text:
Talk:List of uniform acts (United States)

Untitled
The Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (U.S.) has the (U.S.) disambiguation because of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (Australia). The names of the laws are not identical, but are close enough to warrant the disambig. --Benc 06:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I added (1992) and (1996) to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (2001) because there were three iterations of UIFSA. A few minutes ago, I'd changed the list of uniform acts to have separate entries for UIFSA ’96 and UIFSA ’01 because sometime over the next few weeks months I was going to add an article about UIFSA '96 as it's the version enacted in most USA states pursuant to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Later, I was going to add a little more about UIFSA '01, which contained some fixes to the '96 version. I wasn't going to do anything about UIFSA '92. On reflection, I decided the UIFSA article should deal with all three. I’ll probably build the article in stages. --Tregonsee 11:15, 19 February 2005 (UTC)

Actually, since I'm a lawyer, and the primary page has so many links to non-existant articles, I may be able to contribute some wikiservice, as a long-term (we're talkin' years in the making) project.--Tregonsee 16:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uniform Building Code?
Does the Uniform Building Code belong here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.153.14 (talk • contribs) 21:09, October 17, 2006

Do we really want a list here?
This list is pretty long (longer than the article, I think) and most of the acts don't have articles yet, some may never. There's a link to the list on the organization's web site that is comprehensive. I'm not really sure this belongs here. Is there another place it could be?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, I re-read the article name and noticed that this is the LIST of Uniform Acts. I got here thinking it was an article on the Uniform Acts.  So, let me adjust my comment, I think we need separate articles, one an article on Uniform and Model Acts and one just the bare list. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I mostly agree... I'm fine with a list being in here as one section; especially if we double-column it. I'm not very fond of articles that are nothing but lists.

 * However, I think the article title is wrong. This should just be "Uniform Acts (United States)"; or maybe just "Uniform Acts" unless there are any similar uniform acts outside the US.

 * So my first choice would be to have a single article, without "List of" in the title; and the list of Acts the last section within it. My second choice would be to split into two articles, on on uniform acts in general, and the other a list of them. -- Terry Carroll 19:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Whether they ever get them, the vast majority of these acts deserve articles. They represent an effort to distill and perfect the law, and have generally been adopted in most U.S. jurisdictions. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * These suggestions still don't address the model acts which are a separate animal. Also many of these have been adopted in some form in many U.S. jurisdictions.  Many of them have not, and many are only adopted in a few states.  To say that they "have generally been adopted in most U.S. jurisdictions" is not correct, or at least that statement needs verification before we base decisions on it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I look down the list, I see a lot that have either been adopted or have been extensively copied in Florida, and a lot that I have seen referenced in dealings with other states. I'll have to do case by case research to be sure. Cheers! bd2412  T 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * BD2412: I agree, I expect that most of these do deserve their own articles. I can't help out much there, because I'm strictly an IP lawyer and the only uniform IP law is the Uniform Trade Secrets Act; whose article is pretty anemic an I intend to flesh out.

 * Doug: Yes, model acts are another beast. I've always thought that the distinction between one of the uniform acts and the model acts were that the uniform acts were intended to actually be enacted as-is, whereas a model act was intended to provide a model for a legislature or other enacting body to start from (e.g., the Model Penal Code).  But I'm no longer sure that distinction is correct; certainly there are lots of model codes, like building codes, that are drafted by standards organizations and certainly are intended to be enacted as-is by city lawmaking authorities (e.g., a city council).

 * For what it's worth, Black's (at least the Fifth Edition I have here) doesn't make much of a distinction between uniform acts and model acts; and in fact, I think its definition of model act is wrong, so I'm hesitant to rely on those definitions:

 * Model act. Statute proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners of [ sic, should be "on" ] Uniform State Laws for adoption by State legislatures, e.g. Model Business Corporation Act; Model Penal Code; Model Probate Code.  Frequently, the state adopting the model act will modify it to some extent to meet its own needs or may adopt only a portion of such.

 * Uniform Laws or Acts. Laws in various subject areas, approved by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, that are often adopted, in whole or substantially, by individual states. Examples are the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, and the Uniform Commercial Code.  See also Model Act.

 * Uniform State laws. See Model Act; Uniform Laws or Acts.

