text:
Amelia Edwards

Amelia Ann Blanford Edwards (7 June 1831 – 15 April 1892), also known as Amelia B. Edwards, was an English novelist, journalist, traveller and Egyptologist. Her literary successes included the ghost story The Phantom Coach (1864), the novels Barbara's History (1864) and Lord Brackenbury (1880), and the travelogue of Egypt A Thousand Miles up the Nile (1877). She also edited a poetry anthology published in 1878.

In 1882, she co-founded the Egypt Exploration Fund. She gained the nickname "Godmother of Egyptology" for her contribution.

Early life

Born on 7 June 1831 in Islington, London, to an Irish mother and a father who had been a British Army officer before becoming a banker, Edwards was educated at home by her mother and showed early promise as a writer. She published her first poem at the age of seven and her first story at the age of twelve. Thereafter came a variety of poetry, stories and articles in several periodicals, including Chambers's Journal, Household Words and All the Year Round. She also wrote for the Saturday Review and the Morning Post.

In addition, Edwards became an artist. She would illustrate some of her own writings and also paint scenes from other books she had read. She was talented enough at the age of 12 to catch the eye of George Cruikshank, who went so far as to offer to teach her, but this talent of hers was not supported by Edwards's parents, who saw art as a lesser profession and the artist's way of life as scandalous. Their negative decision haunted Edwards through her early life. She would wonder frequently whether art would not have been her true calling.

Thirdly, Edwards took up composing and performing music for some years, until she suffered a bout of typhus in 1849 that was followed by a frequently sore throat. This made it hard for her to sing, causing her to lose interest in music and even regret the time she had spent on opera. Other interests she pursued included pistol shooting, riding and mathematics.

Fiction
Early in the 1850s, Edwards began to focus more exclusively on being a writer. Her first full-length novel was My Brother's Wife (1855). Her early novels were well received, but it was Barbara's History (1864), a novel involving bigamy, that established her reputation. She spent much time and effort on the settings and backgrounds of her books, estimating that it took her about two years to complete the research and writing of each. This paid off when her last novel, Lord Brackenbury (1880), went into several editions.

Edwards wrote several ghost stories, including "The Phantom Coach" (1864), which frequently appears in anthologies. The background and characters in many of her writings are influenced by personal experiences. For example, Barbara's History (1864) uses Suffolk as the background, which she had visited for a few enjoyable summer holidays as a child.

Personal life
In January 1851, Amelia Edwards became engaged to a Mr Bacon (first name unknown), possibly out of consideration for her ageing parents, who may have been worried for their daughter's future economic security. There are no signs that point to a love relationship; on the contrary, Edwards does not seem to have felt any particular sympathies for her fiancé. In December 1851, she broke off the engagement.

Amelia Edwards formed emotional attachments almost exclusively with women. From the early 1860s onwards, she lived with Ellen Drew Braysher (1804–1892, see below), a widow 27 years her senior who had lost her husband and daughter not long after Edwards' parents had died and was to become her companion until both women died in early 1892. Another significant person in Edwards' life was Ellen Byrne, the wife of a pastor and school inspector, with whom Edwards apparently entered a love relationship during the second half of the 1860s. The relationship ended when the husband, John Rice Byrne, was assigned a different school district and the couple moved away, which left Edwards deeply distraught.

Edwards' papers, archived at Somerville College, contain no reference to the intimate quality of this relationship, but a letter from writer and early homosexual activist John Addington Symonds to sexologist Havelock Ellis reveals that Edwards had mentioned it to Symonds after the two had become friends around 1864. According to Symonds, John Rice Byrne was aware of the nature of his wife's feelings for Edwards and condoned the relationship. Ellis anonymized this information and used it in his publication Studies in the Psychology of Sex Vol. 2 as an example of what he termed "sexual inversion".

Edwards further maintained important, close friendships with painter Marianne North (1830–1890), her travelling companion Lucy Renshaw (1833–1919) and her closest confidante during her later years, Kate Bradbury (later Griffith), who also became executrix of Edwards' will.

Dolomites
Edwards first heard about the Dolomites in 1853, through sketches brought back to England from Italy. On 27 June 1872, she embarked on a trip through the mountains with her friend Lucy Renshaw. That day they left Monte Generoso for Venice, one of the three known ways to enter the Dolomites, but not before parting from Renshaw's maid and courtier, who disapproved of such a journey.

Instead the two women hired mountain guides from the region. On 1 July 1872, after a three-day stay in Venice, Edwards and Renshaw left for Longarone, Cortina d'Ampezzo, Pieve di Cadore, Auronzo di Cadore, Val Buona, Caprile, Agordo, Primiero, Predazzo, Fassa Valley, Passo Fedaia, Sasso Bianco, Forno di Zoldo, Zoppè di Cadore and Caprile, and ended their journey in Bolzano.

At the time of Edwards's visit, the Dolomites were described as terra incognita and even educated persons had never heard of them. This journey was described in her book A Midsummer Ramble in the Dolomites (1873), later entitled Untrodden Peaks and Infrequent Valleys. During the expedition, Edwards also sought works of Titian, finding a Madonna and Child in Serravalle (Vittorio Veneto) and two other paintings at a village church in Cadore.

After her descent from the mountains, Edwards described civilized life as a "dead-level World of Commonplace". In the summer of 1873, dissatisfied by the end of their journey, Edwards and Renshawe took to a walking tour of France. However, this was interrupted by torrential rains, a factor that influenced them in looking towards Egypt.

Egypt

Edwards, again accompanied by Lucy Renshaw, toured Egypt in the winter of 1873–1874, experiencing a fascination with the land and its cultures, ancient and modern. Journeying southwards from Cairo in a hired dahabiyeh (manned houseboat), the two women visited Philae and ultimately reached Abu Simbel, where they remained for six weeks. Another party member was the English painter Andrew McCallum, who discovered a sanctuary that came to bear his name for some time afterwards. Their boat joined a flotilla with another female English traveller, Marianne Brocklehurst, also travelling with a female companion. Brocklehurst and Edwards remained friends and Brocklehurst later supported her Egypt Exploration Fund.

Edwards wrote a successful, self-illustrated description of her Nile voyage entitled A Thousand Miles up the Nile (1877). Her travels in Egypt made her aware of increasing threats to ancient monuments from tourism and modern development. She set out to hinder these through public awareness and scientific endeavour, becoming an advocate for research and preservation of them. In 1882, she co-founded the Egypt Exploration Fund with Reginald Stuart Poole, Curator of the Department of Coins and Medals at the British Museum. Edwards became joint Honorary Secretary of the Fund until her death.

To advance the Fund's work, Edwards largely abandoned other writing in favour of Egyptology. She contributed to the 9th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, to the American supplement of that and to the Standard Dictionary. In addition, Edwards took on an strenuous lecture tour in the United States in 1889–1890. The lectures later appeared as Pharaohs, Fellahs and Explorers.

Death and legacy

After catching influenza, Edwards died on 15 April 1892 at Weston-super-Mare, having lived at Westbury-on-Trym, near Bristol, since 1864. She was buried in the churchyard of St Mary the Virgin, Henbury, Bristol, where her grave is marked by an obelisk with a stone ankh at the foot. Alongside are the graves of her life partner of 30 years, Ellen Drew Braysher (9 April 1804 – 9 January 1892), with whom she had lived in Westbury-on-Trym and of Ellen's daughter, Sarah Harriet Braysher (1832–1864). In September 2016, Historic England designated the grave Grade II listed, as a landmark in English LGBT history.

Edwards bequeathed her collection of Egyptian antiquities and her library to University College London, with a sum of £2,500 to found an Edwards Chair of Egyptology which had a huge influence on developing egyptology as a discipline. Her dedication to this science earned her the nickname of "the Godmother of Egyptology". Edwards also supported Somerville College Library, having left many books, papers and watercolours to Somerville College, Oxford, along with a small collection of Greek and Roman pots.

