text:
Template talk:Header/2011

New Parameter
I think it would be beneficial to list a books illustrator in the header as an optional parameter; several texts I have been working on are largely illustrated. I've seen in some books "Illustrations by" or "Illustrated by" and others in the notes section, but there are inconsistencies. Can someone add this in? - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been a few proposals along these lines, and several options are currently available. One is to use override_author=, another is to add a note, I only see a need at the top-level/title-page, unless it varies between sections, inconsistency in presenting this data is not much of a problem. Using the meta data will be useful, maybe this could be a good reason to implement something like it. I think it is more powerful to link the illustrator (as authors!) in the text, prefaces, captions, and title pages, so I gave up thinking how it could be wrangled into the header template. 14:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think something simple would work (here's an example). I like to link to the authors in the text too, but I feel like its unbalanced without both in the header, sometimes I feel the pictures are more enriching then the text, and I have wanted to make the illustrator the author, since I can only pick one to place in the header (excluding the notes). Let me know what you think, and please make any modifications you see fit. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice :-) I reckon that linking authors is the better investment, I see immediate benefits emerge from that, linking illustrators would have similar advantages. Think about how it would go with a complex and busy header, and check the sections above for some relevant discussion on layout and examples. cygnis insignis 15:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see "Illustrated by:" in the header. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

should be subsumed
Template:Mind header exists independently of header and IMNSHO it modified and be subsidiary. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. It appears alongside the standard header as well.  It's an eyesore and should be based off the header template.  If I knew template syntax I'd do it myself, but I will have to be content with someone else integrating the two.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. After skimming through some The American Journal of Sociology mainspace pages that apply the template, it seems harmless enough & truly aids in the navigation of the entire work. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 15:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The larger problem, as I see it, is that we don't have a way to specify authors of chapters in the existing header template. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we had a "section_author" parameter, it could essentially do the same thing as this template, without using a separate template. This issue appears constantly in all serial publications and anthologies. I see discussion several months ago regarding this; is this something we can implement? —Spangineer (háblame) 18:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I feel we need to move away from this table based header for one based on divs like the French WikiSource seem to prefer anyway. With the current table based header, the only solution is keep squeezing additional lines in between headerprevious & headernext using line breaks to expand the table cell whereas using divs still allows for the use of tables (wrapped in a div) but allows for the interchangabilty of sections, subsections, authors, co-authors as needed without corrupting the basic layout for newbies. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 21:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Have you toggled through the variable layouts and see how the mind header doesn't play the game? I would greatly encourage us to look to continue the development of header.  To note that it is not the layout, nor the information, nor the display that was my concern here, it was .  We have lots of other header template variations like DNB00 that are subsumed yet still have navigation aids.  Plus if we need more navigation aids, then let us continue that development. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the usage of Template:mind header; it wasn't using half of what we have in modern day header. Will cull next. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorporate portal links into header's sister links box
I'd like to propose that we put portal links directly underneath sister links in main space headers. For several examples, see User:Spangineer/Sandbox3.

Details are there, but the idea is to expand the functionality of Plain sister to allow for up to three portal links, which would display in the same  box that the sister links appear in. —Spangineer (háblame) 18:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Support - I like it. What do you think of putting the WS portals on top? It seems like internal should maintain visual priority. Also, I think the use of the WS logo is redundant. It looks nice, but maybe this [[File:Portal.svg]] is more appropriate. - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with putting WS on top. As for logo, I'd prefer the WS one, and not only because it looks nice: I think it helps emphasize that other material is available on WS. The sister projects are all named, so I see the icon serving as a way to specifically say that there is more related content on Wikisource itself. —Spangineer (háblame) 20:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do we really need to write out and link what the box is for after the icon but before the related links (i.e. sister projects, related portals)? Seems like a waste of space when the icon itself could handle that (hover your mouse pointer over the icon & click on it here to see the alternative I'm thinking of). — George Orwell III ( talk ) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to alt text, but it doesn't work for me in that example: I see "Special:Sitematrix." —Spangineer (háblame) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Odd - I used the same syntax as always and the alt text has always worked here. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 21:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It could just be me... not sure; I have popups that sometimes seem to conflict with alt text. —Spangineer (háblame) 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's make sure it's not the order Wikimedia-logo.svg of parameters or the lack of plain Wikimedia-logo.svg links before I give up on saving space and invoking that silly blue Notes bar for nothing. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a point I wanted to make for some time too, not that I have a solution, but virtually all the works I have done here use plain sister, but have no notes. This creates the large blue space that only hosts the sister links, and soon to be portals. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean a blue notes feld that only expands or contracts based on the actual text content & not the amount of goofy-quick-link being boxes added? See this prior sandbox for what I think you are driving towards. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 06:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Spangineer that getting portal ns link into something like plain sister would be useful, and I agree with Theornamentalist that Portal link should have priority, though believe that the WS icon is preferable. NOTING that I would also state that we should be looking to include similar which has a similar problem of location and linking for disambiguation.   Do remember that plain sister template fits into disambiguation so that needs to be part of the consideration … which them prompts having more emphasis on "what links here" "search for term" and this starts to make all the header components bloody big.  That then says to me do we take a step back, and look at the use of the page real estate, and can manage the left hand side far better and look to incorporate "layout options." — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we can efficiently achieve all those "goals", leave the door open for future additions/modifications, keep the post-expand include size, the template argument size and the expensive parser function count low across the board for the principle uses of such a header template and still manage not to have it look like garbage at the end of the day without splitting off the 'green navigation/authorship/title' portion from the 'blue notes' portion once and for all. Let's have  call   when needed rather than having "notes" around all the time just to call all these other existing and/or possible templates on top of providing the "field" for plain-text-blurbs it was originally thought to handle only to begin with. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked my version of plain sister so that WS portal links appear on top. See User:Spangineer/Sandbox3 for the results. Alt-text is still not working for me (the last two examples didn't work either) but I'm not convinced the labels are necessary anyway; I'd be happy to remove them. Is there any objection to editing Plain sister directly? Or should a different template be created and used by header instead? —Spangineer (háblame) 20:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Download bar
I was working on this sometime ago, I know Wikisource pdf's aren't working with our index pages (for now) but I was thinking to add this within the box. Oh, and it is only for appearance now, not really functional. How do you feel about this? as well as hosting plain text (.txt) files on Wikisource? - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I could see this being useful, if at some point we had all those file formats. Personally I'm not particularly interested in adding txt files and pdfs and such, but if other people do, then this template would be a nice way to organize them once they are present. —Spangineer (háblame) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

To piggy back on Spangineer's proposal, I've put together this download bar which fits within the box as does his. I would like to stress that his proposal is better standalone at this point, because I have seen many different ways of linking to portals and the like and there needs to be consistency; in fact; I would not mind using something similar in the case of a series of works. This is in regards to our current featured text, which is under the veil of a single published work (by our organization standards). I'm wondering if this once plain simple nav system could be turned into the main way for linking works. A quick thought that the "main" page of a work typically does not have anything to occupy the top left corner. Placement of a large "plain sister" box, with rows:
 * 1) Serial works, sequels
 * 2) Wikisource portals
 * 3) Downloading formats
 * 4) Sister sites

in the top left corner would fill up the typically blank space, and remove the occurrence of plain sister in the notes, with no notes; essentially tightening up the whole thing. Regarding somethings on the download bar; I think the downloadable pdf/djvu is great to have; sometimes looking at the original is preferable especially with illustration heavy works. The plain text (.txt) are not supported for upload, but I think they should be. A capability we lack is to download the formats for various e-readers, which can be done for some easily with text files (like here). The web page can be saved as offline content for reading and of course printed as well. I understand this is redundant to somethings that occur in the side bar, but I feel like it is more noticeable here. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here at the top left is an example of all four together, We would have to increase the left side percentage from 20% of whatever it is in the header template. The enlarged header coincides with my belief that more information should be included in the header template; ie publisher, location, illustrator, editor. - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The options that you present should be something that we want to present, though to me it seems to be part of a different package as you later stated including EPUB, printing, (?kindle) and other formats that the system can generate. however, then I think that this should only be done when we can deliver it in an automated capacity.  Again I think that it is part of a more global rethink on how we manage the various parts and looking at our real estate. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than portal1= portal2=, try #titleparts
In Commons:Template:Creator for the occupation field, there is utilised Occupation = Occupation1/Occupation2/... and pulled it apart with #titleparts. That seems a little neater than having multiple portal parameters. Worth a go IMNSHO. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'll do some testing with this and implement it once it's stable in my userspace. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Noice! Israel-United States Memorandum of 1975 — billinghurst  sDrewth