 * The Model Penal Code, at least, comes from the American Law Institute, not from the NCCUSL.

 * My thinking for now is to deal with just the Uniform Acts, and maybe deal with model codes later, if at all.

 * Also, just to toss another item on the list: there's also Restatements of the Law; not a model or uniform code, but still intended to be (and essentially operating as) a source of law. In the Restatements article, only Restatement of Contracts, Second rates its own article.  based on what I remember from law school, I would expect there to be a Restatement of Torts, Second and Restatement of Agency, Third, at least. -- Terry Carroll 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, yeah, one other point in favor of renaming this article away from a simple list -- I have randomly looked at some of the other articles that link to this page. It looks like most of are linking on "model act," "uniform act," etc., i.e. as though it is an article about such acts, not a list of acts. -- Terry Carroll 01:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I think that's how I initially got here - starting this whole thread, see the first two comments at the top. That's why this section has the name it does, I though I was on an article about the acts.  Anyway, Model Acts come out of all sorts of places (including NCCUSL - sometimes because not enough states like the idea), see this link for more explanation.  That same link gives information on which Uniform Laws have been enacted by which states as does the NCCUSL's web site.  In some cases the answer is only one state or even none.  The page also lists the UCC and implies it is out of the NCCUSL, but it is actually a joint effort between NCCUSL and ALI.  And what do the dates mean?  I don't see the connection between the UCC and the year 2001, I believe there are 2006 versions, though various states have various versions and sometimes different versions for different articles.  I wasn't really meaning to bring up uniform building codes, I notice someone else did in an unsigned comment right above mine though.  I haven't even looked to see if there are relevant pages, some of them rate them though I think, but that's another matter.  I don't really care for pages of lists though.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So here's a proposal, just put here as a stake in the ground, maybe it can be imrpoved. I suggest: I can be talked out of the list, and instead have a short narrative with examples of such laws, with a line:
 * 1) retitling it "Uniform laws and model acts"
 * 2) edit the intro to be less NCCUSL oriented
 * 3) a section on the distinction between Uniform laws and model acts, with citation to the NCCUSL standard
 * 4) the section on drafting
 * 5) List of uniform acts and model acts
 * 6) References, External links, See Also etc.

which can be just the list part of this article; or else this article itself, and all my edits suggested above be put in a new article that points to this.

What do you think? -- Terry Carroll 05:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

 * How about List of notable uniform and model acts with links to NCCUSL, ALI, ABA, etc. so any user can find the complete list. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just found out about this debate. I agree that this list should be trimmed to a list of notable uniform and model acts. Even though most of the uniform and model acts probably do deserve articles of their own, the sad truth is that most of them will never get an article because most lawyers (like me) are too busy conserving their writing energy for their clients' projects.  And when we have time to write for Wikipedia, we prefer to work on more popular articles like Lawyer.  Therefore, it makes no sense to have links to articles that will never exist (or will never grow beyond stubs in the near-term future of about five to ten years) because no one has the time, energy, or interest to write them.  --Coolcaesar 04:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To make it clearer that I'm getting at, I mean that I think this list should obviously have the big "hits" like the Uniform Commercial Code and the Model Penal Code. But acts like the Real Estate Time-Share Act and the Dormant Mineral Interests Act are so obscure that even NCCUSL doesn't bother to maintain fact sheets for them (see the list of all NCCUSL acts and materials available for each here). --Coolcaesar 04:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Uniform Probate Code Vi (1989) (1998)
Is "*Uniform Probate Code Vi (1989) (1998)" supposed to be new Article VI? It is not clear and does not look like a probable future Wikipedia article title, so should not be linked that way. -Rrius (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Uniform Acts (United States). 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/20110807070501/http://www.nccusl.org/Default.aspx to http://www.nccusl.org/Default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110801031221/http://www.nccusl.org/Acts.aspx to http://www.nccusl.org/Acts.aspx

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) 21:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


text:
Appalachia Service Project

Appalachia Service Project or ASP is a non-governmental organization which was founded in 1969. ASP addresses substandard housing using volunteer labor to perform repairs to make homes "warmer, safer, and drier." ASP operates in Central Appalachia, specifically in the states of Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The mission statement of ASP is "Appalachia Service Project is a Christian ministry, open to all people, that inspires hope and service through volunteer home repair in Central Appalachia," and ASP's vision is that "substandard housing in Central Appalachia will be eradicated and that everyone who comes into contact with this ministry will be transformed." Repairs are made using volunteer labor and at no cost to the homeowner. Between 1969 and 2015, ASP hosted 377,412 volunteers and performed repairs on 17,373 homes.

