text:
Talk:Order theory

Initial comments
"Order theory is a branch of mathematics that studies various kinds of binary relations that capture the intuitive notion of a mathematical ordering.": The term 'mathematical ordering' wants to be a link, why? What is it intended that the page linked to will say? My immediate thought was how would a mathematical ordering differ from a mathematical sequencing, thus how do the terms or concepts sequence and order differ, which led me to think of terms such as ordinality and to wonder what order of complexity the concepts of sequentiality and being-in-order might have in this branch of mathematics? Has the author checked whether there is already a page explaining the concept he or she intends, but that page has a label not quite exactly the same as the label the author tried to use but for some reason has not yet gotten around to editting into a page?

Why is there not a page named 'mathematical ordering' if the term is so important to this important page? Why did the author not try different but similar constructions, like maybe 'mathematical order' or 'order (mathematics)' or 'order (order theory)' ?

I even wonder whether the term 'mathematical ordering' should maybe best be made into a shortcut pointing to the order theory page itself, as where else would I be likely to find a more comprehensive explanation of the concept of mathematical ordering than in the actual theory of order (which maybe itself should be labelled 'Order theory (mathematics)' for greater clarity and precision, maybe even rigour (lets not confuse it with 'order theory (waitressing)', 'order theory (heirarchical organisation administration)' or other concepts of order or ordering ;))

Maybe I should check to see if there are any pages on 'mathematical sequencing', 'sequence (mathematics)', 'sequence (order theory)' or the like? Or is order, in order theory, not at all similar to or related to sequence (is there such a thing as sequence theory???)

Etc etc etc blah blah blah. Hail Eris? Hmmm, not sure... wait for rigour first maybe. :)

Knotwork (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, I just checked the linked-to glossary of order theory terms, and the word sequence isn't even in their vocabulary! What the heck, how can you even being to approach talking about refining the meaning of the token 'order' in English without making any reference at all to the (in English) seemingly-closely-related token 'sequence' ???????????????? Without even having such a term in your vocabulary/lexicon? Sheesh. What percent of English-speakers might well say "uh, in English we translate that as 'sequence'" ???

Knotwork (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Old discussion
Talk moved from partial order --Markus Krötzsch 17:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A general remark for editing order theory topics: please consider using ^ and v instead of the html-special symbols ∧ and ∨.

I used to advocate html-math earlier too, but I just changed my browser, finding that it wont display them properly (orders and some arrows work, but all set-theoretic signs are broken). I also looked at other computers, and it did not work there either, so I think it is a general problem these days. The trouble is that on most browsers, you cannot even distinguish the problematic characters from each other. I switched from Mozilla to Firefox (both Linux), but the problem are the (true-type) fonts, not the browser. I checked some IEs too and they did not work correctly either. On one other IE it worked, but the symbols where ugly and way too big for the font size. My old Mozilla was perfect, but it used bitmap fonts which causes other weaknesses. The only things most browsers seem to be able to are ≤ and ≥, maybe also →, but no more.

The WikiProject Mathematics also recommends to be conservative about these issues, so it is probably a general problem.

--Markus Krötzsch 23:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * In fact $$\vee$$ and $$\wedge$$ do also work nicely (although they may have the wrong size and they require the users of text browsers to read the TeX-Source). --Markus Krötzsch 17:20, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Alexandrov topology can be defined for any partially ordered set. Here, a set is open iff it is upwards closed. However, there are other topologies of interest for varied types of partially ordered sets, so I doubt that it is "standard". -JB

The most common and easy to read graphical representation of partial orders is in my opinion not DAGs but Hasse diagrams. In this type of diagrams the direction of the order is implied by the relative positioning of the elements. If there is an arc from x to y and y is above x on the paper then x<=y.

 * Would you like to add those two bits of information? Be bold in updating pages :-) --AxelBoldt

Ok, I took the oportunity to add some other things. -JB

Thanks! Could you also explain the notion of "upwards closed subset"? --AxelBoldt

Which relation does "is a subobject of" refer to? -OJarnef

I think it probably refers to relations such as "is a subgroup of", "is a subspace of", "is a subring of" etc.; the term "object" is used in the sense of category theory here. --AxelBoldt

On the page it says "the element u of X is an upper bound for S if s≤u for ALL s in S". Thus an upper bound of S can only exist, if S is TOTALLY ordered, right? Thanks, Thomas

Not right: why should it imply that we can compare s and s' in S, just because we know u is greater than s and s'?

Charles Matthews 14:57, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Maybe, for the starters, an example on this: consider the powerset of some set M and take the usual subset ordering. Then M is an upper bound of all elements of the powerset, but these elements are not totally ordered. OK? --Markus Krötzsch 23:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In a textbook I am currently reading, "ordered set" is used as short for "totally ordered set" rather than for "partially ordered set". Is this totally idiosyncratic on the part of the author, or is "orderd set" an ambiguous term? Fritzlein 03:56, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * It is probably a little ambiguous indeed. However, in most contexts of the Wikipedia the intended meaning should be clear. If there are articles that only talk about ordered sets, without using more specific terms, then it might be a good idea to change the wording a bit. --Markus Krötzsch 23:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who actually uses ordered set as shorthand for partially ordered set? -- Walt Pohl 23:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Both of the standard books given as references to order theory do and probably many others as well. I think this makes sense, since the definition of a mathematical order yields just a partial order. All more special orderings need further qualification. However, mentioning "partial" for clarity at least at the beginning of an article is still a good idea, since some of the more specialized applications may restrict to total orders and use "ordered set" in this sense (which is not a good practice either). I also guess that total orders where considered earlier in history, but todays order theory studies all kinds of partial orders and hence uses "ordered set" in this general sense. --Markus Krötzsch 10:06, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The standard meaning of mathematical order is not partial order. If anything, it's total order.  For example, look at ordered field.  It's a total order.  Maybe some books in domain theory and lattice theory use the term ordered set to mean partially ordered set, but in general mathematics usage, it's used to mean total order.  (And I'm not convinced it's all that standard even there.  I just looked at Reynold's Theories of Programming Languages, which talks about domain theory, and he's scrupulous to use partially ordered set.  I also looked at Stanley's Enumerative Combinatorics and an on-line book on universal algebra -- which heavily relies on lattice theory -- and they're always scrupulous to use either "partial ordered set" or "poset".) -- Walt Pohl 18:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I think the most diplomatic solution is not to consider the term "ordered set" as a strict mathematical concept at all. Usage in different books obviously diverges and is usually not at all confusing if the context is clear. So I think one can continue to use "ordered set" if either an informal intuitive idea of ordering is meant (like in some introduction/motivation sections) or if it has been stated that one really is concerned exclusively with partial or total orders. Formal definitions of course have to be precise (and usually are) but in explanatory texts that follow a definition one does not need to emphasize totality or partiallity of the subjects introduced before (e.g. when saying "For any such order, we find..." or "Some examlpes of ordered sets with this or that property are..."). However, feel free to specify "ordered set" whenever its vagueness is not intentional (as in the introduction to this article). --Markus Krötzsch 09:15, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would like to give "partially ordered set" its own page, which gives the definition and then links to order theory. The current setup is hard to use for casual users of the definition. -- Walt Pohl 15:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I also thought about this already. I think it will be no harm to leave an additional copy of the formal definition within the order theory article, where it fits into the general explanation, since these basic definitions are very unlikely to become inconsistent by independend edits. Just do as you like. --Markus Krötzsch 09:15, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, done. --Markus Krötzsch 20:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Meet operator?
I moved the following text from the article to here for discussion:

Alternatively, the same properties can be described using the notion of meet operator. Meet operator is a function taking two arguments M(a, b) and returning a if a ≤ b and b if b ≤ a. Using meet operator notation, a partially ordered set is described as follows:

 * M(a, a) = a (reflexivity)
 * if M(a, b) = a and M(b, a) = b then a = b (antisymmetry)
 * if M(a, b) = a and M(b, c) = b then M(a, c) = a (transitivity)

It should be clear that the two notations are equivalent.

