text:
On a Clear Day You Can See Forever

On a Clear Day You Can See Forever is a musical with music by Burton Lane and a book and lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner based loosely on Berkeley Square, written in 1926 by John L. Balderston. It concerns a woman who has ESP and has been reincarnated. The musical received three Tony Award nominations.

Productions
The Broadway production opened at the Mark Hellinger Theatre on October 17, 1965, and closed on June 11, 1966, after 280 performances and 3 previews. The production was directed by Robert Lewis, choreographed by Herbert Ross, and starred Barbara Harris as Daisy Gamble/Melinda, John Cullum as Dr. Mark Bruckner, Clifford David as Edward Moncrief, Titos Vandis as Themistocles Kriakos, and William Daniels (Harris's co-star in A Thousand Clowns) as Warren Smith. Louis Jourdan was the original leading man when the show had its tryout at the Colonial Theatre in Boston but was replaced by Cullum before it reached Broadway. Scenic design was by Oliver Smith and costume design was by Freddy Wittop.

The show was not well received. Ben Brantley of the New York Times recalled: "Its book was strained and muddled, most critics agreed; its big production numbers were simply cumbersome. But it did have [a] lushly melodic score...." Tours followed, starring such diverse actress-singers as Tammy Grimes, Linda Lavin, and Nancy Dussault as Daisy/Melinda.

The New York Times reported that the show was budgeted at $600,000, with NBC supplying $150K and RCA $60K. Operating cost per week was said to be $55K-60K at a time when a big musical’s typical weekly cost was about $45K.

A 1970 film adaptation directed by Vincente Minnelli starred Barbra Streisand, Yves Montand, Bob Newhart and Jack Nicholson.

In February 2000, the New York City Center Encores! series presented a staged concert starring Kristin Chenoweth as Daisy/Melinda and Peter Friedman as Dr. Bruckner. The show premiered in London in 2000 at the Bridewell Theatre.

A revised Broadway production began previews on November 12, 2011, at the St. James Theatre and opened on December 11, 2011, directed by Michael Mayer and with a new book by Peter Parnell. Harry Connick Jr. starred as Dr. Mark Bruckner. The cast included Jessie Mueller as Melinda and David Turner as David Gamble. The revised version, which had a developmental workshop at The Vineyard Theatre in the fall of 2009 and had readings in August 2010 at the Powerhouse Theater at Vassar College, departed from the plot of the original. The patient is now a gay florist David (Turner) who was a female jazz singer Melinda (Mueller) in a former life, and who falls in love with his psychiatrist, widower Dr. Mark Bruckner (Connick). The Vassar concert mixed "material from the stage and film versions and eliminates overstuffed 1960s-style production numbers." This production closed on January 29, 2012, after 29 previews and 57 performances.

On A Clear Day You Can See Forever was revived at the Union Theatre in London starring Vicki Lee Taylor as Daisy Gamble and Nadeem Crowe as Dr. Mark Bruckner. The production was directed by Kirk Jameson and opened to rave reviews with the run ending on 28 September 2013.

The 2011 revised Broadway version was revived at The New Conservatory Theater Center in San Francisco, California starring Chris Morell as David Gamble, Melissa O'Keefe as Melinda Wells, and popular local actor William Giammona as Dr. Mark Bruckner. The production was directed by Artistic Director and Founder, Ed Decker, with music direction by Matthew Lee Cannon, choreography by Jayne Zaban and featuring new instrumental arrangements by Ben Prince. It opened May 21, 2016.

Porchlight Music Theatre presented this show as a part of their "Porchlight Revisits" season where they stage three forgotten musicals per year. It was in Chicago, Illinois in May 2017. It was directed by Lili-Anne Brown.

Tony Award-nominee Melissa Errico starred in a 2018 Off-Broadway revival in New York City with Irish Repertory Theatre; she also wrote about the musical in an inquiry about gender politics in theater for The New York Times that summer.

Synopsis
Quirky Daisy Gamble sees herself as an unremarkable person and has low self-esteem, even though she can (1) make plants grow remarkably, (2) predict when a telephone will ring or someone will drop in, and (3) tell where to find an object that someone else is looking for. Her current problem, though, is her nasty smoking habit, which will interfere with the chances of her fiancé, Warren, for a job with great benefits. She seeks help from a psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Bruckner, to stop smoking. When he hypnotizes her, she describes living a previous life in late 18th century England as "Melinda Wells", who died in her late twenties from circumstances beyond her control. Free spirited Melinda was in love with portrait painter Edward Moncrief. Mark keeps to himself what Daisy has revealed to him, and he tells her that she should not be ashamed of her ESP.
 * Act I

At their next session, Daisy, under hypnosis, relates scenes from the salacious London Hellrakers' Club where Melinda met Edward. Melinda and Edward eventually marry, but the painter is unfaithful to her, making love to his subjects. Mark finds himself falling for "Melinda" and becomes convinced that Daisy is really the reincarnation of Melinda. Melinda finally leaves Edward and sets sail for America, but the ship never reaches Boston. Before Mark can save Melinda from shipwreck, Daisy wakes up.

Mark reports on the case to his fellow psychiatrists, who ridicule his findings. Greek shipping magnate Themistocles Kriakos learns of Mark's belief in reincarnation and offers to finance a study of the events of Melinda's life in exchange for Mark's help in discovering who he will be in his next life, which will allow him to leave his fortune to his future self. Daisy accidentally discovers that she is the "Melinda" at the center of the growing controversy and that Mark prefers Melinda to herself. In her angry confrontation with the psychiatrist about the matter, she tells him that she is "through being a go-between for you and your dream girl. You're not going to go on using my head for a motel."
 * Act II

Daisy goes to the airport, ready to return home. Her ESP powers warn her that the plane on which she plans to travel will crash. She realizes at last how special she really is. She leaves her starchy fiancé and she and Mark unite to explore their extraordinary future.

Versions
The musical is available in at least two noticeably different published versions (aside from the film version), although the basic plot-line remains the same. The first version was published in 1966. The musical numbers recorded in the original Broadway cast album of 1965 correspond to this version.

A second version is evident in the piano-vocal score published in 1967. Here several vocal numbers from the above version are missing ("Ring Out the Bells," "Tosy and Cosh", "Don't Tamper with my Sister"), as is the introduction to the song "Hurry, It's Lovely Up Here," which is recorded on the cast album. Also, the Greek millionaire's solo, "When I'm Being Born Again" is given completely different lyrics ("When I Come Around Again") and sung instead by Daisy's friends. The overture recorded on the cast album combines the "overture" and "entr'acte" printed in the vocal score.

The 1970 film version departed from the musical significantly, adding a character for Jack Nicholson (an ex-stepbrother named "Tad"), and changing details of other characters, moving the period of Melinda's life ahead by a decade or two (into the early 19th century), removing several songs, changing lyrics and adding two new songs.

1965 Broadway version

 * Act I
 * "Overture"
 * "Hurry! It's Lovely Up Here!" — Daisy Gamble
 * "Ring Out the Bells" — Samuel Welles, Mrs. Welles, Sir Hubert Insdale and Servants
 * "Tosy and Cosh" — Daisy
 * "On a Clear Day (You Can See Forever)" — Dr. Mark Bruckner
 * "On the S.S. Bernard Cohn" — Daisy, Muriel Bunson, James Preston and Millard Cross
 * "At the Hellrakers" (Ballet)
 * "Don't Tamper with My Sister" — Edward Moncrief, Sir Hubert and Ensemble
 * "She Wasn't You" — Edward
 * "Melinda" — Dr. Bruckner

 * Act II
 * "When I'm Being Born Again" — Themistocles Kriakos
 * "What Did I Have That I Don't Have?" — Daisy
 * "Wait Till We're Sixty-Five" — Warren Smith and Daisy
 * "Come Back to Me" — Dr. Bruckner
 * "Come Back to Me (reprise)" — Dr. Bruckner
 * "On a Clear Day (You Can See Forever) (Reprise)" — Ensemble

1967 Revised version

 * Act I
 * "Overture"
 * "Hurry! It's Lovely Up Here!" — Daisy Gamble
 * "First Regression: She Wasn't You
 * "Solicitor's Song" — Samuel Welles, Mrs. Welles, Sir Hubert Insdale and Servants
 * "He Wasn't You" — Daisy
 * "On a Clear Day (You Can See Forever)" — Dr. Mark Bruckner
 * "The Gout"
 * "On the S.S. Bernard Cohn" — Daisy, Muriel Bunson, James Preston and Millard Cross
 * "She Wasn't You" — Edward
 * "Melinda" — Dr. Bruckner

 * Act II
 * "Entre´acte"
 * "When I'm Being Born Again" — Muriel, Preston and Students
 * "What Did I Have That I Don't Have?" — Daisy
 * "Wait Till We're Sixty-Five" — Warren Smith and Daisy
 * "Come Back to Me" — Dr. Bruckner
 * "Come Back to Me (reprise)" — Dr. Bruckner
 * "On a Clear Day (You Can See Forever) (Reprise)" — Ensemble

2011 Broadway revival version

 * Act I
 * "Overture"
 * "Hurry! It's Lovely Up Here!"
 * "She Isn't You"
 * "Open Your Eyes" †
 * "Wait 'til We're 65"
 * "You're All the World to Me" †
 * "Who Is There Among Us Who Knows"
 * "On the S.S. Bernard Cohn"
 * "Love with All the Trimmings"
 * "Melinda"

 * Act II
 * "Entr' Acte"
 * "Go to Sleep" — Added during previews, not credited in the Playbill
 * "Ev'ry Night at Seven" †
 * "Too Late Now" †
 * "When I'm Being Born Again"
 * "He Wasn't You"
 * "What Did I Have That I Don't Have"
 * "Come Back to Me"
 * "On a Clear Day (You Can See Forever)"

† Songs taken from the musical film Royal Wedding.