History
ASP was founded in 1969 by Rev. Glenn "Tex" Evans, who emphasized the importance of providing service to those in need "right where they are, just the way they are." While working as a director at Henderson Settlement in Frakes, Kentucky, Evans saw first hand the need for assistance in home repairs among his neighbors. Later when he became a staff member of the Board Of Discipleship of the United Methodist Church in Nashville TN, he took several weeks off from his preaching schedule to recruit 50 teens and their adult counselors to repair four homes in Barbourville, Kentucky. This initiative has evolved into the Appalachia Service Project, which currently mobilizes between 15,000 and 17,000 volunteers each year to provide repairs to more than 500 families.[1]

ASP continued to grow between 1969 and 1976 by sponsoring regional workshops across the country to educate volunteers about the Appalachian region, bringing ASP's volunteers together to discuss their experiences and discuss replication of ASP's home repair model in their home communities. As an outgrowth of this vision, ASP expanded its work outside of the Central Appalachian region during the summer of 1976, sponsoring work crews in Arkansas, California, Alabama, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Kentucky. Although ASP returned to its Central Appalachian roots the following summer, the Sierra Service Project in California became a successful spin-off and still exists today.

Summer Program
Throughout the summer, ASP hosts volunteers aged 14 years and up. More than 14,000 youth, college, and adult volunteer groups come to Central Appalachian Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia to perform home repairs during the months of June and July. Volunteer groups perform a week a service and are housed in one of ASP's 26 "summer centers", often schools or community centers that have been leased by ASP. ASP staff provide direction for home repair projects and supply tools, construction materials, and three meals each day.

Year-Round Program
In 1980, ASP established the first of its permanent facilities, the Jonesville Housing Services Center in Lee County, VA. Prior to the development of this property, ASP had operated as a summer program only. The Housing Services Center, however, established a year-round home rehabilitation program in Jonesville, VA, available to low-income homeowners and advised by a council of local residents.

Follow a 1989 capital campaign, ASP acquired and renovated a second housing services center in Chavies, KY to serve residents of Perry County throughout the year. The third year-round center, located in Brenton, WV was acquired in 1996, when the Wyoming County school board offered ASP permanent use of the former Guyan Valley Elementary School facility.

ASP continues to host volunteers for a week or shorter periods of time throughout the year at these permanent facilities. Volunteers who participate in the year-round program are matched with projects to suit their skills and level of construction experience. Although year-round centers welcome youth volunteers, the program focus is geared more specifically to adult and college-aged groups, and evening programming is not required for all groups. Moreover, volunteers with the year-round program stay in facilities that are climate-controlled and offer amenities such as bunk beds and indoor showers.

The operations of the Year-Round Program are supervised by ASP's "Fellows". The ASP Fellowship was first established through a donation from the Lily Endowment, and includes seminars and activities designed to facilitate the process of vocational discernment. During their year of service, ASP's Fellows live in and immerse themselves in the community they work alongside, in addition to supervising and guiding work groups through their assigned construction projects.

College Service Project (CSP)
ASP's founder, Tex Evans, always said: "We'd love for all ASP volunteers to come back each summer, but if they don't because they have started this in their own community, we'd love that even more." CSP chapters use ASP's model for home repair to plan and complete projects in their own community. CSP was launched in September, 2014 and 12 Campus Chapters are currently in operation. These chapters are student-run, student-led organizations on college campuses that are nationally affiliated with ASP. The mission statement of CSP is "College Service Project inspires students to lives of Christian service and leadership through home repair for low-income families in Central Appalachia and back in their home communities."

Students involved with CSP also volunteer with ASP and carry out a trip to one of ASP's Year Round centers during the fall, winter, or spring; fundraise and gain community sponsorship in order to raise the funds necessary to complete their projects; and recruit volunteers from within their community as well as potential applicants for ASP's Summer Staff program. Furthermore, members of CSP chapters are encouraged to serve with their communities in other ways that promote social justice and are compatible with the guiding principles of ASP.

