text:
Byrhtnoth

Byrhtnoth (Byrhtnoð), Ealdorman of Essex (c. 931 - 11 August 991), died at the Battle of Maldon. His name is composed of the Old English beorht (bright) and noþ (courage). He is the subject of The Battle of Maldon, an Old English poem; J.R.R. Tolkien's short play in verse, The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son; and a modern statue at Maldon.

Death in battle
His death, while leading the Anglo-Saxon forces against the Vikings in 991, is the subject of the famous Old English poem The Battle of Maldon. As presented there, his decision to allow the Vikings to move to a better position was fatal. He was said to stand well over six feet in height, and was around the age of sixty years at the Battle of Maldon, with "swan-white hair". Although it is believed that he fell early in the battle, some say that it took three men to kill him, one of them almost severing Byrhtnoth's arm in the process. He had previously had several military successes, presumably also against Viking raiders.

Patronage and burial
Byrhtnoth was a patron of Ely Abbey, giving it many villages (including Spaldwick, Trumpington, Rettendon, Soham, Fulbourn, Impington, Pampisford and Teversham). He was buried there alongside Archbishop Wulfstan the homilist. The Liber Eliensis records that his widow gave the Abbey a tapestry or hanging celebrating his deeds, presumably in the style of the Bayeux Tapestry, the only surviving example of such a work. This was given immediately after his death, so had probably been hanging in his home previously.

Reburials
After his burial, his remains, along with those of six other Saxon 'benefactors of Ely Church' (also known as the seven 'Confessors of Christ') have been moved and reburied three times. Archbishop Wulfstan with six bishops (Osmund of Sweden, Athelstan of Elmham, Ælfwine of Elmham, Ælfgar of Elmham, Eadnoth of Dorchester) and Byrhtnoth were all exhumed from their burial places in the old Saxon abbey church, and in the mid-1150s the remains were reinterred in the 'Northern Part' of the new Norman church, which by then had been made Ely Cathedral.

Following the collapse of the central tower in 1322, a new octagonal space was created, and a wall was built on its north side to separate the monastic area of the choir from the pilgrim entrance and route to the shrine of Æthelthryth (St Etheldreda). Within this wall the seven benefactors were buried, with wall paintings of each in an elaborate arcade facing the pilgrim entrance, perhaps to remind visitors of the enduring respect that can accrue from such generosity.

The shrines were destroyed and pilgrimages ceased at the Reformation, but in 1769, when the choir stalls were moved out of the Octagon, the wall was demolished and James Bentham found that the remains of the seven benefactors were still there, each in a separate compartment, although Byrhtnoth's was headless. All the clerics were estimated to be over 6 ft tall, and Byrhtnoth's bones suggested that he stood at 6 ft. On 31 July 1781 they were again re-interred, with considerable ceremony, at the far east end of the cathedral, in niches constructed within the gothic splendour of Bishop Nicholas West's Chantry chapel.

Family
Byrhtnoth was married to Ælfflæd, sister of the dowager Queen Æthelflæd of Damerham, making Byrhtnoth a kinsman of King Edgar by marriage. Byrhtnoth and Ælfflæd are identified to have had a daughter who married Oswig, who died 5 May 1010 in the Battle of Ringmere. Byrhtnoth is reported to have had a daughter called Leofflæd, but she is not mentioned in any pre-Conquest source. This Leofflæd is likely the same as the daughter who married Oswig.

Legacy
In October 2006, a statue created by John Doubleday was placed at the end of the Maldon Promenade Walk, facing the battle site of Northey Island and the Causeway. The battle site itself has a National Trust plaque recording his 'heroic defeat and death'.

As well as the Anglo-Saxon poem, The Battle of Maldon, J.R.R. Tolkien's short alliterative play, The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son takes place on the battlefield of Maldon and deals with the search for Byrhtnoth's body.

In 2015 Timebomb Comics released ''Defiant! The Legend of Brithnoth'', an original graphic novel based on the story of Brithnoth and The Battle of Malden, written by Andy Winter and illustrated by Daniel Bell.

title: Byrhtnoth


text:
Talk:Esperanto literature

 * ...sells over 4,000 books.

This would be clearer if it were revised to read either "sells over 4,000 books per year" or "has 4,000 in-print books in its catalog". Not sure offhand which is correct. - Jim Henry

Michalski
Should we cite the name of Eŭgeno Miĥalski in that form, or in a more traditional anglicised form (which was there before: Eugene Michalski), or in the actual Ukrainian or Russian form (whatever that is -- the E-o Wikipedia gives "Jevgenij Iosifoviĉ Miĥalskij" but that is an esperantization of the Cyrillic, I reckon)? Which form should be used for his article title? Maybe it depends on whether he is known for anything except poetry in Esperanto. --Jim Henry | Talk 6 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

Auld's reading list
We should probably say something about the reading list William Auld compiled some years ago; TTBOMK it's the closest think E-o has to a literary canon or great books list. --Jim Henry (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Major figures of Esperanto literature
I was surprised to see the name of Teodoro Schwartz (George Soros's father). He was an Esperantist, but hardly a major figure of Esperanto literature. On the other hand, Raymond Schwartz's name was missing. I have taken off T. Schwartz's name and replaced it with Raymond Schwartz. I have also added the name of Baldur Ragnarsson, who is now considered one of the greatest modern Esperanto poets. Anna Lowenstein (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esperanto literature. 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/20080916045434/http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/EBook/chap09.html to http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/EBook/chap09.html

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) 16:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Esperanto literature


text:
Hugh Oldham

Hugh Oldham (c. 1452 – 25 June 1519) was an English cleric who was Bishop of Exeter (1505–19) and a notable patron of education as a founder and patron of Manchester Grammar School and Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

Born in Lancashire to a family of minor gentry, he probably attended both Oxford and Cambridge universities, following which he was a clerk at Durham, then a rector in Cornwall before being employed by Lady Margaret Beaufort (mother of King Henry VII), rising to be the chancellor of her household by 1503. During this time he was preferred with many religious posts all over the country, being made archdeacon of Exeter in 1502 and finally bishop of that city in 1505, a decision that was probably influenced by Lady Margaret.

He was a conscientious bishop who ensured that only educated people were appointed to ecclesiastical posts. His patronage of educational establishments included the foundation of The Manchester Grammar School and Corpus Christi College, Oxford for which he donated £4,000. After his death he was buried in Exeter Cathedral in a chantry chapel that he had caused to be built for that purpose. The chapel is decorated with numerous carvings of owls, which were his personal device.

Early life
Oldham was one of the younger of six sons born to Roger Oldham and his wife Margery who were, the limited evidence suggests, yeomen or minor gentry at Ancoats, which at the time was a village in North West England, but is now an inner city area of Manchester. There are few records of his early life, but it is known that he attended university, studying canon law and either arts or civil law probably at Oxford, and he was later (in 1493) a bachelor of law at Cambridge. There is no contemporary evidence, however, that he was a member of Queens' College, Cambridge as was claimed by Thomas Fuller in his Worthies of England of 1662 and often repeated.

In 1475 he was described in a deed transferring property to him from his eldest brother James as a "clerk of Durham". At this time he was most likely either in the household of, or employed by Lawrence Booth, Bishop of Durham, whose family came from the same area as Oldham's and by whom James had also been employed. He was rector of Lanivet in Cornwall between 1488 and 1493, when he resigned the living on a pension of £12. At this time he was also a servant to William Smyth, who was keeper of the hanaper in the Court of Chancery. In 1492 he was the receiver for Lady Margaret Beaufort's estates in the West Country, and by 1503 he had risen to be the chancellor of her household.

In the years following 1490, Oldham was made a canon of the cathedrals of Exeter, Lichfield, Lincoln, St Paul's, Salisbury and York. In 1496 William Smyth, who was by then Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, appointed him to the non-residential post of master of the hospital of St John in Lichfield, to which Smyth had recently added a free grammar school and almshouse. The year 1499 saw him established as dean of Wimborne in Dorset, and in 1502 he was made archdeacon of Exeter. In 1503, he had sufficient prestige to be present at the placing of the foundation stone of the Henry VII Lady Chapel at Westminster Abbey.

Bishop of Exeter
Possibly with some influence from Lady Margaret Beaufort (who was the mother of the then reigning king, Henry VII), Oldham was appointed as Bishop of Exeter on 24 November 1504, and was consecrated in the post on 12 January 1505. He evidently took his duties as bishop seriously and ensured that only educated people, such as university graduates, were raised to most of the important roles under his control. He also instigated examinations to select the best candidates for ordination.

Bishop Oldham's coat of arms, shown here, are described as "Sable, a chevron or, between three Owls proper; on a chief of the second, three Roses gules." Oldham adopted the owl as his personal device. It was a play on words or rebus based on his surname, which would probably have been pronounced at the time as owl-dom.

From 1510 to 1513 he was one of a group of bishops who resisted, largely successfully, what they considered were undue claims made by William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, regarding the probate courts. In 1511 he regulated many cathedral matters by the issue of statutes, and he was not shy in confronting other religious houses when he thought it appropriate. He successfully annexed Warland Hospital in Totnes from the Trinitarian Order in 1509. This was done, as was the similar annexation of Clyst Gabriel at Sowton, to help finance the provision of regular meals for the twenty vicars choral at his Cathedral.

He was initially successful in his litigation against Richard Banham, the abbot of Tavistock Abbey, who in 1513 had declared his abbey exempt from the bishop's right of episcopal visitation. Oldham quickly excommunicated him, but after Banham's personal appeal that he be "absolved from his censures", Oldham reinstated him, on payment of five pounds. However, soon afterwards Banham appealed to Archbishop William Warham and Richard FitzJames, Bishop of London, who decided early in 1514 that since he had not produced any evidence of papal exemption, he had to submit to the bishop. Still not satisfied, Banham appealed directly to Rome and eventually received a papal bull, dated 14 September 1517, that exempted him totally from episcopal jurisdiction and took the Abbey under the sole protection of the Holy See, on payment of twenty shillings annually. These events are in direct contrast to what was written in 1601 by Francis Godwin in his Catalogue of the Bishops of England where he stated that it was Oldham who was excommunicated by the pope as a result of this dispute. Godwin's version of events was followed by several later historians, but Mumford (1936) flatly stated that "there is no record of any such excommunication".

