. The tribunes were not even permitted to enter the senate house until they themselves became magistrates, under the terms of the lex Atinia of c.130 B.C.

Appietas (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

clarification requested regarding Tribunes
The section on the role of the tribunes may be slightly misleading; it implies (unintentionally, I think) that there was a single tribune who was the "chief representative" of the People. I'm pretty sure the editors of this section knew otherwise, but it may not be clear to someone coming to the article with less background on the subject. And because there were multiple tribunes, they could threaten each other or be played off each other. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Although I lack Appietas's vehemence on this subject, I too was given pause about the physical presence of a/the tribune. I see, however, that it is sourced with Lintott. I'm wondering two things, then: is there perhaps some developmental issue here (practice changing over time), or a good-faith skewing of what Lintott said? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Authenticity of illustration, and existence of The Senate Building
I've recently finished reading Mary Beard's popular 2015 history text SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome (which I've lent on, so do not have to hand). Beard also includes the illustration currently used in this article, Cato attacks Catalina, but dismisses it as showing a completely imaginary setting, much grander and more spacious than any of the actual venues the Senate used.

I understand that illustrations of Senate meetings are thin on the ground so a more authentic depiction might not be available, but I suggest it would be a good idea to explain the above briefly in the article text and/or illustration caption.

I actually came to this article to check on the accuracy of a minor point in Robert Harris's trilogy about Cicero, having just finished the third volume, Dictator. Harris makes several mentions of "the Senate building", and its destruction by fire at one point, as if this were a single purpose-dedicated building, but Beard (as I recalled, perhaps wrongly) says that there was no specific Senate building, and meetings were convened in whichever of several temples was most convenient.

The article seems broadly to corroborate the latter under Venue and ethical standards, but text in Senate of the Roman Empire and linked articles such as Curia Hostilia makes it plain that there was always at least one particular building (Curia) that, though originating as a temple (which technically it remained), was primarily intended as the Senate's meeting place (as opposed to being primarily a temple, or being the curia of various other bodies). I suggest that this point should be made more explicit in this article, as it is in . . . Roman Empire and Curia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Good article?
If this really is,

1) why is there no treatment of the pedarii?

2) why is there no discussion of the specific clothing that marked the senatorial class as distinct in Roman society beyond two links (one just added) from a photo?

3) why are there "sources" sitting around in the list at the bottom of the page that are entirely unused within the text of the article?

I mean, it's not a bad article but it obviously has blind spots and some things needing cleanup. — Llywelyn II   09:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Senate of the Roman Republic


text:
William F. Sharpe

William Forsyth Sharpe (born June 16, 1934) is an American economist. He is the STANCO 25 Professor of Finance, Emeritus at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and the winner of the 1990 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

Sharpe was one of the originators of the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). He created the Sharpe ratio for risk-adjusted investment performance analysis, and he contributed to the development of the binomial method for the valuation of options, the gradient method for asset allocation optimization, and returns-based style analysis for evaluating the style and performance of investment funds.

Early years
William Sharpe was born on June 16, 1934, in Boston, Massachusetts. As his father was in the National Guard, the family moved several times during World War II, until they finally settled in Riverside, California. Sharpe spent the rest of his childhood and teenage years in Riverside, graduating from Riverside Polytechnic High School in 1951. He then enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley planning to pursue a degree in medicine. However, in the first year he decided to change his focus and moved to the University of California, Los Angeles to study business administration. Finding that he was not interested in accounting, Sharpe had a further change in preferences, finally majoring in economics. During his undergraduate studies, two professors had a large influence on him: Armen Alchian, a professor of economics who became his mentor, and J. Fred Weston, a professor of finance who first introduced him to Harry Markowitz's papers on portfolio theory. While at UCLA, Sharpe became a member of the Theta Xi Fraternity and Phi Beta Kappa Society. He earned a B.A. in 1955, an M.A. in 1956, and a Ph.D. in 1961, all from UCLA.

Academic training
After graduation, in 1956 Sharpe joined the RAND Corporation. While doing research at RAND, he also started work for a Ph.D. at UCLA under the supervision of Armen Alchian. While searching for a dissertation topic, J. Fred Weston suggested him to ask Harry Markowitz at RAND. Working closely with Markowitz, who in practice "filled a role similar to that of dissertation advisor", Sharpe earned his Ph.D. in 1961 with a thesis on a single factor model of security prices, also including an early version of the security market line.

Professional career
In 1961 after finishing his graduate studies, Sharpe started teaching at the University of Washington. He started research on generalizing the results in his dissertation to an equilibrium theory of asset pricing, work that yielded the Capital asset pricing model. He submitted the paper describing CAPM to the Journal of Finance in 1962. However, ironically, the paper which would become one of the foundations of financial economics was initially considered irrelevant and rejected from publication. Sharpe had to wait for the editorial staff to change until finally getting the paper published in 1964. At the same time, the CAPM was independently developed by John Lintner, Jan Mossin, and Jack Treynor.

