text:
Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 9

There are high and low achieving Blacks, Whites, and Asians. A particular level of achievement does not qualify someone as being of a particular race. Likewise there are tall and short Blacks, Whites and Asians; therefore we cannot say that having particular physical attributes qualifies one as being a member of any particular race. The same argument applies to the claim that race is used to group people by behavior. Jalnet2 23:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I think that I e-mailed you (Jalnet2) before about this question, but did not receive a reply. I asked you whether you considered "race" conceptually similar to "sub-species." Judging by the change that you made in the Race article, it seems that you do regard it in that way. But perhaps I am wrong. Let's clear up that point first. P0M 00:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Race is not "conceptually similar" to subspecies: it is an exact synonym. While there are several ways to define a subspecies, the details of this need not concern us here, as human variation does not qualify under any of the definitions in current use Tannin 00:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * [P0M:] I was trying to figure out Jalnet2's position, Tannin. You make the point that I was going to make -- assuming that Jalnet2 comes out in about the same place you do. And, Jalnet2, I need to know what your operational definition for "member of race X" is. What does one look at, and how does one measure or otherwise determine it? You seem to eliminate "particular level of achievement", "particular physical attributes," and "behavior." That's fine with me. I would not divide people by race to begin with. But I would like to know how you propose to do it. You seem to think that people have been doing it successfully for some time now... P0M 00:33, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Humans are members of a certain race if they have been prevented from interbreeding with other members of the species until they have developed substantial genetic differentiation from members of other races. This depends on how you define "substantial".

 * For example, there have been roughly 100,000 years of genetic isolation between Caucasoids and Negroids, and roughly 40,000 years of isolation between Caucasoids and Mongoloids. If you define "substantial" differentiation as that which would be brought about by 40,000 years of genetic isolation, then Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids would be considered different races.  If you define it as that which would be brought about after 20,000 years of isolation, then Caucasoids and Mongoloids would be of the same race. Jews, for the most part, have maintained genetic isolation from other Caucasians for a period of several thousand years.  Do you consider Jews a separate race from other Caucasians?  Some people do, some people don't.

 * If you use the 40,000 year definition, then Negroids are humans whose ancestors have been genetically isolated for the past 40,000 years in Africa, Mongoloids are humans whose ancestors have been isolated for the past 40,000 years in Asia, and Caucasoids are humans whose ancestors have been isolated for the past 40,000 years in Europe.

 * How one classifies people as belonging to any particular race is open to debate. But there is no doubt about the fact that racial differences themselves are brought about by genetic isolation.  There is also no doubt about the fact that there is genetic differentiation between members of the different human races, and that some characteristics are more common in certain races than in others.  As long as this continues to be the case, race will exist.  Jalnet2 01:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I do not believe that many people will argue against the idea that humans, having left Africa, went to remote places like Australia and, over the course of tens of thousands of years, gained heritable adaptations to their new environments. Anyway, my question is still: given an individual, how do you propose to go about classifying him/her as to race?

 * Based on what continent, or area, or population, his or her ancestors were genetically isolated in, if they were isolated in that way for an amount of time significant enough to cause genetic differentiation. The other way, though infeasible, is to use DNA tests and group people by amount of DNA held in common.  Jalnet2 01:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Prior to the arrival of Western sailors, the aborigines in Australia were probably isolated for quite some time. I seem to recall 80,000 years, but maybe that is not right. Regardless, they were probably the most thoroughly isolated and for the longest time. But once the sailors got there, they were not genetically isolated anymore, no?

 * Well, you're right. If all European and Aborigine populalations were completely merged, and they were to interbreed together without reservation, then both the Caucasian race and the Australian Aboriginal race would cease to exist, and it would be replaced with an intermediary race.  So far, this has only partially happened, though.  Jalnet2 02:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Please check the "critera" section of the article on subspecies. There are no subspecies of Homo sapiens, correct?

 * Perhaps because it's not politically correct to do so? And because subspecial classification of humans is becoming more difficult and less useful because of the increasing rate at which we are interbreeding.

 * Carolus Linnaeus, the scientist who is maligned in the Race article, and who invented the taxonomical system itself, designated the following human subspecies:

 * Homo sapiens afer, Negroids
 * Homo sapiens asiaticus, Mongoloids
 * Homo sapiens europaeus, Caucasoids
 * Homo sapiens americanus, Native Americans

 * -Jalnet2 03:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I'm copying, with some minor changes to adapt it to this discussion, from the article on subspecies:

[Subspecies:] For two or more individuals to be considered as members of subspecies of the same species, they have to belong to different groups rather than in a single varied group, the differences among them must be distinct, not simply a matter of continuously varying degree. If, for example, the population in question is a type of frog and the distinction between two groups is that individuals living upstream are generally white, while those found in the lowlands are black, then they are classified as belonging to different groups if the frogs in the intermediate area tend to be either black or white, but a single, varied group if the intermediate population becomes gradually darker as one moves downstream.

[Subspecies:] This is not an arbitrary condition. A gradual change -- called a cline -- is clear evidence of substantial gene flow between the upstream and downstream populations. A sharp boundary between black and white, or a relatively small and stable hybrid zone, on the other hand, shows that the two populations do not interbreed to any great extent and are indeed separate forms.

[P0M:] Just as the coldest day of winter may seem too different from the hottest day of summer for there to be a continuum between the two, so, if one travels by air from "darkest Africa" to Lithuania, then one may see a stark contrast between people with white skins and people with black skins. But if you walk from one place to the other you will pass over large areas of intermediate coloration. That, as I understand it, is why humans are currently classified as Homo sapiens sapiens -- with no second sub-species being mentioned. P0M 04:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe this will help: From a biological point of view, a race is an extended family. Memebers of one race share more recent ancestors with each other than with non-members. Just how "recent" the ancestry you consider will determine the number and size of races you enumerate. The four classical human races account for some of the earliest lineage splits that are still distinguished among modern humans. Moreover, what's true of extended families is also true of races. That is, biological differences between races are merely aggregated individual differences. These differences can be striking or faint, depending on the details. And of course, the biological point of view is not by itself sufficult to explain the entire scope of race differences (just as it is not sufficent to explain differences between families.) --Rikurzhen 08:11, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Somewhere in the voluminous archives of this talk page is the URL of a good family tree based on mitochondrial DNA. Actually, now that I think of it, there are two charts of great interest. One of them is the same as the chart on p. 237 of Watson's DNA. These investigations produce some surprises regarding which populations have majority memberships that are closely related, and which have memberships that are remotely related. For instance, I for one would not have guessed how remote people from Sardinia are from people from Italy. As I look at the chart in DNA I actually have some trouble sorting out the "four classical human races." They are there, but, for instance, some Chinese are "next door neighbors" to the English, and some Chinese are "in the next block" with "Asian Indians, New Guineans... and somewhat more remotely with the Japanese." Meanwhile, the San, Mbuti, and Hausa are off on an island of their own. All of the information in these charts is useful and would probably do much to help sincere people avoid falling into errors of reasoning that lead to mistreatment of people on the grounds that knowledge of someone's race is grounds for generating an instant "rap sheet."

[P0M:] One approach to an article on race would be to include only the information that is backed up with solid evidence. But what happens if all of the history of the formation of this idea is omitted? What happens if the information provided in an article on race is not adapted to the social context? P0M 17:41, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:]I found the source of the other chart. See Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations Peter A. Underhill1, et alia © 2000 Nature America Inc. • http://genetics.nature.com

This chart, too, gives a very different picture of the "main human races".P0M 18:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have a profound problem with the current introduction. Personally, were I a biologist and were I committed to using the word "race," I would use it exactly as the introduction describes. But this is only how some biologist use the term. The article should not privilege one point of view. I am assuming that a number of people would like this opening because it is a relatively uncontentious way to talk about race -- as I just said, I personally think it is a reasonable definition. The problem is, "race" is a very contentious issue and I think the article has to explain how and why from the beginning. Any introduction that privileges a relatively uncontentious approach is going to mislead many people.

The problem is not easily resolved by identifying "who" uses this definition of race, and who uses other definitions. This is not a distinction between biologists who use one definition of race and social scientists who use another -- social scientists study how biologists use race, for example. Nor is it a deistinction between a folk-taxonomy and a scientific taxonomy, or between scientists and the general public -- one of the defining features of modern Western culture is that folk-taxonomies reflect the views of scientists and scientific taxonomies reflect folk taxonomies.

Thus, there are some biologists and most physical anthropologists (who are not "social scientists") who simply reject the word "race" and instead use "population." And there are many biologists, and non-biologists who use the biological taxa, who use it in racist ways. I think that the introduction to the article must introduce people to this broader field in which people talk about "race" -- some who use it in racist ways, others who reject the term for that reason, others who redefine the term to make it un-racist. I think the current introduction really introduces only this first point of view. Without contextualizing it in terms of the other two points of view, it is misleading. Slrubenstein

[P0M:] I agree. See my remarks above Slrubenstein's.