Hugh Oldham had a brother, Bernard, who also followed a religious career. At Hugh's request, Lady Margaret Beaufort had seen that he was installed as rector in Crewkerne, Somerset, in around 1495. While there, Bernard helped John Combe, a lawyer and precentor of Exeter Cathedral, who came from Crewkerne, establish a free grammar school in the town. After Lady Margaret's death in 1509, Hugh spent a long time with his brother in Crewkerne, and arranged for him to be Archdeacon of Cornwall, a post which he held from 1509 to 1515. On 5 April 1515 Bernard was made treasurer of Exeter Cathedral, but he died within a month of taking up the post.

George Oliver in his Lives of the Bishops of Exeter (1861), relates an anecdote, originally told by John Hooker in the late 16th century, regarding the bishop's punctuality of dining at eleven o'clock in the morning, and of supping at five o'clock in the afternoon. Apparently to ensure precision he had a house-clock to strike the hours, and a servant to look after it. If the bishop was prevented by important business from coming to table at the appointed time, the servant would delay the clock's striking the hour until he knew that his master was ready. Sometimes, if asked what was the hour, the servant would humorously answer, "As your lordship pleaseth," at which the bishop would smile and go his way. Hooker also summed up his opinion of Bishop Oldham in these words: "A man having more zeal than knowledge and more devotion than learning; somewhat rough in speeches but friendly in doings [...] albeit he was not very much learned, yet a great favourer and a friend both to learning and to learned men".

Interest in education
As bishop, Oldham showed a keen interest in education, probably influenced by his brother Bernard's experiences in Crewkerne. He donated £4,000 and land in Chelsea towards Corpus Christi College, Oxford, which his friend and former Bishop of Exeter, Richard Foxe was in the process of establishing. In 1513, Foxe's original intention had been for the college to be for monks, similar to the long-established Durham College and Canterbury College, both at Oxford. However, Oldham appears to have persuaded Foxe to found a secular college instead, along the lines of New College or Magdalen, supposedly telling him that "monks were but a sort of bussing [buzzing] flies ... whose state could not long endure"—showing, according to some, that Oldham was well aware of the coming Reformation. In return for his generosity, daily prayers for him were recited in the new chapel at Corpus Christi both during his lifetime and after his death, and the college still has a contemporary portrait of him.

Oldham may also have patronized Brasenose College, Oxford, which his former master William Smyth had founded in 1509. The historian John Hooker stated that Oldham's advances to Smyth were rebuffed, but evidence of the patronage existed in the form of his coat of arms that used to be set in a library window there. He apparently also offered help to Exeter College, Oxford, established in 1314 by one of his predecessors at Exeter, Bishop Stapledon, but in this case there is no evidence to contradict Hooker's statement that his offer was rejected.

Oldham's interests also extended to lower levels of education. He ensured that the younger members of Exeter's cathedral choir attended the city high school, for instance, but his main endowment in this field was made back in his home country of Lancashire. On 2 July 1515 he signed an endowment trust deed establishing the Manchester Free Grammar School for Lancashire Boys which later became The Manchester Grammar School. This deed promoted "godliness and good learning" and promised that any boy showing sufficient academic ability, regardless of background, could attend, free of charge. A site was purchased in September 1516 and construction took place between April 1517 and August 1518. The total cost, as shown by a bill signed by Oldham, was £218.13s.5d, most of which must have been given by Oldham himself.

Oldham's death, his chapel and tomb
Sir John Speke, a wealthy Devon knight, and Bishop Oldham jointly planned the construction of two new chantry chapels in complementary positions off the north and south choir-aisles of Exeter Cathedral. Oldham's chapel, off the south aisle, was apparently complete by 1513. It was dedicated to St Saviour, and Oldham intended his body to rest there. Speke died on 28 April 1518 and was interred in his tomb off the north aisle. On 16 December of the same year, Oldham drew up his will in which he gave £80 for the vicars choral to celebrate a daily mass for his soul at his tomb. He died just six months later, on 25 June 1519.

His body lies in his chantry chapel which is decorated with numerous carvings of the owl that was his personal device. One of the owls carries a scroll in its beak, bearing the letters "DOM". His tomb is surmounted by a brightly painted, but rather crudely carved effigy, typical of the general decline in the quality of sepulchral monuments of the early 16th century. The tomb was restored by Corpus Christi College in the late 19th century. It was restored again and recoloured, together with many other monuments in the Cathedral, between 1956 and 1967.

Legacy
Bishop Oldham is well remembered by Manchester Grammar School: on a Sunday at the end of June each year representatives from the school hold a commemorative service in Exeter Cathedral during which a wreath is laid on his tomb. Since 2005 the school has held an annual Hugh Oldham Lecture, with speakers that have included Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, historian Michael Wood and Lord Winston. And in 2001 the Bishop of Exeter, Michael Langrish gave a speech to the London Section of the Old Mancunians' Association in which he emphasised two facets of Bishop Oldham's life, both of which he said have relevance today: the importance of learning and education that is broad-based, humane and directed to the well-being of society, and to be open to the future and critically appreciative of what it might be. A life-size bronze statue of the bishop, sculpted by William Macmillan in 1931, stands in the school grounds, and the school's badge still incorporates Oldham's owls.

Hugh Oldham Lads Club, one of the first Lads Clubs in Manchester and similar in its purpose to the later Salford Lads Club, was founded by the educator Alexander Devine in 1887 as a result of his concern for the welfare of children. It continued until 1958.

title: Hugh Oldham


text:
Tatyana Lebedeva

Tatyana Romanovna Lebedeva (Татьяна Романовна Лебедева, born 21 July 1976) is a Russian track and field athlete who competes in both the long jump and triple jump events. She is one of the most successful athletes in the disciplines, having won gold medals at Olympic, world and European levels. She has a long jump best of 7.33 m and held the then indoor world record mark of 15.36 m in the triple jump. In 2017 she was banned for doping.

Career
Her first successes came in the triple jump in 2000, when she won European Indoor gold medal and a silver at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. She became the World Champion the following year in addition to a silver medal at the world indoors. After retaining her triple jump title at the 2003 World Championships, she decided to take up the long jump as well. The move paid dividends: she broke the indoor world record in the triple jump at the 2004 World Indoor Championships and won a second gold in the long jump with a mark of 15.36. She won her first Olympic gold medal in the long jump event at the 2004 Athens Olympics and also won the bronze in the triple jump competition.

In 2005, she missed the World Championships due to injury, but became the sole winner of the IAAF Golden League jackpot, a bonus of US$1 million awarded to athletes who win their event at each of six designated European summer meets. That year, she concentrated on the triple jump.

Lebedeva excelled at the 2005 IAAF Golden League, receiving the entire jackpot prize of US$1 million. She became European champion for the first time with a win at the 2006 European Athletics Championships in the triple jump. Lebedeva reached the podium twice at the 2007 World Championships taking long jump gold and triple jump silver.

On 25 January 2017, the International Olympic Committee sanctioned Lebedeva for doping at the 2008 Olympic Games, as a result she lost her silver medals for both the long jump and triple jump events in that Games. Lebedeva appealed the IOC's decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, however on 26 July 2018, the IOC's decision was upheld.

She won the long jump silver medal at the 2009 World Championships (her eighth medal on the world podium), although she could not match this form in the triple jump.

Personal life
In September 2002, Lebedeva and her husband Nikolay Matveev had their first daughter, Anastasiya. She announced that she was pregnant for a second time in 2010 (choosing to skip the 2011 season), and gave birth to a second daughter (Aleksandra) in November.

Personal bests

 * All information taken from IAAF profile.

National titles

 * Russian Athletics Championships
 * Long jump: 2004
 * Triple jump: 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
 * Russian Indoor Athletics Championships
 * Long jump: 2004
 * Triple jump: 2000, 2001, 2003

title: Tatyana Lebedeva


text:
GoldenPalace.com

GoldenPalace.com is an online casino that operates under a license granted by CIGA (Curaçao Internet Gaming Association). They are known for their publicity stunts and large "bonuses" that had to be wagered up to fifty times before claiming. On several occasions, this led to controversy when the site refused to pay players seen to be only playing to claim the free money, and not for the entertainment value. One key incident led to the site's former software provider, Microgaming, terminating their agreement. This led GoldenPalace and its sister casinos to move to rival Playtech in 2003; since 2013, it uses provider IGSONLINE.

Promotions
The casino has paid many boxers to wear temporary tattoos on their backs promoting the site. GoldenPalace.com has also been accused of far more disruptive ambush marketing stunts. The casino sponsored serial streaker Mark Roberts in several of his escapades, including his "performances" at the 2003 UEFA Cup final and Super Bowl XXXVIII in 2004; at both events, he wore a temporary GoldenPalace.com tattoo. Individuals sporting temporary tattoos for the casino have also disrupted other sporting events, including the 2004 Summer Olympics and the 2006 Winter Olympics. Free climber Alain Robert wore such a tattoo when he climbed the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 2003.

In controversial acts, it sponsored both Roberts (who was fully clothed) and former NBA star Dennis Rodman's participation in the 2004 Running of the Bulls as a fundraiser for multiple sclerosis charities. It has sponsored several competitive eaters and competitive eating competitions, one of which was profiled on the A&E TV show Airline (a grilled cheese sandwich eating contest, likely referring to a sandwich with the image of the Virgin Mary that the casino purchased). It also sponsored the da Vinci Project's attempt to fly a reusable crewed spacecraft for the Ansari X Prize, and was the cash prize sponsor on The Surreal Life: Fame Games.

