text:
Talk:Byzantine art

iconoclasts
Yes, bring on the iconoclasts. Their inluence on byzantine aesthetics is much underestimated. AlainV 01:51, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

This article is under construction. All will be dealt with in time. Adam 04:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Globus crucige
Globus Crucige belongs to medieval iconography. But, we don't have a Wikipedia article on the subject as of yet, so Byzantine art works for now. Stbalbach 02:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No doubt you are correct. But if you follow the original link for Globus cruciger you will discover that it was voted by a body of our peers that it be placed in this article, and the original article deleted. Since removing this from the aricle is effectivly removing it from Wikipedia entirely (since our peers decided that it did not deserve an article of its own), I would suggest an altnerative solution. Stbalbach 03:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think if this subject interests you, you should create a mediaeval iconography article. Adam 03:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have little background in that area, just enough to know where this topic belongs, it is a response to the VfD decision linked to above, I find it curious people VfD on topics they seemingly know little about. Stbalbach 03:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree that Globus cruciger as it stands isn't much of an article. It really belongs in a wider discussion of Christian imagery or mediaeval art. Adam 03:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've created a new article Globus cruciger. Stbalbach 04:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there much to be said about medieval iconography that needs to be separated from the iconography article? Adam Bishop 06:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Im not that up on it by any means and you may know more than I, but there are entire dictionaries and encyclopedias on iconography, its like learning a new language. Here are some . It depends how much one wants to get into it in Wikipedia. Most medieval paintings and art are full of iconographic messages, you have to know the visual language to decode what they all mean. Stbalbach 07:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"...said to reflect the ...being felt in"
"The work is said to reflect the Italian influence being felt in the Byzantine world at this time." -- does this sentence sound slightly odd to anybody else? I can't quite tell what exactly.....

By the way, this is one of my favourite article. I find myself reading it again and again every now and then. --Menchi 02:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I did mean to come back and finish it but I never got round to it. Perhaps the sentence would read better "the Italian influence which was being felt" ? Adam 06:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Merging
Should we merge Byzantine architecture with Byzantine art? Brandmeister 13:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No. Medieval art is a separate tree from Medieval architecture. -- Stbalbach 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Info box
I've made and added Template:Byzantine culture. Please let me know if you think it's useful. Tom Harrison Talk 01:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A question

"In architecture they achieved masterpieces such as Hagia Sophia, a building of superior scale and magnificence to anything in the ancient world." IMO this is POV--Greece666 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Give Ivory it's own sub-heading
Considering it's importance in all manner's of Byzantine Art, shouldn't ivory be given a sub-heading?

You'll also have to find a PD image, which that one is not. Adam 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning
Does anybody else think it would be nice to give headers to the periods section such that Justinian Age, Macedonian Renaissance, Comnenian Restoration, and Palaeologan Age are their own subsections? Srnec 21:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Iconoclasm
"The rise of Islam had important consequences for Byzantine art, because many Christians came to accept the Islamic view that the depiction of the human form was blasphemous." It's no longer believed that the onset of iconoclasm under Leo III had anything to do with Islamic influence -- especially since early Islamic art itself was hardly aniconic (i.e. Qusayr 'Amra, various monuments of the "minor arts" such as the Humayma ivories, etc.). I plan to modify this. --Javits2000 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So long as you provide sources. Adam 13:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Have made changes, and am happy to provide sources; although as the entire article, at present, is entirely without sources, I will note them here in the discusion page.

The state of the question on iconoclasm is nicely summarized in Robin Cormack's handbook, Byzantine art (Oxford, 2000), Ch. 3. The critical study of the sources on iconoclasm is only about thirty years old, and begins with two monographs by Stephen Gero: Byzantine iconoclasm during the reign of Leo III (Louvain, 1973) and Byzantine iconoclasm during the reign of Constantine V (Louvain, 1977). These are surpassed, if not entirely superseded, by Dietrich Stein's dissertation, later published: Der Beginn des byzantinischen Bilderstreites und seine Entwicklung bis in die 40er Jahre des 8. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1980). For the reign of Constantine V the work of Marie-France Auzépy is particularly important: L’hagiographie et l’Iconoclasme Byzantin: le cas de la vie d’Etienne le jeune (Brookfield, 1999). We now have a handbook exclusively devoted to the sources in English from John Haldon and Lesley Brubaker: Byzantium in the iconoclast era (ca. 680-850): the sources (Birmingham, 2001); a new history of the period by the same authors is shortly to appear. On the Vatican Ptolemy see David Wright, “The date of the Vatican illuminated handy tables of Ptolemy and of its early additions,” Byantinische Zeitschrift 78 (1985).

Best regards, --Javits2000 14:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * From what little reading I've done the Islamic connection to iconoclasm remains in play. It just makes logical sense. The Byzantines were collapsing under Arab conquests, not unlike Russia in the 1990s in the face of capitalism, or Japan post-WWII, they adopted some of their enemies cultural ways. I would be curious how and why this has been discredited. -- Stbalbach 17:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * One major problem is that a connection to Muslim and/or Jewish aniconism was a major feature of the iconodule polemic of the later ninth and tenth centuries; there is a standard topos according to which Leo or Constantine sold his soul to a group of Jews, Muslims, and/or devils in exchange for power, promising to ban icons once on the throne. Gero, in the book on Leo, had already noticed that this was preposterous, and a part of the post-iconoclastic rewriting of history; the subject was fully addressed by Paul Speck in a book with an unwieldy title -- Ich bin's nicht, Kaiser Konstantin ist es gewesen: die Legenden vom Einfluss des Teufels, des Juden und des Moslem auf den Ikonoklasmus (Bonn, 1990).

 * Once one has done away with these stories, it is still of course possible to make a more general argument about cultural influence, as you suggest; Whittow floats something of the sort in his Making of Byzantium. But those sorts of arguments are difficult to prove, and we have no sources to suggest that Christians adopted an aniconic posture in emulation of the Muslims. In fact, the arguments for iconoclasm were always drawn directly from the Bible -- the Mosaic prohibition of graven images, the story of the golden calf, etc. And these arguments had always been around in the Christian church -- there are periodic flare-ups from the time of Constantine straight through to iconoclasm where some bishop decides that icons are idols and smashes them up. So there's no need to appeal to outside influence -- the possibility was always there in the history of Christianity.

 * When you add to this the fact that early Islam was not "aniconic," as I mentioned above, there is really no reason to think that aniconism was a major part of the Byzantine perception of Islam in the first century or so of contact -- again, we have no sources to suggest that it was. It seems rather to be the case that aniconism is always a possible position within monotheism -- it has waxed and waned in Islam, and cropped up a decent number of times in Christianity as well -- for example, during the Reformation. In short: one can't disprove an Islamic "influence" on Byzantine iconoclasm, but the bulk of the evidence suggests that it developed entirely within the context of Christian dogma, so that the theory of Islamic influence is both unsupported and unnecessary. --Javits2000 18:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Further remarks
The more I look at this page, and especially the introduction, the more inclined I am to take an axe to it. But first I'll float a few objections here:

"Byzantine art grew from the art of Ancient Greece, and at least before 1453 never lost sight of its classical heritage, but was distinguished from it in a number of ways."

One would rather say that Byz. art developed from imperial Roman art; as "ancient Greek art" tends to imply Athens in the age of Pericles, and the emphasis on "Greece" is anachronistic (i.e. the byzantines called themselves Rhomaioi, "Romans") and suggestive of post-medieval nationalist agendas.

at least before 1453 -- is there Byz. art after the Byz. empire?

"The most profound of these was that the humanist ethic of Ancient Greek art was replaced by the Christian ethic. If the purpose of classical art was the glorification of man, the purpose of Byzantine art was the glorification of God, and particularly of his son, Jesus."

Hard to tell what this could mean. If one counted up the figures represented in Byz. art a massive majority would be saints, mostly men; and Jesus, one seems to recall, was deemed notable, among other accomplishments, for having assumed flesh. In any case, the statement is probably too general to have any meaning; and reeks of world-historical / Hegelian approaches to the interpretation of medieval history.

"In place of the nude, the figures of God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints and martyrs of Christian tradition were elevated, and became the dominant - indeed almost exclusive - focus of Byzantine art. One of the most important forms of Byzantine art was, and still is, the icon: an image of Christ, the Virgin (particularly the Virgin and Child), or a saint, used as an object of veneration in Orthodox churches and private homes."

Figures of God the Father? Outside of the odd hand stretching out from heaven, those are pretty thin on the ground. Byz. art had other preoccupations as well, both religious (most notably the prophets and other figures from the Hebrew Bible), and, yes, a significant body of secular representations, some of them -- nude. To say that the icon "is still" a crucial form of Byz. art would seem to suggest, either that the empire is still around, or that the contemporary art of the Orthodox church is identical with Byzantine art -- neither of which are terribly credible propositions.