I've moved the above here, because I don't think this content about "meet operator" belongs in this article I also have some problems with how it is presented. it could be fixed up and incorporated into meet operator if that article were to be created. I will discuss this further if anyone has any questions or concerns. Paul August ☎ 16:38, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Article removed from Good articles
This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the article lists none of its references or sources --Allen3 talk 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination put on hold

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Fix 2a,b,c I belive → A z a  Toth 23:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fix 2a,b,c I belive → A z a  Toth 23:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Please explain how the article fails 2a (should provide references to all sources) and 2c (reliable sources). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Can I play Dr. Obvious and point out that the article uses inline cites (2b), too? Lunch 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, 2a I can't verify as I can ever know what sources the writer hase used, 2c is ok I see. The thing is 2b that has to be fixed, only the history sections have inlined sources. → A z a  Toth 22:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I think this is a good case to examine the effectively of inline cites. So first a rhetorical question what needs to be cited?
 * Much of the article is standard definitions, eg the definition of partial order - citing these individually will simply repeat the same cite over and over again adding unnecessary markup.
 * Alot of the article contains statements which are easily verified by the reader eg, the natural numbers are partially ordered.
 * There are a few no-trivial results, say The finest such topology is the Alexandrov topology, given by taking all upper sets as opens. I guess these are covered by the standard refs.
 * Much of the article is Summary style: There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article
 * There are two inline cites in the history section, where specific attribute is useful.
 * The whole article is non controversial weakening the need for detailed cites.
 * So it seems the need for many cites is small. The appropriate response might be to follow Wikipedia_talk:Good article candidates where the first statement in the article has an inline cite with a note explaining all statements come from Davey and Priestley. --Salix alba (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?, 2b is a controversal subject, so I hereby decide that 2b is void. and thus this article is a good article. → A z a  Toth 23:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The order it is not the ordered set
In several parts of the article we can find sentences like this one:

'''an element m is minimal if:

a ≤ m implies a = m, for all elements a of the order. '''

That is not precise since the order is a relation on the set, but not the set itself.

The definition could be rewritten, for example:

'''an element m is minimal if:

a ≤ m implies a = m, for all elements a of the ordered set.'''

Discrete linear order
I can't find a definition of "discrete linear order" in Wikipedia.

A discrete linear order is a linear order in which every element except the least has an immediate predecessor and every element except the greatest has an immediate successor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorMak (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In established usage, a discrete linear order is one where every node has immediate successor or predecessor, unless already maximal/minimal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.251.37 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Some work needed to ensure this is still GA
This article is full of great content, but have a look at the good article criteria and ask if it meets them. It seems to me that it does not meet WP:LEAD, and is a bit weak on citing its sources. The history section could use expansion to meet the broadness criterion, and the cites only support one of its claims. I've improved the formatting of the references, but I think there is more that needs to be done for this article to remain a GA, even in the more relaxed current climate. Geometry guy 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately nothing has changed since last September, so I have decided to reassess the article. The reassessment discussion is transcluded into the section below. Geometry guy 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Does there exist a function between orders that is order-preserving but not order-reflecting?
Hi,

in the subtopic Functions between orders the concept of order-embedding is explained as a function that is both order-preserving and order-reflecting. However, this statement is a bit unclear without an example of a function that would be only order-preserving, or only order-reflecting, as the average reader (like I myself) won't be able to find one and be uneasy with the way the definition was formulated. Otherwise this is a very nice article :) Wisapi (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure it really belongs in the article (hence I'm putting it here) but: let P be the partially ordered set on two elements a and b, with a ≤ b, and let Q be the partially ordered set on two incomparable elements c and d. Then the function that maps both a and b to c is order-preserving but not order-reflecting, while the function that maps a to c and b to d is order-reflecting but not order-preserving.

definition of = in properties
I just re-worked some parts of this article in order to highlight the similarities and differences between preorder, partial order, and total order with respect to the four properties: reflexivity, transitivity, antisymmetry, and conexity.

There was (and is) the following remark in the article:

"Preorders can be turned into partial orders by identifying all elements that are equivalent with respect to this relation."

I tried to elaborate with: "In other words, if one defines a = b if and only if a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then the properties (note that antisymmetry is defined in terms of =) of a partial order are satisfied."

I believe this can be clarified further, possibly by anticipating that the antisymmetric property is itself predicated on another binary relation called "=", and also referred to with "identify" in the remark "by identifying all elements that are equivalent". However, the articles on partial orders, total order, and properties of binary relations themselves do not do this, and they take for granted a unique and "obvious" meaning for "=".

Whereas this remark on preorders becoming partial orders relies on being able to define "=", and so I'm concerned by the possibility of circularity or just plain confusion.

It is likely too formal for this article (and therefore might not help address confusion), but consider something like, e.g. "a set P with two endorelations ≤ and = is a partial order if IsReflexive(P, ≤), IsTransitive(P, ≤), IsConnex(P, ≤), IsAntisymmetric(P, ≤, =). The names, e.g. IsConnex, are abbreviations for a sentence in first-order logic without equality.

It would then be clear exactly what properties need to be satisfied by = (I did not list them above), this might tidy up the whole idea of making a partial order from a preorder.

--Intellec7 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I undid your additions because your (long, rambly, discursive, essay-like, and unsourced) additions (such as one you added into the middle of the definition of partially ordered sets, "A binary relation may have certain properties, and certain groups of properties are given names.") did not (at least, not in my opinion) contribute (or at least, contribute in a positive way) to the readability (and readability is something we should strive for; see WP:TECHNICAL) of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are giving my undue credit for the writing. My edits did not introduce many new sentences, and instead of moved existing language, which I will agree with you is more rambly than I would like. If you have taken a careful look at the edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_theory&diff=next&oldid=1003607240), then please give me an example of what is "long, rambly, discursive, and essay-like" that was not previously in the article.

 * I asked you a similar question on your talk page. Please note that this section of this article's talk page is not pertinent to your comments on my edits. --Intellec7 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This section of the article talk page is exactly the right place to discuss changes to the article, including the value of your edits. My personal talk page is not. Also, re "please give me an example": I did give you an example, twice. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not exactly the right section of the talk page, but that is a needless argument to have. If you'd like me to move the discussion from your personal talk page to here, in this section or a new section, just let me know.
 * If I undo your reversion, and remove "A binary relation may have certain properties, and certain groups of properties are given names.", can you tell me what remaining objections you have? --Intellec7 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have difficulty understanding from your initial comment what you think is wrong with the article that you are trying to improve. For example, confusion about the meaning of "=" only occurs in the context of preorders; by introducing preorders at the same time as partial orders (where the meaning of "=" is totally straightforward) you increased the amount of confusion possible. --JBL (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think an article on Order theory should have any particular preference for preorders or partial orders, and what I imagine as an ideal article would not become more confusing by introducing preorders "at the same time" as partial order.
 * "confusion about the meaning of "=" only occurs in the context of preorders"
 * That is true, and so perhaps the comment on how to turn a preorder into a partial order should be omitted, since 1. it introduces confusion, and 2. The intention of my edits is to make it plainly obvious that the only difference between a preorder and a partial order is that the latter satisfies an additional property. If you have a preorder that satisfies this additional property (whether by defining = or using the "totally straightforward" definition), then of course you will have a partial order. --Intellec7 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have standardized your indentation and placed the quotation in quotation marks; I hope that's all right. I feel we are now awkwardly having the same conversation in two places, but: I disagree strongly about the preference, as I do not believe that order theory (as a discipline) is equally concerned with preorders and partial orders. --JBL (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Highlight similarities and differences among preorder, partial order, and total order
Discussion of this reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_theory&oldid=1003620276 (moved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein&oldid=1003628096)

I don't think some of these changes ... into the middle of a definition of partially ordered sets

I don't believe that the Order Theory article requires a self-contained definition of any one kind of order (including partial orders or partially ordered sets), since those have their own article. Instead, I believe it should introduce the concepts required for thinking about all kinds of orders. As such, I think it is inappropriate to start from "posets" and then define other orders in terms of adding and removing properties from it. In particular, I do not like the previous version which I summarize as "The familiar notion of order on numbers is a partial order. It satisfies connexity. Indeed it is also a total order."

