text:
William de Longchamp

William de Longchamp (died 1197) was a medieval Lord Chancellor, Chief Justiciar, and Bishop of Ely in England. Born to a humble family in Normandy, he owed his advancement to royal favour. Although contemporary writers accused Longchamp's father of being the son of a peasant, he held land as a knight. Longchamp first served Henry II's illegitimate son Geoffrey, but quickly transferred to the service of Richard I, Henry's heir. When Richard became king in 1189, Longchamp paid £3,000 for the office of Chancellor and was soon named to the Diocese, or bishopric, of Ely and appointed legate by the pope.

Longchamp governed England while Richard was on the Third Crusade, but his authority was challenged by Richard's brother, John, who eventually succeeded in driving Longchamp from power and from England. Longchamp's relations with the other leading English nobles were also strained, which contributed to the demands for his exile. Soon after Longchamp's departure from England, Richard was captured on his journey back to England from the Crusade and held for ransom by Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor. Longchamp travelled to Germany to help negotiate Richard's release. Although Longchamp regained the office of Chancellor after Richard's return to England, he lost much of his former power. He aroused a great deal of hostility among his contemporaries during his career, but he retained Richard's trust and was employed by the king until the bishop's death in 1197. Longchamp wrote a treatise on the law, which remained well-known throughout the Late Middle Ages.

Background and early life
Longchamp's ancestors originated in the village of Longchamps, Eure, Normandy. Although it is known that he was born in Normandy, the exact location is unknown, with it perhaps being near the Norman village of Argenton. His father, Hugh de Longchamp, also held land in England, as did many other Norman nobles after the Norman Conquest in 1066. Hugh Nonant — one of Longchamp's opponents — declared that the elder Longchamp was the son of a peasant, which seems unlikely, as Hugh de Longchamp appears to have held a knight's tenancy in Normandy. The family was originally of humble background but rose through service to King Henry II. The elder Longchamp also held land in Herefordshire in England, including the manor of Wilton near Ross in Wales. Hugh married a woman named Eve, a relative of the Lacy family. Historian David Balfour suggests that Eve was the daughter of Gilbert de Lacy, the son of Roger de Lacy, exiled by King William II in 1095 for rebellion.

Longchamp's sister, Richeut, married the castellan of Dover Castle. A second sister, Melisend, came to England with Longchamp, but otherwise is unknown. A sister is recorded as having married Stephen Devereux, but whether this is Melisend is unclear. Of Longchamp's brothers, Osbert remained a layman, and owed much of his advancement to William; Stephen served King Richard I on crusade; Henry, another layman, became a sheriff along with Osbert; and Robert became a monk. Two of Longchamp's brothers became abbots.

Longchamp entered public life at the close of Henry II's reign, as an official for the King's illegitimate son Geoffrey. He soon left Geoffrey's service, and served in Henry II's chancery, or writing office, before he entered service with Henry's son Richard. Richard, who was Duke of Aquitaine at the time, named Longchamp chancellor of the Duchy of Aquitaine. Longchamp first distinguished himself at the court of King Philip II of France in Paris in 1189, when he acted as Richard's envoy in a dispute with William Marshal, King Henry's envoy. By that time, Longchamp was already one of Richard's trusted advisors.

Chancellor and Justiciar

On Richard's accession to the throne of England in 1189 Longchamp became Chancellor of England. Longchamp paid 3,000 pounds (£) for the office of Chancellor. This was followed by an increase in the price of having chancery documents sealed with the Great Seal, necessary for their authentication, perhaps to help Longchamp recoup the cost of the office. At the council held at Pipewell on 15 September 1189, the King raised Longchamp to the bishopric of Ely. Richard named three other bishops at the same time: Godfrey de Lucy to Winchester, Richard FitzNeal to London, and Hubert Walter to Salisbury. Longchamp was consecrated on 31 December 1189 and enthroned at Ely on 6 January 1190.

Before leaving England in 1189, Richard put the Tower of London in Longchamp's hands and appointed him jointly with Hugh de Puiset, the Bishop of Durham, to the office of Chief Justiciar, at that time not strictly a judicial office. Instead, the justiciar was the person entrusted with much of the king's authority when the king was outside the kingdom, able to act in the king's name. Along with Puiset, the king named Hugh Bardulf, William Briwerre, Geoffrey fitz Peter, and William Marshal as associates in the justiciarship, under Puiset and Longchamp. As Justiciar, Longchamp sent judges throughout the country to visit the shires on judicial visits, even though he had no previous knowledge of the judiciary. Longchamp and Puiset were unable to work together, and so in March 1190 Richard gave authority north of the River Humber to Hugh, and authority south of the river to Longchamp. Historians' opinions are divided whether Richard explicitly made Longchamp superior to Puiset at this time, or if in theory the two were supposed to co-equal in their respective spheres. By June, Longchamp had eased Puiset out of power and the justiciar's office. He also received a commission as a papal legate from Pope Clement III at this time. Supposedly Richard paid 1,500 marks (£1,000) to the papacy to secure the legateship for Longchamp.

Longchamp granted the citizens of London the right to elect their own sheriffs, and to collect and remit their monetary levy of £300 directly to the Exchequer, the treasury of England. On Longchamp's visits to his diocese he was accompanied by a large train of retainers and animals, which became notorious throughout the country as a sign of his extravagance. Under his legatine authority, the bishop held legatine councils of the church at Gloucester and Westminster in 1190. He also acted to restore authority in York, which had suffered a breakdown in order after the massacre of Jews in March 1190. Also in 1190, he sent an army against Rhys ap Gruffydd, a Welsh prince who was attempting to throw off the control of the marcher lords that surrounded Wales.

Disputes with John

Longchamp's relations with the English people were made more difficult because he was a native of Normandy, and often insensitive to English customs. The medieval writer William of Newburgh claimed that Longchamp was "an obscure foreigner of unproven ability and loyalty". For example, it appears likely that Longchamp did not speak English, making his relations with his flock more difficult. The leading nobles complained that Longchamp marginalised the other officials Richard had appointed to serve with him and that he brought in foreigners to fill offices. Although the first charge is mostly untrue, the second appears to have been valid, as Longchamp did install non-natives in judicial offices and as sheriffs. He also attempted to seize control of several English castles by granting their custody to relatives and dependents.

Throughout 1190, Longchamp's relations with Richard's younger brother John were difficult. This led to Longchamp besieging Lincoln Castle because the castellan would not surrender the castle and allow himself to be replaced by Longchamp's nominee. The castellan, Gerard de Camville, had sworn allegiance to John and stated he would no longer recognise the chancellor's authority. In response, John took the two castles of Tickhill and Northampton. News of the dispute reached Richard, who sent Walter de Coutances, the Archbishop of Rouen, to England in late spring 1191, with orders to negotiate a peace between John and Longchamp. Eventually, Walter brokered a compromise between the two as a result of which Gerard was confirmed as castellan and John relinquished the castles. Longchamp also agreed to work to ensure John's succession to the throne in the event of Richard's death.

Longchamp's legatine commission from the papacy expired in spring 1191, on the death of Clement III, thus removing one of Longchamp's power bases. The legation was, however, renewed a few months later by Clement's successor, Celestine III. A further complication for Longchamp arose in September 1191, when Henry II's illegitimate son Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, was arrested by Longchamp's subordinates, led by the castellan of Dover Castle, Longchamp's brother-in-law. Their orders had been to arrest the Archbishop of York as he landed at Dover on the archbishop's return to England, but Geoffrey had been warned of their plans, and fled to sanctuary in St. Martin's Priory. Longchamp's men laid siege to the priory, and after four days forcibly removed Geoffrey. The violence of the attack reminded the public of Thomas Becket's martyrdom, and public opinion turned against Longchamp. Longchamp claimed that Geoffrey had not sworn fealty to Richard, but this was likely just an excuse to eliminate a rival.

An intense propaganda campaign led by partisans of John ensued. One of the leaders of the campaign against Longchamp was Hugh Nonant, the Bishop of Coventry, and he along with other magnates, including Geoffrey, who had been released, convened a trial on 5 October 1191 at Loddon Bridge near London. Longchamp did not attend, but he was deposed and excommunicated, and after trying to hold the Tower of London, he was forced to surrender due to lack of support from the citizens of London. The council then declared his offices forfeit and ordered the surrender of the castles in his custody. The main charge against Longchamp appears to have been his autocratic behaviour.

Longchamp went to Dover in late 1191 to seek transport to the continent. During his escape, he was unable to answer the local people when they spoke to him in English. He attempted to leave England in various disguises, including a monk's habit and women's clothes. Hugh Nonant wrote that Longchamp attempted on one occasion to hide dressed as a prostitute, which led to him being assaulted by a fisherman who mistook him for a whore. Longchamp eventually succeeded in leaving England, on 29 October 1991.

Exile and return
Longchamp went to the court of Henry VI, the Holy Roman Emperor, who was holding King Richard captive at Trifels. The bishop arranged for Richard to be held at the imperial court and negotiated a payment plan for the ransom, 100,000 marks, under the terms of which the emperor agreed to release Richard once 70,000 marks had been paid and hostages for the payment of the rest had been received. When the Emperor in January 1194 called a meeting of the imperial magnates to debate King Philip II of France's offer to pay the Emperor to keep Richard captive, Longchamp attended along with Walter of Coutances and Eleanor of Aquitaine, Richard's mother. After further diplomatic wrangling, Richard was freed on 4 February 1194.

Richard rewarded Longchamp with the custody of Eye, Suffolk and an appointment as Sheriff of Essex and Sheriff of Hertfordshire when the pair returned to England, but Longchamp soon became embroiled in a renewal of his disagreement with Archbishop Geoffrey of York. Richard left England in May 1194, and Longchamp accompanied him to the continent, never to return to England; Longchamp returned to the Emperor's court in 1195. Richard continued to use Longchamp in diplomacy — although it was Geoffrey who arranged a truce with King Philip in 1194 — as well as retaining the bishop as chancellor, but the main power in England was now Hubert Walter. Longchamp spent the rest of his life outside his diocese, usually accompanying the king.

