text:
Kevin Phillips (political commentator)

Kevin Price Phillips (November 30, 1940 – October 9, 2023) was an American writer and commentator on politics, economics, and history. He emerged as a Republican Party strategist who helped devise its Southern Strategy in the 1960s. Phillips became disaffected with the party by the 1990s, subsequently leaving it to become an independent and staunch critic of the Republicans. He was a regular contributor to the Los Angeles Times, Harper's Magazine, and National Public Radio, and was a political analyst on PBS's NOW with Bill Moyers.

Early life
Phillips was born in Manhattan in 1940, and grew up in the Bronx, raised by a family of Irish, Scottish, and English descent. He was drawn to the Republican Party from an early age, supporting Dwight D. Eisenhower for president in 1952 and 1956. He attended the Bronx High School of Science before earning a bachelor's degree in political science from Colgate University and a juris doctor from Harvard Law School; he also studied at the University of Edinburgh.

Early career
Phillips began his political career as an aide to Republican Representative Paul A. Fino. He worked as a strategist on voting patterns for Richard Nixon's 1968 campaign, which was the basis for a book, The Emerging Republican Majority, which predicted a conservative political realignment in national politics and is widely regarded as influential in the field of American political science.

Southern strategy
Phillips told a journalist during the 1968 presidential election that "the whole secret of politics is knowing who hates who". After Nixon was elected, Phillips wrote a book on what has come to be known as the "Southern strategy" of the Republican Party. Entitled The Emerging Republican Majority, it argued that the southern states of the US would keep the Republicans winning presidential elections and more than offset the decline in Republican support in Northeast states, based on the racial resentment of white voters.

As he stated to the New York Times Magazine in 1970,

"All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even 'Jake the Snake' [liberal Republican Senator Jacob Javits of New York] only gets 20 percent. From now on, Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote, and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

The book however was not used in the campaign itself, Phillips notes in the preface to the Princeton Edition,

"Some observers concluded that The Emerging Republican Majority was the emerging Republican strategy. Newsweek labelled the book 'The political bible of the Nixon Era.' Not quite. The book was not a blueprint of the GOP's 'Southern Strategy' as some claimed,. ... Richard Nixon had read memos based on the book's analyses during the week before the November 1968 election, but in mid-1969 he truthfully said he had not read the actual book. He read it a few months later."

His predictions regarding shifting voting patterns in presidential elections proved accurate, though they did not extend "down ballot" to Congress until the Republican revolution of 1994.

Political commentary
Phillips briefly worked in the Department of Justice during the Nixon administration, but later left to embark on a career as an author and commentator. In his books, he coined the term Sun Belt to refer to the southern states. During this time, he was associated with the New Right.

Later career
As time went on, Phillips grew increasingly disillusioned with the Republican Party. Claiming that the Watergate scandal had dealt a fatal blow to his vision for a perpetual Republican majority, he was a critic of expanding wealth inequality under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and was a staunch opponent of George W. Bush's administration, which he extensively criticized in his 2006 book American Theocracy.

American Theocracy (2006)
Rev. Dr. Allen Dwight Callahan states the book's theme is that the Republican Party (GOP), religious fundamentalism, petroleum, and borrowed money are an "Unholy Alliance."

The last chapter, in a nod to his first major work, is titled "The Erring Republican Majority". American Theocracy, "presents a nightmarish vision of ideological extremism, catastrophic fiscal irresponsibility, rampant greed and dangerous shortsightedness." The New York Times wrote:"He identifies three broad and related trends — none of them new to the Bush years but all of them, he believes, exacerbated by this administration's policies — that together threaten the future of the United States and the world. One is the role of oil in defining and, as Phillips sees it, distorting American foreign and domestic policy. The second is the ominous intrusion of radical Christianity into politics and government. And the third is the astonishing levels of debt — current and prospective — that both the government and the American people have been heedlessly accumulating. If there is a single, if implicit, theme running through the three linked essays that form this book, it is the failure of leaders to look beyond their own and the country's immediate ambitions and desires so as to plan prudently for a darkening future."

Phillips uses the term financialization to describe how the U.S. economy has been radically restructured from a focus on production, manufacturing and wages, to a focus on speculation, debt, and profits. Since the 1980s, Phillips argues in American Theocracy, the underlying Washington strategy… was less to give ordinary Americans direct sums than to create a low-interest-rate boom in real estate, thereby raising the percentage of American home ownership, ballooning the prices of homes, and allowing householders to take out some of that increase through low-cost refinancing. This triple play created new wealth to take the place of that destroyed in the 2000-2002 stock-market crash and simultaneously raised consumer confidence.

Nothing similar had ever been engineered before. Instead of a recovery orchestrated by Congress and the White House and aimed at the middle- and bottom-income segments, this one was directed by an appointed central banker, a man whose principal responsibility was to the banking system. His relief, targeted on financial assets and real estate, was principally achieved by monetary stimulus. This in itself confirmed the massive realignment of preferences and priorities within the American system….

Likewise, huge and indisputable but almost never discussed, were the powerful political economics lurking behind the stimulus: the massive rate-cut-driven post-2000 bailout of the FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate) sector, with its ever-climbing share of GDP and proximity to power. No longer would Washington concentrate stimulus on wages or public-works employment. The Fed's policies, however shrewd, were not rooted in an abstraction of the national interest but in pursuit of its statutory mandate to protect the U.S. banking and payments system, now inseparable from the broadly defined financial services sector.

Critical reception
American Theocracy was reviewed widely. The New York Times Book Review wrote "It is not without polemic, but unlike many of the more glib and strident political commentaries of recent years, it is extensively researched and frighteningly persuasive..."

The Chicago Sun-Times wrote "Overall, Phillips' book is a thoughtful and somber jeremiad, written throughout with a graceful wryness... a capstone to his life's work."

Bad Money (2008)
Phillips examines America's great shift from manufacturing to financial services. He also discusses America's petroleum policies and the tying of the dollar to the price of oil. Phillips suggests that the Euro and the Chinese Yuan/Renminbi are favourites to take the dollar's place in countries hostile towards America, such as Iran. He then tackles the lack of regulatory oversight employed in the housing market and how the housing boom was allowed to run free under Alan Greenspan. The book concludes with the proposal that America is employing bad capitalism and extends Gresham's Law of currency to suggest that their good capitalism will be driven out by the bad.

Personal life and death
In 1968, Phillips married Martha Henderson. A resident of Naples, Florida, he died from complications of Alzheimer's disease at a hospice facility near his home on October 9, 2023, at the age of 82.

Publications

 * The Emerging Republican Majority (1969) ISBN 0691163243 ISBN 978-0691163246
 * Mediacracy: American Parties and Politics in the Communications Age (1974) ISBN 0-385-04945-5
 * Electoral Reform and Voter Participation (with Paul H. Blackman, 1975)
 * Post-Conservative America: People, Politics, and Ideology in a Time of Crisis (1982) ISBN 0-394-52212-5
 * Staying on Top: The Business Case for a National Industrial Strategy (1984) ISBN 0-394-53744-0
 * The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath (1990) ISBN 0-394-55954-1
 * Boiling Point: Democrats, Republicans, and the Decline of Middle Class Prosperity (1993) ISBN 0-679-40461-9
 * Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street and the Frustration of American Politics (1994) ISBN 0-316-70618-3
 * The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics and the Triumph of Anglo-America (1999) ISBN 0-465-01369-4
 * Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich (2002) ISBN 0-767-90533-4
 * William McKinley (The American Presidents Series: The 25th President, 1897-1901) (2003) ISBN 0-805-06953-4
 * American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush (2004) ISBN 0-670-03264-6
 * American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century (2006) ISBN 0-670-03486-X
 * Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism (2008) ISBN 978-0-670-01907-6
 * After the Fall: The Inexcusable Failure of American Finance: An Update to Bad Money (2009)
 * 1775: A Good Year for Revolution (2012) ISBN 978-0-670-02512-1

title: Kevin Phillips (political commentator)


text:
Queen Emeraldas

Queen Emeraldas (クィーン・エメラルダス) is a manga written and illustrated by Leiji Matsumoto, later adapted into a four-episode anime OVA of the same name. Queen Emeraldas is the story of the pirate spaceship, Queen Emeraldas, which is captained by the mysterious and beautiful Emeraldas, a strong and powerful privateer. Sometimes, the character Emeraldas is referred to as Pirate Queen Emeraldas.

Plot
The storyline follows a young boy named who sneaks aboard a freighter in order to leave Earth. As the freighter is flying through space they are attacked by an Afressian ship bearing the Skull and Crossbones insignia. However, the train is saved by a mysterious and incredibly powerful spaceship (which also bears the insignia) and is able to make it to their destination, a desert planet with a Western atmosphere, complete with saloons and bar fights. The boy meets up with another stowaway, an old man, and becomes friends with him. He tells the old man that he came to the planet in order to become a stronger individual. He gets himself a job in a bar with the roughest reputation on the planet to prove himself.

When the attacking ship, led by, lands on the planet to search for whoever attacked him, Emeraldas appears to confront him, demanding that he remove the insignia from his ship; "Only two ships have the right to bear it!" In the second episode, after a final confrontation with Eldomain and later with, of , Emeraldas presents Hiroshi with the Cosmo Dragoon once owned by Tochiro.