Related_author ???
His cousin Jim? His mistress? Or partner in crime. I do not readily see where and how we are going to use it. Looking forward to the enlightenment. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this parameter addition either; I am proposing to change the appearance (below) and have not included it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Who exactly is going to assign "relevance" to any particular author in relation to any given work or body of work - the contributing WS user/editor or the original author somehow? — George Orwell III ( talk ) 09:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my mind, the same kind of person who decides that a book about the Dacian Wars should have a link to Portal:Dacian Wars. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added this parameter to plain sister based on a request from billinghurst, which was seconded by GO3, and a mock-up went down well in IRC. An example of the kind of use I was thinking of is at Charles Dickens (Chesterton). I think it is useful for works about a person, as the link to the person often gets lost in the text of a page, relegated to the same status as any other link. In fact, in this case, there is no text to link to unless you add the "notes = This text is about Charles Dickens" to the header (good luck trying to get consistency there, at least this way we have the same amount of/potential for consistency as we do with portal linking). If you can link to the portal for an article's topic, should you not be able link to the author for an article's topic? Inductiveload— talk/contribs   16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded by me? Fairly sure I would be against any such usurping of standard Wiki practice of inline inter-, sister- or red-linking within the content itself with such a subjective parameter. (I can't find exactly where this started - not on anybody's talk page afaik - where did I say I was for incorporating this into header?) — George Orwell III ( talk ) 16:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my bad. I read "Maybe in this case the primary focus should be getting the reader to the appropriate the Author: page first & foremost" as saying this kind of link would be useful. I forgot you didn't like using the plain sister box. Disregard that clause of my statement. You didn't say you wanted it in header, but if it's in plain sister, surely it should be accessible from any template using plain sister. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  16:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah this was over on plain-sister & sorry for not being super clear there. I thought the linked example of Alfred Tennyson made it clear enough how not to loose an author link in all that clutter called content :-| — George Orwell III ( talk ) 17:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is helpful if the name is in the title. But it isn't always:
 * Charles Dickens (Chesterton): no text to link
 * Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/St. Mary Frances of the Five Wounds of Jesus: no headword to link (I personally very much dislike putting a link in the title parameter of header).
 * Monro, Robert (d.1680?) (DNB00): if the headword is split, which part to link?
 * Masefield: great if you know Masefield is someone's name, and not, say, a village in Suffolk.
 * In all the above cases, I think an explicit author link is a lot clearer than hoping a user (who as likely as not is not familiar with Wiki-style linking) spots the link in the text. All WS users can easily pick out these links, but that is not everyone by a long way.
 * Also, when these links are more widely used, then we have added a useful item of metadata to all biographical works.
 * I know the parameter name isn't ideal, and I've asked for alternatives (if we change it, it will be easier now). Inductiveload— talk/contribs  17:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is biographee too specific a term? It looks like a misspelling of biography but it is a valid word meaning the subject of a biography, as opposed to a biographer. It works for the examples quoted here but it might not be flexible enough for general use. (Unless you want it to be inflexible to regulate the use of the link.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with the change, though I see the concern over the ambiguity of the current label, wikilinks are not at all obvious and the gross and disgusting sister links are only bested in uggliness by their inconsistent sizing on some other projects. I love wiki-links but they are not at all obvious to a newbie, especially one who may be at our project for the unimaginable - reading; they are particularly hard to find in the header.  Although I don't care much for the ugliness created by the big info boxes on de.ws, they at least put the information out front where it belongs.  We should at least have the same information available about the work that one can find on a reasonably complete book on Commons.  Preferably a lot more.  And we shouldn't hide it on the talk page either.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Though the idea suggested here for another place altogether for metadata is even better I think.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the instruction on "related author" (and related portal). If an author's name appears in the text it can be linked in context. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 02:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Doug reverted your edit. You reverted Doug, and I have returned it to the status quo of the past four or so months. Highly used links, especially the entry to the portal namespace. Both are optional in their use. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a bogus rationalisation, the status quo for many years was not having them. Using the impetus of thousand of 'process edits' while content contributors are simply getting on with is a foul approach, the same strategem appears at the other place—'it is too late, "we" [a couple of vociferous proponents] already decided and there is no going back—on other matters it has been pointed out that it is unreasonable to bring that form of edit-warring here (and COI in a contentious area undermines Billinghurst's position as both a gnome and adjudicator). The suggestion that it is "optional" does not negate the concerns raised on 'relatedness', "parameter =" quickly becomes compulsory. Portals are a proposal, under development, see en.wp for their unproblematic existence linking to content, yet controversial inclusion within it. Adding it to template documentation sucks, especially when it leads to scope creep. There is no consensus, there is not even a quorum. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And note: I was prompted to remove it because "Doug" referred to the documentation in a discussion on their talk page. The scope of this site is very simple, the opportunites for extended debates on everything else ought to be almost none. Yet another icon or template parameter puts the user's notion idea before the text, similarly, adding what one thinks to published author's text, or circumventing "no user's content" makes it one's OWN. This relatedness adds noise, complexity, and opportunities for disagreement, which also ought to be almost none. I expect this will be bombed with sophistry on why this sort of thing is okay, or fabulous, and feel I must note that this will once again be from users who invest their time in talk pages and process. It seems that proofreading is infra dig for admins, it is drudgery for some plebs to be lorded over; if they do, it is merely to give examples for some proposed novelty. Anyone investing in this discussion should take a step back, asking themselves "why am I here?", read about volunteerism and selflessness, because to those who make unobjectionable contribs it is infuriating to be taken away from what they are interested in, held to ransom by those who seem to have no interest in the thankless task of chipping away at the 1.5 million books that could be added and linked. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 01:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

 * On Novelty, the Wherefore and the Why:

 * I noted earlier the lines, "Our little systems have their day; They have their day and cease to be." Not all "systems" are bad, of course, just because they "cease to be"—and not all novelty is bad just because it's not really new!  But if I had to choose, it would be in favor of proofreading over process (of course, without process,—and even some novelty, there would be no proofreading here!)... Every now and then I ask myself whether all this data entry will be for naught one day (you know,—when all the power grids fail, and when we are once again left to our own mere mortal devices), and whether my time might be better spent doing something else... But I remind myself that even when Wikisource ceases to be (and it will someday), the truths and myths and magic that this sister's pages contain will never cease to be, for they are eternal!  Proofreading—like reading—offers us glimpses of the eternal.  The process (which is still necessary) is a means to an end—the end being that which is eternal.

 * Those involved in the process only are missing out (in my opinion), however, if they don't avail themselves on occasion of the "menial" job of proofreading for the sake of proofreading... I had a dream two nights ago about how my daughter was to give me a message from someone I did not and never would know, but who wanted to exchange letters with me.  They were to be merely "academic" in content, however, for this person had a significant other named Violet in whom they were "very much devoted"... Not having ever given (to my knowledge) conscious thought about the name Violet, what a surprise for me to have read—two days later—about one whose eyes "were bluer than the violets in spring," whose sad eyes "looked like violets in a snow wreath," and "like violets were her heavy eyelids, and underneath her sleeping eyes a violet shadow lay."  And who should she be loved by and gazed upon than by One meant to "keep [his] visage hidden; [for] if [one] once shouldst see [his] face," thee must he forsake, for "the high gods link Love with Faith."  The dream really did come before the reading, but how much more rewarding the reading for the dream, and vice versa!  What does all this have to do with Related_author ??? you ask?  Absolutely nothing, so I apologize :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Returned the documentation to the previous status quo, while discussion continues.