Note: In the piano-vocal score, a song appears that was not included in the original Broadway production: "The Solicitor's Song", during Daisy's first regression-scene. There was also a ballet in the first act of the original production, entitled "At the Hellrakers" and the song "Ring Out the Bells" that are not found on the original Broadway recording.

Recordings
The title song, first introduced by John Cullum in the 1965 musical, has been recorded by a number of artists, including Robert Goulet, Johnny Mathis, baseball pitcher Denny McLain, and Sergio Franchi on his 1976 DynaHouse and TeleHouse albums; Barbra Streisand, star of the 1970 film version, recorded the title song on the film's soundtrack and has frequently included it in her concerts. Sammy Davis Jr. has also performed the title song live in concert, and Harry James released a version in 1967 on his album Our Leader! (Dot DLP 3801 and DLP 25801). In 2012, The Peddlers' 1968 jazz cover was used in season 5 episode 3 ("Hazard Pay") of AMC-TV's Breaking Bad over a montage of Walt and Jesse's meth manufacturing.

"What Did I Have That I Don't Have" was covered with some success by Eydie Gorme and was also sung by Streisand on the soundtrack of the film version. "Come Back to Me" was recorded by swing revival band the Cherry Poppin' Daddies in 1994, which later appeared on their multi-platinum 1997 compilation Zoot Suit Riot and was re-recorded for their 2014 Rat Pack tribute Please Return the Evening.

The title song is reminiscent of Ravel's "Dawn" movement from his ballet Daphnis et Chloé.

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

title: On a Clear Day You Can See Forever


text:
X-ray microscope

An X-ray microscope uses electromagnetic radiation in the X-ray band to produce magnified images of objects. Since X-rays penetrate most objects, there is no need to specially prepare them for X-ray microscopy observations.

Unlike visible light, X-rays do not reflect or refract easily and are invisible to the human eye. Therefore, an X-ray microscope exposes film or uses a charge-coupled device (CCD) detector to detect X-rays that pass through the specimen. It is a contrast imaging technology using the difference in absorption of soft X-rays in the water window region (wavelengths: 2.34–4.4 nm, energies: 280–530 eV) by the carbon atom (main element composing the living cell) and the oxygen atom (an element of water).

Microfocus X-ray also achieves high magnification by projection. A microfocus X-ray tube produces X-rays from an extremely small focal spot (5 μm down to 0.1 μm). The X-rays are in the more conventional X-ray range (20 to 300 keV) and are not re-focused.

Invention and development
The history of X-ray microscopy can be traced back to the early 20th century. After the German physicist Röntgen discovered X-rays in 1895, scientists soon illuminated an object using an X-ray point source and captured the shadow images of the object with a resolution of several micrometers. In 1918, Einstein pointed out that the refractive index for X-rays in most mediums should be just slightly greater than 1, which means that refractive optical parts would be difficult to use for X-ray applications.

Early X-ray microscopes by Paul Kirkpatrick and Albert Baez used grazing-incidence reflective X-ray optics to focus the X-rays, which grazed X-rays off parabolic curved mirrors at a very high angle of incidence. An alternative method of focusing X-rays is to use a tiny Fresnel zone plate of concentric gold or nickel rings on a silicon dioxide substrate. Sir Lawrence Bragg produced some of the first usable X-ray images with his apparatus in the late 1940s.

In the 1950s Sterling Newberry produced a shadow X-ray microscope, which placed the specimen between the source and a target plate, this became the basis for the first commercial X-ray microscopes from the General Electric Company.

After a silent period in the 1960s, X-ray microscopy regained people's attention in the 1970s. In 1972, Horowitz and Howell built the first synchrotron-based X-ray microscope at the Cambridge Electron Accelerator. This microscope scanned samples using synchrotron radiation from a tiny pinhole and showed the abilities of both transmission and fluorescence microscopy. Other developments in this period include the first holographic demonstration by Sadao Aoki and Seishi Kikuta in Japan, the first TXMs using zone plates by Schmahl et al., and Stony Brook's experiments in STXM.

The uses of synchrotron light sources brought new possibilities for X-ray microscopy in the 1980s. However, as new synchrotron-source-based microscopes were built in many groups, people realized that it was difficult to perform such experiments due to insufficient technological capabilities at that time, such as poor coherent illuminations, poor-quality x-ray optical elements, and user-unfriendly light sources.

Entering the 1990s, new instruments and new light sources greatly fueled the improvement of X-ray microscopy. Microscopy methods including tomography, cryo-, and cryo-tomography were successfully demonstrated. With rapid development, X-ray microscopy found new applications in soil science, geochemistry, polymer sciences, and magnetism. The hardware was also miniaturized, so that researchers could perform experiments in their own laboratories.

Extremely high-intensity sources of 9.25 keV X-rays for X-ray phase-contrast microscopy, from a focal spot about 10 μm × 10 μm, may be obtained with a non-synchrotron X-ray source that uses a focused electron beam and a liquid-metal anode. This was demonstrated in 2003 and in 2017 was used to image mouse brain at a voxel size of about one cubic micrometer (see below).

With the applications continuing to grow, X-ray microscopy has become a routine, proven technique used in environmental and soil sciences, geo- and cosmo-chemistry, polymer sciences, biology, magnetism, material sciences. With this increasing demand for X-ray microscopy in these fields, microscopes based on synchrotron, liquid-metal anode, and other laboratory light sources are being built around the world. X-ray optics and components are also being commercialized rapidly.

Advanced Light Source
The Advanced Light Source (ALS) in Berkeley, California, is home to XM-1, a full-field soft X-ray microscope operated by the Center for X-ray Optics and dedicated to various applications in modern nanoscience, such as nanomagnetic materials, environmental and materials sciences and biology. XM-1 uses an X-ray lens to focus X-rays on a CCD, in a manner similar to an optical microscope. XM-1 held the world record in spatial resolution with Fresnel zone plates down to 15 nm and is able to combine high spatial resolution with a sub-100ps time resolution to study e.g. ultrafast spin dynamics. In July 2012, a group at DESY claimed a record spatial resolution of 10 nm, by using the hard X-ray scanning microscope at PETRA III.

The ALS is also home to the world's first soft x-ray microscope designed for biological and biomedical research. This new instrument, XM-2 was designed and built by scientists from the National Center for X-ray Tomography. XM-2 is capable of producing 3-dimensional tomograms of cells.

Liquid-metal-anode X-ray source
Extremely high-intensity sources of 9.25 keV X-rays (gallium K-alpha line) for X-ray phase-contrast microscopy, from a focal spot about 10 um x 10 um, may be obtained with an X-ray source which uses a liquid metal galinstan anode. This was demonstrated in 2003. The metal flows from a nozzle downward at a high speed and the high intensity electron source is focused upon it. The rapid flow of metal carries current, but the physical flow prevents a great deal of anode heating (due to forced-convective heat removal), and the high boiling point of galinstan inhibits vaporization of the anode. The technique has been used to image mouse brain in three dimensions at a voxel size of about one cubic micrometer.

Scanning transmission
Sources of soft X-rays suitable for microscopy, such as synchrotron radiation sources, have fairly low brightness of the required wavelengths, so an alternative method of image formation is scanning transmission soft X-ray microscopy. Here the X-rays are focused to a point, and the sample is mechanically scanned through the produced focal spot. At each point the transmitted X-rays are recorded using a detector such as a proportional counter or an avalanche photodiode. This type of scanning transmission X-ray microscope (STXM) was first developed by researchers at Stony Brook University and was employed at the National Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Resolution
The resolution of X-ray microscopy lies between that of the optical microscope and the electron microscope. It has an advantage over conventional electron microscopy is that it can view biological samples in their natural state. Electron microscopy is widely used to obtain images with nanometer to sub-Angstrom level resolution but the relatively thick living cell cannot be observed as the sample has to be chemically fixed, dehydrated, embedded in resin, then sliced ultra thin. However, it should be mentioned that cryo-electron microscopy allows the observation of biological specimens in their hydrated natural state, albeit embedded in water ice. Until now, resolutions of 30 nanometer are possible using the Fresnel zone plate lens which forms the image using the soft x-rays emitted from a synchrotron. Recently, the use of soft x-rays emitted from laser-produced plasmas rather than synchrotron radiation is becoming more popular.

Analysis
Additionally, X-rays cause fluorescence in most materials, and these emissions can be analyzed to determine the chemical elements of an imaged object. Another use is to generate diffraction patterns, a process used in X-ray crystallography. By analyzing the internal reflections of a diffraction pattern (usually with a computer program), the three-dimensional structure of a crystal can be determined down to the placement of individual atoms within its molecules. X-ray microscopes are sometimes used for these analyses because the samples are too small to be analyzed in any other way.

Biological applications
One early applications of X-ray microscopy in biology was contact imaging, pioneered by Goby in 1913. In this technique, soft x-rays irradiate a specimen and expose the x-ray sensitive emulsions beneath it. Then, magnified tomographic images of the emulsions, which correspond to the x-ray opacity maps of the specimen, are recorded using a light microscope or an electron microscope. A unique advantage that X-ray contact imaging offered over electron microscopy was the ability to image wet biological materials. Thus, it was used to study the micro and nanoscale structures of plants, insects, and human cells. However, several factors, including emulsion distortions, poor illumination conditions, and low resolutions of ways to examine the emulsions, limit the resolution of contacting imaging. Electron damage of the emulsions and diffraction effects can also result in artifacts in the final images.