Another divergence from the manga takes place here when Emeraldas states that there are five Cosmo Dragoons in existence (hers and the ones owned by Tochiro, Captain Harlock, Tetsuro and Maetel), whereas in the manga there are only four. Later, Hiroshi Umino and his elderly friend visit a planet whose inhabitants have been forced out by a murderous cyborg. This cyborg killed one of the planet's inhabitants and drove his son mad. Umino meets the son and his sister and with their help and Emeraldas', he kills the oppressive cyborg.

While the story can stand on its own, independent of Matsumoto's other works, it mostly assumes that the viewer has seen the other Harlock titles, especially Galaxy Express 999 (the TV series and the films), which featured Maetel, Emeraldas' sister, but had the occasional appearance of Emeraldas (note: Maetel, for some reason in the English dub is referred to as Mataire). The story of Queen Emeraldas is set five years after the events of the final Galaxy Express 999 film and was designed to give Matsumoto's fans a further glimpse into what became of Emeraldas. However, of the other characters, most are only mentioned in passing, except for Captain Harlock who has a brief cameo appearance.

Queen Emeraldas first two episodes were produced by Oriental Light and Magic (OLM) and licensed for American distribution by ADV Films, being one of their earlier releases on the DVD format. Those two episodes also have regular runs on the Action Channel. In Japan, the remaining two episodes were co-produced by MAC (Multi Access Company) and were released the following year after the initial two, indicating that a separate contract (that is not yet forthcoming) would be required for anyone to license the concluding episodes of the story outside Japan.

Manga
Leiji Matsumoto first published a one-shot in 1975 in the publisher Akita Shoten's magazine Princess. It began its distribution in Kodansha's Weekly Shōnen Magazine in 1978. It ended in 1979, and four collected volumes were released by Kodansha. Kodansha Comics licensed the series to be published in English in two large-format hardcover volumes; the first was released on July 26, 2016, while the second was published on July 25, 2017.

Anime
An original video anime adaptation was produced by OLM and Multi-Access Company and released in four episodes between 1998 and 1999. Half the series was dubbed into English and released by ADV Films on DVD in 1999.

Cast

 * Megumi Hayashibara as Hiroshi Umino
 * Reiko Tajima as Emeraldas
 * Kenichi Ogata as Lou Row
 * Koichi Yamadera as Tochiro Oyama
 * Makio Inoue as Captain Harlock

Episodes

 * 1) "Departure" (May 6, 1998)
 * 2) "Eternal Emblem" (October 7, 1998)
 * 3) "Friendship" (August 6, 1999)
 * 4) "Fantasy" (September 10, 1999)
 * 5) "Siren" (December 18, 1999)

Other appearances
Emeraldas appeared in the 1978 Space Pirate Captain Harlock television series during flashbacks. She also had a guest appearance in the 1978 Galaxy Express 999 series. This episode, "Eternal Traveller Emeraldas", was later turned into an hour-long television special expanding on that story. She subsequently appeared as a supporting character in the film Arcadia of My Youth, where it is shown how she obtained her facial scar. She also makes brief appearances in Harlock Saga and Cosmo Warrior Zero. Her origin and youth is depicted in Maetel Legend.

As with Harlock and most other characters of the Leijiverse, Emeraldas' appearances in various stories cannot be applied to one consistent timeline. In the 1978 Galaxy Express 999 story, for example, one notable difference from her other depictions is that Emeraldas is suffering from an unknown illness. Her place as captain was taken over by a robot imposter while she was mostly confined to bed. The story suggests that she does not have much longer to live. This illness is alluded to in the recent manga where Emeraldas does not engage in much physical action due to her weakened condition. However, the OVA version is a fearsome combatant—as seen in her gravity saber duel with Queen Baraluda—and shows no sign of any such illness. In the original Captain Harlock series in episode 30 ("My Friend, My Youth"), Emeraldas is shown to have a younger brother, but no sister is ever mentioned. Opposed to that, no brother exists in Queen Emeraldas or any other movies or series of the franchise.

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

title: Queen Emeraldas


text:
Harold Connolly

Harold Joseph Connolly (8 September 1901 – 17 May 1980) was a Canadian journalist, newspaper editor, and politician who served as the 15th premier of Nova Scotia in 1954.

Connolly was born in Sydney, Nova Scotia, the son of Richard Joseph Connolly and Annie Duffield. He was educated at St. Mary's College. As a newspaperman, he worked for the Halifax Chronicle before serving as editor of the Daily Star.

He was first elected to the Nova Scotia House of Assembly in a 1936 by-election as a Liberal in Halifax North after Gordon Benjamin Isnor was elected to the House of Commons. He was appointed to cabinet in 1941 as Minister of Industry and Publicity. He served as Minister of Industry and Trade from 1945 to 1950, when he became Minister of Public Health. When Premier Angus L. Macdonald died in 1954, Connolly became the province's premier and the Liberal Party's interim leader. He stood for the full-time job in the 1954 leadership convention, but was defeated by Henry Hicks when Protestant delegates formed a united front to prevent the election of Connolly, a Catholic. The move caused a severe religious split within the party, which contributed to its defeat two years later at the hands of Robert Stanfield's Progressive Conservatives.

Connolly retired from provincial politics in 1955 when he was elevated to the Senate of Canada for the Halifax North, Nova Scotia division on 28 July 1955 following nomination by Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent. He served until his resignation on 14 May 1979.

Connolly was a lieutenant in the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps and the Canadian Officers' Training Corps from 1940 to 1945.

He married Catherine Burns in 1928; with whom he had 1 daughter, Catherine. He married Vivian Martel after the death of his first wife. He had five more children, Maureen, Dennis, David, Sharon and Patricia. Connolly's daughter Sharon Carstairs has gone on to have a prominent political career as leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party and, subsequently, a Liberal senator before retiring from politics in 2011.

title: Harold Connolly


text:
Spelunker

Spelunker may refer to:

 * Spelunkers, people who participate in exploration of cave systems
 * Spelunker (video game), a 1983 video game
 * Spelunker HD, a 2009 video game
 * An Info-Mac search utility

title: Spelunker


text:
Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker

Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker (born 25 June 1939) is a German scientist and politician (SPD). He was a member of the German Bundestag and served as co-president of the Club of Rome jointly with Anders Wijkman from 2011 – 2019.

Family
A member of the prominent Weizsäcker family, he is the son of physicist and philosopher Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and nephew of former German president Richard von Weizsäcker. Since 1969, he has been married to Christine von Weizsäcker. Together, they have five children, including MEP Jakob von Weizsäcker.

Youth and education
Born in Zürich, Switzerland, Weizsäcker spent his childhood in Zürich and Göttingen. In 1966, he graduated from Hamburg University with a Diplom in physics. In 1968, he obtained his PhD in biology from Freiburg University.

Career
In 1972, he was appointed full professor of biology at Essen University. In 1975, he was recruited as president of the then newly-founded University of Kassel. In 1981, he joined the United Nations in New York as director at the UN Center for Science and Technology. From 1984 to 1991 he headed the Institute for European Environmental Policy in Bonn. In 1991, Weizsäcker became founding president of the Wuppertal Institute, soon establishing itself as a leading environmental think tank.

In 1998, he was elected a member of the German Bundestag for the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and was re-elected in 2002. As a legislator, he chaired the select committee on globalization (2000–2002) and the environment committee (2002–2005). After his decision not to run in the 2005 election, he became Dean of the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He returned to Germany in 2009 where is his an honorary professor at Freiburg University.

A bestselling author in Germany, his English language books include Earth Politics (1994), Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use (1995), Factor 5 (2009) and Limits to Privatization (2005).

Other activities

 * Commerzbank, Member of the Sustainability Advisory Board (since 2022)

Awards and honours

 * 2000 – Honorary doctorate of Sōka University
 * 2001 – Takeda Award
 * 2008 – German Environmental Prize
 * 2009 – Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
 * 2011 – Theodor Heuss Prize
 * 2012 – Order of Merit of Baden-Württemberg
 * Honorary Councillor of the World Future Council

title: Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker


text:
Mellah

A mellah (ملاح or 'saline area'; and מלאח) is the place of residence historically assigned to Jewish communities in Morocco.

The urban mellah, as it exists in numerous cities and large towns, is a Jewish quarter enclosed by a wall and a fortified gateway, typically near the residence of the sultan or governor. In cities, the mellah was usually situated near the qaṣba (citadel), the royal palace, or the residence of the governor; some residents of the mellah held senior administrative positions and had to be available.

The rural mellah, as it exists or existed in the mountainous regions of the Atlas and the Rif and in the plains regions reaching to the Sahara, is a relatively isolated open village inhabited exclusively by Jews. These villages existed at a distance from the nearest qṣar or qaid.

Starting in the 15th century in Fes and especially since the beginning of the 19th century elsewhere, mellah districts were established in many Moroccan cities for the Jewish communities to live in. The name mellah derives from a local toponym in Fes which became the name of the first separate Jewish district in Morocco (the Mellah of Fez) created in that city during the 15th century. Haim Zafrani notes that the institution of the mellah was only imposed on some communities and only as of relatively recently in Moroccan history, and that segregation was not the rule in Islamic lands as it was in Christian lands.

