text:
Category talk:Solar System

add objects
Before I go hog wild and add all the solar system objects to this category, instead of just the planets (which I did largely as an experiment to see how these category things work), I'm starting to think that this may be a good opportunity to work out a different categorization scheme. Perhaps instead of just one generic "solar system" category, we could have a sort of heirarchy:

 * Solar system - generic concepts like asteroid, natural satellite, gegenschein, Yarkovsky effect, etc.
 * Solar system object - All the specific individual chunks of matter orbiting the Sun
 * Planet
 * Moon
 * Asteroid

I haven't checked yet whether categories can be nested, which would be really cool; "Solar system object" could mostly just contain sub-categories that way. So, what do people think? Bryan 15:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Apparently they can be nested Category:Japanese food that has for example Category:Japan inside. Kpjas 15:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Categories seem potentially cool. I think it would be better to put articles into a hierarchy, rather than pile everything into Solar System. And, of course, Solar System should be a sub-category of Astronomy (sub-category of Science, etc.).

 * The thing that confuses me is: are users going to use this for navigation or not? It isn't very prominent on the Monobook page. If this catches on, we can probably eliminate the navigation footer. I'm not sure. -- hike395 15:20, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * At the moment, I'm thinking that categories aren't really a replacement for the navigation bar footers - though perhaps they will help take some of the pressure off for adding huge numbers of them to articles, which IMO will be nice. I think categories are more likely to serve as a replacement for things like List of astronomical topics - if each of the articles listed here had in it, then the old list page becomes virtually obsolete. Bryan 15:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * That seems right. If so, we should make a category hierarchy of solar system objects that reflects the hierarchy we present in our List of solar system objects, right? So, would be a sub-category here? Should we make one for the Kuiper Belt? --- hike395 05:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I was thinking sub-categories like that. I'm not sure what would be the best way to divide up the minor planets; perhaps Category:Asteroids, Category:Centaur planetoids and Category:Kuiper belt objects would be a good way to chop them up (perhaps with all of those as sub-categories of Category:Minor planets)? Category:Asteroids could get further sub-categories, but I don't imagine there are enough articles in the other two to warrant that for them just yet. A further issue; should there be a Category:Planets, and should it contain exoplanets? If it doesn't, then there's only nine - a pretty small category. Bryan 07:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * One cool feature about categories is that they don't have to be a strict hierarchy. So, we can make Category:Planets, which can contain the 9 + exoplanets and Category:Planets can belong to Category:Astronomy and the 9 planets can just belong at the top level of Category:Solar system (which makes sense from the Solar System way of looking at things). Under this scheme, Jupiter (planet) would belong to two categories, Solar System and Planet, which are both sub-categories of Astronomy (are categories singular or plural?).

 * To solve the Centaur problem, we could have Category:Minor planets, which can include Category:Asteroids, Category:Trans-Neptunian objects, and all of the misc minor planets like Centaurs. Are comets Minor Planets? --- hike395 16:17, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I've generally been giving categories plural names when they're closely analogous to the "List of" articles. There's a lot of discussion about this kind of thing over on Categorization, which I haven't been following very closely but which generally seems to conform to my expectations of how this will all play out (Categorization, in the case above). This page also suggests that categories should be "as heirarchical as possible", but I don't think that impacts your suggestion above; most articles will likely belong to several distinct branches of whatever category tree gets cobbled together. Mars is both Category:Planets and Category:Red things, for example, which I'm sure must share a common root somewhere along the line. Re: comets as minor planets, the intro paragraph of minor planet says they are but I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm the one that wrote that so don't necessarily trust it. :) Should Category:Minor planets be capitalized, BTW? I was under the impression not, but it's not my field. (edit: it just occurred to me that Category:Planetology will probably be handy, too. So many categories, so little time. :) Bryan 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * The Minor Planet Center seems to draw a distinction between minor planets and comets, see first paragraph of and . So, comets should probably belong to Category:Solar system, not Category:Minor planets. Of course, this throws a spanner into Centaur (planetoid) What do you think? --- hike395 04:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Minor planets
I agree with hike395. Comets are not minor planets. The objects smaller than the planets would be clumped into minor objects like this, for example:

 * Category:Solar System
 * Category:Solar System planets
 * Category:Minor objects
 * Category:Asteroids (Main belt/near Earth/Trojan asteroids)
 * Category:Comets
 * Category:Centaurs (possibly asteroid sub-group?)
 * Category:Kuiper Belt Objects (possibly asteroid sub-group?)
 * Category:Planets (all planets)

As far as I know, all the bodies have been officially classified as asteroids unless a coma is found. Then they're (re)classified as comets. Jyril 12:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi, Jyril. Saw your comments at Talk:Asteroid and Talk:Minor planet, but haven't had time to respond. So, let's separate issues of categorization (here) and naming of articles (over at Talk:Asteroid?).

 * I think that the primary goal of categories is to be reader-friendly. One aspect of being user-friendly is to not hide information that doesn't need to be hidden. Right now, there are only 23 articles in Category:Solar System (and a lot of those are articles about transits). So, we don't need to hide the most common ones (the 9 planets) in a sub-category -- they just don't take up that much room. If anything, the less common articles (like the transits) belong in their own sub-category.

 * After writing and browsing Wiki-categories for a while, I don't think we need to make a special "Minor objects" sub-category.. I would be happy with Asteroids, Comets, Centaurs, and TNOs (or KBOs) to live directly under Solar System. I would not hide Centaurs and KBOs under Asteroids, because most people would not think of looking there.

 * Another possibility is to have Centaurs and KBOs live in both Asteroids and Solar System, although that is sort of redundant. It's a pity that Wikipedia does not permit 2-level-deep category browsing (like Yahoo)

 * In summary, I think that reader-friendliness should be foremost in the design of the categorization.

 * -- hike395 15:46, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moons
What should we do about Category:Moons ? I can imagine a Category:Saturn or a Category:Saturn's moons, only the latter should be a sub-category of Category:Moons. And it seems silly to have both kinds of Saturn categories, since they overlap 98%. -- hike395 04:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Category:Saturn's moons would be a subcategory of Category:Saturn as well, so the overlap is more a feature than a bug IMO. That way the root Saturn category wouldn't be cluttered full of moons, and the handful of other Saturn-related topics (Voyagers I and II, Cassini-Huygens, etc.) would be easier to read (assuming there are enough to warrant a Saturn category, that is). Bryan 04:17, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Cool! and Category:Saturn's moons can be a child of both Category:Saturn and Category:Moons. This is actually working! I bet there is enough for a Saturn category. -- hike395 04:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Categories that are "list of" versus categories that are "articles about"
Been doing a lot of thinking about categories lately, and I think I may have been mixing two different philosophies inappropriately. For example, I put all of the articles whose primary subjects were moons of Jupiter in Category:Jupiter's moons, but then I also added all the articles whose primary subjects were some specific aspect of one of Jupiter's moons or were about Jupiter's moons in general (eg, List of craters on Ganymede or Galilean moons). If Category:Jupiter's moons is meant to be interpreted as "list of Jupiter's moons", then this was incorrect. If on the other hand it's meant to be interpreted as "List of articles about Jupiter's moons", they should be there. I've currently "demoted" those non-moon articles down to the root Category:Jupiter, which I feel much safer in interpreting as "list of articles about Jupiter," but before I start doing that on a wider scale I figured I'd mention my indecision here and see what others think. Bryan 01:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Solar System


text:
User:Marka971

Markus Källander, Stockholm, Sweden

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

title: User:Marka971


text:
Talk:Caudipteryx

The linked site is very nice but states that the bodyfeathers are "downy". This is simply incorrect - or at best ambiguous.

MWAK

Caudipteridae
Caudipteridae is the correct spelling for this family. Yes, it SHOULD be Caudipterygidae, but the authors (Zhou & Wang, 2000) did not form the name properly. I know that in some similar situations (like Ceratopia being used in place of Ceratopsia) people have gone ahead and ignored the original spelling or revised it themselves, but as Caudipteridae is a family-level taxon, it is goverened by ICZN priority rules and cannot be changed.Dinoguy2 14:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction- this would not apply to a situation like Ceratopsidae/Ceratopidae, since Article 29.4 only applies to family names formed after 1999.Dinoguy2 14:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Stub tag
Is a stub tag really necessary for this article? The history log shows it's nearly 7kb long, considerably longer than most dinosaur articles... Firsfron of Ronchester 15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added that after re-formatting and looking over some of the published material. There's a ton of material out there on Caudipteryx, and in my opinion this article right now doesn't do an adequate job of even summerizing it. It's a stub relative to available info, not overall length. Or is there a better term for that? (Ironically, I'd bet a majority of the file size is created by the references, each of which point to barely a sentence of text!). Dinoguy2 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dec 2007 edits
Dinoguy2, why did you take out all the stuff about Osmolska et al? Were my ref tags not working or what? The refs are good, from The Dinosauria and Vertebrate Paleontology by Benton! That's trustworthy stuff, and shows the diversity of opinion in this debate. And, again, tahnks for trying to fix up my crappy syntax. i fixed some myself and I tried to get the italics and punctuation right so as not to drive you crazy.Jbrougham (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi J! Sorry, might be confusing as I was having a hell of a time getting the ref tags to work. It's only necessary to use a full ref once. Subsequent times, simply use the (ref name="whatever"/) tag. That way, the same ref doesn't show up multiple times in the footnotes, instead it shows up once with multiple links back to its use in the text (^abc etc). This also helps keep the file size of the article down, as refs take up a lot of room! I didn't intentionally remove any refs completely--if I did by accident, of course feel free to replace them, provided they're not already in there somewhere. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor typo
The clause beginning with "as they are dromaeosaurids, ..." doesn't make sense as written. Perhaps it should be "as they are in dromaeosaurids, ..."? NoJoy (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect
Someone should redirect "caudipterix" to this page. 24.252.195.3 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the suggestion. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Birdlike
Maybe I'm asking a stupid question, but how can teeth be birdlike? As much as I know, no modern birds have teeth, only some have serrated edges of their bill. --77.77.241.97 (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends how you define bird, but most birds in the Mesozoic had teeth, and these teeth were similar to those in Caudipteryx. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --77.77.241.97 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caudipteryx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://arnica.csustan.edu/jones/Publications/pdf/Cursoriality.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319035031/http://www.rescast.com/specimens/show_specimen.php?SpecimenID=163 to http://www.rescast.com/specimens/show_specimen.php?SpecimenID=163

