text:
Dataphor

Dataphor is an open-source truly-relational database management system (RDBMS) and its accompanying user interface technologies, which together are designed to provide highly declarative software application development. The Dataphor Server has its own storage engine or it can be a virtual, or federated, DBMS, meaning that it can utilize other database engines for storage.

Dataphor has been praised for its adherence to relational principles, more closely so than any SQL product.

Overview
The stated purpose of Dataphor is to attempt to raise the bar of automation when building and maintaining complex software applications. Originally referred to as a framework, Dataphor provides more of a software development platform, complete with its own programming and user interface paradigms.

Dataphor is broadly divided into two components: the Dataphor Server, and the Dataphor Frontend. The purpose of the Dataphor Server is to provide a standardized language and runtime for the definition, manipulation, and integrity of application data. The Frontend is concerned with the dynamic derivation of user interfaces and the presentation thereof in either the Windows or Web thin client.

Dataphor does not employ SQL as its primary database language since SQL purportedly violates important principles of the relational model. Dataphor's D4 language is based on the principles of Christopher J Date's and Hugh Darwen's Tutorial D, but with a Pascal-like imperative syntax.

Though Dataphor espouses to be truly relational, it does incorporate the concept of NULLs as found in SQL, which many claim to be contraindicated by the Relational Model. NULLs and the matter of managing missing information, however, continue to be debated.

In addition to the data management focus of the Dataphor Server, Dataphor includes tools which allow the presentation of user interfaces through Windows and Web "thin" clients. Dataphor takes advantage of the relational inference capabilities of the Dataphor compiler in order to allow complete GUI forms to be derived directly from the data model. The unique aspect of Dataphor's user interface "derivation" is that it may be based on any relational expression (query) rather than merely base tables.

Truly relational
Dataphor strives for theoretical compliance to relational principles. While they try to adhere to the principles in The Third Manifesto, they deviated in a few places from what the Third Manifesto strived for, but not in places that were violations of Codd's 12 rules. E.g. they included nulls, but they claim to have a systematic treatment of them.

While many systems built on SQL fail miserably with respect to Codd's rule 9 "Logical data independence", Dataphor applications can automatically change when the logical layer change. E.g. when a new column is added to the system, no additional development is needed to have that be a new field visible to the users for viewing or editing.

Expert opinions on Dataphor
Hugh Darwen has referred to D4, as a notable project in his talk entitled The Askew Wall. Chris Date refers to Dataphor as a product that attempts to implement the Third Manifesto. Fabian Pascal calls Dataphor "Truly Relational", and "superior to SQL"

History
In 1999, point of sale systems developer Softwise Inc, found they were writing much of the same code over and over again, and looked for a tool to automate their database applications. They didn't find an application which did what they want, so they created a division of their company, called it Alphora, and set some of their developers to build such a tool. That tool became Dataphor. It is said to be the first truly relational DBMS since IBM Business System 12. Development of Dataphor began shortly before 2000, with a 1.0 release in 2001.

In early 2008, the Alphora name and the Dataphor product were acquired by Database Consulting Group, which was founded by the original architects of Dataphor, who left Softwise in 2007. After the acquisition, Dataphor was re-licensed as open source under the BSD License.

Technology
Dataphor utilizes the Microsoft .NET Framework and is written entirely in C#. The following is a summary of the various technology components of Dataphor:

Dataphor Server
The Dataphor Server has several components including:
 * Call-level interface - session management, process scheduler, etc.
 * Data Dictionary Catalog - containing all of the Tables, Views, Operators, Constraints, References, and other schema objects.
 * D4 Scanner, Parser, Emitter, and Compiler.
 * D4 Runtime - including relational, and scalar processing
 * Storage Integration layer - real-time translation to various dialects of SQL

Languages
While Dataphor supports a SQL flavor they call "RealSQL", D4 is the preferred language for use within Dataphor, D4 supports DDL and DML statements. D4 queries tend to look like relational algebra expressions with written out names of operators. For example:

Syntax
D4 has a Pascal-like syntax. D4 sample code is usually written in UpperCamelCase, which is also widely used in Pascal and Delphi systems.

Like most query languages, D4 has a Data Definition Language (DDL) and a Data Manipulation Language (DML). D4 also has an Imperative Language for procedural code.

Data Definition Language
The DDL for Dataphor bears many similarities to other DBMSs, but with an obviously Pascal-like twist. Many of the allowed DDL operations, like constraints, allow relational declarative statements to be used, which many believe is superior to the procedural style operations used in SQL.

Data Manipulation Language
The DML syntax at first glance may appear to be similar to SQLs syntax, but because of D4's closer ties to relational algebra, the syntax has a cleaner definition, and most users greatly prefer it over SQL.

Imperative language
The Imperative Language in D4 is remarkably similar to Pascal in many respects. The largest distinction being that D4 also allows DDL and DML statements to be run in regular procedural code.

History
D4 was named after the similar-sounding Dataphor, the system that uses the language. It was some time after these names were decided that its creators discovered Tutorial D, and the coincidence it had with that name. Since discovering Tutorial D and The Third Manifesto, the creators have used The Third Manifesto as a guide in making Dataphor and D4. Since then, Hugh Darwen has referred to D4, as a notable project in his talk entitled The Askew Wall.

Federated Storage Engine
While Dataphor has a storage engine of its own, it can also connect to other RDBMSes, and use them as a storage engine. Dataphor can use the following DBMSes as storage engines:
 * Microsoft SQL Server
 * Oracle
 * IBM Db2
 * and others

Dataphor can access Oracle, IBM Db2, Microsoft SQL Server, PostgreSQL, MySQL and any other storage engine with a single unified language.

Frontend Library
The Dataphor Frontend library provides for the delivery of dynamically derived, or pre-designed static forms. The library is exposed as a standard set of D4 functions (called operators in D4) such as Form ('library', 'name') and Derive ('D4 expression', 'form type'). The resulting forms are described in an XML dialect called a Dataphor Form Document (DFD). The form description is high-level, consisting of a general description of the user interface aspects as they apply independent of client platform.

Dataphoria IDE
Dataphoria is an integrated development environment for:
 * Editing D4
 * Ad hoc execution of D4
 * Creating, Editing, and Customizing (inherited) forms
 * Managing libraries
 * Analyzing execution plans

Windows Client
The Dataphor Windows Client is a thin client in the sense that it is not pre-programmed for a particular application. The Windows client establishes a connection to a Dataphor Server, from which it (through D4) requests form definitions and coordinates the manipulation of application data. The DFD documents are interpreted into concrete Windows Forms controls, but while maintaining the conceptual DOM of the DFD.

Web Client
The Dataphor Web Client is a basic implementation of a Dataphor client, which is manifest as an ASP.NET web application. Like the Windows Client, the Web Client connects to and requests forms and data from and instance of the Dataphor Server. Rather than synchronizing a DFD to Windows controls, however, the Web Client renders HTML which is displayed in a browser. In this way, the Web "Client" is a client relative to the Dataphor Server, but a server relative to the end web browser.

title: Dataphor


text:
Talk:Tulasidas

This article should be merged with Tulsidas. Andries 00:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Tulasidas


text:
Talk:Tulsidas

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

Narrowly a B; More detail, references, and even a picture and infobox would help.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
This article should be merged with Tulasidas. Andries 00:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efM9dkh7QNk Please can any one reply to this video?

removed bits
I removed some outdated bits: .....and the materials for a correct text of the Ramayan are thus available. Good editions have been published by the Khaga Buds press at Bnkipur (with a valuable life of the poet by Baijnath Dfls), and by the Nagari Pracharini Sabha at Allahabad (1903). The ordinary bzflr copies of the poem, repeatedly reproduced by lithography, teem with interpolations and variations from the poetic language.

The best account of Tulsidas and his works is contained in the papers contributed by Dr Grierson to vol. xxii. of the Indian Antiquary (1893).

