text:
Józef Oleksy

Józef Oleksy (22 June 1946 – 9 January 2015) was a Polish left-wing politician who served as Prime Minister of Poland from 7 March 1995 to 7 February 1996, when he resigned due to espionage allegations. He was chairman of the Democratic Left Alliance (Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej, SLD).

Early life and education
In his youth he lived in Nowy Sącz, and was an altar boy at St. Margaret church. He graduated from Kazimierz Brodziński High School in Tarnów. Later on, he graduated from the Faculty of Foreign Trade of the Warsaw School of Planning and Statistics (currently SGH Warsaw School of Economics). He obtained a doctoral degree in economics. He was a dean and lecturer at the Faculty of International Relations at the SGH Warsaw School of Economics and the Vistula University in Warsaw.

Career
From 1968 to 1990 he was a member of the communist Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR). He was a member of the board of the main Socialist Union of Polish Students. He chaired the National Council of Young Scientists. He was the secretary of the PZPR University Committee at the Warsaw School of Planning and Statistics. In 1977 he went to work in party apparatus at the Department of Ideological and Educational Work of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party. From 1981 to the X Congress of the Party, he headed the office of the Central Committee of the Party. In 1987-1989 he was the First Secretary of the Provincial Party Committee in Biala Podlaska. In 1989, he served as Minister-Council member for cooperation with trade unions. In the same year he took part in the round table talks on the government side. Oleksy represented the Communist leadership in round table talks with the opposition Solidarity movement in early 1989.

In 1990 he was one of the founders of the Social Democracy of the Republic of Poland, he was the chairman of this party from 28 January 1996 to 6 December 1997, and co-founded the Democratic Left Alliance in 1999. In the years 1989–2005, he was the member of the Sejm.

In the years 1993-1995 he was the Marshal of the Sejm. From 7 March 1995 to 7 February 1996, he served as Prime Minister of Poland. He resigned after being accused by Interior Minister Andrzej Milczanowski for spying for Russia under the pseudonym "Olin". These allegations have never been confirmed.

In the years 2001-2005 he was a chairman of the European Union Committee in the Sejm which was responsible for aligning all Polish laws and regulations before Poland joined European Union in 2004. In 2004 he was a member of the European Parliament and the Convention on the Future of Europe, which was responsible to produce a draft constitution for the European Union for the European Council to finalise and adopt.

In early 2004 he took the office of the Minister of Internal Affairs. Between 21 April 2004 and 5 January 2005 he was the Marshal of the Sejm.

A record of a private conversation Jozef Oleksy had with one of Poland's richest businessmen Aleksander Gudzowaty "leaked" to the media on 22 March 2007. The tapes suggested corruption in the SLD party. Oleksy accused former president Aleksander Kwaśniewski of illegal financial procedures, and spoke very harshly of then SLD leader Wojciech Olejniczak and several other members of the party. He soon left the SLD. He re-joined the SLD on 1 February 2010 and on 12 May 2012 he became vice-president of this party.

Private life
Józef Oleksy was married to Maria Oleksy. He had two children.

Since 2005 he had been struggling with cancer. He died on 9 January 2015. Funeral ceremonies with representatives of the state authorities, including President Bronisław Komorowski, Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz and Marshal of the Sejm Radosław Sikorski, took place on 16 January 2015 in the Field Cathedral of the Polish Army in Warsaw. Józef Oleksy was buried at the Powązki Military Cemetery.

Honours and awards

 * 🇵🇱 Poland :
 * Grand Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta (2015, posthumously)
 * Officer's Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta
 * Knight's Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta (1984)
 * Silver Cross of Merit (1972)
 * Medal of Merit for National Defence
 * 🇩🇪 Germany : Grand Cross 1st Class Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
 * 🇱🇹 Lithuania :Grand Commander Cross of the Order for Merits to Lithuania (2004)

title: Józef Oleksy


text:
User talk:Burnsanthony

I removed your create a timeline material to the talk page because it doesn't seem to fit our purpose as an encyclopedia. If you would like to use your information to create a "Wiki" Timeline of philosophers that would certainly be an asset. It would probably fit under the History section (although we could probably use some new section headings to better cover everything.) I would also suggest we delete your Make your own horizontal timeline since it is not encyclopedic. But I will await your response before listing it for Deletion. Rmhermen 22:03, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Burnsanthony


text:
Hetton-le-Hole

Hetton-le-Hole is a town and civil parish in the City of Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, England. It is in the historic county of Durham. A182 runs through the town, between Houghton-le-Spring and Easington Lane (the latter borders the County Durham District), off the A690 and close to the A1(M).

The parish, which includes the villages of Easington Lane and Warden Law, had a population of 14,402 in 2001. The parish also includes Hetton proper, along with East Rainton, Middle Rainton (West Rainton is a separate parish), Low Moorsley and High Moorsley.

Great Eppleton Wind Farm, a wind farm originally of four dual-bladed alternators, provides electricity to the National Grid. The original wind turbines have been replaced by larger three-bladed versions. The turbines are far enough away from local houses not to cause any audible disturbance.

History
The history of the Hetton area can be traced back for up to a thousand years. The name of Hetton-le-Hole derives from two Anglo-Saxon words which were spelt together "Heppedune", meaning Bramble Hill. The name was adopted by a local landowning family, the le Hepdons, who owned part of the Manor. The ancient manor, which was bounded by that of Elemore, was divided into two parts known as Hetton-on-the-Hill and Hetton-in-the-Hole. The latter, a more sheltered vicinity, was where the village arose. Records exist of the many holders of the manor back to the 14th century. William de Hepdon held half the Manor by deed in 1363 and in 1380 William de Dalden held the other half. Even earlier charters go back to 1187 and mention the early village of Heppedune, its people, houses, crofts, oxgangs and strips of land for the villagers in the three great fields around the settlement. In 1187 Bertram de Heppedune held the manor for the King; other de Hepdons were his descendants.

Coal mining
By 1896, Hetton-le-Hole was a mining village in its own right; the district parish of Eppleton had been  formed from Hetton-le-Hole  which, by then, included that part of Hetton-le-Hole known as  the "Downs". The village "comprised an area of 512 acres, with a population of 5,000".

Coal has been mined in the surrounding area since Roman times. Coal was then obtained by drift mining, but by the 14th century shafts were used. In 1819 the Hetton Coal Company was formed and its first shaft was sunk a year later. It was a highly controversial undertaking, with geologists doubtful as to whether coal of any value existed there. The Hetton Coal Company's owners also decided to build a wagonway from their new Hetton colliery to the River Wear at Sunderland. George Stephenson was hired to build the 8 mi line. The trains were powered by gravity down the inclines and by locomotives for its level and upward stretches. It was the first railway to use no animal power at all. These methods were used until 1959, as was some of the original machinery.

This was the scene of one of the earliest fatalities on railway lines, the "Hetton Wagonway Disaster" of Saturday 26 February 1831. Two Primitive Methodist Ministers were walking along the wagonway to Hetton when they saw some wagons approaching on the line on which they were walking. They moved to the adjacent line but had not seen wagons approaching from the other direction. John Hewson was killed outright, John Branfoot died a few hours later.

These activities led to a rapid increase in the size of Hetton and over 200 houses for the miners were built at once. These have all but gone now, but twelve of these former mining cottages from Francis Street in the Hetton Downs area of the town were re-erected stone by stone at Beamish Open Air Museum, Stanley, near Chester-le-Street. The UK miners' strike (1984–1985) brought about hardship for many of the workers. Two local unsigned bands (The Pigeon Fanciers and Haswell Crisis) recorded and released a single to raise money for the families and to recognise the contribution made by miners over the years in their locality. Their adapted version of a Bob Dylan classic failed to chart, but the project made a slight profit as local support from other mining communities ensured that 'Knocking on Hetton's Floor' sold more than 1000 copies.

Hetton Colliery closed in 1950, Elemore Colliery closed in 1974 and Eppleton Colliery closed in 1986. Today, nothing exists of the mines in Hetton; the former mine complexes have disappeared and spoil tips have been removed, although some remain in nearby Haswell. The area surrounding Hetton Colliery has been landscaped and is now occupied by a lake and leisure facilities. Eppleton Colliery has been landscaped, and all that remains is the Hetton Centre (the former Colliery Welfare building) and the Eppleton Colliery Welfare Ground which hosts the home games of Sunderland A.F.C. Women and Sunderland U23s. There is also a quarry where sand is mined. This is now undergoing a reformation; around 15% of it has been smoothed and grassed over.