[P0M:] One way to sort out complex situations like this is to examine what people were looking at in the beginning of a discussion, how they interpreted it, where they were essentially correct, and where they went wrong.

I begin to think that we are running into a peculiar US usage here. Has the term race become so loaded with other meanings in the US that biologists are afraid to use it these days? In almost all its shades of meaning, race is, at root, a biological term. (Yes, people twist and reinterpret the meaning of it a great deal, but at root it remains a fairly straightforward biological concept). Be that as it may, it would be quite silly to refuse to consider the primary meaning first - just as silly as it would be to consider a mathematical concept like average without making the formal mathematicial definition clear at the outset. Tannin 20:39, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] "Race" is a word that has strong negative connotations -- probably not only in the U.S. I believe that if it is true that "Race is not 'conceptually similar' to subspecies: it is an exact synonym," then people who are sensitive to the possibility of giving unintended support to racism might well avoid using the word "race." It is important, particularly for the U.S. readers and others that have absorbed some version or other of racism, that one can note one or two "marker traits" such as skin color or nose shape and by that means know their quality as human beings. It is ironic that in the U.S. a person with one black parent and one white parent is black and therefore bad in the eyes of some people. What is the race of a honeybee that has one Cyprian parent and one Italian parent? A reputable bee supply house would not sell Italian queens mated to Cyrpian drones as suitable for producing Italian colonies. Does one speak of the products of such a mating as belonging to one or another subspecies, to one or another race? I think not. But the word "race" is regularly misused in this way because anyone with even a lighter shade of the African coloration is capped as a "black." It has become a real issue for some people in the U.S. whether they are to be checked off as "black" or "white" on census forms. If one has one Native American grandparent, one Japanese grandparent, one white grandparent, and one black grandparent, the census type question becomes both ridiculous and also intrusive. But just try to tell the average person that "Betty" doesn't have a race. P0M 22:51, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tannin, I respect your views, but surely you know that what is considered the "primary meaning" is itself a matter of POV. Race certainly is about biology, but that does not mean that its meaning is dictated by biologists. Biologists in the 19th century used the term in a racist way, and there are biologists in the United States and Canada who continue to use it in a racist way (and I'd be very surprised to learn this is only true of Canada and the United States; discourse is not bounded the same way states are). There are many biological scientists (for we are not just talking about biologists) who use the word "population" the way you use race. Beyond this I also think POM's points are important, Slrubenstein

[P0M:] I wonder about the historical objectivity of the first paragraph, too. Saying, "Race is a type of classification used to group members of a particular species who for a period of time have become geographically or genetically isolated from other members of that species, and as a result have diverged genetically and have developed certain shared genetic characteristics that differentiate them from other members of that species," is true, but not the only thing that can be said about race. It makes the assignment of individuals to races a rather clinical matter, an objective undertaking. In fact, however, anyone with a dark skin who appears in the visual range of people who care to make racial discriminations will likely be categorized as being of African descent -- even if they are Shan tribesmen fresh in from the Golden Triangle or natives of Sri Lanka. I believe that racial categorization has historically been made either on geographical grounds (They are all black and they are all from Africa, therefore they must be "family.") or on the basis of superficial characteristics. Just how common is it for people assigning individuals to racial categories to check on anything beyond self reporting, hair texture, skin color, nose shape... How common is it to check for agenesis, shovel-shaped incisors, padded arches of the feet, plate-form ear wax... I suspect that people only pay attention to the items that require closer than arm's length investigation when they are investigating the characteristics of a population of Chinese, a population of Sardinians, etc. I think it has only been relatively recently that one could even make the measurements necessary to assign people to races based on the criteria quoted above. P0M 01:41, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Just did some re-checking. There is only one living "subspecies" of Homo sapiens. The Neanderthals died out long ago. So either "race" means something different from "subspecies" or else there is only one living race of humans. P0M 07:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[Peak to Tannin:] You wrote in an edit summary:
 * The fact that "race" is a term in standard, everyday use in all manner of biological works: just how long a list do you want?

How does one prove that All swans are white? It's pretty hard.

Surely the fact that there has been recent disagreement on this Talk page about the precise meaning of the word race in "biology" is sufficient to prove that there is disagreement about the meaning of the word in biology. If not, then I suggest you review the very extensive "Talk" history, which shows that almost everything about race (except perhaps the English spelling) is controversial. This is exactly what the preamble states. If you haven't read the NPOV tutorial, please do so. Peak 04:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Surely the fact that you are profoundly ignorant of normal usage in the literature is irrelevant. I told you and told you and told you, yet you still continue to mindlessly revert. Let's take a look shall we? I'm going to wander around the room picking up books at random.

First book on top of the pile (because I refer to it constantly): Michael Morecombe, Field Guide to Australian Birds. I pick it up, flick open a page at random, select a random entry. Yellow-throated Scrubwren. Leaving out the irrelevant bits, it reads as follows: "Variation: probably 2, perhaps 3 races. In NE Qld, race cairnsi is isolated. In NSW, nomonate race citreogularis may be split, intergrading in NE NSW with race intermedius, which extends into SE Qld."

Next up, a field guide to Australian fish. After a five minute look I can't find race, but then I can't find subspecies either: fish, it seems, are not so well studied. Hell - they are still finding whole new fish species in WA, so I guess that's not surprising.

Work down the pile: a history of the Battle of Alamein, no use looking there, ahh, Pizzey and Knight, The Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Another random page. Restless Flycatcher: "Range and status: n, e, se, and sw Aust. and coastal islands: race nana from Broome (WA) through Kimberley and Top End (NT), s. to Morphett Ck-Alexandria ....." (I'll leave out the rest, it goes on to describe other races.

This stuff is as common as mud. I simply cannot understand why anyone objects to it. Tannin

 * [Peak:] Sometimes truth is in inverse proportion to certainty. The ICZN does in fact define race:

RACE: an infrasubspecific (qv) category which has no status under the Code.

INFRASUBSPECIFIC: of a category or name - of lower rank than the subspecies, and, as such, not subject to regulation by the Code (qv) e.g. form, race, variety. Article 1.3.4.

Thus, at least so far as the English-speaking international zoological community is concerned, race is not an exact synonym of subspecies.

I invite someone to modify the preamble appropriately. Otherwise, when I get around to it, I plan to do so.

Please note that I am not in any way disputing that in some communities, 'race'' is used as an exact synonym for "subspecies", or that in some communities it is used to mean a grouping based on shared ancestry at some level of analysis. On the contrary, many of us have maintained all along that much of the confusion about race stems from the multiple meanings of the word. Peak 02:01, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I think we've already established that race has several different usages. The intro gives a short whirlwind tour of them, which is as it should be.  I think many of the things you have put in (such as the Templeton quote and the ICZN notes) could be useful contributions to this article, but in the various POV-elaborating sections, not the intro.  I understand your unhappiness with the removal of the heavy detail from the intro, but in the interests of having a bite-sized intro and keeping balance and NPOV we can't put it all in.  By the way, I think your last edit (moving the one sentence out, followed by my flow adjustment) was quite good and addressed your concerns without crossing others'. -- VV 02:13, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Tannin, by your own words, race is an exact synonym for subspecies. Further, you stated (correctly) that “human variation does not qualify under any definitions in current use.” The Neanderthals all being dead, that means that there being only one extant subspecies there is only one extant race of humans P0M 14:50, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That is exactly what I have been saying from the start. The fact that you refused to listen is your problem. Tannin

Tannin, please try to be a little less pretentious and arrogant.

 * It was not me that started this. I was perfectly polite until Peak started his senseless reversion campaign and then capped it off by pretending I didn't know what NPOV was. Tannin

The sentence "Surely the fact that you are profoundly ignorant of normal usage in the literature is irrelevant"
 * It's a paradody of Peak's arrogant and condescending phrasing in the post immediately above. Don't hang me for defending myself, hang the one who started it. Tannin

is not constructive, especially when you leave out of this first sentence, after "the literature" the crusial phrase "on Australian fish and birds." Tannin, I defer to your expertese on Australian fish and birds. But this is not an article on "Race in the literature on Australian fish and birds." It is a general article on "race." I fully agree that a section of the article should discuss "race" as used by zooligists, or at least field zooligists. But don't you understand why POM, Peak, and I are all concerned about how "race" is used by scientists who study human beings, and how non-scientists use the term when discussing human beings? I admit to my ignorance of Australia.

 * In broad, race is not used by scientists who study human beings as there are no human races in the biological sense of the word. (Yes, there are a few, a very few, who do not accept the general consensus on this, but they are a tiny minority.)