I tire of quibbling, and would rather ask -- where did this text come from? Is it an old Britannica article? I see no references at the bottom. In any case it hardly reflects current research in the area; I propose a complete overhaul. --Javits2000 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I didn't write it, it was mostly written by a Wikipedia from Australia (I forget his name, see the article history) who if I remember correctly is a published author and university professor and works in the Australian government - it's probably 2 to 4 years old by now, one of the earlier Wikipedia articles, way before sources or citations were an issue. It sounds like you know a lot about the topic, it should reflect current standard mainstream views - as I said above I thought it already did that based on the few sources I have read, but this is not an area I am well read on. -- Stbalbach 17:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, I've overhauled the introduction; comments and corrections most welcome. I've attempted to preserve many of the concerns of the original introduction (i.e. relationship btw. Byz. & classical art; religious content and theory of the icon) while updating the information and adding references. In addition I've added a brief precis of the major genres of Byz. art. --Javits2000 11:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Looks great! Nice to have sources too. If your at all interested in Medieval art topics I wrote most of the Medieval art page (mostly an outline currently), with the list of sub-articles, it's an area that Wikipedia in general is very weak in, large areas with no articles at all. -- Stbalbach 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to improve the article back in February and I agree that it needs work. Please be bold! -- Ghirla -трёп-  11:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I would not like the general account of Byzantine art to be hijacked towards obstruse discussion of those Americans who studied Byzantine art, especially as the most influential researches (e.g., Nikodim Kondakov) were in fact European. -- Ghirla -трёп-  11:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand the cautionary note -- the introduction mentions: Vasari, a Florentine; Berenson, an American; Riegl & Strzygowski, both Viennese; Kitzinger, a German Jew; Onians, an Englishman; and Mango, rather a cosmopolitan (born in Istanbul, of Russian, Greek, and English descent; lives in England). You may be right to suggest that this passage is a bit abstruse. I put it there since the question of "style change" remains one of the major subjects of interest re: Byz. art, but no real consensus exists as to its solution. The previous intro suggested vaguely that this had something to do with Christianity; I thought it better to set out the major theories from the past five hundred years, then indicate that the shift in style seems not to have been perceived by the Byzantines themselves.
 * Noone would deny that Kondakov was an important scholar, if more concerned with iconography (e.g. the Ikonografiia Bogomateri) than with style change in late antiquity. Hopefully we can find a place herein to include mention of his work & that of others of his school (Ainalov, Grabar, etc.). --Javits2000 13:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

characteristics?
what are specific characteristics of byzantine mosiacs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.21.172 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Santa Sabina e Santa Maria Maggiore
Scusate l’italiano, ma il mio inglese è troppo rudimentale: ho letto la voce molto ben scritta ma ho dei dubbi sul passaggio che menziona Santa Sabina e Santa Maria Maggiore (due chiese di Roma, la mia città) come esempio di chiese paleo-bizantine. Io direi che entrambe c’entrano poco con l’arte bizantina: ai tempi della loro fondazione a mio giudizio l’influenza bizantina in Italia non si è ancora dispiegata e Roma d’altronde è ancora un centro culturale (e in definitiva, ora più ora meno, lo sarà sempre) in grado di esprimere valori culturali ed artistici autonomi. --195.110.149.155 (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Legacy, recent edits
While much of substance has been added to this section, it has been tainted with hyperbole and meaningless subjective qualifiers. Portions are written as though for a thesis - rather than an encyclopedia entry. Some examples:

"The splendour of Byzantine art was always in the mind of early medieval Western artists and patrons"

This is so overly inclusive as to be meaningless. Which medieval Western artists and patrons? All of them? All the time? No.  I attempted to retain the underlying substance with a minor rewording:

"The splendour of Byzantine art was prominant in the mind of early medieval Western artists and patrons"

This didn't address all the issues -but was a start.

Another example:

"Islamic art began with artists and craftsmen mostly trained in Byzantine styles, and though figurative content was greatly reduced, Byzantine decorative styles remained a great influence on Islamic art, and Byzantine artists continued to be imported for important works for some time, especially for mosaics."

Islamic art most definitely did not BEGIN as indicated above - but was profoundly, fundamentally influenced so. The extent of the use of fıgurative elements is ambiguous - reduced from what to what? The section then makes continuity references without any context.

Again, an attempt to fix these issues:

"Islamic art borrowed much from Byzantine style, and though figurative content was largely absent, Byzantine decorative style was of great influence. Byzantine artists were imported for important works, especially for mosaics."

Of course, the mater of WHERE the artist where imported to is left to the reader to work out- 'not the west', presumably...

These and a number of syntax/diction edits were all reverted without address. The edit summery spoke only to the utility of the inclusion of a contemporary image influenced by Byzantine style. The image of John Coltrane is a vivid example of the lasting influence and contemporary legacy of Byzantine art. Not only is it topical, the article would be better for the inclusion of other contemporary works, such as jewelry and metalwork, sculpture, etc.

I have reverted the article to include these changes, heedless of the intermediary edits, as an illustration of just how unproductive such disregard is. Perhaps we can move forward more constructively?Mavigogun (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This all seem to flow from my removal of the Russian icon pastiche portrait of John Coltrane, which only relates at a remove to Byzantine art, and is hardly representative of anything. Perhaps you should try adding it at Russian icon? Good luck with that. The other points were simply not improvements; it is hard to drastically copyedit text when you evidently don't know much about the subject. Yes all early medieval Western artists and patrons, all of the time. Islamic art did indeed begin with "artists and craftsmen mostly trained in Byzantine styles" - why do you think it didn't? Imported to the Islamic world, rather obviously. I have reverted your removal of a considerable amount of new text. What do others think? Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The tone of the statements aren't credible: Islamic art, while profoundly influenced by Byzantine art, was not the sole inception.  Islamic art has it's roots in a myriad of cultures - Persia, the Sassanid Empire, those of central Asia including China, Bedouin and other nomadic and semi-sedentary tribes.   The statement that "Islamic art began with artists and craftsmen mostly trained in Byzantine styles" is simply fallacious: artists and craftsmen steeped in Byzantine art definitely played a fundamental role in the development of Islamic art - but were not unto themselves the start.   Correcting this misstatement would be an inconsequential mater.

 * Baldly unverifiable and over reaching claims - such as what was in the mind of a every Western medieval artist - are exactly the sort of noise we endeavor to parse when drafting encyclopedia articles; at the best they are useful, in quotes, to illustrate the position of a particular source.

 * As to what constitutes a significant constituent of the legacy of Byzantine art, reasoned arguments for the inclusion of the Coltrane Icon have been met with what amounts to 'no it isn't' ( which amounts to 'I don't like the inclusion but can't summons a reason for not including it').  While I laud the energy put into advancing the article, it is not a platform for pontificating a particular thesis and is not under the purview of the same.   Publish your own work if you want to be an autocrat; editing here requires a different tact.Mavigogun (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Byzantine art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100127181132/http://www.constantinopleguide.com:80/Byzantine_Churches.html to http://www.constantinopleguide.com/Byzantine_Churches.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits by 2a06...
IP user 2a06… recently added new sources (found 5 so far: Michelis, Weitzmann, Ainalov, Stylianou et al., Hanfmann) and also changed the page’s source-citation style. I respect Johnbod’s position that the changes are radical, but they’re kinda useful if you think about it. In fact, go and check the page before 2a06…’s edits, and you'll discover info gaps in the listed notes like no publishing house info, no isbn info and no Google links for easy search access. So deleting 2a06...'s edits, plus the extra sources s/he added, hurts the page way more than it helps. Holler-Holland (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My position is not that the changes to citation style are "radical", but that they are in total breach of WP:CITEVAR, and unnecessary. It would be easy enough to add what has been added (and really anyone interested can find "publishing house info" and isbns in seconds). All the google links I've checked are the useless and deprecated type to the main book page, not useful ones to previews for the page cited - another reason for reversing this cite-banditry. The brutal cite convention used has also removed useful note material - eg from the old note 1. The current reference 3 ("Cyril"!!!) is now completely mangled, with nothing at the bottom, and some new material introduced (Ainalov, nearly 60 years old now) is contradicted by other sources. A citation needed tag has been removed, with no other changes made, and the only text, except the dubious Ainalov point, that has been added is a single rather cryptic quote by Weitzmann. So, no, I've thought about it, and they're not "kinda useful", other than the added refs. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGLI-1102-089 Research, Writing, and the Production of Knowledge
— Assignment last updated by Hellokitty6688 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Byzantine art


text:
RAPM

RAPM may refer to

 * Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians, a former association of Soviet musicians
 * RAPM, the advanced form of Raven's Progressive Matrices, a non-verbal intelligence test
 * RAPM, refer to the MM ratio (or M-square ratio), a measure of portfolio performance.

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

title: RAPM


text:
Edward Russell, 1st Earl of Orford

Admiral of the Fleet Edward Russell, 1st Earl of Orford, PC (1653 – 26 November 1727) was a Royal Navy officer and politician. After serving as a junior officer at the Battle of Solebay during the Third Anglo-Dutch War, he served as a captain in the Mediterranean Sea in operations against the Barbary pirates.

Russell was one of the Immortal Seven, a group of English noblemen who issued the Invitation to William, a document asking Prince William of Orange to depose King James II. Based in the Netherlands, he served as Prince William's secretary during the planning of William's invasion of England and subsequent Glorious Revolution. He was fully engaged in providing naval support for the Williamite War in Ireland until the war ended. He was Commander-in-Chief of the Anglo-Dutch force that fought the French fleet at the Battle of Barfleur and destroyed much of it in a night attack at the Battle of La Hogue during the Nine Years' War.

Russell went on to be First Lord of the Admiralty during the reign of William III and then held the office twice again in the reigns of Queen Anne and King George I. He was also MP for Launceston, for Portsmouth and then for Cambridgeshire.

Early career
Born the son of the Hon. Edward Russell, a younger son of the 4th Earl of Bedford and Penelope Russell (née Hill), daughter of Sir Moyses Hill of Hillsborough, County Down and widow of Sir William Brooke, Russell briefly attended St John's College, Cambridge and joined the Royal Navy in 1666. Promoted to lieutenant in 1671, he was appointed to the fourth-rate HMS Advice and then transferred to the third-rate HMS Rupert and saw action, when a combined British and French fleet was surprised and attacked by the Dutch, led by Admiral Michiel de Ruyter, at the Battle of Solebay off the Suffolk coast in May 1672, during the Third Anglo-Dutch War.

Promoted to captain on 10 June 1672, Russell was given command of the fifth-rate HMS Phoenix and then transferred to the command of the fourth-rate HMS Reserve in the Mediterranean, in operations against the Barbary pirates in February 1675, then to the command of the third-rate HMS Defiance in December 1677. He then moved to the third-rate HMS Swiftsure in March 1678 and then to the fourth-rate HMS Newcastle in August 1680. In 1683 he ceased to be employed, as all of the members of the Russell family had fallen into disfavour with the King, after the discovery of Lord Russell's connection with the Rye House Plot.