Death and legacy
Longchamp died in January 1197, at Poitiers, while on a diplomatic mission to Rome for Richard, and was buried at the abbey of Le Pin. Much of the information on his career comes from people hostile to him, for example, Gerald of Wales called Longchamp that "monster with many heads". The historian Austin Lane Poole says that Gerald described Longchamp as more like an ape than a man. Longchamp was reportedly a cultured and well-educated man. He was supported by others among his contemporaries, including Pope Clement III, who, when he appointed Longchamp legate, wrote that he did so at the urging of the English bishops. When he was one of four men named bishop in 1189, medieval chronicler Richard of Devizes wrote that the four new bishops were "men of no little virtue and fame". Historian John Gillingham wrote that Longchamp's "record of his life in politics and administration was a good one, spoiled only by his failure in 1191".

Two writers have seen, in the assembly that met to try Longchamp in 1191, a precursor to the gathering at Runnymede in 1215 that drew up Magna Carta, as it was one of the earliest examples of the nobles of the realm coming together to force the government to rule with their advice. Longchamp also promoted the careers of his brothers; Henry and Osbert became sheriffs in the 1190s, Osbert the Sheriff of Yorkshire. His brother Robert, a cleric, also benefitted, becoming prior of the Ely cathedral chapter and later abbot of St Mary's Abbey, York.

The medieval poet Nigel Wireker (also known as Nigel de Longchamps) dedicated to the bishop a satirical poem, Speculum Stultorum ("Mirror of Fools"), on the habits of students. Richard Barre, a medieval writer and judge, dedicated his work Compendium de veteris et novo testamento to Longchamp. Longchamp was one of Barre's patrons, and secured the post of Archdeacon of Ely for him as well as judicial posts.

One of Longchamp's probable innovations as chancellor was the replacement of the first person singular previously used in documents drafted in the king's name with the majestic plural or "royal we". He wrote a work on law entitled Practica legum et decretorum, a manual on the usage of both civil and canon law in the Angevin possessions on the continent, composed sometime between 1181 and 1189. It was well known in the Middle Ages and served as a practical guide for those involved in litigation.

title: William de Longchamp


text:
Talk:Bill Haley

Date of Birth
I find DoB listed as 6 July 1924. Where does the listed date come from?--(talk)BozMo 20:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The 1924 birthdate is erroneous. I know his son and can confirm that Haley was born in 1925. 23skidoo 17:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1925 is the right year of his birthdate

Haley's birthday and so on
Bill was born on July 6, 1925 in Highland Park, Detroit, MI...He died completely fool (paranoid) and of a heart attack back on February 9, 1981 in Harlingen, Texas (not too far from the Mexican border). At that time he sold an estimated 60 million records in his seminal r'n'r career... Please have a look at the French page with almost full discography  Stephan Koenig 10:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Some label shots and photos are already taken in Commons :-) as "CC-NC" and "CC-BY" Stephan Koenig 10:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the French page? 23skidoo 15:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Band members
The material that was in this section has been moved to Talk:Jodimars. 23skidoo 13:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

touring Latin America and Mexico...
...I think you might have to write "Latin America and Mexico in the 60's and, in Europe, in the 50's, 60's, 70's and maybe in 1980 [he signed a contract to come back in Belgium and probably in Liège). (Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Holland...). It is out of question to change anything in YOUR text. :-)  ~Juke Box Cannon Ball~ :-)
 * Read the Comets article. I mention this there. 23skidoo 18:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Fine. Stephan KŒNIG 21:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

See you later alligator in Spanish?
Bill Haley never recorded it in Spanish. Hasta luego cocodrillo is only a translation...81.243.168.181 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)S.K.
 * This is true. I checked the article but there's no mention of him recording it in Spanish. He did record a number of other songs in Spanish between 1961-66 but when it came to re-recording his major hits, he stuck to English (an exception being Skinny Minnie which included both Spanish and English). 23skidoo 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * A song entitled Al compás del reloj was in fact another RATC version sung in...English! BUT was also another one sung in Spanish (1961) and had nothing to see to RATC.
 * Skinny Minnie : medley Spanish/English is quite sure. I hold this song.
 * It seems there were two versions of The Hucklebuck entitled Actopan and Actopan Twist.
 * An instrumental The Green Door is aka Puerta Verde.
 * Aaaaah, Florida Twist : the tune featured on the album "Twistin' Knights..." is an instrumental version with some vocals provided by Billy Williamson of the one released in Mexico in May 1961 not sung by Bill Haley but completely unknown (I'm not quite sure at all that is completely unknown!) by Mariachi Pedro Vargas de Tecalitlán of the 3rd Generation. Mariachi Vargas were formed by Don Gaspar Vargas in Tecalitlán, Jalisco (do you remember Jalisco Twist?), Mexico in 1898. Stephan KŒNIG 12:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed
"John W. Haley, his eldest son, wrote Sound and Glory, a biography of Haley,[10] and had another child, Sharyn, with his first wife, Dorothy Crowe." This needs clarification that, I presume, Dorothy's first two children with Bill were girls, and John was a son of his second or third wife. Even so, it sounds like the Greek tragedy of Phaedra. --01:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Bill's children...
What about Scott Robert born in January 1960 to become a well known crack US football player? And Pedro? Martha and Georgina? Stephan KŒNIG
 * Georgina is Gina, already mentioned. Gina Haley is mentioned specifically as there is a Wikipedia article on her. What does Sticks Evens have to do with Bill's children? I deleted your nonsense statement regarding the Twisting Knights LP as that has nothing to do with Bill's family. Stick to the subject at hand. 23skidoo 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Musicians WikiProject inclusion
I'm aware that the Musicians WikiProject is more aimed at solo performers, however Haley had some experience as a solo performer as well as with the Comets, so I think it's justified to include him. 23skidoo 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Texas
Adding the text WikiProject Texas so the User:WatchlistBot will not add the tag again. Ingrid 23:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted talk page content
Wikipedia is tightening its rules on what can be posted to talk pages. Talk pages are not to be used for general discussion or debate over the merits of the subject. They are to be used specifically for discussing matters related to the improvement, correction, or other maintenance of the article. For this reason, and after studying other talk pages, I have followed their lead and deleted discussions not directly related to this article. Such deletions are not to be seen as expressing a point of view regarding the discussions therein (some of which I participated in). Anyone wishing to consult these earlier postings may do so through the history. If there is a discussion that was deleted that you feel should be reinstated, please state your case below. 23skidoo 20:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Article does not cite sources
The non negotiable Wikipedia policy of WP:V through WP:RS and the how-to WP:CITE mean that this article must cite specific sources for statements made in the article. Any editor may remove unsourced article material. This article is unsouced. Please address this issue. Thank you. Mattisse(talk) 14:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article contains a bibliography. That satisfies WP:V. 23skidoo 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't. In WP:CITE it says you can choose which method you want to use, but "bunch at the end" method isn't one of the choices. Any editor can remove unsourced material from the article. Sourcing it is protecting it from being removed by anyone who wants to. Mattisse(talk) 02:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then delete the whole thing. 23skidoo 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rock Around the Clock
The wording "released as" is a bit confusing here, so instead I inserted the original Decca release title. The fact the song was originally written under another title can be covered by the article on the song (and indeed I'd forgotten about the "working title" and will add it to the RATC article if it isn't already there). 23skidoo 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A 1950s photo would be preferable
The new photo is poor for the purposes of this article. You can barely see Haley and a couple members of the band. Surely an image from the 1950s would be preferable. I have such images but I will not provide them to Wikipedia on the grounds that WP:FAIR and other image use policies change with the wind so I am no longer contributing images of any kind to Wikipedia. I'd rather have no image on the article than the one that replaced the magazine cover. No disrespect to the person who took the photo, but this is an example of why commons images are generally inferior to what WIkipedia could have if it dropped the copyright paranoia. I have been asking for 3 years for someone to give me a single example of an image causing a legal issue related to fair use. To date, no one has provided me with any examples. 23skidoo (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protected
Since it appears a number of non-registered losers, er, users have decided to make sport of vandalising this article, non-registered users are banned from editing this article until further notice. Good work to those editors who caught and reverted the vandalism. 23skidoo (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC) .... Don't you think it would be fair to state in the article that he is considered or at least known as "The Father of Rock 'n' Roll" music???????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.114.40.32 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The page has been protected again due to repeat dubious edits by an anonymous IP over the last couple of days. 23skidoo (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is, but that's not why I protected the article. 23skidoo (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright/WP:TALK violation removed
I have removed an addition to this talk page by an IP which consisted of nothing but the contents of a newspaper article on Rock and Roll. This had to be removed because it was a copyvio and because it was a violation of WP:TALK. 23skidoo (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Compositions list
I have removed the compositions list for a few reasons. First, there is some dispute over Haley's authorship of a few songs (such as Crazy Man Crazy which Marshall Lytle claims he co-wrote), so therefore sourcing would be required. But mostly because Haley wrote a lot of songs, many of which were never recorded, so to do a proper list would be simply beyond the scope of this article. 23skidoo (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

what is this writer trying to say?
this is a copy of text from the article and section Bill_Haley second paragraph(starting towards the end of the second line), is this just a spelling error, or was the writer trying to say something else?

"there is little information extant about Haley's final days"

Pga1965 (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Extant: existing or surviving (Oxford Dictionary) 68.146.70.177 (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

US performances in 1980
Although cited to a biography which in turn cites a newspaper, the statement in the Death and Legacy section claiming Haley performed in Texas in 1980 is bogus. Bill Haley only performed in South Africa in 1980 and was legally prevented from performing live in the US from about 1973-74 due to a management issue. 68.146.70.177 (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Better sources needed
This has some rather weak "online" sources. The first source is a .ch site in a foreign language on a magazine style site. Billboard or Google books can provide far better sources. Billboard is the most important US music business paper and I bet there's quite a bit on Bill Haley. Just as I was writing this I did a quick search and within a few seconds had located a 1955 issue of Billboard mentioning an award given to "Rock Around The Clock". Here's the link:

Link to 1955 Billboard magazine with Bill Haley details

It's absolutely ridiculous that when reliable and related sources contemporary to the actual article details are available that anyone would choose to use a foreign language online magazine article from 50 years later. Billboard is an excellent source (check out my use of Billboard on The Clovers article). Give the Bill Haley article the scholarship and research it deserves.