In popular culture

 * In 2012, Edwards was portrayed as a non-singing character in Stephen Medcalf's production of Aida at London's Royal Albert Hall. The opera opens with a Victorian "dig" among Egyptian tombs and the action unfolds as Edwards imagines the plot taking place based on her exploration of the site. The libretto was based on a scenario by the Egyptologist Auguste Mariette, a contemporary of Edwards.
 * The Egyptologist and novelist Elizabeth Peters (Barbara Mertz) named her character Amelia Peabody after Amelia Edwards.
 * In 2014, a new music ensemble, Alarm Will Sound, staged a music-theatre piece, I Was Here I Was I, based on Amelia Edwards's A Thousand Miles Up the Nile, at the Temple of Dendur in the Metropolitan Museum of Arts' Sackler Wing. It was written and directed by Nigel Maister to music by Kate Soper.
 * A one-woman show based on Edwards's life, Hers Was the Earth, by Kim Hicks, was performed at the Petrie Museum during the 2011 International Women's Day observances.
 * Edwards' short story "Was It an Illusion?" (1881), about a Schools Inspector who has an unsettling encounter on his visit to the north of England, features in Audible's 2017 Ghostly Tales anthology, narrated by Simon Callow.

History and archaeology

 * A Summary of English History: from the Roman Conquest to the present time, 1856
 * Outlines of English history: from the Roman conquest to the present time: with observations on the progress of art, science and civilization and questions adapted to each paragraph: for the use of schools, c. 1857
 * The History of France; from the Conquest of Gaul by the Romans to the Peace of 1856, 1858
 * The Story of Cervantes, etc., 1862
 * A Thousand Miles Up the Nile London: George Routledge and Sons Ltd, 1877 (1st edition) and 1888 (2nd edition, ISBN 0-9819284-2-0)
 * Pharaohs, Fellahs and Explorers. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1891

Novels

 * My Brother's Wife. A Life–History, 1855
 * The Ladder of Life. A Heart history, 1857
 * The Young Marquis, or, A Story from a Reign, c. 1857
 * The Eleventh of March. (From a pocket-book of forty years ago), 1863
 * No Hero: An Autobiography, 1863
 * Barbara's History, 1864
 * Hand and Glove. A Novel, 1865
 * Half a Million of Money, c. 1868
 * Debenham's Vow, 1870
 * In the Days of My Youth, 1873
 * Lord Brackenbury, 1880

Short fiction

 * Miss Carew (dollection), 1865
 * Monsieur Maurice and Other Stories, 1873
 * "Monsieur Maurice"
 * "An Engineer's Story"
 * "The Cabaret of the Break of Day"
 * "The Story of Ernst Christian Schoeffer"
 * "The New Pass"
 * "A Service of Danger"
 * "A Night on the Borders of the Black Forest"
 * "The Story of Salome"
 * "In the Confessional"
 * "The Tragedy in the Palazzo Bardell"
 * "The Four Fifteen Express"
 * "Sister Johanna's Story"
 * "All Saints' Eve"
 * The Phantom Coach, by Amelia B. Edwards, adapted by I. M. Richardson, illustrated by Hal Ashmead, c. 1982

Poetry

 * Ballads. London: Tinsley, 1865
 * A Poetry-book of Elder Poets, consisting of songs & sonnets, odes & lyrics, selected and arranged, with notes, from the works of the elder English poets, dating from the beginning of the fourteenth century to the middle of the eighteenth century. 1878

Translations

 * Manual of Egyptian Archaeology and Guide to the Study of Antiquities in Egypt: for the use of students and travellers by Sir G. Maspero, translated by Amelia B. Edwards

Travel

 * Sights and Stories: Being Some Account of a Holiday Tour Through the North of Belgium, 1862
 * A Thousand Miles up the Nile, 1877
 * Untrodden Peaks and Unfrequented Valleys: A Midsummer Ramble in the Dolomites. London: Longman's, Green and Co., 1873

Source: Catalogue of the British Library

Biographies

 * Deborah Manley, (2015) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry.

title: Amelia Edwards


text:
Eastham

Eastham or East Ham, may refer to:

People

 * Ashley Eastham (born 1991), English footballer
 * George R. Eastham (1914–2000), English footballer
 * George E. Eastham (born 1936), English footballer and son of the George R. Eastham
 * Harry Eastham (1917–1998), English footballer and brother of George R. Eastham
 * Michael Eastham (1920–1993), British barrister and judge

Places

 * Eastham, Massachusetts, town in Massachusetts, USA
 * North Eastham, Massachusetts, village in Eastham, Massachusetts
 * Eastham, Merseyside, village on the Wirral Peninsula, England
 * Eastham, Worcestershire, village in Worcestershire, England
 * Eastham Unit, a prison in Lovelady, Texas
 * East Ham, a district of London, England
 * East Ham (UK Parliament constituency)

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

title: Eastham


text:
Karelian pasty

Karelian pasties, Karelian pies or Karelian pirogs (kalittoja, singular kalitta; Olonets Karelian: šipainiekku; karjalanpiirakat, singular karjalanpiirakka; or karelska piroger) are traditional Finnish pasties or pirogs originating from the region of Karelia. They are eaten throughout Finland as well as in adjacent areas such as Estonia and Russian Karelia.

The oldest traditional pasties usually had a rye crust, but the North Karelian and Ladoga Karelian variants also contained wheat to improve the quality of the crust. The usual fillings were barley and talkkuna. In the 19th century, first potato, and then buckwheat were introduced as fillings, and later, boiled rice and millet.

Today, the most popular version has a thin rye crust with a filling of rice. Mashed potato and rice-and-carrot fillings are also commonly available. Butter, often mixed with chopped-up boiled egg (egg butter or munavoi), is spread over the hot pasties before eating.

Karelian pasties have had traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG) status in Europe since 2003. This means that any producer not following the traditional recipe cannot call them karjalanpiirakka and instead, will have to call them riisipiirakka 'rice pasties', perunapiirakka 'potato pasties', etc., depending on the filling.

title: Karelian pasty


text:
Eastlake

Eastlake may refer to:

Places

 * Australia
 * Kingston, Australian Capital Territory, formerly called Eastlake
 * Eastlake Football Club, an amateur Australian Rules Football Club named after that location

 * United States
 * Eastlake, Lake County, California
 * Eastlake, San Diego County, California
 * Eastlake, Colorado
 * Eastlake, Michigan
 * Eastlake, Ohio
 * Eastlake, Seattle, Washington

People

 * Eastlake (surname)

Education

 * Eastlake Middle School, Chula Vista, California, US
 * Eastlake High School (disambiguation), several schools

Other uses

 * Eastlake architecture, also known as Eastlake Movement

title: Eastlake


text:
User talk:One dimensionalman

Hi, ODM; it may be a little late to welcome you, as i think you are pretty frustrated with us already. I haven't tried to track down your discussion with User:RickK, so i won't flatly say you're misreading his criticisms. But i suspect that.

I do think there was at least "unnecessary roughness" on MediaWiki:VfD-Political terrorism, and i do think the scope of your effort on Political terrorism deserves more acknowledgement than it got.

The discussion at MediaWiki:VfD-Political terrorism was, however, hampered by lack of info. Your signing "ODM" in the discussion, rather than using 3 or 4 tilde characters --~ (which in my case produces Jerzy(t) 07:16, 2004 May 28 (UTC)) turned even identifying you as the editor of the original article into a task.

And connecting that WP user with a "live journal" that was not IDed on MediaWiki:VfD-Political terrorism at all, let alone verifying the WP user's claim to own the l-j site is a complexity you may not have considered.

