text:
Vassals of the Kingdom of Jerusalem

The Kingdom of Jerusalem, one of the Crusader states that was created in 1099, was divided into a number of smaller seigneuries. According to the 13th-century jurist John of Ibelin, the four highest crown vassals (referred to as barons) in the kingdom proper were the count of Jaffa and Ascalon, the prince of Galilee, the lord of Sidon, and the lord of Oultrejordain.

There were also a number of independent seigneuries, and some land held under direct royal control, such as Jerusalem itself, Acre and Tyre.

Northern states
Aside from the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there were also three other major Crusader states in the Near East:
 * County of Edessa
 * County of Tripoli
 * Principality of Antioch

These states nominally bore some dependency on the kingdom of Jerusalem. The king of Jerusalem was bound to reconcile them in case of disputes, or between a vassal prince and the Latin patriarch of Antioch, and could claim the regency in case of a vacancy or minority in their successions.

Edessa was perhaps the most closely tied to the kingdom, despite its distance. Its first two counts became kings of Jerusalem, and the county was bestowed as a royal gift on Joscelin I of Edessa.

The County of Tripoli, the nearest of them, is sometimes considered to have been a vassal lordship under the king's suzerainty, although it preserved an extraordinary degree of sovereignty.

Antioch was almost independent, for it was founded already before the kingship and its first holder was a rival of kings, the original leader of the crusade. Later in its history, it would at times recognize Byzantine or Armenian suzerainty, or none at all.

These states dated their documents by the reigns of their own rulers, carried out their own foreign policy, and sent military aid to the kingdom of their own will, rather than through feudal obligation; therefore, they are generally recognized as sovereign and are treated more fully under their own articles.

The Principality of Antioch, County of Tripoli and the Kingdom of Jerusalem were autonomous states.

County of Jaffa and Ascalon
Jaffa, on the Mediterranean coast, was fortified after the First Crusade, and was a separate county until the revolt of Hugh II of Le Puiset in 1134. Afterwards, it was usually held directly by the royal family or one of their relatives. After 1153, it became the double County of Jaffa and Ascalon, when the Fatimid fortress of Ascalon was conquered. It passed in and out of direct royal control, and became titular after the loss of the counties to the Muslims in the 13th-century. A number of seigneuries were vassals to the count of Jaffa, including the Lordship of Ramla, Lordship of Ibelin and Lordship of Mirabel.

Counts of Jaffa
Jaffa was taken by the Crusaders in June 1099 during the siege of Jerusalem and became part of the kingdom shortly thereafter. The counts of Jaffa were:

 * Royal domain, 1100–1110
 * Hugh I of Jaffa, first cousin of king Baldwin II of Jerusalem, 1110–1118
 * Albert of Namur, stepfather and regent to Hugh II, 1118–1122
 * Hugh II of Jaffa, son of Hugh I, 1122–1134
 * Melisende of Jerusalem, 1134–1151, with her husband Fulk (1131–1143) and her son Baldwin III (1143–1151)
 * Amalric I of Jerusalem, son of Melisende and Fulk, 1151–1153 (when he reached the age of maturity).

Jaffa merged with newly-conquered Ascalon in 1153, becoming the County of Jaffa and Ascalon.

Counts of Jaffa and Ascalon
After the siege of Ascalon in 1153, the frontier fortress of Ascalon joined Jaffa in a combined county. The counts of Jaffa and Ascalon were:

 * Amalric I of Jerusalem, 1153–1174 (as king from 1163)
 * Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, 1174–1176
 * Sibylla of Jerusalem, 1176–1187, with her husbands William of Montferrat (1176–1177) and Guy of Lusignan (1180–1187)
 * Jaffa and Ascalon occupied by Ayyubids, 1187–1191
 * Geoffrey of Lusignan (1191–1193), brother of Guy of Lusignan
 * Amalric II of Jerusalem, brother of Guy of Lusignan, 1193–1197
 * Amalric II of Jerusalem, as king, with his wife Isabella I, 1197–1205
 * Maria of Montferrat, 1205–1212, with her husband John of Brienne (1210–1212)
 * Isabella II of Jerusalem, under regency of her father John of Brienne, 1212–1221
 * Walter IV of Brienne (1221–1244), nephew of John of Brienne and husband of Amalric II's granddaughter, 1221–1244
 * John of Ibelin, son of Philip of Ibelin, Isabella I's half-brother, 1244–1266
 * Ascalon occupied by Ayyubids, 1247
 * James of Ibelin, son of John, 1266–1268
 * Jaffa occupied by Mamluks, 1268.

Lordship of Ramla
Originally held by the bishop of Ramla-Lydda, in 1126 Ramla became part of Jaffa, and a separate lordship was created after Hugh II's revolt in 1134. The castle of Ibelin happened to be located quite near Ramla. It was later a part of the Lordship of Ibelin, inherited from Helvis of Ramla, daughter of Baldwin I of Ramla and wife of Barisan of Ibelin. The Lords of Ramla were:

 * Baldwin I of Ramla, 1134–1138
 * Barisan of Ibelin, 1138–1150
 * Manasses of Hierges, 1150–1152
 * Hugh of Ibelin, son of Barisan of Ibelin, 1152–1169
 * Baldwin of Ibelin, brother of Hugh of Ibelin, 1169–1186
 * Thomas of Ibelin, son of Baldwin of Ibelin, 1186–1187
 * Ramla occupied by Ayyubids, 1187–1191
 * Balian of Ibelin, brother of Baldwin of Ibelin, 1191–1193
 * John of Ibelin, son of Balian, 1193–1247
 * Lordship held by Counts of Jaffa and Ascalon after 1247.

Lordship of Ibelin
The Lordship of Ibelin was also created out of Jaffa (in the 1140s, or perhaps as early as 1134 after Hugh II's revolt). The lordship was given as a reward to Barisan of Ibelin, whose wife Helvis of Ramla already owned lands in the vicinity. The castle of Ramla, the family's other inheritance, was nearby, and together these territories formed a wealthy entity. Balian of Ibelin married Maria Comnena, widow of Amalric I of Jerusalem, and the Ibelins became the most powerful noble family of the kingdom, later ruling also over Beirut (see Lordship of Beirut, below). The lords of Ibelin were:

 * Barisan of Ibelin, c. 1134–1150
 * Hugh of Ibelin, son of Barisan of Ibelin, 1150–1170
 * Balian of Ibelin, son of Barisan of Ibelin, 1170–1193
 * John of Ibelin, son of Balian, 1193–1236
 * Lordship held by Counts of Jaffa and Ascalon after 1236.

Lordship of Mirabel
Mirabel was separated from Jaffa after the revolt in 1134, and given to Baldwin of Ibelin in 1166, although it was separate from Ibelin. He was succeeded by his son Thomas of Ibelin, ruling from 1186–1188.

Principality of Galilee
The Principality of Galilee was established by Tancred in 1099 and was centered around Tiberias in Galilee proper, and was sometimes called the Principality of Tiberias or the Tiberiad. The principality became the fief of the families of Saint Omer, Montfaucon (Falcomberques), and then Bures. The principality was destroyed by Saladin in 1187, although the title was used by relatives and younger sons of the kings of Cyprus (the titular kings of Jerusalem) afterwards. The principality had its own vassals, the Lordships of Beirut, Nazareth and Haifa, which often had their own sub-vassals.

Princes of Galilee
The princes of Galilee were:

 * Tancred, 1099–1101
 * Hugh of Fauquembergues, 1101–1106
 * Gervaise de Bazoches, 1106–1108
 * Tancred, second reign, 1109–1112
 * Joscelin I of Edessa (as Lord of Courtenay), 1112–1119
 * William I of Bures, 1120–1141
 * Elinand, 1142–1148
 * William II of Bures, brother of Elinand, 1148–1158
 * Eschiva of Bures, 1159–1187, with Gautier of Saint Omer (1159–1171) and Raymond III of Tripoli (1174–1187)
 * Galilee occupied by Ayyubids, 1187–1240
 * Eschiva of Saint Omer, granddaughter of William II, 1240–1247, with Odo of Montbéliard (1240–1247)
 * Galilee taken by Ayyubids, 1247.