Perhaps racism is not an issue in Australia (yes, I know that racism is a seperate article, but it is called "racism" because it is predicated on assumptions about "race" which is very much the concern of this article) -- although from what I have read of the treatment of Australian and Tasmanian aborigenes, I would have thought that there has been a tremendous discourse of "race" as applied to human beings is essentializing ways. Well, that is neither here nor there since this is not an article specifically about Australia. I do not know anything about Peak and POM, but I can tell you that in the United States and Latin America the word "race" is generally not used the way you use it, except by some biologists; most scientists use the word "population" and "race" is used in a very different way. From what I have read this is true in France, and at least used to be true in Germany. Let's all agree that Peak is ignorant of fishes in Australia, but I am sure he knows things of which you (and even I!) are ignorant.

I asked a colleague of mine who is a tenured professor in biology, and has published in peer-reviewed articles. I do not say this to intimidate anyone; I am just trying to avert Tannin's reckless accusations of ignorance. My colleague replied (I asked about subspecies too, which is why he addresses this term):

 * Under the modern synthesis of evolution by Mayr, Dobzshanski, etc. the use of RACE as a term for a geographically delineated population (formally recognized as subspecies) was dropped. Evolutionary biologists haven't really used that word since the 1940's although it may pop up here and there.  AND moreover, since the 1970's even the taxonomic category of SUBSPECIES has become very unpopular for four very good reasons:

 * 1. very little data to suggest that contiguous subspecies ever become species
 * As I understand it, the literature does not contain even one single documented case of a pair of contiguously distributed subspecies of bird. I imagine that the same applies to other taxa (including mammals), as the contiguous distribution itself is very powerful evidence to suggest that we are not looking at a race at all but simply a variation within a single population.

 * 2. disjunct (geographically) subspecies usually can be demonstrated to actually be species

 * 3. subspecies were often recognized on the basis of only 2-5 phenotypic characters which often were just adaptations to local environments and didn't reflect the evolutionary differentiation of populations as a whole

 * 4. with the advent of molecular techniques to get a better handle on genetic introgression (gene flow), the picture afforded by looking at genetic variation was often at odds with the phenotypic variation (as is the case with looking at genes versus percentage of epidermal melanin in human populations)

Now, Tannin, I have never objected to including your definition as one of the possible definitions of race. I only said that it should not be privileged. I, Peak and POM have tried to explain, numerous times, why. Please stop asking repeatedly why we don't agree with you. Given how much effort we have made to explain ourselves, your insulting demeanor really is uncalled for.Slrubenstein

[Peak:] Thank you, Slr. I would like to add that, however common the use of the word race may be in the study of honeybees, fish, birds, plants, and so on, Tannin has made a much broader claim about biologists as a whole. Do virologists use the term at all? When botanists use the term, does it have the exact meaning of "variant" or of "subspecies" or something else, or is there a shade of meanings? Rather than engaging in revert wars and trading insults, can we see the evidence, especially from international organizations that offer definitions of technical terms? Peak 16:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * If you want to replace the word "biology" with the word "zoology" that is fine by me. I have not done so because that then requires that, in order to retain accuracy, we probably then need to add a subsiduary clause saying "and also in botany" - and who knows in what other sub-fields of biology? I know it applies in the areas I have some knowledge of, whether it applies to others as well I do not know. Tannin

Race as a type of intraspecies classification is fine, but otherwise the current intro still ignores all of my, Peak's, and POM's objections. Slrubenstein

Are you talking about the first para, SLR? If so, then I don't like it either. Indeed, a re-write of the entire intro would be a good thing, IMO. Tannin

About the first para, yes, we agree. About the rest -- Tannin, thank you for your considered reply. I'm sorry I did not realize the history behind the antagonism -- obviously, we should all be civil. In my experience here, though, sarcasm and tit-for-tat have never helped a situation. In any event, I appreciate your clarification. The problem remains, however. Some biologists do use race in a way that I now see all of us would reject. But they still do -- I remember a year or two ago having a several day feud with JDG who insisted on the biological reality of race among humans as the scientific view. Moreover, most humans who use the word "race" use it to talk about humans and make assumptions about biology. We may disagree with these assumptions; most scientists may. My point is that the article must address all these issues, and the introduction must introduce the entire article. It cannot privilege the zoological use of "race" as the "primary" meaning. This is actually where we started, Tannin-- I responded to your point and tried to explain (politely) why I objected, and you responded by asking how anyone (which I took to include me) could disagree with you, which seemed to be dismissive of my attempt to explain precisely that earlier. I hope you see my point. Slrubenstein


text:
Louis-Georges de Bréquigny

Louis-Georges-Oudard-Feudrix de Bréquigny (22 February 1714 – 3 July 1795), was a French scholar. He was born at Granville, Manche in Normandy.

His first publications were anonymous: a History of the Revolutions of Genoa up to the Peace of 1748 (Histoire des revolutions de Gênes jusqu'à la paix de 1748; 1750), and a series of Lives of the Greek Orators (Vies des orateurs grecs; 1752). In 1754 he was given the task of completing the work of Eusèbe de Laurière, later continued by Denis-François Secousse, on the Ordonnances des Rois de France de la 3e Race. Secousse had published nine volumes and Bréquigny published five more up to 1790. In 1811, Emmanuel de Pastoret published the last eleven volumes. Elected a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in 1759, he contributed a History of Postumus, Emperor of the Gauls (Histoire de Posthume empereur des Gaules; vol. XXX, 1760) to the collected works of that illustrious society, and also a Dissertation on the Establishment of the Religion and Empire of Muhammad (Mémoire sur l'établissement de la religion et de l'empire de Mahomet; vol. XXXII, 1761–1763).

After the close of the Seven Years' War he was sent to search in the archives of Great Britain for documents bearing upon the history of France, more particularly upon that of the French provinces which once belonged to England. This mission (1764–1766) was very fruitful in results: Bréquigny brought back from it copies of about 7000 documents, which are now in the Bibliothèque Nationale. A useful selection of these documents was published (unfortunately without adequate critical treatment) by Jacques Joseph Champollion-Figeac, under the title Letters of Kings, Queens and Other Persons of the Courts of France and England, from Louis VII to Henry IV (Lettres de rois, reines et autres personages des cours de France et d'Angleterre, depuis Louis VII. jusqu'à Henri IV.) (collection of Unpublished Documents Relating to the History of France (Documents inédits relatifs a l'histoire de France), 2 vols., 1839, 1847).

Bréquigny himself drew the material for many important studies from the rich mine which he had thus exploited. These were included in the collection of the Académie des Inscriptions:
 * Dissertation on the Differences between France and England during the Reign of Charles the Fair (Mémoire sur les differends entre la France et Angleterre sous le règne de Charles le Bel; vol. XLI)
 * Dissertation on the Life of Mary, Queen of France, Sister of Henry VIII, King of England (Mémoire sur la vie de Marie, reine de France, sœur de Henri VIII., roi d'Angleterre; vol. XLII)
 * four Dissertations to Serve the History of the Town of Calais (Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de la ville de Calais; vols. XLIII and L)
 * Dissertation on the Negotiations Concerning the Marriage Plans of Elizabeth, Queen of England, First with the Duke of Anjou, Then with the Duke of Alençon, Both Brothers of King Charles IX of France (Mémoire sur les négociations touchant les projets de mariage d'Elisabeth, reine d'Angleterre, d'abord avec le duc d'Anjou, ensuite avec le duc d'Alençon, tous deux frères de Charles IX, roi de France; vol. I)

This last was read to the Academy on 22 January 1793, the morrow of Louis XVI's execution. Meanwhile, Bréquigny had taken part in three great and erudite works.

To the Chronological Table of Diplomas, Charters, Letters, and Printed Acts Concerning the History of France (Table chronologique des diplômes, chartes, lettres, et actes imprimés concernant l'histoire de France) he contributed three volumes in collaboration with Mouchet (1769–1783). Charged with the supervision of a large collection of documents bearing on French history, analogous to Rymer's Foedera, he published the first volume (Diplomas, Charters, Letters, and Other Documents Relating to French Affairs, etc., in Latin: Diplomata, chartae, epistolae, et alia documenta, ad res Francicas spectantia, etc., 1791). The Revolution interrupted him in his collection of Dissertations Concerning the History, Sciences, Letters, and Arts of the Chinese Mémoires concernant l'histoire, les sciences, les lettres, et les arts des Chinois), begun in 1776 at the instance of the minister Bertin, when fifteen volumes had appeared.

See the note on Bréquigny at the end of vol. I of the Dissertations of the Académie des Inscriptions (Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions; 1808); the introduction to vol. IV of the Chronological Table of Diplomas (1836); Champollion-Figeac's preface to the Letters of Kings and Queens; the Committee of Historical Works (Comité des travaux historiques), by X. Charmes, vol. I passim; N. Oursel, New Norman Biography (Nouvelle biographie normande; 1886); and the Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Duchesne and Bréquigny Collections (Catalogue des manuscrits des collections Duchesne et Bréquigny; in the Bibliothèque Nationale), by René Poupardin (1905).