 * To the commentary about portals. We used to have topic matter within Wikisource: namespace, and now it is within Portal: namespace, that was a community decision, though with some dissent or disagreement, however, it occurred. We have indexes with its instructions that exists from 2008, and that was the previous means prior to the introduction of the portal parameter within plain sister. To the remainder of the false argument that is more an attack at people … that becomes your approach regularly, and I refuse to play. There are minimalists and there are maximalists, and there is space in between and I feel that we will end up in the space in between. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a classic political strategy, insist on more than is reasonable to expect, then say any opposition is hostile and uncompromising. I'll repeat, this document was referred to as if it was policy, for one user to change another's contribution. The portal ns was a proposal for a catalogue to en.ws works, based on similar catalogues at real libraries, in the real world, not an opportunity to advertise user generated content. If readers want to navigate to content in that way they are welcome. However, in many recent WS:PD discussions the conception in billinghurst's mind is that it can be a sandbox, a dumping ground for content that belongs at other sisters, if anywhere. Sure to win the hearts of the tendentious, en.wp fugitives, but not good for the integrity of the site. "Parameter = " is seductive, 'I don't know how to contribute, have no interest in old texts, so I will race around providing the x in the equation: something equals' whatever I can glean by glancing at the text. There is no constraint, no guidance, and no policy. Who decides when it goes awry? The admins, whose qualifications are adding some categories and making chat on IRC. Who decides when admins disagree? The next rank up, checkuser. What good is imagining one has authority if one is unable to demonstrate that: things that create discord, like subjectivity, serve that kind of authoritarian structure very well. I'm undoing it until the guidance or policy is up, agreeable, and proven to work: this never happens, because the hoped for dynamic is that new users will ingratiate themselves to someone who imagine this is their castle. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

 * And back again to the way it's been since February. Cyg, there's no such thing as a quorum for consensus.  You have a habit of showing up weeks or months after a change was made and simply reverting it saying there was no consensus for the change.  I've run into this with you before on a template that I wasn't even clear that you disagreed with substance of the change.  The change was made in February to replace the old clunky, ugly system of sister boxes, the same sort of junk they insultingly throw at the bottom of an article on en.wp and call it a sister link.  Ours were at the top and were butt ugly and intruded into the white space.  *That* is why this came up on my talk page.  There is no obligation to use them.  The point was so that an article wouldn't have a template box that says "Wikisource has works by or about Author:Matthew Arnold on an article entitled Matthew Arnold (Coates, 1909); which was a "no duh!" kind of template.  "related_author" was the language User:Inductiveload came up with and he asked for better alternatives and no one could come up with one.  I agree, it's not ideal, but linking the name "Mathew Arnold" in the text or in the header doesn't tell you the same information, unless you click on it.  The current link at least tells you that the subject of this work is also himself an author, whose works we actually have - or at least we have an author page.  This should remain until we have decided to do something different.  Otherwise, we could all just go around removing everything that everyone else did because you don't have consensus for any of that, it never having been discussed at all.  The principle of "silence equals consensus" is a valid principle.  Consensus can change but you are now the proponent of change and must establish the new consensus; else we should stay where we have been for the past six months.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And so the sophistry begins again. The consensus was formed on IRC, and turned out to be nothing of the sort "Seconded by me?". You are offering to document the guidelines? What else would a link on a person be, to anyone actually reading the text, if not an author. Consensus can change? it should first be formed. This is link cruft and has no use at this site. Your contribs, Doug, are an excellent of a talk page ghoul scouting around for an argument, but if you make proper and unobjectionable contributions from another account then I apologise. The first interaction I remember having with you was where you opened several discussions on template talks saying lets change this yesterday, you had done bugger all, and still haven't as far I can see. Anyone can bomb a talk page with discussion until there is no more replies, then claim "silence=consensus". That a few people, with a similar disinterest in content, get together on an unwatched page, change the whole scope of the site. You reverted me because you referred to in in a discussion on your talk. At every point, when I express my views, you have harried me with personalised rejoinders and bury what are succinct and pertinent comments. I'm interested in the integrity of the site, your interest is honing your debating skills by tangling with others in an adversarial fashion. You like this redundant extension of the header, at least for the purpose of argument, you have a conflict of interest in restoring it, the first I heard about any documentation was the other day. At some point I have to stop stamping out these potential bushfires and get back to why I log in. Why do you log into this site? have a serious think about that before worrying about links being 'buried amongst all that grey morass of text'. The pages here are not for creating waves for surfers, it is text people might want to stop and read. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Returning to the original question of the utility of "Related author" within Plain sister and therefore here. I can see that in a few cases (per some of those quoted above - I don't agree with the Masefield one) it is a useful field. The field name is not great, however that doesn't matter in the template provided the documentation of how to use is clear. I suggest that the words "Related author" do not need to appear in the Plain sister box, but just the author's name is needed. I am more concerned that the documentation of the fields in Header does not state which fields are optional and which are mandatory but can be empty. I've got caught a couple of times when fixing up header errors from new contributors with the message "Don't leave out mandatory fields." I tried to fix them and in the end I've had to copy a new blank header from here and fill it in. If I don't remember which are mandatory and which are optional, how can I expect a new contributor to know? With respect to the Portal issue. This feels like the arguments on WP about categories vs navboxes vs lists. Portals are just a way to navigate WS. e.g. What other works do we have about Nepal? What else did Laura Lee Hope write? What are the differences between this version of the Constitution of South Africa and the one before? What do we have on the Napoleonic wars? The first question is best served by the category, but the portal could also be used; the second from the author link; the third from versions and the fourth from the portal (but the categories could be used). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Splitting hairs here … only one field is mandatory to have data, and that would be the title, all the others can be left empty. For construction processes re required, the top displayed set on the documentation is pretty much that list and comes through from the gadget preload, though   can all be omitted without complication. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A few changes to plain sister
With the addition of "related author" and seeing the enlarged notes area, I thought to make a horizontal, or single row plain sister. With this, I think the addition of a series type column (tentatively using series, prequel and sequel, and what appears, alternatively to what I've made could be the word "sequel" instead of "Through the Looking Glass) and a disambiguation column would be nice. I've also removed the box as it seemed unnecessary and changed the portal image, since there are multiple in-site links, using the WS logo for only portals seemed odd. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Far too 'busy' for my taste but I can honestly say your Portal icon makes far more visual sense than the current one being used. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 00:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am with George Orwell III about it being busy, too many icons. I presume the reason that the WS icon is used is to show that it is a local link, so taking that thought further, the mention of Portals and related authors all belong behind the WS icon, so I have played and have this. I am a little concerned that you are trying to over-engineer   .  It is designed to work for all of our works, and things like OTHER and SEQUEL are so very specific to few works.  The NOTES field can adequately handle those components for the few works that require it, and where it doesn't fit within PREVIOUS/NEXT usage.  I do think that we need to do more around getting rid of similar — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "related authors" is needed. I actually don't understand how this would be consistently used. Regarding the "other" and "sequel", yes they are not used in every work, but I think using something like this could help with formatting; I've seen many different ways to link to serial works; in the "next" field, in the notes section, in the "previous" field, above the header. I think that it is common enough to use in plain sister; whether or not in the format I've presented. I suppose the icons may be excessive, and I would not be against removing or simplifying the setup. In the least, I think we should change related authors to serial works. - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear - I wasn't opposed to the general idea of adding what was being offered up, just that the provided example's layout wasn't very mindful of the existing layouts already in place nor did it display somewhat "consistently" under the various basic browser font settings here. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 10:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Shortcut parameter and move it to Template:plain sister
We haven't put and its output into our examples, and we should do it. Actually, to me it now makes sense to move "shortcut" to Template:Plain sister with our other add-ons rather than to host it directly within header. At that time, we need to look at the positioning of shortcut with respect to the other bits, and its size, as it now looks big, fat and ugly. Billinghurst (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See a mockup at User:Spangineer/Sandbox3. —Spangineer (háblame) 14:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:edition
To keep pumping this up, if one looks at Naya Kashmir, I would say that edition is another parameter that should be considered for inclusion within plain sister. Billinghurst (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Billinghurst; currently I think it looks pretty bad when plain sister etc. are in the notes field with edition. Think it should go first above portal. I also think we need to discuss what satisfies the need for using the template. I've clicked on it before to find useless rambling, or formatting issues. The discussion page currently hosts both, I think that needs to be reexamined. A stellar case for usefulness with edition is in the works of LondonJackBooks, (see Stops of Various Quills (1895)) although one could argue that it may belong at en.wp. But these are separate issues; I still advocate merging of edition into the plain sister tables. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In keeping with the circular iconography, how about using this image?

Information icon.svg Information about this edition. Wikisource-logo.svg related portals: Poetry. Wikimedia-logo.svg sister sites: Wikipedia article, Commons category.