The decommissioned St Nicholas' Church in Front Street was destroyed by fire in November 2006. It is unknown if arson was the cause. It had previously been listed due to its architectural significance.

Civil parish
Hetton le Hole became a civil parish in 1866, on 1 April 1937 the parish of "Hetton le Hole" was abolished and merged with East Rainton, Great Eppleton, Little Eppleton, Moorsley and Pittington to form a parish called simply "Hetton". In 1931 the parish of "Hetton le Hole" had a population of 17,665.

Notable people

 * Terence Burns, Baron Burns, economist

Sport

 * Thomas Adey, former footballer
 * Allan Ball, former footballer, honorary director of Queen of the South
 * Ralph Coates, former football player (Burnley and Tottenham Hotspur)
 * Jordan Cook, footballer who plays for Hartlepool United
 * Bobby Cram, former footballer (West Bromwich Albion and Colchester United)
 * Bob Paisley, former football player and manager (Liverpool)
 * Harry Potts, former football player and manager (Burnley)
 * Bryan "Pop" Robson, former footballer (Sunderland and Newcastle United)

Music

 * Trevor Horn, record producer and recording artist
 * Albert H. Oswald (1879–1929), composer of light music

title: Hetton-le-Hole


text:
User talk:BakaElf

Thanks for your kind words about my contributions to Revolutionary Girl Utena! I was wondering if anyone had noticed :) Utena's my favorite anime, and it deserves the best I can give it.  I've been thinking about separating out the pages for the anime and movie, but this leaves open the question of what to do with the manga (which I haven't read).  The work you've done on Utena has also been grand. --SatyrEyes 21:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi BakaElf, welcome to Wikipedia. There's a welcoming Committee who I'm sure will be round to welcome you properly at some point but I just wanted to say hello. I liked your Takarazuka Revue article, you should have some more confidence in yourself, it's a good article! Have fun editing, if you want to ask anything you could try my talk page or the Village Pump. -- Ams80 22:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

pirate?
pirate! bunnyhero 02:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

how come i can't "add as friend" on wikipedia? bunnyhero 01:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Glomp listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Glomp. Since you had some involvement with the Glomp redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:BakaElf


text:
Mary Williamson Harriman

Mary Williamson Averell Harriman (July 22, 1851 – November 7, 1932) was an American philanthropist and the wife of railroad executive E. H. Harriman. Born in New York to a successful family, Averell married Harriman in 1879. Averell's father introduced Harriman to the railroad business. After Harriman's death, his wife was left with between $70 and $100 million. She became dedicated to philanthropy, donating the land that became Harriman State Park and largely funding the development of the controversial Eugenics Record Office. Averell had several children; her son, W. Averell Harriman became governor of New York and her daughter Mary Harriman Rumsey founded the Junior League.

Early life
Mary Williamson Averell was born on July 22, 1851, in New York City. She was tutored at home and completed her education at a finishing school with the "expectation that one day she would become a fine wife and mother for some young man of equal or greater social standing than the Averells." Mary's father, William J. Averell, was a successful New York banker and president of the Ogdensburg and Lake Champlain Railroad.

Adulthood
In Averell's late twenties, she met 31-year-old Edward Henry Harriman, a rising stockbroker and businessman, whom she married on August 10, 1879. After her marriage, her father offered her husband a seat on his railroad's board, which led to a career in railroads and an extraordinary fortune. In 1886, that fortune allowed E. H. to purchase 7863 acre of heavily forested land on the western shore of the Hudson River at Highland Falls in New York; this was expanded to 20000 acre within two years by the purchase of 40 additional properties. The estate, named Arden, came to include dairying, horse breeding and mining. As one of his neighbors put it, "He collects mountains as other men collect china."

By the start of the 20th century, lumbering and quarries were beginning to encroach on the tranquility of the region. When, in 1909, the state of New York acquired a parcel of land at Bear Mountain to build a new prison, Harriman approached New York Governor Charles Evans Hughes with a proposal to extend the Palisades Interstate Park with a donation of thousands of acres and one million dollars as an endowment for its management if the governor would agree to locate the prison somewhere else. In September 1909, E.H. Harriman died, but the offer was ultimately accepted, and Mary and her son Averell completed the gift.

Later life and philanthropy
After her husband's death in 1909, Harriman continued to manage her considerable empire, valued between $70 and $100 million. As one commentator noted, her "lifelong interest in philanthropy was about to become a profession." One of her first undertakings was to fulfill E.H.'s vision of an immense state park. In 1910, Mary donated 10000 acre of the Arden estate to the State of New York, leading to the creation of Harriman State Park as an extension of the Palisades Interstate Park, along with the $1 million dollar endowment for its management. She made it conditional upon others contributing $1.5 million and the State of New York matching these funds with an added $2.5 million. She received the National Institute of Social Sciences Gold Medal in 1925 and the Pugsley Gold Medal in 1929 "...for her services in the establishment of the Palisades Interstate Park."

This was to be the start of a life dedicated to philanthropy. Monies were contributed to The Boys' Club of New York that E.H. loved and supported, to the American Red Cross, to John Muir to help save the Yosemite Valley and to Yale University for an endowed chair of Forestry. She also supported a number of artists, including especially sculptor Malvina Hoffman, whose bust of Harriman is still on display in Arden House.

In her married years Harriman was a strong, silent, and supportive wife. After her husband's death, she became a leader in American philanthropy, donating her personal and private resources to improve the world around her. But many today would regard it as a serious blot on her reputation that she gave over a half-million dollars to the Eugenics Record Office, upon the encouragement of her friend David Starr Jordan. In 1913, she created the E. H. Harriman Award in her late husband's honor to recognize outstanding achievements in railway safety; the award is still presented on an annual basis today.

Personal life
The Harrimans had six children:

 * Mary Harriman (1881–1934), who in 1901, as a 19-year-old New York City debutante, formed the Junior League. Mary married Charles Cary Rumsey (1879–1922), sculptor and polo player
 * Henry Neilson Harriman (b. 1883)
 * Cornelia Harriman (1884–1966)
 * Carol Harriman (b. 1889)
 * William Averell Harriman (1891–1986), who in 1955 became the Governor of New York. He married Kitty Lanier Lawrence, then Marie Norton Whitney, and lastly to Pamela Beryl Digby Churchill Hayward
 * Edward Roland Noel Harriman (1895–1978), who married Gladys Fries (1896–1983)

Mary W. Harriman died on November 7, 1932, in Manhattan, New York.

title: Mary Williamson Harriman


text:
Charles Stevenson (philosopher)

Charles Leslie Stevenson (June 27, 1908 – March 14, 1979) was an American analytic philosopher best known for his work in ethics and aesthetics.

Biography
Stevenson was born on June 27, 1908, in Cincinnati, Ohio. He was educated at Yale, receiving in 1930 a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English literature, at Jesus College, Cambridge, where in 1933 he was awarded a BA degree in moral sciences (philosophy), and at Harvard, getting his Doctor of Philosophy degree there in 1935. While at Cambridge he studied under Ludwig Wittgenstein and G. E. Moore. He was an instructor at Yale University from 1939 to 1944, spending some of that time teaching mathematics to wartime naval recruits. His post was not renewed in 1944 because the department did not approve of his emotivist views. After a period on a Guggenheim fellowship at Berkeley, Pomona, and Chicago, he was appointed to the University of Michigan where he taught from 1946 to 1977. Among his students was Joel Feinberg.

He gave the most sophisticated defense of emotivism in the post-war period. In his papers "The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms" (1937) and "Persuasive Definitions" (1938), and his book Ethics and Language (1944), he developed a theory of emotive meaning; which he then used to provide a foundation for his theory of a persuasive definition. He furthermore advanced emotivism as a meta-ethical theory that sharply delineated between cognitive, scientific uses of language (used to state facts and to give reasons, and subject to the laws of science) and non-cognitive uses (used to state feelings and exercise influence).