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

title: Louis-Georges de Bréquigny


text:
Amy Winfrey

Amy Winfrey is an American animator, screenwriter, songwriter, director and voice actress. She is best known for creating the web series Making Fiends that was later picked up by Nickelodeon in 2008, and for directing several episodes of BoJack Horseman, including "The View From Halfway Down" and "Free Churro", which were each nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program at the 71st and 72nd Primetime Creative Arts Emmys.

Career
Winfrey studied animation at UCLA and made a 3D film called The Bad Plant, which won her a silver medal at the Student Academy Awards in 2000. While attending school, Winfrey worked as an animator on South Park starting with the pilot episode, The Spirit of Christmas: Jesus vs. Santa in 1995. When Comedy Central picked up the series, Winfrey remained part of the animation team and continued to work on the show, pausing her schooling to work on the feature film South Park Bigger, Longer & Uncut.

In a UCLA class, Winfrey made a website dedicated to traffic cones. Because of many visitors on the traffic cone website, Winfrey decided to create a series of short web cartoons, and the result was Muffin Films. The first was created as a thesis project in 2000 and lasted twelve episodes, one for each muffin in a dozen. The series explored different styles of Flash animation through twelve different shorts, using muffins as the subject of the stories. To celebrate the 10th Anniversary of Muffin Films, Amy Winfrey created six additional cartoons for the series.

In 2001, Winfrey created another web series, Big Bunny. Winfrey provided all of the voice acting, except for the eponymous character who is voiced by her husband, Peter Merryman. Winfrey pitched it as a series for NBC and Fox in 2002, but neither picked it up.

In 2008, Winfrey started Squid and Frog, short cartoons about a red squid and an orange frog, who sing about various things, such as that you can't learn surgery from television.

On 6 October 2018, Winfrey released a web cartoon called Hooray For Hell, co-created by Peter Merryman. The series is about a girl who wakes up in Hell after voting for president and gets a ticket to Heaven. There are three episodes available on YouTube. They can be found by clicking the link in the description of the trailer on Winfrey's main channel. After a hiatus, the show's final two episodes were uploaded on May 27, 2020.

Making Fiends
Winfrey created Making Fiends in 2003 as a web cartoon. The series has 21 episodes created between 2003 and 2005. Winfrey voiced several characters, including Charlotte. Winfrey was able to produce web animation full time after she began selling merchandise of her characters online. Nickelodeon contacted Winfrey in early 2004 about bringing Making Fiends on TV. The series only had one season, airing from October 4 to November 1, 2008, on the secondary channel Nicktoons Network. Viacom, now Paramount Global, retained the rights to the property after the series was canceled. Despite the limited run, the series was named "Best Television Series" at Annecy International Animation Film Festival in 2008.

Recent work
For a five-year period between 2014 and 2019, Winfrey worked as director on all six seasons of the Netflix animated series BoJack Horseman, typically working on three episodes per season, including some of the series' most notable episodes, Zoës and Zeldas, Brand New Couch, Hank After Dark, Thoughts and Prayers, Ruthie, Free Churro, The New Client, and the show's penultimate episode, 'The View From Halfway Down.' She was nominated twice for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences for "Free Churro" and "The View From Halfway Down". She also worked on the second season of 'Greatest Party Story Ever', an animated episode of Adam Ruins Everything, the first season of Tuca & Bertie, and is currently a supervising producer on Velma.

Personal life
Winfrey resides in Los Angeles, California with her husband, Peter Merryman. She has also been an educator teaching animation at the UCLA Animation Workshop.

Muffin Films
Episode list

Big Bunny (2001)
Episode list

BoJack Horseman episodes
Season One Season Two Season Three Season Four Season Five Season Six
 * "Zoës and Zeldas"
 * "The Telescope"
 * "Downer Ending"
 * "Brand New Couch"
 * "Still Broken"
 * "Hank After Dark"
 * "Escape from L.A."
 * "BoJack Kills"
 * "Brrap Brrap Pew Pew"
 * "Best Thing That Ever Happened"
 * "That Went Well"
 * "See Mr. Peanutbutter Run"
 * "Thoughts and Prayers"
 * "Ruthie"
 * "The Dog Days Are Over"
 * "Free Churro"
 * "Head in the Clouds"
 * "The New Client"
 * "A Quick One, While He's Away"
 * "Sunk Cost and All That"
 * "The View From Halfway Down"

title: Amy Winfrey


text:
Hugh I, Duke of Burgundy

Hugh I (1057 – August 29, 1093) was duke of Burgundy between 1076 and 1079. Hugh was son of Henry of Burgundy and grandson of Duke Robert I. He inherited Burgundy from his grandfather, following the premature death of Henry, but abdicated shortly afterwards to his brother Eudes I, in order to become a monk at Cluny. He briefly fought the Moors in the Iberian Peninsula with Sancho of Aragón.

His entry to Cluny in 1079, after sustaining injuries in battle, and at the same time than Guy I of Mâcon and Guigues II of Albon, drew criticism from the pope Gregory VII. Gregory thought he had not made sure the duchy was at peace, and was thus endangering the lives of many christians. He took vows as a monk and later became prior of the Benedictine Abbey of Cluny.

title: Hugh I, Duke of Burgundy


text:
House on Haunted Hill

House on Haunted Hill is a 1959 American horror film produced and directed by William Castle, written by Robb White and starring Vincent Price, Carol Ohmart, Richard Long, Alan Marshal, Carolyn Craig and Elisha Cook Jr. Price plays an eccentric millionaire, Frederick Loren, who, along with his wife Annabelle, has invited five people to the house for a "haunted house" party. Whoever stays in the house for one night will earn $10,000. As the night progresses, the guests are trapped within the house with an assortment of terrors. This film is perhaps best known for its promotional gimmick Emergo.

The film uses many props used in carnival haunted houses to generate fear and terror. The film is in the public domain.

Plot
Frederick Loren, an eccentric millionaire, invites five people to a party he is throwing for his fourth wife, Annabelle, in an allegedly haunted house he has rented. He promises to give each guest $10,000 with the stipulation that they stay the entire night in the house after the doors are locked at midnight, all the windows are barred, and there are no phones or radios to use. The guests are test pilot Lance Schroeder, newspaper columnist Ruth Bridges, psychiatrist Dr. David Trent, who specializes in hysteria, Nora Manning, who works for one of Loren's companies, and the house's owner, Watson Pritchard. All are strangers to both the Lorens and each other, their only commonality being their lust for money.

The Lorens have a tense relationship. Frederick is convinced Annabelle tried to poison him to acquire his wealth, which Annabelle somewhat evasively denies, attributing his suspicions to paranoia and jealousy. Watson believes the house is genuinely haunted by the ghosts of those murdered there, including his own brother; he claims to have spent one night there before and "was almost dead" when found the next morning. He gives a tour of the house, including a vat of acid in the basement, which a previous resident used to kill his wife. When Lance and Nora remain behind to further explore the basement, Lance is locked in an empty room and struck on the head, while a menacing ghost confronts Nora.

Annabelle privately warns Lance that her husband is scheming something and that she suspects him of murdering his second and third wives after his first wife disappeared. The guests learn the party's rules downstairs, and each is given a Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammer for protection. Having encountered further apparitions, Nora decides against staying the night, but the caretakers lock the doors five minutes early, taking that option out of the guests' hands.

Hearing a scream, Lance and David find Annabelle's corpse, suspended to suggest she hanged herself, but the absence of a perch immediately arouses suspicions of murder. Nora confronts Lance and tells him an unseen assailant strangled her and left her for dead. In light of Annabelle's warnings, they both suspect Frederick. He tells her to remain out of sight so that her attacker will still think she is dead. Lance and David propose that everyone stay in their rooms and shoot anyone who enters to survive the night. Thus the innocents will have no reason to leave their rooms (and a good reason to stay inside them) and the killer must stay put or admit guilt.

Nora is chased from her room into the basement by Annabelle's ghost. Aroused by the ghostly sounds, David concludes that the killer is about and proposes he and Frederick split up to search the house. Lance uncovers a secret room at the end of the second-floor hall, but the door shuts behind him once he enters, trapping him. David instead meets with Annabelle, who had faked her death using a hanging harness and sedatives. Secretly lovers, the two of them have orchestrated the various mishaps to manipulate Nora into killing Frederick. Nora, seeing Frederick enter the basement with a gun in his hand, does indeed shoot him. After she flees, David slips in to dispose of Frederick's body in the vat of acid, and the lights go out.