Origins of the first Mellah in Fez (15th century)
The first Mellah of Morocco was created in the city of Fez. Fez had long hosted the largest and one of the oldest Jewish communities in Morocco, present since the city's foundation by the Idrisids (in the late 8th or early 9th century). Since the time of Idris II (early 9th century) a Jewish community was concentrated in the neighbourhood known as Foundouk el-Yihoudi ("Caravanserai of the Jew") near Bab Guissa in the northeast of the city. Nonetheless, historical evidence also shows that the Jewish population was widely distributed in many parts of the old city (Fes el Bali) alongside the Muslim population, including near the University of al-Qarawiyyin in the heart of the city.

In 1276 the Marinid sultan Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Abd al-Haqq founded Fes el-Jdid, a new fortified administrative city to house their troops and the royal palace. The city included a southern district, known as Hims, which was initially inhabited by Muslim garrisons, particularly the Sultan's mercenary contingents of Syrian archers, which were later disbanded.

The same district, however, was also known by the name Mellah (ملاح or 'saline area') due to either a saline water source in the area or to the presence of a former salt warehouse. It was this name which was later retained as the name of the subsequent Jewish quarter in the area. Afterwards, the name came to be associated by analogy with similar districts that were later created in other cities such as Marrakesh.

The name mellah thus originally had no negative connotation but was rather just a local toponym. Nonetheless, over generations a number of legends and popular etymologies came to explain the origin of the word as a "salted, cursed ground" or a place where the Jews were forced to "salt" the heads of decapitated rebels.

Both the exact reasons and the exact date for the creation of a separate Jewish Mellah of Fez are not firmly agreed upon by all scholars. Historical accounts confirm that in the mid-14th century the Jews of Fez were still living in Fes el-Bali but that by the end of the 16th century they were well-established in the Mellah of Fes el-Jdid. Some authors argue that the transfer likely happened in stages across the Marinid period (late 13th to 15th centuries), particularly following episodes of violence or repression against Jews in the old city. The urban fabric of the Mellah appears to have developed progressively and it's possible that a small Jewish population settled here right after the foundation of Fes el-Jdid and that other Jews fleeing the old city joined them later. Some scholars, citing historical Jewish chronicles, attribute the date of the move more specifically to the "rediscovery" of Idris II's body in his zawiya at the center of the old city (Fes el-Bali) in 1437. The surrounding area, located in the middle of the city's main commercial districts where Jewish merchants were quite active, was turned into a horm (sanctuary) where non-Muslims were not allowed to enter, resulting in the expulsion of the Jewish inhabitants and businesses there. Many other scholars date the move generally to the mid-15th century.

In any case, the transfer (whether progressive or sudden) occurred with some violence and hardship. Many Jewish households chose to convert (at least officially) rather than leave their homes and their businesses in the heart of the old city, resulting in a growing group referred to as al-Baldiyyin (Muslim families of Jewish origin, often retaining Jewish surnames).

Broader political motivations for moving the Jewish community to Fes el-Jdid, closer to the royal palace, may have included the rulers' desire to take more direct advantage (or control) of their artisan skills and of their commercial relations with Jewish communities in Europe and other countries (which, by extension, could also be used for diplomatic purposes). The Mellah's Jewish cemetery was even established on land which was donated to the Jewish community by a Marinid princess named Lalla Mina in the 15th century. The Mellah's location next to the royal palace, within the more heavily fortified Fes el-Jdid, may have also been intended to better protect the Jewish community from the larger and more restive population of the old city; a pattern that would be repeated for future mellahs in other cities.

Despite the more secure location, however, disasters still occasionally struck the community and its district. The 15th century was also a time of relative political instability, with the Wattasid viziers taking over effective control from the Marinid dynasty and competing with other local factions in Fez. In 1465, the Mellah was attacked by the Muslim population of Fes el-Bali during a revolt led by the shurafa (noble sharifian families) against the Marinid sultan Abd al-Haqq II and his Jewish vizier Harun ibn Battash. The attack resulted in thousands of Jewish inhabitants being killed, with many others having to openly renounce their faith. The community took at least a decade to recover from this, only growing again under the rule of the Wattasid sultan Muhammad al-Shaykh (1472-1505).

Major changes in the Jewish population also took place when in 1492 the Spanish crown expelled all Jews from Spain, with Portugal doing the same in 1497. The following waves of Spanish Jews migrating to Fez and North Africa increased the Jewish population and also altered its social, ethnic, and linguistic makeup. The influx of migrants also revitalized Jewish cultural activity in the following years, while splitting the community along ethnic lines for many generations. In Fez, for example, the Megorashim of Spanish origin retained their heritage and their Spanish language while the indigenous Moroccan Toshavim, who spoke Arabic and were of Arab and Berber heritage, followed their own traditions. Members of the two communities worshiped in separate synagogues and were even buried separately. It was only in the 18th century that the two communities eventually blended together, with Arabic eventually becoming the main language of the entire community while the Spanish (Sephardic) minhag became dominant in religious practice; a situation which was repeated elsewhere in Morocco, with the notable exception of the Marrakesh community.

16th–18th centuries
For a while, the mellah of Fez remained the only one. The second mellah was only created in the second half of the 16th century in Marrakesh, which by then had replaced Fez as the capital of Morocco under the new Saadian dynasty. Here too the Jewish population of the city had lived alongside the Muslim population. Many of them had come from the Atlas Mountain regions and from the nearby city of Aghmat, where a much older Jewish community had already existed.

The Jewish district at the time was concentrated in what is now the Mouassine neighbourhood. In 1557-58 CE sultan Moulay Abdallah al-Ghalib ordered that the Jewish population of the city relocate from here to an area next to the royal Kasbah (citadel), and construction of the new Mellah of Marrakesh was probably finished around 1562-63. The political motivations for this may have been similar to those of the Marinids in creating the Mellah of Fez, which served as a precedent followed by the Saadian dynasty. Additionally, however, Moulay Abdallah appeared to have been planning the creation of new "model" Muslim neighbourhoods in the city, centered around the new Mouassine Mosque which he immediately built on the newly-liberated land of the old Jewish neighbourhood. Another factor for the move may have been the rapid growth of the Jewish population due to the influx of Jewish migrants from Fez and other towns seeking economic opportunities in the capital. Incidentally, the new Mellah was indeed quite large and functioned as a city unto itself, with its own services and facilities. Despite this, some historical references indicate that Jews may have still been living in other parts of the city in the decades after the Mellah's creation.

A Frenchman, who was held captive in Morocco from 1670 to 1681, wrote: "In Fez and in Morocco [that is, Marrakesh], the Jews are separated from the inhabitants, having their own quarters set apart, surrounded by walls of which the gates are guarded by men appointed by the King ... In the other towns, they are intermingled with the Moors." In 1791, a European traveller described the Marrakesh mellah: "It has two large gates, which are regularly shut every evening about nine o'clock, after which time no person whatever is permitted to enter or go out... till... the following morning. The Jews have a market of their own...".

The third mellah of Morocco wasn't created until 1682, when the Alaouite sultan Moulay Isma'il moved the Jewish population of Meknes, his new capital, to a new district on the southwest side of the city, next to the vast new royal citadel that he was building for himself there.

In Fez, the 17th century saw a significant influx of Jews from the Tadla region and from the Sous Valley arriving under the reigns of the Alaouite sultans Moulay Rashid and Moulay Isma'il, respectively. A serious disaster, however, took place in 1790 to 1792 during a period of general turmoil for the city under Sultan Moulay Yazid. During these two years the sultan forced the entire Jewish community to move to the outlying Kasbah Cherarda on the other side of Fes el-Jdid. The Mellah was occupied by tribal troops allied to him, its synagogue was replaced by a mosque, and the Jewish cemetery and its contents were moved to a cemetery near Bab Guissa. Moreover, Moulay Yazid permanently reduced the size of the district by demolishing the old city walls around it and rebuilding them along a much smaller perimeter. It was only after the sultan's death that the chief Muslim qadi (judge) of Fez ordered the Mellah to be restored to the Jewish community, along with the demolition of the mosque built by Yazid's troops.

19th century
At the beginning of the 19th century, around 1807, sultan Sulayman forced Jews to move to mellahs in the towns of the coastal region, in Rabat, Salé, Essaouira, and Tetouan. (In Tetouan, the Spanish word judería was later used as the name of the district.) The mellah in Rabat was established in 1808 by Sultan Mawlay Sulaiman; this separated the Jewish and Muslim people who had lived together in a shared area of the city. In Salé, the new Jewish quarter was a long avenue with a total of 200 houses, 20 shops and trading booths, two kilns and two mills. In 1865, the mellah of Essaouira, having become over-populated, was permitted to extend.

During this century, the fortunes of the Jewish community of Fez in particular improved considerably as the expansion of contact and trade with Europe allowed the Jewish merchant class to place themselves at the center of international trade networks in Morocco. This also led to a greater social openness and a shift in tastes and attitudes, especially among richer Jews, who built luxurious residences in the upper parts of the Mellah there.