The summary given above is condensed from the translation by Dr Grierson, at pp. 229-236 of the Indian Antiquary, vol. xxii., of the fifth sarga of the Satsal, in which work Tulsi unfolds his system of doctrine. [I don't see this summary anywhere in the article Prater 11:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) ]
 * Good work. utcursch 08:22, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tulsidas--Incarnation of Valmiki?????? Will someone quote source too.Holy---+Warrior 07:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the para named Incarnation of Valmiki. As there are no specific proove about and many scholar deny it Tupur16 (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ramcharitmanas is correct, Ramacharitamanasa is not
Sanskrit includes a schwa in every consonant that does not have a halant in it. Hindi does not and follows a strict schwa deletion rule (linguistically: ə -> ø | VC_CV; see article on schwa for details and refs). This is a major point of difference between Hindi and Sanskrit in Devnagri usage. Tulsidas is correct, and Tulasidas is incorrect. रामायण is pronounced Ramayana in Sanskrit, but Ramayan in Hindi. रामचरितमानस is Ramcharitmanas, not Ramacharitamanas, because it is a Hindi/Awadhi work. People (including Scholars) who are Sanskrit-familiar but Hindi-unfamiliar often make these errors of failing to delete schwas when transliterating Hindi terms into Roman letters. Happy to discuss this more here. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. Having said that, it would be interesting to know what the current scholarly consensus says about when the schwa deletion happened. I haven't read about this point directly although from memory maybe very old Hindi (~1200) still had a schwa for most dialects. I cannot confirm this though. I'm guessing a book detailing the history of Hindi would be the best place to find out. GizzaTalk  © 11:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI one of the most popular translations in English, by Ram Chandra Prasad and published by Motilal Banarsidass in 1990 (ISBN 978-81-208-0443-2) uses Tulasidasa and Ramacharitamanasa throughout. Both spellings are in widespread use, and to say one is correct and the other is like saying color is correct and colour is wrong. Nmisra (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with Nmisra. The debate of in which year the Hindi/Urdu rule of schwa deletion came into existence can take its own time. People like me in the south-India who have learnt the Chalisa in our own languages are just far too many. You will be surprised to see that Ramacharitamanasa in English and in languages of the south-India (for instance the ones published by Geeta Press - Gorakhpur) do not perform a schwa deletion. So, it is indeed like "color" and "colour". I guess it is more important to have your faith in Ram rather than getting into the unnecessary/debatable details.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.128.107 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Birth date
I linked the Bikram Samwat date system to its article, but find that the latter system and the Gregorian calendar differ by 56.7 years. That seems to contradict this article, which shows a difference of 22 years. What is the solution? JMK (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The first 2 sentences under "Early Life" give the Hindu day of birth but not the year, and convert it to 1511 AD. This does not make sense. Sooku (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Undid the Editing by some Mishra Ji
My dear Mishra Ji! You have undid my edits, no problems. I have written a lot till date and still writting in this age of 63 years. I am not going to die now. So the promotion and demotion does'nt matter for me. If you get some time and visit Rajapur, the native place of Goswamiji; you can see these poems are preserved there alongwith the original handwritten manusript of Goswami Tulsidasji. Moreover these verses have been published in Indraprasth Bharati an official magazine of Hindi Acedemy Delhi in my handwritting. Sahitya Parikrama Jaipur and Vishva Vivek America have also published these poems. I am a reciepient of Senior Fellowship from Govt of India. in the field of Literature in 2002. More than a dozen books till date have been published. I am the least bothered by these pretty things but you have deprived off so many wikipedians from a nice hallmark. Be pleased.Krantmlverma (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Verma Ji, As it happens, I have been to Rajapur last year and seen the copy which is said to have been written by Tulsidas. In fact I purchased the work by Ram Ganesh Pandey on Tulsi Janma Bhumi there only. I do not remember seeing your poems there, maybe I might have missed out. However, it would still be better if I or somebody else put in your critique of Tulsi than you yourself. I am nobody to comment on your poetic skills (you are much more learned than me), but your views on Tulsidas might better be put in a sentence rather than original poem - as you see we have views from many authors including the likes of Ramchandra Shukla, Mahadevi Verma, Nirala and some original verses are quoted which include those of Madhusudan Saraswati, Abdurrahim Khan-i-khana and Hariaudh. As far as I know your works are not quite as notable as these authors, so putting them in the same league as above would be a bit odd. I am not opposed to your views on Tulsidas being in the article, and Wikipedia does allow self-citation also, but neutral third-party sources are preferred (e.g. if your poetry on Tulsidas is cited by other published works). Nmisra (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I undid your year of birth edits as there are clearly two points of view, which have been elaborated in detail in a subsection. Nmisra (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The correct year of birth is Samvat 1554 accordingly 1497 A.D. When 500th Birth Centanery of Goswami ji was celelebrated throughout the world I was present there in Delhi in the year 1997. Swami Rambhadracharya has also invited me in Tulsi Peeth and have honoured there for my work in the year 2002. I have also presented these verses in bilingual form at Ramayan Mela Chitrakut for which an aplouding honour was given to me. In the last I will advise you to have a respect for the elders.Krantmlverma (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Verma Ji, I mentioned above that even though I believe the year of birth of Gosvami Tulsidas to be 1497 AD, many other biographers mention the same as 1532 AD. As biographers are divided and Wikipedia should mention both dates as it is supposed to be unbiased towards any one point of view whenever there are multiple points of view. I still do not think your verses deserve mention in this article as you are not as well known as other critics. Unless some third party sources are cited (not Wikisource page which has been created by you), I would be inclined to undo your edits - as they are non-verifiable (hence original research) and self-promotion. See WP:NOR and WP:V - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Furthermore both your poem and contribution have spelling and grammatical mistakes, which is not at all suitable for a widely read article like Tulsidas. Wikipedia is not Wikisource, sorry. Honour and standing ovation to you do not matter on Wikipedia. As for respect for elders, one is elder by knowledge and not age, refer the story of Ashtavakra. I would request you to cite reliable third-party published sources for supporting your changes else I will have no option but to remove them. Nmisra (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have undone most of your edits. A link to your poem is placed under external links - please read all the policies - WP:OR, WP:V, WP:SPIP and WP:NPOV. Both dates 1497 and 1532 are provided at all places with reference. Nmisra (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(undent) IMO, noting both birth-years is NPOV: 1532 v/s 1497. In fact, 1532 seems to be more popular in Google books and Google Web search. The Tulsi-eulogy seems to be a case of self-promotion. The Tulsi-eulogy section merits inclusion iff A neutral, third-party WP:RS references quoting 'Krant' M. L. Verma's verse are needed. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing incarnation of Valmiki
I removed this para because there is no reference about it and many scholar deny this fact that is why I think this para should not be in this article. Tupur16 (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing bits
I removed the para named incarnation of Valmiki. There is no reference about this in the article and many scholar deny the fact that is why I Ihink it shold be removed Tupur16 (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tulsidas


text:
Electric switchboard

An electric switchboard is a piece of equipment that distributes electric power from one or more sources of supply to several smaller load circuits. It is an assembly of one or more panels, each of which contains switching devices for the protection and control of circuits fed from the switchboard. Several manufacturers make switchboards used in industry, commercial buildings, telecommunication facilities, oil and gas plants, data centers, health care, and other buildings, and onboard large ships. A switchboard is divided into different interconnected sections, generally consisting of a main section and a distribution section. These two sections are sometimes replaced by a combination section, which is a section that can fulfill the roles of both of the aforementioned sections. Switchboards can also sometimes come with an auxiliary section that is used to house devices that cannot be housed in the same section as other devices.

Definition
The U.S. National Electrical Code (NEC) defines a switchboard as "a large single panel, frame, or assembly of panels on which are mounted, on the face, back, or both, switches, over-current and other protective devices, buses, and usually instruments". The role of a switchboard is to allow the division of the current supplied to the switchboard into smaller currents for further distribution and to provide switching, current protection and (possibly) metering for those various currents. In general, switchboards may distribute power to transformers, panelboards, control equipment, and, ultimately, to individual system loads.

Components
Inside a switchboard there will be one or more busbars. These are flat strips of copper or aluminum, to which the switchgear is connected. Busbars carry large currents through the switchboard, and are supported by insulators. Bare busbars are common, but many types are now manufactured with an insulating cover on the bars, leaving only connection points exposed.

In a modern switchboard, the operator is protected from electrical injury by metal-enclosed circuit breakers, switches, and fuses. There may also be instruments and controls for the supply of electricity to the switchboard. For example, a switchboard for a bank of electrical generators, especially frequency would have  control of AC power and load sharing, and instruments for frequency, voltage, current, and energy, with perhaps a synchroscope.

title: Electric switchboard


text:
Radio Paradise

Radio Paradise, also known as "RP," is a non-commercial, listener-supported Internet radio station. It was one of the first online radio stations of its era. The station is based in the United States but has a significant international audience.

Programming
As of 2020, RP has four curated playlists: Rock Mix, emphasizing modern and classic rock; World/Etc. Mix, emphasizing world and electronic music; Mellow Mix, emphasizing songs with a more relaxing tone; and Main Mix, the original channel, which is a combination of those three.

Streams
RP's streams are available in multiple compressed audio formats, as well as lossless FLAC. These streams can be accessed on many kinds of devices and operating systems.

The players buffer the stream ahead, which allows users to skip individual tracks. The players provide detailed information on the artist being played, including data from the artist's Wikipedia page, the album cover, lyrics, distribution of user ratings, and a scrolling list of often colorful user comments, sometimes embellished with videos.

The website and playout systems use Linux and customized open-source software components for most of its sections, a system devised by Goldsmith initially for KPIG's playout system.

History
The station was started in February 2000 by Bill Goldsmith and his wife, Rebecca Goldsmith. Bill had worked in radio since leaving high school in 1971 and began to experiment with webcasting in 1995. Radio Paradise was originally operated from the Goldsmith's home in Paradise, California, from which the station derives its name. The station had relocated to the Borrego Valley (east of San Diego, California) in 2016, before the town of Paradise was largely destroyed by the Camp Fire in November 2018. In 2022, Rebecca chose to retire, and Bill's daughter, Alanna, assumed Rebecca's role. The station relocated to Eureka, California.

Radio Paradise was featured in a TIME magazine article from April 11, 2004, called "The Revolution in Radio".