Bids at Internet auctions
GoldenPalace.com is also well known for its winning internet auctions, mostly for bizarre items. For example:

 * On July 22, 2004, GoldenPalace won its first bid, buying a David Beckham missed penalty kick ball for €28,050.
 * On November 23, 2004, the site paid $28,000 for a grilled cheese sandwich purportedly displaying an image of the Virgin Mary.
 * In February 2005, it paid $75,100 for a plastic Abraham Lincoln-shaped french fry from a McDonald's Super Bowl commercial
 * On March 3, 2005, they paid $650,000 for the naming rights of the recently discovered Madidi titi monkey. The "GoldenPalace.com monkey" was officially named Callicebus aureipalatii, "aureipalatii" literally translating into "Of the golden palace".
 * On March 30, 2005, the casino paid Terri Iligan $15,199 to change her name to "goldenpalace.com".
 * On May 5, 2005, it paid €188,938.88 ($244,524.73) to German student Benjamin Halbe for a Volkswagen Golf car which formerly belonged to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now better known as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. With over 8.5 million visitors, the auction became the most often viewed auction on eBay.de.
 * On June 30, 2005, Karolyne Smith sold the right to permanently tattoo their domain name on her forehead for $10,000 or $15,000.
 * In 2006, it paid $25,000 for William Shatner's kidney stone.

title: GoldenPalace.com


text:
Talk:Dartmouth College v. Woodward

Untitled
The article states that Webster was moved by his own speech that tears formed at his eyes. Actually, it was John Marshall himself who was deeply moved. I am sure of it, since I read this interesting trivia in my AP Government textbook. That Webster was moved by his own speech is a clear vandalism.67.80.32.189 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Who did Webster represent, where?

"The trustees thus hired Daniel Webster, who represented New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate...."

Its my understanding that when Webster was hired by the Trustees, he had not yet become a US Senator. He was a former member of the House of Representatives. Furthermore, when he later DID become a Senator, it was for the state of Massachusetts.

A little later, this article says that Webster was "at this time" the most famous Dartmouth alumnus. Isn't he still? Is there someone more famous to come out of those hallowed halls?

Background section
Unless this is following a standard format, Background should probably be moved to after Case and called Precendents. The way it read now, you have to read Case to understand what Background is talking about, so it's out-of-order. BillMcGonigle (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Land Grant
The allodial title article points here and says that the College retained its land grant title through this case. Does anybody know more about that? BillMcGonigle (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Micheal Jackson
it says that the flethcer v peck case was handled by the michael jackson court. but the supreme court in 1810 was headed by john marshell. i am re-writing it and taking michael jackson out unless someone can figure it out. even if someone named jackson was heading the court then what is the point of throwing that in?

Webster
Yeah, Webster was hired by the former board of trustees to defend them (the trustees had been replaced by the state of New Hampshire's own trustees). I'm not sure about there being anyone more famous than Webster, though.

What distinction?
"The decision protected contracts against specifically state encroachments. More recently it has had the effect of safeguarding business enterprises from state governments’ dominion."

Some editor seems to be making a distinction between "encroachment" and "dominion" here. But I don't get it and would like it explained to me. --Christofurio 13:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Needs standard court case look
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden The bar on the right side that shows key facts - this case needs that. I am completely inexperienced at editing, sorry, but if someone who knows what they're doing could please add that bar, it would be helpful. Thanks. -Ricky28269

he made himself cry wtf?
the text in the article says ""Webster's speech in support of Dartmouth (which he described as "a small college," adding, "and yet there are those who love it") was so moving that it reportedly brought tears to Webster's eyes""

So his own speech was so moving he made himself cry?? is this just poor word choice or a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.214.100 (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

About that crying himself part...
My gov teacher told me that it was true. I was fairly surprised, but whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.32.189 (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing the actual essence of the case
This article made the front page of Wikipedia, yet I have to say it seems to be missing something important. Reading it, I still have not got the foggiest idea of what the case actually was about. I got the ending-- Dartmouth remained private-- but I have no idea who was doing what to whom or why. Something about a contract, between somebody unnamed and somebody else unnamed.

But what? Couldn't somebody summarize it? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Syntax Error
The Infobox needs to be corrected; it's not displaying, just being written out as code. Alexanderaltman (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words
Since nobody couldn't find a source for the following sentence from the last paragraph I removed it from the article: Today some still view Dartmouth as a problematic extension of individual contract rights to artificial corporate entities. Until somebody can actually attribute it to a reliable source it should stay out. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dartmouth College v. Woodward


text:
Matthew Kneale

Matthew Kneale (born 24 November 1960) is a British writer. He is best known for his 2000 novel English Passengers.

Life
Kneale was born on 24 November 1960 in London, the son of screenwriter Nigel Kneale, and the children's writer Judith Kerr. He is also the grandson of Alfred Kerr, a German theatre critic and essayist, who as a dissident and critic of the Nazi Party was forced to flee Germany with his family in 1933. Matthew first accompanied his mother on a visit to Germany in 1967. Kneale was brought up in Barnes, attended Latymer Upper School in West London, and then studied modern history at Magdalen College, Oxford. Growing up, he was fascinated by other cultures, past and present, and as a student he travelled in Europe, South America, Central America and the Indian subcontinent. After graduating he knew he wanted to write but had little idea how to set about such a thing. He traveled to Tokyo, where he found work teaching English and began writing a diary and short stories. Later, on returning to England, his experience in Japan inspired his first novel, Whore Banquets.

During the next few years Kneale lived primarily in London, travelled, spent a year in Rome, and wrote his second novel, Inside Rose's Kingdom. In 1990 he moved to Oxford, where he wrote two historical novels, Sweet Thames and English Passengers. He also developed an interest in languages, attempting to learn Spanish, Romanian, Albanian and Amharic (Ethiopian). In 2000 he married Shannon Russell and they moved to Italy and Shannon's homeland of Canada. He and his wife now live in Rome with their two children.

Work
Kneale's first novel, Whore Banquets, tells the story of an Englishman whose affair with a Tokyo woman brings him into the realm of Japanese organized crime. It won the 1988 Somerset Maugham Award and the 1988 Betty Trask Award. It was later republished as Mr Foreigner.

Inside Rose's Kingdom follows a young innocent who moves from the countryside to London, where he becomes caught up with a group of controlling, emotionally grasping people.

Sweet Thames is set in London in 1849 and tells the story of the trials of an enlightened drainage engineer whose wife vanishes during a cholera epidemic. It won the 1993 John Llewellyn Rhys Prize.

English Passengers tells the story of a religious-scientific expedition that seeks to find the Garden of Eden in Tasmania, a land whose aboriginal culture had been experiencing brutal destruction at the hands of British settlers and convicts. The novel is told by more than 20 voices. It won the 2000 Whitbread Book of the Year Award and was a finalist for the Booker Prize and the Australian Miles Franklin Award. In translation the book won France's Relay Prix d'Evasion. Interviewed in 2001, Kneale said that J. G. Farrell was a writer whom he particularly admired, as one who "wrote about the British Empire – and scathingly – back in the 1970s, when few in Britain wanted to think about the uglier parts of their country's past."

Small Crimes in an Age of Abundance is a volume of 12 short stories set around the world, from Colombia to London to Africa. They examine the lives of people as they struggled to survive and do the right thing, sometimes managing neither. One of the stories, "Powder", about a failed lawyer whose life changes when he chances upon a stash of cocaine and a mobile phone, was made into the French feature film, Une Pure Affaire.

When We Were Romans is told from the point of view of a boy, Laurence, whose mother suddenly and unexpectedly decides that she and her children, and even Laurence's hamster, must flee England to Rome, where she lived many years before.

An Atheist's History of Belief is Kneale's first nonfiction book. It looks at the beliefs that people have devised to explain their world, from earliest prehistoric times to the present, as understood by a fascinated non-believer. His second work of nonfiction, Rome: A History in Seven Sackings is a social and cultural history spanning centuries.

Pilgrims is a comic novel set in medieval times, mainly in 1289, about a group of heterogeneous individuals who band together on a journey from England to Rome on a religious pilgrimage, each with his or her own intentions.

Fiction

 * Whore Banquets, 1987
 * Inside Rose's Kingdom, 1989
 * Sweet Thames, 1992
 * English Passengers, 2000
 * Small Crimes in an Age of Abundance, 2005
 * Powder, 2006
 * When We Were Romans, 2007
 * Pilgrims, 2020 ISBN 978-1-78649-237-1

Non-fiction

 * An Atheist's History of Belief, 2013
 * Rome: A History in Seven Sackings, 2017

title: Matthew Kneale


text:
Crimson Tide

Crimson Tide may refer to:

Arts and entertainment

 * The Crimson Tide, a 1919 book by Robert W. Chambers
 * Crimson Tide, 1995 film
 * Crimson Tide, a 1995 book by Richard P. Henrick
 * The Crimson Tide, a Fighting Fantasy'' gamebook, 1992
 * "Crimson Tide", a song by Destroyer from the 2020 album Have We Met

Sports

 * Alabama Crimson Tide, the intercollegiate athletic varsity teams of the University of Alabama
 * Vancouver Island Crimson Tide, a Canadian rugby union team
 * Crimson Tide, the Pottsville, Pennsylvania football team
 * Crimson Tide, the former name of Spartanburg High School football team

title: Crimson Tide


text:
Byng

Byng may refer to:

Places

 * Byng, Oklahoma, a small town in Pontotoc County
 * Byng Inlet, Ontario, a ghost town in Parry Sound District
 * Manor of Byng, Suffolk, England

