text:
Talk:White separatism

People are sneaking their POVs into the article
For instance a statement like this "Many white separatists argue that white separatism is not the same as white supremacy" is making it look like a white separatist has to "argue" or defend themselves from being a nazi when a white separatist by definition is not necessarily a nazi.

Just because a lot of white supremacist falsely label themselves as white separatists does not change the definition of white separatism or the real non violent people that follow it.

This article needs a lot of anti-white separatism POV clean up. Just last month someone had "white separatism" reverting to the "white supremacy" article. 108.32.4.7 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting and reverting
STOP POV MIS-DIRECTING and REVERTING this ARTICLE:

"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs.

A supremacist, in contrast, demands a multiracial society, since it is the supremacist's express wish that he dominate or rule over other races in such a society, such rule often being justified by a doctrine of racial superiority."

Thanks! :D

--User:65.125.10.66, 17:50, 24 Feb 2004

STOP POV MIS-DIRECTING and POV REVERTING that Wiki NPOV ARTICLE.

PS--The only ones SPAMMING are the ones MIS-REDIRECTING the NPOV article to a Marxist-PC POV one!

--User:24.45.99.191, 18:28, 25 Feb 2004

Separatism --User:66.2.156.38 04:29, 26 Feb 2004

Individuals
Has Frank Salter identified himself as a white separatist? The external link goes to an Amazon book listing, but there's nothing there that uses the term "white separatist". Unless someone self-identifies, their inclusion on the list needs to be well-supported. (For instance, Abernethy has given interviews in which she calls herself a white separatist). Thanks, -Willmcw 23:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Salter's book has basically two parts. In the first part he comes up with a new theory of ethnic nepotism -- its fairly hard science and neutral.  The second part is where he makes the case for ethnostate formation reconstructing something resembling the  Ancestral environment or Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA) for those individuals who can still be so classified (recognizing there are large populations that are sufficiently panmictic that they would need what I might call cosmostates).  I don't have the book but I have conversed with Salter and am confident I can come up with the reference.  I'll ask him for it. Jim Bowery 00:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, since the info is hard to find I'm going to comment-out the Salter reference until we can find material to properly label him. It'll still be there for when we've got it. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:31, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I got a response back from Salter and he asked that he not be referred to as a white separatist since, in his opinion, it implies a primary orientation toward political activism. Jim Bowery 09:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for doing that additional research. If no independent source identifies Salter as a white supremacist, and if he does not self -identify that way either, then there is no basis for that term in the article. If such a source were ever found then it would have to be cited, of course. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I remove the following because it's clearly complete rubbish.

Discussions of white separatism are generally difficult due to a conflict between two points of view, each accusing the other of supremacist hypocrisy:

 * 1) Those opposing white separatism generally claim there are few if any white separatists -- only white supremacists claiming to be white separatists.
 * 2) The white separatist general counter-claim is that by denying self-determination to whites, their opponents are supremacist hypocrites.

While the first point is covered elsewhere. The second is obvious rubbish, because opponents of white separatism generally believe in all races being treated equally in an integrated society. No-one could reasonably accuse such people of being supremacist. You can't even accuse them of denying whites their rightful place of superiority (remember, you're a separatist, not a supremacist). All you can accuse your opponents of in general is believing that the races should be integrated rather than separated, and that's not supremacist. DJ Clayworth 20:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, whether it is garbage or not is not to the point. It is a fact that self-proclaimed separatists accuse those who oppose white separatism of being multicultural supremacists and therefore hypocrites.  Moreover, supremacist ideology needn't be racially based.  One can, for example, be a Christian supremacist -- believing in the supreme authority of Christianity which should be universally recognized by all humanity.  The belief that people should live in racially integrated societies is a belief like Christianity.  It can be turned into a supremacist belief by the simple expedient of proclaiming it to be universally enforceable due to its moral superiority.  The items remain.  Jim Bowery 09:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

_____

No mention of white separatism outside the USA and South Africa. Doesn't Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National in France fall under the white separatist category? Or the British National Party?

I don't believe that the BNP is a separatist party within the meaning discussed here. The BNP would, at the very least, discriminate between ethnicities when it comes to immigration to the UK. That makes them racist rather than separatist, since they would discriminate on the basis of race.

In fact I wanted to ask a question? Does anyone have a reference from a white separatist describing how a white separatist (but not supremacist) society would actually work? I have yet to find anything resembling an explanation. Here are some particular questions:

 * 1) It would seem from the article that white (non-supremacist) separatist would admit that the apartheit system was racist, and therefore that system would not be acceptable. That would seem to pretty much eliminate any form of racial 'separateness' where the races occupied by the same geographical area but had separate social institutions. Some institutions (like the army and the police) Don't really admit of separateness.
 * 2) Does it therefore follow that all white separatists are really proposing that whites and non-whites live in different places?
 * 3) Alternatively haven't any white separatists thought this through to this extent?

It would make sense to add some of the answers to this to the article. DJ Clayworth 20:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Slaves toiled
The reason why Negroes are around "white (people)" is that Negroes toiled in the fields when "white (people)" would not toil. That is the only reason why "white (people)" keep Negroes nearby to them. Superslum 14:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this article and I speculate is a smear to make this article seem discriminatory.

108.32.4.7 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

History
The history section is simply two American presidents saying that the races should stay separate. But those quotations have nothing to do with the history of the white separatist movement. Rather they appear to be in the article as justifications. Unless anyone can find a source that tie Jefferson and Lincoln as the founders of white seperatism, then I htink we should omit the long quotations. -Will Beback 19:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It's clear that white separatist beliefs were being espoused by these presidents. The fact that this might be taken as "justification" for white separatism is a red herring. Jim Bowery 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It's clear according to whom? We need either a self-identified white separatist, or a reputable research on the movement, connecting these quotations to the movement. There are quotations from Leviticus that we could add too, but those would not be relevant or help our article either. -Will Beback 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe that omission of the importance of CULTURE with so much attention devoted to skin pigmentation levels is indicative of the shallow thinking used by so many hereabouts and across the USA (and elsewhere) and a plethora of spewed/written knee-jerk rhetoric bandied about by those who devote little actual in-depth thought about anything even remotely related to the concept of race. Obbop 66.137.181.235 (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Creep
Once again this article is veering off into being a one-sided POV essay extolling White racism. Why is the criticism of this movement buried? Why is so much of the entry uncited blogging or unchallenged statements by well-known racist bigots?--Cberlet 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

 * There is certainly POV creep in that the "criticism" section is replicated throughout the article in statements that question the honesty of white separatists. Jim Bowery 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

 * There is also weasel wording that promotes the views of white separatists. It should all be cleaned up. Claims for and against need to be backed up by reliable sources. Spylab 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing the lead
added two sources to the lead. one from stormfront which, while not really a 'reliable' site as far as facts are usually concerned, is used only to cite the opinions of white separatists. the second is an excerpt from the journal of political and military sociology citing the anti-racist rebuttal. -- frymaster 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite Silly Indeed
The entire concept founding a homeland for whites is silly. There happens to already be a homeland for whites. It's called Europe.

 * Maybe you should take a trip to this "homeland for whites" called Europe. Its time to wake up, because you don't understand the world you're living in.--172.131.84.47 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Parts of urban Europe actually have a white minority just as many US cities. It is 2008 and Europe has been undergoing mass third world immigration for quite a while... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.214.246 (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This Article Needs to be Reviewed
This entire article is POV misdirection. Half of the article is dressing

Views on Jews?
What are the White Separatism views on Jewish people? --Topk (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine they mostly differentiate based on ethnicity rather than religion; IE, some Jews are ethnically white, many others are not. We can hypothesize that certain branches are pro/anti-Jewish, but by the definition of "white" in ethnic terms I imagine their opinion of including Jews would have to be split down the middle as Jews vary in origin from Germanic to Ethiopian!4.246.214.246 (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone tried a lot to make this concept not sound racist
But it is according to simple logical deduction: Why separate people that have white skin and not people that are ..tall for example? It is the only logical conclusion that people that believe in such doctrines are intolerant of other races (being in their group). According to them, people may speak the same language, have the same culture, have lived the same lives, and still be disallowed to be part of their clique. This is pure old racism, without the violence. Just because you don't want the extermination of other races and don't outright hate, or even don't think a race is superior it doesn't mean you can't be racist. The concept is racist because it simply proposes social separatism based on race. --Leladax (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The article's present unsupported discussion of the purported distinction between Segregation and Separatism is typical of the problem here. The differentiation of these two "concepts" is entirely dependent upon linguistics.  Interestingly, "Segregation" is defined by the act of "Separation" and thereafter, "Separation" or "Separatism" or "separately" is defined by "self-determination" characterized by peace and harmony.