Stevenson died on March 14, 1979, in Bennington, Vermont.

Contributions to philosophy
Stevenson's work has been seen both as an elaboration upon A. J. Ayer's views and as a representation of one of "two broad types of ethical emotivism." An analytic philosopher, Stevenson suggested in his 1937 essay "The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms" that any ethical theory should explain three things: that intelligent disagreement can occur over moral questions, that moral terms like good are "magnetic" in encouraging action, and that the scientific method is insufficient for verifying moral claims. Stevenson's own theory was fully developed in his 1944 book Ethics and Language. In it, he agrees with Ayer that ethical sentences express the speaker's feelings, but he adds that they also have an imperative component intended to change the listener's feelings and that this component is of greater importance. Where Ayer spoke of values, or fundamental psychological inclinations, Stevenson speaks of attitudes, and where Ayer spoke of disagreement of fact, or rational disputes over the application of certain values to a particular case, Stevenson speaks of differences in belief; the concepts are the same. Terminology aside, Stevenson interprets ethical statements according to two patterns of analysis.

First pattern analysis
Under his first pattern of analysis, an ethical statement has two parts: a declaration of the speaker's attitude and an imperative to mirror it, so "'This is good' means I approve of this; do so as well." The first half of the sentence is a proposition, but the imperative half is not, so Stevenson's translation of an ethical sentence remains a noncognitive one.

Imperatives cannot be proved, but they can still be supported so that the listener understands that they are not wholly arbitrary:

"If told to close the door, one may ask "Why?" and receive some such reason as "It is too drafty," or "The noise is distracting." … These reasons cannot be called "proofs" in any but a dangerously extended sense, nor are they demonstratively or inductively related to an imperative; but they manifestly do support an imperative. They "back it up," or "establish it," or "base it on concrete references to fact.""

The purpose of these supports is to make the listener understand the consequences of the action they are being commanded to do. Once they understand the command's consequences, they can determine whether or not obedience to the command will have desirable results.

"The imperative is used to alter the hearer's attitudes or actions. … The supporting reason then describes the situation which the imperative seeks to alter, or the new situation which the imperative seeks to bring about; and if these facts disclose that the new situation will satisfy a preponderance of the hearer's desires, he will hesitate to obey no longer. More generally, reasons support imperatives by altering such beliefs as may in turn alter an unwillingness to obey."

Second pattern analysis
Stevenson's second pattern of analysis is used for statements about types of actions, not specific actions. Under this pattern,

"'This is good' has the meaning of 'This has qualities or relations X, Y, Z … ,' except that 'good' has as well a laudatory meaning which permits it to express the speaker's approval, and tends to evoke the approval of the hearer."

In second-pattern analysis, rather than judge an action directly, the speaker is evaluating it according to a general principle. For instance, someone who says "Murder is wrong" might mean "Murder decreases happiness overall"; this is a second-pattern statement which leads to a first-pattern one: "I disapprove of anything which decreases happiness overall. Do so as well."

Methods of argumentation
For Stevenson, moral disagreements may arise from different fundamental attitudes, different moral beliefs about specific cases, or both. The methods of moral argumentation he proposed have been divided into three groups, known as logical, rational psychological and nonrational psychological forms of argumentation.

Logical methods involve efforts to show inconsistencies between a person's fundamental attitudes and their particular moral beliefs. For example, someone who says "Edward is a good person" who has previously said "Edward is a thief" and "No thieves are good people" is guilty of inconsistency until she retracts one of her statements. Similarly, a person who says "Lying is always wrong" might consider lies in some situations to be morally permissible, and if examples of these situations can be given, his view can be shown to be logically inconsistent.

Rational psychological methods examine the facts which relate fundamental attitudes to particular moral beliefs; the goal is not to show that someone has been inconsistent, as with logical methods, but only that they are wrong about the facts which connect their attitudes to their beliefs. To modify the former example, consider the person who holds that all thieves are bad people. If she sees Edward pocket a wallet found in a public place, she may conclude that he is a thief, and there would be no inconsistency between her attitude (that thieves are bad people) and her belief (that Edward is a bad person because he is a thief). However, it may be that Edward recognized the wallet as belonging to a friend, to whom he promptly returned it. Such a revelation would likely change the observer's belief about Edward, and even if it did not, the attempt to reveal such facts would count as a rational psychological form of moral argumentation.

Non-rational psychological methods revolve around language with psychological influence but no necessarily logical connection to the listener's attitudes. Stevenson called the primary such method "'persuasive,' in a somewhat broadened sense", and wrote:

"[Persuasion] depends on the sheer, direct emotional impact of words—on emotive meaning, rhetorical cadence, apt metaphor, stentorian, stimulating, or pleading tones of voice, dramatic gestures, care in establishing rapport with the hearer or audience, and so on. … A redirection of the hearer's attitudes is sought not by the mediating step of altering his beliefs, but by exhortation, whether obvious or subtle, crude or refined."

Persuasion may involve the use of particular emotion-laden words, like "democracy" or "dictator", or hypothetical questions like "What if everyone thought the way you do?" or "How would you feel if you were in their shoes?"

title: Charles Stevenson (philosopher)


text:
Rogneda of Polotsk

Rogneda Rogvolodovna (Рогнеда Рогволодовна; Christian name: Anastasia; c. 960), also known as Ragnhild (Ragnheiðr), is a person mentioned in the Primary Chronicle as having been a princess of Polotsk, the daughter of Rogvolod (Ragnvald), who came from Scandinavia and established himself at Polotsk in the mid-10th century. Vladimir the Great is narrated as having killed her father and taking her as one of his wives.

In a closely related, but separate story in the Suzdalian Chronicle, the daughter of Rogvolod of Polotsk is called Gorislava, and Vladimir rapes her in front of her parents before killing her father and taking her as a wife, after which Gorislava attempts to kill Vladimir in revenge.

Rogned' in the Primary Chronicle
Around the year 980, Vladimir, then the prince of Novgorod, was entangled in a war of succession with his brother Yaropolk, the prince of Kiev. Searching for allies, Vladimir proposed to Rogvolod a marriage-tie by wedding his daughter Rogned' (Rogneda), but she declared: "I do not wish to take off a slave's son's shoes" ("не хочу розути робичича" ), "but I do want to take off Yaropolk's". Afterwards, Vladimir led an army to devastate Polotsk, killing Rogvolod and his two sons, while taking Rogneda as a wife. According to Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin, Vladimir was most likely seeking to bolster his political legitimacy rather than being motivated solely by vengeance.

The Primary Chronicle indicates that Vladimir had four sons with Rogneda. The first list, which identifies the mothers of his sons, includes the names of Iziaslav, Mstislav, Yaroslav and Vsevolod as the sons of Rogneda. After Vsevolod are the names of Sviatopolk, Vysheslav, Sviatoslav and another son called Mstislav (possibly Mstislav of Chernigov). A third list identifies the lands that were distributed to them by Vladimir, which appears to be ordered by age, with Vysheslav first, then Iziaslav, Sviatopolk, Sviatoslav, and then Yaroslav; the absence of Mstislav suggests he had died before the distributions were made, and after the initial distributions but before Vladimir's death in 1015, Vysheslav and Iziaslav had died, leaving Sviatopolk as the eldest surviving son. After Vladimir converted to Christianity and took Anna Porphyrogeneta as his wife, he had to divorce all his previous wives, including Rogneda. After that, she entered the convent and took the name Anastasia.

Gorislava in the Suzdalian Chronicle
The later Suzdalian Chronicle tells a story, most likely taken from a Norse saga, of Rogvolod's daughter – here called "Gorislava" – plotting against Vladimir and asking her elder son, Izyaslav, to kill him. As was the Norse royal custom, she was sent with her elder son to govern the land of her parents, i.e. Polotsk. Izyaslav's line continued to rule Polotsk and the newly found town of Izyaslavl (now called Zaslawye).