20th century onwards
In the early twentieth century affluent Jews started to move to the new neighborhoods (Villes nouvelles) planned along European urban schemes, leaving in the mellahs only the elderly and the poorest families.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, almost all Moroccan Jews, for a variety of reasons, have emigrated either to the new Jewish state or to countries like France and Canada—some in government-coordinated programs such as Operation Yachin, some fleeing persecution, some for religious reasons, and some encouraged by the Jewish Agency. As a result, nowadays mellahs are only inhabited by Muslims, the few remaining Jews have moved to modern quarters of Moroccan towns. The changing economy of Morocco has also meant that the majority of Moroccan Jews now live in the modern metropolis of Casablanca, with an estimated 5,000 living there in 1997 (with only 150 living in Fez, by comparison).

In Marrakesh, parts of the mellah are showing signs of the gentrification in the 21st century. Only three Jewish families remain in the Mellah, with one of them taking care of the Slat al-Azama Synagogue, one of the few remaining in the area. The Mellah of Fez faces a similar fate; however, it is currently undergoing renovation thanks to UNESCO funding.

The legacy of the Moroccan Jewish districts on commerce remain, as the markets constructed and brought alive by Jewish merchants not only exist as of 2014 but still in the lively forms they served in previous centuries for the Jewish communities. The former mellahs continue to be visited as historical sites. One writer notes: "The quarters’ squalor still exists, but they’re also picturesque and bustling — and that, too, speaks to Morocco’s vibrant Jewish past."

Culture
While the settling location of Jews was by Muslim rulers was typically imposed, the mellah existed in a relatively autonomous fashion, with Jews building and sustaining their own communities within the walls of their quarter. Indeed, there was resistance to forced relocation, but ultimately the Jewish mellah became a sanctified space that the Jews had pride for. "'The one gate that gave way to the medina, which could have easily been repudiated as an emblem of imprisonment, instead came to be treated as an object of reverence by the mellah ’s inhabitants, as we see in this description from the early twentieth century: If one stops for a moment in front of this gate, one sees a curious thing: All who pass, children, beggars, peddlers driving their donkeys loaded with merchandise, old women, hunched-over men, all approach this dusty wall and press their lips against it with as much fervor as if they were kissing the holy Torah.'"The mellahs of Morocco primarily came about as Jews migrated to Morocco after being expelled from the Iberian Peninsula during the Spanish Inquisition. There were two primary justifications given for mellahization. First, these Jewish quarters were often in close proximity to the ruling local powers, offering a form of protection for the Jews. This explanation also addresses the resulting effective authority over differing religious populations; if all the Jews are physically together, it is easier to maintain effective muslim rule, assess taxes, and keep count of the community. The second justification of cause for the institution of the mellah is the idea that mellahs were a "collective punishment for specific transgressions." Jews were associated with ethical deviance, physical malformation, and disease and so were separated from the Christian and Muslim populations.

Organization relative to the city as a whole gives insight into how Jews were situated compared to the Muslim majority and how relevant these justifications are to specific mellahs. As Gilson Miller et al write: "'Sometimes the quarter is contained within the larger city and forms a microcosm of it, such as the Jewish quarter of Tetuan; at other times, it is removed from the molecular city and attached to the royal enclave, as in Fez. The siting of the quarter invites speculation about its origins and the relationship between the Jewish minority and the Muslim majority. Was the purpose of the quarter to isolate its inhabitants, to safeguard them, or both? In Fez, the proximity of the mellah to the royal palace is often read as a sign of dependency of the Jews on the power and protection of the ruling sovereign.'"

Physical space and cultural interaction

Mellahs, walled on all four sides and typically gated, housed the Jewish population of Moroccan cities. As a result, these spaces fostered Jewish communal life through its physical structures. Mellahs were typically organized in neighborhoods and had synagogues, a Jewish cemetery, and kosher markets situated among other public areas. Even the synagogue itself facilitated a wide variety of Jewish communal needs including education, ritual baths, and spaces for children to play. While at first these quarters offered considerable comfort to Jewish families, with spacious homes and protection due to proximity to the royal palace these luxuries soon came to a close."'Yet over time, the quarters’ narrow streets became congested and overrun with people, and they became synonymous with ghettos. The Jews were confined to the inner walls of the rundown mellahs, and the areas became associated with cursed, “salted” land, much like the Jews were perceived among Moroccan society.'"As Jews were key players in trade and commerce, mellahs were often situated on major waterways and were usually pretty close to each other to facilitate trade networks effectively. Even more so, the mellah's market became a prominent space for not only the Jewish community, but non-Jewish peoples who would come to shop on market days. Because Jews commonly held merchant and artisan positions, the mellah was an attractive trade post for the entire city, not just the Jewish quarter. Separation certainly stifled cultural interaction to some degree, but Muslims were allowed to enter the mellah and did so if they needed goods and services that fell within the Jewish niche.

title: Mellah


text:
Girls Club (TV series)

Girls Club (sometimes styled in all-lowercase girls club) is an American television series created by David E. Kelley that was shown on Fox in the United States in October 2002. It is often compared to Ally McBeal, another series created by Kelley, which ended in May 2002.

Plot
Three young, female lawyers share a deep friendship and a common desire to leave their mark on the legal system. After graduating, they move to San Francisco where they find employment in the same law firm called Myers, Berry, Cherry & Fitch. There, the women attempt to break through the barriers of the male-dominated workforce. In describing the concept of girls club Kelley said, "I'm looking to capture both the nerves of a young associate and also the gender politics that go on inside big corporate law firms."

Cast

 * Gretchen Mol as Lynne Camden
 * Kathleen Robertson as Jeannie Falls
 * Chyler Leigh as Sarah Mickle
 * Giancarlo Esposito as Nicholas Hahn
 * Sam Jaeger as Kevin O'Neil
 * Donovan Leitch as Michael Harrod

Production
Fox added Girls Club to its Monday night schedule for Fall 2002 sight-unseen based on the success of creator David E. Kelley's previous series. At the time of its cancellation six of the thirteen episodes ordered had been completed. Only two episodes were broadcast on Fox in the United States and on CH in Canada. FOX Latinoamerica aired the first two episodes on a Wednesday night premiere after heavy promotion, but during commercial breaks they played a clip saying the show was cancelled in the US and would not be back after that night. Episodes were never re-broadcast and the show disappeared from the network after that night.

Episodes
The initial order was for 13 episodes. When the series was cancelled, six episodes were completed and only two had aired.

Reception
The series was consistently the lowest-rated show in the 18–49 demographic in its time slot, even being outrated by The WB's Everwood and UPN's Girlfriends. In a mid-season poll of favorite TV shows conducted by the magazine Electronic Media, Girls Club placed as the third worst show of the season.

title: Girls Club (TV series)


text:
User talk:Ray Armagnac

Thanks to all people that are working in this project

title: User talk:Ray Armagnac


text:
Henry Hicks (Nova Scotia politician)

Henry Davies Hicks (March 5, 1915 – December 9, 1990) was a lawyer, university administrator, and politician in Nova Scotia.

Born in Bridgetown, Nova Scotia, the son of Henry Hicks and Annie Kinney, Hicks was educated in Bridgetown and at Mount Allison University, Dalhousie University and Oxford University. He was admitted to the Nova Scotia bar in 1941. During World War II, he served as a captain in the Royal Canadian Artillery.

Hicks was elected to the Nova Scotia House of Assembly in 1945 as a Liberal for Annapolis County and served as Nova Scotia's first minister of education from 1949 to 1954 in the government of Angus Lewis Macdonald. When Macdonald died, Hicks ran for the Liberal party leadership against interim leader and then Premier Harold Connolly. The party was badly split along religious lines, with Protestants uniting behind Hicks to defeat Connolly, who was a Roman Catholic. As the new premier, Hicks was unable to unite the party and his government was defeated in the 1956 election by Robert Stanfield's Progressive Conservatives.

Hicks resigned as Leader of the opposition in 1960 and took the post of dean of arts and science at Dalhousie University. He later became a vice president of the school and then president in 1963. He served as president until August 31, 1980 and is recognized as transforming Dalhousie University from a tiny "College By the Sea" into a leading national research university.

During Hicks' tenure, the campus underwent a complete transformation as new facilities were built, expanded, or acquired for all areas of the university from academics and research to arts and athletics, as well as student housing. In September 2002, the Henry Hicks Academic Administration Building was named after him.

In 1949, Hicks married Pauline Banks (d. February 22, 1964). They had four children; Catherine, Henry, John, and Francess. In 1965, he married Gene Morrison (d. January 1988). In 1988, he married Rosalie Comeau (d. December 9, 1990).

In 1970, Hicks was made a Companion of the Order of Canada. On April 27, 1972, he was appointed to the Senate of Canada by Pierre Trudeau, and served in that capacity until his retirement on March 5, 1990.

On the afternoon of December 9, 1990, Hicks and his wife Rosalie were returning to Halifax from the Annapolis Valley when their vehicle crossed the centre line and struck an oncoming car. Hicks and his wife were killed, along with two of the four passengers in the other vehicle.