 * The "distinction" ultimately reduces to a linguistic POV and OR argument that segregation is the means to peace and harmony. It is not at all clear that the philosophy of homeland separatism can be expressed except by the action of segregation, and distinguishing the action (which cannot be undertaken except through some form of social or political compulsion or enforcement) from the philosophical motivation for such action does not define two different philosophies. My opinion?  Perhaps, but I doubt it. Comments?(71.197.93.206 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 * It would seem that it IS 'technically' racist, in the sense that it acknowledges race as a divisive factor. However most of the elements which make racism taboo (oppression or conquest of other races) are absent from separatism. It is linguistic semantics of course, but in modern context racism generally means harming or oppressing based on ethnicity. Separatism would more be of a racial exodus or secession by a group whom feels oppressed and less desire to oppress others. There is a significant difference between ideology which preaches about oppressing others VS ideology which preaches about breaking away from perceived oppression. Agreed? black separatism and zionism are "racist" as well by the definition that they seek their own nations or institutions, but again, it lacks most of the taboo or violent aspects of historical racism.4.246.214.246 (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Semantics matters. The argument in the article is an argument, and it is OR.  The article describes separatism as including the effort to create homeland.  This cannot be achieved and maintained except by compulsion based on race, violent or otherwise.  There is no distinction between Segregationism and Separatism.  Both require the exercise of political power to enforce social structures based on racial perceptions and concepts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.89.206 (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Not that I really know how people feel about this, but it is comparable I think- if it is so absolutely racist for "Whites" to have a homeland, than is it horribly racist for the Jews to have a homeland? Or the Palestinians? I personally think we could all just get along- if you have a place to go to and brew hatred it's only a matter of time before that hatred manifests itself into violence oppression and revenge. -Furbuggy May 26, 2009 17:58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.62.34 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

=Paleoconservatism= The odd, seemingly random and and sourceless reference early in the article to paleoconservatism/white separatism being related needs to go. I wish I could elaborate with some giant essay but what more is there to say than; the two are not related? I'm sure there have been racists whom held paleoconservative ideals, but for example does one consider Marcus Epstein, a mixed Jew/Asian seem to be a "white separatist"? He is a fairly well-known figure in paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. The claim is just too sporadic. Paleoconservatives oppose amnesty and increased immigration but they also oppose collectivism of all types, which would disqualify race from carrying legal weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.214.246 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Only South Africa
I would think it would be called nationalism or white nationalism and direct you to that article with maybe an exception for South Africa. The U.S. and Europe cannot have "white separatism" because they are already white. Yes, there are areas where whites are the minority but no one in the U.S., Canada, France, Brazil or Germany says let's give up our country and create a just white country. No, the discussion centers on nationalism and deporting the "non-whites". This article really should direct to white nationalism again with the exception of South Africa where there a movement for a minority white population in a HISTORICALLY black majority nation(which are the conditions of white nationalism comparing to black nationalism, Roma, or Kurdish people). to create their own homeland. A majority population does not discuss separation, it discuses deportation and immigration controls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.110.66 (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

An older tradition than it appears.
White separatism began in America almost immediately after the end of the Civil War. Emancipated slaves returned to Africa by the ship load forming among other nations, Liberia. The Capitol, Monrovia, is named after President Monroe. White separatism and black separatism have grown up more or less together, each making demands that the other considers unacceptable. The KKK and Black Panthers have been quite belligerent, particularly the latter. Demands for revenge one against the other have created several problems: persons who detest racial segregation in any form risk being called "Uncle Toms" or "Scalawags," by those who still demand separation.

It is a disciplinary problem that seemingly will not go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocmike3 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits you made appear to be unsourced personal views. I'm going to undo the edits. If you can find reliable secondary sources making the same comments about white separatism then they can be restored.   Will Beback    talk    05:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

=This page needs more cites and less POV= I deleted some comments that were totally off topic. Could we please try to find more cites for this page? And more balance from scholars would also improve the page.Chip.berlet (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I tried to improve the page by adding a reference and the entire passage(which was not written by me) was removed for the stated reason that the source "does not speak for all white separatists". Maybe it doesn't but the passage didn't claim that it was in reference to all white separatists, only that advocates make the claim that separatism does not equal supremacy, and the author of the article is clearly an advocate who makes each and every one of the points in the deleted passage.  Furthermore, the critic's argument about a "façade" is allowed to remain, and there is no evidence that the source for that line speaks for all critics of white separatism. Now there is no balance in the presentation of advocacy and criticism about the subject. If a page isn't allowed to be improved, then their shouldn't be a call to do so.  108.38.29.47 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 * I have reinstated the previously deleted content which was taken out only because I added a citation which an administrator didn't like. I have cited the same book that most of the other citations for this article use, and I have given a specific page number. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Does the source back the text that says "Advocates of racial separatism generally say that separatism ..."
The full text is: "Advocates of racial separatism generally say that separatism differs from racial supremacy in that separatists believe that all races and ethnic groups have the right to develop their own culture separately and any race should not dominate another. They argue that racial differences are important and strongly oppose miscegenation." The link is here. No mention of any rights, no mention of no race dominating. A quote from a white supremacist and another from a separatist. That's the IP's 2nd try to source this statement. I don't see any possible way that it can be stated as a fact in any case (well, if you could do a survey you could report the survey). Doug Weller talk 09:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 * The disputed text in the article (which I did not write by the way, with the exception of adding "generally" to pacify people like yourself) is not about stating facts. It clearly starts as saying that this is what "advocates of racial separatism generally say". It is providing balance to the following sentence which gives the critics POV, which is also not a fact, but what they claim. If you want to get into facts, it is a fact that advocates generally say just what is in the disputed passage.

 * As for the source, you have not only the two persons that the authors quoted saying what is written in the "disputed text" but the authors themselves, who are objective, believe that the distinction between the two ideas is valid:

 * "The separatist may well believe that his or her race is superior to other groups: however, we believe there can be a distinction between the supremacist desire to dominate (as in apartheid, slavery, or segregation) and complete separation by race."

 * I was not citing anything in the two quotations that you mentioned, only the analysis of the authors.

 * The miscegenation portion of the text is supported by this:

 * "While the extent of separateness varies in the movement, virtually all reject marriage outside the 'white race".

 * Furthermore, it must be reiterated that I myself did not write the "disputed text". I responded to a call to provide citations(see above). That text had been around for several years, and it was not until I began to provide citations in support that it had become "disputed". This seems to be more of an attack on myself then an issue with the content of the text, since it was in existence long before I arrived on the scene. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Full reply later. You accused me of not reading the source although I had. A citation needed tag always means it's disputed and I wasn't watching this article earlier or I probably would have dealt with it earlier, so don't think this is all about you.  Doug Weller  talk 06:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 * If you read the source great. In order to justify the removal of the content you ought to explain why you think that the source does not address its elements. A citation tag just means that a particular passage needs a citation. I provided one, and it is from the same source utilized by other editors of this article. Methinks you are spending way too much time trying to suppress the presentation of a balanced treatment of the topic. Nonetheless, post your objections, and I will read them. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 * I explained all that in my first paragraph. Again, editors ask for citations because they are unsure that the text is correct. I've rewritten it and added a quote from a racist. But this article is badly out of date, far too short and relies too much on one source. Doug Weller  talk 17:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 * You have essentially paraphrased what the previous text says, which is summed up by pg. 10 of the source, which you originally said was inaccurate. The text was better without Stoner's quote. So, what was this fight all about? 108.38.29.47 (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Once again, "separatists believe that all races and ethnic groups have the right to develop their own culture separately and any race should not dominate another." Doug Weller  talk 10:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That happens to be true, and supported by the source, and sums up your rewrite. Well done by the way, the article is improved, and people can read Stoner if they pick up the book by the two ladies, so I removed that quote.108.38.29.47 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 * You may believe it to be true but that's not what the source says. The last thing that the article needs is streamlining. Doug Weller  talk 14:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is exactly what the source says. You even wrote it in your edit. It is true that the article can be expanded. I am just beginning my research into the topic and will do my best. I hope to add citations to the currently uncited content, and will start there. But, we don't need long block quotes lifted from cited sources in this article when readers can access the source and read it for themselves. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Odd, as I cannot find the words "right", "develop" "their own culture", "should not dominate", or anything like in my edit or the source. Doug Weller  talk 15:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If we were required to state exactly what a source said, instead of summarizing, this would not be an encyclopedia, but a compilation of other works. The meaning is contained in your edit, whether you see it or not. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition of "Separatism"
The article needs to be revised in accordance with the formal definition of "separatism." The Oxford definition of SEPARATISM: "The advocacy or practice of separation of a certain group of people from a larger body on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or gender." Nowhere is the term "race" included in this definition. Also, "ethnicity" and "race" are two distinct terms per the Wikipedia article "Race and ethnicity in the United States". The article as presently written seems to establish a different definition of "separatist" that is specific to "white separatist." The fact that the article as presently written infers a connection between "racism" and "white separatist" suggests that at least one contributing author is incorrect is making such an assertion. Joseph Ellerbrock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoffugue (talk • contribs) 14:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * our articles should reflect what sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS say about the subject " White separatism", not the individual words. Doug Weller  talk 20:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * WP:TRUTH, WP:RS, and etymological fallacy  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Short description
I provided three reasons why I prefer "Advocacy for economic and culturally distinct white nations" as the short description for this page: Can you elaborate on the reasons you prefer a different short description? Daask (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) more closely matches article - in fact, it's copied straight from the lead
 * 2) describes "separation" - it contains more information
 * 3) shorter - A very high priority for short descriptions.
 * Yes, I can. Your description is vague "Advocacy for economic and culturally distinct white nations" could mean any number of things, while "Advocacy for white nations separate from other races and ethnicities." clearly spells out what the ideology is meant to separate: whites from other races and ethnic groups.  Economic concerns are virtually unmentioned in white supremacy, and are not in any way a central part of the philsophy. Using "culturally distinct" instead of spelling out the separation of whites from others is very close to whitewashing the concept to make it more palatable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the article needs further improvement before discussion of the lead or short description are worthwhile. Thank you for taking the time to describe your reasoning. I'll try to work on this article within the next few weeks. Daask (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

= Merger proposal = Given this article's brevity, I recommend the also-short page White ethnostate which is part of this philosophy be merged into this page. Skingski (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If anything, that page should be merged with Volkstaat and Northwest Territorial Imperative.64.183.139.174 (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

=Double Standard= Why is it that the white separatism article is inundated with ties to white supremacy while the black separatism page doesn't allude to supremacy at all? Frankly it would seem the latter is correct to omit any such comparison given that the concepts of separatism and supremacism are quite contradictory.