Senior command
Russell was one of the Immortal Seven, a group of English noblemen who issued the Invitation to William, a document asking William, Prince of Orange, to depose King James II in June 1688. Based in the Netherlands, he served as the prince's secretary during the planning of William's invasion of England and subsequent Glorious Revolution in November 1688.

Russell was elected Whig Member of Parliament for Launceston and appointed Treasurer of the Navy in 1689. Promoted directly to full admiral in May 1689, Russell took command in the Channel, with his flag in the second-rate HMS Duke, in 1689 and enforced a blockade of France. Russell lived at Chippenham Park in Cambridgeshire from 1689 until his death. He re-modelled the manor house and greatly extended Chippenham Park, which still dominates the parish to the south of the village.

Russell was elected Member of Parliament for Portsmouth in the general election in March 1690. He conveyed Maria Anna of Neuburg, Charles II of Spain's future consort, from Flushing to Coruna in Spring 1690. He joined the Board of Admiralty led by the Earl of Pembroke, as Senior Naval Lord, in June 1690. Following the debacle at the Battle of Beachy Head in July 1690, Admiral the Earl of Torrington fell out of favour and Russell, having been promoted to Admiral of the Fleet, became Commander-in-Chief of the Navy in December 1690. He was fully engaged in providing naval support for the Williamite War in Ireland until the war ended in October 1691.

In the Autumn of 1690, Russell blamed the Dutch for the failure of the allies to enforce the blockade of France and was forced to stand down as a Lord Commissioner in January 1691. Flying his flag in the first-rate HMS Britannia, he was Commander-in-Chief of the Anglo-Dutch force that fought the French fleet at the Battle of Barfleur in May 1692, during the Nine Years' War. At about 10 am the French Admiral the Comte de Tourville, with his flag in the French ship Soleil Royal, attacked Russell's flagship but around 1 pm, Tourville was forced to disengage with extensive damage to his rigging and sails. Russell then destroyed much of the French fleet, in a night attack at the Battle of La Hogue in June 1692.

Following a disagreement with the Earl of Nottingham, Russell resigned as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy in December 1692. Admirals Henry Killigrew, Ralph Delaval and Cloudesley Shovell were put in joint command of the fleet in January 1693. Following the disastrous attack on the Smyrna merchantmen at the Battle of Lagos in June 1693, all three admirals were dismissed from their joint command and Russell resumed command of the fleet in November 1693.

Russell became First Lord of the Admiralty and Senior Naval Lord in the First Whig Junto in May 1694 and took a fleet out into the Mediterranean in June 1694, becoming the first English naval commander to spend the Winter at Cádiz (rather than sailing his squadron home in the autumn). He was elected Member of Parliament for Cambridgeshire in 1695 and was created Baron Shingay, Viscount Barfleur and Earl of Orford on 7 May 1697. He faced allegations of having misappropriated funds from the maintenance of the fleet, to spend on his private estates in 1698. The accusations went no further and he left office as First Lord of the Admiralty, as Treasurer of the Navy and as Senior Naval Lord, when the First Whig Junto fell from power in May 1699. He commissioned the building of Orford House at Ugley in Essex in 1700.

Russell returned to office as First Lord in the coalition Godolphin–Marlborough ministry in November 1709 but left his post when the Tory-dominated Harley ministry came to power in October 1710. He was appointed for a third time as First Lord in the Whig Townshend ministry in October 1714 and having been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Cambridgeshire on 27 September 1715, left his post again when that ministry left office in April 1717. He died at Covent Garden in London on 26 November 1727 and was buried in the Russell vault at St Michael's Church in Chenies.

Family
In November 1691, Russell married his cousin, Lady Margaret Russell, youngest daughter of the 5th Earl of Bedford (later the 1st Duke of Bedford); they had no children. They lived from the time of their marriage until Russell's death at 43 King Street, Covent Garden.

title: Edward Russell, 1st Earl of Orford


text:
William T. Barry

William Taylor Barry (February 5, 1784 – August 30, 1835) was an American statesman, jurist and slave owner. He served as Postmaster General for most of the administration of President Andrew Jackson and was the only Cabinet member not to resign in 1831 as a result of the Petticoat affair.

Life
Born near Lunenburg, Virginia, he moved to Fayette County, Kentucky, in 1796 with his parents John Barry, an American Revolutionary War veteran, and Susannah (Dozier) Barry. His grandfather, Alexander Barry was born in Ribble Valley, Lancashire, England in 1721 and moved to America in 1744. He attended the common schools, Pisgah Academy and Kentucky Academy in Woodford County, Transylvania University at Lexington and graduated from the College of William & Mary at Williamsburg, Virginia in 1803, after which studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1805. He commenced practice at Jessamine County, Kentucky and then at Lexington.

Political life
Elected to the Kentucky House of Representatives in 1807, Barry became a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1810 to 1811, then served in the War of 1812. From 1815 to 1816, he became a U.S. Senator from Kentucky, then won election to the Kentucky Senate and served from 1817 to 1821. During his time in the Kentucky Senate Barry wrote to former President James Madison seeking support for a plan of subsidizing public education across the state; Madison responded enthusiastically and included in his letter of August 4, 1822 the often-cited observation: "A popular Government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both."

Meanwhile, Kentucky suffered from the Panic of 1819 and Barry became a leading figure in the debt relief party, which was successful in the elections between 1820 and 1824, although less successful when creditors challenged the relief laws in the courts. As a lawyer, Barry argued in support of those laws, which the Kentucky Court of Appeals overturned in 1823. Barry also became the sixth Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky (1820 to 1824), then served as Secretary of State of Kentucky (1824 to 1825). He resigned that position to become Chief Judge of the Kentucky Court of Appeals (the predecessor to the Kentucky Supreme Court) for the 1825 term during the Old Court - New Court controversy. Although the Old Court party won the 1826 elections, Barry ran for Governor of Kentucky in 1828.

Barry became U.S. Postmaster General in Andrew Jackson's administration, serving from 1829 to 1835. While Postmaster General, he outlawed the mailing of William Lloyd Garrison's abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator.

He was the only member of Jackson's original Cabinet not to resign as a result of the Petticoat Affair, which involved the social ostracism of Margaret O'Neill Eaton, the wife of Secretary of War John H. Eaton by a coalition of Cabinet members wives led by Second Lady Floride Calhoun. Barry, like Jackson, had sided with the Eatons.

Appointments and awards
He was appointed ambassador to Spain, but died before he could take office en route to his post, while stopped in Liverpool, England August 30, 1835. He was originally interred and a cenotaph still stands at St. James's Cemetery, Liverpool, England; he was reinterred in 1854 at Frankfort Cemetery, Frankfort, Kentucky.

Barry County, Michigan, Barry County, Missouri, Barry, Missouri, Barrytown Barrytown, New York and Barryville, New York are named in his honor.

Societies
During the 1820s, Barry was a member of the prestigious society, Columbian Institute for the Promotion of Arts and Sciences, who counted among their members former presidents Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams and many prominent men of the day, including well-known representatives of the military, government service, medical, and other professions.

Personal
Barry was an uncle to Kentucky Governor Luke P. Blackburn.

title: William T. Barry


text:
William Barry

William Barry may refer to:

Politics

 * Dick Barry (1926–2013), Speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives
 * William T. Barry (1784–1835), politician from Kentucky and Postmaster General under Andrew Jackson
 * William S. Barry (1821–1868), American politician from Mississippi
 * Bill Barry (politician) (1899–1972), member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly
 * William Bernard Barry (1902–1946), politician from New York

Religion

 * William Francis Barry (1849–1930), British Catholic priest, theologian, educator and writer
 * William Barry (bishop), DD (1872–1929), Archbishop of Hobart, Tasmania
 * William Barry (Congregationalist) (1805–1885), American Congregational pastor and author
 * William Lloyd Barry (1916–1999), member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and related offices

Sports

 * Bill Barry (1899–1955), Australian rules footballer
 * William Barry (footballer) (1929–2007), Irish footballer
 * William L. Barry (born 1940), British rower and coach

Other

 * William Gerard Barry (1864–1941), Irish artist
 * William R. Barry (1828–1900), American businessman and advocate for the deaf
 * William J. Barry (born 1943), Irish phonetician
 * William Farquhar Barry (1818–1879), U.S. Army officer in the Mexican–American and American Civil wars
 * William Jackson Barry (1819–1907), New Zealand adventurer and writer

title: William Barry


text:
Talk:List of Spanish provinces by area

Untitled
If we're going to ignore correctness and go with whatever ignorant people usually call these places, then surely we should use the Spanish names for virtually all of them, including Castilla-La Mancha and Andalucia. —Chameleon 01:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * How do you define "correctness"? The last thing I saw you write talked about "morons who say Milano" and "intelligent, educated people" who write things like "Saragossa." According to Naming conventions (use English):

 * Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in "Torino" even though most English texts still call the city "Turin". However newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world never do this and still say Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article.

 * This is part of the reason why we use Google, rather than a judgment about what educated and/or erudite people would use, versus what those who you so endearingly call "morons" (read: the average person who would use Wikipedia) would expect. -- BCorr | Брайен 03:09, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with the provinces table in List of subdivisions of Spain by population
I propose to merge the tables for provincial areas and provincial populations into a single table, which would 1) Make look-ups easier (since the names of provinces differ between the spanish and english names), 2) Allow to add easily population density as a third data column, and 3) Avoid having an article which is made up of only a single table. It might be useful to split List of subdivisions of Spain by population into Ranked lists of Spanish autonomous communities (which already exists) and Ranked lists of Spanish provinces (which would be created from the merger). Julio 9 7 4 ◆ (Talk-Contribs) 14:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Spanish provinces by area


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV

from main page

 * This user has repeatedly attacked User:Sam Spade. He has preserved and "protected" a mentioning of Sam Spade as being a "racist" on his page, then deleted my comments regarding it.(vandalism removed Sam Spade)

 * Has declined mediation in regards to this matter w Sam

I did not make this statement, please view the materials. GrazingshipIV 00:41, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Grazingship is a good contributor. I feel he done excellent work on wikipedia. I can vouch for him, although I'd be a hypocite to sam a racist Comrade Nick

Unfortunetly Spade formally Jack Lynch) does have or at least has had racist views, as can be demonstrated on my talk page as he used a racial slur. Spade has also repeatedly defended others who espouse racists views such as Paul Vogel. He also vandalized and trolled my user page on many occasions which one can see from viewing the history. In the lordkeeneth situation Spade was trying to remove something from someone's user page without permission because it involved him.