-Theornamentalist (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm happy for shortcut, edition and similar to be incorporated into plain sister. My only reservation is that the template is not especially "plain" anymore and full implementation could leave a lot of whitespace in the header (well, blue-greenspace).  This could solved by dropping it below the header but that starts to blur the header/body separation. Alternatively, the elements could go in series, rather than parallel as at present, and the background changed from transparent to the namespace-appropriate header colour. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, and this is very rough, as follows. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 |Information about this edition; See other editions or works with similar titles;  shortcuts: CSA, Confederates;  related portals: General Works, World History;  related authors: William Shakespeare, Francis Bacon; sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons gallery, Commons category, quotes, textbook.
 * I like it horizontal, takes up less space too. I think we need to review icons though, so that were not using several wikisource ones. I like the header color idea, but I wonder, maybe we should have three areas prior to content (as opposed to two right now); this would be one for the header and navigation, one for the growing list of links and such here, and one for the classic notes field, in that order from the top. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 * For the vast bulk of our works, horizontal would be plainly overkill, so maybe there is the call for an option for a presentation form that displays this in horizontal format. We would need to go through sandbox options to see how it looked, and that it works well. The displayed version is too busy and probably a touch daunting to the newcomer. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we can make it look neat, like a small horizontal insert between the notes field and the content. I could imagine it being pretty descent looking, and I suspect we may just be used to how it is currently and are comfortable with it working 90% of the time. - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sister output
Currently, we have all sister site outputs as "Wikipedia article, Commons gallery, Commons category, quotes, news, definition, textbook, course, taxonomy, meta." I feel like the odd ones out are "Wikipedia article, Commons gallery and Commons category," which are wiki-specific. I think that changing this to something like "encyclopedia," or "encyclopedic article' or something, and then "media gallery," and "media category" are more consistent with "quotes, news, definition, textbook, course, taxonomy, meta." Are there any objections to changing it? - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and maybe the discussion could be framed around an open question, and one that has a reasonable time associated with it. This was certainly not an urgent request. Wikipedia and Commons are keywords, give useful specificity and of value to the brand. It looked butt ugly IMNSHO, and I have undone it. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize; it seemed no one took any interest nor seemed to care, and although admittedly hasty, I saw no disapproval. I don't see how it appeared butt ugly, ha, they were just IMO a minor change in words in order to have consistency among sister sites. If we veer in this direction with using the sister site titles, then we to advertise the wiki-brand evenly; this means using Wikiquote instead of quotes, Wikispecies taxonomy instead of taxonomy, etc. Otherwise, the branding is unnecessarily uneven. Although Wikipedia is the most obvious choice for branding, I certainly use Wiktionary as a resource more than Commons; I would hope that that brand gets light too, and not just Wikipedia and Commons. - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about either of these?

sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons gallery, Commons category, Wikiquote page, Wikinews articles, Wiktionary definition, Wikibooks textbook, Wikiversity course, Wikispecies taxonomy, Meta-wiki page. or sister projects: encyclopedic article, media gallery, media category, quotes, news, definition, textbook, course, taxonomy, meta. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that this is not an urgent issue, but it seems very straightforward to me. Commons and wikipedia as a brand should not be the only sister sites mentioned by name. We should either turn all of them into "brand" names, or none. Regarding the revert Billinghurst, ha, I am really straining to see how using "encylopedic" in place of "Wikipedia" and "media" in place of "Commons" has made it butt ugly. Is it the loss of the capitol letter? - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Content Navigation
I feel like I may have brought this up before; I think we should have a section underneath the "section" parameter for navigation. Currently I am doing this in the "section" parameter if possible. I prefer to offer navigation within the header, leaving the content section untouched for various reasons. Since we can give the reader convenience with this being a webpage, I feel like it should be done. It has certainly helped me before when returning to a section I was reading. In the past, this has been done with the TOC native to wikimedia (see Nature (book), but as we move away from that formatting style, I would hate to lose the option for the reader. Some examples I can give are sections within a single page (see Nature, Addresses and Lectures/Nature) and on multiple pages (see The Swiss Family Robinson, In Words of One Syllable). I find this preferable to AuxTOC, as it is less obtrusive on the content, but I understand that there are some instances where using it is beneficial either because of the number of sections or actual name of sections being long themselves (see Mrs. Caudle's curtain lectures/The curtain lectures). However, rather than continuing the way I have, which is misusing the "section" parameter, I think we need to create a new parameter for navigation. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

 * While I mostly agree with your premise and recognize the need for more flexibility as well, trying to do something like that, plus all the other variations-on-a-theme that go along with it under this currently table-based green header is pointless. We'd need to grand-father in the current template in its basic form (i.e. leave your plain sister at home) and start moving to an all div based header that looks much like the current one but allows for far more flexibility for swapping in and out such customizations as needed and that the community can live with. Go take a peek at the German and French WS sites for some good examples of what can be done by just mimicking the the current first three lines of our header and anything under that can be 1, 3 or 5 column single-row tables nested and/or wrapped in a div tree. I see they've even moved into scrolling & pop-down menus in some cases. If one doesn't appreciate the need for these kind of improvements - I'm sure there are ways to give you the current header layout without too much trouble (again - I may be assuming too much on that point though). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC).
 * I understand; there's actually quite a lot I like about fr.ws, including their columned text, but that's another discussion. At this point, I guess we can put this on "the list" for discussion if/when a header change comes. I am willing to help with that when it comes time. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with putting it (a Toc or whatever) into the Notes field where it is a long page? We regularly do that in in longer index pages. For many other types of pages it has seemed less necessary and of less value.  Generally we have broken works down to subpages (chapter/part/entry) partly as a way to address this issue. Otherwise there probably isn't a universal solution and not one that is easily coded into this template. With regard to use of NOTES parameter while it is notes, it also covers miscellaneous bits like ToCs.  I have seen others put it at the top of the pages (usually as a template) outside of the header section, and that can be okay but not my preference. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Example of use of a ToC Chronicle of the Grey friars of London/Index — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Personal preference I guess; I use the notes field for commentary if there is something to note of the publication or edition, which is very rare. I think to me it looks neater centered in the header, is all. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'What's wrong with navigation from the notes field?' Nothing I guess if you treat anything and everything that isn't a "standard parameter" as supplemental or secondary rather than critical or essential in properly & efficiently accessing or absorbing certain types of works by potential readers. I call them potential because we don't have any real traffic that we can confidently speak of to base any of our (re)designs on to be fair & balanced about it. And my point wasn't about trying to code anything and everything into the current template - just the ability to rationally organize and/or swap in or out these alternative OR essential means of navigation. The current HTML table design is just not "friendly enough" to keep accommodating this thing or that option cleanly or consistently much longer. The more the works that have received the "sister" treatment, for lack of a better term that is, the more obvious its becoming that the light-blue notes field is more of an eyesore than any benefit when there are no real notes found along side of the sister bullet points to speak of. You might be right about how the current practice is just fine considering the amount and type of traffic that's taking place on en.WS but I suspect that notion isn't going last forever let alone much longer and this "miscellaneous item creep" we're talking about by relegating it once again to the notes field (plus all that's been added there already over the past couple of months) is just evidence that its (over)usage is already stretching the limits of what it was originally intended for. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not going to disagree that Notes gets to be a bit of a 'glad bag' nor that a better solution (whichever/whenever/whatever) will be fantastic. That said miscellaneous bits have to go somewhere, and I much prefer that the standard standard bits appearing in the green, and the occasional/miscellaneous in notes.  Having them as parameters of header allows that redesign to occur more easily, and the "sisterhood" of the property links is at least an order of magnitude better than the hotch-potch of the previous   ... links that we had previously.— billinghurst  sDrewth  14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree that the current solution is better than the white-page intrusions we had before with those older templates. But that just brings us back to point at hand - do we really want to repeat the same placement "policy" as the one being phased out by suggesting things like static TOCs wind up in the page white-space as well? or do we want to push the "problem" down the road once again by dropping things like that off in the notes field for now? Its become a lose-lose situation imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Category: Subpages
I'm trying to use this template on my own wiki, and I'm getting "Category: Subpages" on my subpages. I'm not quite sure what I'm doing -- or not doing -- that's causing this? Tamblyne (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 * That is the default & automatic behavior for this template when it is applied on a sub-page. This was setup primarily for various tracking and/or maintenance purposes here on en.WS. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Can you tell me how to override it?  I don't see that behavior on any of the pages here that I'm looking at, but I can't figure out how they're preventing it.  Tamblyne (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Well before actually altering the template's code on your Wiki, is it possible you have enabled some setting your preferences similar to Show Hidden Categories there but not enabled the setting under your account here? That's probably why you see it there but not here...
 * Anyway you'd need to hide (or remove) the section prefixed by Subpages in the code to turn off this auto-categorization. The easiest is to take the current code

Subpages --><!--

 * and move the existing hidden-text closing tag ( --> ) after Subpages to the end of the section in question as such...