In April 2006, RP introduced the Listeners World Map, showing the numbers and locations of listeners across the world, currently located under Community/Who's Listening.

In June 2006, Radio Paradise began trial runs of Octoshape for its 192 kbit/s MP3 stream. In September 2006, the station began a 128 kbit/s AAC stream. In 2012, RP began a 320 kbp/s AAC stream and is now also offering lossless (FLAC) streaming.

The threat of the 2007 royalty rate increase
On March 6, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board increased royalty rates, which would have raised the station's royalty fees tenfold. Bill Goldsmith spoke about this as a serious threat to the station and urged his listeners to sign an online petition to save the station. In subsequent negotiations, royalty rates were established that allowed Radio Paradise and other Internet radio stations to continue their operation.

title: Radio Paradise


text:
Humanist Manifesto

Humanist Manifesto is the title of three manifestos laying out a humanist worldview. They are the original A Humanist Manifesto (1933, often referred to as Humanist Manifesto I), the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), and Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III (2003). The original manifesto originally arose from religious humanism, though secular humanists also signed.

The central theme of all three manifestos is the elaboration of a philosophy and value system which does not necessarily include belief in any personal deity or "higher power", although the three differ considerably in their tone, form, and ambition. Each has been signed at its launch by various prominent members of academia and others who are in general agreement with its principles.

A Humanist Manifesto (I)
A Humanist Manifesto was written in 1933 primarily by Roy Wood Sellars and Raymond Bragg and was published with 34 signatories including philosopher John Dewey. Unlike later revisions, the first manifesto talked of a new "religion", and referred to humanism as a religious movement to transcend and replace previous religions that were based on allegations of supernatural revelation. The document outlines a 15-point belief system, which, in addition to a secular outlook, opposes "acquisitive and profit-motivated society" and outlines a worldwide egalitarian society based on voluntary mutual cooperation, language which was considerably softened by the humanists' board, owners of the document, twenty years later.

The title "A Humanist Manifesto"—rather than "The Humanist Manifesto"—was intentional, predictive of later manifestos to follow, as indeed has been the case. Unlike the creeds of major organized religions, the setting out of humanist ideals in these manifestos is an ongoing process. Indeed, in some communities of humanists the compilation of personal manifestos is actively encouraged, and throughout the humanist movement it is accepted that the humanist manifestos are not permanent or authoritative dogmas but are to be subject to ongoing critique.

Humanist Manifesto II
The second manifesto was written in 1973 by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, and was intended to update and replace the previous one. It begins with a statement that the excesses of Nazism and World War II had made the first seem "far too optimistic", and indicated a more hardheaded and realistic approach in its 17-point statement, which was much longer and more elaborate than the previous version. Nevertheless, much of the unbridled optimism of the first remained, with hopes stated that war would become obsolete and poverty would be eliminated.

Many of the proposals in the document, such as opposition to racism and weapons of mass destruction and support of strong human rights, are fairly uncontroversial, and its prescriptions that divorce and birth control should be legal and that technology can improve life are widely accepted today in much of the Western world. However, in addition to its rejection of supernaturalism, various controversial stances are strongly supported, notably the right to abortion.

Initially published with a small number of signatures, the document was circulated and gained thousands more, and indeed the American Humanist Association website encourages visitors to add their own names. A provision at the end noted that signators do "not necessarily endors[e] every detail" of the document.

Among the oft-quoted lines from this 1973 manifesto are: "No deity will save us; we must save ourselves", and "We are responsible for what we are and for what we will be", both of which may present difficulties for members of certain Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects, or other believers in doctrines of submission to the will of an all-powerful God.

Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III
With a full title of Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933, this work was published in 2003 by the American Humanist Association, and was written by committee. Signatories included 22 Nobel laureates. The new document is a successor to the previous ones.

The newest manifesto is deliberately much shorter, listing six primary themes, which echo those of its predecessors:

 * Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
 * Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of evolutionary change, an unguided process.
 * Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
 * Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
 * Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
 * Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Other manifestos for humanism
Aside from the three Humanist Manifestos of the American Humanist Association (AHA), there have been other similar documents. The name "Humanist Manifesto" is claimed as a trademark by the AHA, though other organizations such as Council for Secular Humanism have used the term anyway. Formulation of new statements in emulation of the original three Humanist Manifestos is encouraged by AHA, and examples follow.

A Secular Humanist Declaration
The Council for Secular Humanism, founded by Paul Kurtz, published its A Secular Humanist Declaration in 1980, addressing the following themes:

 * 1) Free inquiry
 * 2) Separation of church and state
 * 3) The ideal of freedom
 * 4) Ethics based on critical intelligence
 * 5) Moral education
 * 6) Religious skepticism
 * 7) Reason
 * 8) Science and technology
 * 9) Evolution
 * 10) Education

A Secular Humanist Declaration was an argument for and statement of support for democratic secular humanism. The document was issued by the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH), later renamed the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH). Compiled by Paul Kurtz, it is largely a restatement of the content of the American Humanist Association's 1973 Humanist Manifesto II, of which Kurtz was co-author with Edwin H. Wilson. Both had served as editors of The Humanist, from which Kurtz departed in 1979 and thereafter set about establishing his own movement and his own periodical. His A Secular Humanist Declaration was the starting point for these enterprises.

Humanist Manifesto 2000
Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for New Planetary Humanism is a book by Paul Kurtz published in 2000. It differs from the above works in that it is a full-length book rather than essay-length. It was published not by the American Humanist Association but by the Council for Secular Humanism. In it, Kurtz argues for many of the points already formulated in Humanist Manifesto II, of which he had been co-author in 1973.

Amsterdam Declaration 2002
The Amsterdam Declaration 2002 is a statement of the fundamental principles of modern humanism passed unanimously by the General Assembly of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) at the 50th anniversary World Humanist Congress in 2002. According to the IHEU, the declaration "is the official statement of World Humanism".

It is officially supported by all member organizations of the IHEU including:

 * American Humanist Association
 * British Humanist Association
 * Humanist Canada
 * Council of Australian Humanist Societies
 * Council for Secular Humanism
 * Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association
 * Human-Etisk Forbund, the Norwegian humanist association
 * Humanist Association of Ireland
 * Indian Humanist Union
 * Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society

This declaration makes exclusive use of capitalized Humanist and Humanism, which is consistent with IHEU's general practice and recommendations for promoting a unified humanist identity. To further promote humanist identity, these words are also free of any adjectives, as recommended by prominent members of IHEU. Such usage is not universal among IHEU member organizations, though most of them do observe these conventions.

Manifestos

 * A Humanist Manifesto (I) (1933)
 * Amsterdam Declaration 1952
 * Humanist Manifesto II (1973)
 * A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980)
 * A Declaration of Interdependence(1988)
 * "IEHU Minimum Statement on Humanism" (1996)
 * "Humanism: Why, What, and What for, In 882 Words" (1996)
 * Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call For A New Planetary Humanism
 * "The Promise of Manifesto 2000"
 * Amsterdam Declaration 2002
 * Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III (2003)
 * PDF printer-friendly version
 * Manifeste pour un humanisme contemporain (2012)

Miscellaneous

 * "The Genesis of a Humanist Manifesto" by Edwin H. Wilson
 * HUUmanists, an association of Unitarian Universalist humanists
 * Notable signers of Humanist Manifesto III

title: Humanist Manifesto


text:
Humanist Manifesto I

A Humanist Manifesto, also known as Humanist Manifesto I to distinguish it from later Humanist Manifestos in the series, was written in 1933 primarily by Raymond Bragg and published with 34 signers. Unlike the later manifestos, this first talks of a new religion and refers to humanism as "the religion of the future." Nevertheless, it is careful not to express a creed or dogma. The document outlines fifteen affirmations on cosmology, biological and cultural evolution, human nature, epistemology, ethics, religion, self-fulfillment, and the quest for freedom and social justice. This latter, stated in article fourteen, proved to be the most controversial, even among humanists, in its opposition to "acquisitive and profit-motivated society" and its demand for an egalitarian world community based on voluntary mutual cooperation. The document's release was reported by the mainstream media on May 1, simultaneous with its publication in the May/June 1933 issue of the New Humanist.

Two manifestos followed: Humanist Manifesto II in 1973 and Humanism and Its Aspirations in 2003.