For reference:

Supremacism: "particular class of people is superior to others, and that it should dominate, control, and subjugate others" ― Separatism: "advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial, governmental or gender separation"

Separatism (be it black, white, etc.) is not about subjugating other groups to anything, it is a focus on ones own destiny, which the current entry hardly reflects. Painting white separatism as "a form of white supremacy" or "a public facade" implies malicious intent when in reality it means the same thing it means for every other group - the freedom to pursue their own interests (separately). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consistere (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Other stuff exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, we only include information that come from WP:reliable sources. Definiitons that you make up yourself are WP:Original research and are not acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Pardon me but what on earth does WP:Other stuff exists have to do with what I just wrote? That page deals with the justification for the creation/removal of Wikipedia content.

 * My post was meant to point out the stark contrast between two articles whose premise (Separatism) is the same. Also, I'm not making up my own definitions ― "freedom to pursue their own interests" is a reference to the line "separatist groups may seek nothing more than greater autonomy" from the linked page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consistere (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

= Merger Proposal to White supremacy = Please see discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_supremacy#Merger_Proposal_from_White_separatism thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.155.212 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:White separatism


text:
Template:SelectedAnnivBar

Selected anniversaries / On this day archive All · January · February · March · April · May · June · July · August · September · October · November · December  Recent changes · Editing guidelines  It is now on Monday, July 29, 2024 (UTC)|[ Purge cache for this page]

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

title: Template:SelectedAnnivBar


text:
Orlando Cepeda

Orlando Manuel Cepeda Pennes (September 17, 1937 – June 28, 2024), nicknamed "the Baby Bull" and "Peruchin", was a Puerto Rican first baseman in Major League Baseball who played for six teams from 1958 to 1974, primarily the San Francisco Giants. An 11-time All-Star, Cepeda was one of the most consistent power hitters in the National League (NL) through the 1960s and was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1999.

Breaking in with the Giants in their first season after relocating to San Francisco, he was named the NL Rookie of the Year by unanimous vote in 1958. Every year from 1958 through 1963, he was among the league leaders in batting, home runs, RBIs, slugging percentage, and total bases. In 1959, he became the first Puerto Rican player to start an All-Star Game, and in 1961 he was runner-up in voting for the NL Most Valuable Player (MVP) after leading the league with 46 home runs and 142 RBIs, which remains the club record for right-handed hitters. In the ensuing years, the Giants struggled to fit both Cepeda and teammate Willie McCovey, also a first basemen, into their lineup, unsuccessfully trying to shift each of them to left field at different points.

After longstanding knee injuries forced Cepeda to miss most of the 1965 season, limiting him to pinch hitting duties, he was traded in May 1966 to the St. Louis Cardinals, coming back to finish the year with a .301 average. In 1967, Cepeda in helping the team to the NL pennant, won the MVP Award by unanimous vote. Another trade brought him to the Atlanta Braves, and he helped that team win the inaugural NL West division title in 1969. With his play increasingly limited by knee problems, he was traded to the American League shortly before its adoption of the designated hitter, and won the first Outstanding Designated Hitter Award with the Boston Red Sox in 1973 before his career came to an end the following year.

Cepeda struggled in his personal life after the end of his career. After a 1975 arrest for transporting marijuana from Colombia to Puerto Rico, he served ten months in prison and saw his reputation ruined on his home island. Following changes in his personal life, however, he repaired his image after being contracted by the Giants in 1987 to work as a scout and goodwill ambassador, beginning decades of humanitarian work.

Early life
Cepeda was born in Ponce, Puerto Rico, to Pedro Aníbal Cepeda (1905/6–1955) and Carmen Pennes. The family was poor, and lived in wood houses without a telephone or refrigerator. His father was a professional baseball player in Puerto Rico, where he was known as "Perucho" and "the Bull", and was widely considered one of the best players of his generation. Orlando was thus known as "the Baby Bull". Cepeda saw his father play baseball for the first time in 1946, and was instantly interested in the game.

Because he was black and the bulk of his career was played before Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color line in 1947, Perucho Cepeda could not play in the major leagues. Several players from the Negro leagues visited their house, which influenced Orlando's view of the sport. He became a fan of Minnie Miñoso.

When he was 10 years old, Cepeda began to sell newspapers in order to participate in a baseball tournament organized for the paper boys. His first tryout came three years later. He practiced with the team for three months but did not make the roster. Cepeda then began playing basketball, but he tore cartilage in his knee and underwent surgery. The injury kept him inactive for nearly a year, and the doctor recommended that he avoid practicing basketball. He began practicing baseball again, noticing that his physical strength had significantly improved in two years.

One day, an amateur baseball player saw him play and recruited him to play with his team. The organization won Puerto Rico's amateur championship and went on to play against an All-Star team from the Dominican Republic. Pedro Zorilla, then owner of the Santurce Crabbers, attended the game to scout another player, but after seeing Cepeda play, he became interested in him. In 1953, Zorilla brought him onto the team to work as a batboy. After retiring, Pedro Cepeda worked for the government, checking the water of rivers in the municipality. He contracted malaria, which eventually precipitated his death at age 49. This illness worsened the family's living conditions. They moved from Guayama to Juncos, where their financial condition deteriorated. They moved again, this time to San Juan, where his mother worked odd jobs to support the family. After her father's death, there was not sufficient income in the household to pay for Orlando to attend college.

Minor leagues
In 1955, Zorilla persuaded Cepeda's family to purchase an airplane ticket so that he could participate in a New York Giants tryout. After passing the tryout, he was assigned by the Giants to Sandersville, a Class D team. Cepeda was subsequently transferred to the Salem Rebels, but he had trouble adapting because he did not speak English. He also encountered discrimination due to racial segregation under the Jim Crow laws. Shortly after this move, Zorilla called to inform him that his father was in critical condition. Pedro Cepeda died a few days later; Orlando paid the burial expenses and returned to Salem. He was depressed, which affected his performance. He wanted to quit and return to Puerto Rico, but Zorilla convinced him to play for the Kokomo Giants, a team in the Mississippi–Ohio Valley League. Walt Dixon, the team's manager, assigned him to play third base. Cepeda batted in the cleanup spot, finishing with a .393 average, hitting 21 home runs with 91 RBIs.

Jim Tobin, who owned his contract, noticed his potential and sold his player's rights back to the Giants. After a visit to Puerto Rico, Cepeda returned to New York before being sent to play with the St. Cloud Rox in Class C. The team re-assigned him to play first base. Cepeda adapted to the change quickly. That year, he won the Northern League Triple Crown, finishing with an average of .355 with 112 RBIs and 26 home runs. Jack Schwarz promoted him to Class B, a decision that he protested, noting that players with worse performance were being sent to Double A. Following a solid season in Class B, Cepeda played for the Crabbers in the Puerto Rican Professional Baseball League (LBPPR) during the winter, concluding with a batting average of .310, 11 home runs, and 40 RBIs. He then signed a Class A contract with the Springfield Giants, accepting it on condition that he be allowed to play with the Minneapolis Millers in spring training. Cepeda had a slow start, but his performance improved as the season advanced, and the team retained him on their roster. After completing the 1957 season with the Millers, he returned to Puerto Rico and played in the LBPPR. While he was playing with Santurce, manager Bill Rigney, team owner Horace Stoneham and Tom Sheehan scouted him on behalf of the Giants, who had just moved from New York to San Francisco. He was invited to the team's spring training along with other prospects, including Felipe Alou and Willie Kirkland.

San Francisco Giants (1958–1966)
Cepeda was called up by the San Francisco Giants in 1958. His 13 home runs through May 31 that year place him in a tie with Joc Pederson (2015) for the second-most by a National League rookie through the end of May in baseball history, surpassed only by Albert Pujols (16, in 2001).

He signed his first major league contract ten minutes before debuting in the league, earning $7,000 for the season. In San Francisco, the team received significant media attention. Due to his performance, the team raised his salary to $9,500 in June. During the season, Cepeda lived with Rubén Gómez, but stopped doing so after some tension developed between them.

His average remained steady throughout the season, never falling below .305, which was his average in September. The Giants led the pennant race for a month, but their record in August and September was below .500, and they finished in third place with a record of 80–74, four games behind the Pittsburgh Pirates and twelve behind the Milwaukee Braves, who won their second consecutive pennant.

In his first season, Cepeda batted .312 with 25 home runs, 96 RBIs, and a league-leading 38 doubles. Cepeda and teammate Willie Mays were the only NL players to finish the season ranked among the leaders in hits, home runs, RBIs, batting average, runs scored, and stolen bases. He was unanimously selected the NL Rookie of the Year, becoming the second player, after Frank Robinson in 1956, to receive a unanimous vote. He was also selected the Most Valuable Giant in a poll conducted by the San Francisco Examiner. On September 28, 1958, the publication presented him a plaque in recognition of the selection.

After the season concluded, Cepeda used his salary to buy a new house for his mother. That year he won the LBPPR batting title with an average of .362, while Santurce won the league's championship. The Giants offered him a $12,000 contract, which he refused, asking for $20,000. After negotiations, the parties settled on $17,000.

In 1959, Cepeda reported to spring training with more confidence than the year before. He opened the season hitting in nine straight games, with 15 hits in his first 35 at bats. After experiencing a brief slump during the latter half of May, Cepeda recovered, hitting 12 home runs by June 4; that day he had four hits including a pair of home runs and a double, driving in seven runs in an 11–5 road win over the Braves. He was selected as a starter in both All-Star games during the season. Cepeda was briefly moved to third base to open a spot for Willie McCovey in the starting lineup, but was moved to the outfield after committing errors in the position. He hit six home runs between August and September. The Giants remained in the race for the pennant during the latter part of the season, but were eliminated from competition after losing a series against the Los Angeles Dodgers, eventually finishing third. Cepeda led the team in batting average (.317) and RBIs (105).

Cepeda subsequently moved from Daly City to the Sunset District, seeking a house within the city. In 1960, the Giants moved him back to first base after McCovey was sent to the minor leagues. Cepeda finished with an average of .297, with 24 home runs and 96 RBIs. He moved twice this year, first to 19th and Pacheco and then to 48th and Pacheco, where he and McCovey bought a building next to the ocean.