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Caudipteryx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217154732/http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/philip_currie/uploads/pdfs/1998/1998Caudipteryx.pdf to http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/philip_currie/uploads/pdfs/1998/1998Caudipteryx.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007140842/http://www.ivpp.ac.cn/pdf/magazine213.pdf to http://www.ivpp.ac.cn/pdf/magazine213.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.ivpp.ac.cn/pdf/magazine232.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604143708/http://www.amonline.net.au/chinese_dinosaurs/factsheets/13.htm to http://www.amonline.net.au/chinese_dinosaurs/factsheets/13.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040517083041/http://www.nhm.org/journey/prehist/birds/caudipteryx.html to http://www.nhm.org/journey/prehist/birds/caudipteryx.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117091248/http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/23/feathered.dinosaur/ to http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/23/feathered.dinosaur/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Feather colors
I've looked at the whole article, and it doesn't mention the color of it's feathers anywhere. Hopefully someone can add that in, along with a reference to the original study made by Xu Xing et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoman45 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Caudipteryx


text:
Flodafors

Flodafors is a small village in Katrineholm Municipality in Södermanland County, Sweden. Flodafors is often called Floda for convenience. Neighbouring villages include Bie and Valla. The village is located on the Western Main Line between Katrineholm and Flen. Floda is well known for Floda Church (Floda kyrka).

Floda Church
Floda church is in Katrineholmsbygden parish in the Diocese of Strängnäs of the Church of Sweden. The church is built of stone and was originally constructed during the 12th century. Some of the paintings in the church date to the 1480s and were made by Albertus Pictor (c. 1440 – c. 1507). Among the church's furnishings are an altar cabinet from 1450, the Renaissance-style pulpit from 1662 and the baptismal font which was donated in 1671.

In the 1630s, rebuilding began during which the church was extended and new sacristy was built. The choir was completed in 1666. In 1885–1888, the church was rebuilt into three-edged neo-Gothic brick basilica under the direction of architect Adolf Kjellström (1834-1932). The renovation utilized plans made by architect Axel Herman Hägg (1835-1921).

The church's main organ was built for the restoration in 1885 by the organ builder company P.L. Åkerman & Lund (Åkerman & Lund Orgelbyggeri) of Stockholm. It was restored during 2006.

Climate
SMHI has had a weather station operating in Floda since 1995. It has a borderline humid continental climate (Köppen Dfb) with sizeable maritime influence, resulting in mild winter averages for its latitude. Floda is still less influenced by the Baltic Sea than areas to its south such as Nyköping and Oxelösund, resulting in harsher winter frosts and larger summer diurnal temperature variation than the coastal parts of the county. Although a -33.2 C reading occurred at the station's location measured in a brief existence of a similar station on 20 February 1963, the chart below only records the modern inceptions' extremes. Due to Flodafors being distinctly influenced by being in the interior, it has some of the warmest average afternoon summer temperatures in all of Scandinavia.

Recent events
In 2007, the Social Democrats and the Left Party in Katrineholm Municipality decided to shut down the elementary school in Flodafors. News of closure pulled off a great public protest, led by people in Flodafors. The Floda independent school association formed and has been operating school activities since the fall of 2009, in the old school premises.

Other sources

 * Robert Bennett; P-O Karlsson (1988) Floda kyrka : Oppunda härad, Södermanland (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell)

title: Flodafors


text:
Florence Baptistery

The Florence Baptistery, also known as the Baptistery of Saint John (Battistero di San Giovanni), is a religious building in Florence, Italy. Dedicated to the patron saint of the city, John the Baptist, it has been a focus of religious, civic, and artistic life since its completion. The octagonal baptistery stands in both the Piazza del Duomo and the Piazza San Giovanni, between Florence Cathedral and the Archbishop's Palace.

Florentine infants were originally baptized in large groups on Holy Saturday and Pentecost in a five-basin baptismal font located at the center of the building. Over the course of the 13th century, individual baptisms soon after birth became common, and less apparatus was necessary. Around 1370 a small font was commissioned, which is still in use today. The original font, disused, was dismantled in 1577 by Francesco I de’ Medici to make room for grand-ducal celebrations, an act deplored by Florentines at the time.

The Baptistery serves as a focus for the city’s most important religious celebrations, including the Festival of Saint John held on June 24, still a legal holiday in Florence. In the past the Baptistery housed the insignia of Florence and the towns it conquered and offered a venue to honor individual achievement like victory in festival horse races. Poet Dante Alighieri was baptized there and hoped, in vain, that he would “return as poet and put on, at my baptismal font, the laurel crown.” The city walls begun in 1285 may have been designed so that the baptistery would be at the exact center of Florence, like the temple at the center of the New Jerusalem prophesied by Ezekiel.

The architecture of the Baptistery takes inspiration from the Pantheon, an ancient Roman temple, as observers have noted for at least 700 years, and yet it is also a highly original artistic achievement. The scholar Walter Paatz observed that the total effect of the Baptistery has no parallels at all. This singularity has made the origins of the Baptistery a centuries-long enigma, with hypotheses that it was originally a Roman temple, an early Christian church built by Roman master masons, or (the current scholarly consensus) a work of 11th- or 12th-century “proto-Renaissance” architecture. To Filippo Brunelleschi, it was a near-perfect building that inspired his studies of perspective and his approach to architecture.

The Baptistery is also renowned for the works of art with which it is adorned, including its mosaics and its three sets of bronze doors with relief sculptures. Andrea Pisano oversaw the creation of the south doors, while Lorenzo Ghiberti led the workshops that sculpted the north and east doors. Michelangelo said the east doors were so beautiful that “they might fittingly stand at the gates of Paradise.” The building also contains the first Renaissance funerary monument, by Donatello and Michelozzo.

State of knowledge
Florentines once believed that the Baptistery was originally a Roman temple dedicated to Mars, or a remnant of the city’s rebirth after the Ostrogoths’ ravages. In the modern period skepticism mounted until these legends were abandoned in the nineteenth century, in part because excavations revealed that a very different structure, a large house, was present at the site in Roman times. A burial ground with rough-hewn stones from around the 7th century has also been discovered beneath a portion of the building.

No documents pertaining to the construction of the Baptistery have survived, and passing references to a church of Saint John the Baptist cannot establish its existence because the former Cathedral, now known only as Santa Reparata, was once also referred to as the church of Saint John the Baptist.

The overwhelming scholarly consensus today, based on its construction technique and architectural style, is that the origins of the Baptistery are to be found in the 11th or 12th century. Developing a more precise dating has been difficult because of two confounding indications in Ferdinando Leopoldo Del Migliore’s Firenze città nobilissima (1684). According to one, Pope Nicholas II consecrated the Baptistery in 1059; according to the other, a baptismal font was brought into the Baptistery in 1128. Scholars have struggled to make sense of two apparent markers of completion almost 70 years apart, many supposing one must be mistaken in whole or in part.

In the 2020s archival research among the manuscripts of Del Migliore and a close associate revealed that neither claim is accurate: the Baptistery was not consecrated in 1059, and no baptismal font was introduced in 1128. Del Migliore’s work has a history of not withstanding close scrutiny. Authorities started to notice errors in Firenze città nobilissima soon after it was published, and in the 20th century, a philologist demonstrated that Del Migliore falsified the existence of a medieval Florentine named Salvino degli Armati.

Determining a date for the Baptistery, therefore, depends entirely on relating the evidence inherent in the building itself to the broader context. In the 1930s, Walter Horn’s study of Florentine masonry technique (refinement of stone cutting, mortar application, course patterning) showed that the sandstone construction of the lower levels of the Baptistery was close to that of the church of Santi Apostoli and of the later portions of San Pier Scheraggio, both of which documents allow us to date to the 1060s or 1070s. It is not as refined as the later parts of San Miniato al Monte, datable to 1077-1115.