List of signers
Of the 65 people who were asked to sign, 34 accepted. About half (15) were Unitarians. The 34 were:

 * J. A. C. Fagginger Auer (Parkman Professor of Church History and Theology, Harvard University; Professor of church history, Tufts College.)
 * E. Burdette Backus (minister, First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles)
 * Harry Elmer Barnes (general editorial department, Scripps-Howard Newspapers.)
 * L. M. Birkhead (the Liberal Center, Kansas City, Missouri.)
 * Raymond B. Bragg (secretary, Western Unitarian Conference.)
 * Edwin Arthur Burtt (professor of philosophy, Sage School of Philosophy, Cornell University.)
 * Ernest Caldecott (minister, First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, California.)
 * A. J. Carlson (professor of physiology, University of Chicago.)
 * John Dewey (Columbia University.)
 * Albert C. Dieffenbach (former editor of the Christian Register.)
 * John H. Dietrich (minister, First Unitarian Society, Minneapolis.)
 * Bernard Fantus (professor of therapeutics, College of Medicine, University of Illinois.)
 * William Floyd (editor of the Arbitrator, New York City.)
 * F.H. Hankins (professor of economics and sociology, Smith College.)
 * A. Eustace Haydon (professor of history of religions, University of Chicago.)
 * Llewellyn Jones (literary critic and author.)
 * Robert Morss Lovett (editor, The New Republic; professor of English, University of Chicago.)
 * Harold P. Marley (minister, the Fellowship of Liberal Religion, Ann Arbor, Michigan.)
 * R. Lester Mondale (minister, Unitarian Church, Evanston, Illinois.)
 * Charles Francis Potter (leader and founder, the First Humanist Society of New York, Inc.)
 * John Herman Randall, Jr. (department of philosophy, Columbia University.)
 * Curtis W. Reese (dean, Abraham Lincoln Center, Chicago.)
 * Oliver L. Reiser (associate professor of philosophy, University of Pittsburgh.)
 * Roy Wood Sellars (professor of philosophy, University of Michigan.)
 * Clinton Lee Scott (minister, Universalist Church, Peoria, Illinois.)
 * Maynard Shipley (president, the Science League of America.)
 * W. Frank Swift (director, Boston Ethical Society.)
 * V. T. Thayer (educational director, Ethical Culture Schools.)
 * Eldred C. Vanderlaan (leader of the Free Fellowship, Berkeley, California.)
 * Joseph Walker (attorney, Boston, Massachusetts.)
 * Jacob J. Weinstein (rabbi; advisor to Jewish Students, Columbia University.)
 * Frank S. C. Wicks (All Souls Unitarian Church, Indianapolis.)
 * David Rhys Williams (minister, Unitarian Church, Rochester, New York.)
 * Edwin H. Wilson (managing editor, the New Humanist, Chicago, Illinois; minister, Third Unitarian Church, Chicago, Illinois.)

A 35th signature, that of Alson Robinson, came in too late for it to be published with the other 34.

title: Humanist Manifesto I


text:
Battle of Amiens (1918)

The Battle of Amiens, also known as the Third Battle of Picardy (3ème Bataille de Picardie), was the opening phase of the Allied offensive which began on 8 August 1918, later known as the Hundred Days Offensive, that ultimately led to the end of the First World War. Allied forces advanced over 11 km on the first day, one of the greatest advances of the war, with Gen Henry Rawlinson's British Fourth Army (with 9 of its 19 divisions supplied by the fast moving Australian Corps of Lt Gen John Monash and Canadian Corps of Lt Gen Arthur Currie) and Gen Marie Eugène Debeney's French First Army playing the decisive role. The battle is also notable for its effects on both sides' morale and the large number of surrendering German forces. This led Erich Ludendorff to later describe the first day of the battle as "the black day of the German Army". Amiens was one of the first major battles involving armoured warfare.

Prelude
On 21 March 1918, the German Army had launched Operation Michael, the first in a series of attacks planned to drive the Allies back along the length of the Western Front. After the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with revolutionary-controlled Russia, the Germans were able to transfer hundreds of thousands of men to the Western Front, giving them a significant, if temporary, advantage in manpower and material. These offensives were intended to translate this advantage into victory. Operation Michael was intended to defeat the right wing of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), but a lack of success around Arras ensured the ultimate failure of the offensive. A final effort was aimed at the town of Amiens, a vital railway junction, but the advance had been halted at Villers-Bretonneux by British and Australian troops on 4 April.

Subsequent German offensives – Operation Georgette (9–11 April), Operation Blücher-Yorck (27 May), Operation Gneisenau (9 June) and Operation Marne-Rheims (15–17 July) – all made advances elsewhere on the Western Front, but failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough.

By the end of the Marne-Rheims offensive, the German manpower advantage had been spent and their supplies and troops were exhausted. The Allied general, General Ferdinand Foch, ordered a counteroffensive which led to victory at the Second Battle of the Marne, following which he was promoted to Marshal of France. The Germans, recognising their untenable position, withdrew from the Marne to the north. Foch now tried to move the Allies back onto the offensive.

Plan
Foch disclosed the plan on 23 July, following the allied victory at the Battle of Soissons. The plan called for reducing the Saint-Mihiel salient (which would later see combat in the Battle of Saint-Mihiel) and freeing the railway lines that ran through Amiens from German shellfire.

The commander of the British Expeditionary Force, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, already had plans in place for an attack near Amiens. When the British retreat had ended in April, the headquarters of the British Fourth Army under General Sir Henry Rawlinson had taken over the front astride the Somme. Its left hand corps was the British III Corps under Lieutenant General Richard Butler, while the Australian Corps under Lieutenant General John Monash held the right flank and linked up with French armies to the south. On 30 May, all the Australian infantry divisions were united under the corps HQ, for the first time on the Western Front. The Australians had mounted a number of local counter-attacks which both revealed the suitability of the open and firm terrain south of the Somme for a larger offensive, and established and refined the methods which were to be used.

The mastermind of the plan was Monash, who used the same innovation and mastery of modern technology, in particular tanks, that he had demonstrated five weeks earlier in the Battle of Hamel. Sir Douglas Haig recorded in his diary how Monash had told him that he “had all the threads of the operation in his hands."

Rawlinson had submitted Monash's proposals to Haig in July and Haig had forwarded them to Foch. At a meeting on 24 July, Foch agreed to the plan but insisted that the French First Army, which held the front to the south of the British Fourth Army, should participate. Rawlinson opposed this as his and Monash's plans depended on the large-scale use of tanks (now finally available in large numbers) to achieve surprise, by avoiding a preliminary bombardment. The French First Army lacked tanks and would be forced to bombard the German positions before the infantry advance began, thus removing the element of surprise. Eventually, it was agreed that the French would participate, but not launch their attack until 45 minutes after the Fourth Army. It was also agreed to advance the proposed date of the attack from 10 to 8 August, to strike the Germans before they had completed their withdrawal from the Marne salient.

Rawlinson had already finalised his plans in discussion with his Corps commanders (Butler, Monash, Sir Arthur Currie of the Canadian Corps and Lieutenant General Charles Kavanagh of the Cavalry Corps) on 21 July. For the first time, the Australians would attack side by side with the Canadian Corps.

The tactical methods had been tested by the Australians in a local counter-attack at the Battle of Hamel on 4 July. The German defenders of Hamel were deeply dug in, and their position commanded a very wide field of fire. Similar positions had resisted capture for two months in the Battle of the Somme. The Australians had used surprise rather than weight at Hamel. The artillery had opened fire only at the moment the infantry and tanks advanced, and the Germans were rapidly overrun.

A key factor in the final plan was secrecy. There was to be no artillery bombardment a significant time before the attack, as was the usual practice, only fire immediately prior to the advance of Australian, Canadian, and British forces. The final plan for the Fourth Army involved 1,386 field guns and howitzers and 684 heavy guns, making up 27 medium artillery brigades and thirteen heavy batteries, in addition to the infantry divisions' artillery. The fire plan for the Fourth Army's artillery was devised by Monash's senior artillery officer, Major General C. E. D. Budworth. British sound ranging advances in artillery techniques and aerial photographic reconnaissance made it possible to dispense with "ranging shots" to ensure accurate fire. Budworth had produced a timetable which allowed 504 out of 530 German guns to be hit at "zero hour", while a creeping barrage preceded the infantry. This method was similar to the Feuerwalze which the Germans themselves had used in their Spring Offensive, but its effectiveness was increased by the surprise achieved.

There were also to be 580 tanks. The Canadian and Australian Corps were each allocated a brigade of four battalions, with 108 Mark V fighting tanks, 36 Mark V "Star", and 24 unarmed tanks intended to carry supplies and ammunition forward. A single battalion of Mark V tanks was allocated to III Corps. The Cavalry Corps were allocated two battalions each of 48 Medium Mark A Whippet tanks.

The Allies had successfully moved the Canadian Corps of four infantry divisions to Amiens without them being detected by the Germans. This was a noteworthy achievement and reflected well on the increasingly efficient staff work of the British armies. A detachment from the Corps of two infantry battalions, a wireless unit and a casualty clearing station had been sent to the front near Ypres to bluff the Germans that the entire Corps was moving north to Flanders. The Canadian Corps was not fully in position until 7 August. To maintain secrecy, the Allied commanders pasted the notice "Keep Your Mouth Shut" into orders issued to the men, and referred to the action as a "raid" rather than an "offensive".

Preliminaries

Although the Germans were still on the offensive in late July, the Allied armies were growing in strength, as more American units arrived in France, and British reinforcements were transferred from the Home Army in Britain and the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. The German commanders realised in early August that their forces might be forced onto the defensive, though Amiens was not considered to be a likely front. The Germans believed the French would probably attack the Saint-Mihiel front east of Rheims, or in Flanders near Mount Kemmel, while they believed the British would attack along either the Lys or near Albert. The Allies had indeed mounted a number of local counter-offensives in these sectors, both to gain local objectives to improve their defensive positions and to distract attention from the Amiens sector. German forces began to withdraw from the Lys and other fronts in response to these theories. The Allies maintained equal artillery and air fire along their various fronts, moving troops only at night, and feigning movements during the day to mask their actual intent.