People

 * John Byng (disambiguation), several people with the same name, including:
 * John Byng (1704–1757), British admiral, sentenced to death by court martial and shot
 * George Byng (disambiguation), one of several Viscounts Torrington, most notably:
 * George Byng, 1st Viscount Torrington (1668–1733), British Admiral and statesman
 * Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy (1862–1935), British general during World War I, later Governor General of Canada and involved in the King-Byng constitutional crisis
 * Several Earls of Strafford, including:
 * Edmund Henry Byng, 6th Earl of Strafford (1861–1951), president of Middlesex County Cricket Club
 * Georgia Byng (born 1965), British author of children's books

 * James Byng (born 1985), British actor

 * James W. Byng, British botanist
 * Jamie Byng (born 1969), Canongate Books publisher
 * Thomas Byng (died 1599), English academic and lawyer

Others

 * The Lady Byng Memorial Trophy for sportsmanship in the National Hockey League
 * Lord Byng Secondary School, Vancouver

title: Byng


text:
Talk:Atlas (mythology)

Richat structure
The mention that "while "Atlantis" (the Richat Structure in Mauritania) means "island of Atlas"." is opinion not fact. There is no conclusive proof that Atlantis exists, let alone that it is Proterozoic Richat structure dome, so I've removed this. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Perseus turning Atlas to stone
ok, in most of the greek mythology i've read, it says nothing of Perseus turning Atlas to stone with Medusa's head. Could someone please tell me where it says that happened?? marie16
 * um, in Ovid's ''Metamorphoses", the supreme authority on mythological change. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to maps
I think there should be a link to article about maps. I remember references to Atlas saying that it was a common misconception that Atlas carried the Earth on his shoulders, and that it was the heavens which he carried, which was what I recall reading myself (and which makes more sense imho). Now this page says it was both. Can someone verify or refute this? -- SvdB 13:12, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

Atlas Holds up the Sky
Svdb is correct: Atlas was doomed to hold up the sky. But the heavens, even more than the earth, were classically conceived as a sphere or spheres, and in works of art it was common to depict him holding a globe marked with constellations, not continents -- which were mostly unknown to the artists in any case.

There may always have been a degree of ambiguity as to whether Atlas stood somewhere on earth and held up the sky from inside, or whether he somehow stood outside and carried the universe on his back -- or picturing him the second way may just have made for better iconography. But it was the star chart that first started to be called an atlas after him, and later that name was extended to almost any collection of maps.Atlas in the Greek mythology is said 2 hold up the sky(Now Zeus's territory). People have the idea that Atlas holds up the earth from seeing him depicted with a globe on his shoulders without realizing that it was originally the celestial sphere. And eventually that confusion and the extension of the common noun led to him being depicted with the now more familiar terrestrial globe on his shoulders. --Americist 22:19, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

 * what? --161.97.96.12
 * Well, if you ask most people what Atlas was made to hold up, they will say the earth, as most images show him holding the globe, however, he was really forced to hold up the sky, and classical art showed him holding a sphere of constellations. Eventually people started showing him holding a globe, leading to the misconception. -Unsigned

 * EDIT **************************************************************************

The MISCONCEPTION is still in place; please note that Atlas's head itself was the world on his shoulders. There is a new video that you can search on youtube called "Atlas's mind game", which identifies a 5000 years old statue from Hamangia holding the head in hands as the original Atlas.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.219.4 (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of Atlas
The etymology of Atlas is uncertain, contrary to what the article said. An Indo-European etymology that I've seen for Atlas is that it supposedly derives from PIE *tel-, "to lift, support". No etymology has been "canonized" yet, and the etymology is unknown, or at least disputed. Some tried to connect it with some North African words also, but that is considered very unlikely.

I see that linguists seem to be "divided" on whether Atlas derives from PIE *tel (in which case Atlas would literally mean "The Upholder", "The Bearer") or whether it is pre-Indo-European.

The last word for now on the etymology of Atlas is what the American Heritage Dictionary 2000 edition says: that Atlas "perhaps" derives from PIE *tel-, but that this is "unlikely". Alexander 007 02:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * There are many possible etymologies. I suppose that Telêpylos, capital of Laestrygonians, perhaps, is identified with the pre-Phoenician Carthage. The word "Telêpylos" contains the "indo-european" root "*tel". --IonnKorr 19:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I just removed the following proposed Berber etymology from the end of this section.
 * In fact, the sun is often called the "eye of the sky" (tit). And since it sets to the west, the Atlantic ocean can be called "the place of concealement of the sun" or Antal n Tit. Greeks could have borrowed this name for the ocean and called it Atlantic, and later used its root ATL to form the name Atlas.

I don't know any Berber, but this is a few too many long stretches in a row for my comfort without more clarity and a source or two. Is the sun often called "eye of the sky" in Berber, for instance? Because one language's idiom doesn't explain another language's metaphor.

I'd actually like to know more about this, especially if something like "antal" is a typical expression for "west" or direction of the sunset in Berber, as it would offer another possible etymology for Andalus. --Americist 19:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Could we get a reference to the PIE root *tel into the article, now that we have a Notes section (insert in the html between ? --Wetman 03:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * As far as an etymological reference, the derivation of Atlas < *tel stems at least from this…
 * "*telə-: to lift, support, weigh; with derivatives referring to measured weights and thence to money and payment. Oldest form *telə₂-. [....] 6. Perhaps (but unlikely) zero-grade form *t l ̥ə-. Atlantic, Atlas, from Greek Ατλᾱς (stem Ατλαντ-), name of the Titan supporting the world." - American Heritage Dictionary, citing Julius Pokorny’s Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch

 * …but I'm not sure what to make of "Perhaps (but unlikely)". A fascinating page discussing Chaldean Astrology (which is essentially an appendix to an essay on Documentary hypothesis) derives the name Atlas from a Chaldean (!) moon god, *Atraš. (The moon, occupying the lowest – or innermost – planetary sphere, logically holds up the rest of the heavens.) But since the essay cites no sources, and its author is identified only as bob x, I've never tried to use what it says to support anything else. --Americist 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Classical Dictionary suggests a derivation from tlaō, "enduring". There really is no widely accepted etymology for Atlas. If, however, the article is going to cover his etymology, it should give a wider range of etymologies than the disputed derivation from *tel. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia's article Atalanta begins quite sensibly "Atalanta (Greek:Αταλάντη, meaning "balanced")..." How could the root of Atalanta and Atlas not be the same? These more distant etymologies, howeever, never seem to provide a firm enough foundation for any further thought. --Wetman 05:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I have seen the suggestion that Atlas derives etymologically from Thalassa, meaning the sea. If so then it is pre-Greek, possibly "Pelasgian" in origin. It would explain the story of Plato that Atlas was a son of Poseidon. John D. Croft (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Pre-Greek is more correct to say. We don't know what 'Pelasgian' was. Fkitselis (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not possible to really know, but Atlas sounds pre-Greek. First of all he was a titan, a word reminding of the Hattic word tittah 'great, big'. Then we know of another titan called Talos, who was guarding the coast of Crete. Have a look on Hesychius dictionary and you will discover that τάλα (tala) in Greek means 'great, big'. Last but not least, Hurrian talami means 'big'. To support an IE root, one should explain what the a- (without) does in front of *tel-. Does Atlas mean 'without support'? After saying all these, maybe we should add some citations to the etymology, because right now there are some bold statements being made, without anyone knowing who really expressed them.Fkitselis (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Daughters of Atlas (and Son)
Can anyone find a classical reference to a Maera as daughter of Atlas? --Wetman 03:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I found these…
 * "There are also tombs [at Tegea, Arkadia] of Tegeates, the son of Lykaon, and of Maira, the wife of Tegeates. They say Maira was a daughter of Atlas, and Homer makes mention of her in the passage where Odysseus tells to Alkinous his journey to Hades, and of those whose ghosts he beheld there." - Pausanias, Guide to Greece 8.48.6
 * "The ruins of a village called Maira, with the grave of Maira … For probably the Tegeans, and not the Mantineans, are right when they say that Maira, the daughter of Atlas, was buried in their land." - Pausanias, Guide to Greece 8.12.7
 * …at the Theoi Project. Pausanias is a bit late (2nd century) and basically wrote down whatever he heard or read as far as mythology is concerned. But then, that's pretty much all mythology is.
 * There seems to be a healthy ambiguity about Maira. These two passages from Pausanias, and the one he refers to from Homer, indicate a more mortal nature. Pausanias also does not specify a particular Atlas as her father, which may contribute confusion. In another passage he describes her as the subject of a cult focused on moderating the hot influence of Sirius, with which she is apparently associated (as another star in Canis Major) or even identified. But in that passage Pausanias makes no mention of Atlas, nor do other accounts of the same cult. But most of Atlas' daughters were stars, so it wouldn't take much to pull her into the group. --Americist 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I plan to add references for the rest of these, and add items to the list soon. --Americist 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Examples of the Atlas Motif
Examples of Atlas-like figures keep creeping into the article, but none of them seem to be missing from the much fuller list at Atlas (disambiguation). Most recently, the architectural feature "atlas" popped up in this article's "Etymology" section. Pending some good criteria for determining which and how many examples should be included in this article, and where they should be placed, I've removed the following:
 * Because of Atlas' typical pose, Atlantes are the male counterparts of the more familiar female Caryatids. (Both are sculpted columns which support an architrave beam).
 * The comic book superhero Captain Marvel was granted the stamina of Atlas as part of his powers.
 * The image of Atlas bearing a great burden serves as an important metaphor throughout Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged.
 * The size-changer of Marvel Comics' "Thunderbolts" is also known as Atlas. He was recently shown on a cover holding up a building, a pose reminiscent of the mythological Atlas.