The sons of William I I of Bures were titular princes of Galilee after the death of Eschiva of Bures in 1187: Hugh II of Saint Omer from 1187–1204 and Raoul of Saint Omer from 1204–1219. Eschiva of Saint Omer was daughter of Raoul of Saint Omer, and she was titular Princess of Galilee from 1219–1240 and 1247 until after 1265. He husband was titular Prince of Galilee from 1219–1240.

Lordship of Beirut
Beirut was captured in 1110 and given to Fulk of Guînes. It was one of the longest-lived seigneuries, surviving until the final collapse of the kingdom in 1291, although only as a tiny strip on the Mediterranean coast surrounding Beirut. It was important for trade with Europe, and had its own vassals within the Principality of Galilee. The lords of Beirut were :

 * Fulk of Guînes, 1110–1117
 * Royal domain 1117–1125
 * Walter I Brisebarre, 1125–1138
 * Guy I Brisebarre, 1138–1149
 * Walter II Brisebarre, 1149–1156
 * Guy II Brisebarre, 1156–1164
 * Walter III Brisebarre, 1164–1166
 * Royal domain 1166–?
 * Beirut occupied by Ayyubids, 1187–1198
 * John I of Ibelin, 1204–1236
 * Balian of Ibelin, 1236–1247
 * John II of Ibelin, 1247–1264
 * Isabella of Ibelin, 1264–1282, with her husbands and regent:
 * Hugh II of Cyprus, 1265–1267
 * Haymo Létrange, 1272–1273
 * Alice de la Roche, as regent to her daughter Isabella, 1274–1277
 * Nicholas Aleman, 1277
 * William Barlais, 1278–1282
 * Eschive d'Ibelin, 1282–1291, with her husbands:
 * Humphrey of Montfort, 1282–1284
 * Guy of Cyprus, 1291

 * Beirut taken by Mamluks, 1291.

The sub-vassals of Beirut were the Lordship of Banias and the Lordship of Toron.

Lordship of Banias
Banias (Caesarea Philippi) was under the control of the Assassins from 1126–1129, when it was given to the Franks following the purge of the sect in Damascus by Taj al-Muluk Buri. The area was in dispute from 1132–1140 when Banias was merged with Toron under Humphrey II of Toron. It fell to Nur ad-Din in 1164, and when recovered it became part of the Lordship of Joscelin III of Edessa (see below).

Lordship of Toron
The castle of Toron was built by Hugh of Fauquembergues to help capture Tyre, and was given to Humphrey I of Toron in 1107. The lords of Toron tended to be very influential in the kingdom. Humphrey II was constable of Jerusalem. This grandson Humphrey IV was married to Isabella, Amalric I's daughter. Toron was later merged with the royal domain of Tyre. Toron had two vassals of its own, the Lordship of Castel Neuf, which fell to Nur ad-Din in 1167, and the Lordship of Toron-Ahmud, which was sold to the Teutonic Knights in 1261. The lords of Toron were:

 * Humphrey I of Toron, before 1109–after 1136
 * Humphrey II of Toron, son of Humphrey I, before 1137–1179
 * Humphrey IV of Toron, grandson of Humphrey II, 1179–1183
 * Royal domain, 1183–1187
 * Toron occupied by Ayyubids, 1187–1229
 * Alice of Armenia, granddaughter of Humphrey II, 1229–after 1236
 * Maria of Antioch-Armenia, granddaughter of Alice, after 1236–1239
 * Toron occupied by Ayyubids, 1239–1241
 * Toron merged with Lordship of Tyre, 1241.

Toron itself had two sub-vassals, the Lordship of Chastel Neuf and the Lordship of Maron.

Lordship of Chastel Neuf
Chastel Neuf was built by Hugh of Falkenberg around 1105 but was later given to the Hospitallers, until it fell to Nur ad-Din in 1167.

Lordship of Maron
Not much is known about the Lordship of Maron. It was given in 1229 to the Teutonic Knights in exchange for their claims on Toron.

Lordship of Nazareth
Nazareth was the original site of the Latin patriarch, established by Tancred. It was created as a seigneury in Galilee in 1115. The archbishop of Nazareth also ruled over Haifa.

Lordship of Haifa
Haifa was partly an ecclesiastical domain ruled by the archbishop of Nazareth, and partly created from other lands in the Principality of Galilee. The lords of Haifa were:

 * Geldemar Carpenel, 1100–1101
 * Tancred, 1101–1103
 * Rorgius, 1103–1107
 * Pagan, 1107–1112
 * Royal domain, 1112–1187
 * Haifa occupied by Ayyubids, 1187–1191
 * Vivian, c. 1140s
 * Pagan, 1190–?
 * Rorgius II, ?–1244?
 * Garsias Alvarez, c. 1250
 * Gilles d'Estrain, c. 1260
 * Haifa taken by Mamluks, 1265.

Lordship of Sidon
The cities of Sidon (Saete/Sagette) and Caesarea Maritima (Caesarea) were captured by the Crusaders between 1101 and 1110. A noblemen Eustace I Grenier, a trussed advisor of Baldwin I of Jerusalem, was granted the lordship of both cities. He founded a dynasty that ruled until the 1260s when they were lost to the conquering Mongols and Mamluks.

Lords of Sidon
Sidon became part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem following the siege of Sidon in 1110. The lords of Sidon were:

 * Eustace I Grenier, 1110–1123
 * Gerard Grenier, son of Eustace I, 1123–1171
 * Renaud Grenier, son of Gerard, 1171–1187
 * Occupied by Ayyubids, 1187–1197
 * Renaud Grenier, lordship restored, 1197–1202
 * Balian I Grenier, son of Renaud, 1202–1239
 * Julian Grenier, son of Balian I, 1239–1260
 * Sidon destroyed by Ayyubids in 1249 and Mongols in 1260
 * Sidon sold to the Knights Templar, 1260.

Lordship of Caesarea
Caesarea was captured in 1101 and given to the archbishop of Caesarea. The lords of Caearea were :

 * Eustace I Grenier, 1110–1123
 * Walter I Grenier, son of Eustace I, 1123–1154
 * Hugh Grenier, son of Walter I, 1154–1169
 * Guy Grenier, son of Hugh, fl. 1170s
 * Walter II Grenier, brother of Guy, c. 1180s–1189/1191
 * Caesarea occupied by Ayyubids, 1187–1191
 * Juliana Grenier, sister of Walter II, 1189/1193–1213/1216, with husbands:
 * Guy Brisebarre (possible lord), after 1183
 * Aymar de Lairon, 1189/1193–1213/1216
 * Walter III, son of Juliana and Guy Brisebarre, 1213/1216–1229
 * John, son of Walter III, 1229–1238/1241
 * Margaret, daughter of John, 1238/1241–1255/1265 with her husband:
 * John Aleman, 1238/1243–1264/1265
 * Nicholas Aleman, son of John Aleman (possible lord or titular lord), d. 1277
 * Caesarea taken by Mamluks, 1265
 * John of Nevilles, 1384–?
 * John Gorap?

Lordship of the Schuf
The Schuf was created out of the Lordship of Sidon as a sub-vassal around 1170. It was centred on the Cave of Tyron. Julian of Sidon sold it to the Teutonic Knights in 1256.