I will continue to battle racist trolls like Sam Spade as I batteled Vogel to keep wikipedia free from racist POV. In short, I will call a spade a spade. GrazingshipIV 00:26, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * The racist slur in question is "negro", if anybody is interested. Sam Spade 00:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The following was placed under the ==Outside views== header; I have moved it here as Sam Spade cannot be both a party to the dispute and a user not directly involved in the dispute. Sam: Please make up your mind. —No-One Jones 05:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

begin copied text

 * 1) If he removed the statement (not the one I made BTW, I don't mind that) and refrained from accusing me of racism, etc.. I would find this matter resolved to my satisfaction. Sam Spade 04:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

end copied text.

That was my endorsement of danny, not a outside statement of my own. Sam Spade 14:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Also I would like to see the evidence, with diffs, of GrazingshipIV failing to comprehend or respect the NPOV policy. Thank you. —No-One Jones 05:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Read the page, thank you. Sam Spade 14:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I didn't make myself clear: When and in which articles (the only part of Wikipedia to which the policy applies) has GrazingshipIV not understood or obeyed the rules of NPOV? —No-One Jones 16:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Grazingship also accused me of vandalizing his User page with no proof, and has repeatedly refused to retract that statement or to apologize. RickK 05:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC) '''Note: No proof or evidence has been presented to back up this claim of Grazingship baselessly accusing RickK. Without proof, this user is smearing Grazingship's name.'''

from ==Statement of the dispute==, evidence section:

 * Edits to this page made by the user in question. [i.e. GrazingshipIV]

Which edits did you mean -- he has made several -- and what do they demonstrate? Please clarify. —No-One Jones 07:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink Sam Spade 16:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, that's constructive. —No-One Jones 16:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, I forgot that purely verbal sarcasm isn't apparent in text. What I really meant was: Please demonstrate which edits by GrazingshipIV to Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV were made in violation of which policy. Will you do that, please? —No-One Jones 23:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * from main, ==Fourth outside view== section

 * I'm not familiar enough with GrazingshipIV's entire user history, but if one considers him a troll, he's a friendly troll. Sam Spade is a mean troll plotting against his 'enemies' at every step (e.g., aside from me, there's Danny and John). In contrast, I've never seen GrazingshipIV deliberatively act in a spiteful and vindicate way. If he's pissing someone off, he's just acting rashly at the whim of the moment. From my experiences, it's the passive aggressive trolls (e.g., Lir and his dozens of incarnations, Sam Spade, Veriverily, Cantus, and Jor) you have to watch out for. 172 05:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * No, he's been acting quite irrationally and planning attacks agaainst Sam Spade forq uite sometime. ugen64 16:33, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't have any "enemies" 172, thats silly. Certainly not you (when is the last time we even spoke, much less diagreed?) not Danny (whose assesment above I endorsed, and whom I am attempting to resolve prior misunderstandings w) nor "John" (which john would that be?). If I did have an "enemy" it would be someone like User:Lord Kenneth/User:GrazingshipIV, whose record of edits speaks for itself. Sam Spade 17:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

This is yet another example of Sam's inapprorpiate behavior. My edits in quality easily surpass his. As far as the lordken situation, you were previously user Jack Lynch and therefore have a conflict of interest in editing someone else's userpage (especially when that user is involved).

Your personal reputation here is your own business. My "attacks" of you have not created the negative opinion so many have of you. It is unfair to blame me for that. GrazingshipIV 17:13, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * end

Moved here because the second, third, and fourth posts are obviously not endorsements of RickK's statement, and I'm not so sure about the first. 172, could you please clarify whether you're endorsing RickK's view or not? —No-One Jones 17:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

vide supra

 * 1)  I don't know if Sam is racist but he does seem to spend a lot of time picking fights, holding grudges and acting out on them. Much of the problem seems to be that Sam made a comment on GrazingshipIV's talk page which he regrets and would like to disappear and Grazingship refuses to remove Sam's comment from his page. Sam shouldn't be removing material from someone else's talk page. That seems to be a more serious offence than anything Sam's accusing GrazingshipIV of having done. I suggest that both users refrain from commenting on each other's talk pages.  However, I have to add that I reject the argument that someone who defends a racist must be a racist himself as a guilt by association fallacy. This is an especially dubious contention given the poor quality of Sam's advocacy on behalf of Vogel, a performance that would have had him disbarred had he actually been a lawyer. AndyL 06:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * So, if I publish people's addresses on my talk page, noone can remove them but me? ugen64 16:36, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Bumm13 06:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it should be noted that Grazingship referred to Sam Spade as a "neonazi SOB" on IRC. ugen64 16:32, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it should be noted that IRC is not Wikipedia. Snowspinner 17:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

end

What are you doing, Mirv?
The refactoring you are doing here, and the boilerplate etc... have no relation to what is done on other RfC pages. Why have you decided to take control of this page? Are you unilaterally creating a new RfC policy here and now on this page, or what? Where is the precedent for any of this? Sam Spade 17:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Read Requests for comment/Example user. I believe everything I've done here is backed up by the guidelines on that page. —No-One Jones 17:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe none of the refactoring you have done here is backed up by any policy, on that page or elsewhere. There definitely is no precedent. Sam Spade 17:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * In that case feel free to re-refactor the page as necessary; however I ask that you at least keep the standard boilerplate intact. —No-One Jones 17:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * That isn't the standard boilerplate after the two persons have certified their accusations. It has always then been removed. Please review precedent on RfC pages! Sam Spade 17:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Samantic (Semantic) compromise
I guess I would be willing to change white supremacism to white seperatism (which is more accurate). But it will stay until May, if you don't like your comments don't make them Sam. GrazingshipIV 17:58, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * I like my comments. Its yours that are offensive trolling. I no longer have any faith in your intents here.

SamSpade 18:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I am trolling my talk page? Well...I guess thats true. I really do not in all honesty care what you think of me. So your "faith" or lack thereof is not relevant to the discussion. Your repeated smears and trolling are on you.

Well if you don't want to compromise you don't want to compromise. GrazingshipIV 18:05, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * What I don't want is to hear any more of your vile lies and slander. I don't find your suggestions to be compromising, but rather manipulative barbs designed to provoke and escalate. Clearly I need to bring up more of your past, before we met. Sam Spade 18:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Clearly you are not winning the argument on RFC, nor should you. You have been trolling here long before I came. Also please note RFC pertains to a single dispute that being your charge of "slander". Look to the rules when in doubt.

Furthermore, using racist language makes you rather vile IMO which has allot to due with this conflict. GrazingshipIV 18:13, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

"Trolling" is just another form of personal attack, and this is getting progressively more childish. Sam wants the comments removed from Grazingship's talk page. Grazingship wants Sam not to post to his talk page anymore. I don't see any good reason why you two can't both agree to those things. --Michael Snow 18:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Note: This was first posted to Mike's talk page.

I am of the opinion that if he doesn't respect this one he will not respect others. I also believe in my statement and it really will be taken down in May. But as many people who have casted their votes so far have said, Spade is a troll for the most part. Thus, I deal with him as such and I think giving him what he wants now (appeasement) would do more damage to wikipedia and myself, than holding my ground and riding through the controversey. GrazingshipIV 18:19, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a boundary that you have imposed unilaterally. It goes contrary to the normal purpose of talk pages, including user talk pages. Sam never agreed to it that I know of. If he agrees to respect the boundary you want, then you have a negotiated solution, and a rule that you can be justified in expecting him to abide by. Then, if he does post to your talk page again, you would be fully justified in restoring the comments, for as long as you want to keep them there. How does that sound? --Michael Snow 18:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Regardless of my sense of thea ppropriateness of preserving the comment for all eternity, the task of what to and not to archive on user talk pages is largely left up to the user, and I am not comfortable with any sort of editorial policy on how one ought maintain one's talk page. That is to say, the matter of what stays on there is Graz's to decide. Similarly, this is a Wiki. As long as Sam is not vandalizing the page, he is entitled to post on it. Snowspinner 18:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Mike, I have heard your comments and find much value in them. I will of course take it into consideration, but I think setting ground rules on a talk page bearing my user name is more than legitimate. Perhaps after this conflict is over the comments can be taken off or time reduced but not under this sort of campaign where accusations are being hurled at me in such a way.

It would be wrong of me to yield to Sam under these conditions so I won't. Also most people who have voted have made the case clear on Sam and his behavior. thank you and I will no longer respond in this talk page. GrazingshipIV 18:37, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV failings?
I repeat my request for specific citations of GrazingshipIV failing to respect NPOV in articles (not Talk: or Wikipedia: pages—the policy does not apply to those). —No-One Jones 20:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Page certification
The policy for creating a page like this is as follows:

"Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."

ugen64 has not posted in recent history to Grazingship's talk page, thus does not fulfill the minimum requirements to certify this page, so far as I can tell. Could someone clear this up? Snowspinner 22:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Ugen64 made one post to Grazingship's talk page on the 10th of May; its content was:

 * Wow, grazingship, just leave him the heck alone. ugen64 00:29, May 10, 2004 (UTC).