The appeal of the 1070s
A hypothesis published in 2024 proposes the early 1070s for the origins of the Baptistery. Not only is this grounded in the masonry evidence, it would explain a cryptic archeological finding in the 1970s. Excavations beneath the Piazza del Duomo uncovered two lime kilns, and radiocarbon dating of charcoal within them indicated a range of years centered around 1073. Since the cathedral had been renovated from the mid-1030s to mid-1050s, scholars have been unsure what large building project the kilns could have served in this later period. Del Migliore’s false constraints now removed, it seems plausible that it could have been the Baptistery.

An origin in this period would fit well with the historical context. In the 1060s, reformist Vallombrosian monks accused bishop Pietro Mezzabarba of Florence of simony, specifically of having obtained his office through a corrupt offering of money made by his father. Their accusations gained traction among Florentines, to the point that, according to Peter Damian, they no longer accepted the chrism Mezzabarba consecrated for the baptism of their children, and sought baptism elsewhere. This situation seems to have persisted for three years until 1068, when a Vallombrosian brother underwent a trial by fire in front of the Badia a Settimo to prove the righteousness of the monks’ accusations. His survival made the bishop’s position untenable, and Mezzabarba left Florence that summer.

An ambitious building program that would restore the authority of the bishop and help ensure that he oversaw the communal baptism of Florentine infants on Holy Saturday, as canon law required, could plausibly have been a priority for both the Catholic Church and the rulers of the March of Tuscany, of which Florence was an important administrative and religious center. In the early 1070s Tuscany was ruled by Beatrice of Lorraine and her daughter Matilda of Tuscany, close allies of Pope Alexander II (d. 1073) and Pope Gregory VII (on the papal throne 1073-1085). These powerful figures would have had the capacity to sponsor a building as ambitious and costly as the Baptistery. In fact, it has been difficult to explain how “little Florence,” as Peter Damian called it, could have built such an extraordinary church. As one author recently argued, 11th-century Florence on its own seems unequal to the task “not only on an artistic level, but also economically, technically, and organizationally.”

The references the Baptistery makes to the Pantheon also support the hypothesis of the involvement of a pope. In the eleventh century, the Pantheon, converted to a church in 609, was officiated only on the most important holidays, and only for masses celebrated by the pope himself. Moreover, papal interest in the Roman empire was high. Pope Alexander II sponsored the construction of Sant'Alessandro Maggiore in Lucca, with ancient capitals and imitative medieval counterparts, and very likely a classicizing facade. The appearance of the demolished church of Santa Maria in Portico in Rome, consecrated by Pope Gregory VII in 1073, is unknown, but it had a Roman ara, a pagan altar, inscribed and repurposed for Christian use (now in Santa Galla, Rome). Church poetry compared Pope Gregory to Julius Caesar, and in a letter Gregory himself stated that the reach of the Church now exceeded that of the Roman Empire. The Church at this time also believed in the Donation of Constantine, according to which the pope inherited the temporal authority of the Roman emperor, justifying his equality with or supremacy over the Holy Roman Emperor in Germany. If interest in antiquity had arisen in Florence organically, one would expect more Florentine Romanesque churches to cite ancient buildings. Instead, parts of the Baptistery completed only a generation or two later, such as the interior gallery level, show a typically medieval delight in geometric and figurative ornament, foreign to the severe interior of the Pantheon.

The architect
Stylistic similarities suggest the same architect may have designed the Baptistery, Santi Apostoli, and San Miniato al Monte. The affinity of the plan of San Miniato (portion begun 1077) with that of the demolished church of Santa Maria in Portico (consecrated by Pope Gregory VII in 1073) could indicate the hand of the same architect, strengthening the case that the architect of the Baptistery came from the papal entourage in Rome. The presence on the Baptistery of a motif including a round-arched window flanked by windows with triangular tympani, also seen on the facade of the Basilica of San Salvatore, Spoleto, could possibly indicate that the architect had been to Umbria.

Octagonal design
The octagon was a common shape for baptisteries since early Christian times. Other early examples are the fourth-century Battistero Paleocristiano excavated beneath Milan Cathedral and the fifth-century Lateran Baptistery. The eight-sidedness of these structures was significant. As Timothy Verdon writes, “while man’s earthly life unfolds in units of finite time like the week with its seven days, in Baptism believers pass over into eternal life, beyond measurable time. They enter into the ‘eighth day’.”

Although the plan of the Pantheon is circular, it can be divided into eight slices, and thus lends itself to reuse in an octagonal building.

Construction and pre-existences
Giovanni Villani records that the lantern atop the dome was completed in 1150. It is the first known example of this element in the history of architecture.

Excavations show that the building originally had a semicircular apse. Giuseppe Richa recorded that the present rectilinear scarsella was begun in 1202, but his stated archival source cannot be verified. The installation of the lantern in 1150 presupposes a broad dome, which likely would not have survived the removal of a semicircular apse from beneath it. Thus the scarsella may actually date shortly before 1150.

Thick walls beneath the floor of the Baptistery form an inner octagon whose size is approximated by the innermost portion of the Baptistery pavement. The purpose of these walls is obscure, but scholars have suggested that they were part of a smaller baptistery that preceded the current one, that they enclosed a full-immersion basin, or that they held up a ring of columns like in the Lateran Baptistery or Santo Sepolcro, Pisa.

Florence undoubtedly had a baptistery before the present one, but whether it existed at the same location, or was placed somewhere else near the cathedral (the Milan baptistery was behind the cathedral), is a matter of ongoing debate and inquiry.

Design and Adornment
The Baptistery has eight sides ornamented with classical architectural elements over marble incrustation marked by two-color geometric patterns. A rectilinear apse called a scarsella expands out of the west side. The other sides are each adorned with three blind arches, of equal size on the intercardinal faces, and with an expanded central arch on the faces that include a doorway. Within these arches are windows with monumental surrounds modeled after the aedicules inside the Pantheon. Several different marbles are used, principally white Carrara marble and a green-black serpentinite from Prato. The architecture of this church would serve as an important influence for Renaissance architects including Filippo Brunelleschi and Leone Battista Alberti.

The zebra-stripe corners are not part of the original design, but were added in 1293, as work on the new cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore began. They covered blocks of sandstone, the stone used for the building structure. The porphyry columns on either side of the Gates of Paradise were plundered by the Pisans in Majorca and given in gratitude to the Florentines in 1117 for protecting their city against Lucca while the Pisan fleet was conquering the island. As a painted cassone in the Bargello shows, they were originally freestanding in Piazza del Duomo. Badly damaged in a storm in 1424, they were placed in their current location a few years later.

The cassone also shows the medieval decorative scheme, in which a group of statues by Tino di Camaino surmounted each door. The surviving statues are now in the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, with a Charity in the Museo Bardini possibly sharing the same provenance.

During the Renaissance, new sculptural groups were commissioned: above the south door, Vincenzo Danti's Beheading of the Baptist (1569-70); above the east door, a Baptism of Christ begun by Andrea Sansovino in 1505 (Baptist), continued by Vincenzo Danti in 1568-1569 (Christ), and completed by Innocenzo Spinazzi in 1792 (angel); and above the north door, a Baptist Preaching by Francesco Rustici (1506-11), strongly influenced by Rustici’s friend Leonardo da Vinci who depicted the subject himself. Today, all three groups are in the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo. Only the Baptism of Christ has been replaced by a copy, the spaces above the other two doors now being empty.

Above the main two levels of the exterior, and set back from them, is an attic level, likely completed in the 1130s. It contains the “only error” Brunelleschi said he could find in the building: a horizontal entablature that bends to become vertical, contrary to the practices of classical architecture.

Baptistery doors
The three monumental sets of doors made for the Baptistery, masterpieces of Gothic and Renaissance art, are now preserved in the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, opposite a reconstruction of the Cathedral facade as it would have appeared when the last of them was completed. Copies, made between 1990 and 2009, now hang at the Baptistery within the original door frames. Each set of doors presents chronological Biblical scenes in a different way — as separate doors, each reading across, top to bottom; as a single composition across two doors reading bottom to top; and as two great columns reading left to right and top to bottom.

Andrea Pisano: South doors
In the 1320s, the powerful guild that had the patronage of the Baptistery, the Arte di Calimala, determined to embellish it with a set of doors for the south portal, through which parents bearing infants for baptism are believed to have entered. By 1329 they settled on a highly ambitious plan inspired by then-still-unrivaled doors for Pisa Cathedral made by Bonanno Pisano 150 years earlier. Andrea Pisano made wax models for bronze reliefs that were executed by Venetian masters, which he then gilded. The year in which they were begun, 1330, appears above the doors, but they took six years to complete. The historian Giovanni Villani was trusted with oversight of the project, as he later recalled proudly.

The doors present twenty scenes retelling the life of the Baptist, the patron saint of Florence, in gilded bronze, many clearly inspired by the fifteen scenes from his life depicted on the interior mosaic ceiling or the three scenes painted by Giotto in the recently-completed Peruzzi Chapel. George Robinson calls this a “visual epic, in which from the very beginning the hero strives to reach his goal, suffers an ordeal and triumphs in the paradox of his own death.” The lower two registers of the doors represent hope, faith, charity (the three theological virtues) as well as humility, above fortitude, temperance, justice and prudence (the four cardinal virtues).