Lordship of Oultrejordain
The Lordship of Oultrejordain, consisting of land with an undefined boundary to the east of the Jordan River, was one of the largest and most important seigneuries. It was an important source of revenue, from the Muslim caravan routes that existed there. The last lord, Raynald of Châtillon, received Oultrejordain by marrying its heiress, Stephanie of Milly. Raynald considered himself prince of Oultrejordain, not subject to the king, and was especially hostile to the Muslims. He was largely responsible for Saladin's invasion of the kingdom in 1187. Saladin conquered much of the area in 1187 and personally executed Raynald at the Battle of Hattin. The lords of Oultrejordain were:

 * Roman of Le Puy, possibly 1118–1126
 * Pagan the Butler, 1126–1147
 * Maurice of Montreal, nephew of Pagan, 1147–1161
 * Philip of Milly, with his wife Isabella, daughter of Maurice, 1161–1168
 * Stephanie de Milly, daughter and heiress, whose husbands exercised the powers of the lordship:
 * Humphrey III of Toron, 1168–1173
 * Miles of Plancy, 1173–1174
 * Raynald of Châtillon, 1176–1187

 * Oultrejordain lost to Saladin, 1187.

Other seigneuries
(Titular lords/princes are italicized)

Lordship of Adelon
The Lordship of Adelon seems to have been created after the center of the kingdom was moved to Acre, and held some influence under Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor.

 * Adam
 * Agnes, c. 1200
 * Thierry de Termonde (died 1206)
 * Daniel of Terremonde (died after 1225)
 * Daniel II of Terremonde
 * Peter, c. 1250
 * Jordan

Lordship of Arsuf
Arsuf, located north of Jaffa, (called Arsur by the Crusaders) was captured in 1101 but remained a royal domain until around 1163 when John of Arsuf became lord. The lords of Arsuf were:

 * Royal domain, 1101–1163
 * John of Arsuf, 1163–1177
 * Arsuf occupied by Ayyubids, 1187–1191
 * Melisende of Arsuf, sister of John of Arsuf, 1177– at least 1218, with Thierry of Orguenes (c. 1190s)
 * John of Ibelin, husband of Melisende, before 1209–1236
 * John of Arsuf, son of Melisende of Arsuf and John of Ibelin, 1236–1258
 * Balian of Ibelin, 1258–1261
 * Arsuf sold to Knights Hospitaller, 1261
 * Arsuf taken by Mamluks, 1265
 * Balian of Ibelin, titular 1261–1277
 * John of Ibelin, son of Balian, 1277–1309
 * Balian of Ibelin, son of John, 1309–1333
 * Philip of Ibelin, son of Balian, 1333–1373.

Lordship of Bethlehem

 * Balian II of Ibelin (died before April 19, 1316), also titular Prince of Galilee.

Lordship of Bethsan
Bethsan was occupied by Tancred in 1099; it was never part of Galilee, despite its location, but became a royal domain in 1101, probably until around 1120. It occasionally passed back under royal control until new lords were created.

 * Adam of Bethune
 * Adam II, son of Adam
 * John, – after 1129
 * Guermond, son of Adam II, – after 1174
 * Hugh of Gibelet
 * Walter
 * Adam III
 * Guermond II, c. 1210
 * Baldwin
 * Walter, c. 1310?
 * Thibaut

Lordship of Blanchegarde
Blanchegarde (modern Tell es-Safi) was built by Fulk of Jerusalem in 1142, as part of the royal domain, and administered by the royal castellans. It became a lordship in 1166, when it was given to Walter III Brisebarre, lord of Beirut.

 * Walter III Brisebarre, 1166–1187
 * Blanchegarde taken by Ayyubids, 1191, 1192
 * Gilles, c. 1210
 * Raoul, ?–1265
 * Amalric Barlais, 1265–?

Lordship of Botrun
The Lordship of Botrun was a fief around the city Batrun from 1115:

 * Raymond of Agoult, before 1174
 * William Dorel, until 1174
 * Cecilia (Lucia), 1174–1181/1206; married Plivain
 * Isabella, 1206–1244; married Bohemond of Botron, son of Bohemond III
 * William, 1244–1262
 * John I, 1262–1277
 * Rudolf (Rostain), 1277–1289

Lordship of Caymont
Caymont was created in 1192 after the Third Crusade for Balian of Ibelin, who had lost his other territories to Saladin. It eventually passed into the royal domain.

Lordship of Dera
Little is known about Dera, except that it was created in 1118, during the reign of Baldwin II of Jerusalem.

Lordship of Hebron
Hebron, known to the Crusaders as "Castellion Saint Abraham", was one of the earliest seigneuries created. Hebron had been under royal control at various times before 1149. It had its own sub-vassal, the Lordship of Beth Gibelin, created by Fulk in 1149. Soon afterwards Hebron became a royal domain and Beth Gibelin passed to the Knights Hospitaller.

 * Geldemar Carpenel, 1100
 * Gerard of Avesnes, 1100–1101
 * Royal domain, 1102–1104
 * Hugh of Rebecques, 1104
 * Royal domain, 1104–1108
 * Walter Mahomet, 1108–1118
 * Royal domain, 1118–1120
 * Baldwin of Saint Abraham, 1120–1136
 * Hugh II of Saint Abraham, 1136–1149
 * Royal domain, 1149–1161
 * Hebron merged with Lordship of Oultrejordain, 1161
 * Under Ayyubid control, 1187–1191
 * Royal domain, 1191
 * Hebron destroyed by Khwarazmians, 1244.

Lordship of Montgisard
Montgisard (possibly Gezer) was built as a defense against Nur ad-Din, and was the site of the Battle of Montgisard in 1177.

 * William, c. 1155
 * John
 * Aimard, c. 1198
 * Reginald, c. 1200
 * William, c. 1230
 * Robert, c. 1240
 * Henry (?)
 * Balian, c. 1300
 * William
 * Baldwin
 * Robert
 * John
 * James, c. 1400.

Lordship of Nablus
Nablus was first captured in 1099 by Tancred, and named "Naples" by the Crusaders. It later became a separate lordship out of part of Oultrejordain. It was lost during Saladin's conquest of the kingdom.

 * Royal domain, 1099–
 * Pagan the Butler, 1126–?
 * Guy of Milly, ?–1142 or between 1138–1144
 * Philip of Milly, son of Guy, 1142 or between 1138–1144–1161
 * Maria Comnena, received the lordship from her first husband Amalric I of Jerusalem
 * Balian of Ibelin, 1177, Maria's second husband
 * Stephanie of Ibelin, sister of Balian
 * Nablus taken by Ayyubids, 1187.

Nablus was technically part of the royal domain, and also had a royal viscount, who governed in place of the monarch :

 * Ulric, 1115–1152
 * Baldwin Bubalus, c. 1159–1162
 * Baldwin, son of Ulric, c. 1162–1176
 * Amalric, c. 1176–1187.

Lordship of Scandalion
Scandelion, today's Iskandarouna in the Tyre District of the South Governorate of Lebanon, was built in 1116 as a royal domain. Denys Pringle quotes William of Tyre indicating the year 1117 for the date when Baldwin I has built the castle of Scandalion. It became a lordship by 1148 when Guy of Scandalion was created lord.

 * Guy of Scandalion, c. 1150
 * Peter
 * Raymond, c. 1200
 * William of Mandelee
 * Raymond
 * Philip, c. 1270
 * Humphrey, c. 1300
 * Eschiva, c. 1370.

Lordship of Tyre
Conrad of Montferrat practically created this lordship during the Third Crusade by defending it, as it was the only remaining town of the kingdom. Tyre, always an important town, had been part of the royal domain, and after Conrad, it also belonged to the kings personally. After the kingdom moved to Acre, coronations took place in Tyre. Sometime after 1246, Tyre was conferred upon Philip of Montfort by Henry I of Cyprus (then regent of Jerusalem) for his support of the Ibelin (baronial) party against the Imperialists. The grant was confirmed c. 1269 by Hugh III of Cyprus, with a clause allowing Hugh to buy back the lordship. This was exercised in 1284, when the city was given to his sister Margaret, already the dowager lady of Tyre. The lords of Tyre were:

 * Royal domain, 1124–1129
 * Fulk of Anjou, 1129–1131
 * Royal domain, 1131–1187
 * Conrad of Montferrat, 1190–1192
 * Royal domain. 1192–1246
 * Philip of Montfort, 1246–1269
 * John of Montfort, son of Philip, 1269–1283
 * Humphrey of Montfort, brother of John, 1283–1284
 * Royal domain, 1284–1289
 * Amalric of Lusignan, 1289–1291
 * Tyre taken by Mamluks, 1291.