In 1961, Cepeda had what he considered to be the best statistics of his career. He led the league in RBIs (142), home runs (46), and at bats per home run (7.9). On July 4, in the first game of a road doubleheader against the Chicago Cubs, Cepeda had a spectacular game, going 5-for-5 with two doubles and a three-run home run that traveled over 500 feet to deep center field, driving in a career-high eight runs in a 19–3 blowout. He was once again selected to play in the All-Star Game starting lineup. The Giants led the league in runs scored, while the pitching staff had a collective earned run average (ERA) of 3.77. The team finished in third place. Cepeda finished second in the Most Valuable Player voting, after Frank Robinson. After the season, Cepeda – who at the time was earning $30,000 – asked for a $20,000 raise based on his performance. The general manager believed that he was making too much money for a fourth-year player, and the negotiations continued until a final salary of $46,000 was settled on. The 1962 Giants were an improved team, constantly rivaling the Dodgers for the league lead. Several players from the team, including Cepeda, participated in the All-Star Games. Finishing tied with the Dodgers, the Giants played against them in a playoff series to determine the National League champion. They won the best of three series 2–1. Cepeda batted .306 for the year, with 35 home runs and 114 RBIs. The team thus advanced to the World Series to face the New York Yankees; New York won in seven games. In 1961 and 1962, Cepeda had strong years; however, he had serious problems with manager Alvin Dark, to the point of almost skipping some games. Among the things that Dark did after being named manager was to order the Latin American players to stop speaking Spanish in the clubhouse. Cepeda immediately confronted him; after this, Dark avoided summoning the Hispanic players to any team meeting.

During the winter, Cepeda returned to the LBPPR, where he suffered a knee injury while training. In 1963, he played the entire season with the injury, not informing the Giants out of concern for his spot in the roster. He was in constant pain, but was in the race for a batting title along with Roberto Clemente, Dick Groat, and Tommy Davis, eventually finishing fifth. His batting average was .316, with 34 home runs and 97 RBIs. Before his 26th birthday, Cepeda had accumulated 1,105 hits, the 11th highest total for a 25-year-old player in MLB history.

In 1964, San Francisco remained in the pennant race until the last week, when the St. Louis Cardinals defeated the New York Mets to secure the flag. Cepeda led the team in batting average with .304 and a slugging percentage of .539. Cepeda attended 1965 spring training, having limited participation. One of his friends, who was from Mexico, brought in a jar with alcohol and cannabis to reduce the pain, noting that it was an "old Mexican remedy". Noticing this, a clubhouse employee offered to bring him a cannabis "joint", which he accepted. After this event, he consumed the drug regularly in order to "relax". After experiencing swelling in the knee during the first games of the season, a group of doctors recommended that he stop playing, however, Cepeda refused to do so since baseball was his main source of income. He received treatment from Gene Sollovief, a Russian doctor who implemented a weight and exercise regime. He returned to action, but only had 34 at bats with an average of .176 and only one home run. He returned to Puerto Rico, undergoing further physical therapy. In the off-season, Cepeda also bought a house in Diamond Heights while his wife was pregnant with their son, Orlando Jr. After recovering from the injury, he attended 1966 spring training; however, he was not placed in the team's starting lineup.

St Louis Cardinals (1966–1968)
In May 1966, the Giants traded Cepeda to the St. Louis Cardinals for pitcher Ray Sadecki. The Giants were playing a series against the Cardinals in St. Louis at the time of the trade, so Cepeda joined the team there. Bob Howsam, the Cardinals general manager, was interested in him because the team had problems on offense. After the trade, the team granted him a new contract for $53,000. With the help of Harry Caray, the Cardinals' announcer, Cepeda moved to a house in Olivette, Missouri. The team finished in sixth place, with a record of 83–79. He finished his first season with the Cardinals playing 123 games with an average of .303, and was named the NL Comeback Player of the Year.

In 1967, the Cardinals entered the season with analysts giving them odds of 12–1 of winning the pennant. Cepeda began the season strongly, driving in seven runs in the first four games. The team promoted offensive performance by fining any player who left teammates on base a dollar; the money was used to pay for the postseason party. The Cardinals contended in the early league standings with the Chicago Cubs, but the team took control of the pennant race as the season progressed. Cepeda's offense remained stable, finishing June as the league's leader in doubles. He played in his seventh All-Star Game, which the National League won 2–1. Cepeda was named NL Player of the Month for the only time in his career in August, when he batted .352 with 5 home runs and 25 RBIs. The Cardinals won the pennant by 10$1/2$ games (101–60), and defeated the Boston Red Sox in seven games to win the World Series. Cepeda concluded the season hitting .325, with 21 game-winning hits and a league-leading 111 RBIs. He was named the National League Most Valuable Player. Cepeda was the second NL player, after Carl Hubbell, to win the award unanimously. He, Albert Pujols, Frank Robinson, and Mike Trout are also the only players in major league history to win both the Rookie of the Year and MVP awards unanimously. Cepeda was the first Latin player to win the home run and RBI titles.

In 1968, the Cardinals were considered the strongest team in the majors. They won the pennant for a second straight year, this time by a nine-game margin. The Detroit Tigers won the American League pennant by twelve games. Cepeda, who had a low average in the 1967 World Series, hit a home run that gave the Cardinals a two games to one lead. The Tigers, however, won three of the next four games to win their first World Series since 1945. This season was called the "Year of the Pitcher", because of the overwhelming dominance pitching had over offense. Cepeda had the worst statistical year of his career as a regular player, finishing with an average of .248 with 16 home runs and 73 RBIs, scoring career lows in all three statistics. He reported late to spring training in 1969, not showing up until one day before the Cardinals' first exhibition game.

Atlanta Braves (1969–1972)
Just before the season started, the Cardinals traded Cepeda to the Atlanta Braves in exchange for Joe Torre. The trade took him by surprise. After learning that his new team was the Braves, he considered retirement, but decided against it after discussing it with his wife.

Cepeda moved to Atlanta with uncertainty, wondering if the effect of the Jim Crow laws was still present, but his concerns disappeared once they settled. Cepeda attended 1969 spring training in West Palm Beach, being welcomed to the team by Hank Aaron. On August 4, Cepeda hit his 300th home run in a 7–1 road loss to the Montreal Expos. For the first time, baseball's postseason had best-of-five playoffs, and the Braves won the National League West with a record of 93–69, before losing to the Mets in the NL Championship Series. Cepeda compiled a season average of .257, with 22 home runs and 88 RBIs.

In 1970, Rico Carty of the Braves led the league in batting average, while Cepeda and Aaron each drove in more than one hundred runs. On July 11, Cepeda reached the 2,000-hit mark with three hits including a home run in a 7–6 loss to the Reds. On July 26, in the first game of a doubleheader in Chicago, he had the only three-home run game of his career, driving in seven runs in an 8–3 win; all three home runs were hit off Bill Hands, the last of them a grand slam. However, the Braves pitching staff was ineffective, and the team finished in fourth place in the division. Cepeda finished with an average of .305, 34 home runs and 111 RBIs. In 1971, Cepeda began the season with solid offense, hitting 10 home runs before May was over. However, he re-injured one of his knees in his house. The Braves' physician administered a shot, but that proved ineffective. Cepeda was attended to by Dr. Funk, the Atlanta Falcons' orthopedist. After running tests and examining X-rays, he determined that the injury was serious. Because of this, Cepeda began playing part-time. His batting average declined, and he hit only five more home runs that season. In September, Cepeda traveled to New York where he underwent surgery, returning to Puerto Rico to recover during the winter. In 1972, he began playing while still feeling pain. On May 16, Cepeda hit two home runs against the Houston Astros. During this time, Paul Richards had been replaced by Eddie Robinson as the team general manager. Robinson did not assign treatment for Cepeda's leg, eventually deciding to trade him.

Oakland Athletics (1972)
In July, Cepeda was traded to the Oakland Athletics for Denny McLain. After playing for a week, strictly as a pinch hitter, he was hospitalized and underwent a second surgery on his injured knee. Cepeda remained in Oakland three months before returning to Puerto Rico. Upon arriving, he received a telegram from Charlie Finley, the Athletics' owner, telling him that if he did not respond within three days he would be released from his contract. Cepeda decided not to call, intending to retire from baseball.

Boston Red Sox (1973)
In 1973, the American League established the designated hitter rule, hoping to improve attendance. The Red Sox contacted him, telling him that his role with the team only required batting. Cepeda became the first player to sign a contract to exclusively play as a designated hitter. His first hit with the team was a walk-off home run on April 8 to beat the Yankees 4–3, and on August 8 he had a career-high four doubles and six RBIs in a 9–4 road win against the Kansas City Royals. Cepeda finished the year with an average of .289 with 20 home runs and 86 RBIs in 550 at bats. He was awarded the Outstanding Designated Hitter Award. Cepeda's 20th home run established a major league record, making him the first player to hit 20 or more home runs with four different teams.

Kansas City Royals (1974)
After briefly playing in Mexico, he was offered a contract by the Royals. In his last season, Cepeda batting .215 with 1 home run and 18 RBIs.

Cepeda was the second player from Puerto Rico to win a triple crown in Minor League Baseball, doing so in 1956 with a batting average of .355, 26 home runs, and 112 RBIs. He was selected as an All-Star seven times, appearing in 11 games (1959–64, 1967). He was the first Puerto Rican to start in an All-Star Game and to be selected in two positions, serving as a first baseman and left fielder. His lifetime numbers in the Puerto Rican Professional Baseball League are a .325 batting average (fifth place), 89 home runs, 340 runs batted in and a .544 slugging percentage (second place, and only Puerto Rican with .500+). He batted over .300 nine times.