The reliefs are characterized by small figures with a monumental presence. Emotion is measured but unmistakable, as in the scene of the Baptist’s anguished disciples putting him to rest. Although the quatrefoil borders may have been imposed by another artist involved in the project, Andrea Pisano generally finds ways to work within them. For example, the architecture and drapery rhythms in the scene of the Baptist’s funeral artfully confront the enclosing shape. Kenneth Clark notes that Andrea’s style is “profoundly human” and that whereas “Giotto’s men and women are types; Andrea’s are individuals.”

The frame around the doors, completed over a century later by the workshop of Lorenzo Ghiberti’s son Vittorio, show Adam and Eve after the Fall of Man and the infant Cain and Abel fighting, below flowers and fruits symbolic of the original sin that baptism could remove.

North doors

In 1401, the Arte di Calimala asked seven Tuscan sculptors to make a relief of the Sacrifice of Isaac, promising that the most successful would receive a major commission: reliefs for a new set of doors on the east side of the Baptistery. The outstanding entries by Ghiberti and Filippo Brunelleschi, now in the Museo del Bargello, are usually considered to mark the beginning of the Renaissance in Western art. Ghiberti received the commission, although it is uncertain whether the 34 judges unanimously declared him the winner, as he asserted in his Commentari, or whether they were deadlocked between him and Brunelleschi, as a biography of Brunelleschi written 80 years later claimed.

In November 1403, representatives of the Arte signed a contract with the 25-year-old Ghiberti. His work was largely finished by summer 1416, but he would lead the project until the doors’ installation on Easter of 1424. The 21-year enterprise proved extremely expensive, equivalent to the annual Florentine defense budget and almost as costly as Florence’s purchase of the entire city of Sansepolcro a few years later. Ghiberti’s salary was equivalent to that of a manager of a Medici bank.

Above eight panels representing the Four Evangelists and the Church Fathers Saint Ambrose, Saint Jerome, Saint Gregory and Saint Augustine, the life of Christ from the New Testament is told in twenty panels reading from bottom to top, following the “upward path of salvation”. George Robinson writes that “Ghiberti’s Christ is a dignified, resigned, almost aloof Messiah, whose attitude and behavior have consistently an overtone of sadness and separateness.”

In these doors Ghiberti seems to move from a devotion to the International Gothic style to an embrace of Renaissance values. On the one hand, Ghiberti emphasizes sinuous lines and works carefully within the medieval quatrefoil format, making few references to antiquity in most of the panels. Nonetheless, he is an innovator, overcoming the limitations of his format by implying a new sense of three-dimensionality through foreshortening, swelling drapery, differing levels of relief, and architecture angled away from the viewing plane. And in a few panels assumed to have been made later, like the Flagellation, Ghiberti shows a strong interest in antique sculpture and architecture. The panels are surrounded by a framework of foliage in the door case and gilded busts of prophets and sibyls, as well as a self-portrait of the middle-aged Ghiberti, at the intersections between the panels.

East doors (Gates of Paradise)
Ghiberti was now widely recognized as a celebrity and the top artist in this field. He was showered with commissions, even from the pope. In 1424 he received a second commission, this time for the east doors of the baptistery, on which he and his workshop (including Michelozzo and Benozzo Gozzoli) toiled for 27 years, excelling themselves. These had ten panels depicting scenes from the Old Testament, and were in turn installed on the east side. The panels are large rectangles and are no longer embedded in the traditional Gothic quatrefoil, as in the previous doors.

Ghiberti employed the recently discovered principles of perspective to give depth to his compositions. Each panel depicts more than one episode. In "The Story of Joseph" is portrayed the narrative scheme of Joseph Cast by His Brethren into the Well, Joseph Sold to the Merchants, The Merchants Delivering Joseph to the Pharaoh, Joseph Interpreting the Pharaoh's dream, The Pharaoh Paying him Honour, Jacob Sends His Sons to Egypt and Joseph Recognizes His Brothers and Returns Home. According to Vasari's Lives, this panel was the most difficult and also the most beautiful. The figures are distributed in very low relief in a perspective space (a technique invented by Donatello and called rilievo schiacciato, which literally means "flattened relief"). Ghiberti uses different sculptural techniques, from incised lines to almost free-standing figure sculpture, within the panels, further accentuating the sense of space.

The panels are included in a richly decorated gilt framework of foliage and fruit, many statuettes of prophets and 24 busts. The two central busts are portraits of the artist and of his father, Bartolomeo Ghiberti.

Although the overall quality of the casting is exquisite, some mistakes have been made. For example, in panel 15 of the north doors (Flagellation) the casting of the second column in the front row has been mistakenly overlaid over an arm, so that one of the flagellators looks trapped in stone, with his hand sticking out of it.

Michelangelo referred to these doors as fit to be the Gates of Paradise (Porte del Paradiso), and they are still invariably referred to by this name. Giorgio Vasari described them a century later as "undeniably perfect in every way and must rank as the finest masterpiece ever created". Ghiberti himself said they were "the most singular work that I have ever made".

Copies
Several copies of the doors are held throughout the world. One such copy is held at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, New York. Another copy, made in the 1940s, is installed in Grace Cathedral, in San Francisco; copies of the doors are also crafted for the Kazan Cathedral in Saint Petersburg, Russia; the Harris Museum in Preston, United Kingdom; and in 2017 for the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri.

Images from the doors
Reproduction examples in situ

Interior
The domed interior space, with columned niches on its imposing ground level and an apse creating directional emphasis, reprises the Pantheon. Monumental columns of the size used could not be produced in the 11th and 12th centuries, so must have been salvaged from ancient buildings, likely civic or religious structures in the Roman forum that stood at the site of the present Piazza della Repubblica. The walls are clad in dark green and white marble with inlaid geometrical patterns. A shorter gallery level with bifore is ornamented with extensive geometric and figurative designs.

The building contains the monumental tomb of Antipope John XXIII by Donatello and Michelozzo Michelozzi. A gilt statue, with the face turned to the spectator, reposes on a deathbed, supported by two lions, under a canopy of gilt drapery. He had bequeathed several relics and his great wealth to this baptistery. Such a monument with a baldachin was a first in the Renaissance.

The marble pavement is made up of many independently designed sections, some geometric, others figurative. A zodiac, similar to that on the pavement of San Miniato al Monte dated 1207, was formerly thought to have astronomical significance, but this is now considered unlikely. The pavement was probably executed over the course of the 12th century.

The present octagonal baptismal font, inscribed with the year 1370, stands near the south entrance. Its reliefs are attributed to Tuscan artists of the circle of Orcagna.

The altar is a reconstruction by Giuseppe Castellucci of the original 12th-century altar dismantled in 1731, using pieces that Antonio Francesco Gori preserved, along with drawings showing their original arrangement. The altar inspired Brunelleschi’s altar for the Old Sacristy of San Lorenzo.

Mosaic ceiling

The Baptistery is crowned by a magnificent mosaic ceiling in an Italo-Byzantine style, generally considered to have been completed between about 1240 and 1300, with numerous interruptions due to an unstable political situation. The work consists of around ten million mosaic tesserae.

The great artist who made the drawings for the six-meter-high Christ Sitting in Judgment (1) and at least parts of the elegant canopy at the center (2) appears to be an anonymous master known for a large Crucifix in the Uffizi (no. 434); an altarpiece dedicated to St. Francis in the Museo Civico, Pistoia; and a small triptych in the Princeton University Art Museum. The second tier of mosaics (3), representing Christ and angels and other celestial figures, seems to reflect his work as well as that of two important artists who fought in the Battle of Montaperti in 1260, Meliore di Jacopo and Coppo di Marcovaldo. Meliore likely also drew cartoons for the Madonna, apostles, and angels to the left of Christ (1) in the years before 1270. They recall an altarpiece he painted in the Pieve of San Leolino.

Christ presides over an enormous Last Judgment, its tiles put in place during Dante’s childhood. Paradise, at Christ’s right hand, is largely static, with only a few episodes of motion. These include the emergence of several nudes from their tombs, one of whom, at the extreme left, sees the resurrected Christ and seems ready to fall on his knees before him. Other saved souls, represented as children, follow an enormous angel, and another young soul stands before the gate of Paradise on tiptoe. Meliore and Coppo di Marcovaldo, among other artists, were active in designing this section.

Out of sarcophagi below Christ’s left hand, the damned emerge. Devils usher lost souls into Hell, which is full of motion, contortion, and expressions of pain. Coppo di Marcovaldo designed the best parts of this scene, including the revolting figure of Satan whose pose seems to parody Christ in Judgment. Coppo’s workshop, including his son Salerno di Coppo, composed the rest. Miklós Boskovits describes this section:

"Hell is envisaged as a desolate landscape of rocky mountains spewing fire. It pullulates with small devils… who transport the damned and inflict on them the most varied tortures, at times culinary in aspect: in the foreground on the right a man, impaled on a spit, is being turned by a devil who with a long stick stokes up the flames below the roasted sinner, while a fellow-demon bastes him with oil. Nearby, another devil seizes a reprobate by the arm, and is about to amputate it with a meat-cleaver he brandishes above his head.… As for the reprobates, the only one whose identity is certain — assured by a caption — is Judas, hanged on a tree to the far right of the scene…”"

The Last Judgment occupies the main zone of three of the eight segments of the dome. The other five segments, meant to be viewed facing the Gates of Paradise and scanning from left to right, include four tiers depicting the beginning of the Book of Genesis (4); the life of Joseph (5); the lives of Mary and Christ (6); and the life of Saint John the Baptist, patron saint of the church and the city (7).