Lordship of Joscelin III of Edessa
This lordship, often called the seigneurie de Joscelin, was an unusual creation given to Joscelin III, the nominal count of Edessa, which had been lost long before. It was created around 1176 when Joscelin married Agnes of Milly, and was formed from royal land around Acre. Joscelin had only daughters, who married into the families of von Henneberg and Mandelee. The heirs sold in 1220 the seigneury to the Teutonic Knights, who used the place near Acre as their fortress in Outremer. The archives of the lordship are the only baronial archives of Outremer to survive.

Inheritance in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
Lordships in the Kingdom of Jerusalem were usually hereditary, in principle, but in practice the circumstances were such that their holders did not form long uninterrupted lines of inheritance, which was contrary to the usual patterns of succession in Europe.

Firstly, in the early years of the kingdom, lords sought out their own territories, and lordships changed hands often. Secondly, the average lifespan of male lords in Palestine was rather low, due to the constant state of warfare and violence, which led to inheritances by females and/or extinction of whole families.

Succession from father to son happened more rarely than in more peaceful countries in Europe. Female succession opened up the option for the liege or the monarch to reward services, loyalty and capability, as well as achievements, by giving an heiress' hand in marriage and her inherited lordship to a "new man".

A typical succession pattern was a father followed by a daughter, sister, or niece, who was then married to a man worthy of some reward, who then himself succeeded to the territory. This made the succession unpredictable and caused the family holding a particular territory to change once or perhaps even more often in a generation.

Sometimes families became extinct, or escaped from Syria, and either a distant relative came to claim their land, or more usually, their liege gave the lordship to another family. Sometimes a lord was condemned for treason, rebellion or some other reason, and he and possibly his descendants were disinherited from the lordship.

Occasionally, vacant lordships were put into the royal domain, but more often, another person received the lordship. A less careful observer may think that they were not hereditary, but almost always their succession took place according to feudal rights of inheritance, utilizing the relatively high number of heiresses.

Many of these seigneuries ceased to exist after the loss of Jerusalem in 1187, and the rest of them after the fall of Acre in 1291, yet they often had Cypriot or European claimants for decades or centuries afterwards; these claimants, of course, held no actual territory in Syria after the mainland kingdom was lost.

title: Vassals of the Kingdom of Jerusalem


text:
Talk:Catholic views on God

Untitled
This was originally inserted in Divine, but since it's specifically about the Catholic perspective, I moved it here. And I have checked the sourse, The Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain. What this article needs is a good going-over for wikification, format, and a little NPOV. Have fun. Alcarillo 04:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * formatted it a bit. I hope it's better now. Sid 17:22, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Merge?
Please see Talk:God in Catholicism. PPEMES (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merged. PPEMES (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Catholic views on God


text:
Xu Bing

Xu Bing (born 1955) is a Chinese artist who served as vice-president of the Central Academy of Fine Arts. He is known for his printmaking skills and installation art, as well as his creative artistic use of language, words, and text and how they have affected our understanding of the world. He is an A.D. White Professor-at-Large at Cornell University. He was awarded the MacArthur Fellows Program in 1999 and the Fukuoka Prize in 2003.

Biography
Born in Chongqing in 1955, Xu grew up in Beijing. His father was the head of the history department at Peking University. In 1975, near the end of the Cultural Revolution, he was relocated to the countryside for two years as part of Mao Zedong's "re-education" policy. Returning to Beijing in 1977, he enrolled at the Central Academy of Fine Arts (CAFA) in Beijing, where he joined the printmaking department and also worked during a short period of time as a teacher, receiving his master's degree in Fine Art in 1987. After the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, his recent work came under scrutiny from the government and received harsh criticism for what was perceived as a critique of the Chinese government. Due to the political pressure and artistic restrictions of the post-Tiananmen period in China, Xu Bing, like many of his contemporaries, moved to the United States in 1990 where he was invited by the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He then resided to the United States until his appointment as vice-president of the Beijing CAFA in 2008.

In 1990–91, Xu had his first exhibition in the United States at the University of Wisconsin–Madison's Elvehjem Museum of Art (now Chazen Museum of Art) including his installations A Book from the Sky and Ghosts Pounding the Wall. In Book from the Sky, the artist invented 4,000 characters and hand-carved them into wood blocks, then used them as movable type to print volumes and scrolls, which are displayed laid out on the floor and hung from the ceiling. The vast planes of text seem to convey ancient wisdom, but are in fact unintelligible. The Glassy Surface of a Lake, a site-specific installation for the Elvehjem, was on view in 2004–05. In this work, a net of cast aluminum letters forming a passage from Henry David Thoreau's Walden stretches across the museum's atrium and pours down into an illegible pile of letters on the floor below.

Working in a wide range of media, Xu creates installations that question the idea of communicating meaning through language, demonstrating how both meanings and written words can be easily manipulated. He received a MacArthur Foundation grant in July 1999, presented to him for "originality, creativity, self-direction, and capacity to contribute importantly to society, particularly in printmaking and calligraphy."

In 2003 he exhibited at the then new Chinese Arts centre in Manchester, and in 2004 he won the inaugural "Artes Mundi" prize in Wales for Where does the dust collect itself?, an installation using dust he collected in New York City on the day after the destruction of the World Trade Center. He won also a half year of free work and study at the American Academy in Berlin 2004.

Xu Bing was appointed the new vice president of the Central Academy of Fine Arts, March 2008.

Early works
While at the Central Academy of Fine Arts Xu Bing mastered the Socialist Realism style of art so predominant during the Maoist era. After graduating with his degree in printmaking, the artist veered away and created simple but dramatic woodcuts, such as Shattered Jade (1977) and Bustling Village on the Water (1980–81, 繁忙的水乡). In 1987, Xu Bing returned to his training in printmaking to create large and elaborate installation pieces like Book from the Sky (1987) and Ghosts Pounding the Wall (1990).

A Book from the Sky
Xu Bing's Tianshu ("Book From the Sky") is a large installation featuring precisely laid out rows of books and hanging scrolls with written "Chinese" texts. Even so, this work challenges our very approach to language because of the unique nature of the text written on the paper. First presented in Beijing in 1988, the learned élite felt slighted by the artists' bold move to design and print over 4,000 characters that looked Chinese but were completely meaningless according to standard Mandarin. Xu Bing infuses his work with meaning by stirring confusion and discomfort in his audience, mostly due to the fact that the Chinese characters used in these texts are not "real" characters.

This piece was well received in China until 1989, whereupon the social and political drama of the Tiananmen Square protests led the government to look askance at Xu Bing's Tianshu. Leaving China in 1991 for the political and artistic freedom of the United States, Xu Bing continued to explore and express his thoughts on deconstructing language to challenge our most "natural" cultural assumptions. His thought-provoking work enticed Western audiences, and he soon became one of the leading artists in the modern Chinese art scene.

Ghosts Pounding the Wall
Using his background in print-making, in May and June 1990 Xu Bing and a team of art students and help from local residents began a monumental project: creating a rubbing from a section of the Great Wall at Jinshanling. In order to create the rubbings, Xu Bing used entirely traditional Chinese methods and materials for stone rubbing, including rice paper and ink. Measuring 32m x 15m, the resulting installation piece consists of 29 rubbings of different sections of the Great Wall.