... changes that muddle the exposition by inserting long unrelated trains of vague thought into the middle of topics that should be more closely related to each other ...

I would appreciate more specificity around your opinion that my edit introduces "long unrelated trains of vague thought". Before my edits the first mention of "preorder" is relegated many sections into the article. My edits have a discussion of total order, partial order, and pre order, which are closely related, located in the same section of the article. --Intellec7 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should put it another way. You added roughly 800 bytes of material to the article, but zero new sources. It looked like the material you added was just rambling off the top of your head. Are you trying to bring the article into conformity with what reliable sources say about this topic, or just trying to clarify your own thoughts about it? If the latter, Wikipedia is not really the place for that sort of activity. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the ratio of new bytes to new sources that I should strive for? This edit introduces ~100 new bytes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_theory&diff=1003599171&oldid=1003596605. 15% of those new bytes are for a new header for "preorder". Some of those bytes are redundant with the existing article, 45% of those new bytes are for (redundant) links to reflexive and transitive relations. 175% of those new bytes (because I removed some things) is for the following sentence:

In other words, if one defines a = bif and only if a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then the properties (which depend on definition of =) of a partial order are satisfied.
 * That sentence elaborates on a point that is unclear (a concern I've already raised on the article's talk page). It cannot be responsible on its own for the article requiring new sources. --Intellec7 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is very similar to a sentence (already in your previous version) that I (as we were already discussing) reverted: "In other words, if one defines a = b if and only if a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then the properties (note that antisymmetry is defined in terms of =) of a partial order are satisfied." Since you (it seems) have not yet gotten the (many times belabored) point, I don't think that putting parenthetical phrases like "(which depend on definition of =)" into the middle of sentences expressing unrelated thoughts is a helpful writing pattern. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you do not like the parenthetical, then you can produce an edit which removes the parenthetical, instead of reverting the edit wholesale. If you think that I've added unsourced information to the article, you can annotate that with a Citation needed tag. The revert is a better option since you have many separate issues with my edit. I am having difficulty making productive use of your comments about those separate issues because your comments have not been sufficiently organized for me to understand them, yet you expect me to already understand them. It is personally unhelpful for you to express your frustration repeatedly, as you have made that abundantly clear. I request you make a stronger effort to assume good faith.
 * I have tried to break out the multiple points that you have issues with as separate sections of this talk page. This point that you have brought up most recently in this thread (and with the goal of minimizing your frustration, let me acknowledge that you have certainly brought it up before) with "the parenthetical phrases like "(which depend on definition of =)"" is pertinent to the section Talk:Order_theory. Can we please try to make progress by discussing that point there? If you want to discuss which of the 800 bytes may or may not need sources, perhaps we can hold that off until I produce another edit for your consideration.
 * I recommend we use this section to discuss the benefits of introducing preorder, partial order, and total order at the same level of hierarchy in the document. Currently, partial order and total order are introduced under '=== Partially ordered sets ===', and preorder is introduced under '== Special types of orders =='. For an example that follows this organizational principle, see this document. --Intellec7 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Avoid explanations that are relative to partial orders
The article has a certain bias toward partial orders. For example, The visualization of orders with Hasse diagrams has a straightforward generalization: instead of displaying lesser elements below greater ones, the direction of the order can also be depicted by giving directions to the edges of a graph. In this way, each order is seen to be equivalent to a directed acyclic graph, where the nodes are the elements of the poset and there is a directed path from a to b if and only if a ≤ b. Dropping the requirement of being acyclic, one can also obtain all preorders.

Instead of "each order is seen to be equivalent to a directed acyclic graph" + "Dropping the requirement of being acyclic, one can also obtain all preorders", I think it is better to say "each order is seen to be equivalent to a directed graph". And if necessary, the article can elaborate on the correspondence between properties of binary relations and properties of graphs ("antisymmetry" corresponds to "acyclic". "connexity" corresponds to "connected". etc.) --Intellec7 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Ok, this helps clarify things: you think that pre-orders should be the basic object considered in this article. I am not a regular editor of this article and don't plan on continuing in this discussion much further, but let me add my 2c: that seems like a bad idea, not in keeping with the actual nature of the study of order theory.  A supporting data-point: the journal Order gives its editorial board and their interests here; 17 editors mention partial orders or posets, 10 mention lattices, 11 mention some flavor of graph theory, 5 mention some kind of geometry, and 0 mention preorders.  --JBL (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid you've got it exactly opposite. I do not think that pre-orders or partial orders or any one specific order should be the basic object considered in the article. As the article stands right now, I would say that partial orders serve the role of being the basic object considered. Perhaps there is a good pedagogical reason for this. Perhaps the reason is practical, because as you indicated (thanks for the data point!), partial orders are the most popular kind of order, by some measure. But it is my opinion, and was the idea underlying my recent edits, that the article should NOT have a preference. --Intellec7 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"<" or ">" as Order relations
Why are "≤" or "≥" used in the article's definition(s)? Regarding two 2 ordered things, one is less than the other, or vice versa. And it's nonsense to ask if something is less or more than itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For total orders, it doesn't make a lot of difference which of these one uses. It is traditional to use ≤ for partial orders and < for (strict) weak orders; I don't know why. But for preorders, the = part of the ≤ relation is not equality, so in that case it is necessary to use ≤, to distinguish the case of two distinct elements that are both ≤ each other from the case of two incomparable elements. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Order theory


text:
Hector Malot

Hector-Henri Malot (Hector Malot) (20 May 1830 – 18 July 1907) was a French writer born in La Bouille, Seine-Maritime. He studied law in Rouen and Paris, but eventually literature became his passion. He worked as a dramatic critic for Lloyd Francais and as a literary critic for L'Opinion Nationale.

His first book, published in 1859, was Les Amants. In total Malot wrote over 70 books. By far his most famous book is Sans Famille (Nobody's Boy, 1878), which deals with the travels of the young orphan Remi, who is sold to the street musician Vitalis at age 8. Sans Famille gained fame as a children's book, though it was not originally intended as such.

Birth
Hector Malot's parents are Marie-Anne-Victoire Le Bourgeois and Jean Baptiste Malot. They married September 30, 1826, each for the second time.

From the union was born first a child named Victor who died at a young age. On May 20, 1830 Hector was born in the family home of La Bouille, on the banks of the Seine.

A few hours after his birth, a sailboat moored in front of the house suddenly veers dangerously towards it. It breaks the window of the newborn’s room with its bowsprit. When a crowd gathers they find the little Hector sleeping peacefully as if nothing happened, which is seen as an omen of an unusual destiny.

From La Bouille to Bosc-Bénard-Commin
Hector spends the first years of his childhood in La Bouille. He observes the ships loading or unloading their cargoes, those leaving for distant destinations; he observes the passage of the ferry, the comings and goings of the stagecoaches, the customers of the inns, etc.

In October 1835 Hector’s family leaves the banks of the Seine to settle in Bosc-Bénard-Commin in the department of Eure. This move follows Jean-Baptiste Malot’s transfer of his La Bouille study to his son-in-law. He becomes a justice of the peace for the canton of Bourgtheroulde.

This new environment allows for Hector’s taste of reading. He stays locked up for hours devouring books, preferring to abandon his French lessons to read Racine, Lesage or even Molière.

Hector begins to appreciate life in the countryside and indulges in numerous escapades during which he “discovered nature, the cycle of seasons and crops, became interested in trees, flowers, insects, animals..”. He developed a taste for nature and botany which would last his entire life.