In addition, CSP provides college students with the opportunity to develop professional skills outside of a classroom setting. The various activities performed by CSP chapters provide students with hands-on experience in construction management, community development, marketing, grant writing, fundraising, recruitment, and volunteer management.

Long-Term Recovery Program
Launched in response to flooding in the Dry Creek and Cash Hollow communities of Washington County, Tennessee in August 2012, ASP operates a disaster recovery program designed to assist low-income families in the Central Appalachian region rebuild following disasters such as fires or floods.

Following the June 23, 2016 floods in West Virginia, ASP launched the Rebuilding Rainelle initiative to assist families in Rainelle, WV and surrounding towns. This program, which has been implemented by ASP in partnership with Homes for White Sulphur Springs, the St. Bernard Project, and Neighbors Loving Neighbors completed the first new home for a flood survivor in West Virginia on November 22, 2016. ASP expects to complete 60 new homes for flood survivors and will continue work through 2017.

New Build Appalachia
ASP began constructing new homes in 1985 to help those in Central Appalachia achieve decent, safe, and sanitary housing and to complement the home repair ministry. Since that time, 201 new homes have been built in primarily Tennessee, Virginia, and Kentucky. Although the program was temporarily suspended during the 2000s due to operating deficits, the program was relaunched following the success of the new build program developed in the aftermath of the Dry Creek floods.

ASP's New Build Appalachia program provides mortgage-free new homes to families in East Tennessee and has constructed 22 new homes since 2014. The recipients of these homes are typically low-income families whose homes are beyond repair.

Race to Build
Race to Build is an annual event hosted by ASP in partnership with the Bristol Motor Speedway in Bristol, Tennessee. During the Spring Race in 2016, volunteers from as far north as Washington, D.C., down to Tri Cities, Tennessee, came together to build a home for a veteran, his wife, and two adopted children at the speedway. Volunteers were challenged to push the limits of how quickly it would be possible to build a house. In just one week, the house was completely built and furnished, and was dedicated on the morning of the Food City 500. After construction was completed, the home was moved to a permanent location for the family.

Looking to the future, ASP will continue to partner with the Bristol Motor Speedway to create spin-offs of this event. In spring of 2017, three colleges will compete to build a house as quickly as they can in just 3 ½ days. They will be measured on speed, accuracy, safety, and other factors, and the winning college will bring home a scholarship and claims to first place.

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

title: Appalachia Service Project


text:
Ben Moon (climber)

Ben Moon (born 13 June 1966) is a rock climber from England. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Moon, along with climbing partner Jerry Moffatt, were the two strongest British rock climbers and were key pioneers in the development of standards in international sport climbing. In 1991, Moon made the first-ever redpoint in history of a consensus grade climbing route with his ascent of ''Hubble.

Climbing career
Moon's first officially declared routes had somewhat controversial names. The routes were both in France and had been previously attempted for a long time by local climbers. After climbing them Moon named them after French military disasters, first the Maginot Line, at Volx, and secondly Agincourt, at Buoux. On 8 June 2015, Moon redpointed the Steve McClure route Rainshadow,, at Malham Cove in North Yorkshire, England.

Business ventures
In 2002, Moon founded his climbing clothing and equipment company, Moon Climbing, after splitting from his previous company, S7. One of Moon Climbing's most popular products is the MoonBoard, an overhanging climbing wall used to train dynamic climbing.

Notable ascents

 * Statement of Youth, Lower Pen Trwyn (UK), first ascent (1984)
 * Hubble, Raven Tor (UK), first ascent (1990)
 * Voyager (low start), Burbage (UK), first ascent (2006)
 * Rainshadow, Malham Cove (UK), repeat ascent (2015)

Filmography

 * One Summer, Bouldering In The Peak (1994)
 * The Real Thing (1996)
 * Hard Grit (1998)
 * Stick it (2001)
 * Stone Love (2001)
 * Winter Sessions (2006)

title: Ben Moon (climber)


text: Category:Wilkin County, Minnesota

title: Category:Wilkin County, Minnesota


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAT editing

Patent nonsense from the Craft's Journey ding-dongs. - Lucky 6.9 06:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * "VFD editing is a method of wiki editing in which large, prominent votes for deletion are often portrayed in a phallic manner." As "Fitzo McGriggen" seems to be a mythical creature only known to Wikipedia clones, I think this one is for the chopper. Ianb 9:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete My omphalos says that this is prominent nonsense. Geogre 12:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice. - UtherSRG 14:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Quote

