text:
Rock Follies

Rock Follies (together with its sequel, Rock Follies of '77) is a musical drama that was shown on British television in the 1970s. The storyline follows the ups and downs of a fictional female rock band called the Little Ladies, as they struggle for recognition and success. The series stars Rula Lenska, Charlotte Cornwell and Julie Covington as the Little Ladies, with support from Emlyn Price, Beth Porter, Sue Jones-Davies, Bob Hoskins, Stephen Moore, Derek Thompson, Denis Lawson and Little Nell among others. The series was made on a small budget for Thames Television, with a style inspired by fringe theatre. It was based on an original idea by Annabel Leventon, Diane Langton and Gaye Brown. The series was a success and won three BAFTA Awards, and the soundtrack album reached No. 1 in the UK Albums Chart. A second series with its own soundtrack album followed.

Overview
The fictional band was portrayed by session musicians as well as the three lead actresses (Rula Lenska, Charlotte Cornwell and Julie Covington) who proved they could sing; the spin-off album of music from the series entered the UK Albums Chart at number one (exceptionally rare at that time). The songs were written by Andy Mackay, a founder member of Roxy Music. Lyrics and screenplay were written by Howard Schuman.

The second series, Rock Follies of '77, was a continuation of the first. Industrial action during May of that year at ITV, the commercial channel that aired the show, caused the last few episodes to be postponed until November. The second series pushed the style further in an experimental direction: where the first series had a lot of dialogue and "offstage" scenes, the second focused more on the music and fantasy sequences, with additional songs and musical interludes used to move the plot forward rather than relying on dialogue as the first had done. More sophisticated video effects were also used.

The show was a pioneer in that it was one of the first musical dramas in serial form and also featured all original songs and music. It was also unusual in portraying strong female central characters, and having an overtly feminist message. Some commentators have also pointed out that its format very much anticipates the age of the music video and MTV, being made at a time when the music video itself was in its infancy. The first series won a BAFTA award in 1977 for Best Drama Series; Julie Covington was nominated for best actress, and Rod Stratfold and Alex Clarke were nominated for best design. The second series was nominated for seven BAFTA awards, winning two; for best lighting effects and for best camerawork in 1978.

The series first appeared in the United States in late 1976, when several episodes from series one were shown on New York City's WOR-TV as part of a "Thames on 9" programming week. Soon afterward, the first series was shown in the United States on public television and rapidly became a hit, especially in large metropolitan centres like New York and San Francisco. However, the second series was felt to be too "raunchy" for the sensibilities of a public television audience, especially as the first had received a lot of complaints from the public in areas outside the larger cities for its frank portrayal of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. As a result, the second series was not shown on US television until 12 years later.

Two albums of songs from the series were released. The first, named after the series, (1976), was released on Island Records in the UK and on Atlantic Records in the US in 1976. The second, covering the second series, was released on Polydor Records in both countries. Both albums were re-released on Virgin Records in 2000. The TV series is also available as a two-disc DVD set. The singles "Glenn Miller is Missing", "Sugar Mountain" (both on Island Records in 1976); and "O.K.?" (on Polydor Records in 1977) were released. The last of these became a hit and reached number 10 on the UK Singles Chart. In addition, the second album reached No.13.

Speaking in 1991, the three stars commented on the gruelling schedule while working on the series. They stated that for each episode they had to learn a minimum of five songs, as well as perform the dance routines and learn the script itself in a short period of time. Owing to this pressure, they were reluctant to do a third series, although they did say that they would like to do another series at that time, 15 years after the first. Covington said that they were paid £225 per episode.

Legal battle
An eight-week legal trial in 1982 led to a landmark ruling that Thames TV had used the idea pitched verbally a few years before the show was commissioned, by, among others, Annabel Leventon, author of The Real Rock Follies: The Great Girl Band Rip-Off of 1976. The claimants received substantial damages for breach of confidence.

First series
1.*"The Show Business". 24 February 1976
 * Three struggling actresses (Covington, Lenska, Cornwell) decide to audition for a West End-style play called Broadway Annie, a nostalgic indulgence of its director. The show flops, despite a last-ditch effort by its producer to update it and make it raunchier. The three girls, who initially do not get along and have different personalities and backgrounds, are drawn together by their shared catastrophe. The musical director of the show, Huggins (Emlyn Price) tells them they should form a rock band, with him as manager and songwriter. After some convincing, they see the possibilities, and agree. Main songs: "Stairway", "Broadway Annie", "Blueberry Hill".

2.*"The Little Ladies". 2 March 1976
 * The band forms and starts to rehearse. Huggins seeks some financial backing from contacts he knows, but very little is forthcoming. The episode explores the home lives and relationships of the three main characters, and the widespread disapproval they face from their boyfriends (and in Dee's case, her fellow commune members). The name "The Little Ladies" is meant to be ironic - the image the band tries to project is a feisty, no-nonsense female rock act. Main songs: "Little Ladies", "Daddy".

3.*"The Road". 9 March 1976
 * The band goes on a tour playing pubs, clubs and dive bars around provincial Britain. The band is still raw and often fails to live up to its adopted image of no-nonsense rockers, but despite this the girls realise that playing in front of an audience gives them an incredible buzz, which makes all the travelling and lack of money worthwhile. It's not all plain sailing, as in some venues they receive a very hostile reception. During this time, Anna has a brief affair with Huggins, Q meets Nigel (James Warwick), a freelance rock journalist, and Dee has an admirer in the form of Dave (Christopher Neil), an audience member who starts to follow the band. Main songs: "On the Road", "Good Behaviour", "Lamplight".

4.*"The Talking Pictures". 16 March 1976
 * After touring comes to an end, little progress has been made. The girls' various affairs create significant fallout with their established partners, and a fair amount of hypocrisy on their partners' parts is exposed. Finances are all but gone, so through a contact of Q's, the girls end up performing in a softcore porn film. In the meantime, Q's partner Carl (Michael J. Shannon) has gone through a huge transformation from lazy layabout to cutthroat businessman; this is due to his meeting a Greek entrepreneur, Stavros (Michael Angelis), who has decided to manufacture his surfboard design. Carl talks the girls into meeting Stavros, who he thinks may be the answer to their financial problems. Anna's boyfriend Jack (Stephen Moore) is discovered in bed with one of Dee's commune girls; Anna throws him out, and he joins the commune. Main songs: "Talking Pictures", "Hot Neon", "Sugar Mountain".

5.*"The Pounds Sterling". 23 March 1976
 * Stavros agrees to take on the girls, and they sign a contract with him. Almost immediately he changes their image to 1920s-style cabaret singers, far from their previous rock image. The girls immediately regret the decision to sign, but find they are unable to break the contract without ruining themselves. When Huggins too voices his complaints, he is sidelined; image consultants, choreographers and a new songwriter are drafted in. The girls appear as a light cabaret act at Stavros's restaurant/club, Idols. However, the place is overflowing with pretentiousness and the public are unimpressed, staying away in droves. Main songs: "Biba Nova", "Rock Follies", "Roller Coaster".

6.*"The Blitz". 30 March 1976
 * Stavros decides that another radical change of image is called for: this time, a pastiche of The Andrews Sisters. The 1920s are out and the 1940s are in. He conceives of a new club/restaurant called The Blitz, which reproduces the London underground during the Second World War, complete with dishes including powdered eggs and bangers and mash, all bought with ration coupons. The girls dress as WAAF officers to sing their numbers on stage. Meanwhile, the commune is falling apart due to a power struggle between Jack and the original leader. In a heated argument, it turns out that despite the supposed socialistic ideals of the commune founder, he owns the property and is just another capitalist landlord. This revelation seals the fate of the commune, who are all disillusioned. At the opening night of The Blitz, there is a bomb threat and the evening is ruined. Shortly afterward, the bomb goes off and the premises are wrecked. Stavros blames his accountant for orchestrating it, as an insurance scam. Stavros's empire is in ruins, and the band find themselves back at square one. Main songs: "Glenn Miller is Missing", "War Brides", "Stairway".