Modern scholars have examined the differences and similarities between the stories of Rogned' in the Primary Chronicle and Gorislava in the Suzdalian Chronicle. Earlier scholars have proposed that Rogned' (Rogneda) was later "renamed" Gorislava, an idea especially promoted by the 16th-century Nikon Chronicle as included in Nikolay Karamzin's History of the Russian State (1816–26). But the first source to suggest these two women were one and the same person, who was somehow renamed, does not appear until the Moskovskii letopsnyi svod 1479 g., 500 years after the events they narrate. Francis Butler (2012) and several other scholars believe that the legend of Gorislava was written later than the legend of Rogned', and that the women were initially named differently before later traditions identified them as the same person. Nevertheless, the two narratives contain a brief passage that is almost word for word the same. Aleksandr Koptev (2010) reasoned that 'her attempt to kill her own husband seems to me an obvious later addition to the original story of Rogneda'. He added: 'Shakhmatov is almost certainly correct when he suggests that the story derives from the later Novgorodian tradition, which asserted the superiority of the clan of Jaroslav's descendants in comparison to Rogvolod's descendants ruling in Polotzk.'

Legacy
Around 1823, Kondraty Ryleev wrote a narrative poem entitled Rogneda. This poem became a literary source for her portrayal in the nationalist Russian opera Rogneda by Alexander Serov, which premiered in 1865.

Issue
By Vladimir the Great:

 * 1) Izyaslav of Polotsk (born c. 979, Kiev), Prince of Polotsk (989–1001)
 * 2) Yaroslav the Wise (born no earlier than 983), Prince of Rostov (988–1010), Prince of Novgorod (1010–1034), Grand Prince of Kiev (1016–1018, 1019–1054). Possibly he was a son of Anna rather than Rogneda. Another interesting fact that he was younger than Sviatopolk according to the words of Boris in the Tale of Bygone Years and not as it was officially known.
 * 3) Mstislav (possibly Mstislav of Chernigov, Prince of Tmutarakan (990–1036), Prince of Chernigov (1024–1036); other sources claim him to be son of other mothers (Adela, Malfrida, or some other Bulgarian wife)
 * 4) Predslava, concubine of Bolesław I Chrobry according to Gesta principum Polonorum
 * 5) Premislava (died 1015), some source state that she was a wife of the Duke Laszlo (Vladislav) "the Bald" of Arpadians
 * 6) Mstislava, in 1018 was taken by Bolesław I Chrobry among the other daughters
 * 7) Ariogia (?)

title: Rogneda of Polotsk


text:
User talk:7fex5q2ek

Hey, stop vandalizing articles, or you will be banned. Thanks. Adam Bishop 22:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

What have I been vandalizing?
 * As far as I can see basically every page you touch.
 * Blanking the Mexico article, for example. Especially disingenuously marking it as a "minor" edit. If you choose to make positive contributions to Wikipedia, these articles provide some guidance (for more similar articles, click on Community Portal in the left-hand navigation pane). Niteowlneils 23:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Also how do you find vandalism to report because I would like to help
 * You just look around, if you find vandalism you fix it. To send someone a message, you just write it on their talk page, like I'm doing now. Please don't blank other user's pages, it's not very friendly. -- Ams80 22:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

If you vandalize one more page you will be blocked from editing this site. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 22:31, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours, starting a minute or two ago. Do not attempt to evade this block. Do not engage in this sort of behaviour after you have been unblocked. - Fennec 22:33, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:7fex5q2ek


text:
Andrés Blanco

Andrés Eloy Blanco Perez (born April 11, 1984) is a Venezuelan former professional baseball infielder. He played in Major League Baseball (MLB) for the Kansas City Royals, Chicago Cubs, Texas Rangers, and Philadelphia Phillies.

Kansas City Royals
Blanco made his major league debut with the Kansas City Royals on April 18, 2004. He hit .317 (19-for-60) with five RBIs, nine runs, two doubles, two triples, and one stolen base in 19 games.

He hit .215 with a .220 on-base percentage in 2005, and .241 with a .290 on-base percentage in 2006, both with Kansas City. Blanco had surgery on September 29, 2006, to repair a posterior labrum tear in his left shoulder, which he injured during a swing five days prior against the Tigers.

He did not play in the major leagues in 2007, but batted .192 in the minor leagues with a .226 on-base percentage and a .212 slugging percentage.

Chicago Cubs
He signed a minor league contract with the Chicago Cubs in November 2007, played the 2008 season with the Iowa Cubs where he hit .285/.327/.336, and became a free agent at the end of the season. In December 2008, he re-signed with the Cubs.

On June 20, 2009, during an interleague game between the Cubs and Cleveland Indians, Blanco hit an RBI single to tie a game in extra innings. He later scored the winning run for the Cubs on a wild pitch thrown by Indians' closer Kerry Wood.

Blanco hit his first major league home run on July 29, 2009 while playing the Houston Astros at Wrigley Field.

Texas Rangers
On March 27, 2010, Blanco was traded to the Texas Rangers for a player to be named later or cash. He subsequently won the Rangers' utility infielder position. In 2011 he batted .224/.263/.342 for Texas. He became a free agent on November 4, 2011.

Washington Nationals
Blanco signed a minor league contract with the Washington Nationals on December 16, 2011. He also received an invitation to spring training.

Philadelphia Phillies
After leaving the Nationals, Blanco signed a minor league contract with the Philadelphia Phillies on March 31, 2012. Playing for Lehigh Valley in AAA in 2013, he batted .235/.301/.346 in 461 at bats. He had right shoulder surgery in February 2013, and missed playing the entire 2013 season.

The Phillies re-signed Blanco to a minor league deal with a spring training invitation on November 21, 2013. His contract was selected from the Lehigh Valley IronPigs on June 29, 2014.

On December 14, 2016, Blanco signed a one-year, $3 million contract with the Phillies. On June 7, 2017, Blanco pitched $1⁄3$ of an inning in a blowout loss to the Atlanta Braves, giving up a 2-run home run for an ERA of 27.00.

San Francisco Giants
On January 30, 2018, Blanco signed a minor league contract with the San Francisco Giants. He was released on March 23.

Milwaukee Brewers
On April 2, 2018, Blanco signed a minor league contract with the Milwaukee Brewers. In 96 games for the Triple–A Colorado Springs Sky Sox, he batted .271/.362/.435 with 9 home runs and 47 RBI. Blanco elected free agency following the season on November 2.

Atlanta Braves
On December 7, 2018, Blanco signed a minor league deal with the Atlanta Braves with an invitation to spring training. Blanco became a free agent after the season.

Milwaukee Brewers (second stint)
On January 31, 2020, Blanco signed a minor league deal with the Milwaukee Brewers. He did not play in a game in 2020 due to the cancellation of the minor league season because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Blanco was released by the Brewers organization on May 28.

title: Andrés Blanco


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StevenIsserlis

 * Delete: Steven Isserlis is a remarkable cellist- vanity.
 * Copyvio. The race is on, what will this page be nuked for first?  Bets anyone? - TB 22:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Got marked for vfD first, but now it's in Copyvio's hands, as it should be: . *cough*signyourentries,bodnotbod*cough* --Ben Brockert 22:30, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Alcarillo 02:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I think I'd be willing to accept that copyvio bet. Deeeelete. - Lucky 6.9 06:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Steven_Isserlis/Temp done. Markalexander100 08:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


text:
Tricky Dicky (Cor!!)

Tricky Dicky was a British comic strip which originally ran in the British comics magazine Cor!!. It debuted in 1970, drawn by Cyril Gwyn Price (1905-1970). It ran until September 29, 1973. After Price's death other comic strip artists continued the series.

Concept
Similar to Roger the Dodger in The Beano, the strip was about a boy of the same name (Dicky), who would 'trick' his way out of things like washing the car or carrying heavy cases. Unlike Roger, however, his schemes would usually backfire on him. Dicky was a blond boy with a large quiff, who was a teenage boy during his first appearances, but gradually was remodelled into a younger boy as the series went on.

Similarities with other comics
There is another British comic strip called Tricky Dicky. It also features a young British boy who enjoys playing tricks on others that backfire on him, but it is a completely different character. This particular boy has black spiky hair.

title: Tricky Dicky (Cor!!)


text:
Eduardo Villacis

Eduardo Enrique Villacis (born August 29, 1979) is a retired starting pitcher in Major League Baseball who played for the Kansas City Royals in their 2004 season. Listed at 6' 2" (1.89 m), 170 lb. (77 k), Villacis batted and threw right handed. He was born in Caracas, Venezuela.