 * I think this was an attempt to resolve the issue, eh? Perhaps Ugen64 should have certified, rather than endorsed, the summary—but that can be fixed. —No-One Jones 23:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I do not think that he talked with Grazingship, nor do I think that his post particularly invited dialogue. I would say that we are not yet certified. Snowspinner 23:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You are right on technical grounds; ugen64 did not certify the summary, but rather endorsed it. (That is, his current statement says that he has reviewed the evidence and, as an outside observer, agrees with Sam Spade's version of events—a certification would say that he took an active role in the dispute, that the summary accurately describes that role, and that he agrees that the RfC is necessary.) Whether this was a simple mistake or an accurate statement of his perspective, we shall see. —No-One Jones 00:05, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Support for Sam's account
Standard practice in petitions, contracts, and other documents which one signs one's name to is that, if the document changes, all supporters must initial the change, or re-sign it. The onus is not on people who sign petitions and statements to make sure the statement has not been altered. In fact, legally, it's fraud to alter it after someone signs it. If you alter a statement that people have signed, you have to reobtain the support for it. Alternatively, you can revert the statement and claim the original support. Either one works. Snowspinner 00:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This is not a contract, and you are not a judge. Sam Spade 00:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The basic principle that "Ugen never expressed support for the document his name is listed as supporting" applies. Snowspinner 00:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Agree entirely. It's not a contract; it's just basic honesty. If someone agrees with or confirms a story you tell, you can't tell a significantly-altered version of that story later and add "so-and-so agrees with me; go ask him." You have to make sure that the person in question really agrees with your new version of the story. —No-One Jones 00:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * He seconded the creation of the page early on. If you all had not been so hysterically ruleslawyering on behalf of graz, you would have simply accepted that he helped create the page, and put "second" into the edit summary. But whatever. The concensus here seems to be negativity towards myself, not graz, and your clearly willing to stop at nothing to subvert the intent of this page. I am not particularly optimistic at this juncture. Sam Spade 00:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm interested in preserving the integrity and honesty of the process - one of the intents of this page is to determine who agrees with what. A bait and switch in your statements subverts that intent far more than deleting questionable support does. I'm happy to compromise with a note after ugen's signature that indicates that his support was for an older version, rather than deleting it entirely. Snowspinner 00:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * "your clearly willing to stop at nothing to subvert the intent of this page." How's that? The intent of this page when it was started was—correct me if I'm wrong—to allow people to comment on what Grazingship did on his talk page: claiming you have sympathetic views towards white supremacy, then refusing to remove that statement when asked. You see this as a violation of the policy against personal attacks; Graz does not. Outside opinions and suggestions were and are needed.

 * I don't see how maintaining a focus on this incident, and ensuring that the rules regarding user conduct RfCs are followed, is "hysterically ruleslawyering on behalf of graz"—could you explain, please? —No-One Jones 20:04, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Temp Ban
Regarding the earlier dispute (about his behavior on RfA): Is it still ongoing? Have two people tried to resolve it and failed? Graz says that it was resolved amicably through mediation and wonders why it's being brought up now. —No-One Jones 00:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * For the record, Graz and I got off to a bad start. We had some misunderstandings. We resolved our disputes maturely and swiftly through mediation (at the end of March 2004), and we have not had any misunderstandings since. Kingturtle 01:46, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Comment on new charge
moved from main—best to address it on talk

The statement "This user has behaved contentiously in the recent past, requiring temporary banning" is misleading. My understanding is the ban was lifted when support for it dropped below the required level. AndyL 07:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed, I believe the temp ban was early in GrazingshipIV's wikilife, when he violated the three revert rule without knowing it was in place, and got banned via a quickpoll. Since the quickpoll process is currently under review, and since it could be a bit easier for a newbie to see a list of editing policies than it is right now, I think the fact that he was briefly tempbanned is unfortunate, but easily put into context such that it is not a big deal. Snowspinner 13:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

False Certification
As is stated by the rules Ugen64 has neither discussed with me or been involved with both Sam's 3rd and 4th statements of dispute.(3.He has declined mediation in regards to this matter with Sam. 4.This user has behaved contentiously in the recent past, requiring temporary banning). Of course, Sam also cannot list point 4 as he too was not invovled in the temp-ban.

Also Spade has repeatedly changed his charges which violates the rules. He is engaging in personal attacks. If he continues this behavior an RFC page will have to be started about him. GrazingshipIV 00:43, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * There's no rule against changing the summary, so far as I can tell. It's certainly possible that some hypothetical user (let's call him X) might remember unresolved past disputes (call them Y) with the subject of his initial RfC (call him Z).

 * If User X (and other users), having been previously involved in dispute Y with User:Z, and having tried and failed to resolve it through other means, choose to bring up the subject, then I would see no problem with expanding the scope of the RfC in such a way. Would you?

 * If, on the other hand, X had not been involved in dispute Y and had not tried to resolve it, and the users who were involved in it resolved everything to their mutual satisfaction, and then gave statements to that effect—then I might have a different opinion. What do you think?—No-One Jones 01:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I would have no problem with expanding the scope of the RfC, however, I think that every issue listed in the summary needs to be certified - you can't certify four issues if you were only involved in one. So if ugen64 has only talked to Graz about one of the charges, ugen can only certify that charge - the other three, I think, would remain uncertified until someone who has brought them up with Graz certifies them. Snowspinner 01:12, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I unfortunetly have to agree with Snowspinner. Indeed Spade can just strike the new charges. But he will have to at least do that as in mirv's second senario Spade and Ugen64(as X) were not involved in Y, so they cannot claim it as a dispute. GrazingshipIV 01:24, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Statement of the dispute
So the questions seem to be:

 * 1) is unquestioned—there is evidence of both certifying users trying and failing to resolve it.
 * 2) has been withdrawn, so never mind.
 * 3) Is his declining mediation part of the disputed behavior, or evidence for a failed attempt at resolving the dispute? Can it be both? I would say not. There's no rule against refusing mediation.
 * 4) What was the extent of Sam and ugen's involvement in this particular dispute? Where did they try and fail to resolve it? Was it resolved by other means, or is it still simmering? Can we see the evidence, please?

Answers would be welcome. —No-One Jones 01:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Spade and I both made comments on his talk page, resulting in pushing back the time of reomval (for the former) and simply deleting the comment (for mine). Then, I attemped twice to get him to remove the offending text, as Sam is very willing to back off. However, Grazingship refused, so here we are. cryptfiend64 15:10, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ugen had nothing to do with 3 and so he cannot certify that. Spade and Ugen had nothing to do with 4 so they cannot certify that.

Actually in pertaining to 4 (as Kingturtle has above-Temp Ban) my dispute has been resolved. Also Spade and I were not familiar with each other at the time: we had never communicated nor was Spade directly or indirectly involved in the dispute. The only evidence Spade wants to give is against himself apprently. GrazingshipIV 01:45, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Trolling
moved from user talk:Mirv, because it largely concerns the contents of this RfC page, and the other "haters" may wish to respond to the points raised. All uses of the second person refer to me. —No-One Jones 07:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC) When I created the page, I assumed good faith on the part of graz. I thought he legitimately misunderstood me as racist, and was unable to comprehend the NPOV policy, resulting in him thinking I should not be allowed to edit here. Since creating the page I realize beyond any doubt that he is trolling, and it appears you have decided to promote this thru bizarre rules lawyering. I for my part have realized this for what it is, a tar-baby. Once you, and a handful of other haters have stopped taking the focus of this page away from its intended subject (graz), and attempting to use it to provoke me (rules lawyering), perhaps people w a legitimate interest in promoting policy and community (UninvitedCompany, Danny, etc..) will be heard above the din. In short, no. I will not not fool about playing a losing game with your stacked deck whilst the troll dances a hornpipe. As I have said before, my impression of you had been one of a polite and compromising individual intent of producing NPOV content. Kindly go, do that, and stop promoting trolling. Sam [Spade] 05:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry you think that people have been stacking the deck against you. That certainly wasn't my intention, and I don't know if I'm one of the people you think has been. I think this process is foolish. I think Graz and you have both behaved foolishly towards each other. I think that the wisest course of action is for you both to leave each other alone. That said, if Graz were to start an RfC page about you, I would push just as stridently for it being conducted according to the rules. Because if you and Graz are going to insist on wasting people's time requesting comment on your idiotic and childish feud, you should at least waste our time according to the rules. Snowspinner 18:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I have come to a few conclusions about Spade during this process the most important one is that he lacks enough intelligence to be taken seriously in most cases. The last case for instance where he is obviously trying to bait me by using the term tar-baby and continues his campaign trying to present himself as a virtuious victim. He fails to see that most of the people who came here have little to no sympathy for him...because he has no substance to his argument.

And his strategy of working the ref (in this case Mirv) is distrubingly transparent. Trying to complain about bias in order to silence those who have reasonable objections to his foolishness.