As in the case of many of his works, Xu Bing directly related his colossal piece, Ghosts Pounding the Wall, to the political situation in China. While surveying his work while installed at Elvehjem Museum of Art, Xu Bing said that his Great Wall represents "a kind of thinking that makes no sense and is very conservative, a really closed-in thinking that symbolizes the isolationism of Chinese politics." The prints of the Great Wall rise up on either side of the exhibit, making the viewer seem small and insignificant in comparison to the massive, looming representations of solid stone walls.

Square Word Calligraphy

From 1994 he started a new project, in which he adapted Latin alphabets into the shape of hanzi. He called this New English Calligraphy, and gave lessons in how to write the characters.

Background Story
In his series Background Story, Xu Bing uses unusual materials in order to create a deceptively typical Chinese Scroll Painting. From the front, the piece very much resembles a traditional Shan Shui (Landscape) scroll painting, with images of mountains, trees, and rivers. However, when seen from behind, the viewer is surprised to find that the beautiful "painting" is in fact created by using the shapes and shadows of random natural plant debris. Once again, Xu Bing challenges his audience's basic assumptions and shows them that everything is not always as it first seems. In 2022, Xu Bing created a version of Background Story for Cornell University's Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art based on a Ming Dynasty work in its collection, Woodcutter in Winter Mountains, by Yang Xun. Through his reconsideration of the earlier landscape painting, the artist practices fang, a traditional form of artistic imitation.

Phoenix project
In 2008, after returning to China to take the position at the Central Academy of Fine Arts, Xu Bing was asked to create a sculpture for the atrium of the World Financial Center, which was then being developed in Beijing. He was shocked by primitive working conditions he saw at the construction site, later saying that they "made my skin quiver." He was inspired to construct two large sculptures in the form of birds that are made largely out of construction debris and tools that he salvaged from the site. The larger sculpture, 100 ft long, is identified as a male and named Feng in accordance with the Chinese phoenix tradition. The smaller one is 90 ft long and is a female named Huang. Originally planned to take four months, the sculptures ultimately took two years to build; by that time the developers of the complex had decided the sculptures did not meet their needs. They were displayed at the Today Art Museum in Beijing and at the Shanghai World Expo before coming to the United States in 2012. After a year at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, they were then moved to the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, where they were unveiled to the public on 1 March 2014. They were suspended from the ceiling of the nave, where they are now expected to spend about a year. The Phoenix sculpture is the subject of the documentary Xu Bing: Phoenix by Daniel Traub.

Later mediums
Xu Bing's art medium has evolved over the years, morphing from one style to the next: print-making and wood-block carving, installation art, live installation art, metalwork and sculpture, landscaping, and even virtual and digital mediums.

Taking installation art a step further, Xu Bing focused on live installation art by using animals in his exhibits, such as in the case of the Silkworm Series and a Case Study of Transference (using silkworms and pigs, respectively) in 1994, or by showcasing sheep in The Net (1997). Later he explored the combination of modern and traditional mediums, as in the case of Background Story (2004–present) where his work imitates a traditional Chinese brush and ink scroll from the front, but is in fact designed by means of the projected shadows of plants and sticks. Even more recently, Xu Bing has delved into sculpture and metalworking, as seen in Monkeys Grasping the Moon (2001) and the Phoenix Project (2010).

Influences and themes
Xu Bing's art mostly reflects cultural issues which raged during his early life in China. Most notably, the cultural and linguistic reforms enacted by the Communist Party in China under Mao Zedong's leadership weigh heavily on modern Chinese artists who lived through this period. Similarly, the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) also rankles the modern Chinese artistic consciousness even though different artists have focused on different angles. Xu Bing in particular plays with the notion of the paradox between the power and fickleness of language, of what it means to be human, and of how our perceptions color our worldview.

Xu Bing plays incessantly with the role, purpose, and reality of language. Early in his life his father would make him write a page of characters a day, encouraging him to not only copy their form to perfection, but also to capture their spirit, their essence. During Mao's cultural reformations and the reorganization of the standard Chinese language, Xu Bing experienced the constant reformation of words. This constant linguistic change influenced his art: Xu Bing emphasizes the immortality of the essence of language while vividly illustrating the impermanence and capriciousness of words themselves. In this way language becomes malleable and it can be fashioned to either liberate or control. Just as it is nigh impossible to detangle life from politics during the Cultural Revolution era (and its ramifications in decades to follow), Xu Bing also intertwines political messages into his art.

It was not until 2008 that Xu Bing set aside his post-Maoist reactionary art and invested in other topics. For example, he took on environmental projects such as Forest Project, which encouraged the "uninterrupted flow of funds from developed countries to Kenya, earmarked for the planting of new trees." Even so, his focus is always on the effect that environmental issues have on people, such as the villages in Kenya, not necessarily the effects on the landscape or on the political situation.

At the turn of the millennium, a new defining social pattern emerged after the terrorist attacks in the United States on 9/11, 2001. Tension grew between the West and the Middle East, finally exploding into what was labeled as "the War on Terror." This situation gave rise to social themes of anxiety and hopelessness, which eventually have seeped into the realm of the arts. Even so, some artists like Xu Bing chose to explore the serenity found in the midst of chaos, as illustrated in his work Where does the Dust Itself Collect? (2004, 2011). For this piece, the artist gathered dust from the aftermath of the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York after September 11, 2001, and uses it to recreate the gray film that covered Manhattan in the weeks following the attacks. Stenciled in the dust, a Buddhist poem reads, "As there is nothing from the first, where does the dust itself collect?" Using this tragedy as an expression of the human narrative, Xu Bing contemplates the relationship between the material and the spiritual, and he explores "the complicated circumstances created by different world perspectives."

Awards

 * Pollock Krasner Foundation Prize (1998)
 * MacArthur Award (1999)
 * Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize (2003)
 * American Academy in Berlin Coca-Cola Fellowship (2004)
 * Artes Mundi Prize (2004)
 * The Youth Friends Award, New York (2005)
 * International Association of Art Critics Award for "Best Installation or Single Work of Art in a Museum, New England" (2006)
 * Southern Graphics Council Lifetime Achievement Award (2006)
 * Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, Columbia University, New York (2010)

Partial list of works

 * Lanman Shanhua (Brilliant Mountain Flowers) Magazine (1975–1976)
 * A Book from the Sky (1987–1991)
 * Ghosts Pounding the Wall (1990–1991)
 * A.B.C.... (1991–1994)
 * Post Testament (1992–1993)
 * Brailliterate (1993)
 * A Case Study in Transference (1994)
 * Introduction to Square-Word Calligraphy (1994–1996)
 * Oxford Dictionary: Bird Definition (1994–1996)
 * American Silkworm Series (1995)
 * Lost Letters (1997)
 * Landscript Postcards (1999–2000)
 * Red Book (Tobacco Project) (2000)
 * Book from the Ground (2003–2012)
 * Ten Thousand Trees (2004)
 * Monkeys Grasping for the Moon (2008-ongoing)
 * Book from the Ground: from point to point (2013)

Films

 * The Enduring Passion for Ink (2013) by Britta Erickson

title: Xu Bing


text:
User:Andy5

Blah

title: User:Andy5


text:
Dubuque County Courthouse

The Dubuque County Courthouse is located on Central Avenue, between 7th and 8th Streets, in Dubuque, Iowa, United States. The current structure was built from 1891 to 1893 to replace an earlier building. These are believed to be the only two structures to house the county courts and administrative offices.

The courthouse houses several county government offices including the county auditor, treasurer, attorney, and facilities for the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County.

History
Information about the first courthouse in Dubuque is sparse. The first known attempt at a courthouse were the plans for a two-story log structure in 1836, but it was never built. By 1843 it was decided that the increased private business in Dubuque necessitated an increase in public business. Therefore, the county built a red brick building to house its records and offices. It is possible that this building was already under construction as there are records of expenditures for brick, lumber, lime, ironwork, and architectural fees dating back to 1839. An addition was built onto the front of this building in 1856. By 1869 there was talk of building a new courthouse as the county had outgrown this building and it was considered outdated and ill-shaped. Even after a petition for a new courthouse was presented in 1878, there was no serious movement toward construction until 1890.