Boarding school in Rouen
At age 9, given the poor progress Hector shows in his education, he’s sent to boarding school in Rouen by his father. Marie-Anne-Victoire does everything possible to delay this deadline, but Jean-Baptiste’s decision is final. Hector departs in October 1839.

Hector arrives in Rouen at the Heudron and Lamardeley institute, attended mainly by the sons of well-off peasants and notables of the region. Here he befriends future literary critic Jules Levallois.

Three years later, in 1842, Hector attends the Corneille high school in Rouen but hardly excels in his studies, suffering from a school system in which he feels he cannot express himself. He prefers history class, with a teacher he considers an original, free-spirited person.

Arrival in Paris
Hector Malot arrived in Paris in 1847 when he was 17 years old. he continued his studies there at the Condorcet high school where he obtained his baccalaureate after two years. In accordance with his father’s wishes, he began studying law which he continued for three years. However, in 1853, against the wishes of his father, he decided to abandon the legal path in order to devote himself to a literary career.

In the years that followed, Hector tried in vain to have a first play performed. To ensure his livelihood, he wrote a few articles, notably in Journal pour tous, where Jules Simon hired him for his knowledge of botany.

From Moisselles to Fontenay-sous-Bois
Busy on one hand with his work as a journalist and distracted on the other by Parisian life, Hector Malot found himself unable to advance the writing of his first novel. He therefore decided to retire to his parents, who left Normandy and settled in Moisselles, near Écouen, in Val-d’Oise. Back in the countryside he could devote himself entirely to his writing, resulting in his first novel, Les Amants. It was released in 1859 when Hector had become a journalist at L’Opinion notationale and enjoyed great success.

In October 1862, Marie-Anne-Victoire, Hector’s mother, dies. This loss upset the writer greatly. He later attempted to exorcise this episode through the writing of Romain Kalbris, a novel in which a dying mother awaits the return of her sailor son.

In 1865 Hector builds at 3 avenue de la Dame-Blanche in Fontenay-souls-Boris, a wooden chalet that he would live in until the end of his life. He chose the location with care and accuracy: at the intersection of avenue de la Dame-Blanche and avenue de Fontenay, near the station, facing the Boris de Vincennes. This to ensure he could regularly go to Paris or neighboring stations for the walks he enjoyed.

His father, Jean-Baptiste, then a widower for almost two years, moved in and remained there until his death in October 1866. Shortly after, in 1867, Hector married Anna Dariès in Montgeron, with whom he has a daughter, Lucie in 1868. When Anna died in 1880, Hector remarried to Marthe Oudinot de La Faverie, age 31, with whom he made numerous trips.

Publication of Sans Famille
In 1878 Hector Malot published his most famous work: Sans Famille (literal translation: Without Family but mostly known as Nobody’s Boy). This novel tells the adventures of the foundling, Rémi, who is sold by his adoptive father to a street musician named Vitalis. Traveling the French and later English roads, Rémi works in different professions and meets many people before setting out to find his biological family.

Hector Malot thought of and wrote this work for his daughter, Lucie. He begins the novel with a dedication to her.

End of career and retirement
In 1887, the Journal de Rouen published in its daily edition the novel Ghislaine in serial form, paying homage to Malot’s Norman roots.

In 1893, a year after writing En famille (loosely translated as Nobody’s Girl), Malot’s granddaughter Perrine was born, sharing the name of the heroine of the novel. He proves to be an attentive and loving grandfather, curious to note the development he observes of the child.

In 1894 Malot published his last novel, Amours de vieux. He decides to put an end to his literary career and retire to his home in Fontenay-sous-Boris where he plans new trips. However, two years later, he publishes an autobiographical work, Les Romans de mes romans (The Novel of my Novels). He also wrote, shortly before his death, a text entitled Le Mousse, which would only appear posthumously in 1901. These last two works are dedicated to Perrine.

Suffering from paralysis since 1905, Hector Malot died on July 18, 1907 in Fontenay-sous-Bois. He is buried there in the cemetery where he rests in the company of his first wife Anna, his father Jean-Baptiste, his daughter Lucie, his sister Prudence and his son-in-law, General Mesple.

Works by Malot
Books for children include:
 * Victimes d'Amour (a trilogy) encompassing:
 * Les Amants (1859)
 * Les Époux (1865)
 * Les Enfants (1866)
 * Un Beau frère (1869)
 * Madame Obernin (1870)
 * Le Docteur Claude (1879)
 * Justice (1889)
 * L'amour Dominateur (1896)
 * Les Aventures de Romain Kalbris (1869)
 * 'Sans famille'' (1888)

Legacy
Three anime series have been made based on Malot's works: Sans Famille has been adapted into film in France numerous times throughout the years, most recently in the 2018 film Remi, Nobody’s Boy by Antoine Blossier.
 * Nobody's Boy: Remi (1977, 51 episodes, based on Sans Famille)
 * The Story of Perrine (1978, 53 episodes, based on En Famille)
 * Remi, Nobody's Girl (1996, 26 episodes, based on Sans Famille with gender swap)

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

title: Hector Malot


text:
Flower box

A flower box is a type of container in the form of a planter or box that is usually placed outdoors and used for displaying live plants and flowers, but it may also be used for growing herbs or other edible plants.

It is usually placed or affixed to an accessible location so the resident of a home may easily work with the plants in the container. A flower box may be installed under a window and supported in place by brackets on the wall below, in which case it may be called a window box. Flower boxes may also be used to line decks, patios, porches, steps, and sidewalks and they can even be hung from railings.

Wood, brick, metal, fiberglass and cellular PVC can all be used in flower box construction, with wood being a classical material of choice. A typical wooden container will last 3–5 years before showing signs of rot. With painting and maintenance, they can sometimes last 10–15 years. Fiberglass has the advantage of being lightweight and insect proof. PVC is a plastic that is a rot proof alternative to wood, and is often used on homes to prevent rot or siding damage.

Sometimes, a box is placed inside a kitchen window in order to grow herbs or other supplies for a chef as an easily accessed miniature kitchen garden.

J. Linderski has argued that Pliny described flower boxes in his Naturalis Historia, at 19.59. However, Linderski could only find one other allusion to this practice in Martial 11.18.

title: Flower box


text:
Baron Jones

Baron Jones or Lord Jones may refer to refer to:
 * Barry Jones, Baron Jones (born 1939), Labour Party politician in the United Kingdom
 * Baron Jones of Naven, a subsidiary title held by Viscount Ranelagh)
 * Michael Jones, Lord Jones (1948–2016), Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland
 * Nigel Jones, Baron Jones of Cheltenham (born 1948), Liberal Democrat politician in the United Kingdom
 * Digby Jones, Baron Jones of Birmingham (born 1955), British businessman and politician

The following either use a title which does not include Jones or have double-barreled names
 * Leifchild Jones, 1st Baron Rhayader
 * Thomas Jones, Baron Maelor (1898–1984), British Labour politician
 * Alun Jones, Baron Chalfont
 * Elwyn Jones, Baron Elwyn-Jones (1909–1989), Welsh barrister and Labour politician
 * Timothy Clement-Jones, Baron Clement-Jones (born 1949), Liberal Democrat Peer and their spokesman for the Creative Industries in the House of Lords
 * William Wynne-Jones, Baron Wynne-Jones (1903–1982), British chemist
 * Tristan Garel-Jones, Baron Garel-Jones
 * Pauline Neville-Jones, Baroness Neville-Jones (born 1939), former BBC Governor and Chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)
 * Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon (1930–2017), Baron Armstrong-Jones
 * Samuel Jones-Loyd, 1st Baron Overstone (1796–1883), British banker and politician

title: Baron Jones


text:
Grassmann's law

Grassmann's law, named after its discoverer Hermann Grassmann, is a dissimilatory phonological process in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit which states that if an aspirated consonant is followed by another aspirated consonant in the next syllable, the first one loses the aspiration. The descriptive version was given for Sanskrit by Pāṇini.