Career
Villacis was originally signed by the Colorado Rockies as a rookie free agent out of Venezuela in 1998, under the recommendation of scout and former big leaguer Jorge Posada.

Villacis started his career in the Rockies Minor League system in 2000, playing for them in parts of five seasons before being dealt to Kansas City in exchange for colleague pitcher Bryan Rekar. He then was assigned to Double-A Wichita Wranglers.

On May 1, 2004, the Royals called up him to start a game against the New York Yankees in Yankee Stadium. Villacis lasted only 31/3 innings, allowing five runs on six hits and four walks without strikeouts and was credited with the loss. He was sent back to Wichita two days later. On May 26, the Chicago White Sox claimed Villacis off waivers from Kansas City and optioned him to Double-A Birmingham Barons, but he never appeared in a major league game again.

In 2006, Villacis played for the Atlantic City Surf of the independent Atlantic League, during what turned out to be his final year in baseball. Overall, he posted a 29-17 record with a 3.58 earned run average in 145 career minor league games, including 49 starts, from 2000–2006.

In between, Villacis played winter ball with the Leones del Caracas and Tiburones de La Guaira clubs of the Venezuelan League during seven seasons spanning 1998–2005. He started eight games and relieved in 97 more, going 8-5 with a 3.87 ERA and one save in 151 innings of work.

title: Eduardo Villacis


text:
Battle of Ipsus

The Battle of Ipsus (Ἱψός) was fought between some of the Diadochi (the successors of Alexander the Great) in 301 BC near the town of Ipsus in Phrygia. Antigonus I Monophthalmus, the Macedonian ruler of large parts of Asia, and his son Demetrius were pitted against the coalition of three other successors of Alexander: Cassander, ruler of Macedon; Lysimachus, ruler of Thrace; and Seleucus I Nicator, ruler of Babylonia and Persia. Only one of these leaders, Lysimachus, had actually been one of Alexander's somatophylakes.

Background
In the aftermath of the Second War of the Diadochi (315 BC), the aging satrap Antigonus I Monophthalmus had been left in undisputed control of the Asian territories of the Macedonian empire (Asia Minor, Syria and the vast eastern satrapies). This left Antigonus in prime position to claim overall rule over the Macedonian empire. Antigonus's growing power alarmed the other major Successors, resulting in the eruption of the Third War of the Diadochi in 314 BC, in which Antigonus faced a coalition of Cassander (ruler of Macedonia), Lysimachus (ruler of Thrace) and Ptolemy (ruler of Egypt). This war ended in a compromise peace in 311 BC, after which Antigonus attacked Seleucus, who was attempting to re-establish himself in the eastern Satrapies of the empire. The resulting Babylonian War lasted from 311 to 309 BC, and resulted in defeat for Antigonus, allowing Seleucus to re-claim the satrapy of Babylonia and overlordship of the territories to the east.

While Antigonus was distracted elsewhere, Ptolemy had been expanding his power into the Aegean Sea and to Cyprus. Antigonus thus resumed the war with Ptolemy in 308 BC, beginning the Fourth War of the Diadochi. Antigonus sent his son Demetrius to regain control of Greece, and in 307 BC he took Athens, expelling Demetrius of Phaleron, Cassander's governor, and proclaiming the city free again. Demetrius then turned his attention to Ptolemy, invading Cyprus and defeating Ptolemy's fleet at the Battle of Salamis-in-Cyprus. In the aftermath of this victory, Antigonus and Demetrius both assumed the crown of Macedon, in which they were shortly followed by Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, and eventually Cassander.

In 306, Antigonus attempted to invade Egypt, but storms prevented Demetrius's fleet from supplying him, and he was forced to return home. With Cassander and Ptolemy both weakened, and Seleucus still occupied by attempting to assert his control over the East, Antigonus and Demetrius now turned their attention to Rhodes, which was besieged by Demetrius's forces in 305 BC. The island was reinforced by troops from Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Cassander. Ultimately, the Rhodians reached a compromise with Demetrius – they would support Antigonus and Demetrius against all enemies, save their ally Ptolemy. Ptolemy took the title of Soter ("Savior") for his role in preventing the fall of Rhodes, but the victory was ultimately Demetrius's, as it left him with a free hand to attack Cassander in Greece. Demetrius thus returned to Greece and set about liberating the cities of Greece, expelling Cassander's garrisons, and the pro-Antipatrid oligarchies. This occupied much of Demetrius's efforts in 303 and 302 BC.

Seeing that Demetrius's war effort was aimed at destroying his power in Greece, and ultimately in Macedonia, Cassander tried to come to terms with Antigonus. However, Antigonus rejected these advances, intent on forcing Cassander's complete surrender. Cassander therefore held counsel with Lysimachus, and they agreed on a joint strategy that included sending envoys to Ptolemy and Seleucus, asking them to join in combatting the Antigonid threat. Seeking to take the initiative, Cassander sent a significant portion of the Macedonian army under Prepelaus to Lysimachus, which was to be used in joint operations in Asia Minor. Meanwhile, Cassander took the rest of the Macedonian army into Thessaly to confront Demetrius.

Prelude
Lysimachus crossed over the Hellespont in 302 BC, intending to take advantage of Antigonus's absence in Syria by overrunning Asia Minor. The cities of Lampsakos and Parion submitted to him, but he had to storm Sigeion, after which he installed a garrison there. He then sent Prepelaus with 7,000 men to attack Aeolis and Ionia, while he besieged Abydos. This siege was unsuccessful however, since Demetrius sent the city reinforcements from Greece by sea. Lysimachus instead went on to win over Hellespontine Phrygia, and then captured the major administrative centre of Synnada. Meanwhile, Prepelaus captured Adramyttion, Ephesos, Teos, and Colophon; he could not however capture Erythrae or Clazomenae, again due to sea-borne reinforcements. Finally, Prepelaus moved inland and captured Sardis, another major administrative centre.

When Antigonus received news of the invasion, he abandoned preparations for a great festival to be held in Antigonia, and quickly began to march his army northwards from Syria, through Cilicia, Cappadocia, Lycaonia, and into Phrygia. Lysimachus, hearing of the approach of Antigonus's army, held counsel with his officers, and decided to avoid open battle until Seleucus's arrival. The allies thus defended their camp with entrenchments and palisades, and when Antigonus arrived offering battle, they remained within the camp. Antigonus therefore moved to cut off the allies' provisions, forcing Lysimachus to abandon the camp and make a night-time march of some 40 miles to Dorylaion. There, the allies built a new, triple-palisaded camp amongst the hills, with relatively easy access to food and water. Antigonus followed closely behind, and laid siege to the allied camp, bringing up catapults for the assault. Lysimachus sent sorties to try to disrupt the siege-works, but the Antigonid forces always ended with the upper hand in ensuing skirmishes. With the siege works nearing completion and food running low, Lysimachus decided to abandon the camp, and marched away during a night-time storm. Antigonus again attempted to follow, but as winter approached with further rain, conditions became difficult, and he abandoned pursuit and dispersed his men into winter quarters instead. The allied army marched on into Bithynia and went into winter quarters in and around the city of Heraclea.

Whilst settling his army for the winter, Antigonus heard the news that Seleucus was en route from the eastern satrapies to support Lysimachus. He therefore dispatched messengers to Demetrius, ordering him to bring his army over to Asia to reinforce the Antigonid forces. Demetrius had in the meantime continued his campaign in Greece, and although Cassander had blocked the land-passes, Demetrius had entered Thessaly by sea. There had followed a somewhat inconsequential campaign of manoeuvre between the two armies in Thessaly, before Demetrius received his father's messages asking for reinforcements. Demetrius thus hastily arranged a truce with Cassander, and took his army by sea across the Aegean to Ephesos. He recaptured Ephesos, and marched north to the Hellespont, where he established a strong garrison and fleet to prevent European reinforcements reaching the allied army in Asia. Demetrius then also dispersed his army into winter quarters.