X-ray microscopy has its unique advantages in terms of nanoscale resolution and high penetration ability, both of which are needed in biological studies. With the recent significant progress in instruments and focusing, the three classic forms of optics—diffractive, reflective, refractive optics—have all successfully expanded into the X-ray range and have been used to investigate the structures and dynamics at cellular and sub-cellular scales. In 2005, Shapiro et al. reported cellular imaging of yeasts at a 30 nm resolution using coherent soft X-ray diffraction microscopy. In 2008, X-ray imaging of an unstained virus was demonstrated. A year later, X-ray diffraction was further applied to visualize the three-dimensional structure of an unstained human chromosome. X-ray microscopy has thus shown its great ability to circumvent the diffractive limit of classic light microscopes; however, further enhancement of the resolution is limited by detector pixels, optical instruments, and source sizes.

A longstanding major concern of X-ray microscopy is radiation damage, as high energy X-rays produce strong radicals and trigger harmful reactions in wet specimens. As a result, biological samples are usually fixated or freeze-dried before being irradiated with high-power X-rays. Rapid cryo-treatments are also commonly used in order to preserve intact hydrated structures.

title: X-ray microscope


text:
User talk:Chungkuo

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Nomination of Electronic News Production System for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Electronic News Production System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Electronic News Production System until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. UtherSRG (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chungkuo


text:
Talk:Modernity

Postmodern art
The article doesn't cite any support for its contention that "some art may be CALLED postmodern art, but IN REALITY this is a continuation..." I find this to be terribly POV. Until there is some support from a scholarly source and the wording reflects that it is a contention, I think it doesn't belong in the article.

overlap with Modern World
This article may overlap with the one at Modern world. --Joy [shallot]   18:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it does, but I believe this term is better suited for an encyclopedia. I have started a discussion about a merge at Talk:Modern Times (history).
 * Peter Isotalo 15:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Nah, leave it. Modernity is a philosophical concept, as well, and renaming it "Modern Times" would take away from the usefulness of the article.

 * I left the link to Talk:Modern Times (history) to keep the discussion together. Please make your post there.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 * In my discipline (Geograpy) modernity is often looked on independant of any time period. Perhaps this article should cover the project of modernity instead of a particular time period, while the other article focuses on the historical meaning. -Halidecyphon 15:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree; 'Modernity' is a philosophical concept, and not necessarily the same as Modern Times, Modernism or Modern. --Yanemiro 04:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

 * i dont think the pages should be merged. and although modernity is an ideological concept, it still must be placed in a context of time as ideologies rise and fall depending on socio economic factors. an explanation of modernity/ modernism without placing it in a certain time and place removes the ability of the article to explain which factors contributed to the rise of any movement. jojoman 5/6/06

modernity and modern times should not be merged, particuarly as sociologists regard modernity as a concept separate to modern times. by merging the two, essentially the philosophical component of modernity (particuarly relating to the changes involved in the Great Transformations of the enlightenment period and the revolutions) is overpowered by the actual events themselves. Modern times also implies todays era, whereas sociologists make a distinction between modernity (17th/18th century to roughly late 20th century) and now (postmodernity).

 * For the third time, please refer to the joint discussion at Talk:Modern Times (history). Split discussions will lead to fewer people reading your posts.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Modern Times" should not merge with "modernity". I believe it will cause more confusion than already exists. Modern Times refers to a specific time period that historians refer to. Modern Times is not generally thought of as including the time in which we live now (2006). Contrastingly, modernity is a broad concept that has completely different connotations, such as fashion, architecture, modern technology, etc.

 * It should not be merged, transition is history and politics should not be confused with history labeling. imper 19/09/2006

Some might argue the Modernity is an ELEMENT of Modern Times. While there is overlap between the two concepts, these articles should be separate for the same reasons that "White House" is separate from "The President of the United States"

thank you, peter, for linking to the other discussion. the only problem is that the "discuss" link on the Modernity site about its merging with Modern Times leads to this discussion. That could help ensure people don't end up here and stay here if they want to talk about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.15.67 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 8 November 2006

Well, I'll try to sum this up, removing the merge-tag. --FlammingoParliament 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Modernity and "Modern Times"
What is the rather strict separation of modernity and the modern period based on? Does this reflect the consensus among historians at the moment?Peter Isotalo 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding sources... FlammingoHey 07:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Modernity is an era then? But what would one call the struggle between 'modern times', now and the next step, modernising? What will come after postmodernity? There is a struggle between what is and what will be which needs to be focused on rather than whats gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outdoor08 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

modern, post modern?
Doesn't "modern" mean simply generally 'what is around today', i.e. 'up to date'? ...'what is around today'. That is not implying in any way that "modern" is better or worse. How can something be post that? VeriGGlater 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * post means "reaction to", and not that anything "modern" is over; there are many pages this needs to be added to. --FlammingoHey 07:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "postmodern" was coined by Jean-François Lyotard in his essay "La Condition postmoderne" (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1979). Lyotard was tasked to write a report on the condition of knowledge, its acquisition, its status... Lyotard's conclusions were alarming: knowledge was becoming unstable, ever changing and evolving. There were no more certainties. This new relationship to knowledge was radically different in nature from the optimism that was characteristic of "Modernité". So, in my opinion, the notion of the "postmodern" has its place in this article. To answer the question above, the article is about Modernity, not what is "modern". Modernity defines a historical period. The postmodern as defined by Lyotard would be the slow demise of Modernity. It has more to do with sociology than pure historical chronology. I hope this makes sense... Scoob777 (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Scoob.
 * It would be a good idea first to read at least the Wikipedia article Postmodernism, where you will find that the term was around for almost a hundred years before Leotard "coined" it in 1979.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Modern history, oppose to Modernism
The way the articles have developed, this one just lists what should go to Modern history, although it should be the term opposed to Modernism (there's even the template there), meaning it's the history of late 18th century until the First World War, WWII at the latest. Cf also 1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : CONTEMPORARY b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time, so that it might even be the concept relevant to, and to be distinguished from, Contemporary history.--FlammingoHey 07:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure how bad the page was two years ago, but 'modernity' should differ from 'modern history' by describing the sociological and philosophical processes related to the period. A wikipedia without a 'modernity' page would be fairly woeful, bearing in mind how central this concept is to social science, social history, and social philosophy. --Tomsega (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 * You might take a look further down this talk page, under the header "Revert back some years". I see you are substantially in agreement with my views, expressed there, and I hope we may soon be assisted by some editors with more expertise in these areas than I have got.
 * While we are about it, you will note that I reversed your reversal of my edit correcting the format of one recently added reference in footnote format. The inline references in this article are not as numerous as they should be, but they all use in-text, parenthetical formats, not footnotes, as recommended at Citing sources/example style: "There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation style or system for Wikipedia. If you cannot decide on which style to use, or if you do not know what information to include, an example partially based on the APA style is given below". APA style, which uses this in-text, parenthetical citation format, is especially suitable for articles in the Social Sciences.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Might try to rewrtite
This take on modernity is overly historicist and eurocentric. It seems to be oblivious of the more nuanced discussion of modernity, its relation to coloniality and to the allied terms of modernism and modernization. I am working on a rewrite.66.26.84.57 07:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC) sj

questionable external link
I am not convinced that The Telegraph article "TAMING THE WILD WATERS" adds much to an encyclopedia article on modernity. I am not arguing that it is untrue, rather, that it is superfluous here.