I think it actually makes sense to include some examples. I just don't have any strong feelings at the moment about how they should be handled — except that the way they were presented seems wrong. --Americist 17:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Phoibe/Phoebe
I originally changed "Phoibe" to "Phoebe" because on Wikipedia all but two references were spelled "Phoebe." "Phoibe" appeared to be a typo. Now someone has changed it back without any explanation other than the spelling is "intentional." To avoid a revert war I will leave it that way as long as there can be some explanation with supporting citations for "Phoibe." Educate us. :) Anon Y. Mouse 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Both spellings are correct, but Phoibe is perhaps a better representation of Greek Φοιβη. Phoebe is probably the more common spelling, however, and WP guidelines tell us to use the more common form... --Akhilleus (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The relevent guidelines deal specifically with article names — the intent being to help readers find articles by means of more familiar forms. Regardless, the current consensus seems to be that ancient Greek terms should be transcribed using Latin tradition, even when the associated entities are being discussed in primarily ancient Greek-speaking contexts (as opposed to more generally Classical or European contexts). So I've just adjusted the remaining non-conforming spellings to conform. The one exception to perfect conformity with WP:GREEK is Menoetius (Gk Μενοιτιος) which the convention would render as Menoetios. I went with Menoetius to harmonize with the current title of the relevent article, which I assume reflects someone's familiarity at some point. The overall result is that the only piped names in Atlas (mythology) now are those which (like Atlas) have articles titled with disambiguation tags, as in "(mythology)". --Americist 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Link to UR-language version
User:Wahabijaz jjjjjjjjjjjjrecently added a link to the UR (Urdu?) version of this article, but without the necessary double brackets. However, when I add the brackets, the link displays with different characters than jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjwere input, and one fewer characters than were input, despite the originals still being held "in back." Admittedly, I don't know what conventions might be coming into play, and the station I'm at right now has spotty Unicode support. But I'd appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable or bettejjjjjjjjr equipped would check my work. (I'll check myself when I'm better equipped, too.) --Americist 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "Menoetius" is consistent with the conventions listed in that page, since it contains the inflectional ending -os, for which the Latin -us is substituted.70.107.165.191 05:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation of Atlas the Titan and Atlas, son of Poseidon
There are at least three instances of Atlas in Greek mythology, each with separate parentages and stories. The best known is Atlas, the Titan son of Iapetus, brother of Prometheus, Epimetheus and Menoetius, who bore the heavens on his shoulders. A second instance is Atlas the King, who was a noted astronomer. And a third instance is Atlas, the eldest of 10 sons of Poseidon, who ruled over Atlantis. It is this latter that I am most interested in because there is the least amount of information about him. The only primary source of information is from Plato's two dialogues, "Timaeus" and the "Critias." Plato seems to have created a new Atlas for his own purposes - which many authors of the time did, as evidenced by so many unreconcilable versions of various lineages. I was wondering if anyone had any secondary sources of this Atlas, King of Atlantis, especially historic secondary sources (i.e. prior to the last few centuries). Detailed accounts of Atlantis by secondary sources would do, if they discuss its leadership. Did this Atlas have consorts and children? Are there stories of wars among the 10 brothers? Does legend tell us what happened to Atlas and his nine brothers when Atlantis was sunk by the gods? Do they still rule today, under the depths of the Atlantic ocean? Any information is welcome. 82.171.128.100 10:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Sarah

Merged From Atlas (King)
I have merged Atlas (King) into this article. The triva section still needs to be removed. Bballoakie 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Named" in Canaanite mythology
Since no Canaanite mythological texts survive, how was Atlas "named" as in the following text, which I've moved here for discussion: "Atlas was also named as Grandson of Elion (El Elyon) and Beruth (Beiruit), son of Uranus and Gaea, in Canaanite mythology." (Wetman 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

 * This is apparently an allusion to what we have third-hand via the dubious "Sanchuniathon." But, with a few exceptions, all the entities in his account have standard, classical names, so the intrusion of clearly Hebrew "Shemayim" and "Eretz" — in an Anglo-German transcription, no less — is at least misleading. Never mind the uselessness of piping terms with articles to terms without.

 * I don't think it hurts to include something to the effect that Atlas is the name of a first-generation titan in the fragmentary Phoenician mythology attributed to Sanchuniathon. At the same time, that fact by itself doesn't seem very illuminating, and there doesn't seem to be any more to it. —Americist 02:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

 * This Phoenician mythology and genealogy is included in the article in passing, and could be expanded with further references. MajoranaF (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Atlas and Amphitrite

 * "But in another version of the myth, she fled from his advances to Atlas,[13] at the farthest ends of the sea; there the dolphin of Poseidon sought her through the islands of the sea, and finding her, spoke persuasively on behalf of Poseidon, if we may believe Hyginus[14] and was rewarded by being placed among the stars as the constellation Delphinus. [15]" Source: Paragraph Four lists as source [13] something called "ad Atlante, in Hyginus' words". I don't know how to research this source. If this is a verifiable source then probably some mention of this event should be made in the Atlas article as well, and link back to Amphitrite. If it's not then the mention should be removed from Amphitrite. Anyone know what this ad Atlante Hyginus reference is and how good of a source it is for things pertaining to Atlas?

[14] says ""...qui pervagatus insulas, aliquando ad virginem pervenit, eique persuasit ut nuberet Neptuno..." Oppian's Halieutica I.383-92 is a parallel passage." and [15] links to Catasterismi, 31; Hyginus, Poetical Astronomy, ii.17, .132. I'm wondering if looking into these latter two references will lead to [13] since they should all be part of the same continuous tale. Tyciol (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious
I don't understand how this myth persists that ancient people did not know Earth was a sphere. Eratosthenes of Cyrene is specifically one of the first known men to prove that it was using geometry and a few rational assumptions. To call the understanding that Earth is a sphere a "modern understanding" is just plain ridiculous and ignorant. --68.255.2.73 (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

reference check
In this article The following is stated "this account cannot be reconciled with the far more common stories of Atlas' dealings with Heracles, who was Perseus' great-grandson."

I can find no reference to this Great-grandson portion. Based on family trees I looked at, this is not even remotely close to true. Is this a typo, or am I missing something. Request for Correction, or Clarification.

24.12.50.10 (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)JJ24.12.50.10 (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

who is athena?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.17.60 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman equivalent?
Does Atlas have an equivalent character in Roman mythology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.165.19 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Only in poetry.--Wetman (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Atlas and the moon
The article claims that Atlas is paired with Phoebe in governing the Moon and cites several sources. I checked the citations for the Iliad, Hesiod, and Aristophanes, and they contain nothing on the subject. It turns out that the citations are simply lifted from 1.d of Robert Graves' The Greek Myths. They were faulty in that book and faulty here, too. Unless a good source is found, mention of Atlas' alleged regency of the moon should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asiaj (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would be good to get another source to verify elements of Graves' Pelasgian creation myth. If not, this may still merit inclusion in passing (as the article currently does) if a good secondary source on Graves account can be found. MajoranaF (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Portal
Isn't Atlas also a characters name in Portal 2?--User:SmartyPantsKid 14:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

On the use of Latin in the article
I was wondering why when Heracles is first mentioned is it not immediately followed by something like, "(Hercules in Latin)." Everyone knows who Hercules is but I suspect many casual readers wouldn't realize that Heracles is the same person. Is there some bizarre Wikipedia requirement that forbids this? There must be since its inclusion is so obvious I can't understand why it's not there. __209.179.86.123 (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hesperides as daughters of Atlas
"One of the Twelve Labors of the hero Heracles was to fetch some of the golden apples which grow in Hera's garden, tended by Atlas' daughters, the Hesperides and guarded by the dragon Ladon. Heracles went to Atlas and offered to hold up the heavens while Atlas got the apples from his daughters."

The section does not have a source and the article on the Hesperides says they were daughters of Atlas only according to Petrus Apianus.

ICE77 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Atlas of Mauretania be merged into Atlas (mythology). I think that the content in the Atlas of Mauretania article can easily be explained in the context of Atlas (mythology), and the Atlas of Mauretania article is of a reasonable size that the merging it will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned.

It seems that these are separate articles because of the misapprehension that Atlas, King of Mauretania, is not Atlas, the Titan. A close reading of sources that reference the "King of Mauretania", in particular Gerardus Mercator's commemoration to the King at the beginning of his famous book of maps (the first to bear the name "Atlas") shows that they are actually talking about the same being. For example, Mercator references greek sources Eusebius and Diodorus to describe Atlas. MajoranaF (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