The following year, Cepeda tried a comeback in the Puerto Rican Baseball League. Upon noticing that his body couldn't perform as well as it did before, he opted to retire instead.

Career statistics
Source:

Legal issues
After retiring, that same year, Cepeda traveled to Colombia to direct a baseball clinic; once there, he met a group of drug dealers who convinced him to put bags containing five pounds of cannabis in two boxes containing hand-made clothing. Cepeda had used cannabis since 1965. He returned to Puerto Rico, waiting ten days before contacting the airport to see if the boxes had arrived. When Cepeda arrived to collect his cargo, he was told that they could not be released, since the shipping cost had not been covered; the shipment actually weighed 170 lbs, far more than he had been expecting. At that point, two police officers (who were aware of the packages' contents) instructed one of the air freight employees to give Cepeda the boxes with or without payment. An airport employee delivered the boxes to Cepeda's car, and once Cepeda returned to his vehicle, he was arrested and charged with drug possession.

While on trial for that charge, Cepeda was arrested a second time, after a man alleged that Cepeda had pointed a gun at him. A third case was brought by Pino, seeking an increase in alimony and child support payments. In 1978, after three days at trial, Cepeda was declared guilty of the drug possession charges and sentenced to five years of imprisonment. Cepeda served ten months in jail time and the balance of his sentence on probation. Following his release, a district attorney in Puerto Rico told the prison's warden that if Cepeda returned, the mafia would likely attempt to kill him, leading to Cepeda's assignment to a halfway house in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

After completing that program, Cepeda coached a LBPPR team in Bayamón, Puerto Rico and was later hired as a scout by the Chicago White Sox. In 1981, the team assigned him to work as a roving instructor with one of their minor league clubs in Lynn, Massachusetts. General manager Roland Hemond released him later that year, and he briefly worked as the Crabbers' coach.

Return to the Giants and community work
In 1987, Max Shapiro asked him to substitute for McCovey in a "fantasy baseball camp" in San Francisco, and although reluctant at first, he accepted. There he met and befriended publisher Laurence Hyman, who introduced Cepeda to Giants staff members and encouraged him to write to general manager Al Rosen. After initially receiving no response, eventually Patrick J. Gallagher called to tell Cepeda that Rosen wanted to hire him as a scout. Cepeda worked in the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and other Latin American countries during his first year, after which the Giants placed him on full-time payroll. Cepeda later worked as a goodwill ambassador for the Giants, attending activities in schools, hospitals, and community centers, and he represented the Giants in programs aimed at Latin American communities. Having joined the Sōka Gakkai International, he also participated in activities for Puerto Rican communities in New York.

Cepeda threw the honorary first pitch for the third game of the 1989 National League Championship Series, and also for a regular-season game between the Giants and Dodgers on September 17, 1997, his 60th birthday. Cepeda had his own concession stand at the new Giants stadium which opened in 2000, now called Oracle Park. Among the offerings at Orlando's Caribbean BBQ is the "Caribbean Cha Cha Bowl" in reference to his nickname for his taste for jazz and Latin music. In 2006, the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) approved a chapter for Puerto Rico, the first in Latin America, and named the chapter in honor of Cepeda. In 2008 a 9-foot bronze sculpture of Cepeda in a Giants uniform of the early 1960s was unveiled at the new ballpark. Cepeda was only the fourth Giant to be honored with such a statue, following Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Gaylord Perry, and Juan Marichal. On September 16, 2017, the day before his 80th birthday, he attended a birthday celebration at Oracle Park where the Giants honored him, including distributing statuettes of him to the first 20,000 fans at the game.

Legacy
By the early 1990s, when his time of initial eligibility for the Baseball Hall of Fame was beginning to run out, many Puerto Ricans, celebrities, and ordinary citizens alike began to campaign for his induction. Some international celebrities and former teammates also joined in the campaign. In 1994, his last year of eligibility in voting by the Baseball Writers' Association of America, he came within nine votes of being elected. In 1999, he was elected by the Hall's Veterans Committee, joining Roberto Clemente as the only other Puerto Rican in Cooperstown. They have since been joined by Roberto Alomar, Iván Rodríguez, and Edgar Martínez.

Cepeda belongs to 14 halls of fame, the most by any Puerto Rican athlete: the Bay Area Sports Hall of Fame (1990), Puerto Rico Baseball Hall of Fame (1991), Laredo Latin American International Sports Hall of Fame (1995), Santurce Hall of Fame (1997), Puerto Rico Sports Hall of Fame (1993), Baseball Hall of Fame, Cooperstown (1999), Missouri Sports Hall of Fame (2000), Guayama Hall of Fame (2000), Ponce Hall of Fame (2001), Cataño Hall of Fame (2002), Hispanic Heritage Baseball Museum Hall of Fame (2002), African American Ethnic Sports Hall of Fame (2007), San Francisco Giants Hall of Fame (2008) and Latinoamerican Baseball Hall of Fame (2010).

Cepeda was recognized nationally for his humanitarian efforts as an ambassador for baseball. He served as an honorary spokesman for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America.

In 2001, he won the Ernie Banks Positive Image Lifetime Achievement Award. The citation for the award reads, in part, "The legacy he is leaving is an impressive one indeed. His commitment to community service includes credentials for a Humanitarian Hall of Fame. He is now recognized nationally for his humanitarian efforts as an ambassador for baseball and the San Francisco Giants." It goes on to list many of his national and community contributions, including his regular visits to inner-city schools throughout the country in conjunction with HOPE: Helping Other People Excel. "Each December, Orlando tours as part of the Giants Christmas Caravan visiting hospitals, schools and youth groups including the UC San Francisco Medical Center pediatric cancer ward. He was a participant in Athletes Against AIDS. He was also a public speaker for the Omega Boys and Girls Club, counseling at-risk children in the San Francisco community. He was revered in the local community and a local band has a song that celebrates him.

The Giants retired Cepeda's number 30 in 1999. It hangs on the facing of the upper deck in the left field corner of Oracle Park. On September 6, 2008, the Giants unveiled a statue of Cepeda next to the installation. He was the fifth Giant to be honored with a statue; the other players are Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Juan Marichal, and Gaylord Perry.

In September 2008, the Giants added a life-size bronze statue on the fourth corner of the stadium to honor Orlando Cepeda as one of the greatest Giants of all time, joining other Hall of Fame players on the other three corners of the stadium. These include Mays, Marichal, Gaylord Perry, and McCovey. Cepeda continued to be a part of the Giants front office staff and was often involved with the team's spring training activities.

He was also recognized at Ponce's Parque de los Ponceños Ilustres in the area of sports.

Personal life

On December 3, 1960, Cepeda married Annie Pino in a ceremony that took place in a small church of San Juan. This was followed by a large reception at the Caribe Hilton Hotel. He and Pino divorced in 1973.

After the couple separated, he met Nydia Fernandez, who was from Carolina, Puerto Rico. The couple married in 1975, and had two children together, Malcom and Ali. Cepeda also had two other sons, Orlando Cepeda Jr. and Carl Cepeda.

A former Catholic, Cepeda began practicing Nichiren Buddhism as a member of the Buddhist association Soka Gakkai International in 1983. One year later, he moved to Los Angeles, renting an apartment in Burbank. During this timeframe, his relationship with Fernandez deteriorated. She eventually left the house and returned to Puerto Rico with Malcom and Ali and filed a divorce suit. A friend introduced Cepeda to Miriam Ortiz, whom he eventually married. Miriam died in 2017.

Health issues and death
Cepeda was hospitalized in February 2018 after a fall. He suffered what was called a "cardiac episode and head injury" and a stroke after falling in a parking lot at the Rancho Solano Golf Course complex in Fairfield, California. He was hospitalized for several months before being released.

In 2020, Cepeda sued his daughter-in-law alleging "elder financial abuse, fraud, negligence in handling his finances after he granted her power of attorney in 2018, and infliction of emotional distress." He also denied suffering from dementia.

Cepeda died on June 28, 2024, at the age of 86. He was buried next to his mother at Juncos Old Municipal Cemetery in Juncos, Puerto Rico. His death occurred 10 days after that of his former teammate Willie Mays.

title: Orlando Cepeda


text:
Shins

Shins may refer to:
 * Shina people, an ethnic group of northern Pakistan and India
 * The Shins, an American rock band

title: Shins


text:
Trylon and Perisphere

The Trylon and Perisphere were two monumental modernistic structures designed by architects Wallace Harrison and J. Andre Fouilhoux that were together known as the Theme Center of the 1939 New York World's Fair. The Perisphere was a tremendous sphere, 180 ft in diameter, connected to the 610 ft spire-shaped Trylon by what was at the time the world's longest escalator. The Perisphere housed a diorama by Henry Dreyfuss called Democracity which, in keeping with the fair's theme "The World of Tomorrow", depicted a utopian city-of-the-future. The interior display was viewed from above on a moving sidewalk, while a multi-image slide presentation was projected on the dome of the sphere. After exiting the Perisphere, visitors descended to ground level on the third element of the Theme Center, the Helicline, a 950 ft spiral ramp that partially encircled the Perisphere.

The name "Perisphere" was coined using the Greek prefix peri-, meaning "all around", "about", or "enclosing". The name "Trylon" was coined from the phrase "triangular pylon".

Construction
The Theme Center was designed by architects Wallace Harrison and J. Andre Fouilhoux, with the interior exhibit by Henry Dreyfuss. The structures were built in Flushing Meadows Park in Queens, New York and were intended as temporary with steel framing and plaster board facades. Both buildings were subsequently razed and scrapped after the closing of the fair, their materials to be used in World War II armaments.