Ellensn (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable forms of citation
Editor Arthur Rubin has cited Citing sources as authority for the unacceptability of in-text citations, while at the same time saying "although Chicago is quite acceptable". Since Chicago format is in-text citation format, and the authority cited presents at item no. 4 an example of this very in-text citation format, I must submit that he is in error. Further, Citing_sources also sanctions APA style and MLA style, both of which discourage the use of footnotes in favor of in-text author-date citations. Chicago style was the only citation format used in the present article up to the addition in September of a source using footnote-reference style. In order to conform with the already established format, I converted this footnote (which also was incomplete and inaccurate, in that it offered a series title as the publisher, and did not include the actual book title or place of publication) to Chicago style, and inserted the source in the Source list at the end of the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) The recent change to pure inline text citations, which I've been reverting, is destroying links to the actual references. Example #4 in Citing sources appears to be the same format, but it has modified Harvard-style links to the reference section.  (They don't work for me, either, but they work for some people.)  Internal links to the full citation should not be destroyed by a selected format.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what links you are referring to. The only one I can see is an external link (not an internal one) to the source at this URL. It still works fine for my browser (Safari 3.2.1, running under Mac OS X version 10.4.11), though it is very slow to load the PDF. At the moment, this link is on the page-number range in the in-text citation. If you feel it should be placed otherwise, or duplicated in the Source list entry, I certainly have no objection to that. I have never seen internal links of the type you describe (presumably a link from the reference entry to the full-biblio entry in a reference list in the same article) in any Wikipedia article. Can you point me to an example?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Example 4 reads:
 * By placing the citation in the list and naming the author, year, and page number in parentheses.
 * Harv creates an internal link if Harvard tags are placed in the reference section. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. Is there a similar template for MLA, Chicago, and APA formats (all of which, like Harvard, use author-date citations, but vary in the way the reference list is formatted)? It doesn't seem like it should be difficult to implement this in the present case, if a Chicago template exists.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I now see why I hadn't discovered this before. That text is hidden, and I was reading only the displayed text, which says nothing about such links.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Exclusivity
It would be interesting if the article could discuss the issue of modernity as a form of social exclusivity. One of the main goals of 19th-century colonialism was to impose modernity on vast amounts of non-civilized African and Asian peoples, and as a result several anti-colonial social movements emerged which saw the ideology of modernity as a major source of alienation for many non-white and non-Western peoples and civilizations. And while modernity was primarily seen as a Western movement, there were many Christians in the West who, for a very long time, were deeply critical of the phenomenon of modernity, which was perceived as an anti-Christian Masonic conspiracy (see Catholicism and Freemasonry). ADM (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Modernity", or "modernism"? As this article (and indeed all sources of which I am aware) defines "modernity", it is a condition or historical era (imposition of which of course could be the goal of some agent), not a "movement" or an implement in itself. The "ideology" or "movement" is called "modernism". The section "anti-globalization" of the article "Globalization" covers this in some detail, and with specific reference to the condition called "modernity", the section "Criticisms of modernism" in the article "Modernism". If you find any of these discussions do not adequately address this issue, why don't you go ahead and expand them, with documentation from reliable sources (which should not be difficult to find, considering the enormous amount of ink that has been spilled on this subject)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and the old white men - there is a need to describe "modernity" not depending on Western history (and actors of Western "movements"), but as an universal phenomenon, so you could quantify something and guess, what kind of partial society, nation or group in a specific era already is under the conditions of modernity and what not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.144.186 (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, more than ten years ago now, go ahead and fix the shortcomings. What is taking so long? Surely many more reliable sources have been published in the meantime.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Christianity and modernity
There should perhaps be an article on Christianity and modernity, an issue that the Roman Catholic Church took a long time to resolve, an issue which was mostly settled during the time of the Second Vatican Council. ADM (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reversion 'back some years'
I have reversed User:Srnec's attempt to revert this article 'back some years', mainly on the grounds that this removed the only three verifiying source citations in the entire article. I can sympathize to an extent with your action, Srnec, because the state of this article is disgraceful. Unfortunately, the earlier forms were no better, and it is a huge backward step to revert to an article amounting entirely to original research. What this really needs is a complete rewriting, starting from the definition provided by Toulmin and the citations from Giddens and Leppert.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think a clear distinction must be drawn between modernity, modernism and the modern era/period/age. Do you disagree? I think that talk of modernity in 1436 is little else but sloppy usage: events in the fifteenth century helped open the way to the modern era in history, the latest age in the traditional trifold division. And anything can be "modern" in its time. Do you disagree? If you disagree with either of these points, I suggest redirecting this title to modern history. If Modernity is merely the West since the Middle Ages, there is no difference. Srnec (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What you or I think really doesn't matter, since that amounts to original research. The expert POVs quoted in the article are all we are allowed to depend on, and removing all of them in an effort to have a clear field for expressing some other unverified position is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. FWIW, Toulmin does not agree that 1436 is a suitable starting date, but rather argues (at considerable length and, in my opinion persuasively) for the end of the Thirty Years' War. The point is that Toulmin cites 1436 as one which is sometimes argued to be the end of the middle ages and the beginning of modernity (which is indeed one widely held point of view, whether you or I or Toulmin agree with it or not). If you can find a source that says Toulmin is wrong, and that no one has ever argued for that date, then by all means please cite it. Toulmin also cites (as the article lede presently points out) a number of other years, down to as late as 1895, which various authors have held to be suitable starting points. Perhaps Toulmin's arguments, as well as tose of other authors who have differing points of view, should be summarized more fully later in the article, but the spread of years should be sufficient for the introduction. As for the rest, I think a clear distinction can and should be made between modernism and modernity (the former being an attitude or program, the latter a condition or state), but making a distinction between the latter and "modern era/period/age" is more problematic, especially when such eminent authorities as Toulmin often do not make this distinction.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * If no distinction is made between "modernity" and "modern era", then we should direct this page to modern history to avoid duplication. That is my point. I make such a distinction and will continue to do so, but, as you say, it doesn't matter here what I do. Srnec (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not rename or blank and redirect articles without first obtaining editorial consensus.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I will be bold. You stated above that your cited source does not distinguish between the two concepts. What justification can you provide, then, for having two articles, one based primarily on the definition provided by your source (and otherwise full of unsourced hogwash)? This must be redirected until we can reference a distinction between the concepts. Srnec (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I said that "such eminent sources as Toulmin" do not make this distinction. Giddens also does not, Leppert on the other hand seems to be discrimiating the terms and, if memory serves, so does John Ralston Saul (found in the list of Sources but not specificlly cited in the text. Perhaps I should have said "some sources, such as Toulmin, do not make this distinction". I agree that this article is full of unsourced claims, and certainly it is my opinion that some if it (but not all) is hogwash. However, simply converting the article to a redirect is merging articles without prior discussion (not necessarily a problem, if no one objects, but I do object—at least to merging without first obtaining consensus). I see that you are a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, and so likely do not understand many of the procedures used here. If you believe that this article should be merged with Modernism, Modern history, or some other article. then the correct procedure is to make a Proposal to merge. If you will check the discussion history on this page, you will discover that you are not the first person to bring this up, though no formal proposal has been made, at least not in the past two years.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * My first edit was on 13 October 2005 (diff), and yours was almost a year later on 2 August 2006 (diff). According to Soxred93's tools, I have created 2,387 articles. I'm not sure what makes me a relative newcomer.
 * I do not like formal proposals, and so will not be making one. I would urge you to consider not whether some action is procedurally correct, but whether it will make this project better for the reader. When I get the chance I will pare this article down to only its sourced statements, then if there is nothing which distinguishes modernity and the modern era, I will merge what is left of it into that article. Srnec (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread your profile, which made it appear you had only been editing since August of this year. In any case, I have now had the opportunity to read the Talk history of this page in some detail, and I notice that, when this same proposal to merge was made some three years ago, it failed to gain consensus, largely on grounds that claims were made that the fields of Geography, Sociology, and Philosophy regard "modernity" as distinct from the "modern era". I am not at all familiar with the conventions of the discipline of geography, and am not particularly well-read in sociology. My field is music theory and historical musicology, which puts me into contact more with philosophy, but even here I have to confess to being on shaky ground with regard to the use of this particular term. However, a little fairly superficial research has brought to my attention sources that verity the distinction holds, especially for sociology, but also for art history and philosophy (and my earlier recollection that John Ralston Saul makes this distinction is now confirmed). I shall add these references in the appropriate places, and rewrite the lede to reflect them. In the meantime, please feel free to pare away the rubbish. There is plenty of work for us both.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Alright. I'd like to see how you improve it. Srnec (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a look and see. The waters of the Alpheus and Peneus will need to flow through their temporary courses for some while still before we are done cleansing these Augean Stables, but I have removed a large part of the irrelevant and largely OR material. I am still not too happy about the Politics section, which is tied too much to historical periodization, but it contains a relevant reference to John Ralston Saul, elaboration of which should help to clarify how the historico-philosophic identification of "modernity" with "enlightenment" makes the term both narrower and more general than the historical "modern era".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * We don't need an article about the term "modernity". We need an article about modernity. I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that it was a technical term, a term of art, consistently distinguishable from "modern era" and "modernism" and other related terms. Sure, it is used colloquially (just like "modern" is, without prejudice to its technical usage related to modern history), but I thought it had a technical meaning (not an agreed upon referent, but an agreed upon meaning). If not, then this article must go. And I have never heard modernity equated either with small-e enlightenment or with large-E Englightenment. Certainly, not with the Age of Enlightenment. In what ways is this article as it stands an aid to the reader? Srnec (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a technical term, but not one used that way so much by art historians as by sociologists and philosophers. I thought my revisions made this very clear but, if not, please point me to the passages that remain ambiguous on this point. If you have not previously heard of the equation with "enlightenment", then perhaps the sources cited here will give you the opportunity to explore this further. (And this is only tangentially to do with the Age of Enlightenment.) I should think that this article is an aid to any reader who is puzzled by the distinctions made in sociology, philosophy, and the philosophy of science by writers such as Giddens, Eisenstadt, Rosenau, Baudelaire, Toulmin, and, especially, Gaonker, between the concept of modernity and its identification with particular historical periods or geographic locations.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations and recent edits
I apologise if I have clashed with any editor, particularly Jerome Kohl. However, after taking the time to place all of the citations into the proper inline format I see it has been undone. Harvard, end-of-sentence referencing is of course better than none, which is why it remains a common sight, but it is not the preferred form of referencing on wikipedia - a website which aims to automatically create a references list in chronological order at the bottom of the page. A specific nofootnote stamp exists, and states clearly: "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate." It is quite evident you will not find Harvard referencing in featured status articles - it's be nice to aim that high. I do apologise if, in the process, a few page numbers were lost, but otherwise there is nothing here one should have any authority to remove with respect to wiki rules, irrespective of whatever style of referencing you think is more attractive. I am reverting back the changes, also, because the Giddens quote has now fallen out of proper formatting and produced errors on the page. --Tomsega (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I in turn apologise if I screwed up the Giddens quote, and it shall be fixed, but I think you are making an error by equating "inline citation" with "footnote". They are not the same thing. The main Wikipedia article on citations, Citing sources, states in its lede: "Each article should use the same method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus before changing it." Fine, let's discuss this, and if you can convince me there is a good reason the format should be changed in this article, I shall cheerfully concede the point. In the meantime, let us respect Wikipedia guidelines. An "inline reference" is a reference source attached to a statement in an article (as opposed to a "general reference", which is a work consulted for an article, but from which no directly cited statements are annotated). Inline references may use either footnotes, or parenthetical referencing, according to Wikipedia guidelines. The How to present citations section of this same article says: Citations are usually presented within articles in one of five ways:

 * 1) General reference: By placing the citation in a list at the end of an article.
 * 2) Footnote: By placing it in a footnote, with a link following the assertion (whether a clause, sentence, paragraph, etc.) that it supports.
 * 3) Shortened footnote: By placing the citation in the list and naming only the author, year, and page number in a footnote.
 * 4) Parenthetical reference: By placing the citation in the list and naming the author, year, and page number in parentheses (Ritter 2002, p. 45).
 * 5) In addition, embedded links may be used if the source is a web page.
 * I have previously pointed to the section Citing_sources/example_style, where it says further: "There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation style or system for Wikipedia. If you cannot decide on which style to use, or if you do not know what information to include, an example based on the APA style is given below. In APA style, a widely accepted format for writing research papers, the references are listed at the end of the article in alphabetical order by author, and by year for identical authors. Also see MLA style and Harvard referencing."
 * Now, if you disagree with thee cited guidelines and believe that they should be changed, the place to argue your case is at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. If, on the other hand, you believe there are special conditions here that make this particular article an exception to these guidelines, or that there are particular local conditions (such as establishing a uniform citation style for a set of offspring articles from a single parent article), then please state them. I am listening.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see how the Giddens quote got spoilt: I accidentally deleted the closing double-braces along with the footnote formats. But this raises a question: Why have you chosen to format this citation as a pull quote? Is it somehow to be regarded as apart from the article proper, or did you merely mean to use blockquote format?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 * You're right - Harvard is just another type of inline citation, what I mean to say is embedded referencing. However, it stands as evident that absolutely all featured-quality articles use embedded references, with the subsequent automatic, chronological reference list. This is the optimum standard, and similarly, very few good articles deviate from it. Other than your own personal preferences I see absolutely no reason why the embedded referencing, which I took time to insert (albeit with a couple of errors), shouldn't remain. Are we not aiming for featured status here? Overall I think this article is rather weak, considering the importance of the subject to sociology and philosophy. It'd be wrong to sit on it, undoing fair edits.
 * With respect to the format of the Giddens quote, I simply think it looks better, but if there's an official reason I'm not aware of why that format shouldn't be used, by all means change it back.

--Tomsega (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Embedded referencing" is not a term I am familiar with, but if you mean the format (in which the citation referenceare embedded in the code, but the references are displayed unembedded in endnotes), it is far from standing as evident that all featured-quality articles must use footnote formats. In fact, Featured article criteria explicitly states there must be "consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes  or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) ". Further, the footnote system does not—and cannot—automatically produce a chronological reference list. Chronological lists are in any case exceedingly rare, in my experience; an alphabetical list is the norm, with multiple entries under one author then listed chronologically, either in ascending or descending order, and the footnote system cannot do this, either. What footnote referencing does is to present each reference separately and, in cases where different pages in a single work are cited, force repetition of the entire bibliographical apparatus at each entry. (Multiple references to the same page or page range can be clustered, though this looks unspeakably ugly, in my opinion.) The reason this is necessary (and the same goes for "Ibid." or "loc cit." abbreviations) is that subsequent edits may re-order paragraphs or interpolate new references, making a shambles of citations that were meant to refer to preceding footnotes. The bottom line is that—in larger articles than this one, at least—it becomes difficult to assess whether the references used include the most important authors, since the reader must sift through dozens or even hundreds of notes.
 * FWIW, about a year ago I successfully shepherded the article on Karlheinz Stockhausen through the Good Article review process (which is the first step toward featured article status), and the question of footnotes never even came up. You may care to take a look at it. At present, there are about 200 citations there, in parenthetical reference format. Some other representative articles (on which I have been only peripherally active as an editor) are the ones on Serialism, Tonality, 20th-century classical music, Milton Babbitt, Arnold Schoenberg, Luigi Nono and Béla Bartók.
 * Regarding the Giddens quote, it is not so much a matter of "official reason" as the editorial intent for use of the quotation. A pull quote (also called a "call-out") can be formatted in a variety of ways. The template you have chosen simply draws a box around a block quote; others increase the font size, enclose the indented quotation in oversized blue quotation marks, etc. The pull quote is normally used to highlight a short excerpt of the main text, often setting it in the margin of the page, like this:The pull quote is normally used to highlight a short excerpt of the main text
 * or to present an apropos aphorism, rather than simply to present a quotation too long to comfortably set off with quotation marks in a normal line of text. In this case, I cannot quite make out which is your intention. The Wikipedia guidelines for pull quotes can be found at Template:Cquote.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations and recent edits - revisited
I just stumbled upon this article following a look into the term "modernism" as related to Catholicism. I am not an expert on this subject so I will not comment on the article content but I do feel the need to comment on the article editing... In your eagerness to wikilawyer the citation styles issue you seriously failed to respect the essence of WikiLove and Collegiality, without which WP would dissolve into a vulgar bar-room brawl. Mr. Tomsega apparently invested a great deal of time and effort to revise the citations... time and effort that you then callously disregarded in pursuit of adherence to a Style Guideline which states, in part: ''"[This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (emphasis added)'' "Common sense" would suggest that there was no urgency to undo all of Mr. Tomsega's work and that the matter could have been discussed in a collegial fashion first. You could have initiated the talk page and explained your reasons for preferring one format over the other. You could have been the one with an open mind and willing to listen to the other side. You could have been the bigger man. Instead you chose to invest a not insignificant quantity of your own time to manually undo the painstaking work of another editor. Worse, you executed your editorial mission so poorly that by your own admission you damaged content contribution and (per my above edit) failed to consistently use accurate style, both by simple carelessness. No one disputes that Tomsega breached WP Style Guidelines. Likewise no one appears to dispute that his efforts were in good faith. You were within "your rights" to do what you did, but was it the "right thing" to do given the circumstances? I believe, no. Tomsega seems to have responded to your actions with respect and deference, yet I suspect there was a sharp sting to see his well intentioned bold efforts "undone". I believe, Mr. Kohl, you owe your colleague, Mr. Tomsega, an apology for acting with haste, carelessness and lack of regard -- I urge you to look beyond the "rules" and do what is right. I urge you to set an example of real civility by proffering him a sincere apology. 66.102.198.95 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I have corrected a missing "(" in one of the inline references. This was lost when the citations were changed (back) in this edit.
 * 2) With respect to both Mssr. Tomsega and Jerome Kohl: To pursue your goal of FA status ought not the references, regardless of format, include more page numbers? Would this not be beneficial to the concept of "...introducing more precise citations where appropriate."? (emphasis added)
 * 3) Finally, with my respects to Mr.Kohl: I must strongly disagree with your actions...

 * Thank you, 66.102.198.95. To my mind it seemed blatantly obvious smart inline referencing, the type you see on all featured status articles, is the optimum standard, to the extent I let the issue go. I didn't want to spend more time simply arguing about it! --Tomsega (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Dear 66.102.198.95: That is quite a diatribe! If you will go back and read the earlier part of the format discussion, you will find that I did in fact apologise to Tomsega. I do not believe that any of the arguments I put forth subsequent to that apology were taken "with haste, carelessness and lack of regard", though if Tomsega feels this may be so, then I unreservedly apologise for inadvertently creating this impression.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 * The point remains, you didn't just undo a good faith edit, you undid a perfectly justified edit. As far as I'm concerned 9/10 wiki users will tell you referencing of the type I installed is preferable. It just so happens only two of us were arguing and you're in that 1/10! Even if it were 50/50, that wouldn't be just cause to undo what took me 20 minutes. Anyway. No worries ;) --Tomsega (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, quite so. If my previous apology didn't cover that, then please let me apologize again now. Did I not also restore your justified edit? I thought I had, but that was a long time ago now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

post-traditional?
Just came here to try and figure out what modernity is. In the first sentence it has the meaningless term, "post-traditional". It might be some type of jargon, but it is meaningless to most people. It links to "tradition". I know what a tradition is. Is post-traditional something like what you do after a tradition? Maybe the post-traditional football game on Thanksgiving. You watch it after the traditional turkey dinner.

Please, could someone write a first sentence that describes modernism. If it's just a time period like the 18th century just say so. You can get to the complicated stuff after the first sentence.

Ydorb (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire point of having this article in addition to the one titled "Modern era" is supposed to be that "modernity" is a condition, and not a chronological descriptor. So, no, it is not a time period like the 18th century—or like the "modern era". For the description you request of modernism, see the article on that subject—its definition does not belong in the lede of this article. These are three separate, though strongly interconnected ideas. I agree, however, that using chronology identifiers like "post-traditional" is confusing and misleading.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The first sentence currently says "Modernity typically refers to a post-traditional, post-medieval historical period . . ." That makes it sound like time period, not a condition. Looking further down the article, someone defines it as shorthand for industrial civilization.  Is that what it is?  If so, maybe the first sentence could say something like "Modernity is shorthand for industrial civilization."

Ydorb (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, I agree with you that the opening sentence is confusing and misleading, in that it too-strongly suggests ties to one or more historical periods. However, the term is not exactly "shorthand for industrial civilization", as a patient reading of the article will show. Perhaps it should be stated up front that it is first and foremost a technical term from the field of Sociology, though it is also used in much the same sense in other fields, such as the Philosophy of Science and History of Philosophy.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Trying to separate the time frame from the intellectual movements seems OK to me, but I see no reason to deny a connection between the two? Of course these intellectual movements did in fact happen, irregularly of course, over a certain typical time period.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is completely sub standard
Not only is the language abtruse, there is also a strong bias. For example, a strong influence from neo-marxists thought. To describe marxism as modern and to include modes of "surveillance" in the fundamental definition of modernity just goes to show that this article must completely reworked. Much of the initial definition is also repetitive withour clarifying the issues. One other point: According to Giddens we are in high-modernity, not post-modernity. There is no agreement that we should be in post-modernity. Modernity is three things:

1. Not the middle ages (early defintion from 17th century) 2. Freedom, equality and reason (French revolution) 3. Urbanity and industrial society (turn of the century 1900).