In 1968 Sharpe moved to the University of California, Irvine but stayed there for only two years, and in 1970 he moved, this time to Stanford University. While teaching at Stanford, Sharpe continued research in the field of investments, in particular on portfolio allocation and pension funds. He also became directly involved in the investment process by offering consultance to Merrill Lynch and to Wells Fargo, thus having the opportunity to put in practice the prescriptions of financial theory. In 1986, in collaboration with the Frank Russell Company, he founded Sharpe-Russell Research, a firm specialized in providing research and consultancy on asset allocation to pension funds and foundations. His 1988 paper, 'Determining a Fund's Effective Asset Mix', established the model later referred to as returns-based style analysis.

Later career
In 1989 he retired from teaching, retaining the position of Professor Emeritus of Finance at Stanford, choosing to focus on his consulting firm, now named William F. Sharpe Associates. In 1996, he co-founded Financial Engines (NASDAQ: FNGN) with Stanford Professor Joseph Grundfest and Silicon Valley lawyer Craig W. Johnson. Financial Engines uses technology to implement many of his financial theories in portfolio management.

Today, Financial Engines has over 200 employees and is the leader in automated retirement plan investment advice and management, with more than $200 Billion in managed retirement accounts, providing advice and managed account services to employees in over 1000 major corporations. In March 2018, Financial Engines was acquired for $3 Billion in cash.

Sharpe served as a President of the American Finance Association and he is a trustee of the Economists for Peace and Security. He is also the recipient of a Doctor of Humane Letters, Honoris Causa from DePaul University, a Doctor Honoris Causa from the University of Alicante (Spain), a Doctor Honoris Causa from the University of Vienna and the UCLA Medal, UCLA's highest honor.

Since 2009, Sharpe has been an advocate of "adaptive asset allocation" strategies, which seek to exploit recent market behaviour to optimise asset allocation and thus maximise returns and reduce volatility.

Selected publications
Papers Books
 * Portfolio Theory and Capital Markets (McGraw-Hill, 1970 and 2000). ISBN 0-07-135320-8
 * Asset Allocation Tools (Scientific Press, 1987)
 * Fundamentals of Investments (with Gordon J. Alexander and Jeffrey Bailey, Prentice-Hall, 2000). ISBN 0-13-292617-2
 * Investments (with Gordon J. Alexander and Jeffrey Bailey, Prentice-Hall, 1999). ISBN 0-13-010130-3

title: William F. Sharpe


text:
Christopher Doyle

Christopher Doyle, also known as Dù Kěfēng (Mandarin) or Dou Ho-Fung (Cantonese) (born 2 May 1952) is an Australian-Hong Kong cinematographer. He has worked on over fifty Chinese-language films, being best known for his collaborations with Wong Kar-wai in Chungking Express, Happy Together, In the Mood for Love and 2046. Doyle is also known for other films such as Temptress Moon, Hero, Dumplings, and Psycho. He has won awards at the Cannes Film Festival and Venice Film Festival, as well as the AFI Award for cinematography, the Golden Horse award (four times), and the Hong Kong Film Award (six times).

Early life
Doyle was born in Sydney, Australia, in 1952. He left his native country on a Norwegian merchant ship at the age of eighteen. Doyle arrived in Taiwan for the first time in the 1970s, while his ship was docked in Keelung Harbor. Doyle met Stan Lai and Ding Nai-chu at Idea House, a restaurant in Taipei.

Career
While living in other countries, he took on several odd jobs, such as being an oil driller in India, a cow herder in Israel, and a doctor of Chinese medicine in Thailand. In the late seventies, Doyle took an interest in Chinese culture and received the Chinese name Dù Kěfēng, which translates to "like the wind". After language studies in Taiwan, he started working as a photographer. A couple of years later, he became a cinematographer, working with Taiwanese director Edward Yang on the 1983 film That Day, on the Beach.

Doyle has worked on over 50 Chinese-language films. He is best known for his collaborations with Wong Kar-wai in Chungking Express, Fallen Angels, Happy Together, In the Mood for Love and 2046. He has collaborated with other Chinese filmmakers on projects including Temptress Moon, Hero and Dumplings. He has also made more than 20 films in various other languages, working as director of photography on Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho, Liberty Heights, Last Life in the Universe, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Paranoid Park, and The Limits of Control, among others.

He also wrote, shot, and directed Warsaw Dark, Away with Words starring Asano Tadanobu, and Hong Kong Trilogy: Preschooled Preoccupied Preposterous, an experimental portrait of three generations of Hong Kong people. He co-directed The White Girl with Jenny Suen.

Documentary works
Film

Short film

Television

Awards and nominations
On 26 May 2017, Doyle was honoured during the 70th Cannes Festival with the “Pierre Angénieux ExcelLens in Cinematography” award, in tribute to his successful and influential career.

title: Christopher Doyle


text:
Talk:U.S. Presidents who died in office, by cause of death

Untitled
Information here is repeated at US_Presidents. I would redirect. --Jiang | Talk 07:27, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)