The "original research" issue is another complication; WP is not typical of the Web, and in particular, we really do intend, nay, insist on being more like an encyclopedia than the more frequent massive and largely indidscriminate repositories of the Web. "Not orginal research" is largely a matter of verifiability of information as being widely accepted fact: that's true of "iron is a metallic element" and of "G.W. Bush calls Al Qaida evildoers", but your idea (in your first 'graph, just to take a handy example) that criminal and political terrorists are clearly differentiable is not overwhelmingly accepted, and its degree of acceptance is hard to verify, even if that differentiability may be a fact.

I'd like to say more, but can't right now. I have to be satisfied with saying that i don't yet know whether WP has anything to offer you, tho i expect it does, and that you grasp about as little about us as we do about you at this point; the most important thing i can tell you right now is that things like your removing the VfD tag from Political terrorism, blanking it, inserting argumentation with RickK into/instead-of it, and expecting to be able to ensure the deletion of "your" article are all indications that you are only beginning to glimpse what happens here. You indicated your acceptance of the GNU Free Documentation License, perhaps w/o having read Copyrights, and there is a lot about that, legally, practically, and philophically, that i am sure you so far only have hints of. Drop me a note by clicking on the "(t)" in my sig line, and let's talk more of this. --Jerzy(t) 07:16, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Political terrorism

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Political terrorism. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - State-sponsored terrorism. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at State-sponsored terrorism - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. andy (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:One dimensionalman


text:
Amido black 10B

Amido black 10B is an amino acid staining azo dye used in biochemical research to stain for total protein on transferred membrane blots, such as the western blot. It is also used in criminal investigations to detect blood present with latent fingerprints - it stains the proteins in blood a blue-black color. Amido Black can be either methanol or water based as it readily dissolves in both. With picric acid, in a van Gieson procedure, it can be used to stain collagen and reticulin.

title: Amido black 10B


text:
Eastman

Eastman may refer to:

People

 * Eastman (surname)
 * Eastman Nixon Jacobs (1902–1987), American aerodynamicist
 * John Eastman (b 1960), American lawyer and founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, author of Eastman memos while he was retained by then-President Donald Trump
 * Jonathan Eastman Johnson (1824–1906), American painter
 * George Eastman (1854-1932), American entrepreneur who founded the Eastman Kodak Company
 * Lester Fuess Eastman (1928-2013), American physicist, engineer and educator.

Canada

 * Eastman Region, Manitoba
 * Eastman, Quebec, a municipality

United States

 * Eastman, Georgia, a city
 * Eastman, Wisconsin, a village
 * Eastman (town), Wisconsin
 * Eastman Pond, New Hampshire

Elsewhere

 * Eastman (crater), on Mercury

Other

 * Eastman School of Music
 * Eastman Theatre
 * Eastman Wind Ensemble
 * Eastman Color Negative
 * Eastman Chemical Company
 * Eastman Dental Hospital
 * UCL Eastman Dental Institute
 * Eastman Gang, last of New York's street gangs which dominated the city's underworld during the late 1890s until the early 1910s
 * Eastmaninstitutet, a dental care centre in Stockholm, Sweden, founded by donations from George Eastman
 * Eastman Kodak
 * Edinburgh and Stirling Metropolitan Area Network

title: Eastman


text:
Para District

Para is a district of northern Suriname. Para's capital city is Onverwacht, with other towns including Paranam, and Zanderij. Para has a population of 24,700 and an area of 5,393 km2. The district is the mining and forestry centre of Suriname, with many large bauxite mining operations operating. The district is a mixture of forest and savannas.

History
The northern part of Para is one of the oldest cultivated areas of Suriname, and has been home to sugar and tobacco plantation since the 17th century which were mainly located along the Suriname River and the Para Creek. The southern part of the district contained wood plantations, and is still in use by logging companies. In 1968, the District was established, and named after the Para Creek. In 1983, the District was quadrupled in size.

The district used to be accessible only by boat. The discovery of gold in Brokopondo and Sipaliwini lead to the construction of the Lawa Railway and growth of the villages next to the railway line. The railway line was decommissioned in 1986.

During World War II American troops were stationed in Suriname. The existing airport at Zorg en Hoop was insufficient, and the airstrip at Zanderij, was upgraded to a major airport. In 1936, a road, currently named Indira Gandhiweg, had been built parallel to the railway line to connect Paramaribo with Onverwacht, which was extended to the airport. In the 1960s, the Avobakaweg was constructed to provide access to the south of the country.

The ruins of the city of Jodensavanne are in Para district. Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition established Jodensavanne in the 17th century, but it was destroyed in 1832 by a fire. Jodensavanne was an internment camp for suspected Nazi supporters from the Dutch East Indies during the Second World War.

Para is home to several indigenous villages from the Carib and Arawak tribes.

Economy
The main part of the economy is the bauxite mining. Gold also plays a major role in the economy of Para. The main roads and airport have resulted in companies moving into Para. Agriculture is mainly focused on cassava, asparagus bean and pineapples. Tourism has seen a steady growth over the 20th and 21st centuries. There are several holiday resorts in the district, and White Beach in Oost is becoming a main attraction.

Resorts
Para is divided into 5 resorts (ressorten):
 * Bigi Poika
 * Carolina
 * Noord
 * Oost
 * Zuid

Villages

 * Berlijn
 * Bernharddorp
 * Bethesda
 * Cabendadorp
 * Cassipora
 * Hollandse Kamp
 * Matta
 * Onverdacht
 * Onverwacht
 * Paranam
 * Pikin Saron
 * Powakka
 * Redi Doti
 * Republiek
 * Sabakoe
 * Torarica
 * Witsanti
 * Zanderij

Demographics
In the 2004 census, Para had 18,749 inhabitants. This rose in the 2012 census to 24,700 inhabitants, a 31.1% increase.

title: Para District


text:
Yellow-crowned gonolek

The yellow-crowned gonolek (Laniarius barbarus), also known as the common gonolek, is a medium-sized passerine bird in the bushshrike family. It is a common resident breeding bird in equatorial Africa from Senegal and Democratic Republic of Congo east to Ethiopia. It is a skulking bird and frequents dense undergrowth in forests and other wooded habitats. The nest is a cup structure in a bush or tree in which two eggs are laid.

Taxonomy
In 1760 the French zoologist Mathurin Jacques Brisson included a description of the yellow-crowned gonolek in his Ornithologie based on a specimen collected in Senegal. He used the French name La pie-griesche rouge du Sénégal and the Latin Lanius Senegalensis ruber. Although Brisson coined Latin names, these do not conform to the binomial system and are not recognised by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. When in 1766 the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus updated his Systema Naturae for the twelfth edition, he added 240 species that had been previously described by Brisson. One of these was the yellow-crowned gonolek. Linnaeus included a brief description, coined the binomial name Lanius barbarus and cited Brisson's work. The species is now placed in the genus Laniarius that was introduced by the French ornithologist Louis Pierre Vieillot in 1816. Two subspecies are recognised.

Description
The yellow-crowned gonolek is 22 cm long with a long tail and short wings. The adult is a vividly-coloured bird, although easily overlooked as it lurks in undergrowth. It has solidly black upper parts apart from its golden crown, and scarlet underparts other than a buff-yellow undertail. The legs are dark. Sexes are similar, but juveniles are paler and duller.

Ecology
This species is seldom seen because it inhabits thick undergrowth from which its calls can be heard. These include whistles and rattles, often sung in duet, with a fluted too-lioo overlapped by a rattling ch-chacha. The yellow-crowned gonolek feeds mainly on insects located in bushes or on the ground. The diet consists mostly of beetles and caterpillars, but birds eggs and nestlings are sometimes taken.