The British TV presenter Richard Madeley is a distant relative of Hicks.

title: Henry Hicks (Nova Scotia politician)


text:
Talk:Geoffrey of Monmouth

.

Untitled
Removed from article:

 * And all of it together is now recognized as a deliberate spoof--one which succeeded in fooling many historians and other writers for centuries.

I'm unaware of any scholar who has said Historia Regum Britanniae was a spoof or hoax. Can you cite some published studies that say this? If they can be furnished, then this sentence can be restored as reporting the POV of some scholars. -- llywrch 00:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The spoof thing seems to have crawled back into the article, but once again without the slightest shred of justification. HRB is pretty elaborate for a spoof; however, it fits well into the medieval search for documented connections -- even spurious ones -- between the present and the legendary past.  I doubt that HRB is "spoofier" than the Aeneid.  I've changed "spoof" to "fiction", which ought to cover just about any interpretation of the material (except for those who think that Geoffrey really was working from a reliable ancient British history!) 68.100.18.183 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)RandomCritic

 * Two things I'd comment on

1. All learned books of the period were not in Latin. All "English" may be. The world is a larger place and the setence misleads. Even in the British Isles other learned books were in Welsh, outside the UK they were in many languages

2. It might be worth making it clearer that the "Merlin == Myrddin" thing was an invention of Geoffrey and not one that there is evidence for surviving and recorded. (from IP 81.2.110.250)

Removed from article:

 * John Morris writes in The Age of Arthur that Geoffrey warned aware readers of his time that his work stemmed from Walter Map of Oxford, "who was then well known as a satirist, a wit, and a literary practical joker." Consistent with this, Geoffrey makes numerous statements that historians of the time readily knew to be satirical, such as that Constantius married the daughter of Old King Cole. "It ought not to be necessary to warn," concludes Morris, "that no word or line of Geoffrey can legitimately be considered in the study of any historical problem; but the warning unfortunately remains necessary."

John Morris has apparently confused the "Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford" that Geoffrey of Monmouth referred to with Walter Map -- who was, indeed, archdeacon of Oxford -- but not until 1197, long after Geoffrey was dead. Map is (falsely) cited as a source for Arthurian "histories", but in the Vulgate Cycle of the early 13th century, not in HRB. The linkage between Constantius I Chlorus and Coel Hen, while doubtless an invention of Geoffrey's, is hardly more satirical than other elements in HRB; Coel was not at that time the subject of a nursery rhyme! I have not read Morris, but based on these extracts he seems untrustworthy as a source. (from IP 144.92.184.38)

 * I've removed the "spoof" thing again, as well as the assertion that the Historia is a work of fiction (it may not be true, but that's not the same thing) and added a bit about his sources. --Nicknack009 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

John Morris
John Morris's Age of Arthur has been pretty much exploded; I'd like to remove it from "further reading" or annotate it as untrustworthy (a "tangled tissue of fact and fantasy which is both misleading and misguided", D. P. Kirby and J. E. C. Williams, review in Studia Celtica 1975-76). Any objections?

I have added a couple of recent and reputable books to "Further Reading" for balance. - PKM 03:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oxford University
According to Lewis Thorpe's introduction to "The History of the Kings of Britain," published by Penguin Books in 1966, Monmouth could not have studied at Oxford University because the University did not yet exist. Here's the relevant passage from Thorpe's introduction:

"Over a period of twenty-three years, from 1129 to 1151, he [Monmouth] seems to have been connected closely with events in Oxford. That he twice signed himself magister may imply some teaching function, although the University of Oxford did not yet exist." (p. 13)

I hope this helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.117.61 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 * From Wikipedia's University of Oxford page:
 * "Teaching at Oxford existed in some form as early as 1096, but it is unclear when a university came into being. It grew quickly from 1167 when English students returned from the University of Paris. The historian Gerald of Wales lectured to such scholars in 1188 and the first known foreign scholar, Emo of Friesland, arrived in 1190. The head of the university had the title of chancellor from at least 1201, and the masters were recognised as a universitas or corporation in 1231. The university was granted a royal charter in 1248 during the reign of King Henry III." --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford

 * Geoffry's vital dates = c. 1095 – c. 1155. From this article: "Between 1129 and 1151, his name appears on six charters in the Oxford area, sometimes styled magister (teacher)." So, he does seem to be affiliated with an Oxford school / college / university.
 * Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Walter
I didn't want to link in Walter de Coutances cause it could be wrong. Can anyone confirm if he the right one? Student7 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon Bias
Can anyone explain precisely why Geoffrey's work is routinely described as romantic/imagined/spurious/fictional/unreliable/of little historic value, etc?

It seems obvious to me that such a Welsh nationalistic work relating to the pedigree of the Brythonic kings would inevitably suffer from derision and scorn by the English elite who were suppressing their natural enemies at that very period. The lack of extant sources is an effect of the passage of time but attributing this important work of historical literature to a single man's 'fertile' imagination seems recklessly unlikely. We may as well conclude that Bede was 'making it all up'.

I have toned down these biased POV statements, but expect them to reappear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.6.78 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Geoffrey's work is generally referred to as romantic and fictional on Wikipedia because that is the way scholarship generally describes it. The difference between Geoffrey and someone like Bede is that Bede can be shown to follow his sources faithfully, while Geoffrey alters and expands on his sources wherever they can be identified. Please note that Bede is not considered particularly reliable for periods much before his own, except where his sources are reliable.
 * The "English vs. Welsh" business doesn't wash here; while Geoffrey may well have been from Monmouthshire, he wasn't one of the Welsh people, he was part of the recently-ensconced ruling class under the Norman hierarchy that controlled England and parts of Wales, including Monmouthshire. While his work promotes the Britons as a whole, among the Britons, he always portrays Wales as subordinate to Loegria, his pre-Anglo-Saxon England, and wherever possible he gives preference to the Bretons over insular Britons. Within Norman (and later) England, the text was widely considered accurate history, just as it was in Wales, France, and elsewhere. Since the beginning nationalism has had little to do with criticism of Geoffrey's writing; in modern times it would be helpful to look at what the Welsh scholar Brynley F. Roberts has said about Geoffrey's work and its adaptations in Wales; he likewise finds it to be not historically accurate.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your reply, but I find your reasoning somewhat tautological and circular (nevermind patronising). It is stated by Geoffrey himself that his source was in the "ancient British tongue" and hence may have been in a version of Welsh, Cornish or Breton which may all have been mutually intelligible at the time the source, now presumed lost, was compiled. Most scholars, as well as derivative & variant texts texts by Nennius and Gildas - especially the Brut Tysilio repeat the same so-called 'outrageous fictions' as Geoffrey - without the source available it is surely impossible to know definitively, and the opinions of what you ambiguously term 'scholarship generally' will necessarily remain a matter of conjecture and opinion.

 * Before again undoing my corrections, please first reconcile the fact that the article simultaneously states "Geoffrey was born some time around 1100 in Wales" and "He is unlikely to have been a native Welshman" ? Not clear to me.

 * Further, it states in the article "Monmouth had been in the hands of Breton lords since 1086, and Geoffrey's knowledge of the Welsh language appears to have been slight" - an irrelevant point if the source text was in "British" and he spoke 'Breton' but not 'Welsh' (extraordinarily, inconceivably unlikely given that he was born in, lived in, and spent his entire scholastic career composing and researching works on Welsh history & geneaology.) A citation please?

 * On Bias I fail to see how the opinion of a 12th Century English academic who evidences his own prejudices in the given quote "either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons" can be considered any more reliable than Geoffrey given the Mediaeval context?

 * A further glaring omission; there is no direct mention in the article of the contextual fact of Owain Gwynedd staking his contemporaneous claim to be first Prince of Wales - a likely stimulus for the composition of these nationalistic texts.

 * Conclusion: the article is inconsistent, anachronistic, decontextualised and needs improving. 86.166.6.78 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry if you found my response patronizing; that was not my intention.
 * The thrust of your argument seems to be that Geoffrey was Welsh and was getting a raw deal from antagonistic "English" writers. That isn't the case; Geoffrey was probably no more one of the Cymry than was William of Newburgh; both would have been members of the French-speaking elite under the Normans. There's little indication that he spent much of his later life in Wales, considering that he was in Oxford for decades and there is no evidence he ever went to St Asaph's even when he was made its titular bishop. As such it's hardly likely he was criticized by his contemporaries on these grounds. All of this is cited, to Thorpe and the ODNB; there are plenty of other sources that will have the same information. I've made the "native Welshman" line clearer; he was probably not one of the Welsh people though he may have been born in Wales.
 * On the "ancient book", I suppose it's a matter of what you believe. But the fact that modern scholars dispute Geoffrey's claim to be translating an "ancient book" is cited to R. S. Loomis (no Englishman, by the way). Similarly, the William of Newburgh quote is used because "many modern scholars are tempted to agree with [him]", according to the cited source, Lewis Thorpe.
 * The Owain Gwynedd material might be interesting to include if it can be referenced to a reliable source. Any article can be improved, not least of all this article. But we can't write anything that doesn't follow the sources, whether or not we think it's true.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine but in fact my argument is, in the dearth of evidence available, most likely he was multi-lingual (speaking Latin,Norman French, as well as Breton and Welsh and no doubt even English) I see no reason or evidence why this couldn't be the case and I would expect this to be a prerequisite for the sort of work he engaged in and circles he moved in. Similarly, in the absence of any evidence, it would seem the most likely that he was principally Brythonic i.e. Welsh and/or Breton. I think you are misunderstanding my point in that by applying a received notion of modern nationality ('English/Welsh/Norman/Breton/French') you are decontextualising and oversimplifying the subtle complexity of the work itself and the unknowability of the period ( the real reason i'm so interested in it - i'm not Welsh myself) . What is definite is that the warrior aristocracies of the period were very keen to attach themselves to the status of King of the Britons  - it was not relevant whether they came from what we now call Modern France, England or Wales. A quick look at the familial relationships of William of Normandy will demonstrate the point. (A passing bit of anecdotal evidence that the picture wasnt as straightforward as 'general scholarship' wishes to paint it: Rhys_ap_Tewdwr )
 * I am at a loss to provide citable evidence for the mutual antagonism between the Britons and the Saxons as it seems so manifestly self evident - some contextual evidence is given here: Welsh_Marches. Again note that on Owain Gwynedd's war with Henry II, there is no reciprocal mention on Henry's page, even though the campaign in Wales was his first military action as King of England. Let's not forget that even in modern English, to "welc/sh" is to be inherently untrustworthy - my feeling is that's exactly what's going on in so-called 'general scholarship'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.6.78 (talk • contribs)