Once you have your Billboard ref or Google book then you don't even have to type a ref out - all you do is copy the address and paste it into this tool:

click here for a simple online tool that creates references from Google books for use in a Wikipedia article (Open the 1955 link above and the link to the tool and try it)

If I get the time I'll try to find some better refs but if someone else wants to do the work its as easy as typing "Bill Haley Billboard Google books" into Google's search box and checking the magazine dates for all the 1950s issues. You get the original ads, release details, info to do with distribution and regional sales (very important as I found out doing The Clovers article where the Washington regional juke box charts of the 1950s normally had their tunes appearing earlier than on other regional charts due to the fact they were based in Washington D.C).

Use sources nearer to the date for hard facts and leave the newer online magazine stuff out of the article. Since I've been rattling those pots and pans its time to say see yer later alligator.

Sluffs (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, per WP:BOLD if you see better sources, use them. Keep in mind the majority of people these days who care about Bill Haley are located in Europe, so naturally they'll go with the foreign sources. The only biography of Bill Haley published in the last 23 years was issued in Germany and later republished in English translation. And Billboard becomes pretty much useless as a source for Bill Haley after about 1970. I know - I personally (for another project) checked every reference to Haley in Billboard between 1945 and 1981. Anyway, Wikipedia is not an American website, it is an international one and thus the only "weak" sources are those that violate Wikipedia policy in terms of being reliable. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair use
This article uses quite a lot of images as fair use, although several images are available on commons under a free license. I that still appropriate? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Rocket 88
The article claimed that many historians consider Haley's version of 'Rocket 88' the earliest 'rock n roll' song. This was unverified. Could find no corroboration with Google search. Found a lot recognition of Ike Turner's version as one of the first 'rock' songs. Turner's version was the #1 R&B hit of 1951. It was, ergo, more influential. Ergo, removed the unverified claim. Tapered (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bill Haley. 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 https://web.archive.org/20130903075705/http://www.sky.com/showbiz/picture_gallery/0,,50004-1175946-2,00.html to http://www.sky.com/showbiz/picture_gallery/0,,50004-1175946-2,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bill Haley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707235113/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Haley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512010249/http://www.422business.com/about_us.html to http://www.422business.com/about_us.html
 * Added tag to http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2011/11/17/entertainment/doc4ec3cf37e92da127171573.txtl
 * Added tag to http://www.themonitor.com/articles/harlingen-22920-haley-pioneer.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sky.com/showbiz/picture_gallery/0%2C%2C50004-1175946-2%2C00.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Death and legacy
The death and legacy is way way too long. I don't think we need more than three sentences, tops, about his erratic behavior at the end of his life. That's not what makes him notable, and most of our sources don't mention it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Using liner notes for sources
The section about the Saddlemen relies on uncredited liner notes from a 1955 album. This is dubious at best. For one thing this makes the article (before I corrected it) say Rocket 88 was recorded for Keystone which is instantly verifiable as wrong. I believe online sources show the Keystone recordings were actually made in 1950, and I believe the first Saddlemen recording to be released was actually on Atlantic Records but I need to confirm with sources I don't have easy access to right now which came first, Atlantic or Keystone. 136.159.160.5 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Article title
Does this page have the best title, or is it the primary topic for the term Bill Haley and thus worthy of being moved back to the base name? Over 99% of |Bill_Haley_(Texas_politician)|Bill_Haley_(Wyoming_politician)|Bill_Haley_(footballer)|Bill_Haley page views seem to be for the musician, and external searches give similar results. Certes (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was unnecessary to move the musician and add him under the disambig. I've cleaned it back up now. Thanks for the notice! –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 20:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Bill Halley
I don't know if there's a place for this in the article, but it is rather common to see the early 20th century songwriter Bill Halley (who wrote Miss the Mississippi and You) mistaken for this Bill Haley. Aside from seeing misspelling of the surname on songwriter credits, I've seen Bill Haley of Rock Around the Clock fame outright being called the songwriter of Miss the Mississippi and You. Again, not quite sure how to approach, especially as the other Bill Halley at present has no Wikipedia article. 23skidoo (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to my earlier note, at present Bill Halley redirects here, which is fine (since it's a common misspelling for Haley in any regard), but if someone adds a wikilink to the Mississippi and You songwriter's name at any point, then they'll be taken here. 23skidoo (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Bill Haley


text:
Frank Borzage

Frank Borzage ( né Borzaga; April 23, 1894 – June 19, 1962) was an American film director and actor. He was the first person to win the Academy Award for Best Director for his film 7th Heaven (1927) at the 1st Academy Awards.

Born to European immigrant parents in Salt Lake City, Borzage began his career as a teenager performing with traveling theater groups throughout the western United States He found employment in Hollywood in 1912, where he began directing and acting in short films before transitioning to feature films. Borzage's other directorial feature credits include Street Angel (1928), Bad Girl (1931), A Farewell to Arms (1932), Man's Castle (1933), History Is Made at Night (1937), The Mortal Storm (1940), and Moonrise (1948).

His final credited directorial work is the historical drama The Big Fisherman (1959), before his death from cancer in 1962.

Biography
Borzage was born Frank Borzaga in Salt Lake City, Utah in 1894, one of 14 children born to a Swiss mother, Maria (née Ruegg; 1860—1947), and an Italian father, Luigi Borzaga, a stonemason born in 1859 Ronzone (then Austrian Empire). Luigi and Maria met in her native Switzerland while she was employed in a silk factory. The couple emigrated to the United States in the early 1880s, settling in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, where Borzaga worked as a coal miner before the two married in 1883 and relocated to Wyoming before settling in Utah shortly before Frank's birth. Borzage was one of 14 children, eight of whom survived childhood: Henry (1885–1971), Mary Emma (1886–1906), Bill (1892–1973), Frank, Daniel (1896–1975, a performer and member of the John Ford Stock Company), Lew (1898–1974), Dolly (1901–2002) and Sue (1905–1998). Although a Roman Catholic family, the Borzagas had a rapport with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and Luigi helped found several LDS temples. Luigi Borzaga died in Los Angeles in a car accident in 1934; his wife Maria (Frank's mother) later died of cancer in 1947.

As a child, Borzage became interested in acting, and while a teenager, took a job mining silver near Park City to save funds to attend a drama school in Salt Lake City. Borzage performed in several traveling theater groups who staged plays throughout the Western United States, including in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Oregon. Around 1912, he joined the Gilmore Brown theater company, which led him to Los Angeles.

Career
In 1912, Borzage found employment as an actor in Hollywood; he continued to work as an actor until 1917. His directorial debut came in 1915 with the film The Pitch o' Chance. Borzage was a successful director throughout the 1920s; he reached his peak in the late silent and early sound era. Absorbing visual influences from the German director F.W. Murnau, who was also resident at Fox at this time, he developed his own style of lushly visual romanticism in a hugely successful series of films starring Janet Gaynor and Charles Farrell, including 7th Heaven (1927), for which he won the first Academy Award for Best Director, Street Angel (1928) and Lucky Star (1929). He won a second Oscar for 1931's Bad Girl.

He directed 14 films from 1917 to 1919 alone; his greatest success in the silent era was with Humoresque (1920), a box-office winner starring Vera Gordon.

Borzage's trademark was intense identification with the feelings of young lovers in the face of adversity, with love in his films triumphing over such trials as World War I (7th Heaven and A Farewell to Arms), disability (Lucky Star), the Depression (Man's Castle), a thinly disguised version of the Titanic disaster in History Is Made at Night, and the rise of Nazism, a theme which Borzage had virtually to himself among Hollywood filmmakers, including Little Man, What Now? (1933), Three Comrades (1938), and The Mortal Storm (1940).

His work took a spiritual turn in films such as Green Light (1937), Strange Cargo (1940) and The Big Fisherman (1959). Of his later work, only Moonrise (1948) has enjoyed much critical acclaim.

After 1948 his output was sporadic, but he directed three episodes of the Screen Directors Playhouse television series between 1955 and 1956.

In 1955 and 1957, Borzage was awarded The George Eastman Award, given by George Eastman House for distinguished contribution to the art of film. For his contributions to the film industry, Borzage received a motion pictures star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1960. The star is located at 6300 Hollywood Boulevard.

He was the original director of Journey Beneath the Desert (1961), but was too unwell to continue, and Edgar G. Ulmer took over. Borzage was uncredited for the sequences he did direct.

While hospitalized in February 1962, he received the D. W. Griffith Award.

He was an officer and board member of the Directors Guild of America.

Personal life
On June 7, 1916, Borzage married vaudeville and film actress Lorena "Rena" Rogers in Los Angeles and remained married until 1941. In 1945, he married Edna Stillwell Skelton, the ex-wife of comedian Red Skelton; they were divorced in 1949. His marriage to Juanita Scott in 1953 lasted till his death nine years later.

He was a keen sportsman, with a 3-goal polo handicap and a two handicap in golf, and a yachtsman.

Death
Borzage died in Los Angeles of cancer in 1962, aged 68, and he was interred in the Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery in Glendale, California.