It is monogamous and territorial. Some courtship behaviours have been observed with a pair chasing each other through a bush, leaping from branch to branch and emitting metallic twanging sounds. The deep cup-shaped nest is often flimsy and is built in a bush, from rootlets and tendrils. Two, or occasionally three, greyish-green or bluish-green eggs with dark spots are laid.

title: Yellow-crowned gonolek


text:
Eastover

Eastover may refer to:

Places in the United Kingdom

 * Eastover, Somerset, an area of Bridgwater

Places in the United States

 * Eastover Surry County, Virginia
 * Eastover (Manalapan, Florida)
 * Eastover Country Club, New Orleans, LA
 * Eastover, North Carolina
 * Eastover (Salisbury, North Carolina), listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Rowan County, North Carolina
 * Eastover, South Carolina

title: Eastover


text:
Lewis Booth

Lewis William Killcross Booth CBE (born 7 November 1948) is a British accountant and business executive. He is currently on the board of directors for Rolls-Royce, for Mondelez International, Inc, and Gentherm Inc. He previously had a 34-year career at Ford Motor Company where he rose to the rank of Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, responsible for Ford's financial operations, including the Controller's Office, Treasury and Investor Relations, a position he held from November 2008 until April 2012.

Booth was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2012 Birthday Honours for services to the UK automotive and manufacturing industries.

Early life and education
Born in Liverpool, United Kingdom, the son of a Ford, Austin and Morris dealer, Booth has always had a passion for cars and the automotive industry.

Graduating in 1970 from the University of Liverpool with a bachelor of engineering degree with honours in mechanical engineering, he subsequently qualified as a chartered management accountant. He started his career at British Leyland before joining Ford in 1978 as a financial analyst in Product Development for Ford of Europe.

Ford of Europe
During the 1980s and early 1990s, Booth held a series of management positions in Ford of Europe in Britain and in Germany in Finance Staff, Truck Operations, Product Development, Manufacturing, and Sales.

Ford North America
In 1992, he moved to the United States where he worked for Finance Staff in Dearborn. From 1993 to 1996, Booth held a variety of positions in Car Product Development, Body & Assembly, Vehicle Operations and the Manufacturing Business Office for Ford Automotive Operations before accepting the position of Group managing director at SAMCOR in South Africa.

International Assignments
From August 1997 to January 2000, Booth served as Group managing director of the South Africa Motor Corporation. At that time, Ford had 45% equity in SAMCOR, which assembled Ford and Mazda vehicles in South Africa. Subsequently, the SAMCOR joint venture was dissolved and Ford Motor Company of Southern Africa was established.

Booth was promoted President, Asia Pacific and Africa Operations for Ford Motor Company, a position he held from 1 January 2000. In this role, he had operational responsibility for South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and India and for developing Ford's strategy in the Asia-Pacific region.

Mazda
Between 2002 and 2003, Booth succeeded Mark Fields as president and then chairman of Mazda Motor Corporation based in Hiroshima, Japan, where he oversaw the implementation of the company's highly successful Millennium Plan and the return of the rotary engine in the RX-8. He is widely credited for leading the turnaround and renaissance of Mazda.

Ford of Europe and Premier Automotive Group
Following his stint at Mazda, Booth returned to Ford of Europe in Cologne succeeding Martin Leach as President and COO from September 2003 to April 2004. In April 2004, he was promoted to group vice-president Ford Motor Company and chairman and CEO, Ford of Europe. In October 2005, he replaced Mark Fields as Executive Vice-President Ford of Europe and Premier Automotive Group, responsible for Ford of Europe, Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Volvo, and divided his time between Cologne and Ford's Ingeni building in Soho, London. It was in this role he oversaw the sale of Aston Martin to Kuwaiti investors in March 2007 and Jaguar Land Rover to Tata Motors in June 2008. As Ford implemented its One Ford plan and divested itself of its luxury brands that made up Premier Automotive Group, his job title and responsibilities changed to reflect this as he became Executive Vice-President for Ford Motor Company responsible for Ford of Europe, Volvo Car Corporation and Ford Export Operations & Global Growth Initiatives. He was also chairman of both Ford of Europe and Volvo Car Corporation.

Ford Chief Financial Officer & EVP
In November 2008, then-Ford CEO Alan Mulally, moved him to his final role at Ford Motor Company, becoming Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer once again based in Dearborn. In this role, he engineered Ford's largest ever debt restructuring in 2009, led the sale of Volvo to Geely in 2010, and paid Ford's first dividend in 5 years in March 2012. He retired from Ford in April 2012.

title: Lewis Booth


text:
Eastport

Eastport may refer to:

Canada

 * Eastport, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
 * Eastport Peninsula, Newfoundland, Canada

United States

 * Eastport, Idaho
 * Eastport, Maine
 * Maritime Republic of Eastport, known as simply Eastport, Annapolis, Maryland
 * Eastport, Michigan
 * Eastport, Mississippi
 * Eastport, New York
 * Eastport, Ohio, an unincorporated community

Other uses

 * USS Eastport (1862), a steamer
 * EastPort UK, a trading name for the Great Yarmouth Port Company
 * Piney Point phosphate plant, leased to industrial tenants under the name Eastport

title: Eastport


text:
Eastvale

Eastvale may refer to one of several places in the United States:

 * Eastvale, California
 * Eastvale, Pennsylvania
 * Eastvale, Texas

title: Eastvale


text:
Eastview

Eastview and East View may refer to:

United States

 * Eastview, Kentucky
 * Eastview, Missouri
 * Eastview, New York
 * Eastview, Tennessee
 * East View, West Virginia
 * Eastview High School in Apple Valley, Minnesota

Canada

 * Eastview, Frontenac County, Ontario
 * Eastview, the former name of Vanier, Ontario
 * Eastview, Saskatoon, a neighbourhood in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Other

 * East View Geospatial, a mapping company
 * Eastview High School
 * Eastview Mall, a shopping centre in New York state
 * East View Stakes
 * HMCS Eastview (K665), a ship of the Canadian Navy

title: Eastview


text:
Eastville

Eastville may refer to:

Australia

 * Eastville, Victoria, Shire of Loddon, Victoria, Australia

Canada

 * Eastville, Nova Scotia, Canada

United Kingdom

 * Eastville, Bristol, England
 * Eastville Stadium, the former home of Bristol Rovers FC
 * Eastville, Lincolnshire, England

United States

 * Eastville, Georgia, USA
 * Eastville, Virginia, USA
 * Eastville, section of Sag Harbor

title: Eastville


text:
Paramaribo District

Paramaribo is a district of Suriname, encompassing the capital city of Paramaribo and the surrounding area.

Paramaribo district has a population of 240,924, almost half the population of the entire country, and an area of 182 km2.

The area was first colonised by the British in the 17th century with the construction of Fort Willoughby. This fort was later taken by the Netherlands and renamed Fort Zeelandia. The area, and the city of Paramaribo, switched between Dutch and British control until the Treaty of Breda at the end of the Second Anglo-Dutch War ceded all of Suriname to the Dutch.

Resorts
Paramaribo is divided into 12 resorts (ressorten):
 * Beekhuizen
 * Blauwgrond
 * Centrum
 * Flora
 * Latour
 * Livorno
 * Munder
 * Pontbuiten
 * Rainville
 * Tammenga
 * Weg Naar Zee
 * Welgelegen

title: Paramaribo District


text:
David Roe

David Roe (born 11 September 1965) is a former English professional snooker player, and a four-time ranking tournament quarter-finalist.

Career
Roe was born on 11 September 1965 in Derby. He began his professional career for the 1986–87 snooker season after qualifying through the pro-ticket series. In his second professional season he reached the last 32 or better in four tournaments, and a year later he reached the last 16 of the 1989 World Snooker Championship on his debut in the main event, to reach the top 32 of the rankings. He then had two poorer seasons, before two quarter-finals in 1991/1992. A year later he reached the top 16, despite not reaching a quarter-final in that season.