In the absence of Demetrius, Cassander now felt able to send further reinforcements to Lysimachus, under the command of his brother, Pleistarchus. Since Demetrius was guarding the easy crossing points at the Hellespont and the Bosphorus, Pleistarchus attempted to ship his men directly across the Black Sea to Heraclea, using the port of Odessos. The men had to be sent in batches due to a lack of ships, and although the first batch arrived safely, the second shipment was intercepted by Demetrius's fleet, and the third wrecked in a storm. Pleistarchus himself narrowly survived the wreck of his command ship, eventually being carried to Heraclea to recuperate over the winter. Similarly, the concentration of Antigonid forces in Asia now made Ptolemy feel secure enough to bring an army out of Egypt to try to conquer Coele Syria. He captured a number of cities, but while laying siege to Sidon, he was brought false reports of an Antigonid victory, and told that Antigonus was marching south into Syria. He thus garrisoned the cities he had captured, and retreated into Egypt. At around the same time, Seleucus appears to have finished his march from the east, arriving in Cappadocia with his army, which he then sent into winter quarters.

Diodorus completes book XX of his Library at this point, saying that he will describe the battle between the Kings at the start of the next book. However, only fragments remain of books XXI onwards, and although some fragments of his description of the battle do remain, they do not form a coherent narrative. In his description of the battle, Plutarch does not describe the preliminary manoeuvring that must have occurred in 301 BC before the battle, so it is unclear how events unfolded. Lysimachus and Seleucus were probably anxious to bring Antigonus to battle, since their respective power-centres in Thrace and Babylon were vulnerable in their prolonged absence. The armies eventually met in battle around 50 miles north-east of Synnada, near the village of Ipsus. Antigonus was aware of Ptolemy's raid on Syria the previous year, and thus would have been loath to be cut off from Syria and his capital in Antigonia, and thus moved to intercept the allied army. The exact location of the battle is unknown, but it occurred in a large open plain, well-suited for both the allied preponderance of elephants and the Antigonid superiority in cavalry numbers and training.

Antigonids
According to Plutarch, Antigonus's army before the battle numbered around 70,000 infantry, 10,000 cavalry and 75 war elephants. The majority of this number were presumably supplied by Antigonus's army that marched from Syria, since Demetrius's army in Greece had no elephants and only 1,500 cavalry. Diodorus claims that Demetrius's had approximately 56,000 infantry in Greece (8,000 Macedonian phalangites, 15,000 mercenaries, 25,000 troops from Greek cities and 8,000 light troops), but it is unclear what proportion of this infantry accompanied him to Asia. Based on other battles between the Diadochi, modern experts estimate that of the 70,000 Antigonid infantry, perhaps 40,000 were phalangites and 30,000 were light troops of various kinds.

Allies
Plutarch gives a total of 64,000 infantry for the allies, with 10,500 cavalry, 400 elephants and 120 scythed chariots. Diodorus claims that Seleucus brought 20,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry (including mounted archers), 480 elephants and more than a hundred scythed chariots with him from the eastern satrapies. The numbers of elephants and chariots supposed to be present at the battle are therefore relatively consistent between these sources. However, Seleucus's cavalry component according to Diodorus is alone larger than Plutarch's claims for the whole allied cavalry, and Lysimachus must have had at least some cavalry; he sent at least 1,000 horsemen with Prepelaus the previous year. Modern experts thus estimate the total number of allied cavalry at 15,000. Of the 44,000 non-Seleucid infantry, it is unclear what proportion were supplied by Cassander and Lysimachus respectively. Cassander sent 12,000 men under Pleistarchus, of which two-thirds were lost in crossing the Black Sea, but it is not clear how many men were in the initial dispatch of troops sent under Prepelaus. Modern experts estimate that, of the allies' total infantry, perhaps 30,000–40,000 were phalangites, with the remainder being light troop types.

Strategic and tactical considerations
In terms of overall strategy, it is clear that both sides had resolved on battle; for the allies, it represented the best chance of stopping Antigonid expansion, rather than allowing themselves to be defeated piecemeal. For Antigonus, the chance to defeat all his enemies at once could not be passed up, even if he would have preferred to defeat them individually. However, little is known about the specific strategic considerations facing the two sides before the battle, as the precise circumstances and location of the engagement remain uncertain. As mentioned above, it has been suggested that the allied army was trying to cut Antigonus's lines of communication with Syria, in order to prompt him into battle, but this is only one of several possible scenarios.

Tactically, both sides faced the common problem of the wars fought amongst the Successors; how to defeat an army equipped in the same manner and using the same basic tactics. The Diadochi seem to have been inherently conservative, and continued to favour a strong attack with cavalry on the right wing of the battle-line (tactics commonly used by both Philip and Alexander) as the principal tactical thrust – even though they must have been aware of the likelihood their opponents would perform the same maneuver on the opposite side of the battlefield. When armies were numerically even and deploying the same tactics, gaining a clear advantage was difficult. The use of novel weapons, such as war elephants and scythed chariots, to change the tactical balance was one approach used by the Diadochi, but such innovations were readily copied. Thus, both sides at Ipsus had war elephants, although thanks to Seleucus, the allies were able to field an unusually high number, in addition to scythed chariots. Both sides therefore sought an open battlefield; the allies in order to use their elephants to full potential, and the Antigonids to allow full use of their strong cavalry arm. For the Antigonids, strong in both infantry and cavalry, the tactical situation was straightforward, and followed the template Successor tactic of a massive cavalry assault on the right wing. For the allies, weaker in infantry, the tactics would have been to maximize their overwhelming superiority in elephants, though it is not clear exactly how they intended to do this. Nevertheless, the elephants played a pivotal role in the battle.

Deployment
Both sides probably deployed their troops in a standard Macedonian formation, with the phalanx of heavy infantry in the centre of the battle line. In front, and to the sides of the phalanx, light infantry were deployed to act as skirmishers and to protect the flanks of the phalanx; cavalry was split between the two wings. In the Antigonid line, Demetrius commanded the best of the cavalry, stationed on the right wing. Antigonus, with his personal bodyguard was positioned in the centre behind the phalanx. The 75 elephants were deployed in front of the battle-line with their infantry guards.

The situation with the allied deployment is less clear. Plutarch states that Seleucus's son Antiochus was in command of the cavalry on the left wing, traditionally the weaker wing in the Macedonian system, intended only to skirmish. However, it has been suggested that on this occasion the allied cavalry were evenly split between the two wings. We do not know who commanded the right wing, nor where Lysimachus, Seleucus or Pleistarchus were stationed. It is clear that some of Seleucus's elephants were placed in front of the battle line, but not how many, though a figure of 100 is often suggested. It has been suggested that Seleucus retained command of the majority of his elephants in a tactical reserve, but the use of such a large reserve would have been unprecedented in battles amongst the successors. Furthermore, it would have meant shunning an opportunity to deploy the major tactical advantage held by the allies. As modern sources point out, understanding this 'elephant problem' is key to understanding the outcome of the battle, but the ancient sources do not allow the point to be resolved.

Initial phase

The battle seems to have begun in earnest with a clash of the elephants from both sides. Diodorus says that "the elephants of Antigonus and Lysimachus fought as if nature had matched them equally in courage and strength", suggesting that they were also equal in number (and supporting the idea of a large reserve of elephants on the allied side). Demetrius then launched the principal Antigonid thrust, manoeuvering his cavalry round the elephants, and attacking the allied cavalry under Antiochus. Plutarch says that Demetrius "fought brilliantly and routed his enemy". However it is also clear that Demetrius allowed the pursuit of the routed allied cavalry to go too far, resulting in his men becoming isolated from the battlefield.

Second phase
It is not explicitly stated by Plutarch, but it has been assumed that the two phalanxes engaged each other during the battle. If this was the case, then the Antigonid strategy would have been for Demetrius to take his cavalry and attack the rear of the allied phalanx; or alternatively, return to station on the right wing and protect the Antigonid phalanx's flank. However, Demetrius found himself unable to return to the battlefield because of the deployment of 300 elephants in his path. The ancient sources repeatedly emphasise the effect of elephants on horses, which are alarmed by the smell and noise of elephants and are loath to approach them. Demetrius would not have been able to take his horses through the line of elephants, nor manoeuvre around such a large quantity of elephants. This 'elephant manoeuvre' was the decisive moment in the battle, but it is not clear how it came about; Plutarch only says that "the [allied] elephants were thrown in his way". If the elephants had indeed been held in reserve, then it might have been relatively straightforward to deploy them, but as discussed, it is not clear why so many elephants would have been held in reserve. However, it is also possible that the deployment of the elephants was a piece of improvisation during the battle, though moving such a large number of elephants in such a coordinated manoeuvre in the middle of the battle would have been difficult. Since he was the only allied commander with significant experience of handling elephants, it has been assumed that Seleucus was responsible for this manoeuvre.