Annabelle walks to the basement to confirm her husband is dead. A skeleton rises from the acid, accuses her in Frederick's voice, and shoves her into the vat. Frederick emerges from the shadows, holding the puppeteer control unit that he used to manipulate the skeleton and revealing he had known their plot all along.

After Nora, Watson, and Ruth release Lance from the secret room, Nora tells them that she shot Frederick. When they arrive in the cellar, Frederick explains that he loaded her gun with blanks, that his wife and David plotted to kill him, and that they both met their ends in the vat of acid. He says he is ready for justice to decide if he's innocent or guilty. Watson remains convinced the house is haunted, with David and Annabelle now added to its ranks of ghosts, and that he will be the next victim.

Cast

 * Vincent Price as Frederick Loren
 * Carol Ohmart as Annabelle Loren
 * Richard Long as Lance Schroeder
 * Alan Marshal as Dr. David Trent
 * Carolyn Craig as Nora Manning
 * Elisha Cook Jr. as Watson Pritchard (credited as Elisha Cook)
 * Julie Mitchum as Ruth Bridgers
 * Leona Anderson as Mrs. Slydes
 * Howard Hoffman as Jonas Slydes

Production
Exterior shots of the house were filmed at the historic Ennis House in Los Feliz California, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and built in 1924. The bulk of the film was shot on sound stages, depicting the interior of the house in a combination of styles, including 1890s Victorian, with gas chandeliers and sconces. The poster for the film included an illustration of a house in yet a third style, that of a fanciful four-story Romanesque structure.

The theatrical trailer promoted the film as The House on Haunted Hill, although all advertising material and the title on the film itself were simply titled House on Haunted Hill.

The film is perhaps best known for a promotional gimmick used in the film's original theatrical release called "Emergo." In some theaters that showed the film, exhibitors rigged an elaborate pulley system near the theater screen which allowed a plastic skeleton to be flown over the audience during a corresponding scene late in the film. (Several modern repertory cinemas including the Film Forum, Loew's Jersey Theatre, and Music Box Theatre (Chicago) have hosted revival screenings of the film during which the "Emergo" gimmick has been recreated.)

Thanks in part to Castle's gimmickry, the film was a huge success. Alfred Hitchcock took notice of the low-budget film's performance at the box office and made his own low-budget horror film, which became the critically acclaimed hit Psycho (1960). Castle was himself a Hitchcock fan and tried to imitate Hitchcock's work in his later films such as Homicidal (1961).

It was reported that Carol Ohmart was supposed to record the theme in the opening credits, but the idea was scrapped.

Release
House on Haunted Hill was originally released theatrically by Allied Artists. "In the theatre," recalled Aerosmith's Steven Tyler, "they had a wire and a ghost came down and made everybody jump out of their seats. The girl you were with screamed, you screamed, and then, you know, everybody went home happy."

Lorimar Productions released the film on VHS cassette on CBS/Fox Video's Key Video in October 1985. Two major studios have released it on home video in remastered versions. Warner Home Video released the film on DVD as a tie-in to the release of the 1999 remake. In 2005, the film was colorized by Legend Films. The color version was released on DVD the same year by 20th Century Fox. Extras prepared by Legend Films for the Fox DVD release included an audio commentary track by comedian Michael J. Nelson of Mystery Science Theater 3000, two versions of the trailer, and a slideshow of images from the film's original press book.

Johnny Legend released a 50th anniversary DVD containing many extras such as both the original theatrical trailer and TV spots plus several William Castle and Vincent Price theatrical trailers, a Carol Ohmart profile and "golden age" TV shows starring Vincent Price. A DivX file of the colorized version with the commentary embedded is available as part of Nelson's RiffTrax On Demand service. In 2009, a newly recorded commentary by Nelson, Kevin Murphy and Bill Corbett was released by RiffTrax. The RiffTrax team performed a Live RiffTrax of House on Haunted Hill on 28 October 2010.

House on Haunted Hill was released in a restored Blu-ray edition as part of Shout! Factory's 2014 Vincent Price Collection II.

On 28 September 2011, the estate of William Castle released an annotated screenplay from House on Haunted Hill which is a copy of the shooting script along with Castle's "margin notes" and the leather-bound style Castle used for his shooting script. This edition includes introductions from Joe Dante and Castle's daughter Terry. It also features its own version of "Emergo" in which the skeleton appears to readers via a "flip page" method. Mondo Media re-released the film 2015 as part of his Mondo X Chiller series on 28 March 2015 in the Alamo Drafthouse in Yonkers, New York.

Reception and legacy
On Rotten Tomatoes the film has received a "fresh" 79% rating based on 42 retrospective reviews, with an average rating of 7.20/10. Allmovie has praised the film retrospectively, writing, "Campy and creepy in equal measures, House on Haunted Hill deserves its status as a horror classic."

The film was also spoofed by RiffTrax on February 9, 2009.

A sequel novel, House on Haunted Hill: Resurrection (ISBN 979-8988682301), written by Gary J. Rose, was published in 2023 as "a contemporary reimagining of the iconic Vincent Price horror film", taking place and continuing the events of the original film twenty years later; an unabridged audiobook recording of the novel was released on October 25, 2023.

Remakes
The film was remade as the 1999 film House on Haunted Hill, which had a 2007 sequel titled Return to House on Haunted Hill. The 1999 film was released to negative reviews but was a box office success, while the 2007 sequel was direct-to-video and widely panned.

As of 2017, another remake is in development along with a prequel to the original film, with the latter being written by Castle's daughter Terry Castle.

title: House on Haunted Hill


text:
Talk:Integrase

How does it work?
Hello, Is there a specific DNA sequence where integrase works? Is the viral DNA capable to enter in any site of human genome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.44.250 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

is there a difference between HIV and HIV-1 integrase?

HIV has two most common strains HIV-1 and HIV-2 in North America/ Europe and Africa, respectivly.

 * I have no idea, but a good place to take these questions might be Reference Desk. Yours, Meelar 14:59, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Restructure
Ok this page needs some major revamping....

My current research involves both HIV-1 and RSV integrase. When I have time I'm gonna come in here and write up a nice article.

Image
Hello, does anywhere on the internet exist a 3D image, animation or chemical structure chart of already integrated DNA (with exact molecules/atoms)?

RE: What are you asking here? There is no published data in regards to where integrase is bound to either viral or cellular DNA. Integrated DNA would essentially look like any DNA molecule.

 * I posted a more detailed question at Science section at Reference Desk at Nov.10th 2007. Thanks for any help. I'm just looking for published papers, books or anything covering base pair sequences of already integrated HIV viral DNA around those "attachement" sites. I apologize for my bad English.

Integrons using integrase
Integrons also use integrase to pick up bacterial genes/casettes of genes and recombine them in other situations eg. in plasmids/genomes. Are integrons considered viruses? I would suggest that the field considers integrons as mobile elements in prokaryotic genomes which contribute significantly to their evolution. There's a good review of integrons here : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7783631?dopt=Abstract I may do something to this page myself if I have time after revision pet (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Protein Databank and Last Paragraph
The last paragraph says, "Elucidation of the HIV-1 integrase structure has been unsuccessful despite numerous efforts.". However, casually searching the Protein Databank ([www.pdb.org]), I found:

 * HIV INTEGRASE CORE DOMAIN COMPLEXED WITH TETRAPHENYL ARSONIUM (1HYV, 2001)
 * HIV integrase (3LPT, 2010)
 * HIV integrase (3LPU, 2010)

Is this technically correct? --InsufficientData (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I skimmed the Nature article. I think the article makes the point that the so-called "intasome" hasn't been solved (the integrase + all the helper proteins it uses to perform its splicing activity).  I'm unsure if the the PDB structures I referenced include the full conformation given all helper enzymes.  There could in theory be an active site change with and without the helper proteins which is significant.  --InsufficientData (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Integrase


text:
Odo I, Duke of Burgundy

Odo I (1060 – 1101/2 Tarsus), also known as Eudes, surnamed Borel and called the Red, was duke of Burgundy between 1079 and 1102. Odo was the second son of Henry of Burgundy and grandson of Robert I. He became the duke following the abdication of his older brother, Hugh I, who retired to become a Benedictine monk at Cluny.

He participated in the French expedition to the Iberian peninsula, started after the Battle of Sagrajas and ending with little accomplished in the failed Siege of Tudela in 1087. Later, he participated in the Crusade of 1101, where he died, while in Asia Minor, in 1101/2.

In a charter from his expedition to the Iberian peninsula, he admitted he had withheld property belonging to the abbey of Saint-Philibert de Tournus, an abbey patronized by his aunt Constance, wife of Alfonso VI of León and Castile. In 1101, when leaving on crusade, he made a gift and a will in favor of the abbey of Molesme. Also when leaving on crusade, he signed a charter of renunciation at St. Beningne de Dijon and another at the priory of Gevrey-Chambertin.