Here are some examples in Greek of the effects of Grassmann's law:

 * θύω 'I sacrifice (an animal)'; ἐτύθη 'it was sacrificed'
 * θρίξ 'hair'; τρίχες 'hairs'
 * θάπτειν 'to bury (present)'; τάφος 'a grave'

In reduplication, which forms the perfect tense in both Greek and Sanskrit, if the initial consonant is aspirated, the prepended consonant is unaspirated by Grassmann's law. For instance φύω 'I grow' :  πέφυκα 'I have grown'.

The fact that deaspiration in Greek took place after the change of Proto-Indo-European to  (PIE *bʰn̥ǵʰús > παχύς (pakhús) not bakhús but Sanskrit बहु (bahú)) and the fact that all other Indo-European languages do not apply Grassmann's law both suggest that it was developed separately in Greek and Sanskrit (although quite possibly by areal influence spread across a then-contiguous Graeco-Aryan–speaking area) and so it was not inherited from Proto-Indo-European.

Also, Grassmann's law in Greek also affects the aspirate <  developed specifically in Greek but not in Sanskrit or most other Indo-European. (For example, >  > ἔχω  "I have", with dissimilation of, but the future tense  > ἕξω  "I will have" was unaffected, as aspiration was lost before .) The evidence from other languages is not strictly negative: many branches, including Sanskrit's closest relative, Iranian, merge the Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirated and unaspirated stops and so it is not possible to tell if Grassmann's law ever operated in them.

According to Filip De Decker, Grassmann's law had not operated in Mycenaean Greek yet, and it is almost certain that it occurred later than 1200 BC; it might even postdate the Homeric Greek period.

In Greek
In Koine Greek, in cases other than reduplication, alternations involving labials and velars have been completely levelled, and Grassmann's law remains in effect only for the alternation between and, as in the last two examples above. (It makes no difference whether the in question continues Proto-Indo-European  or .)

Thus, alongside the pair ταχύς 'fast' : θάσσων  'faster', displaying Grassmann's law, Greek has the pair παχύς  'thick' : πάσσων  'thicker' from the Proto-Indo-European etymon  (established by cognate forms like Sanskrit बहु  'abundant' since  is the only point of intersection between Greek  and Sanskrit ) in which the  in the comparative is a result of levelling. Similarly, πεύθομαι ~ πυνθάνομαι  'come to know' from PIE  has the future πεύσομαι. However, only dissimilates before aspirated affixes like the aorist passive in  and the imperative in ;  and  do not, as in φάθι  'speak!'.

Diaspirate roots
Cases like ~  and  ~  illustrate the phenomenon of diaspirate roots for which two different analyses have been given.

In one account, the underlying diaspirate theory, the underlying roots are taken to be and. When an, a word edge, or various other sounds immediately follow, the second aspiration is lost, and the first aspirate therefore survives. If a vowel follows the second aspirate, the second aspirate survives unaltered, and the first aspiration is thus lost by Grassmann's law.

A different analytical approach was taken by the Indian grammarians. They took the roots to be underlying and. The roots persist unaltered in and. If an follows, it triggers an aspiration throwback and the aspiration migrates leftward, docking onto the initial consonant.

In his initial formulation of the law, Grassmann briefly referred to aspiration throwback to explain the seemingly aberrant forms. However, the consensus among contemporary historical linguists is that the former explanation (underlying representation) is the correct one, as aspiration throwback would require multiple root shapes for the same basic root in different languages whenever an aspirate follows in the next syllable ( for Sanskrit, for Greek,  for Proto-Germanic and Proto-Italic which have no dissimilation), but the underlying diaspirate allows for a single root shape, with  for all languages.

In the later course of Sanskrit, under the influence of the grammarians, aspiration throwback was applied to original mono-aspirate roots by analogy. Thus, from the verb root गाह ('to plunge'), the desiderative stem जिघाख  is formed by analogy with the forms बुभुत्सा  (a desiderative form) and भुत  (a nominal form, both from the root बुध  'to be awake', originally Proto-Indo-European ).

The linguist Ivan Sag has pointed out an advantage of the ancient Indian theory: it explains why there are no patterns like hypothetical ~, which are not ruled out by the underlying diaspirate theory. However, aspiration fails to account for reduplication patterns in roots with initial aspirates, such as Greek 'I put', with an unaspirated reduplicated consonant. Aspiration throwback thus needs to be enhanced with a stipulation that aspirates reduplicate as their unaspirated counterparts. From a diachronic standpoint, the absence of these patterns in Greek is explained by the Proto-Indo-European constraint against roots of the form.

Other languages
Processes similar to Grassmann's law continue to work in Middle Indo-Aryan, although it tends to be inconsistent regarding direction, for example Sanskrit (skandha) → khandha → Assamese  (kandh), but  (bhraṣṭa) → bhaṭṭha →  (bhata).

A process similar to Grassmann's law is also known to occur in Ofo, an extinct and underdocumented Siouan language. The law is found in compounds such as the following:

 * óskha ('the crane') + afháⁿ ('white') → oskạfha ('the white egret')

A similar phenomenon occurs in Meitei (a Tibeto-Burman language) in which an aspirated consonant is deaspirated if preceded by an aspirated consonant (including ) in the previous syllable. The deaspirated consonants are then voiced between sonorants.

 * ('pierce') + ('upward') →  ('pierce upwards')
 * ('cow') + ('udder') →  ('milk')
 * ('trim') + ('outward') →  ('trim outwards')

Hadza, spoken in Northern Tanzania, exhibits Grassmann's law in its lexicon, but most obviously in reduplication:
 * 'look at each other', from 'look'

In Hadza, has no effect on aspiration.

A similar effect takes place in Koti and other Makhuwa languages, where it was dubbed Katupha's law in Schadeberg (1999). If two aspirated consonants are brought together in one stem, the first loses its aspiration. The effect is particularly clear in reduplicated words: kopikophi 'eyelash'; piriphiri 'pepper' (cf. Swahili 'piripiri'); okukuttha 'to wipe'. This is slightly different from in Greek and Sanskrit, in that the two syllables need not be adjacent.

The four Salishan languages Salish–Spokane–Kalispel, Okanagan, Shuswap and Tillamook exhibit a similar process affecting ejective rather than aspirated consonants, which has been called "Grassmann's law for Salish", for example Shuswap underlying 'crutches' → surface.

title: Grassmann's law


text:
User:LennartBolks~enwiki

nl:Gebruiker:LennartBolks

This is an interwiki account

title: User:LennartBolks~enwiki


text:
Chinese Eastern Railway

The Chinese Eastern Railway or CER (, Китайско-Восточная железная дорога, or КВЖД, Kitaysko-Vostochnaya Zheleznaya Doroga or KVZhD), is the historical name for a railway system in Northeast China (also known as Manchuria).

The Russian Empire constructed the line from 1897 to 1902 during the Great Game period. The Railway was a concession to Russia, and later the Soviet Union, granted by the Qing dynasty government of Imperial China. The system linked Chita with Vladivostok in the Russian Far East and with Port Arthur, then an Imperial Russian leased ice-free port. The T-shaped line consisted of three branches:

 * the western branch, now the Harbin–Manzhouli Railway
 * the eastern branch, now the Harbin–Suifenhe Railway
 * the southern branch, now part of the Beijing–Harbin Railway

which intersected in Harbin. Saint Petersburg administered the railway and the concession, known as the Chinese Eastern Railway Zone, from the city of Harbin, which grew into a major rail-hub.

The southern branch of the CER, known as the Japanese South Manchuria Railway from 1906, became a locus and partial casus belli for the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, the 1929 Sino-Soviet Conflict, and the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937–1945. The Soviet Union sold the railway to the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo in 1935; later in 1945 the Soviets regained co-ownership of the railway by treaty. The Soviet Union returned the Chinese Eastern Railway to the People's Republic of China in 1952.