The stories in the first of these segments probably date from the period 1270–75. They include reworking and restorations across many centuries, but in general it seems that the upper Old Testament stories were originally the product of the workshop that included Salerno, Coppo di Marcovaldo’s son, while the New Testament registers below reflect a more naturalistic style close to Cimabue, identifiable with the painter of a crucifix at San Miniato al Monte.

Whether Cimabue himself participated has been a subject of debate since the 1920s, with recent scholarship tending to be supportive, including work by Michael Viktor Schwarz and Miklós Boskovits. Boskovits detected his hand in the episodes of the Fall of Man, the Rebuke of the Creator, the Expulsion from Paradise, Joseph Sold by His Brothers, the False Report of Joseph’s Death, Joseph Led into Egypt (possibly), the Birth and Naming of the Baptist, and the Young St. John the Baptist in the Wilderness, all of which he dated to the mid 1270s. He compares, for example, the figure of Adam in the Rebuke of the Creator with the bust of the Christ child in Cimabue’s Maestà now in the Louvre.

Cimabue possibly collaborated with, but in any case was succeeded by, Corso di Buono, known from signed and dated frescoes in the church of San Lorenzo, Montelupo Fiorentino. Corso and his workshop were responsible for the remainder of the episodes in the northeast and eastern segments. Several scenes in the southeast segment fell down in 1819 and had to be re-created, but others in a better state suggest the hands of Corso and Grifo di Tancredi.

The remainder of the scenes have been attributed to anonymous artists known as the Penultimate Master and the Last Master, although Boskovits identifies another master who completed the last three scenes of St. John’s life. He places their design in the years around 1300 due to the softness of the modeling, the elaborate architectural settings, and details of the clothing.

Below the main vault, interspersed with rectangular openings, are mosaic depictions of saints, popes, bishops, and martyr deacons, and on the outside faces of the gallery-level parapets are busts of patriarchs and prophets, all from the early 14th century. Among the artists involved were Gaddo Gaddi and the Penultimate Master. Also of this period are the mosaics within the galleries, first those from above the south door, and then those above the east door, attributable to Gaddo Gaddi and Lippo di Benivieni.

The scarsella mosaics remain particularly difficult to place stylistically and chronologically. Prophets and saints appear on the triumphal arch leading to the chancel, and on the vault within we see four telamons supporting a large wheel encircling prophets and patriarchs, a mystic lamb at its center, with John the Baptist and the Madonna and Child on either side. Boskovits emphasizes the quality of these mosaics:

"What severity of expression in the austere and emaciated physiognomy of the Baptist! What moving and timorous pathos in the youthful face of Thaddeus, framed by the unruly curls of hair! What richness in the juxtaposition of lights and darks in the modelling of the head of St. Thomas. What attention to characterising the sharp and intense face of St. Paul, shaded with delicate tonal passages, and enlivened with dazzling highlights!"

Execution of the various masters’ designs was not without difficulties. One document notes that two mosaicists named Bingo and Pazzo had to be expelled from the worksite for unprofessional conduct, and new skilled mosaicists were to be sought urgently in Venice or elsewhere.

Since 2023, the mosaic ceiling is once again under restoration, with completion expected in 2028.

title: Florence Baptistery


text: Category:Cold War

title: Category:Cold War


text:
User:Timwi/monobook.css

/*    I hereby place this code in the public domain. – Timwi */ /* Round the corners of everything. */    -moz-border-radius-topleft: 9px; /* 0.59em; */ -moz-border-radius-topright: 9px; /* 0.57em; */ }    -moz-border-radius-topleft: 9px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 9px; } div.pBody { -moz-border-radius-topright: 9px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 9px; } pre, table#toc, div.thumb div, #disambig, #stub { -moz-border-radius-topleft: 9px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 9px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 9px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 9px; } /* Change the background colour (and selected tab border   colour) for non-article pages */ background: #f5f5ff; }    border-color: #1080fa; }    margin-left: 10px; } .ns-0 #content, .ns-0 #p-cactions ul li.selected a { background: white; } .ns-0 #p-cactions ul li.selected { border-color: #fabd23; } .ns-0 #bodyContent { border: 1px solid white; } /* Change the colour and style of the borders around "pre"s. */ pre { border: 1px solid #A2C5E6; } /* make the Table of Contents look the same way as the info box in the top-right of my User page. */ table#toc { border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-spacing: 0; background-color: #f9f9f9; padding: 0; margin-top: 10px; } table#toc td { padding: 0; margin: 0; } table#toc div#toctitle { background-color: #e9e9e9; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 9px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 9px; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px; margin: 0; } table#toc ul { margin: 0; padding: 5px 10px; } /* Underline all links. */ a, a:link, a:visited, a:hover, a.extiw, a.extiw:link, a.extiw:visited, a.extiw:hover { text-decoration: underline; } table { background: inherit; } p.catlinks { margin: 0; padding: 0 5px 2px 5px; } div#catlinks { margin: 10px 0 0 0; padding: 0; font-size: 75%; border-left: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-right: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 9px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 9px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 9px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 9px; background-color:#f9f9f9; text-align: right; } div#catlinks p.catlinks { clear: both; } table.diff { border: 1px solid #ccc; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 9px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 9px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 9px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 9px; clear: both; } td.diff-context { background: inherit; } td.diff-deletedline, td.diff-addedline { background: #ddd; color: inherit; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 9px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 9px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 9px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 9px; } td.diff-deletedline span.diffchange { color: inherit; background-color: #fbb; } td.diff-addedline span.diffchange { color: inherit; background-color: #bfb; } .mainpagetable, .infobox { clear: both; } code { background: inherit; } text-align: right; border: none; padding: 0 0 5px 0; margin: 0; }    margin: 1em 0 0 0; margin-top: 1em !important; padding: 3px 5px; border: 1px solid #ccc; clear: both; } div.thumb, div.tright { background: inherit; border: none; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 0; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } div.tleft { background: inherit; border: none; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } span.has_been_on_main_page a { font-weight: bold !important; } input#wpSummary { width: 99%; } a[accesskey]:before, input[accesskey]:before { content: attr(accesskey); text-transform: uppercase; white-space: pre; font-family: monospace; margin-right: 5px; }
 * 1) p-cactions ul li, #p-cactions ul li a {
 * 1) content {
 * 1) content, #p-cactions ul li.selected a {
 * 1) p-cactions ul li.selected {
 * 1) p-cactions {
 * 1) bodyContent { border: 1px solid #f5f5ff; }
 * 1) siteSub { display: none; }
 * 2) contentSub { text-align: right; margin: 0; padding: 0; }
 * 1) fundraising {
 * 1) disambig, #stub {
 * 1) disambig { background: #dfefff; }
 * 2) stub { background: #ffdfbf; }

title: User:Timwi/monobook.css


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/General

 * Please mark this page as watched, if you want to participate in Wikiproject History of Poland. That way you will see when something interesting is being done here

Activity
Seeing not much activity here, what do you say we start off with braggin on what we have done recently?

And what do we need help with???

3rd May Constitution
Here is sth for a start I could use your help with getting the full text of 3rd May Constitution moved from this site to Wiki - see Talk:May_Constitution_of_Poland for details. I send an @ ,but they did not reply, perhaps if we get more ppl to @ them they will at least reply? --Piotrus 15:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As described on talk pages, I have received the permission to use it and copied it to WikiSource. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pospolite Ruszenie
Curious, I created an entry for Pospolite_ruszenie but there is almost no mention of it on Wiki. What other terms could have been used to interlink/redirect it? Or perhaps we have to add mentions of that to various articles?--Piotrus 20:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Levée en masse I believe, but it seem to appear only in Napoleonic Wars context. Przepla 23:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stanislaw_Koniecpolski
I am working on Stanislaw_Koniecpolski now, and there are many red ilinks - maybe you could fix some of them? --Piotrus 12:24, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice that I somehow didn't mark this page as watched. I could create some stubs from that page, but first we need to clean up your insertion. English wikipedia is using ISO-8859-1 encoding so all links must be without polish diacritics. Also you should link the pages itselves not just redirects to them. So it should be done like this Zygmunt III Waza; using the | character you could link just like in the HTML. If you have more technical questions ask at my Talk page. Przepla 23:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I have finished translating biography. Now I could use your help for the encoding, language improvements, and various stub creaton.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History after 1980
I just created Jacek Kuron and it seems that we are having huge gap in a history of Poland between 1980 and 1989. The People's Republic of Poland is not even mentioning the martial law! We really should do something about it. Przepla 23:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No martial law? That's serious. But I am afraid I will be of little help, this period of history is one I know least about :< --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:07, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Collapse of communism in Poland:
 * Anti-communist opposition in Poland
 * Solidarity
 * Martial law in Poland
 * Polish Round Table Agreement
 * Magdalenka
 * Transition to democracy in Poland

History of Poland
I am a bit confused at the division. This is about longer periods of history, right? I think we should do a similar template to Template:History of Poland for state names:
 * Piast Poland
 * Jagiellon Poland
 * Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
 * Duchy of Warsaw
 * Congress Poland aka Kingdom of Poland
 * Second Polish Republic
 * Polish Government in Exile
 * People's Republic of Poland).