Director

 * The Mystery of Yellow Aster Mine (1913)
 * The Pitch o' Chance (1915)
 * The Pride and the Man (1916)
 * Dollars of Dross (1916)
 * Life's Harmony (1916)
 * The Silken Spider (1916)
 * The Code of Honor (1916)
 * Two Bits (1916)
 * A Flickering Light (1916)
 * Unlucky Luke (1916)
 * Jack (1916)
 * The Pilgrim (1916)
 * The Demon of Fear (1916)
 * The Quicksands of Deceit (1916)
 * Nugget Jim's Pardner (1916)
 * That Gal of Burke's (1916)
 * The Courtin' of Calliope Clew (1916)
 * Nell Dale's Men Folks (1916)
 * The Forgotten Prayer (1916)
 * Matchin' Jim (1916)
 * Land o' Lizards (1916)
 * Immediate Lee (1916)
 * Flying Colors (1917)
 * Until They Get Me (1917)
 * A Mormon Maid (1917)
 * Wee Lady Betty (1917)
 * The Gun Woman (1918)
 * The Curse of Iku (1918)
 * The Shoes That Danced (1918)
 * Innocent's Progress (1918)
 * Society for Sale (1918)
 * An Honest Man (1918)
 * Who Is to Blame? (1918)
 * The Ghost Flower (1918)
 * The Atom (1918)
 * Toton the Apache (1919)
 * Whom the Gods Would Destroy (1919)
 * Prudence on Broadway (1919)
 * Humoresque (1920)
 * Get-Rich-Quick Wallingford (1921)
 * The Duke of Chimney Butte (1921)
 * Back Pay (1922)
 * Billy Jim (1922)
 * The Good Provider (1922)
 * The Valley of Silent Men (1922)
 * The Pride of Palomar (1922)
 * The Nth Commandment (1923)
 * Children of Dust (1923)
 * The Age of Desire (1923)
 * Secrets (1924)
 * The Lady (1925)
 * Daddy's Gone A-Hunting (1925)
 * The Circle (1925)
 * Lazybones (1925)
 * Wages for Wives (1925)
 * The First Year (1926)
 * The Dixie Merchant (1926)
 * Early to Wed (1926)
 * Marriage License? (1926)
 * 7th Heaven (1927)
 * Street Angel (1928)
 * Lucky Star (1929)
 * They Had to See Paris (1929)
 * The River (1929)
 * Song o' My Heart (1930)
 * Liliom (1930)
 * Doctors' Wives (1931)
 * Young as You Feel (1931)
 * Bad Girl (1931)
 * After Tomorrow (1932)
 * Young America (1932)
 * A Farewell to Arms (1932)
 * Secrets (1933)
 * Man's Castle (1933)
 * No Greater Glory (1934)
 * Little Man, What Now? (1934)
 * Flirtation Walk (1934)
 * Living on Velvet (1935)
 * Stranded (1935)
 * Shipmates Forever (1935)
 * Desire (1936)
 * Hearts Divided (1936)
 * Green Light (1937)
 * History Is Made at Night (1937)
 * Big City (1937)
 * Mannequin (1937)
 * Three Comrades (1938)
 * The Shining Hour (1938)
 * Disputed Passage (1939)
 * I Take This Woman (1940)
 * Strange Cargo (1940)
 * The Mortal Storm (1940)
 * Flight Command (1940)
 * Billy the Kid (1941)
 * Smilin' Through (1941)
 * The Vanishing Virginian (1942)
 * Seven Sweethearts (1942)
 * Stage Door Canteen (1943)
 * His Butler's Sister (1943)
 * Till We Meet Again (1944)
 * The Spanish Main (1945)
 * I've Always Loved You (1946)
 * Magnificent Doll (1946)
 * That's My Man (1947)
 * Moonrise (1948)
 * China Doll (1958)
 * The Big Fisherman (1959)
 * Journey Beneath the Desert (1961)

Actor

 * The Battle of Gettysburg (1913) - minor role, uncredited
 * The Gratitude of Wanda (1913, short)
 * Samson (1914) - Bearded Philistine, uncredited
 * The Wrath of the Gods (1914) - Tom Wilson
 * The Typhoon (1914) - Renard Bernisky
 * The Cup of Life (1915) - Dick Ralston
 * Intolerance (1916) - minor role, uncredited
 * Land o' Lizards (1916) - The Stranger
 * Immediate Lee (1916) - Immediate Lee
 * The Pride and the Man (1916)
 * A School for Husbands (1917) - Hugh Aslam
 * A Mormon Maid (1917) - Tom Rigdon
 * Wee Lady Betty (1917) - Roger O'Reilly
 * Flying Colors (1917) - uncredited
 * Fear Not (1917) - Franklin Shirley
 * The Gun Woman (1918) - Townsman - uncredited
 * The Curse of Iku (1918) - Allan Carroll / Allan Carroll III
 * The Atom (1918)
 * Jeanne Eagels (1957) - as himself, uncredited

In popular culture
Borzage briefly appears as a character in Horace McCoy's 1935 novel They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, when he attends its dance marathon setting as a spectator. The narrator, Robert Syverten, notices Borzage in the crowd and has a brief conversation with him, expressing his admiration of No Greater Glory and sharing his own ambition to become a film director.

title: Frank Borzage


text:
Interstate 495

Interstate 495 (I-495) is the designation for the following five Interstate Highways in the United States, all of which are related to I-95:
 * The Capital Beltway, a beltway around Washington, D.C., running through Virginia, Maryland, and a sliver of Washington, D.C.
 * Interstate 495 (Delaware), a bypass of Wilmington, Delaware that runs through Delaware and partially enters Pennsylvania
 * Interstate 495 (New York), a spur from New York City to Long Island, commonly known as the Long Island Expressway (LIE)
 * Interstate 495 (Massachusetts), a partial beltway around Boston
 * Interstate 495 (Maine), an unsigned connector in Portland, Maine, commonly known as the Falmouth Spur

The following roads once were named I-495:
 * New Jersey Route 495, a western continuation of New York's I-495
 * New York State Route 495, the approach to the Lincoln Tunnel in Manhattan
 * Interstate 87 (North Carolina), a part of the US 64 connector from Raleigh to Rocky Mount, North Carolina; it was signed as I-495 from 2014 to 2017
 * Interstate 476, originally planned as I-495 from Woodlyn to Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania

title: Interstate 495


text:
Bridgend County Borough

Bridgend County Borough (Bwrdeistref Sirol Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr) is a county borough in the south-east of Wales. The county borough has a total population of 139,200 people, and contains the town of Bridgend, after which it is named. Its members of the Senedd are Sarah Murphy MS, representing the Bridgend Constituency, and Huw Irranca-Davies MS representing the Ogmore Constituency, and its members of the UK parliament are Jamie Wallis and Chris Elmore.

The county borough lies at the geographical heart of south Wales. Its land area of 110 mi2 (285 km2) stretches 12 miles (20 km) from east to west and occupies the Llynfi, Garw and Ogmore valleys. The largest town is Bridgend (pop: 39,773), followed by Maesteg (pop: 20,700) and Porthcawl (pop: 19,238). It is situated on the Ogmore River and its tributaries, although the Ewenny and Ogwr Fach rivers form the border with the Vale of Glamorgan for much of their length.

It was formed on 1 April 1996 under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. It includes all of the former Ogwr borough apart from the communities of Wick, St Bride's Major and Ewenny, which went to Vale of Glamorgan. Bridgend County Borough was divided into 20 communities: Brackla, Bridgend, Cefn Cribwr, Coity Higher, Coychurch Higher, Coychurch Lower, Cornelly, Garw Valley, Laleston, Llangynwyd Lower, Llangynwyd Middle, Maesteg, Merthyr Mawr, Newcastle Higher, Ogmore Valley, Pencoed, Porthcawl, Pyle, St Bride's Minor and Ynysawdre. The communities of Brackla, Bridgend and Coychurch Lower make up the town of Bridgend.

Government
The region is governed by Bridgend County Borough Council, a principal council. It is currently in the control of the Labour party with 26 seats out of 54. From 2024, Bridgend County Borough would be in three UK Parliament constituencies, Aberafan Maesteg, Bridgend, and Rhondda and Ogmore.

Parks and green spaces
Bryngarw Country Park is the largest (113 acres) country park in the borough. It offers many amenity based areas including an adventure play area, barbecue and picnic areas, car park, cafe, visitor centre and toilets; as well as a patchwork of woodland, grassland and freshwater habitats. Bryngarw Country Park is a Grade II listed Historic Park and Garden and has been designated a 'Green Flag' Park since 2010. The Oriental Garden in the park has been noted as a 'Visit Wales Sustainable Tourism, Historic Gardens Centre of Excellence' by the 'One Historic Garden, Centre of Excellence'.

Kenfig National Nature Reserve with Glamorgan's largest natural lake, Kenfig Pool, is set on the edge of this area, with views from Sker beach across Swansea Bay to Gower. It is one of the finest wildlife habitats in Wales, and one of the last remnants of a huge dune system that once stretched along the coast from the River Ogmore to the Gower peninsula. The reserve is home to unique wild orchids, as well as insects and wildlife. Kenfig is one of the most important sites in Britain for nature conservation.

Parc Slip Nature Reserve is an environment of wetlands, woodlands and meadows at the Parc Slip Nature Park where there is a wealth of wildlife. After a century of coal mining on the site, the Wildlife Trust began to manage the land for nature in the late 1980s. Varied habitats have since been created and the park supports an increasing diversity of wildlife.

Freedom of the Borough
The following people and military units have received the Freedom of the Borough of Bridgend:

Military units

 * The Royal Welsh: 30 August 2008
 * 2 Company 1st Battalion The Welsh Guards: 11 May 2011

title: Bridgend County Borough


text:
Better Than Raw

Better Than Raw is the eighth studio album by German power metal band Helloween, released in 1998. The album spawned the singles "I Can" and "Hey Lord!".

The album was recorded at Chateau du Pape and Crazy Cat Studios in Hamburg and at Mi Sueño Studio in Tenerife. It was produced and mixed by Tommy Hansen at Chateau du Pape and mastered by Ian Cooper at Metropolis, London.

Track listing

 * M - 2 also appears on the "I Can" single.
 * M - 3,4 also appears on the "Hey Lord!" single.

Helloween

 * Andi Deris – lead and backing vocals
 * Michael Weikath – guitar, backing vocals
 * Roland Grapow – guitar, backing vocals
 * Markus Grosskopf – bass, backing vocals
 * Uli Kusch – drums

Others

 * Jorn Ellerbrock – keyboards
 * Tommy Hansen (producer) – keyboards
 * Jutta Weinhold, Ralf Maurer, Christina Hahne – backing vocals

Trivia

 * Hanson have been known to use the album introduction as an entrance to their concerts.
 * Laudate Dominum was written as a tribute for the band's dedicated fans in Spain, South America and other Christians countries.
 * Midnight Sun is about the ending of a bad relationship.
 * The cover was inspired by The Smurfs, with Gargamel changed for the witch and the Smurfs for pumpkins.
 * As opposed to the more benign-looking pumpkin used on previous albums, a sinister-looking pumpkin is used to represent the "o" in the "Helloween" logo. Albeit with a few minor tweaks, it was in use up until Helloween.

title: Better Than Raw


text:
List of companies of Ireland

This is a list of notable companies based in Ireland, or subsidiaries according to their sector. It includes companies from the entire island. The state of the Republic of Ireland covers five-sixths of the island, with Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, covering the remainder in the north-east. Each has separate regulatory and registration authorities.