An incident is reported of Odo by an eyewitness, Eadmer, biographer of Anselm of Canterbury. While Saint Anselm was progressing through Odo's territory on his way to Rome in 1097, the bandit, expecting great treasure in the archbishop's retinue, prepared to ambush and loot it. Coming upon the prelate's train, the duke asked for the archbishop, whom they had not found. Anselm promptly came forward and took the duke by surprise, saying "My lord duke, suffer me to embrace thee." The flabbergasted duke immediately allowed the bishop to embrace him and offered himself as Anselm's humble servant.

Family
Odo married Sibylla of Burgundy, daughter of William I, Count of Burgundy. They had:
 * Helie of Burgundy 1080–1141, wife of Bertrand of Toulouse and William III of Ponthieu
 * Florine of Burgundy 1083–1097, wife of Sweyn the Crusader, prince of Denmark
 * Hugh II of Burgundy 1084–1143
 * Henry 1087–1125, a priest

title: Odo I, Duke of Burgundy


text:
Talk:Industrial sociology

what is industrial sociology. various answer of writer of writer.

Proposal to change page name to Sociology of Work
This is all Wikipedia has on this gigantic topic? Didn't anybody here take a sociology 101 class in college? Trickrick1985 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The term "industrial sociology" is not synonymous with "sociology of work", for in that case the activity of work is solely identified with work carried out in industrial societies or settings. Is it the case that "service work" should not be considered work? Today the sociology of work embraces, for instance, both work carried out in the service sector as well as unpaid household work. Furthermore, work sociologists may be interested in the meaning the concept of work had during the European Middle Ages as well as actual work practices in the old Persian Empire before and after Islamicization, to mention but two examples.

As a "main entry" I strongly urge a change to "sociology of work", which, taking nothing away from the huge historical significance of industrial work, sets the record straight in respect of what studies on "work" are all about. --LAC (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I couldn't agree more. The sociological study of work emerged during the era of industrialisation in Europe, and for as long as bureaucracy was the central fascination of the study of work, industrial sociology and sociology of work were roughly synonymous. For the last few decades, however, sociological studies of work have been more concerned with post-bureaucracy (e.g. Hochschild's The Managead Heart), pre-bureaucracy (e.g. as in the historical studies mentioned above), and the organisation of work in societies that are transitioning directly from agrarian to the post-industrial information age (e.g. studies of the use of mobile banking services among farmers in Kenya). So, I'm seconding LAC's opinion and if no one else objects I'll change the article to Sociology of Work when I get around to it. I also updated the heading for this section to reflect the name change proposal.Isaac.holeman (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Industrial sociology


text:
Hugh II, Duke of Burgundy

Hugh II of Burgundy (1084 – c. 6 February 1143) was Duke of Burgundy between 1103 and 1143. Hugh was son of Odo I, Duke of Burgundy. Hugh was selected custos for the monastery of St. Benigne, and this office would be held by his descendants until the end of the twelfth century.

Marriage and issue
He married, c 1115, Matilda of Mayenne, daughter of Walter, Count of Mayenne and Adelina de Presles.

They had the following:
 * Aigeline (b.1116), married Hugh I, Count of Vaudemont
 * Clemence (b.1117), married Geoffrey III of Donzy
 * Odo II, Duke of Burgundy, (1118–1162) married Maria of Champagne
 * Gauthier, Archbishop of Besançon (1120–1180)
 * Hugh le Roux (1121–1171) married Isabel of Chalon
 * Robert, Bishop of Autun (1122–1140)
 * Henry, Bishop of Autun (1124–1170)
 * Raymond, Count of Grignon (1125–1156) married Agnes of Montpensier
 * Sibylla (1126–1150), married Roger II of Sicily
 * Ducissa (b.1128), married Raymond de Grancy
 * Matilda (1130–1159), married William VII of Montpellier
 * Aremburge (b.1132), Nun

title: Hugh II, Duke of Burgundy


text:
Odo II, Duke of Burgundy

Odo II (1118 – 27 June (or 27 September) 1162) was Duke of Burgundy between 1143 and 1162.

Family
Odo was the eldest son of Hugh II, Duke of Burgundy and Matilda of Mayenne, daughter of Gauthier, Count of Mayenne and Adelina de Presles. Odo married Marie, daughter of Theobald II, Count of Champagne and Matilda of Carinthia.

Odo and Marie had:
 * Alix (1146–1192), married in 1164 to Archambaud (died 1169), son of Archambaud VII (died 1171), Lord of Bourbon
 * Hugh III, Duke of Burgundy, his successor in the duchy
 * Mahaut (died 1202), married Robert IV, Count of Auvergne

title: Odo II, Duke of Burgundy


text:
Combined Chiefs of Staff

The Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) was the supreme military staff for the United States and Britain during World War II. It set all the major policy decisions for the two nations, subject to the approvals of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

History
It emerged from the meetings of the Arcadia Conference in Washington, from December 22, 1941, to January 14, 1942. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, Prime Minister Churchill and his senior military staff used Arcadia as an opportunity to lay out the general strategy for the war. The American Army Chief of Staff George Marshall came up with the idea of a combined board, and sold it to Roosevelt and together the two sold the idea to Churchill. Churchill's military aides were much less favorable, and General Alan Brooke, the chief of the British Armed Forces, was strongly opposed. Brooke believed that if the Western Allies were placed under international unified commands the United States would become dominant, and also feared that the situation of the CCS in Washington D.C. would leave Britain unable to initiate military policy. However, Brooke was left behind in London to handle the daily details of running the British war effort, and was not consulted. Charles de Gaulle requested Free French representation on the committee but was declined along with the other Western Allies.

As part of Marshall's plan, Roosevelt also set up a Joint Chiefs of Staff on the American side. The combined board was permanently stationed at the United States Public Health Service Building in Washington, where Field Marshal John Dill represented the British half. The CCS was constituted from the British Chiefs of Staff Committee and the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, The American unit was created in part to present a common front to the British Chiefs of Staff. It held its first formal meeting on 9 February 1942 to coordinate U.S. military operations between War and Navy Departments.

The CCS charter was approved by President Roosevelt 21 April 1942. The American members of the CCS were General George C. Marshall, the United States Army chief of staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold R. Stark (replaced early in 1942 by Admiral Ernest J. King); and the Chief (later Commanding General) of the Army Air Forces, Lt. Gen. Henry H. Arnold. In July 1942 a fourth member was added, the President's personal Chief of Staff, Admiral William D. Leahy, who chaired the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

On the British side the Chiefs of Staff only normally attended during the heads of states' conferences. Instead the British Joint Staff Mission was permanently situated in Washington, D.C. to represent British interests. The British members were a representative of the prime minister, in his capacity as Minister of Defence, and the Chiefs of Staff Committee, which consisted of the First Sea Lord, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and the Chief of the Air Staff, or the Washington representative of each. The representative of the Prime Minister was Field Marshal Sir John Dill and after his death Field Marshal Sir Henry Maitland Wilson. The Washington representatives of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, who normally met with the United States members in place of their principals, were the senior officers from their respective services on the British Joint Staff Mission in Washington. In the course of the war, the First Sea Lord was represented by Admiral Sir Charles Little, Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, Admiral Sir Percy Noble, and Admiral Sir James Somerville; the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was represented by Lt. Gen. Sir Colville Wemyss and Lt. Gen. G. N. Macready; and the Chief of the Air Staff was represented by Air Marshal D. C. S. Evill, Air Marshal Sir William L. Welsh, and Air Marshal Douglas Colyer. Dill, a close friend of Marshall, often took the American position and prevented polarizations that would undermine effectiveness.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff organization included the Combined Secretariat and a number of committees.

In the spring of 1942, Britain and the United States agreed on a worldwide division of strategic responsibility. On 24 March 1942, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff were designated as primarily responsible for the war in the Pacific, and the British Chiefs for the Middle East-Indian Ocean region, while the European-Mediterranean-Atlantic area would be a combined responsibility of both staffs. China was designated a separate theater commanded by its chief of state, Chiang Kai-shek, though within the United States' sphere of responsibility. Six days later the Joint Chiefs of Staff divided the Pacific theater into three areas: the Pacific Ocean Areas (POA), the South West Pacific Area (SWPA), and the Southeast Pacific Area. The Pacific Ocean Area command formally became operational on 8 May.

The CCS usually held its meetings in Washington. The full CCS usually met only during the great wartime conferences on grand strategy, such as at Casablanca (see List of World War II conferences). The meetings of heads of government at those conferences were designed to reach formal agreement on issues thoroughly staffed by the CCS. At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, General Frank Maxwell Andrews was appointed commander of all United States forces in the European Theater of Operations.