Roe spent three successive seasons in the Top 16 and reached a highest position of 13th in 1994/1995 (up from, and back down to, no. 16 in 1993/1994 and 1995/1996 respectively). Roe fell out of the top 32 after a succession of early defeats, and never regained this status.

A run to the last 16 of the China Open was the best finish of Roe's 2005–06 season. He had to win three qualifying matches to secure his position at the Beijing event, where he defeated Li Yin Xi (a wild card) and Paul Hunter, before ultimately losing 5–3 to Joe Swail. In 2006/2007 his best were two last-32 runs, and another followed at the 2008 Welsh Open. He won just two matches in the 2008/2009 season, causing him to drop to 62nd in the rankings.

Roe dropped off the tour at the end of the 2009/2010 season, after 24 years as a professional. He moved to Iran, where he coached their national team, and converted to Islam. He later became a snooker coach at the Hong Kong Sports Institute, working with women's world champion Ng On-yee.

title: David Roe


text:
Talk:Statistical mechanics

Out-of-place quotation ?

 * "Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics". -- David L. Goodman "States of Matter"

It is a little weird to start an article with a quotation, like that. — Miguel 07:33, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

I know, but it is such a great quote from a standard reference, I thought it was worth including. Michael L. Kaufman 22:29, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

It is pretty interesting, maybe inclusion at the end of the article. Edsanville 05:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Link
Perhaps the page should link to Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (AC)

Structure of statistical mechanics articles
I'd like to make some more contributions to the Stat. Mech. subject, so I was trying to figure out the present structure. I've made up the following "summary" and I suppose it ought to go on the Stat. Mech. page, but I don't know where. Any suggestions or modifications? Paul Reiser 21:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

General:
 * Partition_function_(statistical_mechanics)
 * Statistical_ensemble
 * Microcanonical_ensemble
 * Canonical_ensemble
 * Grand_canonical_ensemble
 * Entropy
 * Principle of maximum entropy

RfC: Merge/redirect proposal
Should Statistical physics be merged or redirected to this article? See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_January_2018. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 13:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment To the extent that the terms differ in meaning, statistical physics seems to be more broad (see footnote 1). Perhaps the merge should go the other way, then? XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think of statistical physics as the field of human endeavor and statistical mechanics as an approach in that field. Also, stochastic physics is part statistical physics and some aspects of that approach, like stochastic optimization or financial physics, don't necessarily have a mechanical foundation. So I agree with XOR'easter that Statistical physics is the broader topic. -- 17:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment While I tend to agree that statistical physics is a broader topic than statistical mechanics, I do object to any move of statistical mechanics to this page. Statistical mechanics is, undeniably, the more notable term and is what the vast majority of readers will be looking for when they stumble onto either of the two pages. Maybe statistical physics page can be made into an umbrella article that just links to other relevant articles? Footlessmouse (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with caveat: Statistical mechanics should be merged into statistical physics, not the other way around. The statistical physics page is weak and repeats many things in the statistical mechanics page, so the two pages should be merged. Layperson's understanding of statistical mechanics would mean motion of particles, whereas statistical physics is more broad & encompasses physics unrelated to motion like spin. So statistical mechanics should be merged into statistical physics. - 173.206.33.141 (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I see no need for a merge. The topics are distinct, as shown above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC).
 * Oppose To me, the distinction is not as clear as with Quantum mechanics (methods, mostly developed before ~1930s) and Quantum physics (application of QM to real problems, ~1930s onward; this page will hopefully be created soon ), even though such distinction would make sense. Nature defines Statistical mechanics as a branch of Statistical physics; unfortunately I don't think I could tell, from those definitions, which SM/SP paper belongs where (statistical physics is not my field though). I'm not sure I'd say Statistical mechanics is a branch of physics, as Statistical physics is. My undergrad/grad courses (SE Europe) were Statistical physics, Quantum statistical physics - not mechanics. My colleagues don't call themselves statistical mechanics but statistical physicists. So I guess there is a difference, and I don't think the two articles should be merged. Maybe someone more knowledgeable should just expand Quantum physics. Ponor (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is difficult since physicists often don't bother to make a distinction. There are even the two separate journals, "Journal of Statistical Mechanics" and "Journal of Statistical Physics", that publish pretty similar articles. But if you really pressed it, I think most reputable sources would pin statistical mechanics as more specific than statistical physics. The underlying argument is that it is possible to have a statistical theory of a system without any mechanical interpretation or basis. The Nature links above count as one reputable source for this point of view. If people are still unhappy we could look for another one, but to me it's pretty clear after thinking about it. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree There are potentially some useful distinctions between statistical physics and statistical mechanics; in practice, though, I feel like I use the terms interchangeably. I don't have a strong opinion about which direction the merge goes. DrPippy (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Question. Is stuff like AdS/CFT applied to CMP - stat mech or something else? Ema--or (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree I think it's clear that "statistical physics" and "statistical mechanics" are effectively synonymous. It's rather unhelpful to try to make a distinction here in Wikipedia that the reader won't understand; how are they going to find the content they want? Furthermore, there's nothing valuable to be found in the "statistical physics" page, it should be just deleted and redirected to "statistical mechanics". I'd also like to note that recently quantum physics was split from quantum mechanics, and the split was rapidly undone for the same reasons. Tercer (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Statistical physics is the study of any physical process which appears to be stochastic. In contrast, statistical mechanics has a very specific meaning. It refers to the macro-scale properties of systems of very large numbers of microscopic parts.   Statistical mechanics is a fundamentally important field and set of ideas.   But most of statistical physics has nothing to do with it.  Jheald (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree - Any search of journals or textbooks will show that these two terms are used interchangeably, and as this discussion has shown, people who believe that there's a distinction between the two don't even necessarily agree about what that distinction is. Additionally, I generally don't think there's enough that could non-controversially be put into the "Statistical physics" article that wouldn't also belong in the "Statistical mechanics" article, so practically speaking we shouldn't have a separate article on Statistical Physics, because we simply can't write a good article for it that won't confuse people. Also, attempting to define our own distinction here would effectively constitute original research because no consensus on the distinction exists in the literature.  - car chasm (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose While statistical mechanics is certainly an important tool in statistical physics, statistical physics is not just a subfield of statistical mechanics. It is not important to know exactly what statistical physics is, it is a field of broadening scope, like many fields in the physical sciences can be placed into others or described by multiple approaches. I see no reason for change, or artificial constraints and mergers. kbrose (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Agree to remove statistical physics but split between here and statistical field theory :
 * First the page statistical physics is small and with low quality due to the fact is essentially a double, where this stat mech page is good quality because it has a precise focus i.e. classical statistical mechanics with some references to quantum mechanics, or better it tries to be mechanics agnostic, the statistical field theory page instead deserve extension, and has it's own right to be improved.
 * Second the only connotation I see for statistical physics being useful as a page is about statistical field theory namely as referenced above: a set of graduate books that refer to renormalization group, critical exponents, super fluids, stochastic models, ising models etc. therefore such content in the stat phys page (i.e. more than 50%, TBD if useful) maybe added in the statistical field theory page.
 * Third in the same perspective the name statistical physics is also due to a historical name (i.e. pre 1970s): one notorious example of such books is actually Landau [] a recent course on the same at MIT [] refers to statistical field theory (i.e. Post 1970s where all mixed QFT applications in condensed matter come together with the renorm group).
 * Fourth as a compromise you can have a redirect from statistical physics to the statistical field theory page with a reference in the about section of this stat mech page
 * and the opposite ref in the statistical field theory page
 * Looking deeper to the content of the other page there are some interesting hints: such as "sociology" "information theory" "montecarlo" which can trigger interest for applications, the part of the page on statistical mechanics is best off moved here (in a more math section), maybe also some small extra stuff in the page. Montecarlo, List of scientist and achievements can be perfectly merged in statistical field theory instead.
 * Looking deeper to the content of the other page there are some interesting hints: such as "sociology" "information theory" "montecarlo" which can trigger interest for applications, the part of the page on statistical mechanics is best off moved here (in a more math section), maybe also some small extra stuff in the page. Montecarlo, List of scientist and achievements can be perfectly merged in statistical field theory instead.