Whatever you may want to add or retract this core remains the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.76.151 (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 * No doubt the article can be improved, but your concerns could be argued a bit more convincingly and constructively. Marxism is generally seen as a typical form of modernism? Why would Giddens' term be considered more notable than "post modern"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand 79.136.76.151's complaint correctly, he/she is objecting that Giddens is being made to say "we are in post-modernity", whereas he should be made to say "we are in high-modernity". I have just checked the article, and 79.136.76.151 is flat wrong on this point. The article baldly states: "this phase is called "Liquid" modernity by Bauman or "High" modernity by Giddens". I don't see that relative notability even comes into it (unless we are to dismiss Giddens entirely on grounds of non-notability, of course).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think I am constructive. I have proposed a basic scheme for structuring the article and defining the concept of modernity. Nothing could be more constructive. Have you at all read what I have written about the meaning of the concept of modernity? I believe that the article is truly substandard and biased. Let us do some Fisking:

"modernity tends only to refer to the social relations associated with the rise of capitalism. Nevertheless modernity may characterise tendencies in intellectual culture: particularly, those movements intertwined with secularisation and post-industrial life, such as Marxism and existentialism, as well as the formal establishment of social science"

That is an abtruse characterisation. What is meant by that? Nothing is clarified, but the tone is clearly materialistic, i.e. Marxist. Liberty, equality and reason are better ways of defining what modernity is than "the social relations associated with the rise of capitalism", which is not really a clarification or definition. What are the social relations? What are they characterised by? What does capitalism have to do with reason, for example? Reason is a product of science, not of capitalism. The whole interpretation is reductionist, biased, Marxist/materialistic and therefore botched. Unless everything that has happened in modern times is related to capitalism, in which case the defintion is circular: capitalism = modernity. The tone and style of writing is also typical of neo-marxism, piling abstractions on top of each other.

The phrasing, which is wordy without clarifying the issues, does associate marxism with modernity, not just modernism:

"Nevertheless modernity may characterise tendencies in intellectual culture: particularly, those movements intertwined with secularisation and post-industrial life, such as Marxism". What is menat by "modernity may characterise".

How and in what way does modernity "characterise?" I thought the goal was to define modernity, but here it is modernity that defines something else. This is a very confused way of writing. In any case, the article associates marxism with modernity, not just modernism. Modernity "characterises" marxism. That is what the sentence says. The connection to modernism is also unclear, because it follows in the sentence after marxism is mentioned. There is a vagure reference to intellectual movements. However, during this period there have been several counter-modern currents of thought. Green ideology, to just mention one. It is just not acceptable to have an article with this kind of vagueness and even factual errors, as a result of that vagueness.

No, marxism is not a part of modernity, per se, but it is an expression of modernism! I will let you ponder that one! By the way, why should modernism be mentioned at all? Can it not be left to the article with that title? Must modernity be defined in relation to modernism? I believe that type of discussion or contrastive definition does not belong in the first paragraph. It only displays a certain anxiety and uncertainty about the concept of modernity. Keep the eyes on the ball! Since modernity is a complex concept, the wording in the initial paragraph needs to be much more open-ended. For example, a clear statement that the concept is disputed or that it can have different meanings depending on ideology.

A final example: "In context, modernity has been associated". Which context? Associated in what way? Whoever has written this does not command the clear and simple style of writing that is necessary in a dictionary.

At the bottom of this lies a confusion which is a product of the dominance of the political left in the social sciences. This article can not solve this, but whoever writes about such concepts should be aware of this and give equal treatment to different points of view.

193.10.249.136 (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)]

Surveillance
The first paragraph says that modernity includes surveillance, but never touches on that again, and the linked page on Surveillance never mentions modernity. Would like to understand better.--BooksXYZ (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference given is to Barker 2005, 444, but I'm afraid you will find little further illumination in that book. As in too much social theory, no time is wasted on defining terms that "everybody knows". However, on Wikipedia what matters most is that a claim can be verified by a reliable source. Comprehensibility takes second place. You are quite right to complain, however, since statements made in the lede of any article are supposed to summarize material discussed in more detail in the main body of the text. This is why references should not need to appear in the lede.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy
There seems to be some redundancy in this article. There is a both a "defining modernity" subheading, and a "modernity defined" subheading. The material under the "modernity defined" subheading is rather scant, and taken only from one source, while the material under "defining modernity" tries to encompass the many different ways in which this term is used in different intellectual/artistic fields. I would suggest deleting the second, "modernity defined" section, or incorporating what it says into the "sociology" section of the more thorough definitional section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independebubble (talk • contribs) 12:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modernity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722063716/http://arp.unipi.it/dettaglioar.php?ide=132051 to http://arp.unipi.it/dettaglioar.php?ide=132051

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ref tags?
Just wondering- is there a reason that there are so few ref tags on this page? It makes the page look really cluttered with inline citations. Also, it seems more like an essay than a Wikipedia article, especially with phrases like “as so and so, who did such and such, says in their work, X, ...” dunno how to fix this stuff, really. --OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "ref tags", but inline citations are required on virtually all Wikipedia articles, clutter or no clutter. At least this article does not use footnotes for its inline citations, which are a real distraction, in my opinion, since it is necessary to interrupt reading to check and see if the note contains anything important. It would be better to incorporate those quotations into the text, which would eliminate footnotes altogether, but I have hesitated to do so simply because they seem excessive to start with.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I also find portions of this article difficult to read due to the harvard notation being used. While I am accustomed to such notation in academic journals, I don't see how it is practical to use it exclusively in a wikipedia article, due to the breaking up the flow of sentences in heavily cited passages.  I would suggest that template sfn footnotes be used at least in locations where it has become unacceptably cluttered with harvard style- such as paragraph "Machiavelli's recommendations" in the Political Section.  It's a mess, and I propose I upgrade the paragraph to footnotes using sfn.  You will see that simply hovering over a footnote using this standard displays the content of the footnote without interrupting reading.  Any Comments?J JMesserly (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just read the Harvard citation documentation, and learned that this article's practice of using the harvard templates without either the or sfn template is deprecated. The discussion of the rationale is linked from that page, and reflects many of the comments of editors on this talk page for the last decade.  It is my intention to begin upgrading the article using sfn as described on the documentation page so the article is no longer using a deprecated practice.  My reason for using sfn rather than ref is that it is far more compact, is very similar to the currently used template:harv style and makes it easier for wikitext editors to manipulate due to less clutter. J JMesserly (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph
Modernity, a topic in the humanities and social sciences, is both a historical period (the modern era), as well as the ensemble of particular socio-cultural norms, attitudes and practices that arose in the wake of the Renaissance—in the "Age of Reason" of 17th-century thought and the 18th-century "Enlightenment".

The two expressions "Age of Reason" and "Enlightenment" lead to the same page. Rewrite ? --Japarthur (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Centralized discussion on modernity
I've raised the problems in this and the related articles modern era, late modern period and early modern period in Wikiproject History. Thread can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History

I recommend a joint discussion for all these articles since they seem to suffer from very similar issues. Peter Isotalo 13:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Enwiki Brain Fart
At this time, this article is asserting, without explanation, that Marxism and Modernity are antithetical, as if this were a self evident, nominal truth. 3rd ¶ in the lede. Presumed missing and qualifying Hegelian partner attribute, bourgeois, Capitalist, etc. An equation between bourgeois culture and modernity is implicit as it stands now. Lycurgus (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Modernity


text:
Gustave Verbeek

Gustave Verbeek (August 29, 1867 – December 5, 1937) was a Dutch-American illustrator and cartoonist, best known for his newspaper cartoons in the early 1900s featuring an inventive use of word play and visual storytelling tricks.

Biography
Verbeek was of Dutch ancestry. He was born as Gustave Verbeck in Nagasaki, Japan in 1867, the son of Reformed Church in America missionary Guido Verbeck and Maria Verbeck (nee Manion).

He grew up in Japan, but went to Paris to study art, and worked for several European newspapers, creating illustrations and cartoons. In 1900 he moved to the United States, where he did illustrations for magazines such as Harper's, and produced a series of weekly comic strips for newspapers. In the 1910s he abandoned cartooning and became a fine artist. He was noted for his expressionist monotypes, which were the subject of an article in The Century Magazine in June 1916.

He was ill for two years, and died on December 5, 1937, at the Home for Incurables, on Third Avenue and 183rd Street in the Bronx, New York City. He had been a patient there for two months.

Comics
Verbeek's first strip was Easy Papa, a fairly conventional strip about two mischievous kids and their father, similar to the highly popular contemporary strip The Katzenjammer Kids, which ran in a competing newspaper. Easy Papa appeared in The New York Herald from May 25, 1902, through February 1, 1903.

Verbeek is most noted for The Upside Downs of Little Lady Lovekins and Old Man Muffaroo, a weekly 6-panel comic strip in which the first half of the story was illustrated and captioned right-side-up, then the reader would turn the page up-side-down, and the inverted illustrations with additional captions describing the scenes told the second half of the story, for a total of 12 panels. His signature usually appeared at the top of the first/last panel, upside down. The two main characters were designed such that each would be perceived as the other character when inverted. For example, in one often-reproduced panel, Muffaroo appears in a canoe next to a tree-covered island, and is being attacked by a large fish. When inverted, the image shows a later scene of Lovekins in the beak of a giant roc: Muffaroo's canoe has become the bird's beak, the fish has turned into the bird's head, the island has become its body and the trees its legs, and Muffaroo has turned into Lovekins. Verbeek created a total of 64 of these strips for The New York Herald, from October 11, 1903, to January 15, 1905. A pilot strip was published on October 4, 1903. The format of the strip put extreme restrictions on the use of word balloons (even with the use of ambigrams only three strips used word-balloons, all in March 1904). Although the July 10, 1904, strip implies that the stories are set in America, Verbeek filled his milieu with African animals and peoples, fabulous monsters, fairy castles, etc.