Although it was responsible to both the British and American governments, the CCS controlled forces from many different countries in all theaters, including the Pacific, India and North Africa. Representatives of allied nations were not members of the CCS but accepted procedure included consultation with "Military Representatives of Associated Powers" on strategic issues; see Pacific War Council.

The end of the war left the status of the CCS uncertain. Although Marshall and some American military leaders favored retaining it or a similar organization, the majority of the American public and government favored abandoning the bilateral Anglo-American command structure in favor of either multilateral pacts such as the United Nations or a return to United States non-interventionism. Many Americans also disapproved of British imperialism. However, support for closer bilateral military integration rose due to the beginning of the Cold War, including the exposure of Soviet espionage in the United States.

Much cooperation continued between the British and American militaries after the war including the Combined Chiefs of Staff structure, and it was used again during the Berlin Blockade of 1948. At the same time other major Western European countries increased their demands for representation in the CCS, as they all would all require American assistance in the event of a Soviet Armed Forces offensive into Western Europe. The formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which had a multilateral unified command between Anglo-America and Western Europe, eliminated the need for the CCS. The British government agreed to the dissolution of the CCS in exchange for closer cooperation with the United States Department of Defense in 1949.

Present day
Both the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the UK's Chiefs of Staff Committee met as a "Combined Chiefs of Staff Committee" around March 2013, the first time since their World War II meetings. This was held in Washington DC. Subsequent meetings were held in London 2014 and in the National Defense University, May 2015.

title: Combined Chiefs of Staff


text:
Hugh III, Duke of Burgundy

Hugh III (1142 – 25 August 1192) was Duke of Burgundy between 1162 and 1192. As duke, Burgundy was invaded by King Philip II and Hugh was forced to sue for peace. Hugh then joined the Third Crusade, distinguishing himself at Arsuf and Acre, where he died in 1192.

Life
Hugh was the eldest son of Duke Odo II and Marie, daughter of Theobald II, Count of Champagne.

The rule of Hugh III marked the ending of a period of relative peace in the duchy of Burgundy. Hugh was a belligerent man and soon was involved in conflicts against King Louis VII of France over their borders. When Philip Augustus succeeded Louis in 1180, Hugh seized the opportunity and forced several men to change their allegiance to Burgundy. Philip II was not happy with the loss of his vassals and invaded the duchy, besieging Châtillon in 1186. The town fell and with it, its garrison, commanded by Odo, Hugh's heir. A peace was negotiated and Hugh had to pay a high ransom for his son and give up ambitions over French territory.

In 1187, Hugh transferred the capital of Burgundy to Dijon, and endeavoured to turn the city into a major commercial centre.

Joins crusade
Hugh then turned his energies to the Holy Land, embarking in the Third Crusade in the retinue of Philip II. Hugh played a major role in the victory of the Battle of Arsuf (7 September 1191) and at the Siege of Acre. When Philip returned to France in July 1191, he left Hugh in charge of the French troops. In January 1192, Hugh traveled to Ascalon and argued with Richard I of England over pay for his troops. He died 25 August 1192 at Acre.

Marriage and issue
He was married twice:

Firstly, in 1165, to Alice (1145–1200), daughter of Matthias I, Duke of Lorraine; he repudiated her in 1183. With his first wife he had:
 * Odo III (1166–1218), his successor in the Duchy
 * Alexander (1170–1206), Lord of Montaigu, married Beatrix of Montaigu
 * Douce (1175 – c. 1219), married in 1196 Simon of Semur (d. 1219), Lord of Luzy
 * Alice (1177–1266), married Béraud VII, Lord of Mercœur and Robert VI, Dauphin d'Auvergne (d. 1252)

Secondly, in 1183, to Beatrice (1161–1228), Countess of Albon and Dauphine of Viennois, daughter of Guigues, Count of Albon and Dauphin of Viennois. With his second wife, he had:
 * Guigues VI (1184–1237), Dauphin of Viennois
 * Mahaut (1190–1242), married in 1214 John I, Count of Châlon and Auxonne (1190–1267)
 * Margaret (1192–1243), married in 1222 Amadeus IV (1197–1253), Count of Savoy

title: Hugh III, Duke of Burgundy


text:
User:Cyopardi

Cyopardi (born June 26, 1986) is a Wikipedia reader and occasional contributor, although he is "not an authority on anything".

Most of his edits fix typing errors.

His user name is, according to Cyopardi himself, a "nonsense name". He goes on to explain that where he comes from "C is never used, and Y certainly not right after C". The O, he says, is also "ridiculous". The latter half is similarly absurd, with "a P and an A, I don't know where to begin", he says, "It's all very confusing if you ask me".

Some handy Wikipedia places:

 * The utilities list, the only list you'll ever need.
 * Goings-on, keeping up with happenings around here.
 * Collaboration voting, for the discriminate Wikipedian.
 * Featured article voting, this is front page material.
 * The Pump, I've been told they're very friendly.
 * The manual of style, learn how to do it in style.
 * Recent changes patrol, when the regular Recent Changes doesn't cover it
 * The surveys, for filling out surveys.
 * Pages needing attention, these pages need extra love.

title: User:Cyopardi


text:
Odo III, Duke of Burgundy

Eudes III (1166 – 1218), commonly known in English as Odo III, was duke of Burgundy between 1192 and 1218. Odo was the eldest son of duke Hugh III and his first wife Alice, daughter of Matthias I, Duke of Lorraine.

Life
Odo did not follow his father's aggressive policies towards France and proved a worthy ally of king Philip II of France in his wars against John Lackland and the Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV of Germany. Of a phlegmatic temperament, he fought bravely against the latter in the Battle of Bouvines, where he lost, according to contemporary chroniclers, two horses beneath him.

Odo was also an important figure in the Crusade against the Cathars. When Philip II refused to get involved, the Odo stepped forward with the support of the local bishops and his vassals and organized the campaign of 1209 against the Cathar strongholds. Before leaving on crusade against the Cathars, Odo pledged the castle of Ile-d'Ouche and the village of Crimolois to the Knights Templar to assist them in the defense of the Catholic faith.

Marriages and issue
Odo married in 1194 Theresa of Portugal (1156–1218), the daughter of Afonso I of Portugal, and Matilda of Savoy. She was repudiated in 1195, having produced no children.

In 1199, Odo married Alice of Vergy (1182–1252), the daughter of Hugh, Seigneur de Vergy, by Gillette de Trainel. This marriage produced:
 * Joan (1200–1223), married Raoul II of Lusignan (died 1250), Seigneur d'Issoudun and Count of Eu.
 * Alice (1204–1266) married Robert I (died 1262) Count of Clermont and Dauphin of Auvergne
 * Hugh IV (1213–1272), his successor in the duchy
 * Beatrice (born 1216), married Humbert III of Thoire (died 1279)

title: Odo III, Duke of Burgundy


text:
Les Essarts, Forbes family estate

Les Essarts is the Forbes family estate at Saint-Briac, France, and the international family seat of the descendants of James Grant Forbes (b. Shanghai, China), a member of the Forbes family of China and Boston who settled in Brittany at Les Essarts. He is the grandfather of two famous politicians, Brice Lalonde, a Green Party candidate for President of France in 1981, and former US Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry, the Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America in 2004. Many of the Forbes family have socialized during summers spent in Brittany at Les Essarts.

Les Essarts had been occupied and used as a Nazi headquarters during World War II. When the Germans fled, they bombed Les Essarts and burnt it down. The sprawling estate was rebuilt in 1954.

title: Les Essarts, Forbes family estate


text:
Hugh IV, Duke of Burgundy

Hugh IV of Burgundy (9 March 1213 – 27 or 30 October 1272) was Duke of Burgundy between 1218 and 1272 and from 1266 until his death was titular King of Thessalonica. Hugh was the son of Odo III, Duke of Burgundy and Alice de Vergy.

Issue
Hugh married twice, first to Yolande of Dreux when he was 16 and she 17 years of age. He then married Beatrice of Navarre, when he was 45. With Yolande, he had: With Beatrice, he had:
 * Margaret, Lady of Molinot (1230s–1277), married first to William III, lord of Mont St Jean and then to Guy VI, viscount of Limoges; their daughter was the first wife of Duke Arthur II of Brittany
 * Odo (1230–1266), who married Countess Matilda II of Nevers
 * John (1231–1268), who married Agnes of Dampierre and had Beatrice, heiress of Bourbon
 * Adelaide, who married Duke Henry III of Brabant
 * Robert II (1248–1306), successor in the Duchy of Burgundy
 * Hugh, viscount of Avallon
 * Margaret, lady of Vitteaux, wife of John I of Chalon-Arlay
 * Joan, a nun
 * Beatrice, lady of Grignon (ca.1260–1329), who married Hugh XIII of Lusignan
 * Isabella, who married King Rudolf I of Germany

Early Years
His father died during the war of War of the Succession of Champagne in 1218. Hugh was an opponent of the regency of the County of Champagne by Blanche of Castile. With his father's death in 1218, he switched sides and joined the rebels in 1229. This led to blows with Theobald IV, Count of Champagne.