Subpages    --><!--

George Orwell III (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I'll look for that setting first. Thank you very much for the help!  Tamblyne (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Page protection detection and Template:Locked
I'm about to try, for a second time, to add code to the header to detect page protection and call locked as appropriate. This seems to be the simplest and most direct way to implement page protection icons in the main namespace without requiring the manual use of the locked template every time. The first time, wasn't limited to the main namespace, so the multiple headers in this templates documentation caused multiple padlock icons. I know that there will also be a problem in the short term with those pages to do have the locked template added manually (they will have two icons); I'll remove those template when and if this works. I can't see any reason for this not to work but I'm afraid that it's not the sort of thing I can test in a sandbox. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Header/2011


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Ollier, Charles

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


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Ollier, Edmund


text:
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Korean Affairs in the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs July 19, 1951

[Washington,] July 19, 1951

SECRET

Subject: Japanese Peace Treaty

Participants: Dr. Yu Chan Yang, Korean Ambassador

Mr. Pyo Wook Han, First Secretary, Korean Embassy

Ambassador John Foster Dulles

Mr. Arthur B. Emmons, 3rd, Officer in Charge, Korean Affairs

The Korean Ambassador called upon Mr. Dulles at 2 o’clock this afternoon by prior appointment. In opening the conversation Dr. Yang presented Mr. Dulles with a note addressed to the Secretary (copy attached) raising certain points which the Korean Government wished to have considered for incorporation in the Japanese peace treaty.

After reading the Ambassador’s communication, Mr. Dulles discussed the three points contained therein. With regard to the first point, Mr. Dulles was in doubt that the formula confirming Japan’s renunciation of certain territorial claims to Korea, could be included in the treaty in the form suggested by the ROK. He explained that the terms of the Japanese surrender instrument of August 9, 1945 did not, of themselves, technically constitute a formal and final determination of this question. He added, however, that the Department would consider including in the treaty a clause giving retroactive effect to the Japanese renunciation of territorial claims to August 9, 1945. The Korean Ambassador replied that if this were done he believed that the point raised by his Government would be met satisfactorily.

Mr. Dulles noted that paragraph 1 of the Korean Ambassador’s communication made no reference to the Island of Tsushima and the Korean Ambassador agreed that this had been omitted. Mr. Dulles then inquired as to the location of the two islands, Dokdo and Parangdo. Mr. Han stated that these were two small islands lying in the Sea of Japan, he believed in the general vicinity of Ullungdo. Mr. Dulles asked whether these islands had been Korean before the Japanese annexation, to which the Ambassador replied in the affirmative. If that were the case, Mr. Dulles saw no particular problem in including these islands in the pertinent part of the treaty which related to the renunciation of Japanese territorial claims to Korean territory.

In regard to paragraph 2 of the Ambassador’s communication, Mr. Dulles assured the Ambassador that it was the intention of the United States to extend protection to the Republic of Korea with respect to any Japanese claims concerning vested properties in Korea. He said that the Department would study this question but that at the moment he could not forsee that this would involve any particular difficulty.

With reference to paragraph 3 of the communication, Mr. Dulles stated that he could say right off that it would be impossible to meet the Korean request for inclusion in the treaty of a delimitation of high-seas fishing areas pointing out that the United States had been under great pressure from many countries and also from American fishing interests to make the treaty, in effect, a fishing convention for the Pacific. He went on to explain that to do so would open up a whole area of conflicting interests and claims which would greatly complicate the writing of the treaty. He pointed out, however, that this did not preclude negotiation of a series of bilateral or multilateral agreements on fisheries with Japan following the conclusion of the treaty.

Mr. Dulles remarked that very frankly the Department was surprised and greatly disturbed at the strong language which the Korean Ambassador had used in a press statement on July 18 in which warnings were uttered against accepting the Japanese into association with the peace-loving nations of the world in full faith and confidence. Mr. Dulles pointed out the difficulty and delicacy of the position of the United States in its efforts to obtain a reasonable and satisfactory treaty with Japan, a matter of great significance to all Pacific nations, and stressed the importance, in this matter, of Korean understanding and cooperation; while the United States understood and sympathized with the Koreans in their difficult relationship with Japan and while the Ambassador undoubtedly was acting under instructions from his Government, Mr. Dulles pointed out that such statement did not help matters.

The Korean Ambassador stated that there were some 800 thousand Koreans in Japan who were being very much discriminated against by the Japanese Government. The reason for this, he believed, was that Japan still rankled over the loss of Korea and was determined to take it out on such Koreans as might still be under Japanese control. Mr. Dulles suggested that many of these Koreans were undesirables, being in many cases from North Korea and constituting a center for Communist agitation in Japan. He believed, therefore, that probably a legitimate Japanese fear of certain of these Koreans was involved in any action taken against them by the Japanese authorities.

Mr. Dulles asked the Ambassador what, in his opinion, was the reason why the United States is advocating a liberal and non-restrictive treaty with Japan, knowing that we had only recently fought Japan at great cost and that we were most concerned with the future structure of peace in the Pacific.

Dr. Yang replied that he assumed that our motivation in writing such a treaty was because of the inherent friendship of the American people for the rest of the world. The Ambassador wished to stress, however, the Koreans had suffered tremendously over a period of many years at the hands of the Japanese, that while the Koreans wished to live in peace with Japan and demanded no reparations, they felt that once a treaty was signed, Korea would be at the mercy of a resurgence of Japanese economic strength which would make the future security of Korea a most serious problem; unless the United States were willing to exercise its powerful influence to control Japan, Korea would inevitably lapse into a poor bargaining position in its future relations with Japanese because of the preponderance of power which would rest with the latter.

Mr. Dulles explained that, far from being afraid of the future economic and military strength of Japan, American experts were now worried about the problem of even establishing viability in Japanese economic life, that the grave danger, both to Korea and to the other nations of the Pacific, was that Japan, because of weakness, might ultimately fall under Communist domination and that it was with this in mind that the United States believed it essential to leave Japan free to rebuild its peace time economy. He pointed out that since the Japanese would be dependent to a very great degree on imports of raw material from abroad, this fact in itself would constitute an effective form of control over Japan’s resurgence.

The Ambassador then referred to the great moral and psychological disadvantage to the Korean people in not being considered a member of the Allied Powers which had fought Japan and which would sign the treaty. He emphasized that under the so-called Korean Provisional Government the Koreans had been fighting the Japanese for many years even prior to World War II and that they felt they had won for themselves the right to a place at the peace table. Mr. Dulles replied that some qualifying test obviously had to be established for those who would sign the treaty in order to provide a reasonable formula under which the treaty could be written, and that many Allied Nations besides the United States had also believed that only those countries which had signed the 1942 Declaration of the United Nations should be signatories to the treaty. To include Korea, whose government had been established only in 1948, would be to open up a considerable area of possible disagreement which would complicate getting the treaty through and would bring into the picture several other nations which considered their claims to be signatories to be as valid as those of the ROK, He wished to assure the Ambassador that this limitation did not in any sense reflect a lack of United States interest or complete sympathy with Korea or any intent derogatory to the ROK, but emphasized rather that we regarded Korea with great solicitude and sympathy.

The Korean Ambassador again expressed the fear that the net result of a lenient treaty with Japan, in which Korea did not participate, would be to expose her to great difficulties in the future; despite American assurance of our interest in the maintenance of good Korean-Japanese relations, the United States at some point might well relax this interest and Korea would then be exposed to undue pressure from Japan unless a stricter treaty were put into effect to which Korea would be a signatory. To illustrate his point, he referred to the fact that Japanese fishing vessels were crossing the so-called MacArthur Line into Korean waters even while SCAP was still in authority in Japan, and that the Koreans wondered what would happen when SCAP’s control over the Japanese had been removed. Dr. Yang suggested that the Koreans might feel differently if the United States would assume responsibility for the future defence of Korea, and he wondered whether such a treaty of defence could not be worked out.

In concluding the conversation the Korean Ambassador jocularly suggested that if Korea were accorded the full status of a signatory to the treaty,, he thought that the ROK could perhaps drop its insistence upon having the points raised in paragraph 2 and 3 of his communication included therein. Mr. Dulles replied that he could not undertake to agree that any such arrangement could be made but that he would give sympathetic consideration to all of the points raised by the Korean Ambassador.

1951年7月19日付エモンズによる会談覚書


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/O'Mahony, Daniel


text:
Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/224

200

title: Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/224


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/O'Mahony, John


text:
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Korean Affairs in the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs July 9, 1951

[Washington,] July 9, 1951.