Face it Spade. Even people who are not sympathetic to my cause are never going to be sympathetic to yours. You would be better off just taking the page down. If you want to keep up thats fine with me but don't complain everytime people figure out that you have no case. GrazingshipIV 22:21, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * What "cause" is this? Oh, yes, his "white supremacy"? Face it -- the word Negro does not translate into white supremacy. The word Negro has turned into a politically incorrect word, like queer, retarded, etc. -- those words do not contain offensive denotations (many Wikipedians that are homosexual refer to themselves as "queer", for example, and "mentally retarded" is the official and widely-used medical term); they have only been used in offensive connotations. Obviously, when Sam referred to "Negroes", he meant no offense -- as I understand it (through our chats on IRC), that's your main reason for calling him "white supremacist". cryptfiend64 02:07, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument and is it not relevant to my previous comment. GrazingshipIV 02:27, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Then i'm confused. What is this "cause" you speak of? As according to your words, it's supporting racism and white supremacy, n'est-ce pas? cryptfiend64 15:08, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

My cause is my position as many other wikipedians have seconded under response, I suggest you view it. Either you are failing to see the argument or are just mindlessly advocating for Spade (the latter it seems) and trying to mistate my position. Eitherway, you have made your position rather clear both here and on the project page. Thanks. GrazingshipIV 19:05, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade
Is repeatedly deleting comments on Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV. GrazingshipIV 00:45, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

GrazingshipIV

 * (User:GrazingshipIV | talk | contributions)

Is repeatedly deleting comments on Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV. Sam Spade 00:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

This is, of course, nonsense. Sam keeps deleting my statements for some reason. GrazingshipIV

Unilatteral disarmament for the good of the community
I have removed the comment that Spade found offensive for the good of the community. I think the point was been made about his behavior, lets get back to work! GrazingshipIV


text:
El Che

El Che may refer to:

 * Che Guevara (1928-1967), an Argentine Marxist revolutionary
 * Cheteshwar Pujara (1988-), an Indian Test Cricket Batsman
 * El Che (album), a 2010 album by Rhymefest

title: El Che


text:
Interstate 696

Interstate 696 (I-696) is an east–west auxiliary Interstate Highway in the Metro Detroit region of the US state of Michigan. The state trunkline highway is also known as the Walter P. Reuther Freeway, named for the prominent auto industry union head by the Michigan Legislature in 1971. I-696 is a bypass route, detouring around the city of Detroit through the city's northern suburbs in Oakland and Macomb counties. It starts by branching off I-96 and I-275 at its western terminus in Farmington Hills, and runs through suburbs including Southfield, Royal Oak and Warren before merging into I-94 at St. Clair Shores on the east end. It has eight lanes for most of its length and is approximately 10 mi north of downtown Detroit. I-696 connects to other freeways such as I-75 (Chrysler Freeway) and M-10 (Lodge Freeway). Local residents sometimes refer to I-696 as "The Autobahn of Detroit".

Planning for the freeway started in the 1950s. Michigan state officials proposed the designation I-98, but this was not approved. Construction started on the first segment in 1961, and the Lodge Freeway was designated Business Spur Interstate 696 (BS I-696) the following year. The western third of the freeway opened in 1963, and the eastern third was completed in January 1979. The central segment was the subject of much controversy during the 1960s and 1970s. Various municipalities along this stretch argued over the routing of the freeway such that the governor locked several officials into a room overnight until they would agree to a routing. Later, various groups used federal environmental regulations to force changes to the freeway. The Orthodox Jewish community in Oak Park was concerned about pedestrian access across the freeway; I-696 was built with a set of parks on overpasses to accommodate their needs. The Detroit Zoo and the City of Detroit also fought components of the freeway design. These concessions delayed the completion of I-696 until December 15, 1989. Since completion, the speed limit was raised from 55 to 70 mph. In addition, some interchanges were reconfigured in 2006.

Route description

I-696, which has been called "Detroit's Autobahn" by some residents, reflecting a reputation for fast drivers, begins in the west in the city of Novi as a left exit branching off I-96. This ramp is a portion of the I-96/I-696/I-275/M-5 interchange that spans the north–south, Novi–Farmington Hills city line linking together five converging freeways. The freeway curves southeasterly and then northeasterly through the complex as it runs eastward through the adjacent residential subdivisions. I-696 passes south of 12 Mile Road in the Mile Road System through Farmington Hills, passing south of Harrison High School and north of Mercy High School. After crossing into Southfield, I-696 passes through the Mixing Bowl, another complex interchange that spans over 2 mi near the American Center involving M-10 (Lodge Freeway and Northwestern Highway) and US Highway 24 (US 24, Telegraph Road) between two partial interchanges with Franklin Road on the west and Lahser Road on the east. The carriageways for I-696 run in the median of M-10 from northwest to southeast. East of this interchange, cargo restrictions have been enacted for the next 10 mi segment of I-696; no commercial vehicles may carry flammable or explosive loads; the segment passes below grade and between retaining walls that are 20 - 25 ft tall, which would hinder evacuation in the event of a fire. During construction in April 1989, vandals set a fire under one of the plazas, and officials were concerned about the intensity of the fire and the potential for a "horizontal towering inferno" along the freeway section once opened to traffic.

After passing through the Mixing Bowl, I-696 follows 11 Mile Road, which forms a pair of service drives for the main freeway. The Interstate passes through the city of Lathrup Village before turning southward and then easterly on an S-shaped path to run along 10 Mile Road. This segment of freeway is known for its extensive use of retaining walls; three large landscaped plazas form short tunnels for freeway traffic near the Greenfield Road exit. The freeway passes next to the Jewish Community Center of Metropolitan Detroit as it passes under the third pedestrian plaza. The Interstate then picks up 10 Mile Road, which forms a pair of service drives, as the Reuther runs along the border between the cities of Oak Park and Huntington Woods. I-696 follows the southern edge of the Detroit Zoo. Immediately east of the zoo, the Interstate intersects M-1 (Woodward Avenue), and crosses a line of the Canadian National Railway that also carries Amtrak passenger service between Detroit and Pontiac.

East of the rail crossing, I-696 has a four-level stack interchange with I-75 over the quadripoint for Royal Oak, Madison Heights, Hazel Park and Ferndale. This interchange marks the eastern end of the cargo restrictions. I-696 jogs to the northeast near the Hazel Park Raceway, leaving 10 Mile Road. Crossing into Warren in Macomb County at the Dequindre Road interchange, the freeway begins to follow 11 Mile Road again. Near the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant, I-696 has another stack interchange for Mound Road; through the junction, the freeway makes a slight bend to the south. The freeway continues east through the northern edge of Center Line, crossing a line of Conrail Shared Assets and heading back into Warren. The Interstate crosses into Roseville near the M-97 (Groesbeck Highway) interchange and then meets M-3 (Gratiot Avenue) just west of the eastern terminus at I-94 (the Edsel Ford Freeway) in St. Clair Shores. The service drives merge in this final interchange and 11 Mile Road continues due east to Lake St. Clair.

Like other state highways in Michigan, I-696 is maintained by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). In 2011, the department's traffic surveys showed that on average 185,700 vehicles used the freeway daily east of I-75 and 38,100 vehicles did so each day in part of the Mixing Bowl, the highest and lowest counts along the highway, respectively. As an Interstate Highway, all of I-696 is listed on the National Highway System, a network of roads important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility.

Planning and initial construction
I-696 is part of the original Interstate Highway System as outlined in 1956–58. As originally proposed by the Michigan State Highway Department, the freeway would have been numbered I-98. Construction started in 1961. The Lodge Freeway, the first segment of which opened in 1957, was given the Business Spur I-696 designation in 1962. The first segment of I-696 built was the western third of the completed freeway which opened in 1963–1964 at a cost of $16.6 million (equivalent to $ in ). This section ran from I-96 in Novi east to the Lodge Freeway in Southfield. The then-unfinished freeway was named for Walter P. Reuther, former leader of the United Auto Workers labor union after he and his wife died in a plane crash on May 9, 1970. The next year the Michigan Legislature approved the naming by passing Senate Concurrent Resolution 57.

In the late 1970s, during the second phase of construction, lobbying efforts and lawsuits attempted to block construction of the central section. If successful, the efforts would have left the freeway with a gap in the middle between the first (western) and second (eastern) phases of construction. During this time, MDOT assigned M-6 to the eastern section of the freeway under construction. Signs were erected along the service roads that followed 11 Mile Road to connect the already built stack interchange at I-75 east to I-94. By the time the eastern freeway segment was initially opened in January 1979 between I-94 and I-75, the signage for M-6 was removed and replaced with I-696 signage; it cost $200 million (equivalent to $ in ) to complete. Later in 1979, a closure was scheduled to allow work to be completed on three of the segment's nine interchanges.

Controversies over middle segment
The central section was the most controversial. Governor James Blanchard was 15 years old and a high school sophomore in neighboring Pleasant Ridge when the freeway was proposed and purchased a home in the area in 1972. He joked during remarks at the dedication in 1989, "The unvarnished truth about this freeway? I wasn't even alive when it was first proposed," and added, "frankly, I never thought it would go through." Total cost at completion for the entire freeway at the end of the 30-year project was $675 million (equivalent to $ in ).

Arguments between local officials were so intense that during the 1960s, then-Governor George W. Romney once locked fighting bureaucrats in a community center until they would agree on a path for the freeway. During the 1970s, local groups used then-new environmental regulations to oppose the Interstate. The freeway was noted in a Congressional subcommittee report on the "Major Interstate System Route Controversy in Urban Areas" for the controversies in 1970. Before 1967, local communities had to approve highway locations and designs, and the debates over I-696 prompted the passage of an arbitration statute. That statute was challenged by Pleasant Ridge and Lathrup Village before being upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court. Lathrup Village later withdrew from a planning agreement in 1971; had that agreement been implemented, construction on the central section was scheduled to commence in 1974 and finish in 1976.

The community of Orthodox Jews in Oak Park wanted the freeway to pass to the north of their suburb. When this was deemed to be futile, the community asked for changes to the design that would mitigate the impact of the freeway to the pedestrian-dependent community. Final approval in 1981 of the freeway's alignment was contingent on these mitigation measures. To address the community's unique needs, the state hired a rabbi to serve as a consultant on the project. In addition, a series of landscaped plazas were incorporated into the design, forming the tunnels through which I-696 passes. These structures are a set of three 700 ft bridges that cross the freeway within a mile (1.6 km). They allow members of the Jewish community to walk to synagogues on the Sabbath and other holidays when Jewish law prohibits driving. These plazas had their length limited; if they were longer, they would be considered tunnels that would require ventilation systems.

The Detroit Zoo was concerned that noise and air pollution from the Interstate would disturb the animals. They were satisfied by $12 million (equivalent to $ in ) spent on a new parking ramp and other improvements. The City of Detroit tried to stop I-696 as well, but in the end the city was forced to redesign its golf course. A refusal to grant an additional 9 ft of right-of-way by Detroit forced additional design and construction delays during the 1980s.