Second series
1.*"The Band Who Wouldn't Die". 4 May 1977
 * The band are on another pub tour, this time without any manager. Harry Moon (Derek Thompson), a fan and songwriter, becomes the band's new musical driving force—although now the girls are writing many of their own songs too. To make ends meet, they do a musical commercial for a range of frozen foods called "Wonder Woman", whose brand image is that of female liberation—though this comes in the consumerist form of microwave ready meals. Moon knows an established rock star called Stevie Streeter (Tim Curry), and arranges for the band to meet him with a view to becoming his support act. Streeter's act is described as "sub-Springsteen concept rock", but the reality is far worse. Streeter prevents the Little Ladies from getting any sound check or rehearsal time, resulting in their sounding abysmal on their opening tour night with Streeter. This turns out to be a standard tactic to avoid the support act from upstaging the main act. In the end, however, they manage to get their sound and act together on subsequent nights, and start to become a success. Streeter is worried that they are "taking his energy", and in a paranoid drunken rage, tries to kick them off the tour. His management, loud American Kitty Schreiber (Beth Porter) and David Maxwell (Gregory Floy), have other ideas, and after seeing the Little Ladies live, decide to sign them up as an act in their own right. Streeter is subsequently dropped, described dismissively by Schreiber: "that Jethro Tull concept crap was over five years ago". Schreiber signs the band to SM records on a standard new band contract which is far from generous. Main songs: "The Band Who Wouldn't Die", "Street Signs" (Streeter), "Struttin' Ground", "Wolf at the Door".

2.*"The Empire". 11 May 1977
 * The newly signed band meet with Schreiber at a terrible concept restaurant called The Yankee-Doodle Club, where plans to record a single are discussed. Anna and Dee both write songs, but Dee's pop/rock song, "O.K.", is chosen over Anna's more literary effort. Thus begins a growing rivalry between the two friends. Meanwhile, Schreiber outlines her plans to her partner at SM records, revealing her boundless ambition. The band assemble at the distinctly low-rent Galaxy Studios in Camden Town to record the single, their first time in a recording studio. They are unfamiliar with the procedure and even the terminology - someone having to explain that "cans" mean headphones. Q is also terrified of the ordeal ahead. After the band lay down all their tracks, it is the girls' turn to perform the vocals. There are a lot of problems getting the sound level correct in "the cans", leading to an exasperating series of errors and mis-takes. In a clever sequence, as the girls finally get their act together, their private thoughts are revealed as alternative lyrics to the track they are recording. However, eventually it starts to come together and they begin to enjoy themselves. At the end of the session Anna and Q leave, and Dee is deliberately delayed. She is asked to re-record Anna's harmonies, since they feel she is the better singer. She doesn't like to betray her friend, but in the end reluctantly agrees. Nothing is said about this to Anna later. Anna is left to write the B-side, a song called "B-side", which she performs in a fantasy sequence on a huge 'SM records' logo. It is clear that the SM is meant to also indicate Servant/Master and Sadism/Masochism. Finally the single is ready, and they preview it; Anna gradually starts to notice that it is Dee doing the harmonies and not her, and begins to feel increasingly sidelined and betrayed. Main songs: "O.K.", "B-Side", "In My Cans".

3.*"The Hype". 18 May 1977
 * The new single is ready to be released, and Schreiber's hype machine kicks into action. There are T-shirts, badges, caps and even a set of Little Ladies dolls. The band embark on a nationwide promotion tour by InterCity train, accompanied by various freeloaders from the music press and radio stations. In a series of interviews, the distance between the liberated ladies and the distinctly unliberated mainstream media is highlighted: one interviewer insists on repeatedly asking Dee whether she has a "steady boyfriend", while other interviewers are more concerned with showing off their own grasp of the music business than actually finding out what the Little Ladies are about. The band also play a few small venues as part of the promo tour, including The Aggro Club, a venue newly dedicated to the emerging punk rock. Naturally the girls do not go down too well here. Things are not going well, but eventually they play a gig at Cardiff University, which is well received and reminds them that some gigs make the rest of the business worth it. There they meet another pub rock band, Rox and Rawls, and Dee is invited to sing an impromptu number with Rox (Sue Jones-Davies), which works out well. Dee sees Rox as a kindred spirit, getting back to the essence of what rock music is supposed to be about. Schreiber and Maxwell discuss whether the band are worth keeping on: it is a close-run thing but Schreiber decides to press on for now. Main songs: "The Hype", "Outlaws", "Roll Your Own", "Round One".

4.*"The Loony Tunes". 22 November 1977*
 * The single flops. Anna decides to try and blame this on the fact that her harmonies had been redone by Dee, something that Q had not realised. Anna writes a new song, "Loose Change", and since the band "owes" her she is given more space to develop it and sing lead - it is very wordy and not terribly good. Meanwhile, Kitty strikes a deal with obnoxious entrepreneur Johnny Britten (Bob Hoskins) for them to become the nightly house band at the Electric Empire, Britten's Watford club. The fact that Dee is clearly the best singer in the band becomes evident when, for Anna's song, she performs backing vocals with Q - Kitty subsequently changes the lineup so that Dee sings the main vocal, and things sound much better. However, Anna's ego suffers a blow and this starts to cause the beginnings of her resentment (and her paranoia). Anna hooks up with The Angel (Trevor Ward), a Jamaican, and starts to smoke dope. As the house band at the Empire, they finally start to get an appreciative audience for the music they really want to sing — rock. However, all the girls start to feel they are being manipulated by Kitty and are losing control. Dee confronts Kitty, who makes no bones about it: she has ambitions, and to fulfill them the band must adapt to her vision, or forever remain playing the pubs and clubs. Soon Kitty suggests that the band needs more power, and eventually Dee reluctantly agrees to see it her way. They decide that another main singer is needed, and Dee suggests Rox, the Welsh pub singer she met in Cardiff. Rox is brought down to discuss the idea and Kitty is impressed. For Rox, it is an opportunity for stardom, and she readily goes along with it. Rox is signed, and can't believe her luck. Anna and Q are not involved in the discussions, and become convinced that they are to be dropped from the band. The addition of Rox comes as a complete surprise. Q is quite positive about the change, but Anna is wholly unimpressed. Main songs: "The Loony Tunes", "Loose Change", "The Things You Have To Do", "Money on the Wall".

5.*"The Divorce". 29 November 1977
 * As Anna is drawn more toward Angel, she is also drawn more and more toward drugs. In time, this leads to total paranoia, especially wherever Rox is concerned. Although Kitty tries to pass Rox off as a balance in the vocals, Anna sees her as a threat. She tries to express this to both Dee and Q. Dee doesn't see it that way, and Q is afraid to be the deciding vote. As her unrest grows, Anna tells the group that she wants a divorce, thereby ending the original Little Ladies. Main songs: "Rock Follies of '77", "Territory", "Woman is Mystery".

6.*"The Real Life". 6 December 1977
 * With Anna out of the group, Q realizes that her vocals are far too weak, especially when compared to Dee and Rox. At first she just fades into the background, but then she too decides it is time to leave the Little Ladies. At first Q goes into a deep depression, but the sudden appearance of her oft-married mother gets her back on track. Meanwhile, Dee visits Anna who, with Angel, has opened a small R&B club. Anna refuses to return to the Little Ladies, and Dee is left feeling guilty about the break-up. She reasons that it was for the good of the group. Not even impending stardom and a tour of the United States (and an appearance at Madison Square Garden) assuage her guilty feelings. With Rox, the Little Ladies take off and become a sensation. Even Q, no longer with the group, is happy for them. But, just before their appearance at Madison Square Garden, Dee has a vision while singing "Welcome to the Real Life" where it is just her, Anna and Q — The Little Ladies. Main songs: "Jubilee", "Waiting for Waves", "Little Ladies", "The Real Life".

* NOTE - A two-hour recap episode was screened on 21 November 1977 following the strike. This was a compilation of the first three episodes of Series Two.