 * My first impression on seeing this merger proposal was that they were in fact different mythological personages, and just possibly that's still the case. But there's only one entry for Atlas in the DGRBM, and it mentions the only details that might refer to an earthly king, so maybe there's no clear distinction.  That would certainly support the proposed merger.  P Aculeius (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think so. Here are the sources, apart from Mercator, who directly reference a "King of Mauretania" of some kind, all of which would indicate that the King is a variant of Atlas the Titan. I can find no reliable source that would indicate that they are distinct.
 * "Son of Iapetus and Clymene... In the division of his father's dominions, Mauritanica fell to his share; and he gave his name to the mountain of that country, which still bears it. As he was greatly skilled in astronomy, he became the fist inventor of the sphere". This book also gives an account of a theory advocated by Abbe la Pluche where Atlas became a Mauritanian King due to Egyptian and Phoenician influence "by which the symbol of astronomy...became a Mauritanian king".
 * "From this exploit he proceeded to visit Atlas, King of Mauritania, who refused him hospitality, and in revenge Perseus turned him into stone." This book clearly states that the King of Mauritania is the same the Atlas petrified by Perseus.
 * "Atlas, I. One of the Titans, son of Japetus and Clymene, one of the Oceanides...He was king of Mauritania" This book also gives an interesting account that the Atlas mountains of the ancient Phoenicians may be different to Atlas mountains of the Greeks and Romans.
 * Confusion seems to arise from the fact that the Atlas of Eusebius and Diodorus has a different, but similar, genealogy to that provided in other sources, but that is hardly uncommon in mythology.MajoranaF (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Grimal says in his article on the Titan: "Late conjectures regarded Atlas as an astronomer who taught men the laws governing celestial bodies". Based upon Grimal, and the sources for the king given above by, it seems clear that the king was the "same" as the Titan, so a merge would seem to be in order.
 * By the way, Diodorus was a rationalizer, so it makes sense that by way of "explaining" the myth of Atlas holding up the celestial globe, he would instead make Atlas a mortal astronomer (see Diodorus Siculus, 3.60.2–3 and 4.27.5). Paul August ☎ 16:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay I think we can close this off as seems pretty obvious merge by this point.MajoranaF (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Atlas In Literature
Atlas appears in only one set of literary works as a character, those of Fred Saberhagen. Here, he's depicted as being encased within a mountain with only his head sticking out and is said to look more treelike than human. He's picking up radio signals from all over thr world.Glammazon (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you making a suggestion that's relevant to this article? -- Fyrael (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because there's no mention of Atlas in literature in the actual article.Glammazon (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Celestial heavens?
I am puzzled by the expression "celestial heavens". It strikes me as a tautology, akin to "rural countryside", which I came across in our local newspaper some years ago now. Surely "heavens" is sufficient. Can anyone supply a justification for "celestial heavens"? LynwoodF (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Nobody has got back to me on this, so I have removed the adjective celestial. LynwoodF (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Correction
The Pseudo-Indoeuropean-Theory is since years refuted. There is evidence, that refutes the Pseudo-pre-greek-hypothesis, too. The helleno-pelasgian, ancient greek language and its dialects. Dr. Adamantios Samson, Archäologist, Dr. Konstantinos Chatzigiannakis, the Helleno-pelasgian Homoglossy and the Transformations of the ancient greek dialects, The Digamma, Dr. Prof. Xenophon Moussas, Dr. Stratos Theodosiou, Astrophysicist, Dr. Ilias Mariolakos, Geologist, Dr. Angeliki Kombocholi Philologist, Dr. Eleni Koulizaki, Philologist, Dr. S. Papamarinopoulos, Helene Ahrweiler, Byzantinist, UNICEF Botschafterin, B. Metrou, Philologist. Maria Tzane, Archäologist, classical Philologist, Historic, Soziologin Tbq01 (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 * What's your point? That the Greeks and their language sprang from the brow of Zeus with no predecessors?
 * Now I am curious about what geology and astrophysics have to say on this question; perhaps that there were no pre-Greeks because the Aegean lands were created along with the Greeks? —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hercules
Hercules is also part of the altas story too. 147.148.97.255 (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Hercules is mentioned prominently even in the lead of the article. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Atlas (mythology)


text:
Talk:PhyloCode

A note
In actual practice, this has been modified to reflect some phylogenetic concerns, like this (note the addition of domain, subkingdom...

 * "Some" phylogenetic concerns? what phylogenetic concerns?
 * I can't "note the addition of ... subkingdom", because there isn't one. Can someone who knows please add it or remove the reference to it?

-- Mpt 12:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PhyloCode and nomenclatural chaos
"Filum ariadneum Botanices est Systema, sine quo Chaos es Res herbaria" Carl von Linnaeus. (The Ariadne's thread of Botany is systematics, without which Chaos is a botanical phenomenon).

When innumerable species face a growing risk of extinction in nature, egocentric people meet to create an alternative nomenclatural code!

The PhyloCode will never substitute the Linnaean Taxonomy and ICBN.

Why? Because these (Linnaean Taxonomy and ICBN) are established in all herbaria from worldwide with all the nomenclatural types of all species. Because scientific works, Manuals and Floras and very important identification keys from worldwide, besides works of general reference like this Wikipedia refer to the taxa and not clades.

Clades do not exist in Nature! They are based on erroneous phylogenetic concept: monophyly (see talk:Cladistics); they must not be named, it is preferable to use numbers to not to augment the confusion, that already is great).

Unfortunately, institutions like APG, help to sowing and propagating the Chaos, making drastic and radical changes in taxa (based on analysis of allogenome; that is prokaryote DNA and not plant DNA). Example: Malvales (with apparently simple change moving Sterculiaceae, Tiliaceae and Bombacaceae as subfamilies to family Malvaceae, but they are about 138 genera and about 2500 species, several with economic importance!)

Identification keys are a powerful tools to identify genera and species worldwide, they are utilized for most people, it doesn't matter if they are artificial or natural.

See these comments in Williams, D. M. et al. (2005):Letter to the editor.150 reasons for paraphyly: a response. Taxon 54(4):858.:"The signatories refer to E. O. Wilson’s contribution to the recent symposium on “Linnaean Taxonomy in the 21st Century” held in 2001. The report documenting Wilson’s contribution makes no comment on paraphyly, its preservation or necessity for Linnaean taxonomy. The report does mention that “Wilson recommended that systematists should focus their efforts on discovering life and understanding phylogenetic relationships. He stressed that for taxonomists to be considering a radical makeover of our method of classification at this time would be like ‘rewriting the operating manual for the Titanic’.” (DeFilipps, 2001). Wilson’s words are directed at the PhyloCode—not cladistics, as are also Wheeler’s (2004: 359), whose commentary is also helpful."

See also this very important initiative, like a manifest against PhyloCode and excesses of Cladistics: "Taxon 54(1)(2005): 5-8 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (Coordinated by: Nordal, I. & Stedje, B.): Paraphyletic taxa should be accepted. available online here (pdf file; page 18), including proposal, but without the 150 signatories, several notable botanists from world-wide, among them: Brumitt, R. K. (from Kew) and Sosef, Mark.

Thus PhyloCode tends to be forgotten.

Berton 14:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by David Marjanović
Who made this silly section? I'm not a topic! Berton? David Marjanović 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

 * "Filum ariadneum Botanicæ est Systema, sine quo Chaos est Res herbaria" (The Ariadne's thread of botany is the system/classification, without which botany (literally: herbal affair[s]) is a chaos). The word order is just for emphasis; Latin word order is extremely flexible.
 * David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 00:13 CEST | 2006/7/18

 * I don't want an identification key. I am interested in phylogeny; I actually want to talk about it. I want to talk about clades. That is a lot easier, I'm sure you agree, if they have names.
 * You and Phylocode followers are interested only in phylogeny. I am interested in life.Berton 15:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, and I'm not interested in life, or what? Perhaps I have a deeper interest in life than you: "Nothing makes sense in biology, except in the light of evolution" (T. Dobzhansky); "Nothing makes sense in evolution without a good phylogeny" (G. C. Gould & B. MacFadden, 2002, 2004). Phylogenetic nomenclature is best apt for talking about "a good phylogeny", and it will be regulated by the PhyloCode. David Marjanović 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am interested in Life, of living beings here and now, and I don't have interest in probable relationships (clades) doubtfully inferred from a soup of genic letters.
 * Interestingly, Elvira Hörandl also mentions Dobzhansky in Taxon 2007 56(1):1–5.: Neglecting evolution is bad taxonomy, but to highlight the phylogeny inside of the taxonomic context and not out of it.Berton 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Phylogeny is of only secondary interest to most people including most kinds of biologists. Who needs a crocodile-bird clade when we already have a bird taxon and a crocodile taxon?" from Grant, Verne:INCONGRUENCE BETWEEN CLADISTIC AND TAXONOMIC SYSTEMS. American Journal of Botany 90(9): 1268. 2003. Berton 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A botanist talking about archosaurs? The name Archosauria was introduced in the 19th century. Google for it (and "archosaur" and "archosaurs"), and see how much it is used. I rest my case. David Marjanović 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Verne Grant spares presentations, but see Grant, V. 1981. Plant Speciation, ed. 2. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. Fundamental study on speciation in plants, is in other words, the evolution per se.
 * To speak of birds or crocodiles even a child can and he/she gets to differentiate them, but for a cladist: the crocodile would be a bird or the bird would be a crocodile? Berton 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All clades are taxa. Many taxa are clades.
 * Taxa prescind entirely of clades. The contrary is not true. Berton 15:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Does that mean anything? Please explain. David Marjanović 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Prescind: dispense or be: Taxonomy always existed independent of Cladistics and not vice-versa.Berton 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, have you seen the herbarium of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale? It uses phylogenetic nomenclature, and that works quite fine, thank you very much. It simply splits the paraphyletic taxa into clades and doesn't use ranks.
 * David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 00:19 CEST | 2006/7/18