SECRET

Subject: Japanese Peace Treaty

Participants: Dr. Yu Chan Yang, Korean Ambassador

Ambassador John Foster Dulles

Mr. Robert A Fearey, FE

Mr. Arthur B Emmons, 3rd., Officer in Charge, Korean Affairs

The Korean ambassador called on Ambassador Dulles at 11:30 this morning by prior appointment. Ambassador Dulles opened the conversation by handing Ambassador Yang the text of the latest draft of the Japanese peace treaty. He explained to the Ambassador that this draft should be considered Secret until its publication. He also stated that the Department would instruct Ambassador Muccio to make a copy of the draft available right away to the ROK Government.

Ambassador Dulles pointed out to the Korean ambassador that the ROK Government would not be a signatory to the treaty, since only those nations in a state of war with Japan and which were signatories of the United Nations Declaration of January 1942 would sign the treaty. He pointed out, however, that Korea would benefit from all of the general provisions of the treaty equally with other nations.

Ambassador Yang expressed his surprise that ROK would not be included as a signatory, and protested that the Korean Provisional Government had, in fact, been in a state of war with Japan even for many years prior to World War II. He stressed that there had been a Korean division in China which had fought against the Japanese and that a declaration of war against Japan had been made by the Korean Provisional Government. The Korean ambassador therefore, considered on this basis that Korea should be a signatory. Mr. Frearey pointed out that the Unites States Government had never given recognition to the Korean Provisional Government.

The Korean Ambassador then asked whether the Islands of Tsushima was to given to Korea under the terms of the treaty, stating that Tsushima properly belonged to Korea. Ambassador Dulles took exception to this statement and pointed out that Japan had been in full control of Tsushima for a very long period of time; the treaty therefore did not affect the present status of Tsushima as a minor Japanese island.

Ambassador Yang then asked whether the treaty included provisions which would restrict Japanese fishing in waters in the vicinity of the Korean peninsula, pointing out that this matter had already been a source of friction between Korea and Japan, which boded no good for future Korean-Japanese relations. He stated that some 34 fishing vessels had recently been intercepted and arrested by the ROK Navy while fishing in waters beyond the so-called MacArthur Line. Dr. Yang stressed the vital importance to the Korean economy of controlling such unrestricted Japanese fishing activities in waters close to Korea.Ambassador Dulles replied that the treaty did not include provisions which would govern fishing in specific high seas areas and that to have included such provisions would have meant a very serious delay in the conclusion of the treaty, since there were many national fishing interests concerned. He explained that the treaty, as such, could not be permitted to become an international fishing convention for the Pacific but that it did contain provisions for the negotiation of bilateral or multilateral fishing agreements with Japan. Ambassador Dulles emphasized that the Department had been under considerable pressure from various quarters, including Unites States and Canadian fishing interests, to write specific restrictions on Japanese fishing into the treaty, but that in the interest of getting the treaty through as quickly as possible this pressure had been resisted in every instance.

In further connection with the fishing question, Ambassador Yang raised the point that, if Japan were to be allowed to re-arm, there would not be any future guarantee that control over fishing or other international problems, including the general security of the area, could effectively be exercised over Japan. Ambassador Dulles then discussed the undesirability of a restrictive treaty, pointing out that restrictions in the past, as for instance at Versailles, had inevitably resulted in their becoming a challenge to the country upon which they were imposed and a psychological target for national opposition. He believed that more subtle methods of control would be more effective, pointing out that the United States would have troops in Japan and that the Unites States and other Pacific nations could control the flow of raw materials into Japan and the level of its war-making potential. He added that the Unites States and the other Pacific nations were fully alive to the danger inherent in a resurgence of Japanese military strength and were determined to control this danger through all of the extensive means at their disposal; in so doing the security interests of Korea would naturally be a factor. Ambassador Dulles also referred to the threat presented by Russian attempts to win Japan away from the West and stated that from this point of view a moderate and workable treaty with Japan was most desirable.

Mr. Emmons suggested that the Korean Ambassador might be interested in the provisions of the treaty which dealt with bilateral negotiations between Japan and other interested Powers on such collateral questions as high seas fishing. Ambassador Dulles read the Korean Ambassador pertinent sections of the treaty dealing with this question.

In closing the conversation Ambassador Yang expressed his desire to have an opportunity for further discussions with Ambassador Dulles, presumably after receipt of instructions from his Government.

1951年7月9日付エモンズによる会談覚書


text:
Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/118

94

on hand gehwearf.Hē gehēold tela fīftig wintra(wæs ðā frōd cyning, eald ēþel-weard),oð ðæt ān ongan deorcum nihtumdraca rīcs[i]an, sē ðe on hēa[um] hlǣwehord beweotode, stān-beorh stēapne; stīg under læg eldum uncūð.Þǣr on innan gīong niða nāt-hwylc: : : : : : : gefēng hǣðnum hordehond : : : : : : : :

title: Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/118


text:
Page:Colymbia (1873).djvu/35

Rh on philosophy and science, together with a fair sprinkling of French and German works on the same subjects. Natural history, natural philosophy, mechanics, chemistry, geography and history were the chief subjects. They were generally the last editions of these works, not reprints, and they seemed to be well used, for their pages bore signs of having been read and studied; and several volumes, taken from the shelves, lay with markers in them on one of the tables.

Among the books on the table were a few of a different appearance from the others. I opened one of them, and saw that its pages were made, not of paper, but of some highly-glazed material, and that they were printed in a character I had never seen before, more resembling the dots and strokes made on the paper ribbons by the telegraphic machine than the letters of any civilised language.

I was still engaged in examining this odd book, of which I could make neither head nor tail, when the leafy curtain opened, and there entered a youngish man, with a fine intellectual-looking head, the glow of health in his ruddy cheeks, and his limbs and body of extremely graceful proportions. Like the others I had seen, he seemed to have just come out of a bath, for he had nothing on but the invariable short trousers or bathing drawers, and he was dripping wet.

He took up a soft towel, gave his face and hands a good wipe, and, not troubling himself about the water that trickled down his skin, he snatched up a dressing-gown of some soft silky material that lay on a couch, and wrapped it round his dripping body.

Surveying me with some curiosity, he addressed me in a kindly voice:—

title: Page:Colymbia (1873).djvu/35


text:
Page:Colymbia (1873).djvu/36

30 "I see, sir, you are a stranger; shipwrecked, I presume, on our protecting reef?"

I related, to him the particulars of my shipwreck, which interested him much, and he expressed his surprise that apparently I alone, of all the crew, was good enough swimmer to avail myself of the means of escape offered by the life-boat. He said that all who led a seafaring life or even went a sea voyage should be taught to be as much at home in the water as on dry land.

On my expressing doubts as to the practicability of this, he said, "Well, I think you will alter your ideas on that point before you have lived long among us."

He informed me that he was one of a staff appointed by Government to instruct strangers, who might come to their country, in all things that were requisite in order to enable them to become good and useful citizens.

The number of strangers who came hither was not great. Formerly the annual amount was something considerable, but that was in the days of sailing vessels. Since the very general introduction of steam, wrecks had been much rarer; and as these islands were not on any of the great lines of traffic, it was sometimes years before a wreck occurred.

"Do none visit you except the shipwrecked?" I inquired.

"Rarely," he replied; "and it comes to the same thing as though they had been wrecked, for we take care that their ship shall never carry them away again. All that is useful we take possession of, and then blow up the ship."

"Then do I understand," I asked in alarm, "that I am to be detained here a prisoner for life?"

title: Page:Colymbia (1873).djvu/36


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/O'Malley, George


text:
Page:Colymbia (1873).djvu/37

Rh "Well, not exactly," he replied, "because, though, until quite recently, we have never allowed departures from our island, a more liberal policy now prevails. Last year our legislature passed an act permitting strangers to leave the country, if they so wished and an opportunity should offer. Most improbable contingencies," he added, "for, once used to our life here, all other modes of living seem intolerable; and, as for opportunities for leaving the country, they are very unlikely to occur, as vessels that get on our reef speedily become total wrecks, even without our assistance. Moreover, as I told you, we are out of the way of any direct packet-lines—you know it was only owing to the eccentric course pursued by your theoretical captain that you had the chance of being thrown ashore here—so you see you will have to make up your mind to become a citizen of our state, and to adapt yourself to your new circumstances as well as you can. And," he added, "I believe you to be of sufficient intelligence to learn our ways rapidly, and, once you have mastered them, I venture to say you will not be disposed to return to the habits of your native land."