About companies in Ireland
Irish companies fall into three categories:

 * Private limited companies, which carry the suffix "Limited" (Ltd) or "Teoranta" (Teo), and whose shares are privately held.
 * Public limited companies, which carry the suffix "plc" or "cpt" and whose shares may be listed on a stock exchange. Where this is the case, it is noted in this article.
 * Company limited by guarantee, this type of company has members, not shareholders, as such generally limited to trade associations and not-for-profit bodies.

Companies in the Republic of Ireland must be registered with the Companies Registration Office, and comply with the provisions of the Companies Acts. Companies in Northern Ireland must be registered with the Department for the Economy's Companies Registry. Certain Northern Ireland organisations are dealt with on a UK-wide basis and are dealt with by Companies House.

Some entries on this list may be statutory corporations - a business form governed by a board appointed by an Irish Government minister under a particular piece of legislation - not formally companies as such, but are effectively treated as such and are included on this list as they are usually large business. For more details on this form of governance, see state-sponsored bodies of Ireland.

Some mutual bodies, such as building societies, are also included on this list.

Some entries such as Three Ireland and Intel Ireland are subsidiaries of foreign companies. These subsidiaries are listed because the Irish economy is significantly dependent on foreign companies in comparison to other nations and these multinational companies are major Irish employers and tax contributors - Intel Ireland employs over 5000 people.

Largest firms
This list shows firms in the Fortune Global 500, which ranks firms by total revenues reported before 31 March 2017. Only the top five firms (if available) are included as a sample.

Notable firms
This list includes notable companies with primary headquarters located in the country. The industry and sector follow the Industry Classification Benchmark framework. Organizations which have ceased operations are included and noted as defunct.

title: List of companies of Ireland


text:
1939 in India

Events in the year 1939 in India.

Incumbents

 * Emperor of India – George VI
 * Viceroy of India – Victor Hope, 2nd Marquess of Linlithgow

Events

 * National income - ₹31,845 million
 * World War II breaks out and political dead lock in India
 * 2 January – The Muslim League at Patna disapproves the Federation scheme which has already been disapproved by Congress.
 * 29 January – Subhas Chandra Bose is reelected president of Congress at Bombay (a victory for opponents of Federation).
 * 22 February – Thirteen right-wing members of the working committee, including Pandit Nehru, resign from Congress.
 * 3 March – In Bombay, Mohandas Gandhi begins to fast in protest of the autocratic rule in India.
 * 12 March – Congress at Tripuri passes a resolution of adherence to the party of Gandhi.
 * 29 April – S. C. Bose resigns as president of Congress and is succeeded by Rajendra Prasad.
 * 1 May – New Congress working committee announced.
 * 3 May – S. C. Bose announces the formation of a new left bloc under his leadership.
 * 8–14 September – Congress debates its attitude to the war; Gandhi calls upon the British to implement their declarations of faith in democracy.
 * 18 September – The Muslim League declares that the Federal scheme, now suspended, should be altogether abandoned.
 * 17 October – The Viceroy states the Allied objectives in the war and announces that at the end of the war the Government would consult the several communities, parties and interests in India.
 * 27–31 October – Congress working committee resolved that the Viceroy's statement was wholly unsatisfactory and asked for a statement of war aims; the ministries of Bombay, Madras and Bihar resign.
 * 3 November – Resignation of the ministry of the United Provinces.
 * 5 November – Resignation of the ministry of Orissa; the Viceroy announces that the parties having met have failed to agree.
 * 9 November – Resignation of the ministry of Central Provinces.
 * 23 November – At Allahabad the Congress working committee reaffirms its demand for "recognition of India's independence".
 * 2 December - Jinnah's call for observing 22nd as Day of Deliverance in favour of resignation and end of congress ministries in provinces.
 * 27 December – The first contingent of Indian troops reaches France.

Law

 * 28 February – The budget is presented to the Legislative Assembly in which the duty on raw cotton is doubled.
 * 13 March – The Chamber of Princes approves its own reorganization.
 * 20 March – A new trade agreement with the UK till 31 March 1942 is signed after two years of negotiations.
 * 15 April – The new tariff bill is rejected by the Central Legislature.
 * 18 April – The Council of State passes the new tariff bill a second time.
 * Registration Of Foreigners Act
 * Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure
 * Commercial Documents Evidence Act
 * Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act
 * Limitation Act

Births

 * 11 March – Bani Basu, author, essayist, critic and poet.
 * 19 May – Balu Mahendra, film director and cinematographer (d. 2014).
 * 27 June – R. D. Burman, composer, singer (died 1994)
 * 7 July – Satya Prakash Agarwal, politician
 * 20 July – Walter Devaram, retired Indian Police Service officer
 * 25 July – Mahendran, Indian film director, screenwriter and actor (d. 2019)
 * 1 August – Jambuwantrao Dhote, Indian politician (d. 2017).
 * 16 August – Kanchana, actress.
 * 17 August – Farooq Feroze Khan, Pakistani air chief marshal (d. 2021)
 * 15 September – Subramanian Swamy, Indian politician and economist.
 * 29 October – Malay Roy Choudhury, poet and novelist (died 2023
 * 22 November – Mulayam Singh Yadav, politician and former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh (died 2022)
 * 12 December – Swadesh Bharati, poet, novelist and literary critic.
 * 14 December – Mythili Sivaraman, activist (died 2021)

Full date unknown

 * Arun Joshi, novelist (died 1993).

Deaths

 * 6 February – Sayajirao Gaekwad III, Maharada of Baroda (born 1863)
 * 14 February – Samsa, playwright, poet and novelist (born 1898)
 * 8 September – Swami Abhedananda, mystic (born 1866)

title: 1939 in India


text:
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (disambiguation)

How the Grinch Stole Christmas! is a 1957 book by Dr. Seuss.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas may also refer to:
 * How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (TV special), a 1966 animated special
 * How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000 film), a film starring Jim Carrey
 * Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas! The Musical
 * Dr. Seuss: How the Grinch Stole Christmas!, 2007 Nintendo DS video game adaptation


text:
Jonathan Arnold

Jonathan Arnold (December 3, 1741 – February 1, 1793) was an American physician and statesman from New England. He was born in Gloucester, Rhode Island, served in the Continental Army as a surgeon, and directed the army hospital in Providence. He represented Rhode Island as a delegate to the Confederation Congress in 1782 and 1783. He moved to a farm in St. Johnsbury, Vermont in 1787, and later served as a judge.

Early life
Jonathan Arnold was born in Gloucester, Rhode Island on December 3, 1741 (Old Style December 14), the son of Josiah Arnold and Amy (Phillips) Arnold. He trained for a career in medicine and practiced as a physician in Providence. In 1774, he became a charter member of the Providence Grenadiers militia unit, and until 1776 he commanded a company with the rank of captain. In 1776, Arnold was elected to the Rhode Island General Assembly, where he authored the May Act that repealed the requirement for government officials and militia officers to swear an oath of allegiance to England.

At the start of the American Revolution, Arnold joined the Continental Army as a surgeon. During the war, he was head of the military hospital in Providence. He was elected as a Delegate to the Congress of the Confederation in 1782, and served until 1783. While he was a member of Congress, the body voted in secret to arrest Luke Knowlton and Samuel Wells of Brattleboro in the Vermont Republic on suspicion of communicating with the British in Canada. They fled before they could be detained, but returned to Brattleboro after the end of the Revolution. Arnold was accused of warning Knowlton and Wells prior to their arrests, which he denied, but fellow members of Congress including James Madison did not believe his denial.

Later life
In 1786, Arnold moved to Winchester, New Hampshire, where he continued to practice medicine. He subsequently became proprietor and the first settler of St. Johnsbury, Vermont, and served as St. Johnsbury's first town clerk. While living in Vermont, Arnold also obtained charters for the towns of Bestbury (now Lyndon), Burke, and Billymead (now Sutton).

After settling in Vermont, Arnold served on the governor's council from 1790 to 1793. He was a judge of the Orange County court beginning in 1792, and he remained on the bench until his death. While living in Rhode Island, Arnold's family had been given a slave, Ruth Farrow, as a gift. Arnold was a member of the Providence Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and freed Farrow, who continued to live with and work for members of the Arnold family until her death in 1841.

Death and burial
Arnold died in St. Johnsbury on February 1, 1793. He was initially buried in the Arnold family plot in the town cemetery. When the cemetery's land was appropriated for a courthouse in 1856, Arnold was reburied at Mount Pleasant Cemetery in St. Johnsbury. Arnold Park in St. Johnsbury is located near the site of Arnold's former home, and is named for him.

Family
In 1763, Arnold married Marry Burr (1743–1781). His second wife was Alice Crawford (1757–1790), whom he married in 1782. After the death of his second wife, in 1792 Arnold married Cynthia Hastings Ladd (1763–1838).

Arnold was the father of 11 children:

 * Amy Arnold Deuel (1764–1843)
 * Amaziah Arnold (1766–1767)
 * Josias Lyndon Arnold (1768–1796)
 * Polly Burr Arnold (1770–1772)
 * William C. Arnold (1773–1813)
 * Sarah (Sally) Arnold Burrill (1777–1814)
 * Abigail Arnold Dow (1780–1824)
 * John Crawford Arnold (1784–1784)
 * Freelove Crawford Arnold (1788–1789)
 * Freelove Crawford Arnold Davis (1790–1848)
 * Lemuel Hastings Arnold (1792–1852)

Arnold's son Lemuel Hastings Arnold served in the United States House of Representatives and as Governor of Rhode Island. His grandson Noah Davis served in the United States House of Representatives. His grandson Richard Arnold was a career officer in the United States Army who served as a brigadier general of volunteers in the Union Army during the American Civil War and attained the rank of major general of both volunteers and the regular army by brevet. His great-great-grandson Theodore Francis Green served as Rhode Island's governor and as a United States Senator.

title: Jonathan Arnold


text:
Treaty of Stolbovo

The Treaty of Stolbovo (Столбовский мир; Freden i Stolbova) was a peace treaty that ended the Ingrian War (Ingermanländska kriget), which had been fought between the Swedish Empire and the Russian Tsardom between 1610 and 1617.