The United States Congress had authorized the use of Washington Square for the new courthouse, but the choice was made to locate it on the site of the old one. County officials chose local architect Fridolin Heer, designer of Sacred Heart Church and several other notable buildings in the city. Twenty-five year bonds totaling $125,000 were sold in April 1891, and the cornerstone was laid on July 11 of the same year. The building was completed two years later.

The Dubuque County Courthouse was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1971. Its significance is derived from its association with county government, and the political power and prestige of Dubuque as the county seat. The adjacent Dubuque County Jail is a National Historic Landmark.

Architecture
Heer designed the structure in the Beaux-Arts style with elements of the Renaissance and the Romanesque styles. It is constructed of Bedford limestone on the first floor and red brick and molded terra cotta on the floors above. The frieze is composed of galvanized iron or zinc. The building has a footprint of 88 x. It is five-stories topped by a central tower surmounted by a 14 ft statue of Justice. All total, the building rises to a height of 213 ft. Upon completion, 12 classic statues of laminated pewter adorned the roof, however only six remain. Some reports say the others were removed during World War I to provide materiel for the war effort. The interior features the shaft of the tower that terminates on the fourth floor with a dome of stained glass. Woodwork and fittings are of oak with carvings that are done in a Richardsonian character.

Renovations
Renovations were done to the building over the years, especially in the 1980s. Changes include the installation of a glass elevator, a granite fountain was placed on the ground floor, and the entrances into the building were moved to the ground level from the second floor. Gold leaf was applied to the tower dome. Given the various weather conditions, it did not hold and it had to be repaired. The county reevaluated security at the courthouse following the murders of a judge in Georgia and a judge's family in Illinois. All entrances, but one, were closed and visitors and their possessions were screened.

title: Dubuque County Courthouse


text:
Talk:Saint Helena

Slaves
In the article, the writer says that the ban on importation of slaves prevented any increase in their numbers. It's hard to believe that statement hasn't already been edited out. Thr slave population which was already on the island managed to reproduce in the same manner as any other human population. Myboo127 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't that depend upon whether the children of slaves were accounted slaves or free? Different systems of slavery have treated children differently -- and in this case, though at the beginning of the importation ban the children of slaves were themselves slave, things changed:

"In 1792 a new set of slave laws were introduced to the island. Although the 42 Articles mostly concerned the correct treatment of slaves by their owners, Article 39 is of some interest: it stated that no new slaves could be imported to St. Helena. Anyone breaching this law would be fined £50 and also bear the cost of returning the slave to his or her place of origin. Although this did not end slavery on St. Helena it did mean that only existing slaves and their children would remain in slavery – a small but significant step forward.

"Fifteen years later, in 1807, the Slave trade was banned throughout the British Empire. This did not, however, free existing slaves. St. Helena had stopped importing slaves in 1792 so the new law had no impact on the island. In 1818, whilst admitting that nowhere in the world did slavery exist in a milder form than on St. Helena, Governor Lowe initiated the first step in emancipating the slaves by persuading slave owners to give all slave children born after Christmas of that year their freedom once they had reached their late teens. The phased emancipation of over 800 resident slaves began in 1827; under certain circumstances a slave could buy his or her freedom, using money borrowed from the East India Company." (https://www.sthelenaisland.info/slavery/)

Indeed,even earlier:

"A 1673 order from London stated that:

“'We also order that all negroes both men and women living on the said island that shall make profession of the Christian faith and be baptized shall within seven years after be free planters and enjoy the priveleges [sic] of free planters both of land and cattle.'” (https://www.sthelenaisland.info/slavery/)

87.114.237.245 (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

 * This reads like some pr person for England or St. Helena...Not one word about slavery..! Dont white wash your truth! 72.190.42.197 (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Saint Helena Product Exports (2019).svg

Economy section
Help is needed to rewrite the Economy section properly. At least, the introduction is inadequate, currently just a mishmash of facts (which are valid but just not in the right place). Drumstick21 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saint Helena


text:
Talk:History of Saint Helena

Untitled
"Two Japanese ambassadors to Rome landed at the island in 1581." I must say that nearly knocked my socks off. --Smack 04:37, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Why? Obviously it's not the Roman Empire :) I'm sure it means they visited the Pope. Adam Bishop 04:42, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Under construction
For explanation, see Talk:Saint Helena. 86.161.40.145 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Russel Wallace and Saint Helena ebony
In "Island Life", Alfred Russel Wallace (see the article) talked about deforestation, the impact of invasive species and about the impact of European colonization on Saint Helena. He refers to the early 18th century ebony (the wood) disappearing.

In this history article I shall wikilink the Saint Helena ebony plant as Trochetiopsis ebenus.--User:Brenont (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.historyofnations.net/africa/sainthelena.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Outline
Using the sources I listed above in the bibliography section I added, I’m going to expand this article through listing the impact of Saint Helena on Ecology and including it’s ecological past.

Saint Helena has been a very integral part of man's exploration of the Earth and development of sciences, especially the ecological sciences. When the island was first discovered, it was the most isolated and pristine pieces of land every encountered by humans. This, along with it's relative small size, allowed ecologists to study the affects of man and time with limited variables. Richard Grove, Author of Green Imperialism, along with other essays, explains how imperialist deforestation of Saint Helena made apparent for the first time the devastating affects humans can have on the world around them. Saint Helena's natural beauty has also be referenced in fictional literature, such as the man in the moone by Francis Godwin.

There are also numerous analytical studies performed on the island of Saint Helena due to it's ideal size and isolation. Some of the articles expressing the findings of the experiments include Q. C. B. Cronk's article on Endemic Flora and a collaborative article about the success of passeriform bird introductions. These articles also provide a good overview of the history of the island and causes for the natural ecosystem.

Peer Review
The lead-in section of this article is definitely understandable but does not necessarily summarize the main points of the rest of the article. I really liked the second sentence that starts with "Claiming to be Britain's second oldest colony..." since I thought that gave a good synopsis of why the island might be important. However, I thought that it could have at least briefly touched on the major topics that the rest of the article gets into, for example expanding upon the importance of shipping and how the island was used for that. If nothing else, the lead-in section could be expanded by at least another paragraph or two to include some of the key points. In regard to the structure, I felt that some of the positives were the headings and subheadings, as these divided up the article very well and they will make it easy to follow while reading the article and searching for information. There were some external links which could also be followed for more information, and I really didn't see the need for additional appendices or footnotes. I think the weakest part of the article's structure is when it comes to images and diagrams, as there are only two very small pictures for an entire article that is mostly large blocks of text. This could easily make the article too dense and difficult to follow, so I think working in more pictures and/or diagrams would be a definite must. The article is arranged chronologically, so that does aid in making it easy to follow.

As a whole, I thought the article was balanced very well. There was no single section that received too much coverage, and the sections that were a lot longer than others were justified as they also were sections that covered the longer spans of time as well (e.g. section with 150 year span of history was longer than section with 30 year span of history). Thus, these sections deservedly received more coverage than others. As an extension of coverage, the article coverage was for the most part neutral and unbiased. It seems hard to include any type of negative elements into an article about the history of an island, and as a whole the article does a great job with staying neutral. Finally, this article has plenty of footnotes, many from books and government sources. This is definitely a positive for this element. One drawback was that there seemed to be some sources cited from newspaper articles and a few other questionable sources that may contain some bias in their writings, and there didn't seem to be many journal articles cited, so maybe more emphasis could be placed on finding scholarly journal article sources and less on newspaper articles or websites. As a whole, the article is well put together and with a little more work can be a very strong contribution to the Wikipedia community. Srk017 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
I will be evaluating the entry with the heading "Ecological History of Saint Helena." First, I will address what I think worked well in this section. For one, there appeared to be a very neutral perspective; there was no clear bias in the writing that would lead a reader to question the credibility of the information. Additionally, the author cited two credible sources, both written by Richard Grove, a respected authority on environmental issues, which seem to offer valuable information about the subject matter. Finally, the section seems to offer a wealth of valuable information about the subject matter.