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Quote

So... um... what's this then? Template:Quotable is just a copy of Template:Opentask. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eh?
Alright, I admit it. I don't have a clue what this is supposed to be. Can someone help me out here? --bdesham 19:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't such things just go on goings-on? Angela.

title: Wikipedia talk:Quote


text:
Checking In

Checking In is an American sitcom television series and a spin-off of The Jeffersons that aired for four episodes on CBS from April 9 to April 30, 1981.

Synopsis
In the seventh-season final episode of The Jeffersons, "Florence's New Job", the Jeffersons' maid, Florence Johnston (Marla Gibbs), accepted a job to become the executive housekeeper at the fictional St. Frederick Hotel in New York City. The series follows Florence's misadventures at the hotel with her co-workers: Lyle Block, her stuffy manager; Elena Beltran, her assistant; Earl Bellamy, the inept house detective; Hank Sabatino, the lewd handyman; Betty, the floor supervisor; Dennis, the bellboy; and Mr. Claymore, the hotel owner.

Cast

 * Marla Gibbs as Florence Johnston
 * Larry Linville as Lyle Block
 * Ruth Brown as Betty
 * Patrick Collins as Earl Bellamy
 * Robert Costanzo as Hank Sabatino
 * Jordan Gibbs as Dennis
 * Liz Torres as Elena Beltran
 * John Anderson as Mr. Claymore

Reception
Checking In premiered on CBS on April 9, 1981, and lasted for only four episodes in the Thursday, 8:00 p.m. ET timeslot. Faced with low ratings, the series was cancelled, and the final episode aired on April 30, 1981. Gibbs then returned to her regular role on The Jeffersons and it was explained that the St. Frederick Hotel had burned down.

Checking In was the first All in the Family spin-off series that was not successful, unlike The Jeffersons, Maude and Maude spin-off Good Times. Other failed spin-off attempts were Gloria in the 1982-1983 season and 704 Hauser in 1994.

Home media
The third episode, "Whose Side Are You On?", was added as a bonus feature on The Jeffersons: The Complete Series 33-disc DVD set issued by Shout! Factory.

title: Checking In


text: Template:Evarts class destroyer escort

title: Template:Evarts class destroyer escort


text:
List of prime ministers of Cameroon

This is a list of prime ministers of Cameroon since the country gained independence from France in 1960 to the present day.

The current Prime Minister of Cameroon is Joseph Ngute, since 4 January 2019.

List of officeholders
{{legend||Cameroonian Union (UC)|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||Cameroonian National Union (UNC)|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||Kamerun National Democratic Party (KNDP)|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||Cameroon People's Democratic Movement (RDPC)|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}}
 * Political parties

title: List of prime ministers of Cameroon


text:
Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society

The Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society is the highest award given by the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS). The RAS Council have "complete freedom as to the grounds on which it is awarded" and it can be awarded for any reason. Past awards have been given for "outstanding personal researches in the fields of astronomy and geophysics" as well as general contributions to astronomy and geophysics "that may be made through leadership in research programmes, through education and through scientific administration". It has been awarded both for research that has taken a lifetime (it has most frequently been given to recognise an extraordinary lifetime achievement), and for specific pieces of research.

History
The RAS was founded in 1820 and the first Gold Medals were awarded in 1824. Silver medals were also awarded in 1824 and 1827, but that practice was quickly abandoned, instead the RAS established other awards.

In the early years, more than one medal was often awarded in a year, but by 1833 only one medal was being awarded per year. This caused a problem when Neptune was discovered in 1846, because many felt an award should jointly be made to John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier. A controversy arose and no award was made in 1847. The controversy was resolved by giving 12 "testimonial" awards in 1848 to various people including Adams and Le Verrier, and in 1849 awards resumed, with a limit of one per year. Adams and Le Verrier did not get their gold medals until 1866 and 1868, respectively. Adams, who was then President of the RAS, presented Le Verrier with the medal.