I guess our current Trzecia Rzeczpospolita has no seprate article besides Poland? Perhaps some name organisation is in order.

Perhaps even curiosities like Kingdom of Poland (Mitteleuropa) should go there?

Seems like I forgot to sign earlier. So - any comments about this idea? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we need a clear distinction here. I propose that a Polish state article should be the main article for a given perios, with sections like history, economy, politics, etc. and Historyof Poland should be, well, about history only. At the moment there some of those articles are about everything, some are about this or that, there are no clear links from one Polish state to another...this needs fixing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Dobry pomysl, popieram.--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you indend to create separate articles about History of Poland, and History of Polish State? Przepla 19:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On smaller notes:
 * I wonder if Polish Secret State would be better then Polish Gov in Exile? Perhaps PSS should be for history, and PGiE for state page?

 * Moim zdaniem lepiej zostawic odzielone - mianem Panstwa podziemnego nazywa sie (jedynie) dzialania/grupy polityczne/ itd. na terenie okupowanej Polski.--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Is the Andegawen Poland important enough to be listed as equal to Piast of Jagiellon eras? Perhaps it should be simply a subarticle of Piasts?
 * Perhaps, from the state perespective, Piasts, Andegawens and Jagiellons should be merged into one article? Note I am not talking about history artciles, but about state ones.

 * Popieram.--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) Jeden artykul o Krolestwie Polskim. (od Mieszka do Unii z Litwa)--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Third Polish Republic or just Poland?

 * Moim zdaniem lepiej nazwac artykuly "Second Republic" i "Third Republic"--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not entirely happy with the translation of Rzeczpospolita as Commonwealth. After all, in Polish language we have: Rzeczpospolita Polsko Litewska (Pierwsza Rzeczpospolita), Druga Rzeczpospolita and Trzecia Rzeczpospolita. Shouldn't English names refelct this? We may want to make the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth a redirect to Polish-Lithuanian Republic, perhaps? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Tu rowniez sie zgodze.--Emax 19:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know. After all Pierwsza Rzeczpospolita, wasn't really First Republic, as direct translation would suggest. Przepla 19:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I strongly oppose the idea. The popular nick-names like "First Republic" "Second Republic" and so on were invented not so long ago by the press. However, they were never the official names of the state and are used only for simplicity. We do not have to follow the simplicity, we should follow the truth here. And the truth is that, unlike in France, the numbers are not a part of the name of the state. You won't find a constitution of the "First Republic of Poland" anywhere, nor will you find the expression anywhere else in the Polish law.

 * Also, those names might be used in Poland, but are not used outside of it and I doubt there is some sense in moving the article on Poland to "Third Republic" (note that you don't say "Trzecia Rzeczpospolita Polska" in Polish, you simply say "Trzecia Rzeczpospolita").

 * Finally, I like the way it is done now. The names, although not really explanative to someone who has absolutely no idea on the history of Poland, are both accurate and as close to the ariginal as possible. I'd leave them in peace. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:01, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Nie chodzi tu o to czy byla to oficjalna nazwa, czy nie. "Jagiellon Poland" tez nie jest oficjalna. Wpisz na google "Second Republic of Poland" - takie okreslenie jest uzywane na oficjalnych stronach panstwowych.

 * Lepiej tez zapamietac dla "niewtajemniczonych" ze np Pilsduski dzialal w czasach II RP jak Polski od XX do XX, a Walesa w III RP. Co do Rz. Obojga Narodow - "Commonwealth" jest blednym tlumaczeniem - tutaj rowniez rozwiaze sie zagadka dla "niewtajemniczonych" dlaczego uzywa sie nazw II RP i III RP skoro nie bylo pierwszej-?!?! :)-Emax 20:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The best solution, then, would be to check what is/was the official English translation of the given state name, check if there were several, check what were the popular unofficial names, and make an article out of this :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Finally, the title of the proposed series is wrong too since it is a history of one Polish state, not of several states. The current state of Poland is a direct descendant of both the Noble Democracy, Piast Kingdom, inter-war Poland, Poland in Exile and the People's Republic. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:10, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * This is more like a figure of speech argument. There were several Potocki's (states) and the youngest Potocki (state) is a descendant of other Potocki's (states). There were several Polish states, Trzecia RPlita is the newest of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would, nonetheless, stick to translating Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów as "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" and II i III Rzeczpospolita and PRL as "II, People's and III Republics". It may be confusing, I know, so in any such case you can link to Rzeczpospolita. It's an article I wrote just for the prupose of explaining the complexity of this term. -- Kpalion 22:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A different periodization
I have a rather bold idea to radically change the periodization of Poland's history. Of course a lot of work has been put into the current scheme and a lot more work would be needed to change it. However, the present periodization has some faults. In the pre-partition period it focuses on dynasties rather than actual political, social and economic evolution. Thus we have periods which are of extremely uneven length and thus hardly comparable (e.g. the Piasts - 404 years, the Angevins - 16 years). The periodization I want to suggest is as follows:

In this scheme the periods before the 20th century are about 160 years long on average, standard deviation is only 25 years (in the present scheme the average is 190, standard deviation is 143). It also seems more logical as it represents more or less alternating periods of relative growth and decline.

Also note that this series deals mostly political and military history of Poland (kings, governments, wars, territorial changes and so forth). So the next step could be series about: These series might have periodization schemes of their own.
 * 1) Demographic and socio-economic history of Poland
 * 2) History of Polish culture

Of course, this is all subject to debate. And naturally, I'm not saying I want to do it all by myself. It's just some very general ideas for the future development of this project. -- Kpalion 20:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, it is an interesting division. Compared to the current History of Poland division it changes the order for Piasts and Jagiellons. I think we should use Kingdom of Poland (Piasts) and Kingdom of Poland (Jagiello) for state names/articles, and their history sections could link to subarticles with titles you described - IF they are ATM longer then 32kb (recommended max length for an article). ATM they are below 32k each - and remember some material from them may and should be moved to articles about economy/politics/geograpy/etc. Until then, I think we can leave history section as is is (with the exceptions of removing Angevins from history mediabox, of course). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think we really need separate articles about the Piast Poland and the Jagiellon Poland. It should suffice to have articles on Polish political history according to one scheme (like the one I presented above) and separate articles on each dynasty. But the latter should be written from an international perspective; it's obvious for the Angevins and the Jagiellonians, but even the Piasts also ruled in other monarchies than the Kingdom of Poland (Masovia, Silesian duchies, etc.). I support the "Polish state" series but I would only incude there those political entities that were somehow special and/or can't be considered as identical with what we percieve as "Poland" (e.g. the PLC, Polish puppet states of the partition era or the gov't-in-exile).

 * Piotrus, I don't understand your argument, to me it seems that you are confusing state with estate. To make my point clear, I'll write it in Polish (translation available on request). Obecne państwo o nazwie "Rzeczpospolita Polska" istnieje nieprzerwanie od 1918 roku. Po drodze zmieniło nazwę, sporo się w jego historii wydarzyło, ale z punktu widzenia prawnego i prawa międzynarodowego jest to jedno i to samo państwo. Periodyzację i podział na "I Republikę", "II Republikę" itd wprowadzono dla łatwiejszego uporządkowania tego w głowach czytelników, ale nie jest to podział w żaden sposób oficjalny.

 * Najlepszy dowód na to że jest to jedna i ta sama Polska: obecne Państwo Polskie spłaca długi PRLu (gdyby były to dwa różne państwa - nie musiałoby, patrz choćby długi Carskiej Rosji po rewolucji czy długi Republiki Weimarskiej po dojściu do władzy Hitlera). Poza tym - wszystkie te "trzy Rzeczypospolite" po 1918 używały tego samego ustawodawstwa, przynajmniej przez sporą część czasu. Do dziś mamy wiele ustaw i praw które nie zmieniły się od przedwojnia i obowiązują bez przerwy. Więcej na ten temat napisałem kiedyś w dyskusji pl:Dyskusja:Druga Rzeczpospolita (1918-1939) na polskiej wiki, polecam.

 * Back to English: we need to set some periodisation, but I would oppose the usage of numbers such as "1st Republic", "2nd Republic" and so on. These would be both unofficial, inaccurate and misleading. Alternatively we could use "2nd Polish Republic" and "3rd Polish Republic", but these names do not even exist in Polish (9 google links, including 3 Polish wiki redirects, one Polish wiki mirror and 2 totally accidential uses of "Druga Rzeczpospolita" and "Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa" one after the other). Even the English usage seems to be based entirely on harsh translation of Polish sources (compare with ). The usage of "First Republic" and "Second Republic" seems acceptable on Polish wiki since those names are fairly popular and almost everyone knows what they mean. However, in English they are much less popular and I see no need to introduce them just for the sake of it.