The German front east of Amiens was held by their Second Army under General Georg von der Marwitz, with six divisions in line (and two facing the French 1st Army). There were only two divisions in immediate reserve. There was some concern among the Allies on 6 August when the German 27th Division actually attacked north of the Somme on part of the front on which the Allies planned to attack two days later. The German division (a specially selected and trained Stosstruppen formation) penetrated roughly 800 yd into the one-and-a-half-mile front. This attack was made in retaliation for a trench raid by the 5th Australian Division north of the Somme on the night of 31 July, which had taken many prisoners, before the Australian Corps was concentrated south of the river. The German division moved back towards its original position on the morning of 7 August, but the movement still required changes to the Allied plan.

To increase the level of surprise still further, the rumble of the approaching tanks was to be masked by bombers flying up and down the German lines. The bombers were twin engine Handley Page O-400's whose engines were similar to the tanks. However the 2 RAF squadrons detailed to take part decided it was too hazardous to order planes into the air in the unseasonably dense fog, and asked for volunteers. Two volunteered from 207 Squadron, Captains Gordon Flavelle and William Peace, and both were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

First phase
The battle began in dense fog at 4:20 am on 8 August. Under Rawlinson's Fourth Army, the British III Corps attacked north of the Somme, the Australian Corps to the south of the river in the centre of Fourth Army's front, and the Canadian Corps to the south of the Australians. The French 1st Army under General Debeney opened its preliminary bombardment at the same time, and began its advance 45 minutes later, supported by a battalion of 72 Whippet tanks. Although German forces were on the alert, this was largely in anticipation of possible retaliation for their incursion on the sixth and not because they had learned of the preplanned Allied attack. Although the two forces were within 460 m of one another, gas bombardment was very low, as the bulk of the Allied presence was unknown to the Germans. The attack was so unexpected that German forces only began to return fire after five minutes, and even then at the positions where the Allied forces had assembled at the start of the battle and had long since left.

In the first phase, seven divisions attacked: the British 18th (Eastern) and 58th (2/1st London), the Australian 2nd and 3rd, and the Canadian 1st, 2nd and 3rd Divisions. Troops of the 33rd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army National Guard supported the British attackers north of the Somme.

The attackers captured the first German position, advancing about 3.7 km by about 7:30 am. In the centre, supporting units following the leading divisions attacked the second objective a further 3.2 km distant. Australian units reached their first objectives by 7:10 am, and by 8:20 am, the Australian 4th and 5th Divisions and the Canadian 4th Division passed through the initial breach in the German lines. The third phase of the attack was assigned to infantry-carrying Mark V* tanks; however, the infantry was able to carry out this final step unaided. The Allies penetrated well to the rear of the German defences and cavalry now continued the advance, one brigade in the Australian sector and two cavalry divisions in the Canadian sector. Aircraft fire by the new RAF and armoured car fire kept the retreating Germans from rallying.

The Canadian and Australian forces in the centre advanced quickly, pushing the line 4.8 km forward from its starting point by 11:00 am. The speed of their advance was such that a party of German officers and some divisional staff were captured while eating breakfast. A gap 24 km long was punched in the German line south of the Somme by the end of the day. There was less success north of the river, where the British III Corps had only a single tank battalion in support, the terrain was rougher and the German incursion of 6 August had disrupted some of the preparations. The corps gained its first objectives but was held up short of the Chipilly spur, "a bare seventy-five-foot-high ridge" in an oxbow bend of the Somme near the village of Chipilly.

The French forces in the right flank also launched an attack, capturing Moreuil by 9:30 am. They then shelled the Germans for three hours and twenty minutes. The French IX Corps began to advance but was stopped on the Avre. Later, the XXXI Corps took Mézières and occupied Fresnoy by nine o'clock. The French suffered 3,500 casualties and took over 5,000 German soldiers prisoner.

The Allies penetrated 10 miles, at a cost of 12,000 casualties, and captured over 15,000 prisoners. Total German losses were estimated to be 30,000 on 8 August. The British, Australian and Canadian infantry of the Fourth Army sustained about 8,000 casualties, with further losses by tank and air personnel, and French forces.

German Army Chief of Staff Paul von Hindenburg noted the Allies' use of surprise and that Allied destruction of German lines of communication had hampered potential German counter-attacks by isolating command positions. The German General Erich Ludendorff described the first day of Amiens as the "Schwarzer Tag des deutschen Heeres" (the "black day of the German Army"), not because of the ground lost to the advancing Allies, but because the morale of the German troops had sunk to the point where large numbers of troops began to capitulate. He recounted instances of retreating troops shouting "You're prolonging the war!" at officers who tried to rally them, and "Blackleg!" at reserves moving up. Five German divisions had effectively been engulfed. Allied forces had pushed, on average, 11 km into enemy territory by the end of the day. The Canadians gained 13 km, Australians 11 km, the French 8 km, and the British 3.2 km.

Second phase
The advance continued on 9 August, though without the spectacular results of the first day. The battle was widened on the north and the south of the initial attack, with the southern part of the battle (involving French forces) called Battle of Montdidier (Bataille de Montdidier).

The infantry had outrun the supporting artillery, and the initial force of more than 500 tanks that played a large role in the Allied success was reduced to six battle-ready tanks within four days. On the Canadian front, congested roads and communication problems prevented the British 32nd Division from being pushed forward rapidly enough to maintain the momentum of the advance.

The Chipilly Spur was still in German hands. The Germans on the ridge commanded a wide field of fire to the south of the Somme, and poured devastating machine gun and artillery fire that kept the Australian Corps pinned down across the river at Hamel. The job of taking Chipilly Ridge was ultimately assigned to three battalions of American doughboys from the 33rd U.S. Infantry Division. According to B.J. Omanson, "'Their attack took place at 5:30 p.m. and, despite heavy machine gun and artillery fire pouring down on them from Chipilly Ridge, the Americans could not be driven back. They repeatedly pressed the assault until the northern half of the ridge and southern end of nearby Gressaire Wood were taken. Continuing the assault the following day, they took the rest of Gressaire Wood and by day's end were in possession of seven hundred German prisoners, thirty artillery pieces, one aircraft, and more than one hundred machine guns.'"

During the 33rd U.S. Division's assault on Chipilly Ridge, Corporal Jake Allex, a Serbian immigrant from Kosovo, took command of his platoon after all the other officers had been killed. Corporal Allex led them in an attack against a German machine gun nest, during which he personally killed five enemy soldiers and captured fifteen prisoners. For his actions at Chipilly Ridge, Corporal Allex became the second American soldier to be awarded the Medal of Honor during the First World War.

On 10 August, there were signs that the Germans were pulling out of the salient from Operation Michael. According to official reports, the Allies had captured nearly 50,000 prisoners and 500 guns by 27 August. Even with the lessened armour the British drove 19 km into German positions by 13 August.

Field Marshal Haig refused the request of Marshal Foch to continue the offensive, preferring instead to launch a fresh offensive by Byng's Third Army between the Ancre and Scarpe. This offensive, the Second Battle of the Somme, took place 21 August – 3 September 1918.

Aftermath

The Battle of Amiens was a major turning point in the tempo of the war. The Germans had started the war with the Schlieffen Plan before the Race to the Sea slowed movement on the Western Front and the war devolved into trench warfare. The German spring offensive earlier in 1918 had once again given Germany the offensive edge on the Western Front. Armoured support helped the Allies tear a hole through trench lines, weakening once-impregnable trench positions: the British Third Army, with no armoured support, had almost no effect on the line, while the Fourth, with fewer than a thousand tanks, broke deep into German territory.

The British war correspondent Philip Gibbs noted Amiens' effect on the war's tempo, saying on 27 August that, "the enemy...is on the defensive" and, "the initiative of attack is so completely in our hands that we are able to strike him at many different places." Gibbs also credits Amiens with a shift in troop morale, saying, "the change has been greater in the minds of men than in the taking of territory. On our side the army seems to be buoyed up with the enormous hope of getting on with this business quickly" and that, "there is a change also in the enemy's mind. They no longer have even a dim hope of victory on this western front. All they hope for now is to defend themselves long enough to gain peace by negotiation."

In popular culture
On the night of August 8–9, 1918, as Doughboys from the 33rd U.S. Division were beginning their assault on Chipilly Ridge, American war poet Lt. John Allan Wyeth and Lieut. Thomas J. Cochrane were assigned to deliver sealed orders from Division HQ at Molliens-au-Bois to the Field Headquarters of all three battalions engaged in the attack. The location of each battalion was unknown, but they were believed to be along the northern bank of the Somme, near the village of Sailly-le-Sec. In his 1928 sonnet sequence This Man's Army, Wyeth described the mission in detail in his six interlinked "Chipilly Ridge sonnets."

According to Bradley J. Omanson, "Lt. Wyeth, as it happened, was a cultured man, a recent Princeton graduate in languages and literature, and he rendered his experiences of that night into an accomplished, highly original cycle of six linked sonnets – part of a much longer cycle of over fifty sonnets which covered the entirety of his service in the war. But it is this self-contained six-sonnet sequence in particular – describing one soldier's stumblings through the metaphoric valley of death – which delves most memorably into the nature of war."