 * To frame this discussion another way, I don't know of any modern scholarship that takes Geoffrey's claim to be translating an "ancient book" at face value. And that's what Wikipedia articles rely on, not individual editors thoughts about the author's derision from the "English". For instance John T. Koch's Celtic Culture is quite kind to Geoffrey, but still says that the claim can't be taken at face value, considering how much borrowing from earlier extant sources is in the work.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Well thanks for the references, but the scholarly external source you give seems to corroborate my statements about the lack of evidence for GoM's biographical details - suggesting my amendments are entirely justified (...interestingly, later down the page are given some revealing details about his motivation which I will add to the article). You have removed my 'citation needed' flags for the statements "He is unlikely to have been ethnically Welsh" and "Geoffrey's knowledge of the Welsh language appears to have been slight" without providing any - so i will reinstate them. Furthermore the appended statement "...so he is likely to have sprung from the same French-speaking elite of the Welsh border country as the writers Gerald of Wales and Walter Map" is actually non sequitur - click on the articles and you will find the statements "Gerald of Wales..."was of mixed Norman and Welsh blood" and Walter Map..."claims Welsh origin" - oh dear, something of a landslide in my favour i fear? will amend accordingly86.166.6.78 (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So if you belong to a French-speaking elite and one of your fellow members happens to be of Welsh ancestry, every member must be Welsh also? That's what I call a non sequitur. Cavila (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Incidentally there are in fact at least 2 scholars who take the claims for the work to be translated from a source in the British (i.e. Brythonic) language seriously on account of textual difference in alternate versions which they claim are traceable to independent derivations from the original lost source - one being Flinders Petrie the other being Wm R Cooper - although Petrie's assumption that the Tysilio was an older source document has been overturned following recent study undermining his case, much of his logical reasoning on the antiquity of the source(s) - some of which may have been orally transmitted - remains valid until proven otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.6.78 (talk • contribs)

Anon, please remember to sign your comments with four tildas ( ~ ). This helps make sure conversations are readable. Your fact tags are misplaced, because the material is in fact cited, to the ONDB, as I alluded to above. There are plenty of other sources that will give the same information, including some cited elsewhere in this article. The point of the "He was unlikely to have been ethnically Welsh" line was written to rephrase the previous line that you found unsuitable. The information that needs to be transmitted is Though he may have been born in Monmouth, he part of the foreign ruling class recently instated by the Normans, and thus is unlikely to have been one of the Cymry as they are typically thought of. Whatever his Welsh connection, he moved entirely within the Norman power structure, making him similar to contemporaries born in Wales and the Marches like Gerald of Wales and Walter Map." I'm sure we can find a better way to phrase it. As to the individuals you mention; this has been previously discussed at Talk:Brut y Brenhinedd. Flinders Petrie's work was published in 1917; more recent studies have superseded it. A standard survey of the Bruts and their relation to Geoffrey is Brynley F. Roberts' "Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regnum Britanniae and Brut y Brenhinedd", published in The Arthur of the Welsh. Roberts (a Welshman btw) finds that all the Bruts derive from the Historia, and not some earlier "ancient book". William Cooper is not a scholar at all; he has no relevant qualifications and his translation appears to be self-published. The link you've given is hosted by an American fundamentalist Christian web site with some odd fascination with British nationalism. It is not a reliable source.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi anonymous editor. I don't have much to add to what Cúchullain has said already. Hopefully you understand by now that whatever we put in an article needs to be cited to a reliable secondary source. The same goes for whatever arguments you may have (I haven't seen any) for Geoffrey's use of a "very ancient book" or his proficiency in Welsh. Some salient advice on determining the reliability of sources can be found here. Also, you seem to be under the impression that scholars are interested only in historical facts and for that reason set aside Geoffrey of Monmouth simply as an unreliable pseudo-historian with an overproductive imagination, right? But the voluminous literature which Geoffrey's works have spawned in the last few decades alone surely must speak volumes (pardon the pun) about their recognition as rich and influential pieces of literature, which have much to tell us about the society and culture in which they were produced. Would like you to see some suggestions for further reading? Cavila (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary I think the article is now much improved on many of the points I raised. It's all very well you having 'reliable sources' in your heads but in the cases I pointed out (now amended) the 'scholarly' references were missing; however the statement "Geoffrey's knowledge of the Welsh language appears to have been slight." remains insufficiently referenced in my opinion. On the application of logical consistency, I have simply been following sourced information given in the links to the other wiki articles - if i agree a source is unreliable, such as Petrie & Cooper, i have merely left it on the discussion page as a response to your request. In reply to Cavila, as a comparable example, one does not detect the same rigid hostility, accusation & 'scholarly' demand for 'verifiable historical sources' in, say, Irish_mythology ; they are simply taken as historical accounts of traditional national myth. I would prefer the disparaging contemporary remarks from William of Newburgh,et al. in their proper context as they are likely to be biased and not based on 'reliable scholarship'. I have also added a footnote on the Prophetiae because there is an important near contemporary source, neither Welsh nor Breton which remains extant corroborating the likelihood that Geoffrey's sources - probably oral and therefore unrecorded- were current in contemporary Pan-Brythonic culture and not verifiably Geoffrey's personal fabrications as the original article implied. (take a look at the history of the article if you can no longer see what I meant) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.6.78 (talk • contribs)
 * Anon, please remember to sign your comments with four tildas so others can follow the conversation. As to the Irish mythology article, that article has been tagged as needing sources since April 2009. It isn't by any standard a decent article on Irish mythology, for that reason - its sources are totally unclear and so the material can't be vetted. Comparing one Wikipedia article to another is often unproductive (unless it's a good article or featured article or something); the other article might be superior in one way but deficient in others (as in this case). You also seem to be under the impression that Geoffrey's work must either be an accurate representation of traditional material (perhaps a translation of an "ancient book" or a writing down of oral tradition) or else something totally new (his own "fabrication"). That's not the case, and no good scholar would frame it that way. While it is well accepted that the overall narrative is Geoffrey's own work, and a lot of the material was probably created directly by him, he was very obviously relying on traditional material for various parts of the work. He was clearly working with long-standing tradition in things like the Brutus legend and "Maximianus", which can be shown to predate him. His accomplishment was in adding all this stuff together into the new framework of a narrative of the kings of Britain, thereby creating something new. That's all the article is saying.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerald of Wales's take on Geoffrey if Monmouth
May not be REL enough to the article, but some of the editors may appreciate it. Just to set the stage: "there once was a certain Welshman called Meilyr who could explain the occult and foretell the future... Whenever anyone told a lie in his presence, Meilyr was immediately aware of it, for he saw a demon dancing..." [I'm sure you see where this is headed...] — Llywelyn II   20:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Welsh? British? other?
There has been a bit of toing and froing recently (without any actual discussion) about whether to call Geoffrey "Welsh" or "British" in the lede sentence (currently at British). Neither is appropriate. "Welsh" is problematical because – as discussed in the article – we know very little about his origins, cultural background or ethnicity: he may have been Welsh, Anglo-Norman, Cambro-Norman, Breton, or something else entirely. "British" is completely inappropriate, as the term has no meaning in this period, nor at any time between the early 6th century and 1707. (The fact that Geoffrey himself played an important role in restoring the historic name of Britain to public consciousness is neither here nor there.) We should therefore omit any sort of simplistic ethnic/national labelling.