Flyredeagle (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion: In support of distinguishing statistical mechanics from statistical physics, I have rewritten the article lead to make this a little clearer. Statistical mechanics is not physics. It is just a mathematical tool that was used first for explaining physics, thermodynamics specifically. This makes easier to understand the successful use of statistical mechanics in sociology and other fields that have not much to do with physics. The application of statistical mechanics along with other tools or ideas to nature's physics problems is statistical physics. Therefore it should not be conflated into a single concept and WP article. Statistical mechanics is just mathematics, it is not actually physics or even science. With that in mind, both articles need a lot of work. kbrose (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question So, stat mech is NOT physics? Ema--or (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Cross-links
Cross-blue-links. Stat mech has two discussion sections, Ema--or (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC) (edit Ema--or (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC) They're here,.. and here) Remember this? Talk:Statistical thermodynamics - predates me, Ema--or (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Absurd!
The article's lead claims statistical mechanics "does not assume or postulate any natural laws"!!!! No? Conservation of momentum? Conservation of Energy? Continuity? I don't understand how such a preposterous claim could be inserted in what should be a science-based article. Here's a hint: any study of ensembles of "microscopic entities" (Really?? "entities"??? more rubbish!) must differentiate the "entities" from "non-entities". That is, by definition, an assumption, as is their continued existence. That is, the subject's subject must be assumed to exist. 98.21.215.110 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I deleted the second sentence since it was a summary of any article content. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Statistical mechanics


text:
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty

The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT), also known as the Treaty of Moscow, was a strategic arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia that was in force from June 2003 until February 2011 when it was superseded by the New START treaty.

At the time, SORT was positioned as "represent[ing] an important element of the new strategic relationship" between the two countries with both parties agreeing to limit their nuclear arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed warheads each. It was signed in Moscow on 24 May 2002.

After ratification by the U.S. Senate and the State Duma, SORT came into force on 1 June 2003. It would have expired on 31 December 2012 if not superseded by New START. Either party could have withdrawn from the treaty upon giving three months written notice to the other.

Mutual nuclear disarmament
SORT was one in a long line of treaties and negotiations on mutual nuclear disarmament between Russia (and its predecessor, the Soviet Union) and the United States, which includes SALT I (1969–1972), the ABM Treaty (1972), SALT II (1972–1979), the INF Treaty (1987), START I (1991), START II (1993) and New START (2010).

The Moscow Treaty was different from START in that it limited operationally deployed warheads, whereas START I limited warheads through declared attribution to their means of delivery (ICBMs, SLBMs, and Heavy Bombers).

Russian and U.S. delegations met twice a year to discuss the implementation of the Moscow Treaty at the Bilateral Implementation Commission (BIC).

Ratification
The treaty was submitted for ratification in December 2002. However, the passage of the agreement took about a year because the bill had to be resubmitted after its rejection in committee due to concerns about funding for nuclear forces and about cutting systems that had not yet reached the end of their service lives. Further, the deputies were concerned about the U.S.'s ability to upload reserve nuclear warheads for a first strike (upload potential).

The ratification was also problematic because the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Duma, Dmitry Rogozin, disagreed with his Federation Council counterpart Margelov. Deputy Rogozin argued that the Moscow Treaty should be delayed because of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In the end, however, this delay never happened. The final vote was similar to START II with nearly a third of the deputies voting against. The ratification resolution mandated presidential reporting on nuclear force developments and noted that key legislators should be included in interagency planning.

Implementation
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reported that President Bush directed the US military to cut its stockpile of both deployed and reserve nuclear weapons in half by 2012. The goal was achieved in 2007, a reduction of US nuclear warheads to just over 50 percent of the 2001 total. A further proposal by Bush would have brought the total down another 15 percent.

Criticism
While President Bush said the treaty "liquidates the Cold War legacy of nuclear hostility" and his security advisor Condoleezza Rice said it should be considered "the last treaty of the last century," others criticized the treaty for various reasons:
 * There were no verification provisions to give confidence, to either the signatories or other parties, that the stated reductions have in fact taken place.
 * The arsenal reductions were not required to be permanent; warheads are not required to be destroyed and may therefore be placed in storage and later redeployed.
 * The arsenal reductions were required to be completed by 31 December 2012, which is also the day on which the treaty loses all force unless extended by both parties.
 * There was a clause in the treaty which provided that withdrawal can occur upon the giving of three months' notice and since no benchmarks are required in the treaty, either side could feasibly perform no actions in furtherance of the treaty and then withdraw in September 2012.

title: Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty


text:
Talk:Vitruvian Man

Analysis
The drawing has parts of a lion: at the stomach is a sketch of a lion head. By dragging the right parts to it, the lion will appear more clearly. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206865417492804&set=a.1250853470285&type=3&theater

Reliably sourced translation
If I understand them correctly, the translation of da Vinci's text currently (15 October 2020) in the article was done as a place-holder version by u|Justlettersandnumbers, a Wikipedia editor (see above). As Justlettersandnumbers requested, the translation should be replaced by one from an external source. I propose to use this one: "The span of a man's outstretched arms is equal to his height. [deleted inadvertent copyvio] [etc]."