In some years, particularly early on, the RAS sometimes decided that there were no suitable nominations and so did not award the gold medal. There are therefore 17 years without an award, the most recent being 1942 (on that occasion due to the disruption of the Second World War). One medal per year was the usual practise, although two medals were awarded in both 1867 and 1886. To ensure balance in research areas, in 1964 the award was expanded to two medals per year, one in astronomy (including astrophysics, cosmology etc.) and one in geophysics (including planetary science, tectonics etc.), which remains the current system. All recipients are listed below, along with the years when no award was made.

The first woman to receive the Gold Medal was Caroline Herschel in 1828. No other woman received the award until Vera Rubin in 1996. Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge were jointly awarded the 2005 Gold Medal in astronomy, the first joint award since 1886.

The medal features an image of the 40-foot telescope constructed by Sir William Herschel, the first President of the RAS.


text: Category:Winona County, Minnesota

title: Category:Winona County, Minnesota


text:
Talk:Great Seal of the Realm

Untitled
This does not seem a proper redirect. The page redirected to discusses the history of the keeper of the seal, not what the seal is, nor the role it plays in goverment. Elde 06:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edward VIII
What about Edward VIII's seal? Kowalmistrz (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

English translation of Elizabeth II's seal
The Latin of Elizabeth II's seal is pretty clearly indicating that she's the queen of Britain (or maybe "the Britains?") -- Britanniarum, but in the English translation her English-language title of "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is given instead. --Jfruh (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 * This English translation certainly isn't as literal as the others are. It is the full title of which the Latin is the official translation, apparently. Perhaps there ought to be two English translations here, the literal and the official? As it is, it may be confusing to anyone trying to decipher the Latin. Cymrodor (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Her Majesty's title is defined by an Order in Counsel, which gives an official English version and an official Latin version. In the Latin version "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is rendered "Britanniarum", which literally means "of the Britains" (not "of the Britons", which would be Britanniorum). Hogweard (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Commissioners
We have an article on the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal but no article or section on Commissioner of the Great Seal. Rich Farmbrough, 14:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

Some monarchs had more than one great seal
It needs to be made clear which seal is being used. For example Henry VIII had three seals during his reign. He was not style Defender of the Faith until after the Pope said he was, and he did not become King of Ireland until some time after his reign started (before that he was style like his father Lord of Ireland).

In the long term I would suggest that the years in which a seal was in used is added to the article, but in the short term, it would be useful to note if a monarch had more than one great seal.

-- PBS (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead
I'd like to explain my recent reverts. I believe this version is poorly written because the lead sentence focuses on the union of Scotland and England to form Great Britain -- no where in it does it explain what seal is. This is in violation of WP:LEAD, which states "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points."The version I've tried reverting to does explain what the seal is and complies with WP:LEAD.  Calidum   02:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Your point is understood, and no more edits will take place to the existing lead paragraph until we both reach a consensus. The lead paragraph is inconsistent with the body of the article because before the union of Scotland and England, Queen Anne did not style herself Queen of England, she styled herself Queen of Great Britain. You have to understand the paradox situation. Her realm did not only include the Kingdom of England it also included the Kingdom of Scotland. Two Kingdoms, One Realm, and that occurred because in 1603, the Kingdom of England, essentially, in the royal sense, became a vassal kingdom of the Kingdom of Scotland. Meenmore (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Seal of the Realm. 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/20110815120719/http://education.gtj.org.uk/en/blowup1/14459 to http://education.gtj.org.uk/en/blowup1/14459