History
After nearly two months of negotiations, representatives from Sweden and Russia met at the now-derelict village of Stolbovo, south of Lake Ladoga, now in Volkhovsky District. The meeting took place on 9 March 1617. From the outset, Sweden had gone into the negotiations with very high ambitions and hopes of fulfilling the old dream of making all Russian trade pass through Swedish territory. As a consequence of that ambition, the Swedes originally demanded far-reaching territorial gains into western Russia, including the important northern port of Arkhangelsk.

However, King James I of England sent a delegation to mediate, and the United Provinces did the same, mostly to ensure that Arkhangelsk did not fall into Swedish hands, which would have made the extensive trade between Western Europe and Russia far more difficult. Arkhangelsk did not change hands in the resulting treaty, partly because of the Dutch and the English efforts but mostly because Russia finally managed to unite under Tsar Michael I of Russia. As word reached Russia that the Swedish war against Poland might soon be over, the Russians really became serious in the negotiations to avoid Sweden's renewal of the war effort on only one front.

The Kingdom of England was officially credited with brokering the peace through its mediator, John Mericke (c.1559 – 1638/9), but the Dutch efforts were also very important. After the war, the leader of the Dutch delegation, Reinoud van Brederode (1567–1633), was granted the title of baron and given the barony of Wesenberg (Rakvere) in Estonia by King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

Terms
In the resulting peace treaty, the Russian tsar and Swedish king agreed to the following terms:

 * Sweden gained the province of Kexholm in Karelia and the province of Ingria – including the fortress of Nöteborg, (now Shlisselburg, Russia).
 * Russia renounced all claims to Estonia and Livonia and would pay Sweden war indemnities of 20,000 rubles.
 * Novgorod and other Swedish territorial gains during the war would be returned to Russia.
 * Sweden had the right to keep all spoils of war collected before 20 November 1616.
 * The city of Gdov was to remain in Swedish hands until the peace had been confirmed and the borders fully established.
 * Sweden recognised Michael Romanov as the rightful Russian tsar and ended further Swedish claims in the Russian throne.
 * Russia was allowed free trade at normal trade tariffs, which ensured that Sweden would not completely cripple Russia.
 * Russia was allowed to establish merchant houses in Stockholm, Reval (Tallinn) and Viborg, and Sweden was allowed to establish merchant houses in Novgorod, Pskov and Moscow.

title: Treaty of Stolbovo


text: User talk:80.223.238.239

title: User talk:80.223.238.239


text: User talk:84.128.102.51

title: User talk:84.128.102.51


text:
Talk:Battle of Fallujah

This is a difficult entry to write with a NPOV, especially since it is about recent events. The sentence Several of these attacks were on minarets of mosques, which were used as fighting positions in violation of the laws of warfare. needs clarifying. Religious buildings are mentioned in the 1977 protocols additional to the 1949 Geneva conventions (which the US didn't ratify), but I don't think they are mentioned in the 1949 Geneva conventions (which the US did ratifty). I have changed 'private mercenaries' to 'contractors' for the time being, as I can find no reliable evidence for the former being true. Betelgeuse 21:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Are we soon going to have to create an article Third Battle of Fallujah? PatGallacher (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Fallujah


text:
Caerphilly County Borough

Caerphilly County Borough (Bwrdeistref Sirol Caerffili) is a county borough in the south-east of Wales. It is governed by Caerphilly County Borough Council.

Its main and largest town is Caerphilly. Other towns in the county borough are Bedwas, Risca, Ystrad Mynach, Newbridge, Blackwood, Bargoed, New Tredegar and Rhymney.

Geography
Caerphilly County Borough is in southeast Wales and straddles the border between the historic counties of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. It is bordered by Cardiff to the southwest, Newport to the southeast, Torfaen to the east, Blaenau Gwent to the northeast, Powys to the north, Merthyr Tydfil to the northwest and Rhondda Cynon Taf to the west.

The northern part of the borough is formed by the broad expanse of the Rhymney Valley. The Rhymney River rises in the hills in the north and flows southwards for about thirty miles, looping round to the east just to the north of Caerphilly before reaching the Bristol Channel. Some of the larger towns are Bedwas, Risca, Ystrad Mynach, Newbridge, Blackwood, Bargoed, New Tredegar and Rhymney. The valley also includes the communities of Abertysswg, Fochriw, Pontlottyn, Tir-Phil, Brithdir, New Tredegar, Aberbargoed, Rhymney and Ystrad Mynach, and the towns of Bargoed and Caerphilly.

History
Located on the edge of the South Wales Coalfield this area was sparsely populated with livestock husbandry being the main occupation. Farmers in their remote farmhouses on the windswept pastures might dig themselves some bucketfuls of coal for their hearth. Things began to change with the development of the iron industry, the start of the Industrial Revolution. In 1752, a 99-year lease was granted for a parcel of land in the Rhymney Valley which gave the lessees the right to mine coal and iron ore. Other such transactions followed, pit shafts were dug and the coal industry developed. By the beginning of the twentieth century, there were forty coalmines in the valley.

One of the pits sunk in the late nineteenth century was the Elliot Colliery. At its peak before World War I, it was producing over a million tons of coal a year and employing nearly three thousand people. The coal eventually became depleted and the colliery closed in 1967. Most of the site was cleared but the East Winding House survives and is now a Grade II listed building, and a museum of the coal industry in the area has been opened on the site. All the pits in the valley were closed by the end of the twentieth century; the spoil heaps were removed and the area was landscaped so that it is not now apparent that the valley ever had an industrial past.

The county borough was formed on 1 April 1996 by the merger of the Rhymney Valley district of Mid Glamorgan with the Islwyn borough of Gwent. In 2008, as a result of representations from different communities in the borough, a draft plan was put forward proposing various changes to the borders between communities.

Freedom of the Borough
The following people and military units have received the Freedom of the County Borough of Caerphilly.

Individuals

 * Joseph Calzaghe: 17 May 2009.
 * Lauren Price: 6 October 2021.
 * Lauren Williams: 6 October 2021.

Military Units

 * The Royal Welsh: 26 September 2010.
 * The Royal British Legion: 25 March 2022.

Rugby
There are many rugby union clubs throughout the county. These are:

 * Abercarn RFC
 * Aberbargoed RFC
 * Abertysswg RFC
 * Bargoed RFC
 * Bedwas RFC
 * Bedwellty RFC
 * Blackwood RFC
 * Blackwood Stars RFC
 * Caerphilly RFC
 * Cross Keys RFC
 * Crumlin RFC
 * Cwmcarn United RFC
 * Deri RFC
 * Fleur De Lys RFC
 * Hafodyrynys RFC
 * Machen RFC
 * Markham RFC
 * Nelson RFC
 * Newbridge RFC
 * New Tredegar RFC
 * Oakdale RFC
 * Pontllanfraith RFC
 * Penallta RFC
 * Risca RFC
 * Rhymney RFC
 * Senghenydd RFC
 * Trinant RFC

title: Caerphilly County Borough


text:
Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 2

Logic and neutrality
The neutrality dispute is about the capitalization of God. I'll wait for that to sort itself out before making the necessary changes and removing the header. As far as the logic part tho, theres no need to wait in replacing innaccuracy w acceptable logic. That has nothing to do w POV Jack 02:44, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Wow, this was amazingly hypocritical. Over on talk:atheism you criticise me about reverting things, and then only a single minute later you come over here and revert the logic section right back to where it was at the start of our argument again. I'm reverting it back to Banno's version, and leaving the NPOV header since this is clearly connected to the situation over on the atheism article. Bryan 03:33, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It appears you don't know the difference between an edit and a revert. Perhaps I misjudged you. Jack 03:36, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * As I noted in atheism I agree with Jack about the capitalisation of God. But the issue is trivial. I’m annoyed that this petty dispute has spread here. Jack, I have better things to do, and you do to. Let them have their small god. Or just capitalise every second God, and leave it as a memorial to Wiki foolishness. Whatever you will agree to as a compromise, but keep this ridiculous debate out of Agnosticism.Banno 21:06, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree this should be decided elsewhere. Thank you for your tact and wisdom. Jack 21:46, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Follwing suit of strong atheism and weak atheism, I've created entries for strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism, mostly in response to confusion on both sides regarding where the line between atheist/agnostic is drawn. (The articles would be longer, but any further discussion of the varagies vagaries would be better placed in Agnosticism itself.) -Sean 06:59, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Talk: splitting
''The following discussion was related to me incorrectly splitting up the talk page into six sub-pages, one for each section. Thanks for fixing that Bryan.'' - Nanobug 16:15, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Splitting up the talk page like this might not be a good idea. None of those subpages are on my watchlist, if I'd been out of town or something for a few days I would have missed this. Is there a guideline about this sort of thing anywhere? Bryan 01:03, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, but surely this page is on your watchlist? However, if you wish, move the content of the most recent section (Logic and neutrality) back to this page, as that seems to be where the latest discussion is happening. Nanobug 03:33, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The new pages are problematic - they do not link to a Wiki article. Better to simply archive old stuff, as is the wiki standard. Banno 06:19, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Just did so. Bryan 15:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The logic of Agnosticism
Understanding the position adopted by agnostics is easier if one understands the way in which logicians treat statements of belief or knowledge. Such statements are not about facts, but about other statements. For example, god exists is a statement about god, but John believes that god exists is about the statement god exists. In the jargon of the logician, statements about other statements are second-order predicates.