 * If I had to chose, I would use either the current system, or the official names with dates. That is "Republic of Poland (1918-1939)", "Commonwealth of Both Nations (1569-1795)" and so on. This system would be both consistent and informative. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:02, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Following my logic explained earlier, I would follow this scheme (I find it the most natural, provided that we have to change the current version):

What do you think? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:23, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * That's all fine, I just have some minor remarks:

 * 1) "Kingdom of Poland (966-1138)" is not accurate since Poland became a kingdom only in 1025. How about "Poland (966-1138)"?
 * 2) Similar for "People's Republic of Poland (1945-1989)", Poland officially became a "People's Republic" only in 1952, but well, let it be.
 * 3) We seem to disagree on one of the milestones: 1505 (Nihil novi) or 1569 (Lublin Union)? But if we're going to keep a separate article on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where the significance of Lublin Union should be explained in more detail, then we can set the milestone at 1505. How about that?  -- Kpalion 09:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, fine with me, Poland is just as good
 * I know that the name wasn't changed until the fifties, but it was sort of a compromise on my side. Technically speaking the state was a "people's republic of Poland" and then in 1952 became the "People's Republic of Poland". This needs to be explained in the very first lines of that article, but I believe that the title might be acceptable.
 * I was thinking along the lines of statehood. If we follow the scheme of articles based on "states" rather than period in history of one state, then the date has to be 1569. Also, I was thinking that the plan is to move the article on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to Republic of Both Nations or some similar title (and expand it). I'm not yet convinced this would be a good move since, although this would be a better translation of the "Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów" term, it is not that well-established in English. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:04, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

We can use both schemes: let's call them "Polish [political] history series" and "Polish statehood series". In the latter, however, we should only include those articles that wouldn't double what's already written in the history series. So it could look more or less like this:

-- Kpalion 16:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I will abstain from the discussion about history of... series, because I could argue for both ways. But I will elaborate on what I mean by state and why do I think it needs to be a separate article. Compare article on Poland, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (after my latest modifications) and for some outside perespective Ottoman Empire with Second Polish Republic, Piast Poland and The Jagiellon Era. Setting aside how developed those articles are, you can surely see that the latter articles are just about history. They are not about states (continued or otherwise). The current history of... articles for the most part describe only history. What, who, when, why, how. But they pay little attention to economics, geography, politics, culture as a SEPARATE entities. Therefore I want to create the state series, which would have its own standarised sections about economics, history, etc., which could be then, in turn, linked to their own subseries (like the current history one). Please note that I dont necessarly agrue that each state article would need its own subarticle - for the time being, they could in many cases share one main article. Eventually, though, I think that there is no reason why the entry on PLC or IIRP should be less informative (or diffrently structured) then the entry on modern day IIIRP. Or France. Or Ottoman Empire. Or Axumite Kingdom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with treating different periods in the history of one country as separate entities. Halibutt has already explained why this would be wrong above. History is always continuous and even dividing it into periods is is always artificial and arbitrary, but it's a necessary evil. Piotrus's idea of writing articles about different Polish states in history the way we wrtie articles about modern states, seems to me like taking photographs instead of making a film. This way you could write a nice popular history book (like those written by Norman Davies) but not an encyclopedia. I do agree, however, that economic, social, demographic, cultural, etc. issues should be included in the history series. -- Kpalion 11:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A co sadzicie o tym by wstawic rowniez Panstwo Wielko morawskie? Skoro w historii Rosji jest watek Rusi Kijowskiej (co jest troche dziwne moim zdaniem..).--Emax 21:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Dobry pomysł, ale w projekcie dot. historii Czech. --Kpalion 23:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Jako panstwo Slowian zachodnich, ktore rozciagalo sie po Slask i Malopolske - jest rowniez czescia polskiej historii.--Emax 00:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Podobnie jak Rzesza Niemiecka, Rosja, Chanat Awarski, Celtowie, Germanie, Wikingowie, Zakon Krzyżacki, Prusowie, Jaćwież, nawet Francja i jej marionetkowy Gdańsk podczas wojen napoleońskich...

 * LOL. No wlasnie. Morawia jest interesujaca ale najwyzej jako 'see also' w historii Polski - w zasadzie mozne powinna istniec jakas strona/kategoria zbierajaca tematy Slowianskie. Mozna pomyslec nad artykulem pre-Piast times czy czyms takim, do kategorii historii (bo panstwa - state - tu juz nie widze raczej). Ale wprowadzajac to do historii Polski gdzie sie zatrzymamy? Na neandertalczykach, ktorzy zyli tu kilkadziesiat tysiecy lat temu? W zasadzie, czemu nie :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Czytalem kiedys ksiazke o historii Polski, ktora wpierw przerabiala slowian zachodnich (zamieszkujacych tereny obecnej Polski), pozniej Panstwo Wielko morawskie i dopiero po nim czasy Piastow, Jagiellonow itd. Historia panstwa polskiego zaczyna sie na Piastach ale nie historia Polakow lub ich kultury :). Jezeli nie Panstwo Wielko morawskie, to artykul - jak Piotrus napisal - "pre-Piast times".--Emax 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * But back to English and the topic: thanks Piotrus for clarifications. Now I get the general idea behind your proposal. Having considered what has been said above, I agree with what Kpalion said: economical, social, sociological or political parts of the respective articles should be expanded, even to the point where each of those starts its own life as an article (like, for instance, Polish demography in 16th century, or similar articles), but I see no need to write separate articles. And I strongly oppose the idea that there was no Poland before 1989 and those were just different states that occupied roughly the same area. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:31, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course there was POLAND, but it wasn't always called Rzeczpospolita Polska, now was it? As you said, our RP is a continuation (successor, legacy, whatever) of those earlier Poland's (Polish states) which had different NAMES. But this is really a minor thing. The most important point for me is to have clear hierarchy - consider Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Noble's democracy - what is the diffrence between them? It was unclear befeore I started working on them, and I'd like to make it clear once and for all, both for PLC and for other existing articles. I believe that those different NAMES should have their own series, the state series, from which historical series on history, economy, etc. would be linked (if they exist, if not, they would simple be incorporated into the state article). The state series would be a frontpage for the other series. I imagine it like this:
 * a) mediabox with chronological Polish state names, from Kingdom of Poland (Piast) to Poland, like I created above.
 * b) each state article is divided into several sections (we can brainstorm them later, but they should be the same so there is less confusion and more order). Suggested: history, economy, geography and provinces, politics and state organisation, culture and science,
 * c) each section describes its topic (obviosuly) and if a separate article exists (like in our history series) it links to it. Note that state may span over several history series, so for example history section from Kingdom of Poland (Piast) may link to several history articles (like Kpalion proposed, for example to Early Piasts, Feudal partition of Poland and Kingdom of Poland).
 * d) if there are more then 2 subarticles on the same topic, different time, they obviously deserve their own mediabox (like our history one).

I hope I finally made my point and objective clear :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * See how I imagine a complete series of articels on Polish history at WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization. I believe this is more or less what we should be aiming at. Please tell me what you guys think about that. --Kpalion 14:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I answered there. definitely agree with the way you are going :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * As to the Greater Moravia, Celts and so on - perhaps a "Prehistoria ziem polskich" article could be in place. IMHO it could cover all that was before Mieszko, from the earliest human settlements, through "dymarki świętokrzyskie" (kill me, I don't know how to translate this thing), Celts, "kultura pucharów lejkowatych", Lusatian culture, Celts, Germanic tribes, Western Slavs, to the Lendians, Polans, Lekhites and so on. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:37, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Powstanie Warszawskie
I have an idea. For the 1st August, let's have Warsaw Uprising article expanded and worthy of being mentioned on the Main Page Featured articles section? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Halibutt is in :) See Talk:Warsaw_Uprising and User:Halibutt/Warsaw Uprising for updates. We have over 5 days left. Lot's of time. Let's make it happen guys!!! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Article is ready, but people - is anybody alive out HERE?? I'd like us to think for a next anniversaory project, maybe the Polish September Campaign for 1st Septebmer? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Seems like a great idea. However, the very name September Campaign is somehow strange. In Polish it is used although it definitely reflects German POV rather than Polish. Also, the term Kampania wrześniowa has been used by commie propaganda ever since the end of WWII so the name exist in the Polish language (even though barely any serious historian use it). But is the term popular in English? Or perhaps the article should be at some other name, like Polish Defence War of 1939 or something similar? Halibutt 20:08, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * Warsaw Uprising now officially made it to FA. Shall we work together on another subject, then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * How about Wikiproject Polish Army then? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

World War II
I don't think that 'European Theatre' section is fair when it describes: ''The German Wehrmacht then invaded Poland on 1 September, and on 3 September 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany. The Polish government collapsed, with President Ignacy Moscicki fleeing into exile on the 18th. Within weeks the Soviet Red Army also invaded Poland, and hostilities ended with French and British troops giving no assistance to the Poles.'' Is the word 'collapse' right here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the word seems right. As a matter of fact the government of Poland lost all influence on what was happening in various parts of the country. However, the para could be rewritten. Any ideas? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:04, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

It is not surprising that the Polish government collapsed. They did not want a war with Germany, but had been talked into provoking the same by the British goverment. The British then did not keep their promises, and the Polish government was left standing alone without any idea how they should deal with the fire they had started. Hitler did not want this war either, but he was too arrogant to place the good of his people before his determination to make Germany a great power. Within hours of his troops crossing into Poland, he realised his mistake and offered to withdraw and pay Poland compensation. This offer was deliberately delayed in London, until it was too late to stop the horror which then came over Europe. What happened afterwards is still being told in the manner of wartime propaganda. Here can one say Polish history is not just a story, its a fairy tale! (I. Zway)


text:
Tax lien

A tax lien is a  lien which is imposed upon a property by law in order to secure the payment of taxes. A tax lien may be imposed for the purpose of collecting delinquent taxes which are owed on real property or personal property, or it may be imposed as a result of a failure to pay income taxes or it may be imposed as a result of a failure to pay other taxes.