Now, I will address where the article falters and where some improvements might be made. First off, I think that the section might be more appropriately titled "Ecological Significance of Saint Helena," as the section mostly discusses the importance of Saint Helena to the study of ecology. In other words, the section is focused on the ways that the history Saint Helena has shaped ecology, and not so much the ways that ecology has shaped the history of Saint Helena. Next, I think the grammar and language could be improved; the section contains a number of typos and grammatical mistakes, which makes it difficult to decipher the meaning of some of the sentences. Finally, I think the structure of the section might be altered to paint a more cohesive picture of Saint Helena's ecological signficiance. For example, the author first addresses the heavy deforestation that occurred on Saint Helena, then makes an offhanded comment about the Foresters, and then returns to a discussion about deforestation. Maybe if these two thoughts were paired at the end (even if they do not pair chronologically), the section would gain some cohesion. All told, I think the article is well cited, unbiased, and informative, but if it was more clearly written, reorganized, and retitled, I think it would be much more effective.

Aleary1 (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Aidan

Further comments
I also wanted to add a few comments here. I think the two peer reviews above offer very helpful and insightful feedback on structure, images/text balance, the neutral perspective, mechanical issues (grammar, sentence structure), and headings/titles. They also point out the relative strengths and areas for improvement. This is an important article and I'm glad you selected it to work on. My feedback is mostly regarding the content and where you might go from here. You emphasize Grove's analysis of the importance of islands for understanding deforestation. I think you can say much more about why this was so at the time, and how islands have since continued to play similar roles in the history of ecology. I also thought you could say more about what the Forsters' studied on the island. What questions did they have? What materials did they collect? What were their conclusions? Third, I thought you could continue the discussion of the history of ecological study on the island further in time, as I'm sure your sources indicate other studies done in the 19th and 20th centuries. Finally, I thought the content could take advantage of Wikipedia's other entries by cross-linking certain concepts or people to other Wikipedia pages. Looking forward to more! --Enstandrew (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Saint Helena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.g4g4.com/pMyCD5/HISTORY/GAZ2.DOC
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326173143/http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/st-helena-proj-memo.pdf to http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/st-helena-proj-memo.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409220655/http://www.bweaver.nom.sh/ to http://www.bweaver.nom.sh/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of Saint Helena


text:
Asch conformity experiments

In psychology, the Asch conformity experiments or the Asch paradigm were a series of studies directed by Solomon Asch studying if and how individuals yielded to or defied a majority group and the effect of such influences on beliefs and opinions.

Developed in the 1950s, the methodology remains in use by many researchers. Uses include the study of conformity effects of task importance, age, sex,    and culture.

Rationale
Many early studies in social psychology were adaptations of earlier work on "suggestibility" whereby researchers such as Edward L. Thorndyke were able to shift the preferences of adult subjects towards majority or expert opinion. Still the question remained as to whether subject opinions were actually able to be changed, or if such experiments were simply documenting a Hawthorne effect in which participants simply gave researchers the answers they wanted to hear. Solomon Asch's experiments on group conformity mark a departure from these earlier studies by removing investigator influence from experimental conditions.

In 1951, Asch conducted his first conformity laboratory experiments at Swarthmore College, laying the foundation for his remaining conformity studies. The experiment was published on two occasions.

Method

Groups of eight male college students participated in a simple "perceptual" task. In reality, all but one of the participants were actors, and the true focus of the study was about how the remaining participant would react to the actors' behavior.

The actors knew the true aim of the experiment, but were introduced to the subject as other participants. Each student viewed a card with a line on it, followed by another with three lines labeled A, B, and C (see accompanying figure). One of these lines was identical in length to that on the first card, and the other two lines were clearly longer or shorter (i.e., a near-100% rate of correct responding was expected). Each participant was then asked to say aloud which line matched the length of that on the first card. Before the experiment, all actors were given detailed instructions on how they should respond to each trial (card presentation). They would always unanimously nominate one comparator, but on certain trials they would give the correct response and on others, an incorrect response. The group was seated such that the real participant always responded last.

Subjects completed 18 trials. On the first two trials, both the subject and the actors gave the obvious, correct answer. On the third trial, the actors would all give the same wrong answer. This wrong-responding recurred on 11 of the remaining 15 trials. It was subjects' behavior on these 12 "critical trials" (the 3rd trial + the 11 trials where the actors gave the same wrong answer) that formed the aim of the study: to test how many subjects would change their answer to conform to those of the 7 actors, despite it being wrong. Subjects were interviewed after the study including being debriefed about the true purpose of the study. These post-test interviews shed valuable light on the study —both because they revealed subjects often were "just going along", and because they revealed considerable individual differences to Asch. Additional trials with slightly altered conditions were also run, including having a single actor also give the correct answer.

Asch's experiment also had a condition in which participants were tested alone with only the experimenter in the room. In total, there were 50 subjects in the experimental condition and 37 in the control condition.

Results
In the control group, with no pressure to conform to actors, the error rate on the critical stimuli was less than 0.7%.

In the actor condition also, the majority of participants' responses remained correct (64.3%), but a sizable minority of responses conformed to the actors' (incorrect) answer (35.7%). The responses revealed strong individual differences: 12% of participants followed the group in nearly all of the tests. 26% of the sample consistently defied majority opinion, with the rest conforming on some trials. An examination of all critical trials in the experimental group revealed that one-third of all responses were incorrect. These incorrect responses often matched the incorrect response of the majority group (i.e., actors). Overall, 74% of participants gave at least one incorrect answer out of the 12 critical trials. Regarding the study results, Asch stated: "That intelligent, well-meaning young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern."

Interview responses
Participants' interview responses revealed a complex mixture of individual differences in subjects' reaction to the experimental situation, with distinct reactions linked to factors such as confidence, self-doubt, the desire to be normative, and resolving perceived confusion over the nature of the task.

Asch's report included interviews of a subject that remained "independent" and another that "yielded". Each provided a descriptive account following disclosure of the true nature of the experiment. The "independent" subject said that he felt happy and relieved and added, "I do not deny that at times I had the feeling: 'to go with it   [...] I'll go along with the rest. At the other end of the spectrum, one "yielding" subject (who conformed in 11 of 12 critical trials) said, "I suspected about the middle —but tried to push it out of my mind." Asch points out that although the "yielding" subject was suspicious, he was not sufficiently confident to go against the majority.

Attitudes of independent responders
Subjects who did not conform to the majority reacted either with "confidence": they experienced conflict between their idea of the obvious answer and the group's incorrect answer, but stuck with their own answer, or were "withdrawn". These latter subjects stuck with their perception but did not experience conflict in doing so. Some participants also exhibited "doubt", responding in accordance with their perception, but questioning their own judgment while nonetheless sticking to their (correct) response, expressing this as needing to behave as they had been asked to do in the task.

Attitudes of responders conforming on one or more trials
Participants who conformed to the majority on at least 50% of trials reported reacting with what Asch called a "distortion of perception". These participants, who made up a distinct minority (only 12 subjects), expressed the belief that the actors' answers were correct, and were apparently unaware that the majority were giving incorrect answers.

Among the other participants who yielded on some trials, most expressed what Asch termed "distortion of judgment". These participants concluded after a number of trials that they must be wrongly interpreting the stimuli and that the majority must be right, leading them to answer with the majority. These individuals were characterized by low levels of confidence. The final group of participants who yielded on at least some trials exhibited a "distortion of action". These subjects reported that they knew what the correct answer was, but conformed with the majority group simply because they didn't want to seem out of step by not going along with the rest. All conforming respondents underestimated the frequency with which they conformed to the majority.