 * Bla, bla, bla. Calm down. What's wrong with "an ancestor and all its descendants"?
 * David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 00:15 CEST | 2006/7/18
 * All is wrong, cladists (Hennig ahead) and Darwin sow the stupid error of saying that everything should have one common ancestor, if even we have father and mother, like individuals, what saying then of divergent lineages??? Berton 15:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. Please explain. Perhaps you mean the fact that an ancestor is not always an individual; a whole population can be an ancestor. David Marjanović 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See User:Berton/Cladistics for more details.Berton 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See Mayr, E. & Bock, W. J. 2002. Classifications and other ordering systems. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Research 40: 169–194. for more details PDF file available here.Berton 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Example:"If all the species of a tentatively delimited taxon are the descendants of the nearest common ancestor, the taxon following Haeckel (1866) is called monophyletic (Mayr 1969, Mayr and Ashlock, 1991 pp. 253–255). Hennig (1950) introduced an entirely different concept. The study of phylogeny was for him a forward (to the future) looking process; its starting point was a stem (mother) species. The Hennigian distinguishes a phyletic branch containing the stem species and all its descendants as a taxonomic unit, as a clade, no matter how different the beginning and the ending of a clade may be. Hennig transferred the traditional term monophyly to his new concept of phylogeny, causing great confusion. To terminate it, Ashlock (1971) introduced the term holophyly for Hennig’s new concept. The traditional monophyly concept and the Hennigian holophyly concept have drastically different consequences in taxonomy. A holophyletic clade encompasses a stem species and all of its descendants. A monophyletic taxon consists only of the descendants of the nearest ancestral taxon." from Mayr & Bock 2002 (loc. cit.).Berton 14:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not even true. Hennig used "monophyly" in the original sense, and Mayr did not. If you know French, read Pascal Tassy's book "L'arbre à remonter le temps" (Diderot 1998). David Marjanović 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Takhtajan also draws the attention to the difference of the Hennig's concept of monophyly and the one of Haeckel. Takhtajan, A.:Diversity and classification of flowering plants, pp. 2-3, 1997 Berton 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Example: "The Hennigian concept of monophyly and paraphyly is misleading and, as Cronquist (1988:40) pointed out, 'is destructive to the taxonomic system'. The acceptance of this Hennigian concept would mean the destruction of many of the best-known taxa. It is quite clear that the traditional evolutionary concept of monophyly [in the Haeckelian sense] is entirely unambiguous and creates no difficulties in its application to taxa..." Berton 16:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that this falls under "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Please do prove me wrong. David Marjanović 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The APG has nothing whatsoever to do with phylogenetic nomenclature.
 * Likewise, the question whether chloroplast DNA contains a phylogenetic signal (…erm… of course it does!!!) has nothing whatsoever to do with phylogenetic nomenclature.
 * David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 00:17 CEST | 2006/7/18
 * APG has its blame parcel in destroying the stability of Taxonomy and it makes it in the worst way: through molecular research in organelles that are endosymbionts.Berton 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Chloroplast genes have been used extensively in plant cladistic studies. Chloroplasts are semi-independent organelles that can become disassociated from their normal nuclear genome (Rieseberg and Soltis, 1991). Consequently, a particular chloroplast gene may or may not be a reliable indicator of the overall genome of the species in which it is found, depending on its history.
 * Cronn et al. (2002) analyzed molecular characters in diploid species of Gossypium belonging to the various chromosomal genome groups (A, B, D, etc.). They used three types of DNA and one or more genes in each type: ribosomal DNA (one gene), other chromosome segments (11 loci), and cpDNA (four genes). The cladograms for the 12 loci in the two types of nuclear DNA are in agreement with the other evidence concerning phylogeny of Gossypium. But the cladograms for the four chloroplast genes are incongruent with this evidence and give incorrect phylogenetic indications." from Grant, Verne:INCONGRUENCE BETWEEN CLADISTIC AND TAXONOMIC SYSTEMS. American Journal of Botany 90(9): 1266. 2003. Berton 13:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on. In taxonomy, stability is ignorance. Please tell me what it means that chloroplasts "can become disassociated from their normal nuclear genome": surely it doesn't mean that chloroplasts can leave a cell and enter another?!? David Marjanović 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The ignorance is in ignoring the importance of the stability in Taxonomy, being a basic science, it serves as reference for all the other branches of the Biology, in fact stability is essential. A detail: in ICBN the only more important criterion than the rule of the priority is the tradition (stability) that takes to the Nomen conservandum. Berton 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Is this copy-and-paste from Taxon violating copyright? MrDarwin 16:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because this is not an article, but letter. Berton 17:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It looks to me that everything in Taxon is copyrighted, and will need a release. Why not make a link? Brya 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Brya, nor everything in Taxon is copyrighted, there is a lot of thing available free at the site IngentaConnect.com Berton 22:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * First, a letter to the editor can be protected by copyright as much as an article. Second, "free" is not the same as "not protected by copyright". (In fact many botanical articles are now available on the web, but are still copyrighted.) Third, I am unable to read anything in this issue of Taxon online without a subscription, so I'm wondering whether this is indeed "free". I suspect that Taxon's copyright covers everything published in its pages, but do not have any issues of Taxon in front of me so I can't check; that will have to wait until I'm at work on Monday. MrDarwin 23:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * MrDarwin, I am not strictly violating anything, because this is a talk page! Berton 23:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Berton, I agree that the Phylocode will never catch on, at least not as an official system. I think as far as the Phylocode is going to go is as an unofficial system of rankless names for clades that are used in parallel with the Linnaean taxonomic system (and let's not forget that Linnaeus got much of his system wrong!).  In fact we are already seeing this happen, simply because Linnaean classification and the nomenclatural systems established by the botanical and zoological codes are so useful.  It's like the use of common names and botanical names for plants: both systems are useful, and the establishment of the binomial nomenclatural system was not the deathknell for common or vernacular names.  On the other hand, cladistic methodology is definitely going to shake up classification, and that's a good thing.  Looking at heterogeneous, poorly defined and unnatural families like the traditional "Scrophulariaceae", I simply find it impossible to defend many of the classifications of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which often stressed a small number of characters to define groups, at the expense of evolutionary relationships.  In my own area of specialization I have found a combination of molecular and morphological characters to define groupings that make excellent sense, even though they were overlooked by previous researchers on the same group, who often stressed a very small number of characters and often lumped things together into unnatural groups based on plesiomorphic characters.  (Interestingly enough, some of the same groupings were recognized by the splitters of the 19th century, who tended to take a much narrower view of genera in particular.) MrDarwin 15:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * MrDarwin, classifications are merely suggestions. When you divide Scrophulariaceae (sensu lato) in Calceolariaceae and in other families, you are suggesting that this would be the best taxonomic grouping, however, this (the grouping) it is a mere convention, that is, doesn't exist in Nature. All the classifications have value, at least, historical (they had certain influence in their time), it is so with Linnaeus system. It is not why a classification is of the century XIX or XX that it should not be accepted, this is not the correct criterion of evaluation. There are always the classifications lumper and the splitter, which often stressed the small or large number of characters to it defines groups, however these characters had great phylogenetic connotation (a priori) and therefore they were used to delimit the groups. Taxonomic type classifications have an advantage on Cladistic classifications, they don't necessarily need to reconstitute the phylogeny strictly, because taxa expresses divergence degrees around a central element that defines them (as nomenclatural types) and not phylogenetic levels, like clades, that has  necessarily to mirror in totum the evolution (and that is the "Holy Grail" of Biology, always searched but never reached, finally, an utopia!). Berton 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with many, perhaps even most, of the sentiments voiced above. Cladistics is a method of analysis, and has its strong points and weak points. Molecular data, analysed by cladistic methods, has proved very useful, especially the information from chloroplast DNA: the very fact that this is prokaryote DNA, not subject to evolutionary pressure, makes it very useful to shed light on higher order relationships. There is a huge field out there, of nuclear DNA sequences, and it as yet unclear how informative this will prove.
 * Classifications are something else than cladistic analyses.
 * Nomenclature is not the same as classification.
 * Linnaeus's main work on plants gives no real taxonomy at any rank higher than genus.
 * There are interconnections between all of the above, but great care should be taken when talking about these interconnections.
 * Brya 12:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Brya, if you think that chloroplast DNA is "not subject to evolutionary pressure" (or that being prokaryotic DNA makes it so), then I think you don't correctly understand why it is useful in reconstructing phylogenies. MrDarwin 15:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Those are a lot of statements close together. Let's start with "chloroplast DNA is "not subject to evolutionary pressure"". In what sense do you disagree with this? Brya 19:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean it in the sense that you either said something that is wrong, or worded it in such a way as to be subject to misinterpretation. Of course I might be grossly misinterpreting what you mean by "evolutionary pressure" and if so I'm sure you'll tell me: I'm interpreting it to mean "selective pressure that can result in evolutionary change".  The chloroplast does not have a genome of junk DNA.  cpDNA is in generally highly conserved but different mutations of different chloroplast genes will have different effects on the fitness of the organism under different selective pressures, and given certain conditions some mutations will be more likely to be inherited more than others. (One very simple example: chloroplast genes tend to be more constrained in fully autotrophic plants than they are in parasitic ones.) Chloroplast genes do indeed evolve, some more quickly than others precisely because there are different selective pressures on different genes, which is why different genes (or parts of genes) are useful at different levels of phylogeny.  And the fact that it is "prokaryotic DNA" is completely irrelevant.
 * Or did you mean something different by "evolutionary pressure"? MrDarwin 01:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It looks like we don't disagree all that much. I would agree that evolutionary can be described as "selective pressure that can result in evolutionary change". It looks to me that chloroplasts are not subject to such pressure, or to be more accurate they are subject to it that people are subject to atmosperic pressure: it is there it is inescapable, it is the same for all, and of no practical consequence. Good point about heterotrophic plants. I don't really know what happens with cpDNA there but the pressure to conserve it (and keep the genes functioning) dropped away and this should have some effect, but is unlikely to lead to a chloroplast that will photosynthesize more effectively.