Legacy
The Trylon and Perisphere became the central symbol of the 1939 World's Fair, its image reproduced by the millions on a wide range of promotional materials and serving as the fairground's focal point. The United States Postal Service issued a postage stamp in 1939 depicting the Trylon and Perisphere. Neither structure survives; however, the Unisphere, the symbol of the 1964–65 New York World's Fair, is now located where the Perisphere once stood.

title: Trylon and Perisphere


text:
User:Malyctenar

I'm a Czech (in all those senses) (so of course I used to contribute to cs.Wikipedia too, until I left it for its being even more broken than en:) fan of science fiction, among many other varied interests. My reading, both at Wiki and elsewhere, is eclectic, so anything may strike my fancy. I ended up dabbling mostly in Czech topics, which are even sadlier neglected than the SF ones (and/or, in a few heated political topics, exposed to assaults of drive-by editors with a grudge, bad English and no understanding, let alone willingnes to observe, wikiethics). My meta: userpage

I guess I am a WikiGnome - which is probably good, because if my contributions were visible, I'd face an uphill battle against the great unwashed.

Before I registered in early 2004, I made a [ couple contributions anonymously]. I tried to get them authorised ex post, but its non-functionality is one of indicators

Why Wikipedia is broken
(the best summary I know)

Monica Lewinsky: [ my emergency edit], [ origin of the nonsense] that caught my attention: 10 months in there, and article on such an exposed person generally lousy, with more stuff fitting to the Lewinsky scandal than obvious personal one like the book.

further cases:

"Dasenjka" in Karel Čapek

and several I don't recall offhand but could look up in my contribs list; lately marked with "shame!" in summaries

User talk:Malyctenar

Al Gore and his scandals - poor, poor, poor; confused, disorganised, minimally sourced, mutually inconsistent. If a person of such importance / entry of such attractivity is in such a state mess, what hope is there?

[ Effing morons.] (Might somebody with a modicum of sense come later, in coming days, weeks, ...? I'm too disgusted now even to bothering with a revert in the hope that it will meet another sampling of idiots.) P. S.: They kinda did come up with a sensible one-sentence summary in the end.

The [ Larry Niven New Wave nonsense] (hm, perhaps it's not that good idea to diff just the edit that introduced the nonsense and my saving it; I'm not responsible for much of the development in the intervening 5 months, some of it even detrimental - and there were several reasonably BNF editing meanwhile!)

This would be funny, if it weren't so illiterate: [] - [] - [] - []. (Corected by me on 30 May when I noticed what had been going on with it since my last edit.)

By pure chance, [ yet another unchecked vandalism].

Oh, would have forgotten: [ Joy Gresham] (no time to look for the nonsense's origin now - oh well, here it is: [ 'twas already in the founding edit], 2 years before!)

Other
The weirdest "vandalism" I've sever seen: [ - left in place for 4 months, of course. 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (CEST)

cs:Wikipedista:Malýčtenář

title: User:Malyctenar


text:
Talk:Dynamic translation

Untitled
Dynamic translation and Just-in-time compilation are NOT the same thing. The latter involves optimizations that are not always done by the former.

Thus maybe a bit of change on this page would be nice...

Dynamic translation and JIT compilation are one and the same. Usually the former is used for actual machine code (e.g. x86 instructions) and the latter for bytecode -- nowadays mostly Java bytecode. Both benefit from: Only the first of the three is mandatory. The other two can be seen on both dynamic translators and JIT compilers. Yaronf 22:28, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Caching of translated code snippets, as opposed to re-interpreting the code each time it is run.
 * Performing standard optimizations on the trasnlated code.
 * Observing the program's dynamic (run-time) behavior and modifying the optimizations accordingly.

This page is redundant with just-in-time. Can they be merged? --FOo 04:01, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dynamic translation


text:
Zacharias Janssen

Zacharias Janssen; also Zacharias Jansen or Sacharias Jansen; 1585 – pre-1632 ) was a Dutch spectacle-maker who lived most of his life in Middelburg. He is associated with the invention of the first optical telescope and/or the first truly compound microscope, but these claims (made 20 years after his death) may be fabrications put forward by his son.

Biography
Zacharias Janssen was born in The Hague. Local records seem to indicate he was born in 1585 although a date of birth as early as 1580 or as late as 1588 are also given. His parents were Hans Martens (who may have had the occupation of a peddler) and Maeyken Meertens, both probably from Antwerp, Belgium. He grew up with his sister Sara in Middelburg, at the time the second most important city of the Netherlands. He was known as a "street seller" who was constantly in trouble with the local authorities.

He stated he was born in The Hague on the marriage file of his first marriage, with Catharina de Haene, on October 23, 1610. When this file was refound by Cornelis de Waard in 1906, De Waard found the following excerpt: Sacharias Jansen, j.g. uut Den Haag, "Zacharias Jansen, bachelor from The Hague" Before, it was often thought that Janssen was a native of Middelburg. In 1612, Zacharias and Catharina had a son they named Johannes Zachariassen.

In 1615 Zacharias was appointed guardian of two children of Lowys Lowyssen "geseyt Henricxen brilmakers" (called Henry the spectacle maker). It is surmised that Zacharias also took possession of Lowys Lowyssen's spectacle-making tools because the first record of Zacharias Janssen being a spectacle maker appears in 1616. The family had to move to Arnemuiden in 1618 after Zacharias's counterfeiting activities were exposed. There Zacharias was again accused of counterfeiting in 1619, causing him to be on the move again, ending up back in Middelburg in 1621.

A year after the death of Janssen's first wife in 1624, he married Anna Couget from Antwerp, who was the widow of a Willem Jansen (probably a relative of Janssen). He moved to Amsterdam in November 1626 with a profession of a spectacle maker, but was bankrupt by 1628. Janssen has been given a death date as late as 1638 although his sister said he was dead in 1632 testimony and his son Johannes declared his parents had died by the time of his marriage in April 1632.

Alleged invention of the telescope and microscope
Over the years there have been claims Zacharias Janssen invented the telescope and/or the microscope in Middelburg between 1590 and 1618. Zacharias worked for some time in the very competitive and secretive trade of spectacle-making and at one time lived next door to Middelburg spectacle maker Hans Lippershey, who is also claimed to have invented the telescope. Janssen's attribution to these discoveries is debatable since there is no concrete evidence as to the actual inventor, and there are a whole series of confusing and conflicting claims from the testimony of his son and fellow countrymen.

The claim that Zacharias Janssen invented the telescope and the microscope dates back to the year 1655. During that time Dutch diplomat Willem Boreel conducted an investigation trying to figure out who invented the telescope. He had a local magistrate in Middelburg follow up on a 45 year old recollection of a spectacle maker named "Hans" who told a young Boreel in 1610 about inventing the telescope. In his investigation the magistrate was contacted by a then unknown claimant, Middelburg spectacle maker Johannes Zachariassen, the son of Zacharias Janssen, who testified under oath that his father invented the telescope and the microscope as early as 1590 and that Hans Lippershey had stolen his father's invention of the telescope. This testimony seemed convincing to Boreel, who modified his recollections, concluding that Zacharias must have been who he remembered. Boreel's conclusion that Zacharias Janssen invented the telescope a little ahead of spectacle maker Hans Lippershey was adopted by Pierre Borel in his 1656 book on the subject.

In Boreel's investigation Johannes also claimed his father, Zacharias Janssen, invented the compound microscope in 1590. For this to be true (Zacharias most likely dates of birth would have made him 2–5 years old at the time) some historians concluded grandfather Hans Martens must have invented it.

Other claims have come forward over the years. Physicist Jean Henri van Swinden's 1822-23 investigation reached the conclusion supporting Janssen and in 1841 a collector named Zacharias Snijder came forward with 4 iron tubes with lenses in them purported to be Janssen original telescopes. In historian Cornelis de Waard's 1906 book on the history of the telescope he recounted his discovery of a note written in 1634 by the Dutch philosopher Isaac Beeckman in which Beeckman mentioned that Johannes Zachariassen claimed his father created his first telescope in 1604 (and that it was a copy of an Italian device from 1590). The German astronomer Simon Marius's account to his patron Johan Philip Fuchs von Bimbach about meeting an unnamed Dutchman at the 1608 Autumn Frankfurt Fair who tried to sell him a device that sounded like a broken telescope has led to later speculation this unnamed Dutchman could have been Zacharias Janssen.

Controversy

The confusion surrounding the claim to invention of the telescope and the microscope arises in part from the (sometimes conflicting) testimony of Zacharias Janssen's son, Johannes Zachariassen. Johannes' various claims include that his father invented the telescope in 1590, that his father invented the telescope in 1604, that in 1618 he and his father invented the Keplerian telescope (a design using two positive lenses proposed by Johannes Kepler in 1611), and that (Adriaan) Metius and Cornelis Drebbel bought a telescope from him and his father in 1620 and copied it. Johannes also seems to have lied about his own date of birth, maybe so he could stake his own claim as inventor of the telescope along with his father.

The 1655 investigation by William Boreel (who may have been a childhood friend of Zacharias Zachariassen) added to the confusion over invention. The people he had the local magistrate interview were trying to recount details 50 or 60 years after the fact and Boreel may have confused the names of spectacle makers from his childhood. He may have also been confused about a microscope built by another optician for Drebbel, claiming it was built by Zacharias Janssen.

An investigation begun in 1816 in preparation for a memorial to commemorate Janssen as the inventor of the telescope and microscope turned up further problems with the claim including the 1608 Lippershey and Metius patent applications, Janssen late 1585 date of birth, and no record of him being a spectacle maker before 1615.

Albert Van Helden, Sven Dupré, Rob Van Gent, and Huib Zuidervaart in their book "Origins of the Telescope" came to the conclusion that Janssen may not have become an optician until 1616 and that the claims surrounding him as the inventor of the telescope and the microscope were the fabrications of his own son, Johannes Zachariassen, who claimed it as a matter of fame and for possible financial gain.