"Indeed, sir," I said, "you make me extremely desirous to commence those studies which I am to go through in order to qualify myself for citizenship in your community. Everything I have observed since I first approached these islands has struck me with the most profound surprise. The tethered barking seals, the aquatic policemen speaking English which seems to be the language of the country, the beauty of your forests, with their gigantic fruit-laden trees, and their magnificent flowering shrubs, the gorgeous colours and varieties of your birds, are to me strange

title: Page:Colymbia (1873).djvu/37


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/O'Malley, Grace


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/O'Malley, Thadeus


text: English As She Is Spoke/Of the Man, etc

title: English As She Is Spoke/Of the Man, etc


text: English As She Is Spoke/Familiar Phrases


text: English As She Is Spoke/Familiar Dialogues


text: English As She Is Spoke/Familiar Letters


text: English As She Is Spoke/Anecdotes

title: English As She Is Spoke/Anecdotes


text: English As She Is Spoke/Idiotisms and Proverbs


text:
Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/119

95

þ[ēah] ð[e hē] slǣpendebe syre : : : : de þēofes cræfteþæt sīe ðīod : : : : : : : : : folc beornaþæt hē gebolge[n] wæs.

title: Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/119


text:
Barack Obama's Presidential Press Conference - 7 January 2013

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Please have a seat. As President and Commander-in-Chief, my most solemn obligation is the security of the American people. Over the past four years, we’ve met that responsibility by ending the war in Iraq, and beginning a transition in Afghanistan; by decimating the al-Qaeda core and taking out Osama bin Laden; by disrupting terrorist plots and saving countless American lives.

Among an outstanding national security team, I am especially grateful to Leon Panetta, who has led the CIA and our military with incredible skill. Leon, after nearly five decades of service, you have more than earned the right to return to civilian life. I’ll have much more to say about Leon’s distinguished service in the days ahead. Today, I simply want to convey both to you and to Sylvia the eternal gratitude of the entire nation. Thank you so much, Leon.

I also want to thank Michael Morell, who has earned the admiration of all of us who’ve worked with him across government and here in the White House. In moments of transition, he’s guided the CIA with a steady hand as Acting Director -- not once, but twice. And he is a consummate professional. As I said, everybody in the White House who works with him, everybody across agencies who works with him considers him truly to be one of our most outstanding national security team members. And so, Michael, on behalf of all of us, thank you and Mary Beth for your continued service.

As these leaders know, the work of protecting our nation is never done, and we’ve still got much to do: Ending the war in Afghanistan and caring for those who have borne the battle; preparing for the full range of threats, from the unconventional to the conventional, including things like cyber security; and within our military, continuing to ensure that our men and women in uniform can serve the country they love, no matter who they love.

To help meet the challenges of our time, I’m proud to announce my choice for two key members of my national security team -- Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense and John Brennan for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Chuck Hagel is the leader that our troops deserve. He is an American patriot. He enlisted in the Army and volunteered for Vietnam. As a young private, and then a sergeant, he served with honor, alongside his own brother. When Chuck was hit by shrapnel, his brother saved him. When his brother was injured by a mine, Chuck risked his life to pull him to safety. To this day, Chuck bears the scars -- and the shrapnel -- from the battles he fought in our name.

Chuck Hagel’s leadership of our military would be historic. He’d be the first person of enlisted rank to serve as Secretary of Defense, one of the few secretaries who have been wounded in war, and the first Vietnam veteran to lead the department. As I saw during our visits together to Afghanistan and Iraq, in Chuck Hagel our troops see a decorated combat veteran of character and strength. They see one of their own.

Chuck is a champion of our troops and our veterans and our military families. As a leader at the VA, he fought to give our veterans the benefits they deserved. As head of the USO, he devoted himself to caring for our troops. Having studied under the GI Bill himself, he helped lead the fight for the Post-9/11 GI Bill so today’s returning heroes can get their education, too. Having co-chaired my Intelligence Advisory Board, he knows that our armed forces collect, analyze, and depend on good intelligence.

And Chuck recognizes that American leadership is indispensable in a dangerous world. I saw this in our travels together across the Middle East. He understands that America stands strongest when we stand with allies and with friends. As a successful businessman, he also knows that even as we make tough fiscal choices, we have to do so wisely, guided by our strategy, and keep our military the strongest fighting force the world has ever known.

Maybe most importantly, Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction. He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that’s something we only do when it’s absolutely necessary. “My frame of reference,” he has said, is “geared towards the guy at the bottom who’s doing the fighting and the dying.” With Chuck, our troops will always know, just like Sergeant Hagel was there for his own brother, Secretary Hagel will be there for you.

And finally, Chuck represents the bipartisan tradition that we need more of in Washington. For his independence and commitment to consensus, he’s earned the respect of national security and military leaders, Republicans and Democrats -- including me. In the Senate, I came to admire his courage and his judgment, his willingness to speak his mind -- even if it wasn’t popular, even if it defied the conventional wisdom.

And that’s exactly the spirit I want on my national security team -- a recognition that when it comes to the defense of our country, we are not Democrats or Republicans; we are Americans. Each of us has a responsibility, Chuck has said, to be guided not by the interest of our party or our President even, but by “the interests of our country.”

So, Chuck, I thank you and Lilibet for agreeing to serve once more in the interests of our country.

Now, when I’m on the subject of patriots, let me say a few words about John Brennan. In John Brennan, the men and women of the CIA will have the leadership of one of our nation’s most skilled and respected intelligence professionals -- not to mention that unique combination of smarts and strength that he claims comes from growing up in New Jersey.

A 25-year veteran of the CIA, John knows what our national security demands -- intelligence that provides policymakers with the facts, strong analytic insights, and a keen understanding of a dynamic world. Given his extensive experience and travels -- which include, by the way, traveling through the Arabian Peninsula where he camped with tribesmen in the desert -- John has an invaluable perspective on the forces -- the history, the culture, the politics, economics, the desire for human dignity driving so much of the changes in today’s world.

Having held senior management, analytic, and operational positions at the agency, John is committed to investing in the range of intelligence capabilities we need -- technical and human. He literally built -- and then led -- the National Counterterrorism Center. And he knows the risks that our intelligence professionals face every day. John has lost colleagues and friends -- heroes whose stars now grace that memorial wall at Langley.

For the last four years, as my Advisor for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, John developed and has overseen our comprehensive counterterrorism strategy -- a collaborative effort across the government, including intelligence and defense and homeland security, and law enforcement agencies.

And so think about the results. More al Qaeda leaders and commanders have been removed from the battlefield than at any time since 9/11. Their communications, recruiting, training, finances are all under enormous strain -- all of which makes it harder to plan and carry out large-scale attacks against our homeland. And our entire team, including our exceptional Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, will remain relentless against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

In all this work, John has been tireless. People here in the White House work hard. But John is legendary, even in the White House, for working hard. He is one of the hardest-working public servants I’ve ever seen. I’m not sure he’s slept in four years. When I was on Martha’s Vineyard, John came and did the press briefing -- this is in summer, it’s August, he’s in full suit and tie. And one of the reporters asked him, don’t you ever get any down time? And John said, “I don’t do down time.” He’s not even smiling now.

There’s another reason I value John so much, and that is his integrity and his commitment to the values that define us as Americans. He has worked to embed our efforts in a strong legal framework. He understands we are a nation of laws. In moments of debate and decision, he asks the tough question and he insists on high and rigorous standards. Time and again, he’s spoken to the American people about our counterterrorism policies because he recognizes we have a responsibility to be [as] open and transparent as possible.

And so, John, you’ve been one of my closest advisors. You’ve been a great friend. I am deeply grateful for your extraordinary service. I’m even more grateful for Kathy’s willingness to put up with you. And I’m grateful to both of you for your willingness to take this assignment.

Today, I can say to the men and women of the CIA: In Director John Brennan you will have one of your own; a leader who knows you; who cares for you, deeply; and who will fight for you every single day. And you’ll have a leader who has my complete confidence and my complete trust.

As I said, the work of defending our nation is never done. My number-one criteria in making these decisions was simple -- who is going to do the best job in securing America. These two leaders have dedicated their lives to protecting our country. I’m confident they will do an outstanding job. I urge the Senate to confirm them as soon as possible so we can keep our nation secure and the American people safe.

And so, Chuck and John -- congratulations. And with that, I want to invite each of these leaders on stage to say a few words, starting with Mr. Leon Panetta.

SECRETARY PANETTA: First of all, let me express my deepest gratitude to the President for giving me the honor and the privilege of serving in your administration these last four years as Director of the CIA and now as Secretary of Defense. I have been extremely proud to be part of your national security team, Mr. President, and to be proud of what it has accomplished in your first term.