Cast

 * Rula Lenska ... Nancy "Q" Cunard de Longchamps (series 1 & 2)
 * Julie Covington ... Devonia "Dee" Rhoades (series 1 & 2)
 * Charlotte Cornwell ... Anna Wynd (series 1 & 2)
 * Sue Jones-Davies ... Rox (singer with pub band Rox and Rawls, series 2)
 * Emlyn Price ... Derek Huggins (manager and songwriter, series 1)
 * James Warwick ... Nigel (freelance reporter for Rolling Stone, series 1)
 * Christopher Neil ... Dave (lover of Dee and friend of Nigel, series 1)
 * Michael Angelis ... Stavros (entrepreneur and club owner, series 1)
 * Vivienne Burgess ... Mrs. Wynd (Anna's mother, series 1)
 * Angela Bruce ... Gloria (member of Dee's commune, series 1)
 * Billy Murray ... Spike (Dee's boyfriend and commune member, series 1 & 2)
 * Michael J. Shannon ... Carl (Q's American boyfriend, series 1)
 * Stephen Moore ... Jack (Anna's boyfriend, series 1)
 * Bill Stewart ... Bob (commune member, series 1)
 * David Dixon ... Rob Fury (record producer, series 1)
 * Simon Jones ... Juan (pretentious waiter in restaurant/club, series 1)
 * Beth Porter ... Kitty Schreiber (manager and businesswoman, series 2)
 * Gregory Floy ... David Maxwell (co-owner of SM records with Schreiber, series 2)
 * Derek Thompson ... Harry Moon (songwriter and mentor, series 2)
 * Denis Lawson ... Ken Church (Harry's partner & activist, series 2)
 * "Little" Nell Campbell ... Sandra (Schreiber's assistant, series 2)
 * Sam Dale ... Rawls (singer with pub band Rox and Rawls, series 2)
 * Bob Hoskins ... Johnny (friend of Kitty, series 2)
 * Trevor Ward ... The Angel (series 2)
 * Tim Curry ... Stevie Streeter (series 2)

David Dixon also appears in the first series as a record company A&R man, but is uncredited. However, this was amended with the release of the DVD, where he was credited. Dixon, Simon Jones, Stephen Moore and Beth Porter all later had roles in the TV adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Soundtrack albums

 * 1976 Rock Follies (UK No. 1, AUS No. 9)
 * 1977 Rock Follies of '77 (UK No. 13)

Stage adaptation
A musical based on the TV series was staged at the Minerva Theatre in Chichester, from 24 July to 26 August 2023, from a book by Chloe Moss and directed by Dominic Cooke. The cast comprises Samuel Barnett, Carly Bawden, Tamsin Carroll, Fred Haig and Zizi Strallen.

The creative team also includes Nigel Lilley as musical supervisor, arranger, and co-orchestrator, Toby Higgins as musical director and co-orchestrator. Carrie-Anne Ingrouille as choreographer, Vicki Mortimer as set designer, Kinnetia Isidore as costume designer, Paule Constable as Lighting designer, Ian Dickinson for Autograph as Sound designer.

title: Rock Follies


text:
Keith

Keith may refer to:

People and fictional characters

 * Keith (given name), includes a list of people and fictional characters
 * Keith (surname)
 * Keith (singer), American singer James Keefer (born 1949)
 * Keith (gamer), American professional League of Legends player
 * Baron Keith, a line of Scottish barons in the late 18th century
 * Clan Keith, a Scottish clan associated with lands in northeastern and northwestern Scotland

Australia

 * Keith, South Australia, a town and locality

Scotland

 * Keith, Moray, a town
 * Keith railway station
 * Keith Marischal, East Lothian

United States

 * Keith, Georgia, an unincorporated community
 * Keith, Ohio, an unincorporated community
 * Keith, West Virginia, an unincorporated community
 * Keith, Wisconsin, a ghost town
 * Keith County, Nebraska

Other uses

 * Keith F.C., a football team based in Keith, Scotland
 * HMS Keith, a ship of the British Royal Navy
 * Hurricane Keith, a 2000 hurricane that caused extensive damage in Central America
 * Keith (film), a 2008 independent film directed by Todd Kessler
 * Keith (album), a 2019 studio album by Kool Keith
 * "Keith" (song), a 2019 single by Kaylee Bell

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

title: Keith


text:
General will

In political philosophy, the general will (volonté générale) is the will of the people as a whole. The term was made famous by 18th-century Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Basic ideas
The phrase "general will", as Rousseau used it, occurs in Article Six of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen), composed in 1789 during the French Revolution:"The law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to contribute personally, or through their representatives, to its formation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, positions, and employments, according to their capacities, and without any other distinction than that of their virtues and their talents."

James Swenson writes: "To my knowledge, the only time Rousseau actually uses 'expression of the general will' is in a passage of the Discours sur l'économie politique, whose content renders it little susceptible of celebrity. [...] But it is indeed a faithful summary of his doctrine, faithful enough that commentators frequently adopt it without any hesitation. Among Rousseau's definitions of law, the textually closest variant can be found in a passage of the Lettres écrites de la montagne summarizing the argument of Du contrat social, in which law is defined as 'a public and solemn declaration of the general will on an object of common interest.'"

As used by Rousseau, the "general will" is considered by some identical to the rule of law, and to Spinoza's mens una.

"The notion of the general will is wholly central to Rousseau's theory of political legitimacy. [...] It is, however, an unfortunately obscure and controversial notion. Some commentators see it as no more than the dictatorship of the proletariat or the tyranny of the urban poor (such as may perhaps be seen in the French Revolution). Such was not Rousseau's meaning. This is clear from the Discourse on Political Economy, where Rousseau emphasizes that the general will exists to protect individuals against the mass, not to require them to be sacrificed to it. He is, of course, sharply aware that men have selfish and sectional interests which will lead them to try to oppress others. It is for this reason that loyalty to the good of all alike must be a supreme (although not exclusive) commitment by everyone, not only if a truly general will is to be heeded but also if it is to be formulated successfully in the first place'."

Criticisms
Early critics of Rousseau included Benjamin Constant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel argued that, because it lacked any grounding in an objective ideal of reason, Rousseau's account of the general will inevitably led to the Reign of Terror. Constant also blamed Rousseau for the excesses of the French Revolution and rejected the total subordination of the citizen-subjects to the determinations of the general will.

In 1952 Jacob Talmon characterized Rousseau's "general will" as leading to a totalitarian democracy, because, Talmon argued, the state subjected its citizens to the supposedly infallible will of the majority. Another writer of the period, liberal theorist Karl Popper, also interpreted Rousseau in this way, while Bertrand Russell warned that "the doctrine of general will ... made possible the mystic identification of a leader with its people, which has no need of confirmation by so mundane an apparatus as the ballot box." Other prominent critics include Isaiah Berlin who argued that Rousseau's association of freedom with obedience to the General Will allowed totalitarian leaders to defend oppression in the name of freedom, and made Rousseau "one of the most sinister and formidable enemies of liberty in the whole history of human thought."

Defense of Rousseau
Some Rousseau scholars, however, such as his biographer and editor Maurice Cranston, and Ralph Leigh, editor of Rousseau's correspondence, do not consider Talmon's 1950s "totalitarian thesis" as sustainable.

Supporters of Rousseau argued that Rousseau was not alone among republican political theorists in thinking that small, homogeneous states were best suited to maintaining the freedom of their citizens. Montesquieu and Machiavelli were also of this opinion. Furthermore, Rousseau envisioned his Social Contract as part of a projected larger work on political philosophy, which would have dealt with issues in larger states. Some of his later writings, such as his Discourse on Political Economy, his proposals for a Constitution of Poland, and his essay on maintaining perpetual peace, in which he recommends a federated European Union, gave an idea of the future direction of his thought.

His defenders also argued Rousseau is one of the great prose stylists and because of his penchant for the paradoxical effect obtained by stating something strongly and then going on to qualify or negate it, it is easy to misrepresent his ideas by taking them out of context.

Rousseau was also a great synthesizer who was deeply engaged in a dialog with his contemporaries and with the writers of the past, such as the theorists of Natural Law, Hobbes and Grotius. Like "the body politic", "the general will" was a term of art and was not invented by Rousseau, though admittedly Rousseau did not always go out of his way to explicitly acknowledge his debt to the jurists and theologians who influenced him. Prior to Rousseau, the phrase "general will" referred explicitly to the general (as opposed to the particular) will or volition (as it is sometimes translated) of the Deity. It occurs in the theological writings of Malebranche, who had picked it up from Pascal, and in the writings of Malebranche's pupil, Montesquieu, who contrasted volonté particulière and volonté générale in a secular sense in his most celebrated chapter (Chapter XI) of De L'Esprit des Lois (1748). In his Discourse on Political Economy, Rousseau explicitly credits Diderot's Encyclopédie article "Droit Naturel" as the source of "the luminous concept" of the general will, of which he maintains his own thoughts are simply a development. Montesquieu, Diderot, and Rousseau's innovation was to use the term in a secular rather than theological sense.