Federal tax lien in the United States
In the United States, a federal tax lien may arise in relation to any kind of federal tax, including but not limited to income tax, gift tax, or estate tax.

Federal tax lien basics
Internal Revenue Code section 6321 provides:

 * Sec. 6321. LIEN FOR TAXES.

 * If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.

Internal Revenue Code section 6322 provides:

 * Sec. 6322. PERIOD OF Tax Lien

 * Unless another date is specifically fixed by law, the lien imposed by section 6321 shall arise at the time the assessment is made and shall continue until the liability for the amount so assessed (or a judgment against the taxpayer arising out of such liability) is satisfied or becomes unenforceable by reason of lapse of time.

The term "assessment" refers to the statutory assessment made by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under (that is, the formal recording of the tax in the official books and records at the office of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury ). Generally, the "person liable to pay any tax" described in section 6321 must pay the tax within ten days of the written notice and demand. If the taxpayer fails to pay the tax within the ten-day period, the tax lien arises automatically (i.e., by operation of law), and is effective retroactively to (i.e., arises at) the date of the assessment, even though the ten-day period necessarily expires after the assessment date.

Under the doctrine of Glass City Bank v. United States, the tax lien applies not only to property and rights to property owned by the taxpayer at the time of the assessment but also to after-acquired property (i.e., to any property owned by the taxpayer during the life of the lien).

The statute of limitations under which a federal tax lien may become "unenforceable because of lapse of time" is found at. For taxes assessed on or after November 6, 1990, the lien generally becomes unenforceable ten years after the date of assessment. For taxes assessed on or before November 5, 1990, a prior version of section 6502 provides for a limitation period of six years after the date of assessment. Various exceptions may extend the time periods.

Perfection of federal tax liens against third parties (the Notice of Federal Tax Lien)
A federal tax lien arising by law as described above is valid against the taxpayer without any further action by the government.

The general rule is that where two or more creditors have competing liens against the same property, the creditor whose lien was perfected at the earlier time takes priority over the creditor whose lien was perfected at a later time (there are exceptions to this rule). Thus, if the government (which is treated as a "creditor" with respect to unpaid taxes) properly files a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) before another creditor can perfect its own lien, the tax lien will often take priority over the other lien.

To "perfect" the tax lien (to create a priority right) against persons other than the taxpayer (such as competing creditors), the government generally must file the NFTL in the records of the county or state where the property is located, with the rules varying from state to state. At the time the notice is filed, public notice is deemed to have been given to the third parties (especially the taxpayer's other creditors, etc.) that the Internal Revenue Service has a claim against all property owned by the taxpayer as of the assessment date (which is generally prior to the date the NFTL is filed), and to all property acquired by the taxpayer after the assessment date (as noted above, the lien attaches to all of a taxpayer's property such as homes, land and vehicles and to all of a taxpayer's rights to property such as promissory notes or accounts receivable). Although the federal tax lien is effective against the taxpayer on the assessment date, the priority right against third party creditors arises at a later time: the date the NFTL is filed. The form and content of the notice of federal tax lien is governed only by federal law, regardless of any requirements of state or local law.

 * The NFTL is merely a device which gives notice to interested parties of the existence of the federal tax lien. Thus, the NFTL's function is to perfect and obtain priority for the federal tax lien. The filing or refiling of the NFTL has no effect on the expiration date of collection statute of limitations provided in [Internal Revenue Code] §6502. Accordingly, even if the NFTL is refiled, if no event extends the collection statute of limitations, the IRS cannot take any further administrative collection action. Conversely, the IRS's failure to refile the NFTL does not affect the existence of an otherwise valid underlying federal tax lien, i.e., the underlying lien remains valid but loses its priority.

Subsequent liens taking priority over previously filed federal tax liens
In certain cases, the lien of another creditor (or the interest of an owner) may take priority over a federal tax lien even if the NFTL was filed before the other creditor's lien was perfected (or before the owner's interest was acquired). Some examples include the liens of certain purchasers of securities, liens on certain motor vehicles, and the interest held by a retail purchaser of certain personal property.

Federal law also allows a state—if the state legislature so elects by statute—to enjoy a higher priority than the federal tax lien with respect to certain state tax liens on property where the related tax is based on the value of that property. For example, the lien based on the annual real estate property tax in Texas takes priority over the federal tax lien, even where an NFTL for the federal lien was recorded prior to the time the Texas tax lien arose, and even though no notice of the Texas tax lien is required to be filed or recorded at all.

Certificate of release of federal tax lien
In order to have the record of a lien released a taxpayer must obtain a Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien. Generally, the IRS will not issue a certificate of release of lien until the tax has either been paid in full or the IRS no longer has a legal interest in collecting the tax. The IRS has standardized procedures for lien releases, discharges and subordination. In situations that qualify for the removal of a lien, the IRS will generally remove the lien within 30 days and the taxpayer may receive a copy of the Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien. The current form of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien utilized by the IRS contains a provision that provides that the NFTL is released by its own terms at the conclusion of the statute of limitations period described above provided that the NFTL has not been refiled by the date indicated on the form. The effect of this provision is that the NFTL operates as a Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien on the day after the date indicated in the form by its own terms.

The difference between a federal tax lien and an administrative levy
The creation of a tax lien, and the subsequent issuance of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, should not be confused with the issuance of a Notice of Intent to Levy under, or with the actual act of levy under. The term "levy" in this narrow technical sense denotes an administrative action by the Internal Revenue Service (i.e., without going to court) to seize property to satisfy a tax liability. The levy "includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means. The general rule is that no court permission is required for the IRS to execute a section 6331 levy.

In other words, the federal tax lien is the government's statutory right that encumbers property to secure the ultimate payment of a tax. The notice of levy is an IRS notice that the IRS intends to seize property in the near future. The levy is the actual act of seizure of the property.

In general, a Notice of Intent to Levy must be issued by the IRS at least thirty days prior to the actual levy. Thus, while a Notice of Federal Tax Lien generally is issued after the tax lien arises, a Notice of Intent to Levy (sometimes misleadingly called simply a "notice of levy") generally must be issued before the actual levy is made.

Also, while the federal tax lien applies to all property and rights to property of the taxpayer, the power to levy is subject to certain restrictions. That is, certain property covered by the lien may be exempt from an administrative levy (property covered by the lien that is exempt from administrative levy may, however, be taken by the IRS if the IRS obtains a court judgment).

A detailed discussion of the administrative levy, and the related Notice, is beyond the scope of this article.

In connection with federal taxes in the United States, the term "levy" also has a separate, more general sense of "imposed." That is, when a tax law is enacted by the Congress, the tax is said to be "imposed" or "levied."

The effect of an offer in compromise on the tax lien
A properly submitted offer in compromise does not affect a tax lien, which remains effective until the offer is accepted and the offered amount is fully paid. Once the compromised amount is paid, the taxpayer should request removal of the lien.

County level tax liens in the United States
In the United States, a tax lien may be placed on a house or any other real property on which property tax is due (such as an empty tract of land, a boat dock, or even a parking place).

Each county has varying rules and regulations regarding what tax is due, and when it is due. The related forms may be tax lien certificates or tax deed certificates.

Tax lien certificates
Tax lien certificates are issued immediately upon the failure of the property owner to pay. These forms describe a lien on the property. The liens are generally in first position over every other encumbrance on the property, including liens secured by loans against the property.

Tax lien states are Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The District of Columbia is also a tax lien jurisdiction.

Tax deeds
Tax deeds are issued after the owner of the property has failed to pay the taxes. Tax deeds are issued in connection with auctions in which the property is sold outright. The starting bid is often only for the back taxes owed, although the situation may vary from one county to another.

Tax deed states are Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Tax lien investing
Tax liens and tax deeds can be purchased by an individual investor.

In the case of tax liens, interest can be earned. If the property is redeemed then the investor would recover invested money, plus interest due after the lien was purchased. If the property is not redeemed, the deed holder or lien holder has first position to own the property after any other taxes or fees are due.

title: Tax lien


text:
Category:Thai monarchs

This category contains articles about crowned heads of Thailand and its predecessor kingdoms and principalities. For the full range of articles about Thai royals see the Thai royalty category.

title: Category:Thai monarchs