One of the last obstacles to construction of the freeway was a wetlands area near Southfield. MDOT received a permit from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to destroy 6+1/2 acre of wetland and create a replacement 11 acre area. In the process, some prairie roses and wetlands milkweed were transplanted from the path of I-696 in 1987. The final section of the eight-lane freeway opened at a cost of $436 million (equivalent to $ in ) on December 15, 1989. At the time, one caller to a Detroit radio show commented, "do you realize we have been to the moon and back in the time it has taken to get that road from Ferndale to Southfield?"

Since completion
As part of the overall rehabilitation to the Mixing Bowl interchange, a new interchange at Franklin Road was to be constructed in 2006. An exit ramp from I-696 eastbound to American Drive opened in April 2006. An entrance ramp from Franklin Road to I-696 westbound opened in July 2006. The Franklin Road overpass, which had been closed during this time, re-opened in October 2006.

On November 9, 2006, the speed limit was increased from 65 to 70 mph along the length of I-696. During speed enforcement patrols in August 2022, the Michigan State Police gave out 77 citations during one 4-hour period including six arrests. One motorist was driving at 101 mph, while others were cited at 99 ,.

In 2023, MDOT started a complete reconstruction of I-696 from I-275 in Farmington Hills to US 24 (Telegraph Road) in Southfield. The eastbound lanes were reconstructed in 2023, and the westbound lanes will be reconstructed the following year.

During the reconstruction of the westbound lanes in 2024, I-696 had two lanes shifted onto the John C Lodge Freeway resulting in a temporary concurrency. This is the first time in the history of the I-696 that a concurrency with the Lodge freeway had been in-place.

Related trunkline
Business Spur Interstate 696 (BS I-696) was the designation given to the Lodge Freeway in the Detroit area in 1962. This 17+1/2 mi freeway was renumbered as part of US 10 in 1970, when that highway designation was shifted off Woodward Avenue.

title: Interstate 696


text:
Saint Petersburg Conservatory

The N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov Saint Petersburg State Conservatory (Санкт-Петербургская государственная консерватория имени Н. А. Римского-Корсакова) (formerly known as the Petrograd Conservatory and Leningrad Conservatory) is a school of music in Saint Petersburg, Russia. In 2004, the conservatory had around 275 faculty members and 1,400 students.

History
The conservatory was founded in 1862 by the Russian Music Society and Anton Rubinstein, a Russian pianist and composer. On his resignation in 1867, he was succeeded by Nikolai Zaremba. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov was appointed as a professor in 1871, and the conservatory has borne his name since 1944, the centenary of his birth. In 1887, Rubinstein returned to the conservatory with the goal of improving overall standards. He revised the curriculum, expelled inferior students, fired and demoted many professors, and made entrance and examination requirements more stringent. In 1891, he resigned again over the Imperial demand of racial quotas.

The current building was erected in the 1890s on the site of the old Bolshoi Theatre of Saint Petersburg. As the city changed its name in the 20th century, the conservatory was renamed Petrograd Conservatory (Петроградская консерватория) and Leningrad Conservatory (Ленинградская консерватория).

The school alumni have included such composers as Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Sergei Prokofiev, Artur Kapp, Rudolf Tobias, and Dmitri Shostakovich, who taught at the conservatory during the 1960s. Amongst his pupils were German Okunev and Boris Tishchenko. Composer Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov taught at the conservatory for almost forty years, and his bronze monument is located outside the building in Theatre Square. The youngest musician ever admitted to the conservatory was four-year-old violinist Clara Rockmore, who later became one of the world's foremost theremin players.

Directors and rectors

 * Anton Rubinstein (1862–1867 and 1887–1891)
 * Nikolai Zaremba (1867–1871)
 * Mikhail Azanchevsky (1871–1876)
 * Karl Davydov (1876–1887)
 * Julius Johansen (1891–1897)
 * Auguste Bernhard (1897–1905)
 * Alexander Glazunov (1905–1928) (formally 1930) – rector
 * A. Mashirov (1930–1933)
 * Veniamin Buchstein (1935–1936)
 * Boris Zagursky (1936–1939) – rector
 * Pavel Serebryakov (1939–1952, 1962–1977)
 * Yuri Briushkov (1952–1962)
 * Yuri Bolshiyanov (1977–1979)
 * Vladislav Chernushenko (1979–2002)
 * Sergei Roldugin (2002–2004)
 * Alexander Chaikovsky (2004–2008)
 * Sergei Stadler (2008–2011)
 * Mikhail Gantvarg (2011–2015)
 * Aleksey Vasilyev (since 2015)

Notable faculty

 * Boris Abalyan (conducting)
 * Leopold Auer (violin)
 * Vladimir Bakaleinikov (viola)
 * Louis Brassin (piano)
 * Vitaly Bujanovsky (French Horn)
 * Georgiy Ginovker (cello, chamber music)
 * Edouard Grikurov (conducting)
 * Artur Lemba (piano)
 * Theodor Leschetizky (piano)
 * Nikolai Malko (conducting)
 * Ilya Musin (conducting)
 * Leonid Nikolayev (piano)
 * Cesare Pugni (violin, counterpoint, composition)
 * Alexander Radvilovich (composition)
 * Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (composition, orchestration)
 * Anton Rubinstein (piano, the history of piano literature)
 * Karl Bogdànovich Schuberth (cello)
 * Dmitri Shostakovich (composition)
 * Sergei Slonimsky (composition)
 * Vladimir Sofronitsky – piano
 * Nikolai Tcherepnin (conducting)
 * Boris Tishchenko (composition)
 * Aleksandr Verzhbilovich (cello)
 * Zino Vinnikov (violin)
 * Jāzeps Vītols (composition)
 * Hieronymus Weickmann (viola)
 * Henryk Wieniawski (violin)
 * Alexander Winkler (piano)
 * Anna Yesipova (piano)
 * Nikolai Zaremba (composition, harmony)
 * Anatoly Zatin (composition, orchestration, chamber music)
 * Leah Zelikhman (piano)
 * Henri Vieuxtemps (violin)

Notable graduates

 * Anton Arensky - composer
 * George Balanchine – choreographer
 * Alexander Barantschik - violin
 * Semyon Barmotin - pianist, composer, teacher
 * Sidor Belarsky - operatic basso, educator
 * Richard Burgin – violinist, conductor
 * Semyon Bychkov - conductor
 * Gayane Chebotaryan - composer, pianist, musicologist
 * Joseph Cherniavsky - cellist, conductor
 * Peter Chernobrivets – composer, musicologist
 * Leonid Desyatnikov – composer
 * Sergei Diaghilev – impresario
 * Sandra Drouker - pianist
 * Heino Eller – composer
 * Valery Gergiev – conductor
 * Jascha Heifetz – violinist
 * Aida Huseynova – musicologist and ethnomusicologist
 * Alexander Ilyinsky – music teacher and composer
 * Mariss Jansons – conductor
 * Alfrēds Kalniņš – composer, organist
 * Artur Kapp – composer
 * Leokadiya Kashperova - pianist, composer
 * Yuri Khanon – composer, writer, laureate of the European Film Awards.
 * Eduard Khil – singer
 * Vladimir Khomyakov – pianist
 * Nadine Koutcher – opera singer
 * Gustav Kross - pianist
 * Miroslav Kultyshev - pianist
 * Eugene Levinson - Double bassist
 * Anatoly Lyadov – composer, teacher, conductor
 * Sasha Mäkilä – Finnish conductor
 * Witold Maliszewski – composer
 * Nathan Milstein – violinist
 * Nevsky String Quartet
 * Tomomi Nishimoto - conductor
 * Nikolai Obukhov – composer
 * Leo Ornstein – composer
 * Gavriil Popov - composer
 * Sergei Prokofiev – composer, pianist, conductor
 * Gal Rasché - conductor, pianist, teacher
 * Nadia Reisenberg - pianist
 * Clara Rockmore – violin prodigy, theremin performer
 * Livery Antonovich Sacchetti – Russian music historian
 * David Serero - opera singer
 * Ilya Serov - trumpeter
 * Don Shirley - pianist, arranger, composer
 * Dmitri Shostakovich – composer, pianist
 * Nadezhda Simonyan - composer
 * Kuldar Sink — composer, flautist
 * Vladimir Sofronitsky – pianist
 * Grigory Sokolov – pianist
 * Lyubov Streicher - composer
 * Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky – composer
 * Yuri Temirkanov – conductor
 * Dimitri Tiomkin – pianist, composer
 * Elena Tsallagova – soprano
 * Vera Vinogradova-pianist, composer
 * Zino Vinnikov – violinist
 * Solomon Volkov – musicologist
 * Ivan Yershov – singer
 * Anna Yesipova – pianist
 * Mikhail Youdin – composer
 * Maria Yudina – pianist
 * Stefania Anatolyevna Zaranek - composer
 * Anatoly Zatin - composer, pianist, conductor
 * Valery Zhelobinsky – pianist, composer
 * Efrem Zimbalist - violinist
 * Emina Kamberović – ballet dancer, choreographer, teacher
 * Edina Papo – ballet dancer, choreographer, teacher

title: Saint Petersburg Conservatory


text:
Hermann von Salza

Hermann von Salza (or Herman of Salza; c. 1165 – 20 March 1239) was the fourth Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, serving from 1210 to 1239. A skilled diplomat with ties to the Frederick II and the Pope, Hermann oversaw the expansion of the military order into Prussia.