Translations of volonté générale
A central aclaration of Rousseau (Contrat Social II, 3) about the difference between volonté de tous (will of all) and volonté génerale (general will) is this: "Si, quand le peuple suffisamment informé délibère, les citoyens nʼavoient aucune communication entrʼeux, du grand nombre de petites différences résulteroit toujours la volonté générale, & la délibération seroit toujours bonne. Mais quand il se fait des brigues, des associations partielles aux dépens de la grande, la volonté de chacune de ces associations devient générale par rapport à ses membres, & particulière par rapport à lʼEtat; on peut dire alors quʼil nʼy a plus autant de votans que dʼhommes, mais seulement autant que dʼassociations. Les différences deviennent moins nombreuses & donnent un résultat moins général."

The following translation is correct, but with one fundamental error: "If, when the people, being furnished with adequate information, held its deliberations, the citizens had no communication with one another, the grand total of the small differences would always give the general will, and the decision would always be good. But when factions arise, and partial associations are formed at the expense of the great association, the will of each of these associations becomes general in relation to its members, while it remains particular in relation to the State: it may then be said that there are no longer as many votes as there are men, but only as many as there are associations. The differences become less numerous and give a less general result." What has been translated as „decision“ – similarly translated in other English and German editions In Romance languages „délibération“ is simply translated by the Spanish „deliberación“ or the Italian „deliberazione“. Other German and English translations repeating this error: „Hätten bei der Beschlußfassung eines hinlänglich unterrichteten Volkes die Staatsbürger keine feste Verbindung untereinander, so würde aus der großen Anzahl kleiner Differenzen stets der allgemeine Wille hervorgehen, und der Beschluß wäre immer gut.“ Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Der Gesellschaftsvertrag oder Die Grundsätze des Staatsrechtes. Leipzig [o.J.]. Originated 1754, revised 1758. First Print: Amsterdam (Rey) 1762. First German translation (anonym) under the title »Gedanken von dem gesellschaftlichen Leben der Menschen oder Staatsrecht«, Marburg 1763. The text follows the translation by Hermann Denhardt of 1880. Rousseau,+Jean-Jacques/Der+Gesellschaftsvertrag www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/R „Wenn bei den Beratungen eines hinreichend aufgeklärten Volkes die Staatsbürger keine Verbindung untereinander hätten, so würde sich der Gemeinwille immer aus der großen Zahl kleiner Differenzen ergeben, und der Beschluß wäre immer gut.“ Der Gesellschaftsvertrag oder Die Grundlagen des Staatsrechts von Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Ins Deutsche übertragen von Fritz Roepke, Leipzig Juni 2011. http://www.welcker-online.de/Texte/Rousseau/Contract.pdf „Hätten bei der Beschlussfassung eines hinlänglich unterrichteten Volkes die Staatsbürger keine feste Verbindung untereinander, so würde aus der großen Anzahl kleiner Differenzen stets der allgemeine Wille hervorgehen, und der Beschluss wäre immer gut“. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Der Gesellschaftsvertrag oder Die Grundsätze des Staatsrecht https://www.textlog.de/2346.html "If the populace held its deliberations (on the basis of adequate information) without the citizens communicating with one another, what emerged from all the little particular wills would always be the general will, and the decision would always be good.“ The Social ContractJean-Jacques Rousseau, Jonathan Bennett 2017. https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf „If, when the people, being furnished with adequate information, held its deliberations, the citizens had no communication one with another, the grand total of the small differences would always give the general will, and the decision would always be good.“ „Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and Discourses [1761] Translated by G. D. H. Cole, 1762 www.ucc.ie/archive/hdsp/Rousseau_contrat-social.pdf Note that „the citizens had no communication one with another“ is the condition for a normal distribution of opinions, the additive superposition of a large number of independent influences. – is by Rousseau „délibère“ and „délibération“. But a deliberation is not a decision, but a consultation among people in order to reach a majority decision. Therefore, the Roman principle:

 * Deliberandum est diu quod statuendum est semel.
 * What is once resolved is to be long deliberated upon before.

Voting defines the opinion of the mayority and is a decision – the volonté de tous or the will of all. The volonté générale or general will is a consultation to find jointly a mayority decision. Translations which do not take into account this difference – voting without a deliberation and voting after the effort of finding a mayority agreement - lead to confused discussions about the meaning of the general will.

Quotations
Diderot on the General Will [emphasis added]: EVERYTHING you conceive, everything you contemplate, will be good, great, elevated, sublime, if it accords with the general and common interest. There is no quality essential to your species apart from that which you demand from all your fellow men to ensure your happiness and theirs. . . . [D]o not ever lose sight of it, or else you will find that your comprehension of the notions of goodness, justice, humanity and virtue grow dim. Say to yourself often, “I am a man, and I have no other truly inalienable natural rights except those of humanity.” But, you will ask, in what does this general will reside? Where can I consult it? [...] [The answer is:] In the principles of prescribed law of all civilized nations, in the social practices of savage and barbarous peoples; in the tacit agreements obtaining amongst the enemies of mankind; and even in those two emotions — indignation and resentment — which nature has extended as far as animals to compensate for social laws and public retributions. --Denis Diderot, “Droit Naturel” article in the Encyclopédie. Rousseau on the General Will [emphasis added]:"AS long as several men assembled together consider themselves as a single body, they have only one will which is directed towards their common preservation and general well-being. Then, all the animating forces of the state are vigorous and simple, and its principles are clear and luminous; it has no incompatible or conflicting interests; the common good makes itself so manifestly evident that only common sense is needed to discern it. Peace, unity and equality are the enemies of political sophistication. Upright and simple men are difficult to deceive precisely because of their simplicity; stratagems and clever arguments do not prevail upon them, they are not indeed subtle enough to be dupes. When we see among the happiest people in the world bands of peasants regulating the affairs of state under an oak tree, and always acting wisely, can we help feeling a certain contempt for the refinements of other nations, which employ so much skill and effort to make themselves at once illustrious and wretched?" "A state thus governed needs very few laws [...]" "However, when the social tie begins to slacken and the state to weaken, when particular interests begin to make themselves felt and sectional societies begin to exert an influence over the greater society, the common interest then becomes corrupted and meets opposition, voting is no longer unanimous; the general will is no longer the will of all; contradictions and disputes arise, and even the best opinion is not allowed to prevail unchallenged.'" For this reason the sensible rule for regulating public assemblies is one intended not so much to uphold the general will there, as to ensure that it is always questioned and always responds.

Other influence
Rosseau's conception of the general will influenced Liang Qichao, and in turn, Sun Yat-sen's view of democracy (minquanzhuyi) in the Three Principles of the People. In prioritizing the power of the group over individual freedoms, Sun viewed traditional Chinese society as too individualistic and stated that individual liberty must be broken down so that the Chinese people could pressed together, using the metaphor of adding cement to sand.

title: General will


text:
Symbolic capital

In sociology and anthropology, symbolic capital can be referred to as the resources available to an individual on the basis of honor, prestige or recognition, and serves as value that one holds within a culture. A war hero, for example, may have symbolic capital in the context of running for political office.

Theorists have argued that symbolic capital accumulates primarily from the fulfillment of social obligations that are themselves embedded with potential for prestige. Much as with the accumulation of financial capital, symbolic capital is 'rational' in that it can be freely converted into leveraging advantage within social and political spheres. Yet unlike financial capital, symbolic capital is not boundless, and its value may be limited or magnified by the historical context in which it was accumulated. Symbolic capital must be identified within the cultural and historical frame through which it originated in order to fully explain its influence across cultures.

Objects, as abstract representations of their environments, may also possess symbolic capital. This capital may be embedded in the built environment, or urban form of a city, as a symbolic representation of that land's cultural value. For example, landmarks usually have symbolic value and utility. They become landmarks precisely because they have symbolic value. This reciprocal relationship provides the landmark with cultural or environmental meaning, while at the same time lending its environment a layer of prestige.

History
The concept of symbolic capital is grounded in the theory of conspicuous consumption, first introduced and expounded in late-19th century works by Thorstein Veblen and Marcel Mauss. Veblen argued that the nouveau riche utilized lavish displays of wealth to symbolize their entrance into a previously-insulated upper class, embodying objects with meaning that existed only to magnify and confirm their newfound class and status. Mauss subsequently expanded on this argument, suggesting that social competitions for prestige favored those who spent recklessly and forced others into "the shadow of his name". Mauss' theory marked a departure from Veblen's in that he did not seek to frame the individual actor's actions within a cultural context; instead, his theory focused on the overarching structural implementation of status boundaries. Both of these conceptualizations, in turn, provided groundwork for Pierre Bourdieu's unifying theory of symbolic capital.