Name
The official Chinese name of this railway was Great Qing Eastern Provinces Railway, also known as Eastern Qing Railway or Eastern Provinces Railway. After the Xinhai Revolution, the northern branches was renamed to Chinese Eastern Provinces Railway in 1915, shortened form as.

The southern branch was renamed to South Manchuria Railway (Japanese kyujitai/) after Japanese took over from Russians in 1905.

It is also known in English as the Chinese Far East Railway, Trans-Manchurian Railway and North Manchuria Railway.

History

The Chinese Eastern Railway, a single-track line, provided a shortcut for the world's longest railroad, the Trans-Siberian Railway, from near the Siberian city of Chita, across northern Manchuria via Harbin to the Russian port of Vladivostok. This route drastically reduced the travel distance required along the originally proposed main northern route to Vladivostok, which lay completely on Russian soil but was not completed until a decade after the Manchurian "shortcut".

In 1896 China granted a construction concession through northern Manchuria under the supervision of Vice Minister of Public Works Xu Jingcheng. Work on the CER began in July 1897 along the line Tarskaya (east of Chita) — Hailar — Harbin — Nikolsk-Ussuriski, and accelerated drastically after Russia concluded a 25-year lease of Liaodong from China in 1898. Officially, traffic on the line started in November 1901, but regular passenger traffic from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok across the Trans-Siberian railway did not commence until July 1903.

In 1898, construction of a 550-mile (880 km) spur line, most of which later formed the South Manchuria Railway, began at Harbin, leading southwards through Eastern Manchuria, along the Liaodong Peninsula, to the ice-free deep-water port at Lüshun, which Russia was fortifying and developing into a first-class strategic naval base and marine coaling station for its Far East Fleet and Merchant Marine. This town was known in the west as Port Arthur, and the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) was fought largely over who would possess this region and its excellent harbor, as well as whether it would remain open to traders of all nations (Open Door Policy).

The Chinese Eastern Railway was essentially completed in 1902, a few years earlier than the stretch around Lake Baikal. Until the Circumbaikal portion was completed (1904–1905; double-tracked, 1914), goods carried on the Trans-Siberian Railway had to be trans-shipped by ferry almost a hundred kilometers across the lake (from Port Baikal to Mysovaya).

The Chinese Eastern Railway became important in international relations. After the first Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895, Russia gained the right to build the Chinese Eastern Railway in Manchuria. They had a large army and occupied Northern Manchuria, which was of some concern to the Japanese. Russia wanted the railway badly. It loaned money to China and promised to use the proposed railway to help defend China against Japan, in the secret Li–Lobanov Treaty of 1896. Construction started in 1898 and was completed in 1903.

In 1900 during the Boxer Rebellion – which was suppressed by the Eight Nation Alliance including Russia – Russia also launched a separate invasion of Manchuria sending 100,000 troops to protect their interests in the railroad. During the Russo-Japanese War, Russia lost both the Liaodong Peninsula and much of the South Manchurian branch to Japan. The rail line from Changchun to Lüshun — transferred to Japanese control — became the South Manchuria Railway.

During the Russian Civil War (1917–1924) the Russian part of the CER came under the administration of the White Army. From the 1919 Karakhan Manifesto to 1927, diplomats of the Soviet Union would promise to revoke concessions in China, but the Soviets secretly kept tsarist concessions such as the Chinese Eastern Railway, as well as consulates, barracks, and Orthodox churches. This led Chiang Kai-Shek — who pushed foreign powers such as Britain to return some of their concessions from 1925 to 1927 — to turn against his former Soviet ally in 1927, seizing Soviet legations. The Soviets would later fight an armed conflict to keep control over the northern CER in the Sino-Soviet conflict of 1929. while Japan maintained control of the southern spur line.

After the establishment of Manchukuo it was known as the North Manchuria Railway until 23 March 1935, when the USSR sold its rights to the railway to the Manchukuo government; it was then merged into the Manchukuo National Railway and converted to standard gauge in four hours on 31 August.

From August 1945, the CER again came under the joint control of the USSR and China. After World War II the Soviet government insisted on occupying the Liaodong Peninsula but allowed joint control over the Southern branch with China; all this together received the name of the "Chinese Changchun Railway" (Кита́йская Чанчу́ньская желе́зная доро́га).

In 1952, the Soviet Union transferred (free of charge) all of its rights to the Chinese Changchun Railway to the People's Republic of China.

Flags
The flag of the Chinese Eastern Railway is a combination of Chinese and Russian flags. It changed several times with the political changes of both owners. The first CER flag (1897–1915) was a combination of the triangular version of the flag of the Qing dynasty and the flag of Russia, with East Provinces Railway of Great Qing (大清東省鐵路) in Chinese. The 1915–1925 flag replaced the flag of the Qing dynasty with a triangular version of the five-colored flag, with East Provinces Railway Company of China (中國東省鐵路公司) in Chinese. The flag was changed again in 1925 and 1932, with the flag of the Soviet Union and the flag of Manchukuo added.

Fleet
The only train that covers the entire route is the train #19/20 "Vostok" (translated as "East") Moscow — Beijing. The trip from Moscow to Beijing takes 146 hours (6 days, 2 hours). The journey in the opposite direction lasts 143 hours (5 days, 23 hours).

There is also a train #653/654 Zabaikalsk — Manzhouli which one can use to cross the Russian-Chinese border. The trip takes 25 minutes.

Archival collections

 * Guide to the Photograph Album of the Chinese Eastern Railway. Special Collections and Archives, The UC Irvine Libraries, Irvine, California.
 * Views of the Chinese Eastern Railway This album contains 42 photographic prints depicting depots, railroad shops and yards, rolling stock, car interiors, tracks, health resorts, and other views along the line. Captions for the photographs are in Russian, Mandarin, and English.

Other

 * Chinese Eastern Railroad Zone
 * History of the line
 * “The Chinese Eastern Railway – A Glimpse of History” by Peter Crush. Hong Kong Railway Society web pages: under “English, Members Corner, Feature Articles”. Retrieved January 2009

title: Chinese Eastern Railway


text:
Louis-Marie Stanislas Fréron

Louis-Marie Stanislas Fréron (17 August 1754 – 15 July 1802) was a French politician, journalist, representative to the National Assembly, and a representative on mission during the French Revolution.

Background
The son of Elie-Catherine Fréron, he was born in Paris to a wealthy family. His father was a prominent journalist and popular opponent of the philosophes and encyclopédistes, his most notable opponent being Voltaire (who openly considered Elie his enemy), and it is surmised that his father's history of conflict with the state over freedom of the press heavily influenced Louis Fréron's political views. He attended the Lycée Louis-le-Grand, where his father held a faculty position, together with the likes of Maximilien Robespierre and Camille Desmoulins. On the death of his father, he inherited L'Année littéraire, which was continued until 1795 and edited successively by the abbé Royou and Julien Louis Geoffroy.

Early Revolutionary activities
Though due to legal obligations he still had some affiliation with L'Année littéraire, Fréron took up writing and editing his paper L'Orateur du Peuple. In it, he wrote radical denunciations of counter-revolutionaries much like those written by Jean-Paul Marat and Camille Desmoulins, and in fact the three of them aided each other in editing their papers. His first real taste of rabble-rousing came in the form of collaboration with Desmoulins to incite the storming of the Bastille.

Soon after, he was elected as representative to the Bonne-Nouvelle district of the newly formed Paris Commune, where it seems he was minimally active before returning to his role as a journalist. He acted as a collaborator for L’Ami des citoyens for a brief period before starting his own paper L'Orateur du Peuple, under the pseudonym Martel, which consisted of 8 pages and was distributed every other day, with Marcel Enfantin serving as editor. Aside from his writings in his paper, he openly collaborated with Marat and agreed to fund and write half of Desmoulins paper.