Verbeek's longest-running strip was The Terrors of the Tiny Tads, published by the Herald from May 28, 1905, to October 28, 1914. This strip features a group of four unnamed and interchangeable boys, who encounter a variety of strange creatures based on inventive word combinations. For example, they find a "hippopautomobile" (a hippopotamus with a steering wheel and seating in its back as in an automobile), a "pelicanoe" (a pelican in which a rider could sit and paddle like a canoe), and a "samovarmint" (a samovar for serving tea with the head and claws of a wild animal). As with The Upside Downs, the strip's text consisted of captions below the illustrations; there were no speech balloons. Dan Nadel describes the strip as "quiet, subdued, and somnambulant" in character, partly because Verbeek eschewed "speed lines, stars of pain", and other such cartoon conventions. Although most strips involved strange creatures, the tads had a clash with a pair of aggressive suffragettes in the June 28, 1914, strip.

He created a short-lived comic strip in 1910 called The Loony Lyrics of Lulu. These strips are about a girl who encounters imaginary creatures and writes (inoffensive) limericks about them.

Reprints
Verbeek's strips got republished multiple times over the years, always only a subselection however until Sunday Press Books released their complete collection.
 * The Incredible Upside-Downs of Little Lady Lovekins and Old Man Muffaroo, G.W. Dillingham Company (New York) in 1905.
 * The Incredible Upside-Downs of Gustave Verbeek, The Rajah Press ( Summit, NJ) in 1963.
 * The Incredible Upside-Downs (of Gustave Verbeek), Real Free Press International (Amsterdam;) in 1973.
 * The Incredible Upside-Downs of Gustave Verbeek, Nostalgia Press, Incorporated (New York) in 1976. ISBN 0911204016.
 * Niet Te Geloven Ondersteboven!, Erven Thomas Rap (Amsterdam) in 1976. ISBN 9060051106.
 * Dessus-Dessous, Pierre Horay (Paris) in 1978. ISBN 2705800778.
 * Four Confusing Tales, Each Illustrated by Six Up-Turnable Pictures, from the Incredible Topsy-Turvy World of Gustave Verbeek, Tobar Limited (Harleston, Norfolk), 1990's. ISBN 1903230004.
 * Unten ist Oben, Comic Companie ( Frankfurt/Main 1; Germany) in 1985. ISBN 3820101802.
 * 少女ラブキンズとマファルー老人の冒険 (The Incredible Upside-Downs of Gustave Verbeek), TBS Publications, Tokyo in 1987. ISBN 4782510713. Edited by 坂根厳夫 (Itsuo Sakane).
 * The Upside-Down World of Gustave Verbeek, Sunday Press Books (Palo Alto, CA) in 2009. ISBN 0976888572.

The 2009 reprint contains the complete The Upside-Downs of Little Lady Lovekins and Old Man Muffaroo and the complete Loony Lyrics of Lulu together with other selected samples from Verbeek's comics career.

Remakes
In 2012, a remake of Verbeek's Upside-downs was published by Epix (stockholm). The book 'In Uppåner med Lilla Lisen & Gamle Muppen' (ISBN 978-91-7089-524-1) by Marcus Ivarsson shows 24 of Verbeek's comics redrawn in the style of the author. No other attempts were made to replicate the 'upside-down' comic style.

title: Gustave Verbeek


text:
Frederick Cook

Frederick Albert Cook (June 10, 1865 – August 5, 1940) was an American explorer, physician and ethnographer, who is most known for allegedly being the first to reach the North Pole on April 21, 1908. A competing claim was made a year later by Robert Peary, though both men's accounts have since been fiercely disputed; in December 1909, after reviewing Cook's limited records, a commission of the University of Copenhagen ruled his claim unproven. Nonetheless, in 1911, Cook published a memoir of the expedition in which he maintained the veracity of his assertions. In addition, he also claimed to have been the first person to reach the summit of Denali (then known as Mount McKinley), the highest mountain in North America, a claim which has since been similarly discredited. Though he may not have achieved either Denali or the North Pole, his was the first and only expedition where a United States national discovered an Arctic island, Meighen Island.

Biography
Cook was born in Hortonville, New York, in Sullivan County. (His birthplace is sometimes listed as Callicoon or Delaware, both also in Sullivan County. ) His parents, Theodor and Magdalena Koch, were recent German immigrants who adopted an anglicized version of their surname. He attended local schools before college. After graduating from Columbia University, he studied medicine at what is today NYU's Grossman School of Medicine, receiving his doctorate in 1890.

Cook married Libby Forbes in 1889. She died two years later. In 1902, on his 37th birthday, he married Marie Fidele Hunt. They had two daughters together. They divorced in 1923.

Early expeditions
Cook was the surgeon on Robert Peary's Arctic expedition of 1891–1892, and on the Belgian Antarctic Expedition of 1897–1899. He contributed to saving the lives of its crew members when their ship – the RV Belgica (1884) – was ice-bound during the winter, as they had not prepared for such an event. It became the first expedition to winter in the Antarctic region. To prevent scurvy, Cook went hunting to keep the crew supplied with fresh meat. One of the crew members was Roald Amundsen, who credited Cook with his survival in his diary of the expedition.

In 1897, Cook twice visited Tierra del Fuego, where he met the English missionary Thomas Bridges. They studied the Ona and Yahgan peoples, with whom Bridges had worked for two decades. During this time, Bridges had prepared a manuscript on their language's grammar and a dictionary of more than 30,000 words. Several years later, Cook tried to publish the dictionary as his own.

Summit of Denali
In 1903, Cook led an expedition to Denali, during which he circumnavigated the range. He made a second journey in 1906, after which he claimed to have achieved the first summit of its peak with one other expedition crew member. Other members, including Belmore Browne, whom Cook had left on the lower mountain, immediately but privately expressed doubt. Cook's claims were not publicly challenged until 1909 when the dispute with Peary over the North Pole claim erupted, with Peary's supporters claiming Cook's Denali ascent was also fraudulent.

Unlike Harry Karstens and Hudson Stuck in 1913, Cook had not taken photographs from atop Denali. His alleged photo of the summit was found to have been taken on a small outcrop on a ridge beside the Ruth Glacier, 19 mi away.

In late 1909, Ed Barrill, Cook's sole companion during the 1906 climb, signed an affidavit saying that they had not reached the summit. In the late 20th century, historians found that he had been paid by Peary supporters to deny Cook's claim. (Henderson writes that this fact was covered up at the time, but Bryce says that it was never a secret.) Up until a month before, Barrill had consistently asserted that he and Cook had reached the summit. His 1909 affidavit included a map correctly locating what came to be called Fake Peak, featured in Cook's "summit" photo, and showing that he and Cook had turned back at the "Gateway" (north end of the Great Gorge), 12 horizontal bee-line miles from Denali and 3 mi below its top.

Climber Bradford Washburn gathered data, repeated the climbs, and took new photos to evaluate Cook's 1906 claim. Between 1956 and 1995, Washburn and Brian Okonek identified the locations of most of the photographs Cook took during his 1906 Denali foray and took new photos at the same spots. In 1997 Bryce identified the locations of the remaining photographs, including Cook's "summit" photograph; none were taken anywhere near the summit. Washburn showed that none of Cook's 1906 photos were taken past the Gateway.

A 1910 expedition by the Mazama Club reported that Cook's map departed abruptly from the landscape at a point when the summit was still 10 mi distant. Critics of Cook's claims have compared Cook's map of his alleged 1906 route with the landscape of the last 10 mi. Cook's descriptions of the summit ridge are variously claimed to bear no resemblance to the mountain and to have been verified by many subsequent climbers. In the 1970s, climber Hans Waale found a route that fitted both Cook's narrative and descriptions. Three decades later, in 2005 and 2006, this route was successfully climbed by a group of Russian mountaineers.

No evidence of Cook's purported journey between the "Gateway" and the summit has been found. His claim to have reached the summit is not supported by his photos' vistas, his two sketch maps' markers, and peak-numberings for points attained. Similarly, neither his recorded compass bearings, barometer readings, route-map, nor camp trash support his claim of reaching the summit. In contrast, evidence in all of these categories have been found short of the Gateway.

North Pole
After the Mount Denali expedition, Cook returned to the Arctic in 1907. He planned to attempt to reach the North Pole, although he did not announce his intention until August 1907, when he was already in the Arctic. He left Annoatok, a small settlement in the north of Greenland, in February 1908. Cook claimed that he reached the pole on April 21, 1908, after traveling north from Axel Heiberg Island, taking with him only two Inuit men, Ahpellah and Etukishook. On the journey south, he claimed to have been cut off from his intended route to Annoatok by open water. Living off local game, his party was forced to push south to Jones Sound, spending the open water season and part of the winter on Devon Island. From there they traveled north, eventually crossing Nares Strait to Annoatok on the Greenland side in the spring of 1909. They said they almost died of starvation during the journey.

Cook and his two companions were gone from Annoatok for 14 months, and their whereabouts in that period is a matter of intense controversy. In the view of Canadian historian Pierre Berton (Berton, 2001), Cook's story of his trek around the Arctic islands is probably legitimate. Other writers have relied on later accounts told by Cook's companions to investigators, who seemed to present another view.