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) 12:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect and unsourced seal legends.
Researching the seal of William & Mary I read the legend here as ending 'Golden apples grow in flowering rosebushes : The security of Britain restored.' but this is not the right inscription, it is one taken from a commemorative coronation medal. I found this in D. Macleane The great solemnity of the coronation... (London 1911) pp. 168-169 but there was no citation provided for the incorrect original. None of the other seal legends on the page have been cited, and may be similarly inaccurate. Corinthians2021 (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Crown Office Tweets
See [this thread]. Some of it could be incorporated. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Great Seal of the United Kingdom
you have undone my change to the first sentence without justification, and supplying an erroneous claim in lieu of it. The Acts of Union clearly state, in the first instance, that the seal is to be known as the "the Great Seal for the United Kingdom of Great Britain" [sic], followed by two references to "the Great Seal of the United Kingdom" [sic] without any mention of "Great Britain". There does not appear to be any substance to your suggestion that the word "United" should be decapitalized, and even if it were, as was frequently the case in early American constitutional documents, that would not change the fact that the standard spelling of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is to capitalize both initials. Furthermore, the manuscript copies of the Treaty of Union demonstrate, that, at least in Articles I and II, the "United Kingdom" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain" are written as such, and not as "united Kingdom of Great Britain", as you have tried to claim. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the text of the Articles of Union provided by the UK Parliament website here. As you can see in Article XXIV "united" is not capitalilized every time it is mentioned. Parliament has deliberately used this orthography to avoid the confusion that you have fallen into. But this is a side issue. The main point is you are over-interpeting a primary text in a way that is not permitted in Wikipedia - please see WP:PRIMARY. The major point is the United Kingdom was created in 1801.. The state that existed between 1707 and 1801 was called simply "Great Britain" and normally referred to as the Kingdom of Great Britain. You can't misuse the looseness of 18th century orthography to change this and claim the "United Kingdom" and its seal pre-dates 1801. (WP:PRIMARY doesn't allow you to do that.). One cannot draw conclusions from whether a letter is or is not capitalised in an 18th century document - modern orthographical rules didn't apply. What Parliament's version of the Articles of Union I linked to does is to correct that looseness so there is no such misuse. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, I thought you might like the irony of the 1800 Act of Union refering to the "Great Seal of Great Britain". DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , apologies for my long answer, but your claims need answering in full. Firstly, at least one of your sources directly contradicts your claim:
 * The other two simply say that the present-day UK was created in 1801, which is perfectly true, but wholly irrelevant to the question of what the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain was called.
 * Secondly, you appear to be doing precisely what you warn against: you claim "Parliament has deliberately used this orthography" but then "You can't misuse the looseness of 18th century orthography" and "One cannot draw conclusions from whether a letter is or is not capitalised in an 18th century document". You appear to be misusing one document (which decapitalizes "united", which was not done in 1707) to invalidate another document on legislation.gov.uk which does (exactly as was done in 1707). As you may know, capitalizing all nouns was common practice in the 18th century, which is why, for example, the American Declaration of Independence did not capitalize "united" in "united States of America". All the more reason why it is striking that the 1707 manuscript used "United Kingdom" and not "united Kingdom". Apart from anything else, your claim that "Parliament has deliberately used this orthography" obviously isn't even true, since in some places the orthography "United Kingdom" is used. Moreover, the document you cite is not a publication of parliament, even if the PDF is hosted on the parliamentary website. Rather, it is a transcription from "Tome IV" of "The History and Proceedings of the House of Commons" published in 1742 (it says this at the foot of the PDF). So what you done is to argue that the handwritten copy of 1707 is wrong, and the digital copy on legislation.gov.uk is wrong, because a middle 18th-century private publication ("London: Printed for, and sold at the Ship without Temple-Bar, and at York and Scarborough. 1742") fails to capitalize "united" in "United Kingdom". This is a very unsound argument! Your claim "Parliament has deliberately used this orthography" simply isn't true. One might equally apply it to the parliamentary website which today says:
 * Thirdly, if the United Kingdom, and its Great Seal, did not exist in 1707, then it would be very curious of the Parliament of Great Britain to make such laws as:
 * What does this "United Kingdom" refer to if not the same "United Kingdom" mentioned several dozen times in the 1707 Acts of Union? Where is the reliable source that claims that the United Kingdom created in 1707 was somehow not the United Kingdom and that the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain was somehow repeatedly wrongly named in the Acts of Union?