The Battle of Amiens was featured in Battlefield 1 as a map for the game's modes, such as Conquest, Rush and Team Deathmatch. It is also featured in the game's operation of Kaiserschlact.

Decorations

 * Eight Canadians received the Victoria Cross for actions during the Battle of Amiens: Private John Croak, Corporal Harry Miner, Corporal Herman Good, Corporal Frederick Coppins, Lance Corporal Alexander Picton Brereton, Sgt Raphael Zengel, Lieutenant James Edward Tait and Lieutenant Jean Brillant.
 * Corporal Jake Allex (1887–1959) of the 33rd U.S. Infantry Division was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions during the capture of Chipilly Ridge.

 * 12 Aug 1918 Monash was made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath by King George V in the field. First time in 200 years a British monarch had done this.
 * Australian Alfred Gaby earned himself a Victoria’s Cross for his actions on the 08 Aug 1918. Albert was acting as commander when the advance was checked by a large German force about 40 yards beyond the wire, Gaby found a gap and approached the strong point under heavy machine-gun and rifle fire. He emptied his revolver into the garrison, drove the crews from their guns and captured 50 prisoners and four machine-guns. Three days later he was killed by sniper fire in Lihons while leading his men.

Books

 * Omanson, B.J. (2019). Before the Clangor of the Gun: The First World War Poetry of John Allan Wyeth. Monongahela Press, Morgantown, West Virginia.
 * Omanson, B.J. (2019). Before the Clangor of the Gun: The First World War Poetry of John Allan Wyeth. Monongahela Press, Morgantown, West Virginia.
 * Omanson, B.J. (2019). Before the Clangor of the Gun: The First World War Poetry of John Allan Wyeth. Monongahela Press, Morgantown, West Virginia.
 * Omanson, B.J. (2019). Before the Clangor of the Gun: The First World War Poetry of John Allan Wyeth. Monongahela Press, Morgantown, West Virginia.
 * Omanson, B.J. (2019). Before the Clangor of the Gun: The First World War Poetry of John Allan Wyeth. Monongahela Press, Morgantown, West Virginia.
 * Omanson, B.J. (2019). Before the Clangor of the Gun: The First World War Poetry of John Allan Wyeth. Monongahela Press, Morgantown, West Virginia.
 * Omanson, B.J. (2019). Before the Clangor of the Gun: The First World War Poetry of John Allan Wyeth. Monongahela Press, Morgantown, West Virginia.
 * Omanson, B.J. (2019). Before the Clangor of the Gun: The First World War Poetry of John Allan Wyeth. Monongahela Press, Morgantown, West Virginia.
 * Omanson, B.J. (2019). Before the Clangor of the Gun: The First World War Poetry of John Allan Wyeth. Monongahela Press, Morgantown, West Virginia.
 * Omanson, B.J. (2019). Before the Clangor of the Gun: The First World War Poetry of John Allan Wyeth. Monongahela Press, Morgantown, West Virginia.

title: Battle of Amiens (1918)


text:
Humanist Manifesto II

Humanist Manifesto II, written in 1973 by humanists Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, was an update to the previous Humanist Manifesto published in 1933, and the second entry in the Humanist Manifesto series. It begins with a statement that the excesses of National Socialism and world war had made the first Manifesto seem too optimistic, and indicated a more hardheaded and realistic approach in its seventeen-point statement, which was much longer and more elaborate than the previous version. Nevertheless, much of the optimism of the first remained in its expressed hope that war and poverty would be eliminated.

In addition to its absolute rejection of theism, deism and belief in credible proof of any afterlife, various political stances were supported, such as opposition to racism and weapons of mass destruction; support of human rights; a proposition of an international court; and the rights to unrestricted contraception, abortion, divorce, and death with dignity (e.g., euthanasia and suicide).

Initially published with a small number of signatures, the document was circulated and gained thousands more; the American Humanist Association's website encourages visitors to add their own name. A provision at the end of the Manifesto—stating that the signators do "not necessarily endorse every detail" of the document, but only its broad vision—likely helped many overcome reservations about attaching their name.

One of the oft-quoted lines that comes from the Manifesto is, "No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."

The Humanist Manifesto II first appeared in The Humanist's September/October 1973 edition, when Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson were editor and editor emeritus, respectively.

Signatories
The 120 original signatories to the manifesto included the following:

United Kingdom
• A. J. Ayer

• H. J. Blackham

• Hermann Bondi

• Brigid Brophy

• Francis Crick

• H. J. Eysenck

• Raymond Firth

• Antony Flew

• James Hemming

• Julian Huxley

• Margaret Knight

• Ritchie Calder

United States
• Isaac Asimov

• Paul Blanshard

• Joseph Leon Blau

• Arthur Danto

• Paul Edwards

• Alexander Esenin-Volpin

• Betty Friedan

• James Farmer

• Joseph Fletcher

• Mordecai Kaplan

• Alan F. Guttmacher

• Maxine Greene

• Sidney Hook

• Irving Horowitz

• Corliss Lamont

• Vashti McCollum

• Herbert Muller

• A. Philip Randolph

• B. F. Skinner

• Mark Starr

• Maurice Visscher

• Bertram Wolfe

• Joseph Margolis

Yugoslavia

 * Svetozar Stojanovic

Soviet Union

 * Andrei Sakharov

France

 * Jean-Francois Revel

title: Humanist Manifesto II


text:
Humanism and Its Aspirations

Humanism and Its Aspirations (subtitled Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933) is the most recent of the Humanist Manifestos, published in 2003 by the American Humanist Association (AHA). The newest one is much shorter, listing six primary beliefs, which echo themes from its predecessors:

 * Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. (See empiricism.)
 * Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
 * Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. (See ethical naturalism.)
 * Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
 * Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
 * Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

It has been used as source material for secular and atheist ethics.

Signatories
Academics and other prominent persons were signatories to the document, attesting "We who sign Humanism and Its Aspirations declare ourselves in general agreement with its substance":

Notable signatories

 * Philip Appleman (poet and distinguished professor emeritus of English, Indiana University)
 * Khoren Arisian (senior leader, New York Society for Ethical Culture)
 * Bill Baird (reproductive rights pioneer)
 * Frank Berger (pharmacologist, developer of anti-anxiety drugs)
 * Howard Box (minister emeritus, Oak Ridge Unitarian Universalist Church, Tennessee)
 * Lester R. Brown (founder and president, Earth Policy Institute)
 * August E. Brunsman IV (executive director, Secular Student Alliance)
 * Rob Buitenweg (vice president, International Humanist and Ethical Union)
 * Vern Bullough (sexologist and former co-president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union)
 * David Bumbaugh (professor, Meadville Lombard Theological School)
 * Matthew Cherry (executive director, Institute for Humanist Studies)
 * Joseph Chuman (visiting professor of religion, Columbia University, and leader, Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County, New Jersey)
 * Curt Collier (leader, Riverdale-Yonkers Society for Ethical Culture, New York)
 * Fred Cook (retired executive committee member, International Humanist and Ethical Union)
 * Carl Coon (former U.S. Ambassador to Nepal)
 * Richard Dawkins
 * Charles Debrovner (president, NACH/The Humanist Institute)
 * Arthur Dobrin (professor of humanities, Hofstra University and leader emeritus Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island, New York)
 * Margaret Downey (president, Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia)
 * Sonja Eggerickx (vice president, Unie Vrijzinnige Verenigingen, Belgium, and vice president International Humanist and Ethical Union)
 * Riane Eisler (president, Center for Partnership Studies)
 * Albert Ellis (creator of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and founder of the Albert Ellis Institute)
 * Edward L. Ericson (leader emeritus, Ethical Culture)
 * Roy P. Fairfield (co-founder, Union Graduate School)
 * Antony Flew (philosopher)
 * Levi Fragell (president, International Humanist and Ethical Union)
 * Jerome Isaac Friedman (Nobel Laureate, Physics)
 * Arun Gandhi (co-founder, M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence)
 * Kendyl Gibbons (president, Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association)
 * Sol Gordon (sexologist)
 * Ethelbert Haskins (retired treasurer of the Humanist Foundation)
 * Jim Herrick (editor, the New Humanist)
 * Pervez Hoodbhoy (professor of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan)
 * Fran P. Hosken (editor, Women's International Network News)
 * Joan Johnson Lewis (president, National Leaders Council of the American Ethical Union)
 * Stefan Jonasson (immediate past president, HUUmanists)
 * Larry Jones (president, Institute for Humanist Studies)
 * Edwin Kagin (founder and director, Camp Quest)
 * Beth Lamont (AHA NGO representative to the United Nations)
 * Gerald A. Larue (professor emeritus of Biblical history and archaeology, University of Southern California)
 * Joseph Levee (board member, Council for Secular Humanism)
 * Ellen McBride (immediate past president, American Ethical Union)
 * Lester Mondale (retired Unitarian Universalist minister and signer of Humanist Manifestos I and II)
 * Henry Morgentaler (abortion rights pioneer)
 * Stephen Mumford (president, Center for Research on Population and Security)
 * William Murry (president and dean, Meadville Lombard Theological School)
 * Sarah Oelberg (president, HUUmanists)
 * Indumati Parikh (president, Center for the Study of Social Change, India)
 * Philip Paulson (Church-state activist)
 * Katha Pollitt (columnist, the Nation)
 * Howard Radest (dean emeritus, the Humanist Institute)
 * James "Amazing" Randi (magician, founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation)
 * Larry Reyka (president, the Humanist Society)
 * David Schafer (retired research physiologist, U.S. Veterans Administration)
 * Eugenie Scott (executive director, National Center for Science Education)
 * Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine)
 * James R. Simpson (professor of international agricultural economics, Ryukoku University, Japan)
 * Warren Allen Smith (editor and author)
 * Matthew les Spetter (associate professor in social psychology at the Peace Studies Institute of Manhattan College, NY)
 * Oliver Stone (Academy Award-winning filmmaker)
 * John Swomley (professor emeritus of social ethics, St. Paul School of Theology)
 * Robert Tapp (dean, the Humanist Institute)
 * Carl Thitchener (co-minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Amherst and of Canandaigua, New York)
 * Maureen Thitchener (co-minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Amherst and of Canandaigua, New York)
 * Rodrigue Tremblay (Emeritus professor of economics and of international finance, Universite de Montreal, Quebec, Canada)
 * Kurt Vonnegut (novelist)
 * John Weston (ministerial settlement director, Unitarian Universalist Association)
 * Edward O. Wilson (professor, Harvard University, and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner)
 * Sherwin Wine (founder and president, Society for Humanistic Judaism)