Illegal activities
In the years 1613–1619, Janssen was tried several times for counterfeiting coins. Janssen grew up right next to the Middelburg mint where his brother-in-law worked. These circumstances made it very easy for Janssen to mimic the process of producing fake money. He fled to the neighbouring village of Arnemuiden to avoid the high penalties for counterfeiting coins.

However, he continued counterfeiting coins in Arnemuiden. In 1619 he was apprehended for owning several devices he counterfeited coins with. Normally, one would have been sentenced to death for this crime. However, since the father of the Arnemuiden bailiff was found to be an accessory, he was pardoned from this punishment. Thanks to this, the process was delayed to such an extent that Janssen was able to flee again. Eventually, the case was dismissed. Janssen returned to Middelburg in 1621.

Historical record
Janssen's life was documented by the many investigations on the subject before the Second World War. Many of the Middelburg archives were destroyed by a bombing of Middelburg on May 17, 1940, during the Nazi invasion of the Netherlands. Without these earlier studies, very little would be known of Janssen's life at all because all original files were lost in the fires following the bombardment.

Legacy
The super-Earth 55 Cancri e is named "Janssen" in his honor.

title: Zacharias Janssen


text: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February


text:
User talk:80.188.52.66

I've come out of the closet ;-) as User:Malyctenar

title: User talk:80.188.52.66


text: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March

title: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March


text: User talk:4.17.135.10

title: User talk:4.17.135.10


text: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November


text:
Talk:Yin and yang

Qinway Qigong link
I've removed a link that seems to be plain old advertising: I saw a bit of content on the linked site that seemed generally informational (though I can't speak to its real relevance to this page or to the subject of qigong), but it all seemed to be leading you toward signing up for some workshops and/or buying some products. (Any site whose front page has "before" and "after" pictures . . .)

From what I've seen of Wikipedia and read on the help pages, I get the pretty clear impression that this is not the sort of thing that should be here. Apologies if I'm dead wrong.Iralith 22:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problem with symbol

The symbol used as of today is incorrect. The proper Yin Yang symbol contains a dot of black in the white section and a dot of black in the white section. It represents that each side also contains the opposite of itself (non-duality) - this is a vital aspect of Yin and Yang. I have no idea how to change the photo, but it’s important that it be corrected. Sareyberry (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I've restored the original image. No upload required, it was already in commons. Checking the edit history though, it looks like people have been vandalizing the logo for years. 2606:6000:4FC0:11:45F1:5DCF:DDA4:B02B (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yin/Yang symbol ≠ yin and yang. Yin/Yang symbol = taijitu = Four Symbols = Great Yin and Great Yang (drops) + Small Ying and Small Yang (dots). — Ирука13 14:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The context is that you use taijitu, which consists of 4 characters, but you only talk about two - yin and yang. — Ирука13 14:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Astronomical origin?
It seems self-evident that the symbol visualizes the “steady“ lunar cycle, i.e. new moon, waxing moon, full moon, waning moon. I am surprised this is not stated. 2A01:C22:B525:C800:5081:1221:7CF7:79C1 (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports on facts published in reliable sources, so we would need reliable sources that discuss this before mentioning it in the article. Largoplazo (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be hard work. But I would refer to the new simplified Chinese characters of Yin and Yang. These show the symbols for the moon and the sun, respectively, together with a radical that I do not immediately recognize. 2A02:3100:303C:AE00:18A6:31CC:2B95:16E3 (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just checked. The radical means hill, or mound. A good spot to observe the sky, but it is probably a coincidence. 2A02:3100:303C:AE00:18A6:31CC:2B95:16E3 (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yin and yang chart
I think it would be be helpful to add a chart showing various qualities that the yin and yang represent (for example: masculine in one column and feminine in the other) 2600:1700:5D50:CF80:F1E9:E84F:BA03:27C6 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 * It would need to be justified in sources, perhaps reflecting a chart already in an academic publication. We can't just arrange whatever information we want to give it whatever prominent presentation we want. Remsense  诉  17:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yin and yang


text:
Esmonde and Larbey

Esmonde and Larbey were a British television screenwriting duo, consisting of John Gilbert Esmonde (21 March 1937 – 10 August 2008) and Robert Edward Larbey (24 June 1934 – 31 March 2014), who created popular sitcoms starting from the mid-1960s until the mid-1990s such as Please Sir!, The Good Life, Get Some In!, Ever Decreasing Circles, and Brush Strokes.

Biographies
Robert Edward Larbey made his writing debut for BBC radio, before contributing a film adaptation, Mrs Silly, starring Maggie Smith. Larbey met his future writing partner when they were pupils at Henry Thornton School, South Side, Clapham Common. He was born in Clapham, South London and died in London aged 79 in March 2014.

John Gilbert Esmonde served a couple of years in the Royal Air Force in Air Ambulance before realising that his budding writing partnership with Larbey might prove more fruitful. Three years of after-hours writing yielded a BBC joint fee of two guineas for the pair in 1965, as they began to have sketches accepted on shows such as I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again and The Dick Emery Show. Born in Battersea, South West London, Esmonde was married to Georgina Barton from 1960 until his death in Spain in August 2008, aged 71.

Collaboration
Esmonde and Larbey's first sitcom as a writing team came in 1966 with Room at the Bottom for the BBC. This followed the exploits of a group of maintenance men working for Saracens Manufacturing Company. Starting out as a pilot in the BBC's Comedy Playhouse programme, it lasted for one series the next year, starring Kenneth Connor, Deryck Guyler and Francis Matthews.

The BBC radio comedy You're Only Old Once, also starring Deryck Guyler who appeared alongside Clive Dunn and Joan Sanderson, was broadcast between February 1968 and July 1969.

Also in 1968, Esmonde and Larbey created Please Sir!, a situation comedy which starred John Alderton as a naive teacher thrown in at the deep end in a tough south London school. Rejected by the BBC, the series was accepted by London Weekend Television, whose head of comedy was then Frank Muir.

The success of Please Sir! led to Esmonde and Larbey being commissioned to write a sequel – The Fenn Street Gang – which followed the former school pupils as they tried to make their way in the harsh world outside. This starred David Barry, Peter Cleall and Carol Hawkins. Making his debut in series 1, George Baker made such an impression as a wide-boy villain that the prequel Bowler was launched in 1973. This lasted for one series and co-starred Fred Beauman, Renny Lister and Gretchen Franklin.

In the early to mid-1970s, Esmonde and Larbey produced several lesser-known comedies, sometimes lasting no longer than a pilot. These include ITV's Cosmo And Thingy, set in prehistoric times featuring a cast of cavemen and cavewomen (based on a series of sketches they wrote for I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again), and Football Crazy (also for ITV) which was a children's sitcom about the football team Wormwood Rovers.

In 1975, Esmonde and Larbey created their best-known situation comedy: The Good Life, starring Richard Briers, Felicity Kendal, Paul Eddington and Penelope Keith. Set in Surbiton, London, it concerns itself with the attempts of Tom and Barbara Good (Briers and Kendal) to be self-sufficient after they decide to leave the rat race. It ran on the BBC until 1978, although it is still regularly repeated. At its peak, the show was attracting some 15 million viewers per week – nearly a quarter of the population at the time. The writers had "just picked it [Surbiton] at random", Larbey once admitted. "To be honest, we were just looking for something that sounded like suburbia in big capital letters." The show poked fun at the ideologies of both lead couples – the aggressively socially climbing Leadbetters and the self-sufficient (and self-satisfied) Goods. Larbey later said that while he was too impractical to embrace self-sufficiency, its general philosophy appealed to him.

Also beginning in 1975 was Get Some In! for ITV, a national service comedy set in 1955. It starred Tony Selby, Robert Lindsay, David Janson and Gerard Ryder.

Esmonde and Larbey teamed up with Michael Gambon and Briers again for another BBC Comedy Series called The Other One (1977–79), a sitcom about a man who is a liar who attempts to hide his insecurities through charade; it was successful enough for a second series to be broadcast. They returned to football with ITV's Feet First (1979) starring Jonathan Barlow as Terry Prince, a local footballer given the chance to hit the big time. Also less successful than The Good Life was their sitcom for ITV Just Liz (1980) starring Sandra Payne. This was followed by Don't Rock The Boat (1982–83) which starred Nigel Davenport.

After the short-lived Now And Then (ITV 1983) they returned to form with Ever Decreasing Circles, which reunited the writers with Briers. Briers starred as Martin Bryce, an insecure and obsessive character whose need to be the leading light of local activities is undermined by the arrival of a talented and charming neighbour, Paul Ryman. The series also featured Penelope Wilton as Martin's long suffering wife Anne, and Peter Egan as Ryman.

Another hit for Esmonde and Larbey was Brush Strokes (1986–91), featuring Karl Howman and Gary Waldhorn as a house decorator and his boss. The BBC sitcom Double First (1988) only lasted one series, but marked a different approach. It starred Michael Williams.

The duo wrote Hope It Rains (1991–92) for ITV. It starred Tom Bell as the dour owner of a run-down seaside waxworks museum. Holly Aird and Eamon Boland also featured. There were 13 episodes transmitted.

Their last significant sitcom as a team was Mulberry (1992–93), again starring Karl Howman, here as an apprentice Grim Reaper who has to guide an elderly spinster (Geraldine McEwan) to the next world as easily as possible.

Larbey's solo work
By this time Larbey was also solo-writing the long-running BBC series As Time Goes By (1992–2005), starring Judi Dench and Geoffrey Palmer. While continuing his partnership with Esmonde, Larbey had been writing several sitcoms on his own throughout the 1980s and 1990s, most notably A Fine Romance starring Dench and her husband Michael Williams, which ran from 1981 to 1984. Along with the later As Time Goes By, these two series were credited with "catapulting Dench into the nation's affections" as they gave prime-time recognition to an actress who, until then, had largely confined herself to stage work and one-off TV dramas.