With Demetrius now isolated from the battlefield, the Antigonid phalanx was exposed on its right flank. Plutarch describes what followed:

The Antigonid phalanx and Allied phalanx engaged in a stiff and chaotic fight.

This move against the Antigonid right flank probably involved detaching cavalry from the allies own right wing, including Seleucus's horse-archers, who could rain down missiles on the immobile phalanx. The morale of the troops appears to have collapsed, and it seems that some of the heavy infantry either defected to the allied side or otherwise fled. Antigonus, stationed in the centre, tried to rally his men, hoping for Demetrius's return. However, he was gradually surrounded by allied infantry and eventually killed by several javelins thrown by allied skirmishers. With the death of its commander, the Antigonid battle-line dissolved, and the battle effectively ended.

Aftermath

From the wreck of the Antigonid army and the death of his father, Demetrius managed to recover 5,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry, and escaped with them to Ephesos. Despite the expectation that he would raid the Ephesian treasury, Demetrius instead immediately set sail for Greece "putting his chief remaining hopes in Athens". However, he was to be disappointed; the Athenians had voted not to allow any of the kings into Athens. Concealing his wrath, he asked the Athenians for the return of his ships that were moored there, and then sailed on to the Isthmus of Corinth. He found that everywhere his garrisons were being expelled, and his erstwhile allies defecting to the other kings. He left Pyrrhus of Epirus (at that time part of the Antigonid faction) in charge of the Antigonid cause in Greece, and himself sailed to the Thracian Chersonesos.

The last chance to reunite the Alexandrine Empire had already been passed when Antigonus lost the Babylonian War and two thirds of his empire. Ipsus confirmed this failure. As Paul K. Davis writes, "Ipsus was the high point of the struggle among Alexander the Great’s successors to create an international Hellenistic empire, which Antigonus failed to do." Instead, the empire was carved up between the victors, with Ptolemy retaining Egypt, Seleucus expanding his power to eastern Asia Minor, and Lysimachus receiving the remainder of Asia Minor. Eventually Seleucus would defeat Lysimachus at the Battle of Corupedium in 281 BC, but he was assassinated shortly afterward. Ipsus finalized the breakup of an empire, which may account for its obscurity; despite that, it was still a critical battle in classical history and decided the character of the Hellenistic age.

Ancient Sources

 * Diodorus Siculus – Bibliotheca historica
 * Plutarch – Lives (Demetrius)

title: Battle of Ipsus


text:
Talk:Harm principle

Untitled
There are whole paragraphs that appear to have been copied in from an undergraduate essay, and not a good one.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.48.36.4 (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Editors, please help a lay reader. There seems to be a considerable difference between the Libertarian principle that one person's freedom extends until it infringes on another's *freedom*, and the harm principle that a person's freedom extends until it *harms* another. The way it is it sounds as if Mill was a Libertarian. Thank you.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.109.129.200 (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

So, by the modified principle, isn't just about anythnig in violation of the principle? It seems unjust and irrational to command that all people should follow the will of the most conservative. --- Actually, you're interpreting it exactly wrong. What the Harm Principle forbids is the interference in the actions of others if their actions pose no danger to anyone other than themselves.

 * Uhm, can you say this in the article? It's concise & clearer than what is there now. Ileanadu (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

--- Can the statement that 'On Liberty' is Mill's most famous book be backed up? Until someone decides that it can, I will insert the word 'arguably'.

- How about we remove this term completely? Miltonkeynes 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC) --- Mill suggests that we need some rules of conduct that regulate the actions and words of members of a political community. The limitation he places on free expression is “one very simple principle,” now usually referred to as the Harm Principle, which states that

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. (1978, 9) There is a great deal of debate about what Mill had in mind when he referred to harm; for the purposes of this essay he will be taken to mean that an action has to directly and in the first instance invade the rights of a person (Mill himself uses the term rights, despite basing the arguments in the book on the principle of utility). The limits on free speech will be very narrow because it is difficult to support the claim that most speech actually causes harm to the rights of others. This is the position staked out by Mill in the first two chapters of On Liberty and it is a good starting point for a discussion of free speech because it is hard to imagine a more liberal position. It becomes very difficult to defend free speech once it can be demonstrated that its practice does actually invade the rights of others.

If we accept the argument based on the harm principle we need to ask “what types of speech, if any, cause harm?” Once we can answer this question, we have found the correct limits to free expression. Mill uses the example of speech related to corn dealers; he suggests that it is fine to claim that corn dealers are starvers of the poor if such a view is expressed through the medium of the printed page, but that it is not permissible to express the same view to an angry mob, ready to explode, that has gathered outside the house of the dealer. The difference between the two is that the latter is an expression “such as to constitute...a positive instigation to some mischievous act,” (1978, 53), namely, to place the rights, and possibly the life, of the corn dealer in danger. As Daniel Jacobson (2000) notes, it is important to remember that Mill will not sanction limits to free speech simply because someone is harmed by the statements of others. For example, the corn dealer may suffer severe financial hardship if he is accused of starving the poor. Mill distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate harm, and it is only when speech causes a direct and clear violation of rights that it can be limited. Other examples where the harm principle may apply include libel laws, blackmail, advertising blatant untruths about commercial products, advertising dangerous products to children (e.g. cigarettes), and securing truth in contracts. In most of these cases, it is possible to make an argument that harm has been committed and that rights have been violated.

-- Beyond that, in debate, the Harm Principle is often used to defend some form of freedom. A simplistic, and perhaps not totally accurate summary would be: the government should restrict one's actions if said actions constitute harm to anyone but himself. The government may not stop me from punching the wall because that only hurts me. The state may prevent me from punching a person, because that harms other people as well. An underaged citizen is a ward of the state; that is, because he is considered to be intellectually immature, it becomes the government's duty to place laws restricting him so that he does not harm himself. The harm Mill talks about is direct. So you can't say that one may not punch the wall because you would injure yourself and have to be brought to the hospital, where you congest the lines and cause harm and suffering to someone with a more serious injury.

We should include Joel Feinberg's work on this page. He wrote four volumes, one being "Harm to Others," where he reformulates (very meticulously) Mill's "one simple principle." Far better than Mill's (though not perfect by any means). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.169.81 (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the section on harm is far more satisfying than on offence. the definition should be more succinct in the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.63.151 (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

miss something about qualified>> versus unqualified harm principle 91.16.133.222 (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never come across the 'offence principle' in Mill's work; it appears to me more of an inference than his actual thought. What do we think? Thedaggerz (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't "harmless wrongdoing" be considered a paradox, not redundant? He sees harm and wrongdoing as the same thing, so "harmFUL wrongdoing" would be redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.19.51 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2020 and 10 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stewartjordan625. Peer reviewers: Oludara Orederu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Conflation of Wrong an harm
In the abstract, criminalizing all wrongs that cause harm makes the offense principle almost synonymous with the harm principle.[citation needed] However, the definition of what constitutes a wrong may change over time—such that harm may be caused by actions that were not considered wrongs at the time, and vice versa.[4][6]

The harm principle states that causing harm to someone else is equivalent to a wrong doing, so the line all wrongs that cause harm is redundant as anything that causes harm is a wrongdoing and any wrongdoing is something that causes harm. The definition of wrong may not change if it is defined as doing harm. So the last sentence is irrelevant in context of the harm principle, as unless what is considered harm changes it is impossible to change wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.136.41 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

More examples needed
Please help by adding more examples to the "Modern examples" section, particularly examples that help provide a worldwide view of the subject if possible. --JHP (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Harm principle


text:
Ladybird (disambiguation)

Ladybirds (Coccinellidae) are a family of beetles.