Looking ahead to the second term, I want to commend President Obama on his decision to nominate Chuck Hagel as the next Secretary of the Defense. And let me also add, as former Director of the CIA, to commend the President for his choice of John Brennan. I have had the opportunity to work with John on counterterrorism issues these last four years. He knows the CIA. He will be a strong leader of that great intelligence agency.

I've also known Chuck for a long period of time as well, and I had the opportunity to work with him closely -- particularly in his capacity as Chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. I greatly appreciate the work he has done to strengthen our intelligence enterprise. It has been extremely important to our ability to improve our intelligence capabilities. And as Secretary of Defense, I also benefited from his work when he served on our Defense Policy Board.

Chuck Hagel is a patriot, he's a decorated combat veteran, and he is a dedicated public servant. I believe his experience, his judgment, his deep understanding of the security issues facing this country make him the right choice to be Secretary of Defense.

As for me, after close to 50 years of serving the American people -- began in 1964 when I served as a first lieutenant in the United States Army, and then in both the legislative and executive branch positions in Washington -- the time has come for me to return to my wife Sylvia, our three sons, their families, our six grandchildren, and my walnut farm dealing with a different set of nuts.

I want to deeply thank my family for giving me the fullest measure of love and support during my many absences from home throughout my long career in public service. But I will leave Washington with a very deep sense of pride in what we have accomplished during these last four years being on the President's national security team.

As both Director of the CIA and as Secretary of Defense, I have always believed that our fundamental mission is to keep America safe, to keep America secure. And because of the outstanding dedication of our intelligence and military professionals, America is safer and more secure than it was four years ago, and we have reached a turning point after more than a decade of war.

And on that, as we’ve reached that turning point, we’ve developed a new defense strategy for the 21st century. We have, with John’s leadership, decimated al Qaeda’s leadership and weakened their effort to attack this country. We have brought wars in Iraq and we will bring the war in Afghanistan to an honorable conclusion. We’ve opened up opportunities for all Americans to serve in our military. And we continue to strongly support our forces, their families, and our wounded warriors. These are some of the achievements that I am proud of.

Let me close by expressing my profound gratitude to the outstanding team of military and civilian staff and leaders that I’ve had the honor to serve with at the Department of Defense and at the White House. In particular, let me deeply thank the outstanding men and women in uniform, who I’ve had the privilege to serve and to lead, those who put their lives on the line every day on distant battlefields for this country. Their sacrifices teach us that freedom is not free; a strong democracy depends on a strong defense. But you can also not have a strong and stable defense without a strong and stable democracy.

As we continue to confront strategic challenges and fiscal austerity, my hope for the future is that the sense of duty our servicemembers and their families exhibit every day inspires the leaders of this nation to have the courage to do what is right, to achieve the American Dream, to give our children a better life, and to build a more secure future.

SENATOR HAGEL: Thank you, Mr. President. I’m honored by your trust and your confidence in me, and not unmindful of the immense responsibilities that go with it. I want to also acknowledge my wife, Lilibet; my daughter, Allyn; and our son, Ziller, who is in Chicago today, we hope, back attending his first day of classes at DePaul University.

And to my friend, Leon Panetta, thank you for your extraordinary service to our country over so many years in so many capacities. You are one of the premier public servants of our time. To follow you at the Department of Defense will be a most challenging task, but I will try to live up to the standards that you, Bob Gates and others have set for this job and this nation.

Let me also express my deep appreciation and congratulations to my friend, John Brennan, and to also acknowledge the President's confidence and trust in John Brennan. Thank you, John, for your service and what you will continue to do for our country. To Mike Morell -- who I have gotten to know over the years not just serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee, but also, as the President has noted, the privilege of co-chairing the President's Intelligence Advisory Board with former Senator Dave Boren -- thank you, Mike, for your continued service.

Mr. President, I am grateful for this opportunity to serve our country again and especially its men and women in uniform and their families. These are people who give so much to this nation every day with such dignity and selflessness. This is particularly important at a time as we complete our mission in Afghanistan and support the troops and military families who have sacrificed so much over more than a decade of war.

I'm also grateful for an opportunity to help continue to strengthen our country and strengthen our country's alliances, and advance global freedom, decency, and humanity as we help build a better world for all mankind. I will always do my best. I will do my best for our country, for those I represent at the Pentagon, and for all our citizens. And, Mr. President, I will always give you my honest and most informed counsel. Thank you very much.

ACTING DIRECTOR MORELL: Mr. President, thank you for your very kind remarks, and thank you for the trust that you placed in me when you asked me to be Acting Director twice.

I have had the honor of knowing and working with John Brennan for the last 20 years. We have worked particularly closely the last three years. John Brennan is a intelligence professional with deep experience in our business, a public servant with extraordinary dedication, and a man of deep integrity. With Senate confirmation, I know that he will be an outstanding Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

As the President noted, John started his career at CIA and spent nearly a quarter century. So this is a homecoming for John.

John, on behalf of the talented and dedicated men and women of CIA, it is my deep honor to say, welcome home.

MR. BRENNAN: Mr. President, it is indeed a tremendous honor to be nominated to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The women and men of the CIA are among the most dedicated, courageous, selfless and hardworking individuals who have ever served this country. At great personal risk and sacrifice, they have made countless invaluable contributions to our national security and to the safety and security of all Americans. Most times, their successes will never be known outside the hallowed halls of Langley and the Oval Office.

Leading the agency in which I served for 25 years would be the greatest privilege as well as the greatest responsibility of my professional life. Mr. President, I want to thank you for your confidence in me, but even more for your confidence and constant support to the CIA and to those who serve in the intelligence community. They need and deserve the support of all of their fellow Americans, especially at a time of such tremendous national security challenges.

If confirmed as Director, I will make it my mission to ensure that the CIA has the tools it needs to keep our nation safe, and that its work always reflects the liberties, the freedoms and the values that we hold so dear.

I’m especially proud to stand here today with such patriots as Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel and Michael Morell. It was a tremendous honor to serve with Leon over the past four years, and I very much look forward to the opportunity and privilege to serve with another of America’s great patriots, Chuck Hagel.

And I am especially proud and touched to be able to stand here today with my close friend and colleague, Michael Morell, who epitomizes what it means to be an intelligence professional. Michael’s leadership at the CIA, as well as his 32-year career, has been nothing short of exemplary. Michael, I very much look forward to working with you in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

And I also look forward to working with Congress, as our national security rests on the ability of the executive and legislative branches of our government to work as a team. While the intelligence profession oftentimes demands secrecy, it is critically important that there be a full and open discourse on intelligence matters with the appropriate elected representatives of the American people. Although I consider myself neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I very much look forward to working closely with those on both sides of the aisle.

Finally, and most importantly, to my wife Kathy; to my children Kyle, Jaclyn, Kelly; to my parents in New Jersey, a shout-out Owen, who is 92 and my mom, Dorothy, who is 91; my brother Tom and my sister Kathleen and my Jersey roots: I could not be where I am today without their love, their patience, their understanding and their support. And there is no way that I can ever repay that, except to say I think I’m going to need it for a little bit longer.

So again, Mr. President, I am deeply grateful for this opportunity. It will be bittersweet to leave all of my close colleagues and friends here at the White House and at the national security staff, who I have come to work with and respect so deeply over the last four years. But if confirmed by the Senate, I will consider it to be the honor of my life to serve as the 21st Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, these are four outstanding individuals. We are grateful to all of them. I want, in particular, to thank Mike Morell and Leon Panetta for their extraordinary service. And I just want to repeat, I hope that the Senate will act on these confirmations promptly. When it comes to national security, we don’t like to leave a lot of gaps between the time that one set of leaders transitions out and another transitions in. So we need to get moving quickly on this.

The final point I will make: One of the reasons that I am so confident that Chuck Hagel is going to be an outstanding Secretary of Defense and John Brennan is going to be an outstanding Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is they understand that we are only successful because of the folks up and down the line in these respective institutions -- the folks on the ground who are oftentimes putting their lives at risk for us, and are oftentimes at great remove from Washington and its politics.

To have those who have been in the field, who have been in the heat of battle, who understand the consequences of decisions that we make in this town and how it has an impact and ramifications for everybody who actually has to execute our national security strategies, that’s something invaluable. It will provide me the kinds of insights that I need in making very difficult decisions, but it will also mean that these folks are going to be looking out for the people who work for them. And that’s something that, I think, in these leadership positions is absolutely critical.

So I’m looking forward to working with these two gentlemen. They are going to be outstanding. Thank you very much, everybody.