The explicit concept of symbolic capital was coined by Bourdieu, and is expanded upon in his books Distinction and, later, in Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Along with theories forwarded by Veblen and Mauss, symbolic capital is an extension of Max Weber's analysis of status. Bourdieu argues that symbolic capital gains value at the cross-section of class and status, where one must not only possess but be able to appropriate objects with a perceived or concrete sense of value.

Distinction from social capital
Pierre Bourdieu explains social capital as the degree to which actors are capable of subsisting together in social structures that are often heterogeneous in nature. Where symbolic capital is earned on an individual basis and may fluctuate widely between members in a community, social capital is the overarching sense of trust and cooperation that actors in an environment possess in between one another. An actor may possess a great degree of symbolic capital while isolating themselves from the community, resulting in a low level of social capital, or vice versa.

The term social capital was first defined by Jane Jacobs in order to explain the inherent value formed in neighborhood relationships which allowed members to cooperate and establish a communal sense of trust. The concept itself, however, was originally articulated by L. J. Hanifan in a 1916 journal article, "The Rural School Community Center", in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. He included a chapter on the subject in his 1920 book, The Community Center. The term was later used by Jacobs in her influential writing on urban planning, The Death and Life of Great American Cities.

Examples
What follows is a non-exhaustive list of what may constitute symbolic capital.

 * A county commission may recruit local neighborhood leaders to help with zoning laws based on those individuals' prior accomplishments in improving infrastructure or bridging ties at the community level.
 * Activists may hold more leverage in social or political arenas based on their prior experiences (see: combat veterans protesting war, former police chiefs protesting brutality, and so on).
 * Financing or supporting a nation's war efforts may award an individual with symbolic capital should that effort also be accepted by the citizens within the culture.
 * Olympic medalists often serve as embodiments of a nation's prestige.

title: Symbolic capital


text:
Jackpot (British comics)

Jackpot was a British comic book magazine that ran from the issues cover dated 5 May 1979 to issue 141, 30 January 1982, when it merged with Buster.

Publishing history
The first issue cost 10p. The price increased to 12p from issue 63 (1980) and 14p from issue 98 in 1981

Free Gifts
Early issues included a cover-mounted free gift the first issue included a "practical joke", for example a joke chocolate biscuit. Issue 2 featured a Squirt Ring. Issue 3 bore a Magic Numbers card game and Why Be Bored? book covers. The inner pages of the latter continued for several issue after.

Annuals
Annuals were printed from 1980 to 1986 - as was often the case with British titles, these hardback books outlasted the weekly comic by some time. They mixed original and reprinted material, with much of the new material being drawn by different artists than the weekly strips due to the lower page rate paid to artists.

Summer Specials
Summer Specials were printed from 1980 to 1982, again mixing reprint material with new strips (which again featured different artists).

Initial lineup
Source:

 * Jack Pott: A one-page comic strip carried over from Cor!!, drawn by Jim Crocker. The title character was compelled to gamble on everything. The readers voted the story in the top ten for every published list - 2nd most popular strip, in issue 96 After Jackpot merged with Buster the strip continued until 22 October 1988.
 * Richie Wraggs: drawn by Mike Lacey, Wraggs was on the cover of issue 1 and continued until issue 140. His best friend was a black cat called Lucky and the strip parodied elements of Dick Whittington. His character was from the country and had nowhere to live. This popular story was regularly voted into the top ten list by the readers. The 1982 Jackpot Special featured two new Richie Wraggs strips that were never printed in the issues.
 * Gremlins: drawn by Steve Bell (later to find wider fame as The Guardian's resident political cartoonist). The gremlins were small furry blobs the size of a spider that were always breaking things right up until their last appearance in issue No. 103 The strip was voted 6th most popular strip by the readers in issue 19. The strip bore no relation to the film of the same name.
 * Angel's Proper Charlies: A parody of TV show Charlie's Angels, seeing a character called Angel move to the same neighbourhood as three friends who compete for her attention. Voted seventh most popular strip by the readers in issue 11 and again seventh most popular strip by the readers in issue 19
 * Adam and Eva: A parody of the biblical story Adam and Eve, drawn by Paul Ailey. The strip features a serpent who persuades the pair to eat apples for wisdom.
 * Class Wars: drawn by Vic Neill, the strip featured a class of school pupils formed by a private school merging with a comprehensive school. The class consisted of groups known as the "toffs" from the former, led by Cyril, and "scruffs" from the latter, led by Herbert. The class' teacher always tried to find ways to help them get along. Other Toffs were Nigel and Fiona, and other scruffs included Gertie. Class Wars was one of the most popular stories and was voted 5th top strip by the readers in issue 11, 4th most popular in issue 19, 7th most popular in issue 96, 5th most popular in issue 116, 4th most popular in issue 124 and 5th most popular in issue 134. It continued in the pages of Buster after the merger, renamed Top of the Class.
 * Cry Baby: drawn by Mike Lacey. The strip featured a girl called Tina, who would cry at the slightest thing - resulting in her tears filling up a room or even causing a flood.
 * Full O' Beans: drawn by Tom Paterson. A boy becomes super strong when he eats a whole can of baked beans.
 * Good News Bad News: drawn by Nigel Edwards. Half of the comic strip is titled Good News and the other half Bad News as the main character describes events of the day. It lasted until issue No. 102 The readers voted the story 9th favourite in issue 11
 * It's A Nice Life: A two page comic strip, lovingly drawn by Reg Parlett. The main characters were neighbours: Stan and his wife Babs and two children chose to live "the good life" in a caravan growing their own food with their goat Dustbin and other animals, including chickens and pigs. Next door Olli, his snooty wife Maddie and son Roddy are always buying new gadgets and luxuries. The strip was voted regularly by the readers into the top ten story's and 4th favourite in issue 134. It continued in Buster until 30 April 1988
 * Kid King: drawn by Robert Nixon. A boy becomes King of England. The strip continued in Buster until 1 October 1983.
 * Laser Eraser: initially drawn by Rob Lee. A boy called Ernie finds an alien pen that can zap / teleport objects to Splod and his crew on the alien's ship. In later issues of Jackpot, Robert Nixon drew some stories. Voted favourite comic strip by the readers in issue 11 and tenth most popular strip by the readers in issue 96 The story continued in Buster until Ernie's adventures came to an end in Buster issue cover dated 10 September 1983. The character was unrelated to the Steve Moore/Alan Moore creation of the same name.
 * Little and Large Lenny: drawn by Norman Mansbridge.
 * Milly O' Naire and Penny Less: drawn by Sid Burgon. Milly is wealthy whilst Penny is poor. Although only voted third favourite story by the readers in issue 11, the girls were voted the top story for issue's 96, 116, 124 and 134. The strip, still drawn by Sid Burgon, later merged with the similarly-themed Ivor Lott and Tony Broke (from Cor!!)w hen they went to the same private school. Milly's father is left broke paying for her to go to the school, whereas Penny passed an exam to gain a scholarship. The strip continued in Buster until 20 September 1986,; the strip then reverted to the name Ivor Lott and Tony Broke though Milly and Penny did make the occasional appearances until 1987.
 * The Terror Toys: an action comic strip, about toys that come to life after being created by an evil Toymaker. Voted favourite strip by the readers in issue 19 The adventures continued in a sequel strip, Return of the Terror Toys.
 * Robot Smith: drawn by Ken Reid. The adventures of a robot boy called Robert Smith.
 * Scooper: drawn by Tom Paterson. About a boy reporter.
 * Funtastic Journey: drawn by Ian Knox, who like Steve Bell would later find greater fame as a political cartoonist. The strip detailed the adventures of two boys called Terry and Gavin with an eccentric professor, the trio travelling by Welly-Copter.
 * The Incredible Sulk: drawn by Jim Petrie comic strip, parody of Marvel's The Incredible Hulk The slightest thing sends Sulk into a rage. The readers voted the strip 2nd favourite story in issue 11 and again in issue 19, by issue 116 he was voted 7th favourite.
 * The Teeny Sweeney: Three young boys inspired by TV series The Sweeney solve schoolyard crimes, such as when someone's sweets have gone missing.