Hugh IV, through a transaction with John l'Antique de Chalon, gave up the barony of Salon for the counties of Chalon and Auxonne in 1237, which expanded the Duchy and the regional economy benefited from the growing wine trade.

Crusades
In 1239, Hugh joined the Barons' Crusade led by King Theobald I of Navarre and supported by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor. During this crusade, he was one of the nobles who sought battle with the Muslims against the advice of King Theobald and the Military Orders. Realizing that the expedition was disadvantageous, he opted to withdraw to Ascalon with Walter IV, Count of Brienne and a few others, avoiding the disastrous battle of Gaza. Soon after, King Theobald left for France and Richard of Cornwall arrived. He chose to ally with him, aid in rebuilding Ascalon and negotiated a peace with Egypt in 1241. He returned to Burgundy afterwards.

Hugh arrived at Cyprus by May 1249 and joined Louis IX of France on the seventh crusade. He led one of the two camps of the army that crossed during the siege of Mansurah, the other camp being led by the King of France himself. He was taken prisoner with his king during the retreat of Fariskur, following the betrayal of a treacherous sergeant. He would not be released until March 1252, as such he returned home.

In 1266, he met with Baldwin II, Latin Emperor, who sold Hugh the title of king of Thessalonica in exchange for reconquering his lost domains. Although it had been recaptured by Epirus more than 40 years before. The sale would only remain valid until Hugh aided in Baldwin's reconquest and should he fail to uphold his end, the title would pass to Charles I of Anjou and his heirs. The invasion wouldn't come to pass, as Pope Gregory X, under the false promise of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos to unite the churches, staved off any attempts.

In 1270, Hugh joined the Eighth Crusade. But after King Louis IX died, he returned home.

Death
Hugh IV died on 27 October 1272 (Aged 60) at Villaines-en-Duismois, France. His burial place is unknown.

title: Hugh IV, Duke of Burgundy


text:
List of members of the International Olympic Committee

This is a list of members of the International Olympic Committee. According to the Olympic Charter, the members of the IOC "represent and promote the interests of the IOC and of the Olympic Movement in their countries and in the organisations of the Olympic Movement in which they serve". Currently there are 106 members and 41 honorary members.

Current members
The chairperson of an international organization, who represents an Olympic sport (e.g. the chairman of World Athletics), is represented in the IOC "ex officio" (i.e., because of that position).

 * Athletes' Commission members are elected for eight-year terms.

Honorary Members
Most honorary members are former members who, after finishing their terms of office, are made honorary members.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VfD-Pav

Article Pav listed on WP:VFD May 1 to May 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Poorly written stub on someone whom I can't find on google. Propose to delete as unverifiable. Andris 15:10, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Read it again. This is some kid's vanity page. Delete -- Cyrius|&#9998 16:46, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. RickK 19:05, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I hate to be so harsh with the da Vinci of our time. Everyking 21:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * True. No great genius is appreciated in his time.  And this isn't the time.  Delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:28, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Hammer with a screwdriver attached? He, I invented the hammer with an anvil attached! Delete -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 01:15, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. And, after the page-blanking of the VfD page, delete with extreme prejudice. --Stormie 04:48, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for vanity, unless our "famous" inventor is willing to come to my house and demo his revolutionary invention by rebuilding my sun porch for free. Alcarillo 15:23, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Idiotic, nonencyclopedic, and unoriginal.
 * Stupid. Should have been speedily deleted. Delete now. PMC 20:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VfD-Pav


text:
Odo, Count of Nevers

Odo of Burgundy, in French Eudes de Bourgogne (1230 – 4 August 1266), was the Count of Nevers, Auxerre and Tonnerre and son of Hugh IV, Duke of Burgundy and Yolande of Dreux.

In 1265, Odo became one of the last European barons to lead a crusading force to the Holy Land. Among his fifty knights was Erard of Valery. He defended Acre when Sultan Baybars I harassed it on 1 June 1266 in advance of his besieging Safad. He died at Acre on 7 August 1266 and was buried in the church of Saint Nicholas. He left all his wealth to pay his followers and to endow hospitals and religious institutions. He was described by the Templar of Tyre as a "holy man", and his tomb attracted veneration. Within a year of his death, the poet Rutebeuf wrote a Complainte du comte Eudes de Nevers, a lament for a valiant knight and also for the city that lost its defender.

Burgundy passed to Odo's brother, Robert.

Marriage and children
Odo married Maud of Dampierre and they had:
 * Yolande, Countess of Nevers (1247–1280), married (1) John Tristan, Count of Valois, and (2) Count Robert III of Flanders
 * Margaret, Countess of Tonnerre (1250–1308), married King Charles I of Naples
 * Adelaide, Countess of Auxerre (1251–1290), married John I of Chalon, Lord of Rochefort
 * Joan (1253–1271), died young

title: Odo, Count of Nevers


text:
Robert II, Duke of Burgundy

Robert II of Burgundy (1248 – 21 March 1306) was duke of Burgundy between 1272 and 1306 as well as titular king of Thessalonica.

Robert was the third son of duke Hugh IV and Yolande of Dreux.

He married Agnes, youngest daughter of Louis IX of France, in 1279. They had the following children:

 * Hugh V, Duke of Burgundy (1282–1315)
 * Blanche (1288–1348), married Edward, Count of Savoy
 * Margaret (1290–1315), married king Louis X of France
 * Joan (1293–1348), married count of Maine and Valois, king Philip VI of France
 * Odo IV, Duke of Burgundy (1295–1350)
 * Louis, Prince of Achaea (1297–1316), married Matilda of Hainaut
 * Mary (1298–1336) married Edward I, Count of Bar
 * Robert, Count of Tonnerre (1302–1334), married Joanna, heiress of Tonnerre

In 1284, Robert was invested with the duchy of Dauphiné by Rudolf of Habsburg. This was followed by two years of warfare which was ended when King PhilipIV of France paid Robert 20,000 livres tournois to renounce his claim to the Dauphiné. He was among the French negotiators for the 1303 Treaty of Paris that ended the 1294–1303 Gascon War.

Robert ended the practice of giving away parts of the Burgundian estate to younger sons and as dowries to the daughters. From then on, the entire duchy (albeit diminished by earlier dowries) passed via primogeniture unfragmented to the duke's eldest son.

title: Robert II, Duke of Burgundy


text:
The Three Sisters (Ireland)

The Three Sisters (An Triúr Deirfiúr) are three rivers in Ireland: the River Barrow, the River Nore and the River Suir. The Suir and Nore rise in the same mountainous area in County Tipperary, near the Devil's Bit, while the Barrow rises in the Slieve Bloom Mountains in County Laois. The Nore flows into the Barrow about 17 km before the Suir and Barrow join to form an estuary called Waterford Harbour east of the city of Waterford. The rivers fan out to drain a large portion of the southern part of the island, including Counties Tipperary, Carlow, Kilkenny, Wexford and Waterford, among others.

The lengths of the three rivers of the Three Sisters are the Barrow - 192 km (119 mi), the Suir - 185 km (115 mi) and the Nore - 140 km (87 mi).

The combined catchment area of the Three Sisters is 9,207 km2, made up of the Suir's (3,610 km2), the Barrow's (3,067 km2) and the Nore's (2,530 km2).

The combined long term average flow rate of the Three Sisters into Waterford Harbour is 157 m3/s, almost half of which is made up of the Suir's (76.9 m3/s), followed by the Nore's (42.9 m3/s) and the Barrow's (37.4 m3/s).

The Barrow Bridge crosses two of the Three Sisters, the Nore and the Barrow. They then join the River Suir just downstream of the bridge. This place is known in Irish as Cumar na dTrí Uisce, "the confluence of the three waters". The Nore joins the Barrow some four kilometres north of New Ross and the combined waters of the three sisters that can be seen from Cheekpoint. The combined waters of all three sisters are then visible all the way down the estuary from Cheekpoint on.

In ancient times, the area bounded by the Suir and the Barrow formed the Kingdom of Ossory. This name is retained today for dioceses in both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland.

The first, the gentle Shure that making way By sweet Clonmell, adorns rich Waterford; The next, the stubborne Newre, whose waters gray, By faire Kilkenny and Rosseponte boord, The third, the goodly Barow, which doth hoorde Great heaps of Salmons in his deepe bosome: All which long sundred, doe at last accord To ioyne in one, ere to the sea they come, So flowing all from one, all one at last become. Excerpt from Edmund Spencer's Irish rivers. 1552-1559

title: The Three Sisters (Ireland)