Ladybird may also refer to:

Film and television

 * The Ladybird (film), a 1927 American silent film
 * Ladybird, Ladybird (film), a 1994 UK drama-documentary about a woman losing custody of her four children
 * Lady Bird (film), a 2017 American coming-of-age comedy-drama film
 * Ladybird (King of the Hill), Hank Hill's dog on King of the Hill

Bands and performers

 * The Ladybirds, a British trio most noted for appearing on The Benny Hill Show in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, usually as backup vocals
 * The Ladybirds (band), an American retro garage rock band active since 2007
 * LadybiRdS, an American pop rock band active since 2005

Songs

 * "Ladybird", a track on Everybody Loves a Happy Ending by 1980s British pop band Tears for Fears
 * "Ladybird", a track on the album 604 by the band Ladytron
 * "Ladybird", a song on the 1983 album Mummer by English band XTC
 * Ladybird Ladybird, an English nursery rhyme (also known as Ladybug Ladybug in North America)

Albums

 * Ladybird (Dexter Gordon album), 1965, released in 2005
 * Ladybird (Shit and Shine album), 2005

Other uses in arts and media

 * The Ladybird , a novella by D. H. Lawrence
 * Ladybird Books, a children's book publisher, based in London

Other uses

 * Ladybird (clothing), a British children's clothing label sold to Shop Direct
 * Ladybird of Szeged (Szegedi Katicabogár), an early robot constructed in Hungary in 1956–1957
 * Two species of Eresus, commonly known as "Ladybird spiders"
 * HMS Ladybird, one of several ships of the British Royal Navy
 * Ladybird (web browser), software, originally part of the SerenityOS project

title: Ladybird (disambiguation)


text:
CTV Sci-Fi Channel

CTV Sci-Fi Channel is a Canadian English language discretionary specialty channel owned by Bell Media. The channel primarily broadcasts speculative fiction and related programming.

The network was launched on October 17, 1997 as Space under its original parent company CHUM Limited. Its slogan, The Imagination Station, continued to be used informally by its fans for many years after its retirement. In 2007, Space was acquired by CTVglobemedia, after acquiring CHUM Limited, while the Citytv stations were sold to Rogers Media. The channel adopted its current name in 2019.

History
The channel was licensed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in 1996. It launched on October 17, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. ET (3:00 p.m. PT), as Space: The Imagination Station, launching under the ownership of CHUM Limited, airing the film Forbidden Planet, followed by a commentary on that film by author Robert J. Sawyer, followed by the film Mars Attacks!. The Sawyer commentary was the first example of the interstitial materials — mostly produced by Mark Askwith — that became SPACE's signature: short, snappy, mini-documentaries on science fiction and science topics shown between programs, collectively known as "SPACE Flow". Daily installments include Space News (formerly SPIN, for "Space Information and News").

CTVglobemedia took over Space on June 22, 2007, as a result of a takeover of CHUM Limited. At the same time, the Citytv stations were sold to Rogers later that year. Ownership changed hands once again when on April 1, 2011, BCE Inc. gained 100% control of CTVglobemedia's non-publishing assets that it did not already own, placing Space under the ownership of Bell Media.

On February 8, 2011, the Reeves-Stevenses submitted a letter to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in support of an application by CTVglobemedia to renew the broadcasting license of Space.

On July 6, 2011, a high definition simulcast of Space was launched. It is available through all major television providers in Canada.

On March 4, 2013, Space introduced a new logo to coincide with the premiere of the channel's new original co-production Orphan Black. A Bell Media executive explained that the branding was designed to reflect upon the broadening of the sci-fi genre beyond outer space and "people in polyester onesies running around with taser guns", by portraying the new logo in the form of real-life objects with a "phenomenal twist" to symbolize the "space around you". Through Bell Media's acquisition of Astral Media, Space is now co-owned with the French-language, sci-fi channel, Ztélé (since renamed Z).

On June 7, 2018, it was announced that Space would be rebranded as "CTV Sci-Fi", as part of a re-alignment of several Bell Media specialty channels under the CTV brand. The following year, it was revealed the channel would instead rebrand as CTV Sci-Fi Channel on September 12, 2019.

Programming
CTV Sci-Fi Channel's programming includes scripted television series and films primarily focused on the science fiction, fantasy, superhero fiction, horror, and paranormal genres, often in a marathon format outside of prime time. The channel's original programming has included in-studio shows (including the daily newsmagazine Innerspace), scripted dramas, as well as shows co-produced with the U.S. channel Syfy, from which the channel also acquires the bulk of its programming.

The channel holds the linear television rights to the Star Trek television franchise in Canada, holding library rights to past Star Trek television seasons and movies, and having acquired the rights to the newer Star Trek era run, Star Trek: Discovery, produced for the Paramount+ streaming service.

Original

 * SurrealEstate (2021)

Acquired

 * Andromeda
 * The Ark
 * Doctor Who
 * Doom Patrol
 * Face Off
 * Legends of Tomorrow
 * Pandora
 * Raised by Wolves
 * Resident Alien
 * Superman & Lois
 * Stargate Atlantis
 * Stargate SG-1
 * Star Trek
 * Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
 * Star Trek: Discovery
 * Star Trek: Enterprise
 * Star Trek: Lower Decks
 * Star Trek: Picard
 * Star Trek: Prodigy
 * Star Trek: The Next Generation
 * Star Trek: Voyager
 * Star Trek: Strange New Worlds
 * The Twilight Zone
 * Urban Legend
 * Xena: Warrior Princess

Original

 * Aftermath
 * Astrid & Lilly Save the World
 * Behind the Scenes
 * Being Human
 * Bitten
 * Charlie Jade
 * The Conspiracy Guy
 * Dark Matter
 * Fanboy Confessional
 * The Girly Ghosthunters
 * Grand Star
 * HypaSpace
 * Innerspace
 * Killjoys
 * Orphan Black
 * Paranormal Revenge
 * Primeval: New World
 * Rabbit Fall
 * Shadow Hunter
 * Shelf Space
 * The SpaceBar
 * Space Interstitials
 * SpaceNews
 * Space Top 10 Countdown
 * Steve Smith Playhouse
 * Stormworld
 * Todd & The Book of Pure Evil
 * Tripping the Rift
 * Unexplained Canada
 * Wynonna Earp

Acquired

 * The 4400
 * Arrow
 * Babylon 5
 * Battlestar Galactica
 * Being Human
 * Beyond
 * Blood Ties
 * Captain Star (2005–2006)
 * Cosplay Melee
 * Dark Angel
 * Dark Matters: Twisted But True
 * Dead Set
 * Deadly Class
 * Defying Gravity
 * The Deep
 * Do No Harm
 * Enigma
 * The Expanse
 * Farscape
 * Firefly
 * The Following
 * Ghost Mine
 * Grimm
 * Hex
 * Hilarious House of Frightenstein
 * Krypton
 * Lost
 * The Lost Room
 * Lost in Space
 * Manimal
 * Medium
 * Merlin
 * Mutant X
 * Night Stalker
 * Paranormal Witness
 * Perversions of Science
 * Primeval
 * Prisoners of Gravity
 * Quantum Leap
 * Relic Hunter
 * Ripper Street
 * Roar (US series)
 * Robot Combat League
 * Robotech
 * Sanctuary
 * The Sentinel
 * Smallville
 * Space Precinct
 * Supernatural
 * Stan Against Evil
 * Stargate Universe
 * Surface
 * Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
 * Total Blackout
 * The Dresden Files
 * The Outer Limits
 * The Triangle
 * The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne
 * Threshold
 * Total Recall 2070
 * True Blood
 * Utopia
 * Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea
 * War of the Worlds
 * The X-Files
 * Z Nation

Former Annual events

 * The Spacey Awards: Space previously presented its own awards called the Spacey Awards to the best in sci-fi, fantasy and horror films, TV shows, and video games. Some of the awards are voted on by viewers and the others by Space.
 * Santa Claus Conquers the Martians: Aired for many years in December 25.
 * The Twelve Days of Space-mas: Twelve days of marathons, either of popular Space programs or of similarly-themed, sci-fi or fantasy films. This normally includes the Doctor Who Christmas special on Christmas Day.

title: CTV Sci-Fi Channel