Later additions

 * Robin Good: debuting in No. 36. A spoof of the Robin Hood legend about a boy who robs from the rich and gives to the poor set around 1200. His arch enemy is the Sheriff of Nottingham's son.
 * The Amazing Three: drawn by Trevor Metcalfe and debuting in No. 23. An adventure strip concerning twins Craig and Sue Travers and their friend Sam Pacey, who use magic rings to transform into the superheroes Blue Magician, Tanya and Oakman in order to fend off the alien invader Vogler. The strip ran until No. 58.
 * Jake's 7: drawn by Tom Paterson and debuting in No. 62. A parody of TV series Blake's 7 comic strip where Jake and his six friends are sent into the future, where they still have school.
 * The Winners: drawn by Mike Lacey and debuting in No. 75 The Winner family always won any competitions they entered. The strip was a popular addition, with readers voting it 3rd favourite in issue 96. By issue 134 they were the 2nd favourite story. The strip continued into the mid-1990s in Buster (now drawn by Jimmy Hansen), making it the longest running of all the Jackpot comic strips.
 * Fiends and Neighbours: a reprint comic strip that had previously run in Cor! and Scream!, starting from issue 101
 * Will Power: drawn by Nigel Edwards, debuting in No. 103.
 * The Park: drawn by Tom Paterson and debuting in No. 107, drawn by Tom Paterson continued in Buster. A park keeper called Parky does not like other people using his park. His assistant is called Dogsbody. Other park regulars include Colonel Windbag and his butler Dithers; Barbara Woodshed and her dog Humphrey; and Nanny and her baby. The strip continued in Buster after the merger until 26 May 1984. before also being discontinued to make room for School Fun material. Despite a similar premise, the strip was not related to the Viz strip The Parky.
 * The Gold Rush: drawn by Dicky Howett. Two rival treasure hunters Giles and Cad travel the world in search of gold; their quest ended in issue 86.
 * Mike's Bike: drawn by Brian Walker. A boy named Mike disturbs a professor's robotic experiments, resulting in his bike becoming capable of thought and able to customise itself. It was oted 10th most popular strip by the readers in issue 134 The strip continued in Buster, where the bike had a make-over - becoming more like a mountain bike in appearance. The last episode appeared in Buster on 26 May 1984 before making way for some of the strips from the merged School Fun.
 * The Invisible Monster: drawn by Sid Burgon and reprinted from Monster Fun from issue No. 131 An invisible monster befriends a young boy.
 * Oh, Brother!: two constantly bickering brothers.
 * The Perils of Pauline: an action strip about a girl at boarding school. One of the teachers is attempting to kill her, and Pauline and the readers had to work out who this was with a new clue each week, in a similar fashion to Lion strip Spot the Clue with Zip Nolan.
 * Mum's the Word: a family where the mother always has the last word, leaving her husband always worst off.
 * Sherlock Jnr.: Sherlock Holmes as a school boy, with his own Watson as assistant.
 * Shrimp: A reprint comic strip, featuring a boy known as Shrimp who was under a metre tall.
 * Sporty: Drawn by John Geering, and featuring a sports-obsessed Afro-Caribbean character as the lead, which was unusual for comics of the time. The strip was voted 7th Favourite in issue 134 and continued in Buster after the merger until 26 May 1984, when it was another discontinued to make space for the influx from School Fun. Curiously a character with the same name and premise had been part of the line-up for IPC's Krazy and had transferred to 'Whizzer and Chips, where it ran until 1986 - leading to the unusual situation where two strips sharing the same but otherwise unconnected were simultaneously published in two different comics by the same publisher.
 * Count Mysto's Maze: an action strip about Pete and Johnny. who were guests of Count Mysto - each week they and the readers had solve puzzles.
 * Time Trip
 * Big Bear

Reprints
In the 1980s and 1990s most of the comic strips were reprinted, though IPC had a policy of waiting five years before beginning reprinting old comic strips. Big Comic Fortnightly began reprinting selected Jackpot material, including episodes of Incredible Sulk, Full o' Beans, Scooper, Cry Baby, Top of the Class, Jack Pott, Sporty, Kid King and Gremlins in the mid 1990s

title: Jackpot (British comics)


text:
User talk:Garamatt

Hi Garamatt. I hope you like the place and choose to stay.

Some links that may be of use:
 * Welcome, newcomers
 * How to edit a page
 * Village pump - ask questions you may have here, or leave a message on my talk page

Check out the New user log, or here's some stuff you can do, if you want:

You may want to look into TeX and TeX markup, by the way :) Keep contributing Dysprosia 06:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

authors: Template namespace initialisation script

title: User talk:Garamatt


text:
User talk:Caliper

Hello Caliper, welcome to Wikipedia. You might like to start by reading the tutorial and introducing yourself at the new users page. For ideas of what to put on your user page, see User page.

If you have any questions, you can ask at the help desk or on my talk page. Two useful tips are that you can sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) and you can preview your changes before you save using the show preview button. You can regularly find new tips on the Community Portal. I look forward to reading your great articles and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. :) Angela. 06:46, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome from me also, and thanks for your note on the new user's page. Proofreading is quite a useful skill; we can never have too much of it here. If you're going to edit articles on the Middle East, of course be aware that those are sensitive topics. You'll want to make sure to follow our neutral point of view policy, and you might want to discuss changes on the appropriate talk page before making major modifications to an article. Good luck and happy editing, Isomorphic 18:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks to both of you for the welcome. Of course I would never make a major change to a controversial article without getting a consensus first.  --Caliper 18:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice work with those album boxes, I never got around to doing it myself...don't worry about the link on my page, that page needs to be updated anyway so I'll just fix it myself. Adam Bishop 19:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words. I hope that my changes help to improve Wikipedia and that over time I will improve the quality of my submissions. Rei has suggested the same course of action....normally that would be the thing to do. My response to her was:

regarding a username...you(Rei) are one of the few people i have encountered on Wikipedia that are willing to talk, discuss and consider (Uncle Ed is another). Many i have run into (Zero0000, Viajero, MyRedDice) are different in that regard....hence my IP address status...this IP that IP we are all based upon four octets equally ;)

In addition, at least one of these individuals has admin status. One of these individuals deletes material regardless of source provided it does not meet his world view. One could look at Tali Hatuel and the recently emerged Palestinian practice of filming attacks. One deletes that material (filming attacks reported by INN, NYT, Reuters for various attacks) and calls on an admin to lock his deletions in place.....a sitation that i find rather troubling.

Feel free to delete this of course...we are effectively using Wikipedia as a message board here ;)

Cleanup message removal
Hi Caliper,

I removed the cleanup message from all articles that had it yesterday (you can check my contribution history), because it had been decided that it should no longer be used. The message had been edited so it was empty at the time (see its history). Lord Basava and all the other articles are still listed on Cleanup; listing and listing alone should suffice in the future.

I do realize that my edit summary probably wasn't the clearest - I should've provided a reason. Sorry about that.

Happy editing -- Fredrik (talk) 09:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Day for Night.bmp
Thanks for uploading Image:Day for Night.bmp. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Day for Night.bmp
Thanks for uploading Image:Day for Night.bmp. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phantom Power.bmp
Thanks for uploading Image:Phantom Power.bmp. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Phantom Power.bmp
Thanks for uploading Image:Phantom Power.bmp. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Day for Night.bmp)
Thanks for uploading Image:Day for Night.bmp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Phantom Power.bmp)
Thanks for uploading Image:Phantom Power.bmp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Day for Night.bmp. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Phantom Power.bmp
Thanks for uploading Image:Phantom Power.bmp. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:In Violet Light.bmp)
Thanks for uploading Image:In Violet Light.bmp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 12:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Live Between Us.bmp)
Thanks for uploading Image:Live Between Us.bmp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 12:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Trouble at the Henhouse.bmp)
Thanks for uploading Image:Trouble at the Henhouse.bmp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Up to Here.bmp)
Thanks for uploading Image:Up to Here.bmp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 12:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

File:Edward Needles Hallowell.bmp missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Edward Needles Hallowell.bmp

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Caliper


text:
Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer, born 1802)

Admiral Sir Michael Seymour, GCB (3 December 1802 – 23 February 1887) was a Royal Navy officer who went on to be Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth.

Naval career
Born the third son of Admiral Sir Michael Seymour, 1st Baronet, Michael Seymour entered the Royal Navy in 1813. He was made lieutenant in 1822, commander in 1824 and was posted captain in 1826. From 1833 to 1835 he was captain of the survey ship HMS Challenger, and was wrecked in her off the coast of Chile. In 1841 he was given command of HMS Britannia and then of HMS Powerful. In 1845 he took over HMS Vindictive.

From 1851 to 1854 he was Commodore Superintendent of Devonport Dockyard. In 1854 he served under Sir Charles Napier in the Baltic during the Crimean War. He was promoted to Rear-Admiral that same year and, when the Baltic campaign was resumed in 1855 under Admiral the Hon. Richard Dundas, Seymour was second in command.