That leaves the problem of indicating quickly to the uninformed reader what part of the world we're talking about. I would suggest inserting some such phrase as "possibly of Welsh origin, and later thought to have been based in the Oxford area". Other suggestions welcome. GrindtXX (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 * "British", as a purely geographical term, seems fine to me. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 * "Britain" can just about be made to work as a geographical term, but "British" (other than in a strictly geographical context – e.g. "British Isles") can't. In relation to a person, it implies membership of a nation-state or an ethnicity, and in this period is anachronistic and meaningless. GrindtXX (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 * No it doesn't, and nation-states and ethnicity are not relevant in this context. Modern concepts don't apply to the Middle Ages. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 * If there were firm evidence, we would not hesitate to identify Geoffrey as Welsh, English, Anglo-Norman, or whatever, all of which are national or ethnic labels. My precise point is that "British" is either an ancient ethnic label or a modern national label that has no meaning in the middle ages. I assume your argument is that "British" can mean anyone from the island of Britain – and, yes, I understand that as an argument, but it's not how the term is commonly used, particularly in relation to the middle ages. I challenge you to produce any serious reliable source relating to any person living between AD600 and 1600 that refers to them as "British". GrindtXX (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Let's try an analogy. If we were talking about someone who might be from Canada and might be from the United States, would you have any objection to describing them as North American? --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 * No, I would have no objection to that, because that's common usage. "British", in a medieval context, is not common usage.
 * We're obviously not going to agree on this. It would be good to have some third-party input. GrindtXX (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 * The English do this all the time. Be it with Andy Murray, or anything else. - n/a 19:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:44CB:8F00:BDDE:B71C:D837:203A (talk)

 * The current categories on this article way over-emphasize Geoffrey's "Welshness". Geoffrey shows no evidence of being fluent in the Welsh language, he surely was not ethnically Welsh (given the open disdain for the Welsh that he displays in his Historia Regum Britanniae; he might have been of partial Breton descent, though his name is Frankish), and he spent most of his life outside of Wales. His cultural world was Anglo-Norman, not Welsh. Cagwinn (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Geoffrey’s birth
We seem to have 3 birth dates for Geoffrey: around 1090, 1095 and 1100. Being that we are working with approximates, could we take 1095 as his birth (because that is the mean age and median age of the 3 sources) PrinceofFrancia (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Looks like original research to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 * We simply don't know when he was born. Michael Curley, "Geoffrey of Monmouth", Cengage Gale, 1994, p. 2, suggests a range between 1090 and 1100; that's the closest we're going to get. Cagwinn (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Welshness
As the issue of Geoffrey's Welshness or otherwise continues to be a matter of dispute, it may be helpful to put on record what the two cited sources actually say about this. (I have added the emphases.)

Brynley Roberts (1991), p. 98: "Geoffrey's work, in its overt subject matter and orientation can be claimed to be Welsh, but there is little or no evidence that he himself is to be regarded as Welsh or Cambro-Norman.... Geoffrey was known to his contemporaries as Galfridus Artur(us), two names said to be more common amongst Bretons than Welsh in the twelfth century. In the Historia he refers to himself as Galfridus Monemutensis, "of Monmouth". ... Geoffrey shows some familiarity in his work with the topography of this part of the March [i.e. Monmouthshire], and the role of Caerleon both as an episcopal seat and as Arthur's court in the Historia may be the fruits of a lively historical imagination playing upon the visible remains of an imposing Roman city. It is possible that Geoffrey's family were among those Bretons who had been such a significant element in William I's forces, many of whom settled in south-east Wales. Geoffrey's subject was the early history of the Britons who were ancestors not only of the Welsh but also of Cornishmen and Bretons. But the later history of the Welsh, though the essential theme of the Historia, was held in scant regard by him. ... The greatest of all the kings of Britain has a Breton ancestry and Arthur's most glorious soldiers are the Bretons. ... Geoffrey's "racial sympathies" may be inferred from his work, but nevertheless there is no direct evidence of his Breton antecedents."

Julia Crick in ODNB (2004): "Earlier generations of scholars thought of [Geoffrey] as Welsh, or at least Welsh-speaking. He has been credited with Welsh paternity: contemporaries called him not Geoffrey of Monmouth but Geoffrey Arthur (Galfridus Arturus, or Galfridus Artur), which, if the Arturus is a patronymic, would suggest that Geoffrey's father bore a Welsh name. However, as Arturus does not appear in the form expected for a patronymic (the genitive case), this argument looks decidedly weak, and the name is usually regarded as a nickname reflecting Geoffrey's scholarly interests. Geoffrey himself laid claim to Celtic connections, using the toponymic Monemutensis – of Monmouth – and advertising two of his three works as translations. His grasp of the Welsh language has been shown to have been slight, however, and he is best located among the French-speaking élites settled on the Welsh border since 1066, to whose ranks belonged the distinguished authors Walter Map and Gerald of Wales. Monmouth had been held by Breton lords since William I granted it to Wihenoc before 1086, so it is possible that Geoffrey's ancestors were Breton rather than Norman, having originally settled on the border as part of the entourage of Wihenoc or his successor, William fitz Baderon. Most, if not all, of Geoffrey's adult life must have been spent outside Wales, although the details remain very sketchy."

In my opinion, the current wording in our article reflects the uncertainty in those sources satisfactorily. GrindtXX (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant & biased quotes in article
The section regarding the historicity of Geoffrey's works includes a lengthy 12th century quote demonising (literally) Historicae, contrasting it to the Gospel of John. One, how is that relevant, and two, how does appealing to one work of fiction/myth as "truth" prove the "nontruth" of any other work? Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

 * This isn't about whether the Historia was 'true' history or not - it's about the reactions of Geoffrey's contemporaries to it. And it's certainly relevant to know that not everybody was convinced! John O'London (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

untitled
Shouldn't there be included a link in the introduction to go to the archive and read the legend of Arthur?

 * There's already a link to King Arthur in the lede sentence. What is your point? GrindtXX (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

British/Brythonic
[Discussion copied by GrindtXX from User talk:Nicknack009 to this talk page, where it belongs]

Hi, apologies if this isn't how wikipedia works. I don't quite know where I am supposed to disscuss this with you.

You said 'British' should stay because it is a geographic term. It isn't. It is a nationality and ethnicity. Regardless, even if it was meant to denote geography it would not make sense contextually because it is describing him as 'British' not describing him as being from Britain.

Also, the reason behind not changing 'British' to 'Welsh' being that he might have been of Cambro-Norman descent doesn't make sense if you call him British, which historically would also have excluded Cambro-Normans. It would refer only to Bretons, Cornish, and Welsh. However, like I said the general reader won't understand the difference between the historical use of British to refer to Britons and will instead anachronistically understand it as British in the modern sense of the word. Which I think is your goal, but that is irrelevant. Evsboi (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 * To add to this, I think Brythonic in this context makes clear that he was likely either Breton or Welsh without being specific to either one. Evsboi (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 * It does not, because it is a piece of technical jargon that means nothing to the general reader of an encyclopedia. It's not informative. Indeed, it's a word that you don't understand. It is not an ethnic term, it's a linguistic one, and the idea that language groups are races or ethnic groups, as if people are fucking dog breeds, is long discredited and should have long died of embarassment. The only language we know Geoffrey wrote in is Latin. "British", here, means "from Britain". It says nothing about his ethnicity. His ethnicity does not matter for the purpose of the article. It is not informative. What is informative is where he came from. Your apparent insistence that everybody has to be categorised by race is futile, and, frankly, disturbing. And your apparent belief that geographic terms do not exist outside of politically constituted states is just wrong. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yikes, this is a embarassing response and a tough read. You need to learn how to interact with people, because this is not it.
 * It is a both a linguistic term and an ethnic one. Brythonic celts are Cornish, Welsh and Bretons - the Celts that speak Brythonic languages. I have absoultey no idea how to respond to your absolutely wild rant about breeding and races, especially considering race and ethnicity are not the same thing and thus this isn't about race at all. His ethnicity does matter, to me and you. You reason you want him to be "British" is because you refuse to accept that he was a Celtic person. It's typical British imperialism. Everyone who reads that article will associate British with the modern British ethnicity not the historic Britons (which Geoffrey was).
 * You so clearly have no idea what you're talking about and shouldn't be in a position to police this article. You keep conflating race and ethnicity like a bumbling fool. In your quest to be anti-Racisim you're upholding centuries old British imperialist tactics.
 * When you saying "was a British cleric" nobody reads that and goes oh he lived in Britain, they go oh he was ethnically British. That is what you want though. Evsboi (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been raised on several occasions in the past (see above), without reaching any very satisfactory consensus.