(Because of the way cite book works, I can't give the URL of the exact page, only of the chapter, but the text is just a few pages on from the start of the chapter, bottom of p213.) Unless anyone disagrees in the next day or two, I will change it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for opting to discuss this rather than just charge ahead, . Certainly I wrote what I wrote in 2011, when I was a very new and inexperienced editor; I'm not sure that I agree with it now. I've two questions: are you quite sure that the text you propose to use is out of copyright? and are you sure that his translation is better than mine? I'm inclined to think that it is not, but perhaps I'm biased? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question! I had just jumped to the conclusion that its presence on an open access system made it ok. But sure enough, the rubric is there "The publication, and the images and texts within it, may be protected by copyright; use of such materials beyond fair use or other exceptions provided under applicable copyright law may violate the copyright laws of the United States and/or the laws of other countries. Permission from the appropriate copyright holder is required to publish or reproduce." So no, we can't use it. Your translation is safe for another 50 years. Fortunately I hadn't gotten around to doing it. Thanks for saving my donkey. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of material on the Tuscan Order
the second part of the section Vitruvian Man (that you contributed) discusses Paladio and the Tuscan Order of architecture. It is not clear to me how this material is relevant to this article? It seems that the justification for its inclusion comes in the last phrase of sentence On the other hand, the foot depicted in the Vitruvian Man instead measures 25.7 millimeters, equal to the seventh part of the height of 179.9 millimeters, in conformity with the rules of the Tuscan Order. which is uncited and looks like WP:Original research. Would you explain please? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Hello John Maynard Friedman. Now I understand why you corrected the term "Tuscanico" with “Tuscan". In his treatise Andrea Palladio calls in Italian the "Tuscan Order" the same order that Vitruvius calls in Latin "tuscanicis dispositionibus" (Liber IV, VI, 6 - at the end of the writing). In Italian, the term "Tuscanico" is the ancient form of “Tuscan". As is known, Leonardo was born in Vinci which is a citadel of Tuscany (region of Central Italy), which is why he chose as a fundamental model for architecture a purely Italic human body, which has the foot proportionate to height with a ratio of 1 to 7. As I quoted in Latin, Vitruvius writes "modulis delectati septem [...] columnae doricae" (Liber IV, I, 7). Palladio expressed himself in the same way: "seven modules "In his treatise (“sette moduli”, p. 16), as can be read in the illustration that I included in my contribution. For Vitruvius - as I have reported - the proportions of the Doric columns of the post-archaic period were identical to those of “tuscanicus” ordre.
 * Ezio Fiorillo Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But the problem is that this appears to be your analysis and your conclusion. It is your assessment that Leonardo followed the Tuscan[ic] order of architecture. Yes, he did write that "the foot is seventh part of the man" but it is WP:SYNTH to make additional inferences. Beware of the post hoc fallacy. What Palladio did is irrelevant, the article is not about Palladio. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I am increasingly worried about the validity of the whole section because it seems fundamentally to be be about a 1:7 ratio that you have cherry-picked from various sources and ascribed to it a significance that neither Leonardo nor any reliable source has done. The issue of original research arises here too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I've already removed all of that content as unencyclopaedic original research, but you undid that change. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to again remove it until/unless there is consensus on this page that it should be included? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your reason for removing it "ill-written" was inadequate, since it is not an incoherent rant that deserves that peremptory treatment. We wp:don't bite the newbies and we WP:assume good faith. It is reasonable to allow a little time to defend his contribution. Admittedly, it is hanging on by a thread right now but he deserves another iteration. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello John Maynard Friedman. Since the stature has been found to be 17.99, then the seventh part inevitably turns out to be 15.7. This is a mathematical fact and not in my opinion.The original source of the 1:7 ratio was provided by Leonardo himself, when he wrote "il pie fia la settima parte dell'amo" (the pie is the seventh part of man, Part under the square, seventh line, already mentioned).
 * The apparent contradiction between the stature of six "feet" (Part above the circle) and seven "feet" (Part below the square) is widespread among art historians. I hope to have contributed to a clarification by comparing Leonardo's script with that of Vitruvius. I think it is very important. I abstained from expressing my opinion. I have offered analogies: conformity and non-identity, if not those declared by the literary sources. Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your Since the stature has been found to be 17.99, then the seventh part inevitably turns out to be 15.7. since $1⁄7$ of 17.99 is 2.57? Yes, Wikipedia policies allow editors to do simple mathematics without citation. Any inferences from that definitely require citation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fate vobis. Ego subsisto Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I will take that as meaning that you can't provide the independent analysis and conclusions as requested. With regret, I will cut it from the article and paste it here, in case a future editor can resolve the issues identified. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no problems to solve. Other "1: 7" Vitruvian orders do not exist. I remove the article from the discussion. Many thanks for your attention. Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that is you who have identified this 7:1 ratio as significant, not a subject expert. Yes, Leonardo remarked that the height of the Vitruvian Man is six times the length of his foot and that Vitruvian's square is seven times. But there is no evidence that Leonardo (or his pupils) went on to treat that as an essential artistic canon of body proportions in the way that the Canons of Polykleitos and Lysippos were for a very long time. We also know that the ratio is not accurate, at least not for 20th/21st century man.
 * Sorry but you don't WP:OWN any part of Wikipedia, so you may not remove it. When you registered to contribute, you acknowledge that you make all your contributions public domain, free for anyone to use anywhere for any purpose, including modification. The version below also contains my contributions. So, unless it is a breach of copyright, it cannot be removed.
 * Your text has a lot of useful material, much of it properly sourced. Another editor may be able to develop it further. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Salve John Maynard Friedman. Mi dispiace, ma ti sbagli. Io sono stato un professore di Scenografia presso l’Accademia di Belle Arti di Brera, a Milano, per 36 anni. Ho insegnato anche Stilistica e Costume. Non capisco le tue obiezioni: “Yes, Leonardo remarked that the height of the Vitruvian Man is six times the length of his foot and that Vitruvian's square is seven times”. Policleto e Lisippo erano scultori. Leonardo ha disegnato l’uomo in funzione dell’Architettura. I suoi allievi non erano architetti. Non ho scoperto io le proporzioni. Io ho solo messo in evidenza lo scritto del Libro quarto del 'De Architectura' di Vitruvio. Nessuno dei numerosi studiosi – da Carlo Pedretti a Pietro Marani – che ho consultato lo ha mai menzionato. Pertanto non possono confermare nulla in proposito, semplicemente perché l’hanno ignorato. Sicuramente Io ha letto invece Leonardo, giacché ha usato le proporzioni dell’Ordine Dorico o Tuscanico. Le misure parlano chiaro. I riferimenti non sono dichiarati dall’autore, ma le analogie le deduce l’osservatore. Avevo eliminato il mio articolo, perché ritenevo inutile cercare le prove al di sopra di un disegno misurabile matematicamente. Certamente, potete discutere del mio contributo tutte le volte che volete. Ritengo che nessun altro editore potrà sviluppare il mio studio, se non in peggio. Va tutto bene. Buon divertimento. Buona traduzione. Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Egregio Signore Fiorillo, salve. Google translate does an adequate job and I believe that I understand what you wrote. But your English is excellent so I guess you were pressed for time. It doesn't matter.
 * Regarding your academic qualifications: on Wikipedia, these don't matter unless you are a person of great notability (like, for example, the economists John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman). What matters in most is publication of a paper in a respected journal or a book published by a respected academic publisher. The author doesn't get special privileges though would be given more time to resolve problems. But specifically regarding your own experience, I'm sure that you would not accept a thesis that failed to show its sources or could demonstrate the author's peer-reviewed research. As I have explained at your talk page, your self-published book is ruled out by WP:SELFPUB: if you do succeed in getting an academic publisher to accept it, you still can't cite it (because of WP:conflict of interest) but an independent editor could.
 * Regarding Polykleitos and Lysippos: they developed a set of rules of proportion that in English is a called a canon which, if followed, will produce a pleasing figure. That their medium was sculpture is irrelevant: the same rules could (and probably were) used for painting. My point was that there is no evidence that a "Canon of da Vinci" or a "Canon of Vitruvius" ever emerged, based on the 1:6 or 1:7 rule.
 * You wrote Leonardo ha disegnato l’uomo in funzione dell’Architettura [Leonardo drew the man in the context of Architecture]. Did you intend to write Vitruvius?
 * Concerning Pedretti a Marani you write Pertanto non possono confermare nulla in proposito, semplicemente perché l’hanno ignorato. [Perhaps they weren't able to confirm anything of this proposition, simply because perhaps they ignored it]. Or to put it another way, perhaps they didn't consider it significant. Nor has anyone else in the past 550 years. Which to me suggests that it is indeed not significant, it is just a curiosity.
 * Do we know if any of da Vinci's architecture survives? The Doric, Ionic and Tuscan (Etrustcan) orders were well known at his time: is there any evidence to suppose that he extrapolated proportions from his version of the 'Man' into his architecture.
 * It seems to me that you are identifying this proportion in various antique sources and leaping to a conclusion that they are definitely related. I don't have the expertise to do a peer-review of your work and it would not matter even if I [as a Wikipedia editor] did: that is function of the editors of respected academic journals. When you achieve publication, please come back. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Egregio Signore John Maynard Friedman. Ho scritto in italiano perché mi sono accorto che non ci capiamo in inglese. Lei non mi ha fornito alcuna prova che il mio articolo non sia fondato su fonti sufficienti. Il suo giudizio è arbitrario. Lei mi ha attribuito affermazioni che io non ho formulato. Questa non è la sede per polemizzare comunicando con traduzioni approssimative. Io ho solo mostrato dei documenti storici, che non richiedono prove di diligenti eruditi insegnanti. Le esigenze di garanzia di Wikipedia vanno rispettate. Bene
 * Egregio Signore John Maynard Friedman. I wrote in Italian because I realized that we don't understand each other in English. You have not provided me with any evidence that my article is not based on sufficient sources. Her judgment is arbitrary. You have attributed statements to me that I have not made. This is not the place to argue by communicating with rough translations. I have only shown historical documents, which do not require proof of diligent scholarly teachers. Wikipedia's warranty requirements must be respected. Good Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning your sources and I have assumed that you have reported them honestly. The problem is that [I believe that] you have gone on to reach a new conclusion, which is contrary to policy WP:SYNTH. Is this not the theme of your book?
 * I agree that this discussion is not moving us any closer to a resolution so I will ask for further input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello John Maynard Friedman. I haven't come to a new conclusion. In fact, it is the same that Rudolph Wittkower expressed in 1964. My study was aimed at deepening one of my works of art. By chance I had to remove the veils of mystery that still surround Vitruvian Man. I encountered a myriad of absurd fantasies and hypotheses, such as the one about the golden section. I tried to draw attention only to the only text cited by Leonardo - there are no other reliable sources. If Wikipedia's policy is to report the current consideration and common opinion that has obscured the judgment of an eminent art historian, true or false, then I disagree. However, I was pleased to try to contribute, but it is not my goal to defend the truth of the facts. I don't like that anyone can be free to mess with their own edits on other people's text, without consent. I think it's rape. In serious encyclopedias, interventions on important items, such as those above the most famous drawing in the world, are signed and protected when accepted. Best wishes from the heart for your column on the Tuscan Order, or Tuscanico, with a philological term.
 * Io non sono arrivato ad una nuova conclusione. Infatti è la stessa che ha espresso Rudolph Wittkower nel 1964. Il mio studio era rivolto all’approfondimento di una mia opera d’arte. Casualmente ho dovuto togliere i veli di mistero che avvolgono tuttora Uomo vitruviano. Ho incontrato una miriade di fantasie e ipotesi assurde, come quella sulla sezione aurea. Ho cercato di riportare l’attenzione soltanto su l’unico testo citato da Leonardo – non ci sono altre fonti attendibili. Se la politica di Wikipedia è quella di riportare la considerazione corrente e l’opinione comune che ha oscurato il giudizio di un eminente storico dell’arte, vera o falsa che sia, allora non sono d’accordo. Tuttavia, mi ha fatto piacere provare a contribuire, ma non è un mio obiettivo difendere la verità dei fatti. Non mi piace che chiunque possa essere libero di pasticciare con le proprie modifiche sul testo prodotto da altre persone, senza consenso. Lo ritengo uno stupro. Nelle enciclopedie serie gli interventi su voci importanti, come quelli sopra il disegno più famoso al mondo, sono firmati e protette, quando accettate. Tanti auguri di cuore per la sua rubrica sopra l’Ordine Toscano, ovvero Tuscanico, con termine filologico. Ezio Fiorillo Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