Variations on the original paradigm

In subsequent research experiments, Asch explored several variations on the paradigm from his 1951 study.

In 1955 he reported on work with 123 male students from three different universities. A second paper in 1956 also consisted of 123 male college students from three different universities. Asch did not state if this was in fact the same sample as reported in his 1955 paper; the principal difference is that the 1956 paper includes an elaborate account of his interviews with participants. Across all these papers, Asch found the same results: participants conformed to the majority group in about one-third of all critical trials.

 * Presence of a true partner
 * Asch found that the presence of a "true partner" (a "real" participant or another actor told to give the correct response to each question) decreased conformity. In studies that had one actor give correct responses to the questions, only 5% of the participants continued to answer with the majority. In subsequent interviews, subjects claimed a degree of "warmth"  and "closeness" towards the partner, and attributed an increase in confidence to their presence. Still, subjects rejected the notion that it was the partner who allowed them to answer independently.

Partner dissent and accuracy

 * Experiments were also designed to determine if the partner effect on subject conformity was due to the partner's dissent from the majority or their accuracy in answering questions. In one experiment, Asch identified two classes of dissenter: "extremist" (under this condition, dissenters always chose the worst of the comparison lines and the majority chose the line closest to the standard in length) and "compromising" (dissenter: closest to standard; majority: worst comparison line). In compromising dissenter trials, subject conformity decreased overall and when they did conform, they conformed to the dissenter, not the majority. Compromising dissenters were seen to control the "choice of errors". In trials with an extremist dissenter, subject conformity decreased dramatically with only 9% of respondents continuing to answer with the majority. Therefore, partner dissent was found to increase independence, moderating errors (conformity).

 * Withdrawal of a partner
 * Asch also examined whether the removal of a true partner partway through the experiment influenced participants' level of conformity. He found low levels of conformity during the first half of the experiment. However, halfway through the experiment the partner rejoined the majority, answering in lockstep with the group. When their partner switched, the subject conformity rose to levels consistent to if they had never had a partner at all. Asch classified this finding as a "desertion" effect. In a variant of this study, the partner left the experiment halfway-through altogether (an excuse was provided for their departure). Under these conditions, the partner's influence lingered through the second half of the experiment; the subject's conformity to the group increased after the partner's departure, but not as drastically if the partner was perceived as having switched sides.

 * Majority size
 * Asch also examined whether decreasing or increasing the majority size had an influence on participants' level of conformity.  When paired with a single individual who opposed their answers, the subject retained high levels of independence in their answers. Increasing the opposing group to two or three persons increased conformity substantially. Increases beyond three persons (e.g., four, five, six, etc.) did not further-increase conformity.

 * Written responses
 * Asch also varied the method of participants' responding in studies where actors verbalized their responses aloud but the "real" participant responded in writing at the end of each trial. Conformity significantly decreased when shifting from public to written responses.

Degree of wrongness

 * Another research question examined by Asch was whether varying the magnitude of majority "wrongness" affected subject conformity to group norms. To answer this question, the difference between the reference line and three comparison lines was systematically increased to determine if there was a point where the extremity of the majority's error affected subject conformity. The authors failed to find a point at which subject conformity to the majority was completely eliminated, even when the disparity between lines was increased to 7 inches.
 * The Role of the Asch Experiment and Social Interaction In the replication of the Asch Experiment, particularly in studies within the field of economics, the impact of monetary incentives has been investigated. Although the rewards used in the replication may bear less resemblance to real-life decision-making processes, important findings regarding the influence of monetary incentives on group pressure have been obtained.  The Influence of Political Views  Group pressure's impact on political views has been explored in settings akin to the Asch Experiment. These inquiries have demonstrated that group pressure can sway political opinions. The Crutchfield Experiment is noteworthy in this regard as it serves as a tool to comprehend the social sway on political stances. The Crutchfield Experiment elucidates how individuals respond under group pressure and the extent to which their perceptions can be swayed.  Participants find themselves alone in a scenario where they evaluate a series of light combinations; however, they are actually privy to the responses of other participants and tend to adhere to group norms. This experiment furnishes a pivotal model for grasping the social influence on political views.  The Role of Individual Differences
 * Lastly, studies have examined personality traits that resist or succumb to group pressure in Asch experiments. Individual characteristics such as intelligence, self-esteem, and the need for social approval have been scrutinized for their impact on conformity. These studies have illustrated that different personality traits exert varying effects on conformity under group pressure.Individual differences are a topic that allows the study of unique characteristics and behavioral differences between individuals. Researchers such as Crutchfield and others have examined the relationship between personality traits and compliance behavior. For example, low agreeableness rates have been found to be associated with characteristics such as intellectual competence and leadership ability. However, the relationship between intelligence and adaptation is not clear. The effects of self-esteem and the need for social approval on adjustment have also been investigated. The effect of gender on adjustment has also been examined, but the results are conflicting. "Research in this area makes an important contribution to understanding differences between individuals.

Normative influence vs. referent informational influence
The Asch conformity experiments are often interpreted as evidence for the power of conformity and normative social influence,  where normative influence is the willingness to conform publicly to attain social reward and avoid social punishment. From this perspective, the results are viewed as a striking example of people publicly endorsing the group response despite knowing full well that they were endorsing an incorrect response.

Similarly, Jerry M. Burger admits the normative influence effect of the experiment in Chapter 21 of Noba online book. He mentioned that people follow the crowd to avoid potential criticism. During Asch's experiment, participants choose the wrong answer to keep the association with the group. The demonstration in this experiment broadens people's understanding of the large application of normative influence. To stay consistent with other group members, people may follow a trend that is apparently wrong. Moreover, the behavior of normative conformity may reduce when the individual response is not accessible to other people. This phenomenon further stresses the social role in normative influence.

In contrast, John Turner and colleagues argue that the interpretation of the Asch conformity experiments as normative influence is inconsistent with the data. They point out that post-experiment interviews revealed that participants experienced uncertainty about their judgement during the experiments. Although the correct answer appeared obvious to the researchers, this was not necessarily the experience of participants. Subsequent research has demonstrated similar patterns of conformity where participants were anonymous and thus not subject to social punishment or reward on the basis of their responses. From this perspective, the Asch conformity experiments are viewed as evidence for the self-categorization theory account of social influence (otherwise known as the theory of referent informational influence). Here, the observed conformity is an example of depersonalization processes, whereby people expect to hold the same opinions as others in their ingroup and will often adopt those opinions.

Social comparison theory
The conformity demonstrated in Asch experiments may contradict aspects of social comparison theory. Social comparison theory suggests that, when seeking to validate opinions and abilities, people will first turn to direct observation. If direct observation is ineffective or not available, people will then turn to comparable others for validation. In other words, social comparison theory predicts that social reality testing will arise when physical reality testing yields uncertainty. The Asch conformity experiments demonstrate that uncertainty can arise as an outcome of social reality testing. More broadly, this inconsistency has been used to support the position that the theoretical distinction between social reality testing and physical reality testing is untenable.

Selective representation in textbooks and the media
Asch's 1956 report emphasized the predominance of independence over yielding saying "the facts that were being judged were, under the circumstances, the most decisive." However, a 1990 survey of US social psychology textbooks found that most ignored independence, instead reported a misleading summary of the results as reflecting complete power of the situation to produce conformity of behavior and belief.

A 2015 survey found no change, with just 1 of 20 major texts reporting that most participant-responses defied majority opinion. No text mentioned that 95% of subjects defied the majority at least once. Nineteen of the 20 books made no mention of Asch's interview data in which many participants said they were certain all along that the actors were wrong. This portrayal of the Asch studies was suggested to fit with social psychology narratives of situationism, obedience and conformity, to the neglect of recognition of disobedience of immoral commands (e.g., disobedience shown by participants in Milgram Studies), desire for fair treatment (e.g., resistance to tyranny shown by many participants in the Stanford prison studies) and self-determination.

title: Asch conformity experiments