My own take is that "British" is completely inappropriate because the term was meaningless (and not used by anybody at all) between the departure of the Romans in the 5th century, and its revival by antiquaries in the late 16th century (followed by its formal adoption by James VI/I in 1603). It is anachronistic. As I said in 2017, "I challenge you to produce any serious reliable source relating to any person living between AD600 and 1600 that refers to them as 'British'." However, "Brythonic" is also inappropriate, (a) because it's predominantly a linguistic term; (b) because it's a technical term, meaningless to many if not most readers (per MOS:INTRO, "It is even more important [in the lead] than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible ... avoid difficult-to-understand terminology"; and see also MOS:JARGON); and most importantly (c) because we don't actually know anything about Geoffrey's ethnic/linguistic background. He may have been pure Norman or French. All we know is that he was associated with (perhaps born in, but we don't know that; perhaps lived in) Monmouth. I think the only thing to be done is to remove the ethnic/national label entirely, and simply say "Geoffrey of Monmouth was a cleric from Monmouth, Wales". I'm now going to be bold and do that. GrindtXX (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Sorry about starting the conversation in the wrong place and making you copy it here. I don't really know how Wikipedia works yet.
 * I agree, as I stated, that British is inappropriate, and I accept also that Brythonic is innapropraite. I was just trying to find a way to relate that he was a Celtic Briton, but as is clearly evident we lack a word to properly convey that. I, albeit begrudgingly, agree that removing the ethnic/national label is the only solution, at least until there exists a term that clearly conveys Celtic Briton or scholarship hones in on an exact ethnicity.
 * Evsboi (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree with cutting the label. I'm not aware of any scholarly consensus that would let us put a label on that is sufficiently supported.  The question can be discussed in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "British" is inappropriate, but I think it's more important to avoid terms like "Brythonic", which I maintain is not an ethnic term in any sense (if you've read any recent scholarship at all, you would know how problematic "Celtic" is as an ethnic term, so "Celtic Briton" is also dodgy), the idea that language equals ethnicity belongs before the First World War, and the idea that it's more important to categorise someone ethically than to say where they're from is really weird. (For what it's worth, I would have no objection to calling Geoffrey "Welsh", because, well, he was from Monmouth, but that would be going against consensus.) --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Celtic denotes a group of related ethnicites, not an ethnicity in itself. Language and culture (among other things) quite literally make an ethnicity, thats what ethnicity is. Celtic isn't problematic, and Celtic Briton certainly isn't. It's a a historical term you will find in any scholarship on Ancient Celts. I think you need to accept that you're just anglo-posting and that you have an agenda.
 * Also, it doesn't matter what YOU think is important. Calling him Welsh would be giving him an ethnic label. You are the only person who is reading "Welsh" or "British" and think it denotes location, the rest of us know that it means ethnicity. Of course, this stems from your flawed belief that ethnicity = race when it does not. Evsboi (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of you please stop calling names and imputing opinions to each other. Our opinions don't matter; what matters is what scholarly sources say.  Rather than constructing arguments like this, it would be better to find scholarly works on Geoffrey (and there are plenty) and see how they handle the question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is literally what I said: " it doesn't matter what YOU think is important".
 * Evsboi (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geoffrey of Monmouth


text:
Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award

The Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award is given annually in the United States to the nation's top upperclassman quarterback in college football. Candidates are judged on accomplishments on the field as well as on their character, scholastic achievement, and leadership qualities. The award was established in 1987 and named after Johnny Unitas, who was nicknamed "The Golden Arm". Unitas played his college career at the University of Louisville and set many records in the National Football League while playing for the Baltimore Colts.

Winners
These are the award recipients since inception in 1987.

title: Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award


text:
Talk:Gara

Untitled
pro-separatist

would it be English to write: pro-basque-separatist?

Arne List 00:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It would be awkward. ;-) Plus, I think it's clear from context what the separatism referred to is. -- VV 07:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Nationalist, akin to the Nationalist Left. Separatist can be seen as a derogatory term as it's used mostly by Spanish nationalists/unionists, specially by Francoists that always used the term rojo-separatista (red-separatist), followed often to allegations to the Judeo-Masonic conspiration. --Sugaar 18:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest campaign of unexplained tags
Someone has engaged in serial verifiability tag posting without apparent reason, so bringing it to talk if s/he can shed some light. The first tag is just about self-explanatory ("by its own accounts"), so eligible to immediate removal. The second, on the Islamist Madrid attacks, that's a well known fact (like the Spanish government's dishonest management of the horrific event), check the main article, but fair enough, according to WP policies. The third is a well known fact as well, the explanation provided in the explanation line is untenable, since ETA provided notice in advance of his attack on Hipercor, and there are/were actually proceedings to determine accountability for failure by police officials to notify. The last tag is just uncalled for (what it is about exactly?). Iñaki LL (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gara


text:
Maxwell Award

The Maxwell Award is presented annually to the college football player judged by a panel of sportscasters, sportswriters, and National Collegiate Athletic Association head coaches and the membership of the Maxwell Football Club to be the best all-around in the United States. The award is named after Robert "Tiny" Maxwell, a Swarthmore College football player, coach, and sportswriter. Johnny Lattner (1952, 1953) and Tim Tebow (2007, 2008) are the only players to have won the award twice. Since 2014 (the beginning of the College Football Playoff era), the Maxwell Award winner has gone on to win the Heisman Trophy during the same voting cycle in every year except 2018 (Tua Tagovailoa) and 2023 (Michael Penix Jr.). It is the college equivalent of the Bert Bell Award of the National Football League, also given out by the Maxwell Club.

title: Maxwell Award


text:
Secondarily aquatic tetrapods

Several groups of tetrapods have undergone secondary aquatic adaptation, an evolutionary transition from being purely terrestrial to living at least part of the time in water. These animals are called "secondarily aquatic" because although their ancestors lived on land for hundreds of millions of years, they all originally descended from aquatic animals (see Evolution of tetrapods). These ancestral tetrapods had never left the water, and were thus primarily aquatic, like modern fishes. Secondary aquatic adaptations tend to develop in early speciation as the animal ventures into water in order to find available food. As successive generations spend more time in the water, natural selection causes the acquisition of more adaptations. Animals of later generations may spend most their life in the water, coming ashore for mating. Finally, fully adapted animals may take to mating and birthing in water or ice.

Mesosaurs

Mesosaurs were a group of small aquatic reptiles that lived during the early Permian period (Cisuralian), roughly 299 to 270 million years ago. Mesosaurs were the first known aquatic reptiles, having returned to an aquatic lifestyle from more terrestrial ancestors. Most authors consider mesosaurs to have been fully aquatic, although adult animals may have been only semiaquatic.

Turtles
Archelon is a type of giant sea turtle dating from the Cretaceous Period, now long extinct. Its smaller cousins survive as the sea turtles of today.

Squamates

Squamata is the largest order of reptiles, comprising lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians (worm lizards). There are many examples of aquatic squamates, both living and extinct; a secondarily aquatic lifestyle has evolved multiple times.

Living at the same time as, but not closely related to, dinosaurs, the mosasaurs resembled crocodiles but were more strongly adapted to marine life. Scientists continue to debate on whether monitor lizards or snakes are the closest living relatives of mosasaurs. Mosasaurs became extinct 66 million years ago, at the same time as the dinosaurs. Modern squamates which have made their own adaptions to allow them to spend significant time in the ocean include marine iguanas and sea snakes. Sea snakes are extensively adapted to the marine environment, giving birth to live offspring and are largely incapable of terrestrial activity. The arc of their adaptation is evident by observing the primitive Laticauda genus, which must return to land to lay eggs.

Ichthyosaurs
These marine reptiles had ancestors who moved back into the oceans. Ichthyosaurs adapted as fully as the dolphins they superficially resemble, even giving birth to live offspring instead of laying eggs.

Crocodilomorphs
Crocodilomorphs are a group of reptiles that include crocodilians and their extinct relatives. Many though not all crocodilomorphs had an aquatic or semiaquatic lifestyle. One group, the Metriorhynchidae displayed extreme adaptions for life in the open ocean, including the transformation of limbs into flippers, the development of a tail fluke, smooth, scaleless skin, and probably even live birth.

Sauropterygians
Sauropterygians developed from terrestrial ancestors soon after the end-Permian extinction and flourished during the Triassic before all except for the Plesiosauria became extinct at the end of that period. The plesiosaurs went extinct at the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, the same event which killed the non-avian dinosaurs. Sauropterygians include placodonts, nothosaurs, plesiosaurs, and pliosaurs.

Cetacea
During the Paleocene Epoch (about 66 - 55 million years ago), the ancient whale Pakicetus began pursuing an amphibious lifestyle in rivers or shallow seas. It was the ancestor of modern whales, dolphins, and porpoises. The cetacea are extensively adapted to marine life and cannot survive on land at all. Their adaptation can be seen in many unique physiognomic characteristics such as the dorsal blowhole, baleen teeth, and the cranial 'melon' organ used for aquatic echolocation. The closest extant terrestrial relative to the whale is the hippopotamus, which spends much of its time in the water and whose name literally means "horse of the river".

Sirenians
The ancestors of the dugong and manatees first appeared in the fossil record about 45 to 50 million years ago in the ocean.

Pinnipeds
The fossil records show that phocids existed 12 to 15 million years ago, and odobenids about 14 million years ago. Their common ancestor must have existed even earlier than that.

Polar bears
Although polar bears spend most of their time on the ice rather than in the water, polar bears show the beginnings of aquatic adaptation to swimming (high levels of body fat and nostrils that are able to close), diving, and thermoregulation. Distinctly polar bear fossils can be dated to about 100,000 years ago. The polar bear has thick fur and layers of fat on its body to protect it from the cold.

Humans
Proponents of the aquatic ape hypothesis believe that part of human evolution includes some aquatic adaptation, which has been said to explain human hairlessness, bipedalism, increased subcutaneous fat, descended larynx, vernix caseosa, a hooded nose and various other physiological and anatomical changes. The idea is not accepted by most scholars who study human evolution.

title: Secondarily aquatic tetrapods