{{cquote|

Textual analysis relating to body height and column modulation
In his treatise, Vitruvius recalls the proportional principles which "the architect must scrupulously respect". To obtain a compositional balance, he must draw inspiration from the "perfect harmony of the limbs of a well-formed man". In the fourth Book (regarding the Doric order), Vitruvius explains that in practice the Greek architects, "having measured the footprint of a foot which in man corresponds to one sixth of his height (pedem sexta partem), applied this proportion to the columns and established that their height, including the capital, was six times the diameter at the base". But further on he reports that "posterity then developing and improving their taste intended for greater refinement and elegance preferred to adopt more streamlined canons, establishing that the height of the Doric columns was seven times their diameter". With identical proportions, in his later writing he imposes, as regards the columns of the Tuscan order, that the thickness of the base is the seventh part of the height. In agreement with the passage of the treatise, Leonardo da Vinci wrote (in the lower area of the sheet, on the third line): "From above the chest to the birth of the hair both the seventh part", as well as "the foot is the seventh part of a man" (seventh line).

Andrea Palladio shows a graphic example of the Tuscan order, according to what Vitruvius says, imposing that "The columns with base and capital must be seven modules long". By module, he means an entity of variable extension in proportion to the whole. In the most elementary dimension of the column it coincides with the human foot, which however could be confused with the Pes (Roman foot). If "only a unit of measurement were considered, it would be a foot with a considerable length of about 29.57 centimeters". This normative measure was adopted by Leonardo, indicating the submultiples. In the Vitruvian Man drawing, at the base of the square equal to the height of the body, the line of the reference graduated scale is divided into four segments, equal to four cubits. In the first he wrote the relative fractions: "fingers ..... palms" and in the last "palms .....fingers", "that is, that 4 fingers make 1 palm, and 4 palms ago 1 foot", "consequently a foot is sixteen toes", according to what was written by Vitruvius, that is to say "the height of a person it is defined by the number of six feet". On the other hand, the foot depicted in the Vitruvian Man instead measures 25.7 millimeters, equal to the seventh part of the height of 179.9 millimeters, in conformity with the rules of the Tuscan Order. Leonardo worked in perfect accordance with Vitruvius, adopting the human foot as a function of proportional module; "wherever the soul turned to difficult things, he easily made them absolute". }}

(De Architectura was composed between 27 and 23 BC. The Latin text is taken from the volume )

Further comments
If the above is the proposed text, then it has no place in this article. It is WP:OR based almost solely on primary sources, which is not permitted. If Mr. Fiorillo is using their own self-published publication, this makes the case even less convincing. I'm not sure what else there is to say.  Aza24  (talk)   18:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just that I'm posting this after a 12-hour drive, but if the above proposed text has a point, it is not apparent to me through all the verbiage and quoting and "but this measurement of this, and this other measurement of this other thing is that". I agree with its removal. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur. Citing An anthropometric study of 1197 North American adult Caucasian males in an article about a work of art is a red flag for synthesis. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it was I who added that anthropometric citation, in the course of trying to validate the text that read "a foot with a considerable length of about 29.57 centimeters". And by the way, it is not a citation, it is an explanatory footnote. Further, anthropometric statistics have been used in studies of the Canons of Polykleitos and Lysippos.
 * In fact I did a lot of work to try to get to the essentials of the contribution: originally all the citations were parenthesised in running text making it virtually impossible to form a coherent view of what was being said, so at least it now complies with WP:MOS. I'm afraid I still haven't managed to understand fully what is being said, which is why I invited more expert eyes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand the drive to explicate, but if clarity can only be found by bringing in a study that hasn't already been brought into the subject by the existing literature, then I think it's an indication that the text we're trying to fix is not text we should include. Even setting that aside, this section looks like it is drawing an original conclusion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Section on In Contemporary Culture or Controversies?
It looks like Vitruvian Man is the center of controversy: The Italian Museum That Owns Leonardo’s ‘Vitruvian Man’ Has Successfully Sued to Stop Production of a 1,000-Piece Puzzle Based on the Work.

Maybe the articles should include a section on it?

-

From the article:

An Italian court has blocked the German toy company Ravensburger from producing puzzles featuring Leonardo da Vinci’s iconic Vitruvian Man drawing.

Ravensburger was brought to court by the Gallerie dell’Accademia in Venice, where the real Vitruvian Man lives. The museum claimed that it was owed financial compensation from the puzzle manufacturer, even though the 500-year-old artwork in question belongs to the public domain.

At the heart of the case is Italy’s Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, which grants public institutions in the country the ability to request concession fees for—or outright bar—commercial reproductions of important artworks, regardless of their copyright status.

Last fall, the Court of Venice sided with the Gallerie dell’Accademia in the case, ruling that Ravensburger must cease production on its puzzle and any other pieces of merchandise featuring Vitruvian Man.

The court rejected Ravensburger’s argument that the Cultural Heritage Code only applies in Italy, and has now ordered the toy company to pay the Gallerie dell’Accademia a fee of €1,500 ($1,626) for each day that the puzzle has been manufactured since November 17, 2022. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vitruvian Man