There are two possible statements one can make regarding the existence of gods – either god exists or god does not exist. Since someone can either agree or disagree with each, there are a total of four possibilities.

one can:
 * agree with the statement: 		god exists
 * not agree with the statement:		god exists
 * agree with the statement: 		god does not exist
 * not agree with the statement: 	god does not exist

Joining these with a conjunction, one can derive four possibilities:

 * 1) The theist agrees with the statement god exists and does not agree with the statement god does not exist
 * 2) The strong atheist does not agree with the statement god exists and agrees with the statement god does not exist
 * 3) The agnostic does not agree with the statement god exists and does not agree with the statement god does not exist
 * 4) One cannot coherently agree with the statement god exists and with the statement god does not exist, since this is a logical contradiction.

Agnostics vary in their reasons for agreeing with (3). If one holds that knowledge of god is impossible, it follows that one will not agree with either, since each assumes that one can have some knowledge of god. It is not coherent to believe in god and yet to claim to have no knowledge of god, since the belief at the least implies that one knows god exists. Other agnostics simply reserve their judgment, not claiming that knowledge of the existence of god is impossible, but perhaps claiming that there is insufficient evidence one way or the other. Agnosticism is thus to some degree independent of atheism/theism.

One can draw a distinction between belief and knowledge leading some to claiming agnosticism is about knowledge, while atheism/theism is about belief. Since knowledge implies belief, one cannot intelligibly know some proposition to be true and not also believe that proposition is true. Belief does not imply knowledge, but knowledge does imply belief. However claiming to believe something but not know it puts one in a curious position—usually one accuses others of having a belief that is not knowledge.

(A more formal form of the argument is presented at Talk:Agnosticism/Archive_1) Banno 20:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The above is junk. Repairs must be made. I have made my suggestion, which was reverted by Bryan. Perhaps my version isn't the best, but this one is riddled with falsehoods, and cannot be present as it now stands. Sam Spade 23:52, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Nice to see you adopting such a reasonable and considerate tone. Perhaps you might present here why you think the argument is junk? A simple list of the falsehoods contained therein would be most enlightening. But perhaps you are just trolling? Banno 01:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) "There are two possible statements one can make regarding the existence of gods – either god exists or god does not exist" This is a False dichotomy.
 * 2) "One cannot coherently agree with the statement god exists and with the statement god does not exist, since this is a logical contradiction." Yes, one can. Embrace of contridiction is a central aspect of Buddhism, particularly Zen Buddhism
 * 3) "Since knowledge implies belief..." No, it doesn't. In fact it is common these days to disbelieve facts, and even to fail to accept ones owns existance, or other legitimate sources of information. This is a philosophy closely intertwined with post-modernism and existentialism. These people often dispute objective reality entirely.
 * 4) "usually one accuses others of having a belief that is not knowledge" Humbug. I'm not interested in what you think other people usually do. If you have any verification of any of this, I would be made most jolly by your references and citations and references.
 * 5) All of this is original research, and is thus unnacceptable. If you have some evidence to the contrary, let me know.
 * 6) Obey wikiquette I find your above insinuation unacceptable. Assume the best, do not insinuate the worst. Thank you. Sam Spade 02:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Four of your comments might be considered as potential flaws in the argument; however:
 * 1) A false dilemma would only occur if there were other possibilities besides the ones cited. Since the statement in question is “either god exists or god does not exist”, in order to carry your point you must present at least one other possibility. I can’t see a way of doing this without denying the law of the excluded middle, but if you have a third possibility, I’d love to see it.
 * 2) Embracing contradiction is part of Zen Buddhism, but coherence is not one of their goals. If one wishes to be coherent, one is obliged to reject contradiction, no? Is that not what was stated? Do you think that arguments presented in the Wiki should not attempt to be coherent? What sort of logic do you suggest we use, then?
 * 3) I would have thought it obvious that the things we know form a subset of the things we believe. This is what “implies” means. Perhaps you would assist by presenting, for example, a case where something is said to be known but not believed? Perhaps a reference to one of the post-modernist articles you allude to would do this?
 * 4) All that is meant, and necessary for the point, is that to say that someone has a belief that is not knowledge is to disparage that belief. Since this is a point about language use, I fail to see how a citation would be of assistance here. I suspect you have misunderstood, and so I must agree with you that the sentence needs re-writing.

Although I am flattered, I cannot take credit for the argument. I recall it from my natural theology studies of over twenty years ago, and had thought it a commonplace. But I cannot find reference to it - Perhaps someone else might be able to locate the source? In any event, I would have hoped that the apparent validity of the argument was sufficient for it to be included in the encyclopaedia. Is this not the case? Is it necessary that the argument not only be valid, but also authorised in some way? That might result in very long and tedious articles.

What is it you think I have insinuated? It does not appear that you have supported your accusation that the argument is “riddled with falsehoods”. If you are not trolling, then I suggest you provide some more support for your first three criticisms. I will not attempt to edit or re-insert the argument in the mean time, since if you are trolling, this would result in another mindless edit war. If, however, you do not back up your claims, I might, time permitting, edit the argument and restore it. In the mean time, we would both benefit by knowing what other readers think of the validity of the argument.

Banno 07:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * "I would have hoped that the apparent validity of the argument was sufficient for it to be included in the encyclopaedia. Is this not the case? Is it necessary that the argument not only be valid, but also authorized in some way" This brings up some interesting points. First, the argument is bunk. Second, theoretical validity is not good enough. There does need to be some verification possible. References to how and why are presented above, in my last edit. In regards to your last paragraph, I disagree w it almost entirely, and while it would be rude and contentious to go over each and every aspect, I will do you the favor of attempting to answer your questions below. I will be watching, and if you continue not to be able to understand my objections, you might like to review them (and the links) more carefully. Sam Spade 23:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * 1)  Agnosticism is one. Also, there is the problem of the definition of God. How do you define "God"? How do I? How does everybody? Is there any real consensus?
 * 2) All I was pointing out is that there are indeed people, theoretically reasonable people, who do not, as you say. strive for "coherence". They should be acknowledged.
 * 3) I like to call it "factual relativism", Others call it many other things, from "cultural relativism" to "postmodernism" to "subjective reality", but it is defined best as objecting to objective reality. I don't have a handy example of it because I avoid these sorts of dubious informations (I am an absolutist), but I have no fear that some such example is not readily available. Sam Spade 23:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You will be watching? Was that a threat, Sam?

Let’s have a look at your replies. I noticed that you are down from the original six points to three.
 * 1) Are you claiming that agnostics think god both exists and does not exist? If so, you fail to understand either the nature of agnosticism, or the nature of logic. I can only assume that you are making such a lame claim as a rhetorical point. Think you should give up on this one, Sam.
 * 2) I agree. But why do you think that it is appropriate to discuss such folk in the article on agnosticism? Would it also be appropriate to discuss them in, say, logic or theology? What is the relevance of your point to this article?
 * 3) You have not substantiated your claim with an example of something which is known but not believed.  What is the relevance of post-modernism to agnosticism? Why should the article on agnosticism discuss deconstruction?

Your position is so silly that I can only assume that your aim is simply to incite disagreement. You have failed to demonstrate your claim “that the argument is bunk”, so now you are relying on an appeal to authority. No doubt you do not think of yourself as a troll. Possibly you see yourself as “confounding unbelievers” or some such. But if it looks like a troll and smells like a troll…

I really don’t want to play your game, Sam. Your stomping around is counterproductive – you’ve succeeded in bullying the authors of atheism into removing all mention of God, for heaven’s sake, making the article look ridiculous. I don’t see much point in doing work in this area, given the present company. Banno 18:46, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that the above communications have been a disservice to our readers and fellow editors. I furthermore agree that it is time for you to take a hiatus for rest and introspection. Good day sir. Sam Spade 20:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(For anyone with an interest, Sam has continued this discussion on my talk page. Banno 00:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC))

User:Banno

I am sorry for offending you. I think I was less tactful than I might have been in my description of the "logic of atheism" section. Furthermore, I apologise for referring to you as an "academic" on your talk page. I meant that in only the most general of terms. I resolve to try harder to be polite, I understand how important that is here. Lets focus on making this a better page, and not on personal misunderstandings or POV's. I would be happy if you stayed, and between the two of us we can perhaps create a better "logic of agnosticism" section (Logic is a favorite subject of mine) or at least resolve that it is best to leave it vague, with useful links for the reader to explore. Again, I apologise for any misunderstandings. Sam Spade 01:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Sam, how can we work together to ‘create a better “logic of agnosticism” section’ when you cannot tell me what, apart from the lack of authority, is wrong with it? You say you think it vague – in what way? Do you now wish to re-install it, despite the lack of a reference? Perhaps you will understand if I decline your offer.Banno 19:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I have no idea what you are talking about. This line of communication is broken, and this conversation is over. Sam Spade 20:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another approach to that logic section
In my experience here on Wikipedia, there is no problem of any size or complexity that can't be solved with an elabourate and colourful table of some kind. :) How about using something like this to try clarifying the various positions that people can take on these issues?