 * It would be hard to explain really accurately what the significance is of the fact that cpDNA is prokaryote DNA but
 * it is factually so
 * it is a fact that is widely overlooked
 * it is not a coincidence that a) chloroplasts are to a high degree independent of the rest of the cell and b) cpDNA is prokaryote DNA
 * no way you look at it can the fact that of the three genes that the APG system is based on there are no less than two cpDNA genes (prokaryote) while the other is a ribosomal gene (although residing in the nucleus still with a somewhat comparable history) be discounted as accidental. IIRC Mark Chase argued that it was the very reason of the succes of molecular methods in plant systematics (and thus the APG system) over comparable efforts in animal systematics. You will note that the animal people are going for mitochondrial DNA rather than the nuclear DNA. Brya 09:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Depends on what taxonomic level we're working at. Also, mtDNA will sometimes cause problems in analysis due to hybridization events. COI barcoding does definitely not work as announced (the speed of molecular evolution varies in the Amniota alone by an order of magnitude). I added a major part on Rieppel's rather lucid philosophical analysis, expand as needed. Suffice to say that it seems that PhyloCode is dead but not forgotten, or rather: that it is shelved as a taxonomical tool of own standing, but that its points are well taken (Another point: it takes at least 2 known and sufficientyl closely related taxa to make a meaningful clade. Point in case: It is not possible to define Archaeopteryx under PhyloCode, because there is nothing known about its immediate evolutionary relationship. You will find that Archie is rather popular as an outgroup for precisely the same reason). Dysmorodrepanis 18:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Of course it is possible to define Archaeopteryx. You only need to invest some thought about the possible consequences. For example you could use a node-based definition: "the MRCA of the 10 specimens [exhaustive list of museum numbers] and all its descendants". This would, however, risk excluding the next discovery that would look almost the same as the currently known 10 specimens. Or you could use a stem-based definition: "everything closer to the London specimen than (to) Velociraptor, Dromaeosaurus, Microraptor, Troodon, Mei, Jinfengopteryx, Scansoriopteryx, and Rahonavis". This would, however, risk becoming larger than intended (though an emendation of that definition would be simple). Or you could use an apomorphy-based definition: "the first organism that has [all autapomorphies you can find for Archie, or the ones you consider most important…], and all its descendants".
 * Rieppel's analysis is anything but lucid! I actually wonder if Rieppel has read the whole PhyloCode.
 * DNA barcoding has nothing whatsoever to do with the PhyloCode. The only thing the two proposals have in common is being new. I happen to dislike DNA barcoding because it requires a phenetic species concept, but I digress.
 * David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 00:31 CEST (edit 00:44) | 2006/7/18

 * By introducing phylogenetic definitions the PhyloCode will make splitting & lumping impossible (except for species). In other words, when people agree on the phylogeny, they will have to use the same names for the same clades. Under the current codes you can do as you damn well please, for example by introducing phenetic arguments or "level of evolution" arguments or whatever. In yet other words, the PhyloCode will remove one of the two sources of instability – of chaos – in biological nomenclature.
 * David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 00:37 CEST | 2006/7/18

Chaos
The word chaos appears appropriate! Berton, it is messy to break up previous text. It affects readability very badly. Also, it is counter to wikipedia policy. Furthermore, reverting a good faith edit is not a nice thing to do.

Making a text available on a Talk-page is a form of making it available on the web. In this case of copyrighted material (see my Talk page).

Note to MrDarwin: you should be able to access this particular letter (download the pdf-file) from any computer, provided cookie settings etc are in order: access is free of charge. Brya 10:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have tried several different times to get to this article from my computer, and I cannot. As far as I can get on the Ingenta connect website is to the "Letters to the Editor" section and then it tells me "The full text article is available for purchase" I have been unable to find it at any other website. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that copying the letter here is violating copyright and I will notify an administrator. MrDarwin 13:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I suppose I got confused by the title. The Letter to the editor in 54(4) "150 reasons for paraphyly: a response" is available free. The original "Paraphyletic taxa should be accepted" in Vol 54(1) is not free. Probably sloppy reading on my part. There is a whole series of these things and most are free. Sorry about that. Brya 17:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with MrDarwin - we have no right to post material from Taxon here, so I have removed it. Even if it is published on their website, that does not make it copyright-free, unless they clearly and specifically indicate that copyright is waived. Some of the text is available here (pdf file; page 18), where it is clearly stated "reprinted with permission" - permission that we do not have at the moment. - MPF 14:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do Michael, you are far, but the letter and its proposal is there (and I recommend emphatically the reading of this proposal)! I bought this in the mentioned site. And I will ask the editors for expressed permission, if it is the case, because I find this letter of highest importance. Berton 17:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea, it is worth asking the editors for permission to reproduce it (you will need to point out to them that placing it on wikipedia will make it available under GFDL, so it is likely to be copied on from here) - MPF 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Berton 17:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The new material is also copyrighted. Brya 18:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Important note
Please note that Berton has been editing his comments in this discussion after others have already replied to them, sometimes weeks or months after posting his initial comments. MrDarwin 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversies
I removed the explanation of Rieppel 2006 because I found it overly long and impossible to follow. (Also, the example definition is actually impossible under PhyloCode.) That said, I strongly think there should be a "Controversies" section presenting both sides of various issues. Would someone like to do this for Rieppel 2006? (I'd do it if I had the paper handy.) --TMKeesey

Major edit
Just wanted to mention that the changes made half an hour ago are by me. In the future I'll add more literature and write the article on phylogenetic nomenclature.

David Marjanović | ISPN member (like TMKeesey) | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 00:15 CEST | 2006/7/18

POV
Hi,

This article reads very much as if it has been written by a proponent of the PhyloCode; the impression I got from reading the article was that this was definitely going to supercede Linnean taxonomy. I've made a couple of dilutions since, but it would be really helpful if the article could focus a little more on what PhyloCode IS and how it works, rather than a vague history and sweeping statements about its goals.

The article would benefit greatly if someone who was familiar, but not emotionally involved, with the topic were to:

 * Add an accessible explanation of exactly how PhyloCode works and how it differs from the Linnean system
 * Explain why it is better than Linnean taxonomy
 * Explain where Linnean taxonomy is better than PhyloCode
 * Explain the level of support for the project

Thanks,

Verisimilus  T  12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The entry would be incomplete if it didn't include a brief history and statement of its goals, so I don't understand the objection to that. However, you are right that more space could be given to the nature of the code (although this would be somewhat redundant with what's in the "Phylogenetic Nomenclature" entry).

Also, the PhyloCode does not oppose Linnaean taxonomy. It is an alternative to the rank-based taxonomy governed by other codes (ICZN, ICBN, etc.), but these differ from Linnaeus' system. Perhaps the biggest difference is that Linnaeus did not used standardized endings. The PhyloCode is completely consistent with the use of ranks, as long as those ranks do not enforce standardized suffixes. Thus, the PhyloCode is consistent with Linnaean taxonomy, but does have potential conflict with rank-based taxonomy as regulated by the ICBN, ICZN, etc.

A section comparing and contrasting the PhyloCode, the rank-based codes, and the original Linnaean system would be very appropriate.

64.183.104.146 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just made some edits which should start to take care of some of the concerns.

69.231.193.169 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hervé le guyader
Is the tree of life classification a phylocode ? If so include in article; books has gotten allot of media attention as replacement linnean system

http://www.longitudebooks.com/find/p/71285/mcms.html

 * No it isn't. The Phylocode a set of rules, not a classification. I don't get what you meant, but it doesn't seem related.--Earrnz (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The book is a classification following PhyloCode or PhyloCode-like rules. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What do "implementation" and "official adoption" amount to?
These terms are used in the PhyloCode article as well as in Phylogenetic nomenclature. If they mean anything in this context, that meaning needs to be explained. The PhyloCode is already implemented in that some authors—Laurin, for example—use it in published scientific work. As far as "official" goes, there are numerous societies devoted to the various branches of biology as well as the ICN, the ICZN, and the ICNB; if "official adoption" means formal adoption of the PhyloCode by every one of these, it is never going to happen. If "adoption" refers to some possible action by, e.g., the International Union of Biological Sciences, this should be made clear. Peter M. Brown (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not being intimately familiar with the inner circles of ISPN I may be off here, but the way I read the proposals (at least the initial ones), they call for a replacement of the ICN/ICZN/ICNB rather than being supplemental to them. This is perhaps best seen in the suggestions for the "uninomen" to replace binominal nomenclature (abandoned in the current draft). In this context I interpret "implementation" and "official adoption" as phasing out the older codes, which I (like Peter M. Brown) don't think is going to happen. The other aspect of this is that the PhyloCode is supposed to be ratified before "official implementation". Until this happens, there is no ruling body specifically for priority for phylogenetic names and their phylogenetic definitions, and the names now recognised (like Laurin's work) have to be so under the existing codes. I would think that the aims of the "cladistic revolution" will have changed somewhat with time (the change to accept binomen and to leave the governing of them to the existing codes is a point in question), I think perhaps someone more intimate with ISPN than me should have a look at the current text. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An agent, act, designation, etc. is "official" in the narrowest sense if it has an authority derived from a government or perhaps from the papacy. More broadly, things are spoken of as "official" if they have a government-like prestige that is generally recognized.  As the ICN and the ICZN and their direct antecedents, with impressive historical pedigrees, were long accorded this sort of authority, the use of the term has been appropriate.  In articles that must remain neutral between the Phylocode and the ICxx codes, however, this authority cannot be assumed, so the word "official" becomes inappropriate and confusing.  It accordingly should be eliminated from the  Future section of the Phylocode article.  In his contribution above,  Petter Bøckman uses the term outside of quotes; this is unfortunate. Peter M. Brown (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. I have amended my text.
 * This thing is a bloody minefield. Another problem is that the PhyloCode is still at the draft stage. A substantial amendment was proposed just last month, which would leave out all references to existing codes in the PhyloCode if accepted. Staying neutral and report accurately is a bugbear when the subject changes like this. I still feel my interpretation of "implementation" and "official adoption" to mean replacement of the existing codes (if not at once, at least in the long run) is essentially correct, but I would very much like to see someone else's thoughts on this. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there sufficient sources for saying that the proponents of the PhyloCode seek a replacement of the existing codes? The current text (v. 4c) seems rather mild compared to some of the early writings of de Queiroz and particularly Gauthier. Earlier versions also called for a abandonment of the binominal species names. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
Apparently the taxonomy of xenarthans (only 29 species) is given explanation but mites (48,200 species) is not even mentioned? Likewise, the vast majority of arthropod groups are given 0 mention while groups like primates, turtles and pterosaurs are given detail while only having a couple hundred species each? How could they have spent years assembling this thing while completely committing so many important groups of organisms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:C580:5A40:7939:FA64:5E6A:B121 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:PhyloCode