There are similarities between Ahpellah and Etukishook's sketched route of their journey south, and the route taken by the fictional shipwrecked explorers in Jules Verne's novel The Adventures of Captain Hatteras. For example, the route the two Inuit traced on a map goes over both the Pole of Cold and the wintering site of the fictional expedition. Both expeditions went to the same area of Jones Sound in hopes of finding a whaling ship to take them to civilization.

Cook's claim was initially widely believed, but it was disputed by Cook's rival polar explorer Robert Peary, who claimed to have reached the North Pole in April 1909. Cook initially congratulated Peary for his achievement, but Peary and his supporters launched a campaign to discredit Cook. They enlisted the aid of socially prominent people outside the field of science, such as football coach Fielding H. Yost (as related in Fred Russell's 1943 book, I'll Go Quietly).

Cook never produced detailed original navigational records to substantiate his claim to have reached the North Pole. He said that his detailed records were part of his belongings, contained in three boxes, which he left at Annoatok in April 1909. He had left them with Harry Whitney, an American hunter who had traveled to Greenland with Peary the previous year due to the lack of manpower for a second sledge-journey 700 mi south to Upernavik. When Whitney tried to bring Cook's boxes with him on his return to the US on Peary's ship Roosevelt in 1909, Peary refused to allow them on board. As a result, Whitney left Cook's boxes in a cache in Greenland. They were never found.

On December 21, 1909, a commission at the University of Copenhagen, after having examined evidence submitted by Cook, ruled that his records did not contain proof that the explorer reached the Pole. (Peary refused to submit his records for review by such a third party, and for decades the National Geographic Society, which held his papers, refused researchers access to them.)

Cook intermittently claimed he had kept copies of his sextant navigational data, and in 1911 published some. These have an incorrect solar diameter. Ahwelah and Etukishook, Cook's Inuit companions, gave seemingly conflicting details about where they had gone with him. The major conflicts have been resolved in the light of improved geographical knowledge. Whitney was convinced that they had reached the North Pole with Cook, but was reluctant to be drawn into the controversy.

The Peary expedition's people (primarily Matthew Henson, who had a working knowledge of Inuit, and George Borup, who did not) claimed that Ahwelah and Etukishook told them they had traveled only a few days from land. A map allegedly was drawn by Ahwelaw and Etukishook that correctly located and accurately depicted then-unknown Meighen Island, which strongly suggests that they visited it as they claimed. Canadian Vilhjalmur Stefansson's expedition in 1916 later landed on Meighen Island; Stefansson later read Cook's papers and agreed that Meighen Island was a Cook discovery. It is known as the only island to be discovered by a United States expedition in the North American arctic. For more detail see Bryce (1997) and Henderson (2005).

The conflicting claims of Cook and Peary prompted Roald Amundsen to take extensive precautions in navigation during his South Pole expedition so there could be no doubt concerning attainment of the pole if successful. Amundsen also had the advantage of traveling over a continent. He left unmistakable evidence of his presence at the South Pole, whereas any ice on which Cook might or might not have camped would have drifted many miles in the year between the competing claims.

At the end of his 1911 memoir, Cook wrote: "I have stated my case, presented my proofs. As to the relative merits of my claim, and Mr. Peary's, place the two records side by side. Compare them. I shall be satisfied with your decision."

Reputation
Cook's reputation never recovered from the attacks on his claim. While Peary's North Pole claim was widely accepted for most of the 20th century, it has since been discredited by a variety of reviewers, including the National Geographic Society, which long supported him. Cook spent the next few years defending his claim and threatening to sue writers who said that he had faked the trip.

Researching the complicated story of the conflicting claims, the writer Robert Bryce began to assess how the men's personalities and goals were in contrast, and evaluated them against the period of the Gilded Age. He believes that Cook, as a physician and ethnographer, cared about the people on his expedition and admired the Inuit. Bryce writes that Cook "genuinely loved and hungered for the real meat of exploration—mapping new routes and shorelines, learning and adapting to the survival techniques of the Eskimos, advancing his own knowledge—and that of the world—for its own sake." But, he could not find supporters to help finance the expeditions without a goal that was more flashy. There was tremendous pressure on each man to be the first to reach the Pole, in order to gain financial support for continued expeditions.

Fraud trial
In 1919, Cook started promoting startup oil companies in Fort Worth. In April 1923, Cook and 24 other Fort Worth oil promoters were indicted in a federal crackdown on fraudulent oil company promotions. Three of Cook's employees pleaded guilty, but Cook insisted on his innocence and went to trial. Also tried was his head advertising copywriter, S. E. J. Cox, who had been previously convicted of mail fraud in connection with his own oil company promotions.

Among other deceptive practices, Cook was charged with paying dividends from stock sales, rather than from profits. Cook's attorney was former politician Joseph Weldon Bailey, who clashed frequently with the judge. The jury found Cook guilty on 14 counts of fraud. In November 1923, Judge Killits sentenced Cook and 13 other oil company promoters to prison terms. Cook drew the longest sentence, 14 years 9 months. His attorney appealed the verdict, but the conviction was upheld.

Later life
Cook was imprisoned until 1930. Roald Amundsen, who believed he owed his life to Cook's extrication of the Belgica, visited him there at least once. Cook was pardoned by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, ten years after his release and shortly before his death of a cerebral hemorrhage on August 5. He was interred at the Chapel of Forest Lawn Cemetery, Buffalo.

Popular culture

 * "Erchie Explains the Polar Situation", a satirical account of the rival claims of Cook and Peary by Neil Munro, first published in the Glasgow Evening News of 4th October 1909.
 * Cook & Peary: The Race to the Pole (1983) – American TV movie
 * The Last Place on Earth (1985) – British miniseries
 * The Navigator of New York (2003) – Novel by Wayne Johnston
 * La jaula de los onas (2021) - Novel by Carlos Gamerro
 * Madhouse at the End of the Earth: The Belgica’s Journey into the Dark Antarctic Night (2021) - by Julian Sancton
 * A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith Chapter 25 (1943)

title: Frederick Cook


text:
Pete Luckett

Pete Luckett (born 1953) is a British-Canadian entrepreneur and media personality known as a culinary fruit and vegetable expert. A native of Nottingham, England, Luckett emigrated to Canada in 1979, settling in Saint John, New Brunswick. In the early 1990s, he moved from Saint John to Bedford, Nova Scotia and currently makes his home in Gaspereau, Nova Scotia.

Pete's Fine Foods (ex-Pete's Frootique)
Luckett became widely known in the Maritimes for his Pete's Fine Foods (formerly Pete's Frootique) specialty grocery stores. The first Pete's Frootique store opened in 1981 at the Saint John City Market. This was subsequently run by Pete's nephew and his partner. This was followed by a second store that opened on Mountain Road in Moncton. In 1992, the third Pete's Frootique store opened at the Sunnyside Mall in Bedford. In 2004, the fourth Pete's Frootique store opened on Dresden Row in downtown Halifax, and the fifth Pete's Frootique opened in Wolfville in 2012. On March 27, 2015 Pete's announced that the Wolfville location would close at the end of May 2015. A press release indicated that the Wolfville store was unable to attract enough local customers to become profitable.

The Pete's Fine Foods stores are all different in scale. The Bedford store is the most expansive and up-scale as it houses the following operating divisions: a power juice bar, a gourmet fruit and gift basket shop, a European delicatessen, a gourmet butcher and fish shop, a British specialty food emporium named Best of Britain, and a wine shop.

Sale to Sobeys
In October 2015, Luckett announced that the national grocery chain Sobeys would be entering into an agreement to purchase the Pete’s Fine Foods grocery retail and wholesale business.

Luckett Vineyards
In 2010, Luckett opened Luckett Vineyards in Gaspereau Valley, Nova Scotia. He also operates a farm that supplies vegetables and fruit to his stores, as well as commercial customers such as restaurants and caterers. As of 2023 Luckett Vineyards has been bought and run by Pete's daughter Geena Luckett.

Media personality
Luckett's TV career started while in Saint John as a frequent guest on the CBC television show Midday. Upon moving to Nova Scotia in the early 1990s, Luckett became a contributing guest to the Halifax CTV affiliate, ATV, where he hosted a bi-weekly segment on fruit and vegetables on the supperhour news show Live at Five. Luckett's catchphrase in his broadcast media appearances is "Toodlee-doo."

Luckett hosted the Food Network series The Food Hunter where he travels around the world. Luckett has also written a column for the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and serves as a consultant for Chartwells, which delivers all food services at Acadia University, near his home.

Luckett has also appeared on such programs as CBC's Steven and Chris. In December 2011, Luckett starred as a cab driver at the end of a TV ad for the NSLC encouraging Nova Scotians not to drink and drive by saying "If you've had a few, your car has too". The ad shows cars parked outside a party as drunk saying such phrases as "I love you man" and other drunken ramblings.

Impact on retailing in Nova Scotia
In 1999, Luckett made headlines when he won a court battle against the Government of Nova Scotia when he sought to keep his Bedford store open on Sunday. To circumvent Nova Scotia's Sunday shopping laws, Luckett registered sections of his Bedford store as separate businesses. He copied this approach at his Halifax store when it opened in 2004. In October 2006 the province's Sunday shopping restrictions were overturned after both Sobeys and Atlantic Superstore copied Luckett's approach to several of their supermarkets, forcing the government to enact restrictions that were successfully contested in court. In 2014, Pete's Frootique became Pete's Fine Foods.

title: Pete Luckett


text:
User:Chungkuo

User Bookmarks
Special:Newpages

title: User:Chungkuo