In June 1790, Marcel Enfantin was arrested for "provable conspiracy against liberty" because the authorities believed him to be Martel. In response, Fréron wrote:
 * Citizens, can you believe it? The Orateur du peuple is in chains! He had only taken up the pen in defense of your rights, he was a dynamic writer of the most ardent patriotism…he fought the ministerial hydra with a club, and the aristocracy with ridicule…Well, the Municipality has slandered [his] intentions…it has poisoned his innocent phrases…[but] the voice the Orateur du peuple will pierce the vaults of his prison…the articles of the Rights of Man were made to be used by this French citizen…so that he may publish his opinions.

Also, Fréron's relationship with Desmoulins brought him to the cause of the Cordeliers and prompted his involvement with the attack on Tuileries palace of 1792 (the insurrection of the Paris crowds against the House of Bourbon, and their battle with the Swiss Guards).

In September, Fréron was elected to the National Convention for the département of Seine, and voted in favor of Louis XVI's execution. Fréron served as a Représentant en mission to Provence, Marseilles, and Toulon between 1793 and 1794 together with Paul Barras.

Siege of Toulon
He was charged with establishing the Convention's authority in the south during the Toulon rebellion. Fréron remained infamous as an enforcer of the Reign of Terror but came into contact with Napoleon Bonaparte, still just a young artillery officer, who had been stationed there. Augustin Robespierre and Antoine Christophe Saliceti, two representatives on mission, responded favourably to Napoleon's request (bypassing his commander, Jean François Carteaux) to seize the peninsula fort from the British and install artillery on a promontory overlooking the bay in order to fire on the British fleet at anchor. An infantry attack led by Bonaparte was repelled, due chiefly to Carteaux lowering the number of men allocated to Napoleon for the attack. Fréron, despite quarrelling with Bonaparte and threatening him with execution, eventually gave him his backing against Carteaux. He subsequently attempted to curtail Napoleon's career by insuring he would not command another larger attack on the British fort that was being planned, posting him to command the reserves instead. However, as this new attack faltered, Napoleon led the reserves forward without orders and seized the British fort.

Napoleon had previously introduced Fréron to his sister Pauline Bonaparte with whom he had a relationship until Pauline was married off to General Charles Leclerc in 1797.

Reaction and the Directory
Nonetheless, both he and Barras joined the Thermidorian Reaction in its clash with Robespierre; L'Orateur du Peuple became the mouthpiece of anti-Jacobins, and Fréron incited the Muscadins to attack the sans-culottes with clubs. He brought about the accusation of Antoine Fouquier-Tinville, and of Jean-Baptiste Carrier, and the arrest of the last Montagnards. Being sent by the Directory on a mission of peace to Marseilles he published in 1796 Mémoire historique sur la réaction royale et sur les malheurs du midi ("Historical Dissertation on the Royalist Reaction and the Misfortunes of the South").

He was elected to the Council of the Five Hundred, but not allowed to take his seat. Failing as suitor for the hand of Pauline Bonaparte, in 1801 he was sent by Napoleon, now first consul, to Saint Domingue and died there from yellow fever in 1802.

General Charles Leclerc, who had married Pauline Bonaparte, also received a command in Saint Domingue in 1801 (during the last stage of the Haitian Revolution), and died the same year.

title: Louis-Marie Stanislas Fréron


text:
Sherrill Milnes

Sherrill Milnes (born January 10, 1935) is an American dramatic baritone most famous for his Verdi roles. From 1965 until 1997 he was associated with the Metropolitan Opera. His voice is a high dramatic baritone, combining good legato with an incisive rhythmic style.

By 1965, aged 30, he had made his debut at the Metropolitan Opera. His international debuts followed soon thereafter, and Milnes became one of the world's prominent Verdi baritones of the 1970s and 1980s.

Early life
Milnes was born in Downers Grove, Illinois. His mother and father were dairy farmers. As a child, he exhibited strong and varied musical talents. In addition to singing, he also played piano, violin, viola, double bass, clarinet, and tuba. Although his interests did not always lean toward opera, he spent many hours singing to his father's cows and was once found on a tractor practicing an operatic laugh.

While in high school, Milnes planned to be an anesthesiologist, but later returned to music, studying music education at Drake University and Northwestern University, with the idea of becoming a teacher. He attended North Central College before transferring to Drake University and Northwestern University.

From 1958 until 1963, he was a member of the Chicago Symphony Chorus under the direction of Margaret Hillis, performing several times under the baton of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra's sixth music director, Fritz Reiner. After graduating from Drake, he spent a summer as an apprentice at the Santa Fe Opera and thereafter dedicated himself to becoming an opera singer, studying briefly with the famed soprano Rosa Ponselle.

Milnes was awarded an honorary doctorate from North Central College in 2006.

Career
Milnes began his career with the Opera Company of Boston in 1960, joining Boris Goldovsky's Opera Theater, and debuting as Masetto in Don Giovanni. From very early on in his career, Milnes was managed by well-known talent manager Herbert Barrett. In 1961, he made his debut at Ponselle's Baltimore Opera as Gérard in Andrea Chénier.

In 1964, Milnes made his first major breakthrough singing the role of Valentin in Gounod's Faust at the New York City Opera (opposite Norman Treigle as Méphistophélès), the role with which he also made his Metropolitan Opera debut in 1965. In 1967 he created the role of Captain Adam Brant in the world premiere of Marvin David Levy's Mourning Becomes Electra at the Met.

In 1964, Milnes also made his European debut singing Figaro from The Barber of Seville at the Teatro Nuovo in Milan. However, it was his performance as Miller in Verdi's Luisa Miller in 1968 which catapulted him into international fame. Milnes was the leading baritone at the Met during the 1970s, singing to great acclaim there, especially for his performances in Verdi operas.

Beginning in 1982, Milnes experienced sudden serious vocal health problems which took him some time to surmount. In 1984, he sang in the world premiere of Act I of Sergei Rachmaninoff's opera Monna Vanna, which had been left in piano score by the composer and orchestrated by Igor Buketoff.

Milnes' talents were not confined, however, solely to the operatic stage. As early as 1971 he had already received critical acclaim while featured in the role of David during the premier of Ezra Laderman's opera And David Wept, on the CBS Television network, under the musical direction of Alfredo Antonini. Nearly a decade earlier in 1964 he also collaborated with Antonini, playing the role of Saint Joseph in a televised adaptation of Hector Berlioz's sacred oratorio L'enfance du Christ.

Milnes was awarded Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia fraternity's Charles E. Lutton Man of Music Award at its 1982 national convention in Urbana, Illinois. He had been initiated into the Fraternity's Alpha Beta chapter at Drake University in 1954. In the same year was honored by the Italian government as "Commendatore Ordine al Merito della Repubblica"

On July 5, 1986, he performed on the New York Philharmonic's tribute to the 100th anniversary of the Statue of Liberty, which was televised live by ABC. The orchestra, conducted by Zubin Mehta, performed in Central Park.

In September 1996, Milnes was honored by the French government with the distinguished Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. After 32 years and 653 performances, he made his final appearance at the Metropolitan on March 22, 1997 as Amonasro in Aida.

In 1998, Milnes published a memoir, American Aria.

Milnes is currently a professor emeritus in voice at Northwestern University. He is a recipient of Yale University's Sanford Medal.

Milnes was inducted as a Laureate of The Lincoln Academy of Illinois and awarded the Order of Lincoln (the State’s highest honor) by the Governor of Illinois in 2003 in the area of The Performing Arts.

Milnes has been a resident of Cresskill, New Jersey, and currently resides in Palm Harbor, Florida with his wife and son, Theo.

VOICExperience Foundation
In 2001, Milnes and his wife, soprano Maria Zouves, founded the VOICExperience Foundation, a non-profit organization for the education of young singers. It evolved from a series of master classes led by Milnes, Tony Randall, Martina Arroyo and Barry Tucker, president of the Richard Tucker Music Foundation. Based in Florida, it provides several educational programs, workshops, outreach events and community enrichment programs. In Florida, the foundation runs The Florida VOICE Project for singers in the Tampa Bay Area. In New York City, the foundation runs the Opera As Drama program, a week-long career development program for emerging professional opera singers which culminates in a public performance at Opera America's National Opera Center. As part of the Savannah Voice Festival, the foundation runs a Teen VOICE workshop and the Milnes VOICE studio.