This is overkill, of course, but I figured it might be a good idea to cover every permutation and then see what people think about it. Bryan 01:06, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Brilliant. This is MUCH better, and is a solid step in the right direction. I'm anxious to see/work on the text to go along with this, and have some theoretical concerns, such as the importance that we not be judgemental/negative in our description of those who may hold contridictory beliefs, as well as the care that we utilize when employing the terms "God, god, gods, and diety/dieties" so as not to provide innacurate information. Anyhow, I am heartilly in favor of what you have done, thank you. Sam Spade 04:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, calling the last row and the last column contradictory shouldn't be all that controversial since they basically boil down to "I believe A and not-A" :) The strong atheism/strong agnosticism one I'm very unsure of, hence the question mark. I can almost imagine holding both those views at once in a non-contradictory manner (update: I managed to imagine it a few minutes after writing this, wasn't as hard as it seemed :), but it depends on drawing some fine distinctions between belief and knowledge. Bryan 04:59, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd love to hear you explain that fine distinction, as I can't fathom it. This has always been a feature of my argument against atheism. It is a central error of Atheism (IMO), that one cannot intellegently claim certainty against Gods existance. The very nature of God implies an esoteric aspect not subject to disproval, much like astrology is said to have. While inductively someone might claim to rationally assume against the existance of God, deductively there is no disproving him. Sam Spade 05:50, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Heh. IMO it's a central error of Sam Spade that all atheists do claim certainty. :) But that's not really relevant at the moment, because the cell of the table under discussion is a "strong atheist" cell where certainty is indeed claimed. How about this analogy: "There aren't any cupcakes inside black holes. I don't know that for a fact, because I've never been able to look inside one and don't think I ever will, but I'll dispute anyone who claims that there might be." Such a person believes that he can never know the answer (he's a strong cupcake-agnostic), but he's nevertheless quite confident about what the answer is (there are no black hole cupcakes). One may make the case that his confidence is unwarranted, but that doesn't change the fact that he does indeed believe that there are no cupcakes in there. How's that sound? Bryan 06:07, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Perfect, I agree completely with your analogy. I make the case that the confidence is unwarranted. I think this subtlety, this question of contradiction aught to be discussed within the article, fairly of course. Perhaps a sentence or so presenting each interpretation, and the significance thereof would be appropriate. Again, good editing, and I am anxious to see some of the text you would present in regards to this chart (shall I assume we are unanimously in favor of it? ) as well as what myself and others will add. Sam Spade 06:30, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I agree that these subtle distinctions are important to describe in the article, as well as the potential controversy over some of them. I'll tinker with the wording of the table a bit here first, though; some of those headers are exceptionally large and could use trimming down (if possible without losing meaning). It should be possible to incorporate a lot of Banno's previous work too, I'll ponder ways to splice it all together nicely. Bryan 23:49, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I think a brief review of the preceeding section of this talk will reveal a plethora of objections to the previous logic of agnosticism section. I am profoundly dubious of what portion of it would be useful, and I heartilly encourage you to review said objections. Also, I feel that the (possibly contridictory) mention within the table is vital, although the exact wording of it is quite flexable. Maybe just a asterisk, question mark, or some such. The "with certainty" is also vital IMO. Jeep up the good work, Sam Spade 00:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(dropping indentation back to the left margin)

I still think there are a few things in there that will be handy to reuse, such as the paragraph on the distinction between belief and knowledge and a little discussion of how agnosticism is "belief about knowledge". The stuff I removed from the table a few minutes ago was removed purely to see if I could make the table a little smaller physically; there'll be a lot of text accompanying this table where those details can be described in more depth. I'm just dropping by Wikipedia for a few minutes right now, though, so I wasn't going to get into writing all that up until later today at the earliest. We'll see how it goes. :) Bryan 00:08, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

copied from page
"One can draw a distinction between belief and knowledge leading leading those who believe knowledge of God is not possible to claim agnosticism is about knowledge, while atheism/theism is about belief. Since knowledge implies belief, they might say one cannot intelligibly know some proposition to be true and not also believe that proposition is true. They would say belief does not imply knowledge, but knowledge does imply belief. However claiming to believe something but not know it puts one in a curious position in their eyes. Many people are quite comfortable with having belief without knowledge however."

I have been over this a few times, and while I don't see it needing to be entirely removed, and I have NPOV'ed it repeatedly, I am still deeply disatisfied with the assumptions it makes, and the lack of opposing POV. Not only do I not agree w much of what it contains, but the information it contains is unverifiable (isn't it?) and in some ways is misleading. I very much want to see this balanced with a non-agnostic POV. It is actually very easy to know something is true, and yet not believe it. One may know that they are going to physically die, but still not believe it. Its unnaceptable to them, unimaginable. There are many variations. Sam Spade 21:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * A cogent point, though whether it's easy to have knowledge without belief is possibly debateable. :) I'll see if I can think of some way to work this in. Bryan 22:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

belief
Sam & Bryan, belief has more than one sense. One can believe something in the sense of having confidence or faith in it. One can also believe a statement in the sense of assenting to its truth. The two senses are distinguished in every dictionary I have consulted. The text cut from the article uses belief in the latter sense. Sam’s counter argument uses it in the former sense.

Such a simple confusion should not have taken place in the development of this article. That it has occurred says much about the quality of the editing.

I invite you to take another look at the table you have constructed. Does this nomenclature exist elsewhere, or is it “original research”?

Banno 09:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I have always used belief in the "assenting to truth" sense when working on this article, myself. As for the nomenclature it seems very hard to find an authoratative source on this stuff so I've focused mainly on trying to keep it consistent rather than authoratative. Feel free to suggest other terms for these positions, if others are in more widespread use in philosophical circles. Bryan 18:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see the subtlety banno is introducing to be useful here, but I am perfectly willing to entertain variant wordings if they are roundly agreed to. Belief is a word traditionally utilized for this subject however, and no matter the definition used, it seems to me to imply a certain lack of certainty, but as is said in the article, the debate over objective truth is not one we are intending to solve here ;). Simply fairly depicting the fundamental opposing POV's is all I personally expect from us. Sam Spade 20:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Now I remember why I decided not to work on this page. That a word is used with one meaning in the article, and with another in a supposed counterexample, is a "useless subtlety". Banno 20:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that perhaps the biggest problem this particular article suffers from, especially in a Wikipedia environment, is that the term "Agnosticism" has been used for so many different philosophies over the years by so many different people and there's no one central authority that one can go to for clarification (as I've occasionally described it, unbelievers don't have a "Book of Nothing" they can quote from :). Perhaps it might be a good idea to try considering various uses of the term separately? For example, add a section titled "Huxley's agnosticism" that focuses specifically and explicitly on the stuff that Huxley was talking about, a section titled "Agnosticism as belief about the possibility of knowledge", a section titled "Agnosticism as 'atheism lite' in western society", etc. Then, once the various sections are fleshed out more, perhaps try to find a better synthesis of them to serve as an overview of agnosticism as a whole. Bryan 08:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Be Bold! I plan on doing very little myself, I'm reasonably satisfied w the article as is ;) Sam Spade 08:59, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe on the weekend, when I've got more time. Fortunately I have no Wikipedia access when I'm at work, otherwise I'd spend all my time on Wikipedia and get fired. Then I'd run out of money and lose my net access, and have no Wikipedia at all. :) Bryan 09:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Overview of Available Positions Regarding Belief
So, the table you disliked has now been entirely deleted. Where would you suggest that it go instead, Banno? A cursory look through some of the other related articles leads me to think it might fit well in theism, which is currently just a big list of various related types of theism and has agnosticism/atheism stuff in the see also; the table would fit in with that fairly well IMO. Bryan 19:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I think the table is essentially muddle-headed. A taxonomy of belief will not catch all the possible permutations, nor will it rule out the falsehoods that have at times been propagated here (I’m thinking of the claims that Kant and Ayer held to some form of agnosticism). I was also unable to see what the purpose of the table was. It is obscure: the vertical dimension deals in third order predicates of the form “X believes that Y can know that P” – far to obscure to be useful, I count 32 possible permutations. Half of the content cells of the table contain contradictions – I don’t see a point in including them. Banno 01:09, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a better approach would be to place the possibilities as first order predicates on one dimension and the taxonomy on the other:

Believes in god	   Does not believe in god	has knowledge of god	Etc Theist	            yes	              no	              yes Agnostic	     no	              no	              no Weak atheist	  and so on Callithumpian Whatever

As for where it belongs, I think it pretty clear that it needs to be in an article that sits above both theological knowledge and belief. Why not put it in its own page, and link from the other pages? But for my money, I don’t see a great deal of worth in it. Banno 01:09, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * I like it alot, but I will mention that it wasn't quite accurate, failing to mention the contridiction of an atheist who doesn't believe the existance of God to be provable or disprovable. Sam Spade 04:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see anything inherently contradictory in someone who doesn't believe in something that he thinks is not provable or disprovable. The Invisible Pink Unicorn comes to mind as a good example. :) Bryan 05:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As does the vital distinction between denial, and lack of support/belief ;) Sam Spade 05:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

new edits
I'll be going over it w a fine tooth comb. Sam Spade 23:18, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

 * They seem overall to be good, outside of the introduction, and the loss of that marvelrous table. Where would the table go? Sam Spade 23:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Knowledge and belief
On the edits by Sam and Bryan:

 * Since knowledge implies belief, one might say one cannot intelligibly know some proposition to be true and not also believe that proposition is true... The reverse can also sometimes be true, however; for example, one may know that they are going to physically die but still not believe it because it is unacceptable or unimaginable.

This paragraph is faulty, since the first sentence is contradicted by the last. I'll leave it up to others to decide what to do with it. The reintroduction of a range of weasel terms was probably inevitable, but to have a paragraph that contradicts itself is not acceptable. Banno 06:13, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * It's a little contradictory, but not fundamentally so IMO; it's describing a variety of different positions one can take on these matters, and some of those positions happen to disagree with each other. The first one you list above is that one might believe that "you can't know X is true without believing X is true", and the second shows an example where that belief might be false. I'm still short on time tonight so I don't want to dig myself back into this issue just yet, but if the paragraph survives until tomorrow I'll try to find some better way of wording it. Bryan 05:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Table Suggestion
I think that a table is a good idea, but it should be used to help explain the difference between faith and proof, since that seems to always be at the center of any depate on Agnosticism. I propose the following chart:

the '(?)' are terms in spots that I didn't know a good term for, and so made one up. I'd like some suggestions for those spots.

Either way, I'd like to see what people think of useing this chart. CBDroege 3 May 2004, 0234

 * Chris, I declined previously to add comment because, as I’ve already said, I don’t see a point to the table. But since no one else has commented, I’ll throw in my two bits – This was a valiant effort. It is an improvement. In essence, I think the possible range of beliefs is too great to be covered by such a table, and that in part is why you wind up with (?) in so many of the boxes. But a nice try, anyhow. Banno 06:34, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Since it's a step in the right direction, at least, how about we try letting the Wikipedia Process work its magic and perhaps reduce some of the question marks? I'm going to copy this over into the theism article and see what the people over there think, as per my suggestion in, above. Better than letting it slip quietly away into talk archive oblivion, IMO. Bryan 05:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 2