On 19 February 1856 he was appointed commander-in-chief of the East Indies and China Station. Flying his flag in HMS Calcutta, he conducted operations arising from the attack on the British coaster Arrow. During the Arrow War in China, he commanded the Battle of the Bogue in November 1856, helped destroy the Chinese fleet in the Battle of Fatshan Creek in June 1857, captured Canton in December, and in 1858 he captured the forts on the Baihe (Hai River), compelling the Chinese government to consent to the Treaty of Tientsin. He was made GCB in 1859. He sat as a Liberal Member of Parliament for Devonport from 1859 to 1863. In 1863 he was made Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, a post he held until 1866. He retired in 1870.

Seymour Road in Hong Kong Island was named after him.

Family
In 1829 he married Dorothy Knighton: they had a son and three daughters. He was the uncle of Sir Edward Hobart Seymour, also a British admiral.


text:
Talk:Battle of Tali–Ihantala

Viipuri/Vyborg naming RfC
For editors who are interested, there is an RfC over at Talk:Continuation War about which name we should use for the town of Vyborg/Viipuri during World War II. This will affect this article, as well as quite a others on the Finnish/Soviet conflict. Some of the other articles affected include Winter War Continuation War, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, and Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945). If you could comment, it would be very much appreciated. The RfC thread can be found here. Regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Attributing comments
Two places where it was used it will get problematic since (especially the first one) is very widely spread (ie. in almost all) Finnish based books on the topic. Using author list will only lead on convoluted page without any gains. Some better method than author list should be applied instead if at all possible. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this viewpoint a general consensus among all scholars, Finnish, Russian, and otherwise? If so, then we can include it without attribution. If there is any significant disagreement on this from other scholars, then we have to attribute it to someone. Is anyone aware of sources with differing views? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is part of the issue in a way (related to mediation), Soviet/Russian historiography generally states that the whole offensive (for Leningrad Front) ended already on June 20 (while in reality it continued at least to July 12) and downplays every and all of the events which followed that date - which include this particular battle. Even against existing evidence like orders from STAVKA or Soviet archival data. So i doubt very much that Russian scholars, with possible exception of some of the latests scholars agree with that. It is however prevalent view amongst Finnish scholars (with same view reflected in just about everywhere) - however if you start listing the authors who consider it as being key event then you better prepare a very, very long list. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok so let's see the list with quotes...
 * Consensus in Finland does not mean consensus around the world.
 * In the mediation it was decided that all the sources used in the article should be considered reliable. As you said yourself, it is only your opinion that the Russian source is fringe.
 * So provide evidence that the Soviet/Russian view is fringe, otherwise it remains your opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets go with google books:
 * 500 Days: The War in Eastern Europe, 1944-1945 - By Sean M. Mcateer, p. 184 This Battle of Tali-Ihantala probably convinced Stalin that conquering Finland was not worth the cost.
 * Finland at War 1939-45 - By Philip Jowett, Philip S. Jowett, Brent Snodgrass, p. 13-15 Had the Soviet 21st Army been victorious it could have continued north to take Helsinki, and whole of the Finland would have been occupied. The Finnish victory here... (under entry Battle of Tali-Ihantala)
 * Just couple of examples for starters, and no one has even started adding Finnish books to the list. If this (attribution) is insisted it should be realized that it will not improve the article in any manner, only convolute it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So that proves that the Russian view is fringe?
 * Battle of Tali-Ihantala probably convinced Stalin... Probably is not certainly as you state in the article.
 * If there is a lot of Finnish authors then you can just say "according to Finnish historians...". -YMB29 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Grasping at such straws is hardly beneficial in any kind of discussion - so war we have plenty of non-Finnish sources and whole lot of Finnish sources which state that the battle was key event in 'convincing' Stalin. So stating 'according to Finnish historians' is not even near the truth nor is it accurate expression. So far the 'Russian view' has actually been just Baryshnikov alone. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-Finnish historians don't care to write much about the Soviet-Finnish front and there are of course many Finnish authors who do, but that is not a reason to take the Finnish view as fact.
 * Again, your opinion about Baryshnikov is irrelevant here.
 * The claims made in your paragraph should be backed up by exactly what the sources say and not your interpretation of what they say, so the "probably" makes a difference. -YMB29 (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This unyielding attitude of yours is exactly the reason why there were edit wars and problems leading to outside mediation. Keep in mind that all criticism you apply against Finnish source also works directly against Baryshnikov. What is clear is that neither 'Finnish authors' (since it is not true) or list of authors (since it would very long) works in this case, so I ask, what would be your suggestion to resolve the issue? - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if you don't like how the statements were attributed, that is not a reason for you to make a revert and have the views be presented as facts again.
 * I think that attributing the statements to the sources cited for them is good enough. It does not mean that only those sources support the statements, as you seem to think. -YMB29 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I brought it up in order to have a constructive discussion on the matter instead of having either side resorting into similar actions as seen prior to mediation. So far you have been offering the just one and the same option (with two different flavors) without any attempt to achieve a compromise even though it has been pointed out that the specific solution you offered is not particularly suitable under the circumstances. How exactly do you believe such an 'example' of constructive work will help apart from yet again polarizing the discussion and editing? - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not just bring up a discussion, you reverted when you knew this is going against WP:ASF. This is what is not helpful. Come up with a better formulation if the one I made does not suit you. -YMB29 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm merely trying to keep editing and discussion civil. Already in WP:ASF there is a note against deliberate misuse of the 'opinion concept' which it seems to me is the case in the first of the two places your edit altered. I do not have clear solution to the issue - if i had i would have already done something about it - but that does change the fact that inserting there the whole list of those who support that opinion is not practical nor beneficial to the article. Outside - and out of the box - opinions on the matter are welcome of course. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no misuse; you can only say that if you prove that Baryshnikov is fringe.
 * Once again, if you list two authors that does not mean that the two are the only ones who support the view. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