Complete Operas and other works

 * 1967
 * Mozart: Così fan tutte (with L. Price, Troyanos, Raskin, Shirley, Flagello – Leinsdorf, cond.)
 * Verdi: La traviata (with Caballé, Bergonzi – Prêtre, cond.)

 * 1968
 * R. Strauss: Salome (with Caballé, R. Lewis, Resnik, J. King – Leinsdorf, cond.)

 * 1969
 * Beethoven: Symphony No. 9, "Choral" (with J. Marsh, Veasey, Domingo – Leinsdorf, cond.)
 * Orff: Carmina Burana (with Mandac, Kolk – Ozawa, cond.)
 * Verdi: Il trovatore (with L. Price, Domingo, Cossotto – Mehta, cond.)

 * 1970
 * Verdi: Aïda (with L. Price, Domingo, Bumbry, Raimondi – Leinsdorf, cond.)
 * Verdi: Macbeth (with Ludwig, Cossutta – Böhm, cond.) Live recording

 * 1971
 * Verdi: Un ballo in maschera (with Tebaldi, Pavarotti—Bartoletti, cond.)
 * Puccini: Il tabarro (with L. Price, Domingo—Leinsdorf, cond.)
 * Verdi: Don Carlo (with Domingo, Caballé, Raimondi, Verrett—Giulini, cond.)
 * Donizetti: Lucia di Lammermoor (with Sutherland, Pavarotti, Ghiaurov—Bonynge, cond.)
 * Leoncavallo: Pagliacci (with Domingo, Caballé, Goeke-Santi, cond.)
 * Verdi: Rigoletto (with Sutherland, Pavarotti, Tourangeau, Talvela—Bonynge, cond.)

 * 1972
 * Verdi: Attila (with Raimondi, Deutekom, Bergonzi—Gardelli, cond.)
 * Verdi: Giovanna d'Arco (with Caballé, Domingo—Levine, cond.)

 * 1973
 * Puccini: Tosca (with L. Price, Domingo – Mehta, cond.)

 * 1974
 * Puccini: La bohème (with Caballé, Domingo, Blegen, Sardinero, Raimondi – Solti, cond.)
 * Verdi: I vespri siciliani (with Arroyo, Domingo, Raimondi – Levine, cond.)

 * 1975
 * Rossini: Il barbiere di Siviglia (with Sills, Gedda, Capecchi, Raimondi, Barbieri – Levine, cond.)
 * Verdi: Luisa Miller (with Pavarotti, Caballé – Maag, cond.)
 * Massenet's La Navarraise (with Horne, Domingo, Bacquier – H. Lewis, cond.)
 * Verdi: Il trovatore [with bonus tracks from a 1968 recording of Act II with Richard Tucker] (with Caballé, Cossutta, Arkhipova – Guadagno, cond.)

 * 1976
 * Giordano: Andrea Chénier (with Scotto, Domingo – Levine, cond.)
 * Verdi: Macbeth (with Cossotto, Carreras, Raimondi – Muti, cond.)
 * Massenet: Thaïs (with Sills, Gedda, van Allan – Maazel, cond.)

 * 1977
 * Cilea: Adriana Lecouvreur (with Scotto, Domingo, Obraztsova – Levine, cond.)
 * Bizet: Carmen (with Berganza, Domingo, Cotrubas – C. Abbado, cond.)
 * Puccini: La fanciulla del West (with Neblett, Domingo – Mehta, cond.)
 * Verdi: La forza del destino (with L. Price, Domingo, Cossotto, Giaiotti, Bacquier – Levine, cond.)
 * Verdi: La traviata (with Cotrubas, Domingo – Kleiber, cond.)
 * Walton: Belshazzar's Feast (Gibson, cond.)

 * 1978
 * Rossini: Guglielmo Tell (with Freni, Pavarotti, Mazzoli, Jones, Ghiaurov – Chailly, cond.)
 * Verdi: Otello (with Domingo, Scotto – Levine, cond.)
 * Verdi: Rigoletto (with Sills, Kraus, M. Dunn, Ramey – Rudel, cond.)
 * Puccini: Tosca (with Freni, Pavarotti – Rescigno, cond.)

 * 1979
 * Puccini: La bohème (with Scotto, Neblett, Kraus, Manuguerra, Plishka, Tajo; Levine, cond.)

 * 1980
 * Massenet: Le roi de Lahore (with Sutherland, Lima, Ghiaurov, Morris, Tourangeau – Bonynge, cond.)

 * 1981
 * Ponchielli: La Gioconda (with Caballé, Baltsa, Pavarotti, Ghiaurov – Bartoletti, cond.)

 * 1983
 * Thomas: Hamlet  (with Sutherland, Morris, Conrad, Winbergh, Lewis, Gelling; Bonynge, cond.)

 * 1986
 * Ponchielli: La Gioconda (with Marton, Ramey, Lamberti – Patanè, cond.

 * 1990
 * Fauré: Requiem (with Te Kanawa – Dutoit, cond.)

 * 2001
 * Wolf-Ferrari: Sly (with Carreras, Kabatu – Gimenez, cond.)

Recitals

 * Sherrill Milnes in Recital, Volume 1, "There but for You Go I" (Jon Spong, piano)
 * Sherrill Milnes in Recital, Volume 2, "Kingdom by the Sea" (Jon Spong, piano)
 * Met Legends: Sherrill Milnes
 * Grandi Voci: Arias (de la Fuente, cond.)
 * The Baritone Voice
 * Great Operatic Duets (with Domingo)
 * Domingo Conducts Milnes! - Milnes Conducts Domingo! (with Domingo)
 * Sherrill Milnes - Arias
 * Abide With Me
 * The Church's One Foundation
 * The America I Love
 * Copland: Old American Songs
 * Up In Central Park (with B. Sills, Rudel, cond.)
 * Griffes: Four German Songs; Songs of the Dagger (Ozawa, cond.)
 * A Salute to American Music (with L. Price, M. Horne,R. Merrill, et.al, Conlon, cond.)

DVDs

 * 1976
 * Puccini: Tosca (with Kabaivanska, Domingo – Bartoletti, cond., de Bosio, dir.)

 * 1979
 * Verdi: Luisa Miller (with Scotto, Domingo, Morris; Levine, cond., Merrill, dir.)

 * 1980
 * Verdi: Don Carlo (Scotto, Troyanos, Moldoveanu, Plishka, Hines; Levine, cond., Dexter, dir.)

 * 1983
 * Verdi: Ernani (with L. Mitchell, Pavarotti, Raimondi – Levine, cond., Samaritani, dir.)

 * 1984
 * Verdi: Simon Boccanegra (with Tomowa-Sintow, Moldoveanu, Plishka – Levine, cond., Capobianco, dir.)

 * 1985
 * Verdi: Nabucco (with Bumbry, Cortez, Raimondi – Santi, cond.)
 * Sherrill Milnes: An All-Star Gala (various artists)

 * 1986
 * Sherrill Milnes at Juilliard: An Opera Master Class

 * 1988
 * Verdi: Il trovatore (with Marton, Zajick, Pavarotti – Levine, cond., Melano, dir.)

 * 1989
 * Verdi: Aïda (with Millo, Zajick, Domingo – Levine, cond., Frisell, dir.)

 * 1991
 * The Metropolitan Opera Gala 1991 - 25th Anniversary at Lincoln Center (various artists)

 * 1992
 * Puccini: La fanciulla del West (with Daniels, Domingo – Slatkin, cond., del Monaco, dir.)

 * 1996
 * James Levine's 25th Anniversary Metropolitan Opera Gala (various artists)

Audio Cassette Tapes
1979
 * A Grand Night for Singing (with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Columbia Symphony & Jerold Ottley) — Published by CBS, Inc.

title: Sherrill Milnes