Collaborations

 * The Dick Emery Show (1963)
 * Spare a Copper (1965)
 * Room at the Bottom (1966)
 * Please Sir! (1968–1972)
 * The Fenn Street Gang (1971–1973)
 * Cosmo And Thingy (1972)
 * Bowler (1973)
 * Football Crazy (1974)
 * Get Some In! (1975–1978)
 * The Good Life (1975–1978)
 * The Other One (1977–1979)
 * Three Piece Suite (1977)
 * Feet First (1979)
 * Just Liz (1980)
 * Don't Rock The Boat (1982)
 * Now And Then (1983)
 * Ever Decreasing Circles (1984–1989)
 * Brush Strokes (1986–1991)
 * Double First (1988)
 * Hope It Rains (1991)
 * Mulberry (1992–1993)
 * Down To Earth (1995)

Larbey without Esmonde

 * A Fine Romance (1981–1984)
 * The Curious Case of Santa Claus (1982)
 * Age-Old Friends (1989), based on Larbey's play A Month of Sundays, first presented at The Nuffield Theatre in 1985 and winner of the London Evening Standard Award for Best Comedy of 1986
 * On the Up (1990–1992)
 * As Time Goes By (1992–2005)
 * My Good Friend (1995)
 * Ain't Misbehavin' (1997)

Obituaries of Bob Larbey

 * The Guardian
 * The Daily Telegraph

Obituaries of John Esmonde

 * The Times
 * The Guardian

title: Esmonde and Larbey


text:
Peripheral nerve field

Peripheral nerve field refers to an area of skin innervated by a single nerve. A peripheral nerve field can also be described as cutaneous nerve distribution.

An area innervated by a single dorsal root is called a dermatome.

Neurologists rely on maps of dermatomes and peripheral nerve fields to diagnose areas of nerve damage based on somasthetic or proprioceptive deficits in specific dermatomes and peripheral nerve fields. Although areas of innervation are somewhat consistent following genetically determined patterns of the species, specific areas of innervation are as unique to an individual as are fingerprints.

title: Peripheral nerve field


text:
John Esmonde

John Esmonde may refer to:

 * John Esmonde (1937–2008), of the comedy scriptwriting duo Esmonde and Larbey
 * Several members of the family of the Esmonde baronets of Clonegall, a title in the Baronetcy of Ireland, including:
 * Sir John Esmonde, 5th Baronet (died 1758)
 * Dr John Esmonde (United Irishman), briefly 7th Baronet, (died by hanging 1798)
 * Sir John Esmonde, 10th Baronet (1826–1876), MP for County Waterford 1852–1876
 * Sir John Esmonde, 14th Baronet (1893–1958), Fine Gael TD for Wexford 1937–1951
 * Sir John Esmonde, 16th Baronet (1928–1987), Fine Gael TD for Wexford 1973–1977
 * John Joseph Esmonde (1862—1915), MP for North Tipperary 1910–1915, nephew of Sir John Esmonde, 10th Baronet

title: John Esmonde


text:
Talk:Paubrasilia

Latin name?

What is the Latin classification for brazilwood? Is it Caesalpinia echinata or Caesalpinia brasiliensis? --Romanm 16:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Only Caesalpinia echinata, but you will find Caesalpinia brasiliensis through much of the literature. Brya 18:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Brazilwood tree?
Someone should elaborate on the actual tree that produces this wood...I can't find an article on the specific tree...Antimatter 07:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The tree is brazilwood. Macgreco 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Description has been added as part of a collaboration project with ARKive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
Please not that the section on etymology is mostly thumbsuck, with sources taht do not support the information. There is no such thing as "lignum brasilium"; this was made up by various editors who extrapolated the etymological information on the Latin diminuitive. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there are different two sources said this, and I could find more on Google, but two sources is far enough. There is also a third source to support that "brasil" etymology is from brasa, which was also removed. If we are using discussion page, we should keep the last stable revision while there is no consensus.
 * You've also said at summary that "it can't be lignum because pau in Latin is pallus, but both those words mean "wood" in Latin.--Luizdl Talk 07:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The following additional source dated from 1696 also uses the word lignum brasilium https://books.google.com.br/books?id=81c9AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA464&dq=lignum+brasilium, this latter one can't be a "editor extrapolation".--Luizdl Talk 07:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Show me a source in Portuguese saying that the term "pau brasil" comes from "lignum brasilium". It is the opposite, Latin was the common language of sciences, so terms arinsing in other languages were coined in Latin as a lingua franca. So it might well be that the term "lignum brasilium" existed, but that does not mean that "pau brazil" comes from that, just as the dozens of species that include terms such as "angolensis" and other names scientific names related to a geographical location do not mean that the name Angola comes from Latin. taking Angolensis as an examples but you can to that with virtually any other country completely unkown to Europeans until a few centuries ago. Also interesting that a well contructed article with plenty of sources such as this does not mention any such caesalpina as a dye. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article haven't said the Portuguese word came directly from lignum brasilium, the article was saying "they recognised it as a relative of those Asian species of Caesalpinia that were already used in Europe for dye, known as lignum brasilium, or Portuguese pau-brasil, or as Sappanwood." According to the source written in Latin above, it has been called as so in Latin. Anyway, if you want a source in Portuguese saying it was called lignum brasilium in Latin, see http://www.revistas.usp.br/revhistoria/article/viewFile/106620/105213 page 3, citation: "Bauhin chama o "pau-brasil", de arbor brasilia, e Plukenet de acacia gloriosa, cujus lignum brasilia."--Luizdl Talk 08:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why are you insiting in including the term? If all that the article says is that they recognised it as such, then what is the point why an extensive etymology of the word "brasilium" if the Portuguese did not come from it? And, which one is it now? Is it "lignum brasilium", "arbor brasilia" or "lignum brasilia"? What is your knowledge of Latin? How much do you know of Latin suffixes? It is not looking very scientific, is it? Please also take the time to consult the articles New Latin and Binomial nomenclature. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've said, the information you removed haven't said it's Portuguese etymology, it said that "it was known in Europe as lignum brasilium", that content you've removed never said it's Portuguese etymology.
 * The only information about etymology was "The Middle Latin adjective brasilium it is thought to be derived from an early Romance or Middle Latin brasa". You've also removed it, and even after being sourced you've kept reverting it too.--Luizdl Talk 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, so let's do this,
 * "The name pau-brasil (Middle Latin lignum brasilium) was applied to other species of Caesalpinia in the medieval period".
 * Medieval period ended in the 15th century
 * The binomial system was introduced by Linnaeus in the 18th century.
 * The only reason that article has such an extensive etymology section has nothing to do with the tree, but with the unending debate over the origin of the name Brazil/ Brasil. And the reason for that unending debate is exactly because it is not possible to ascertain for sure what the origin of the name is. You don't see lengthy arguments over the origin of botanical and animal names named after Angola, whose origin of the name you can see here, or about species named after Portugal, whose origin of the name you can see here, or any other country. Millions of species, animal or vegetable have pages here on Wikipedia, without having an etymology section that is longer than any other. So, if you really feel very strong about it, devote your efforts to the etymology of the name Brazil/ Brasil on the appropriate page. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To me there is no problem to remove this statement you pointed, but the other statement saying it was known as lignum brasilium in Europe, as well as that "The Middle Latin adjective brasilium it is thought to be derived from an early Romance or Middle Latin brasa", were sourced statement and should not be removed as it's a valid content and has nothing to do with the discussion about the name of the country, the name of the tree is a fact, as well as I pointed a book dated from written in 1696 in Latin, while the naming of the country there are some who say it's may be based on the name of an island with similar name.--Luizdl Talk 23:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow me to remind you that it is a violation of the Wikipedia principles to deliberately mislead other editors in discussions. When you say that "To me there is no problem to remove this statement you pointed, but the other statement ...... were sourced statement" you are misleading others by implying that these statements were sourced, when in fact they were not, until aftert you added a source. I find it equally odd that you say here that "The first time Rui removed the content was a valid edit". If it was a valid edit, why then did you revert? Reverting valid entries is vandalism, as simple as that. That is also a violation. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first edit was valid because there wasn't any source, then per wp:OR you was right to remove a dubious sentence. When I undid, I've also added sources that say clearly the same thing the statement say, then it's not valid to remove per wp:OR anymore. Vandalism is to keep removing a valid sourced content.--Luizdl Talk 08:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Name of page
Is seems that this tree, as least in the US is called Brazilwood or Pau-Brasil in Brazil (I think). Based this article (this is only a link to synopsis) https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-10/pp-ans101316.php it seems that Paubrasilia echinata is the only species in the genus Paubrasilia. Maybe this page should be called Paubrasilia echinata? or just Brazilwood? At first glance, to me, it seems just using the generic name implies with is a page on the genus, which it is not. I will look into other entries and see what is commonly done, or if I am missing other pages on this tree. Given that the tree is listed as endangered (at least based on this page), it would be nice so have some more information on it. Waughd (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the other relevant page: Brazilwood. It seems like maybe these pages should be combined. Waughd (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Lectonar (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I just realized the Brazilwood link I gave goes to the Paubrasilia page, the Brazilwood article I was looking at was on the "simple Wikipedia". It does seem this page would be best called Paubrasilia echinata as this article is about the species of tree, not the genus. Brazilwood should link to it, which is seems to already do. There already is a section the notes the term Brazilwood as at times been applied to other species, which as probably lead to some confusion in both historical and modern text. Clearly none of this is helped by the recent taxonomic revision of the genus. Waughd (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Pernambuco wood for bows
When I used the search term Pernambuco, having in mind the material used for violin bows, it didn’t turn up. I eventually found this article about Paubrasilia. In fact, my search for Pernambuco had turned up Paubrasilia but I didn’t recognise it since it said nothing about bows. Could someone with the experience to do so please change whatever is needed to make Pernambuco produce “bows for stringed instruments” in a search. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paubrasilia