Nobel laureates
22 Nobel laureates were among the signatories:

 * Philip W. Anderson (Physics, 1977)
 * Paul D. Boyer (Chemistry, 1997)
 * Owen Chamberlain (Physics, 1959)
 * Francis Crick (Medicine, 1962)
 * Paul J. Crutzen (Chemistry, 1995)
 * Pierre-Gilles de Gennes (Physics, 1991)
 * Johann Deisenhofer (Chemistry, 1988)
 * Jerome I. Friedman (Physics, 1990)
 * Sheldon Glashow (Physics, 1979)
 * David J. Gross (Physics, 2004)
 * Herbert A. Hauptman (Chemistry, 1985)
 * Dudley Herschbach (Chemistry, 1986)
 * Harold W. Kroto (Chemistry, 1996)
 * Yuan T. Lee (Chemistry, 1986)
 * Mario J. Molina (Chemistry, 1995)
 * Erwin Neher (Medicine, 1991)
 * Ilya Prigogine (Chemistry, 1977)
 * Richard J. Roberts (Medicine, 1993)
 * John E. Sulston (Medicine, 2002)
 * Henry Taube (Chemistry, 1983)
 * E. Donnall Thomas (Medicine, 1990)
 * James Dewey Watson (Medicine, 1962)

Past AHA presidents

 * Edd Doerr
 * Michael W. Werner
 * Suzanne I. Paul
 * Lyle L. Simpson
 * Bette Chambers
 * Lloyd L. Morain
 * Robert W. McCoy
 * Vashti McCollum

AHA board members

 * Melvin Lipman (president)
 * Lois Lyons (vice president)
 * Ronald W. Fegley (secretary)
 * John Nugent (treasurer)
 * Wanda Alexander
 * John R. Cole
 * Tom Ferrick
 * Robert D. Finch
 * John M. Higgins
 * Herb Silverman
 * Maddy Urken
 * Mike Werner

Drafting committee

 * Fred Edwords (chair)
 * Edd Doerr (also included above as a past AHA president)
 * Tony Hileman
 * Pat Duffy Hutcheon
 * Maddy Urken

title: Humanism and Its Aspirations


text:
Eulenburg affair

The Eulenburg affair (also called the Harden–Eulenburg affair) was a public controversy surrounding a series of courts-martial and five civil trials regarding accusations of homosexual conduct, and accompanying libel trials, among prominent members of Kaiser Wilhelm II's cabinet and entourage during 1907–1909. It has been described as "the biggest homosexual scandal ever."

The issue centred on journalist Maximilian Harden's accusations of homosexual conduct between the Kaiser's close friend Philipp, Prince of Eulenburg, and General Kuno von Moltke. Accusations and counter-accusations quickly multiplied, and the phrase "Liebenberg Round Table" came to be used for the homosexual circle around the Kaiser.

The affair received wide publicity and is often considered the biggest domestic scandal of Imperial Germany. It led to one of the first major public discussions of homosexuality in Germany, comparable to the trial of Oscar Wilde in England. Historians have linked the aftermath of the affair to the changes in German foreign policy that heightened its military aggressiveness and ultimately contributed to World War I.

Causes
The scandal was used by opponents of Germany's foreign policies. Wilhelm II dismissed "Iron" Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and his Realpolitik system of treaties and agreements in 1890, replacing Bismarck's clear rule with a muddle and his foreign policies with a confrontational, expansionist Weltpolitik. The anti-imperialist Eulenburg became the most prominent member of Wilhelm II's entourage, having been promoted from a member of the diplomatic corps to an ambassador. Like many others, Bismarck noticed that the nature of the relationship between Wilhelm II and Eulenburg could "not be confided to paper" and felt, alongside those others, that even these activities in the private sphere were not to be exposed to the public. Beyond that, the Auswärtiges Amt suffered what the British historian John C. G. Röhl called a "culture of intrigue" with German diplomats forever forming factions to plot against one another. The two dominant factions in the early 20th century were the faction headed by Friedrich von Holstein, the powerful director of the Political Department at the Auswärtiges Amt, and the Bülow–Eulenburg clique, headed by Bernhard von Bülow and his close friend Eulenburg, which was rapidly eclipsing the Holstein faction. Holstein had known Eulenburg since June 1886 and had once been his ally when the two had plotted against Bismarck in 1889–1890, but starting around 1894, Eulenburg and Holstein had begun to come into conflict with each other. The close friendship between Eulenburg and the Kaiser meant that Holstein tended to lose his disputes with Eulenburg. As a trump card to destroy his rival Eulenburg, Holstein had contacted Maximilian Harden to inform him that Eulenburg was a homosexual.

Harden, imperialist head of the periodical Die Zukunft, felt similarly about the direction of German foreign policy, and in 1902 personally threatened to expose Eulenburg unless he retired from his ambassadorship in Vienna; Eulenburg did so, withdrawing from public life until 1906. Harden reaffirmed his threat after Germany at the Algeciras Conference of 1906 recognized Morocco as being within the French sphere of influence, in what was for Germany a major foreign policy fiasco, and Eulenburg responded by moving to Switzerland. In May 1906, Holstein sent Eulenburg an extremely insulting and rude letter alongside a challenge to fight a duel to the death. After Eulenburg declined to fight the duel, Holstein decided to destroy Eulenburg by exposing his homosexuality.

Between 1906 and 1907, six military officers committed suicide after blackmail, while in the preceding three years, around twenty officers were convicted by courts-martial, all for homosexual acts. A Gardes du Corps officer was charged with homosexuality, an embarrassment because the elite Corps was commanded by Lieutenant General Wilhelm Graf von Hohenau, a blood relative to the Kaiser. Worse than these sexual scandals, in Harden's eyes, was Eulenburg's decision to return to Germany and be admitted to the Order of the Black Eagle; he did not change his mind when Prince Friedrich Heinrich of Prussia declined to be admitted to the Order of Saint John because of his own homosexual proclivities.

Outing
Harden outed Eulenburg on April 27, 1907, confirming the identity he previously had parodied as "the Harpist" (Eulenburg), after outing "Sweetie" General Kuno Graf von Moltke in 1906. Wilhelm II, informed of the growing story, responded by requiring the resignation of three of fifteen prominent aristocrats, Hohenau, Moltke, and Count Johannes von Lynar, listed as homosexual by the Berlin vice squad; however, the actual list, not shown to Wilhelm II, contained several hundred names.

Moltke's lawyer attempted to file criminal libel against Harden, but was dismissed and civil libel was suggested. Eulenburg denied any culpability and presented a self-accusation of violating the applicable Paragraph 175 to his district attorney who, as hoped and expected, cleared Eulenburg of all charges in July. Meanwhile, manager of the Königliche Oper, the crown prince's equerry von Stückradt, and Imperial Chancellor Bernhard Prince von Bülow were accused of having homosexual tendencies or engaging in homosexual activities.