Biography
Hermann von Salza was born to a dynasty of ministeriales of the Thuringian landgraves, probably at Dryburg Castle in Langensalza. With Landgrave Louis III of Thuringia he may have already taken part in the 1189/91 Siege of Acre, where the Teutonic Order was founded. He possibly also joined Landgrave Hermann I and the Henneberg count Otto von Botenlauben on the Crusade of 1197 and witnessed the coronation of King Amalric II of Jerusalem. The crusade was aborted upon the death of Emperor Henry VI, whereafter the Teutonic Knights were re-established as a military order under Grand Master Heinrich Walpot von Bassenheim to secure the conquered estates of the Holy Land. The precise time of Hermann's entry into the Order is unknown, but he first appears as Grand Master at the coronation of Count John of Brienne as King of Jerusalem in 1210. As such he may have spent some time in the Mediterranean Sea region during the first year of his rule. During this period the activities of the Knights were extended from Spain to Livonia.

Hermann was a friend and councilor of the Hohenstaufen emperor Frederick II, for whom he represented as a mediator in the Papal curia from 1222 onwards. Pope Honorius III also recognized Hermann's capabilities, and granted the Teutonic Knights an equal status with the Knights Hospitaller and the Knights Templar, after it had gone into decline under previous Grand Masters. At the request of King Andrew II of Hungary in 1211, Hermann led the placing of Teutonic Knights in the Burzenland in Transylvania to defend against the Cumans. Hungarian nobles complained of the order's presence, however, and they were forced to leave by 1225. Meanwhile, Hermann accompanied Frederick on the Fifth Crusade against Damietta in 1219, and he was decorated for bravery by John of Brienne. Hermann later convinced Frederick to undertake the Sixth Crusade, and was partially responsible for Frederick's marriage to Isabella, John of Brienne's daughter.

Upon his return to Europe, Hermann helped to end the War of the Keys and lift Frederick's excommunication. He was then requested by Konrad I of Masovia to fight the pagan Old Prussians. After Hermann had gained approval from both the Pope and the Emperor the knights began their lengthy campaign to Christianize Prussia in 1230.

Hermann's subsequent visits with the Pope or the Emperor brought new privileges and donations to the Order. He was also able to obtain the incorporation of the Livonian Brothers of the Sword into the Teutonic Order in 1237. The importance of Hermann's role as mediator between Pope Gregory IX and the emperor can be seen by the fact that all communication between Frederick and the pope broke off with Hermann's death.

Within the Teutonic Order, however, the knights began to grow dissatisfied at the absence of their Grand Master, so they recalled him and had him withdraw from his political life. However, he was less successful as a religious leader, and soon retired to Salerno in 1238. He died there in 1239.

Legacy
A marble bust of Hermann stood as a secondary figure at the side of the Brandenburg margrave Albrecht II (Sculptor Johannes Boese) in the former Berlin Siegesallee. It has been in the Spandau Citadel since May 2009. Albrecht had participated in the founding meeting of the order in 1198 in Akkon and had already met the Grand Master on the Third Crusade (1189–1192).

A memorial plaque for Hermann von Salza was included in the Walhalla memorial near Regensburg.

During the Second World War, Panzer Division SS-Panzer-Abteilung 11 was named Hermann von Salza.

title: Hermann von Salza


text:
Jack Dongarra

Jack Joseph Dongarra (born July 18, 1950) is an American computer scientist and mathematician. He is a University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Computer Science in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department at the University of Tennessee. He holds the position of a Distinguished Research Staff member in the Computer Science and Mathematics Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Turing Fellowship in the School of Mathematics at the University of Manchester, and is an adjunct professor and teacher in the Computer Science Department at Rice University. He served as a faculty fellow at the Texas A&M University Institute for Advanced Study (2014–2018). Dongarra is the founding director of the Innovative Computing Laboratory at the University of Tennessee. He was the recipient of the Turing Award in 2021.

Education
Dongarra received a BSc degree in mathematics from Chicago State University in 1972 and a MSc degree in Computer Science from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1973. In 1980, he received PhD in Applied Mathematics from the University of New Mexico under the supervision of Cleve Moler.

Research and career
Dongarra worked at the Argonne National Laboratory until 1989, becoming a senior scientist. He specializes in numerical algorithms in linear algebra, parallel computing, the use of advanced computer architectures, programming methodology, and tools for parallel computers. His research includes the development, testing, and documentation of high-quality mathematical software. He has contributed to the design and implementation of the following open-source software packages and systems: EISPACK, LINPACK, the Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms (BLAS), Linear Algebra Package (LAPACK), ScaLAPACK, Parallel Virtual Machine (PVM), Message Passing Interface (MPI), NetSolve, TOP500, Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra Software (ATLAS), High-Performance Conjugate Gradient (HPCG)  and Performance Application Programming Interface (PAPI). These libraries excel in the accuracy of the underlying numerical algorithms and the reliability and performance of the software. They benefit a very wide range of users through their incorporation into software including MATLAB, Maple, Wolfram Mathematica, GNU Octave, the R programming language, SciPy, and others.

With Eric Grosse, Dongarra pioneered the distribution via email and the web of numeric open-source code collected in Netlib. He has published approximately 300 articles, papers, reports, and technical memoranda, and he is the co-author of several books. He holds appointments with Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of Manchester, where he has served as a Turing Fellow since 2007.

Awards and honors
In 2004, Dongarra was awarded the IEEE Sid Fernbach Award for his contributions in the application of high-performance computers using innovative approaches. In 2008, he was the recipient of the first IEEE Medal of Excellence in Scalable Computing. In 2010, Dongarra was the first recipient of the SIAM Activity Group on Supercomputing Career Prize. In 2011, he was the recipient of the IEEE Computer Society Charles Babbage Award. In 2013, he was the recipient of the ACM/IEEE Ken Kennedy Award for his leadership in designing and promoting standards for mathematical software used to solve numerical problems common to high-performance computing. In 2019, Dongarra received the SIAM/ACM Prize in Computational Science. In 2020, he received the IEEE Computer Pioneer Award for leadership in the area of high-performance mathematical software.

Dongarra was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and a foreign member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a foreign member of the Royal Society (ForMemRS). In 2001, he was elected a member of the US National Academy of Engineering for contributions to numerical software, parallel and distributed computation, and problem-solving environments. In 2023, Dongarra was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in recognition of his distinguished and continuing achievements in original research in the field of high-performance computing. In 2024, Dongarra received an Honorary Doctorate degree from the Department of Informatics, Ionian University.

Dongarra received the 2021 Turing Award "for pioneering contributions to numerical algorithms and libraries that enabled high performance computational software to keep pace with exponential hardware improvements for over four decades.". His algorithms and software are regarded to have fueled the growth of high-performance computing and had significant impacts in many areas of computational science, from artificial intelligence to computer graphics.

title: Jack Dongarra


text:
Talk:Edward IV

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Henry VI Being Childless
It is stated that the claim to the throne by Edward IV, "… was strengthened in 1447, when York became heir to the childless King Henry VI on the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester." While true at that point in time, he eventually did have a son with Margaret of Anjou in 1453, Edward of Westminster, making Edward next in line. Atp-ptzu (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. He was childless in 1447. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Claims should be included only if there are reliable sources that state them. Our opinions WP:POV or research WP:OR are not relevant. —GoldRingChip 13:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not understand. Are you suggesting that it is POV / OR to state that Henry VI was childless until his only son and heir was born in Oct 1453? .  ——Serial  15:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think he's suggesting that you are expressing an opinion as to whether Edward of Westminster was the heir to the throne in 1453 (the Yorkists wouldn't have agreed), but it's not relevant anyway, as what is currently stated in the article is factually correct. Deb (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that I am User:Atp-ptzu, who made the original suggestion? GRC cannot be suggesting anything about me, as they have not replied to me. Or am I O merely confused by the indentation ;)  ——Serial  17:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was merely confused by the indentation. And I wasn't expecting the question from you. Deb (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * apologies, I spelt 'I' 'IO' for some reason, I meant I could have been confused by the indentation, not you. To complicate tings further, it was only on the second post I realised that Firefox logged me out. Helpful, not. Cheers!  ——Serial  19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward V of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Untitled section
As for the text "The historical consensus is he and his brother Richard were killed, probably between July and September 1483; debate on who gave the orders, and why, continues, although their uncle Richard III was the beneficiary" which are in this article at the time I'm typing this, I would never state outright that Richard III was (or wasn't) the beneficiary. One possible scenario would be that since Richard III declared ALL of Edward IV's children illegitimate, he had no need to kill ANY of them, and so did not benefit from their deaths because his hold on the throne was no less secure with them alive (and illegitimate) than dead. A second possible scenario would be that since Richard III didn't kill any of Edward IV's DAUGHTERS, killing the SONS didn't secure the thrown to HIMSELF, but, rather, to the oldest daughter (whose line would be next in line after the line of the youngest son, under male-preference primogeniture), and that if he DID kill the sons he'd have killed the daughters too, indicating that Richard III didn't do away with the Tower Princes but Henry VII did, as Henry VII could well-afford to leave the daughters alive as he was married to the eldest and the throne would be secured to such children as he and his Queen Consort (or Regnant, to Yorkists) might create, regardless whether anyone traced Succession through Lancastrian or Yorkist lines. And a third possible scenario would be "Male-preference primogeniture wasn't in force yet, Matilda's ancient failed claim creating a precedent AGAINST female rule, and the daughters of Edward IV were not seen as being in the line of Succession, so by killing only the sons Richard III secured the throne to himself". Any of these three MIGHT be known to be true by a historian with more knowledge than I have. But if two of these scenarios can be dispensed with, then do so, by elaborating the evidence against them. You can't just say "Richard III was the only beneficiary" and make us obligated to take your word for it. If you have sound arguments that Henry VII doesn't benefit by the killings (in the absence of killing the daughters too), make those arguments instead of saying "Richard III was the beneficiary" without discussion or elaboration.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
 * Copied from Talk:Edward IV of England because it was moved to the wrong spot by a page swap. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2024
In the Marriage and Children section, Edward V's date of birth is listed as 4 November 1470. The correct date is 2 November 1470. ClareWCull (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Many thanks, . Happy editing!  ——Serial Number 54129  13:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edward IV