...And of course we have Platonov's Bitva za Leningrad which bluntly says that Red Army failed to fulfill tasks given by STAVKA in the battles north of Viipuri. --Whiskey (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And what does this have to do with what we are talking about? Nowhere in that book does it say that the battle was a great Finnish victory that saved them from occupation... -YMB29 (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As said initially the whole problem derives from Soviet habit of hiding some their operations, often the unsuccessful ones, from history books (if you are interested on the topic, see David M. Glantz essay The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities). Which makes balanced observation of the operation very difficult. Just as an example of how difficult the matter is to handle, the Soviet/Russian books still maintain that Leningrad Front's offensive lasted until 20 June, while in reality active operations did not end until mid July (at Vuosalmi). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the Vyborg offensive. Anyway, this has little to do with what we are talking about. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, even the quotes you referred to state that capturing Viipuri was the final goal of the operation (which it wasn't) and keep mentions how 'successful' offensive was (even though it never reached its stated goals). So the 'myths and realities' of the Eastern Front are important when handling issues such as this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The main objective was Vyborg and the greater strategic goal was Finland's surrender, so that is why the offensive is described as successful. This is not a myth and can't be used by you to discredit Soviet/Russian sources. -YMB29 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that is contradicted both by the official order from STAVKA as well as by modern research. Viipuri was the merely goal for the 1st part of the offensive (not main goal), in an offensive which was intended to progress a lot further. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not being contradicted. Vyborg was a strategically important goal (as one of the sources says). The offensive intended to progress further, but the main strategic goal was still achieved without that. -YMB29 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So in other words the offensive was a success because it failed to reach its goals? - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Finland surrendered... -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did it? Does any of the documents state so? Only thing that took place was mutually agreed ceasefire & armistice. That is how the agreement was termed (Moscow Armistice), and when checking definition of 'armistice' we find that "the key aspect in an armistice is the fact that 'all fighting ends with no one surrendering'". - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been explained to you before many times; I am not going to repeat it again and again. -YMB29 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So are you going to deny that what took place was an armistice? Because that is what all the documents state. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Armistice does not mean that no side surrenders conditionally and makes concessions. Anyway, what is the point of this? Finland made peace with the USSR and started fighting the Germans, so it does not matter if it is called surrender or just armistice. -YMB29 (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the minor detail that term armistice contradicts that of surrender - mind you, making concessions does not require a surrender. I'm only interested in why exactly do you insist in calling the treaty which ended the war as something else that it wasn't? Also Finns did not make peace with USSR, first peace was only agreed in Paris several years later and it was not just between Finns & USSR. All I'm asking is factual accuracy instead (ie. calling armistice or перемирии for what it really was). - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, armistice does not mean no surrender. There are plenty of sources that call it surrender, which I have listed before. -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly the same kind of support as i have for the claim i made below. You claim that armistice does not exclude surrender (i have not seen evidence of that) so you deliberately insert biased text into the article while knowingly disallowing text of precisely similar value from being added to the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What am I inserting? You are claiming that armistice excludes surrender, so you prove it if you want. What this has to do with the issue being discussed I don't know... -YMB29 (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks like Baryshnikov has a different opinion to the other scholars mentioned here. If Baryshnikov is the only source that has a different view, then we could do something like this: "The majority of scholars say X and Y. An alternative view is provided by Baryshnikov, who says Z." What we can't do is simply state "everyone thinks X and Y" when Baryshnikov has a different opinion. Wanderer, I'm afraid you are going to have to get used to this, as it is going to happen several times in this subject area. @YMB - are there other sources that share Baryshnikov's opinion, or that differ from the opinion of the other scholars mentioned? If there are, it might affect how we should word the passage. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as Baryshnikov's general view about this issue - that the goal of the Soviet offensive was Finland's exit from the war and not occupation, it is supported by many Russian and English language sources (I listed some of them before: ). So it can't be said that his view is in the minority. Baryshnikov is important because he is very detailed; he mentions this battle and analyzes the arguments of the Finnish side. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The comments you quoted become extraordinarily hilarious when you keep in mind that both Leningrad Front and Karelian Front offensives had been stopped dead (with exception of Ilomantsi) around mid-July and that as per STAVKA orders the offensive was not intended to stall after reaching Vyborg - again interestingly STAVKA orders were utilized by non-Russian sources to reveal the actual Soviet intent. Also for that matter, to equal the nitpicking which was utilized earlier, none of the quotes listed deny the attempt to conquer Finland, and actually one of them even agrees that Soviet intent was to occupy (conquer) Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if you fail to see what has been marked in bold for you, I can't help you... The quotes clearly state the Soviet strategic goals, and contradict the views you consider to be facts. You continue to cling to secondary tactical goals that were not achieved. We have been through this countless times... -YMB29 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have read those more closely, as they do not deny that conquering Finland would have been in the agenda. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you think that was not important enough to be mentioned when talking about the goals of the offensive? Obviously if the authors thought that occupation was the goal and the Soviets failed in this, they would have pointed it out, instead of just writing that the Soviets intended to knock Finland out of the war... -YMB29 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, by the time you reached the word 'obviously' you were already doing original research. What you are describing as your opinion just ain't what the sources are stating. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well "obviously" is not in the article...
 * If you have sources that say that conquering Finland was the main goal, while other sources don't mention this and give other goals, it is not OR to point out the contradiction.
 * So getting back to the article, find proof that the views expressed by your sources are supported by the overwhelming majority of historians or agree to follow WP:ASF. -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I already pointed out several such articles yet you did not actually provide any which would explicitly deny it without performing OR. And yes, am I actually using the very same arguments you have used when you insisted on sources to be provided. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that they explicitly deny it. I just point out the clear contradiction (which does not require original research to see) and that they support Baryshnikov (who does explicitly deny it) on the goals of the offensive.
 * And no, you have not provided any proof so far... -YMB29 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That they support Baryshnikov is your OR - you can not make assumptions on what they have not said. Actually the two articles i linked plus the one from your sources already do that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two books prove a majority??
 * I am not making any assumptions; both Baryshnikov and the other sources say the same thing about the goals of the offensive. I guess you are also making an assumption when you say that those two books support Lunde... -YMB29 (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look closely you can see that sources you listed make no mention of the matter. In other words they are not saying anything with regards of that issue - so they are not contradicting the sources i included. You can not assume that they would mean something that they are not discussion about. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both set of sources talk about the same thing differently, so it is not OR to say that they disagree. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and can't provide evidence that the view you don't like is fringe? Do we need another RfC just to confirm that you are wrong again? -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As per what you stated regarding (amongst others) the armistice matter, it clearly is not like you describe it - not even in matters you support. However I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and attribute the comments per statement but are you? - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * About what? What do you mean? -YMB29 (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

'''Why are all Finnish source of this battle removed? They had been thoroughly studied by Finnish scholars ;nothing like on the Russian side so bring back those Finnish scholar fast! ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.95.162 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikolai Baryshnikov?
This man Nikolai Baryshnikov seems to be carrying out some sort of "crusade" on this mather http://www.ruslania.com/language-8/entity-1/context-577/author-8453.html It is good that different view points are presented but maybe it should stand something about how how this may cause to be a little biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.183.94 (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Baryshnikov represents a new phase of Russian propaganda against Finland - nothing else.Nor1980 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

lol, i guess its back to the good old days for russia, lying about everything per usual. sad. maybe "ymb" is a sockpuppet for mr. baryshnikov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.36.97.64 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Last sentence of the Impact section
"These authors further contend that substantial German aid is not mentioned or is only hinted at.[37]"

I wonder where they got this from. Because it was one of the main points in our schoolbooks that were written back in 90's and I have seen it stressed in as very important point in every documentary (which makes me assume source materials also state that) I have watched about the battle. 195.148.29.104 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviving the vexed question of Nikolai Baryshnikov.
In reading through this article, I came several times across an historian named Nikolai Baryshnikov. The article never explains who he is, what credentials he has, or why we should put stock in his opinion on this battle, but he clearly has an anti-Finnish axe to grind. I see his inclusion in this article has been debated on here before, but I feel compelled to raise questions about his reputability. Specifically, if one looks at the two books of his that are cited in the bibliography, one of them is published by the "Johan Beckman Institute". If one wikis Johan Beckman, one is redirected to an article on "Johan Bäckman", a Finn who's something of a celebrity in Russia for his pro-Russian views. Among his positions, he is pro-Putin, he insists that Estonia doesn't exist as a nation, he denies that the Soviet occupation of Estonia constituted an occupation (and claims that such an assertion is racist), he supports the Russian annexation of the Crimea, and he claims that Anna Politkovskaya was likely either murdered by anti-Putin figures trying to make Putin look bad or that she put out a hit on herself (!), etc, etc.

My point in holding forth on Johan Bäckman like this is that the Johan Beckman [sic] Institute which he established in St. Petersburg in 2000 is hardly a reputable scholarly publisher. If this is where Baryshnikov has to go to publish his books, are his books really reliable sources? I seriously doubt it.

Now, I'm aware that Finland in WWII is a controversial subject and it's inevitable and necessary that different opinions will be aired on the subject and incorporated into the article. That said, the sources drawn upon should still be reputable, scholarly sources and I think you would be hard pressed to claim that something published by Johan Bäckman's press was reputable and scholarly. So I propose a reexamination of the inclusion of Baryshnikov's material in this article, with the ultimate goal (on my part, anyway) of excising it if we can reach that consensus. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I would support scrapping the paragraph altogether.65.209.62.115 (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the fringe views of a single obscure historian with a stated bias should not be given such weight.87.115.207.105 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove that propaganda crap. If Baryshkin ever existed, he is only another Putin sockpuppet. --2003:E2:3725:3665:11F5:7CB2:EA71:8C6D (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If you look furhter up on the page you will see that the user that introduced this baryshnikov YMB29 is suspended for his misuse of sources.78.73.47.79 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Tali–Ihantala


text:
Elisabeth Altmann-Gottheiner

Elisabeth Altmann-Gottheiner (March 26, 1874 – October 21, 1930) was one of the first women to become a university lecturer in Germany and a women's rights activist.

She was born in Berlin. In 1904, she received a doctorate in Zürich, Switzerland. By 1908, she was a lecturer at the economic College in Mannheim, and by 1924 had a professorship in economics. She died in Mannheim, aged 56.

Academics
She wrote a number of books and articles on economic questions. From 1912 on she edited the feminist yearbook Jahrbuch der Frauenbewegung.

The University of Mannheim grants the annual award "Elisabeth Altmann-Gottheiner-Preis" for students' theses on gender research.

title: Elisabeth Altmann-Gottheiner


text:
User talk:Thetaikung

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Glad to see you've already found Sandbox. If you need any help editing, you can visit FAQ, or ask questions at Help desk. Good luck, and I hope to see you around. Yours, Meelar 07:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thetaikung