Moltke v. Harden
This trial was held from October 23 to 29, 1907. Testifying against Moltke were Lily von Elbe, his former wife of nine years, a soldier named Bollhardt, and Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld. Elbe described the lack of conjugal relations, happening only on the first and second night of their marriage, Moltke's overly close friendship with Eulenburg with whom he was always spending too much time, and her ignorance of homosexuality. Elbe's testimony was sensational for the time and attracted much media attention as she spoke openly of her sexual needs and how difficult it was for her to be married to a man like Moltke who had no sexual interest in her, causing her to attack him several times in desperation. At the time, Germany had a very conservative culture where the existence of female sexuality was never spoken of in public, and Elbe's testimony was noteworthy for the first time where the subject of female sexuality was addressed in Germany. The revelation that his young wife had attacked General von Moltke without his defending himself was seen at the time as confirming that Moltke was not manly, as the expectation was that a Prussian officer and a "real man" would have beaten his wife if she struck him, which in turn confirmed the belief that Moltke was gay. Moltke's lawyers counterattacked using the subject of Elbe's sexuality, arguing that any woman who spoke openly of her sexuality was a deranged "hysterical nymphomaniac" who could not be trusted. Bollhardt described attending champagne-filled parties at Lynar's villa at which he saw both Hohenau and Moltke. Hirschfeld, a prominent German sexologist who was himself homosexual, had observed the trial and testified that Moltke most certainly had a feminine side and was homosexual even if he had never committed sodomy. On October 29, the court found Moltke homosexual and Harden innocent of libel.

However, the trial was voided on procedural grounds, and the state prosecutor decided to allow a criminal libel trial.

Bülow v. Brand
November 6, 1907.

Adolf Brand, founder of the first homosexual periodical, Der Eigene (The Unique), had printed a pamphlet which described how Bülow had been blackmailed for his sexuality and had kissed and embraced his private secretary Max Scheefer at male gatherings hosted by Eulenburg, and thus was morally obliged to publicly oppose Paragraph 175. Brand was found guilty of libel and sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Harden v. Moltke
December 18–25, 1907.

Elbe, through a diagnosis of classical hysteria, and Hirschfeld, by retracting his earlier testimony, were discredited and Harden was convicted of libel and sentenced to four months imprisonment.

Harden v. Städele
April 21, 1908.

Now motivated by political goals, morals, and vengeance, Harden set out to prove Eulenburg's homosexuality by having Anton Städele publish an article claiming Harden took hush money from Eulenburg. Harden then sued his accomplice for libel, Städele was found guilty and charged a hundred mark fine, repaid by Harden. During the trial, however, Georg Riedel and Jacob Ernst testified to having had sexual relations with Eulenburg. Eulenburg was charged with perjury and brought to trial on May 7, 1908. Two weeks later Harden's conviction was overturned and a second trial begun.

Eulenburg
June 29, 1908.

After the first of 41 witnesses, including Ernst and ten witnesses who described watching Eulenburg through a keyhole in 1887, the trial was delayed because of Eulenburg's ill health. It was moved to his hospital bed on July 17, but was delayed again. The trial was postponed indefinitely in 1919; until that point Eulenburg had twice-yearly undergone a medical examination to determine if he was well enough to stand trial.

Moltke v. Harden
April, 1909.

The trial date was originally set for November 24, 1908, but was postponed. With little press, Harden was again convicted and fined six hundred marks plus the forty thousand marks of court costs, while Moltke was rehabilitated in the public eye.

Effects
The stress of the trials caused most participants to fall ill during 1908.

In November 1908, the chief of the Military Secretariat Dietrich von Hülsen-Haeseler died of a heart attack while performing a pas seul dressed in a woman's ballet tutu for Wilhelm II and his hunting party, requiring further damage control in the form of a cover up.

Harden, like some in the upper echelons of the military and Foreign Office, resented Eulenberg's approval of the Anglo-French Entente, and also his encouragement of Wilhelm to rule personally. The scandal led to Wilhelm suffering a nervous breakdown, and the removal of Eulenberg and others of his circle from the court. Despite Eulenberg's own approval of Weltpolitik, his clique was a stabilizing factor. By removing Eulenberg, Harden enabled his own highly aggressive foreign policy to take root in the Auswärtiges Amt. By 1914, Harden had moved sufficiently to the right that he welcomed the German invasion of Belgium. During the war, Harden was an annexationist who wrote numerous articles demanding that Germany win the war, annex most of Europe, Africa, and Asia, and become the world's greatest power. However, after the defeat of Germany he became a pacifist. Eulenberg himself was irrelevant by then.

The Eulenburg affair has been held up as one example of anti-homosexuality sentiment being used as a means to attain certain political goals. As Eulenburg's wife later commented, "They are striking at my husband, but their target is the kaiser."

The affair also led people in other countries to perceive homosexuality as especially prevalent in Germany. New euphemisms for homosexuality came into use, such as le vice allemand ("the German vice") or Eulenburgue (in French), or Berlinese (Italian).

References and further reading

 * Domeier, Norman. The Eulenburg Affair. A Cultural History of Politics in Imperial Germany (German History in Context 1), New York 2015, ISBN 978-1571139122.
 * Domeier, Norman. "The homosexual scare and the masculinization of German politics before World War I." Central European History 47.4 (2014): 737–759.
 * Duberman, Martin. Jews Queers Germans (Seven Stories Press, 2017).
 * Dynes, Wayne R. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Homosexuality.  (New York and London, Garland Publishing, 1990).
 * Hull, Isabel V. The Entourage of Kaiser Wilhelm II, 1888–1918 (2004) excerpt
 * Johansson, Warren and Percy, William A. Outing:  Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence.  (Harrington Park Press, 1994).
 * Massie, Robert K. Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the coming of the Great War (Random House, 1991) excerpt see Dreadnought (book), popular history pp 663–679.
 * Röhl, John. The Kaiser and his Court: Wilhelm II and the Government of Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)
 * Röhl, John C. G; Sombart, Nicolaus (Editors) Kaiser Wilhelm II New Interpretations: The Corfu Papers, (Cambridge University Press, 1982).
 * Young, Harry F. Maximilian Harden. Censor Germaniae: The Critic in Opposition from Bismarck to the Rise of Nazism (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1959).
 * Young, Harry F. Maximilian Harden. Censor Germaniae: The Critic in Opposition from Bismarck to the Rise of Nazism (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1959).

title: Eulenburg affair


text: Talk:Argyreia nervosa

title: Talk:Argyreia nervosa


text:
Talk:David Boon

Governor
David Boon for governor? What! All I can find on google news are these articles -  -- Chuq 00:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

....and David Foster is also mentioned.... We could have both - like the Boon and Foster calendar of many years back! Jgritz 10:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to endear myself to Aussies here...
...especially being a Pom! But really, the "Highlights" section is horribly tacky. As is mentioned in various places, Wikipedia is supposed to take a "formal tone", and this section simply doesn't. Yes, Boon's 52-can binge deserves a mention as it has become part of the mythology of the game, but trying to make it look like a Guinness Book of Records entry is silly to say the least. Actually, all three of the "Highlights" look like they come straight from some Australian equivalent of the Barmy Army, and certainly not from an encyclopedia.

Two points I'd better answer on the spot... first, the reason I haven't simply deleted the whole section (and indeed the "Trivia" sections for several other cricketers) is because I suspect it would simply be reverted, so I'm merely registering my objection here. Second, I have to declare that I am not neutral about this section (another reason for my not editing). I do have a prejudice against making drinking 52 cans look like an achievement: I think it's a spectacularly pathetic thing to do. If Boon had killed himself through alcohol poisoning would everyone be lauding him to the skies for what he did? I doubt it.

And whatever you have to say in response, please don't say "lighten up" or the like. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine. Loganberry (Talk) 05:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Cleaned up the article a bit. I think I was initially at fault for this, since being a Tasmanian we don't get much to celebrate :). Anyway, I've balanced it out now, so it's no so much a comedy article. Jgritz 06:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, and in turn I apologise for the overly grumpy tone of my own comments. I really must stop editing Wikipedia at 5 in the morning... but it's hard, so hard! ;) Anyway, I think the "Cult Figure" section works pretty well, and once (much) more has been added on his playing exploits it should fit in pretty nicely. Loganberry (Talk) 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Points taken, but you have to realise that there are a lot of us yobbos out there too, to whom stuff like this gets right up there with the invention of the wheel and sliced bread. Boony Legend! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

The "record" certainly has a place in aussie cricket folklore. But I'm surprised there have been no mentions of the health dangers of this 52 can exploit. Even the binge drinking epidemic of today doesn't see people consume that much alcohol. --220.245.4.169 (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this 52 can binge needs to be mentioned, I mean drinking at altitude is tricky, especially if you're 52 not out. Why wouldn't you mention it anyway? Australian teams are always drunk in most English tours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.162.106 (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just added a few links
Hi, just popped in a few wiki links to things like the West Indian cricket team, etc.

I might do a bit of work on this one as the guy's a hero to many Australians.

Oz Brothers
Seeing as "Cult Figure" is a major subheading here, I think it's necessary to add a reference to the Oz Brothers segment during the 1993 season of "The Late Show", where Rob Sitch and Santo Cilauro dressed similarly to Boon and paid tribute to Boon in almost every line of the sketch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.114.228.151 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 10 November 2006
 * Hmm, I think that is best left to The Late Show (Australian TV series) article. -- Chuq 12:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of unsourced negative material
Per WP:GRAPEVINE, part of wikipidia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP), I have deleted substantial material in this article that related to Boon's alleged alcohol consumption (the material amounted to claims of alcohol overuse and a negative influence on the public). The material was either totally unsourced, or was sourced to material that provided no verification of the "claims". I note that Boon himself denies the spurious claims of his drinking on a particular international flight. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Boon


text:
Category:Humanism

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith.

title: Category:Humanism