 * Thirdly, reliable sources state quite unequivocally that the United Kingdom was created in 1707. Among them I cite Professor John Ford, Chair in Civil Law at the University of Aberdeen; Dr Alexander Murdoch, of the University of Edinburgh; Allan MacInnes, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Strathclyde; Colin Turpin, Fellow of Clare College, Emeritus Reader in Public Law at the University of Cambridge, and sometime editor of the Cambridge Law Journal; Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow; Roger Masterman, Professor of Constitutional Law at Durham Law School and editor of the journal Public Law; Colin Murray, Professor of Law and Democracy at Newcastle Law School; W. A. Speck, Professor of Modern History at the University of Leeds and sometime president of the Historical Association;and Niall Ferguson, Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and formerly Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. Are all of these people wrong, in your esteemed view?
 * Lastly, the fact that the UK was established in 1707 is not some arcane fact, but common knowledge, widely reported.
 * Please forgive the slightly overkill nature of the citations, but it really is quite beyond contention that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by acts of parliaments in 1707, with a seal to match, just as the Treaty of Union, and the Acts of Union which ratified it state, and just as subsequent 18th-century legislation makes plain. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What does this "United Kingdom" refer to if not the same "United Kingdom" mentioned several dozen times in the 1707 Acts of Union? Where is the reliable source that claims that the United Kingdom created in 1707 was somehow not the United Kingdom and that the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain was somehow repeatedly wrongly named in the Acts of Union?
 * Thirdly, reliable sources state quite unequivocally that the United Kingdom was created in 1707. Among them I cite Professor John Ford, Chair in Civil Law at the University of Aberdeen; Dr Alexander Murdoch, of the University of Edinburgh; Allan MacInnes, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Strathclyde; Colin Turpin, Fellow of Clare College, Emeritus Reader in Public Law at the University of Cambridge, and sometime editor of the Cambridge Law Journal; Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow; Roger Masterman, Professor of Constitutional Law at Durham Law School and editor of the journal Public Law; Colin Murray, Professor of Law and Democracy at Newcastle Law School; W. A. Speck, Professor of Modern History at the University of Leeds and sometime president of the Historical Association;and Niall Ferguson, Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and formerly Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. Are all of these people wrong, in your esteemed view?
 * Lastly, the fact that the UK was established in 1707 is not some arcane fact, but common knowledge, widely reported.
 * Please forgive the slightly overkill nature of the citations, but it really is quite beyond contention that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by acts of parliaments in 1707, with a seal to match, just as the Treaty of Union, and the Acts of Union which ratified it state, and just as subsequent 18th-century legislation makes plain. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lastly, the fact that the UK was established in 1707 is not some arcane fact, but common knowledge, widely reported.
 * Please forgive the slightly overkill nature of the citations, but it really is quite beyond contention that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by acts of parliaments in 1707, with a seal to match, just as the Treaty of Union, and the Acts of Union which ratified it state, and just as subsequent 18th-century legislation makes plain. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lastly, the fact that the UK was established in 1707 is not some arcane fact, but common knowledge, widely reported.
 * Please forgive the slightly overkill nature of the citations, but it really is quite beyond contention that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by acts of parliaments in 1707, with a seal to match, just as the Treaty of Union, and the Acts of Union which ratified it state, and just as subsequent 18th-century legislation makes plain. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lastly, the fact that the UK was established in 1707 is not some arcane fact, but common knowledge, widely reported.
 * Please forgive the slightly overkill nature of the citations, but it really is quite beyond contention that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by acts of parliaments in 1707, with a seal to match, just as the Treaty of Union, and the Acts of Union which ratified it state, and just as subsequent 18th-century legislation makes plain. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lastly, the fact that the UK was established in 1707 is not some arcane fact, but common knowledge, widely reported.
 * Please forgive the slightly overkill nature of the citations, but it really is quite beyond contention that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by acts of parliaments in 1707, with a seal to match, just as the Treaty of Union, and the Acts of Union which ratified it state, and just as subsequent 18th-century legislation makes plain. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lastly, the fact that the UK was established in 1707 is not some arcane fact, but common knowledge, widely reported.
 * Please forgive the slightly overkill nature of the citations, but it really is quite beyond contention that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by acts of parliaments in 1707, with a seal to match, just as the Treaty of Union, and the Acts of Union which ratified it state, and just as subsequent 18th-century legislation makes plain. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please forgive the slightly overkill nature of the citations, but it really is quite beyond contention that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by acts of parliaments in 1707, with a seal to match, just as the Treaty of Union, and the Acts of Union which ratified it state, and just as subsequent 18th-century legislation makes plain. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please forgive the slightly overkill nature of the citations, but it really is quite beyond contention that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by acts of parliaments in 1707, with a seal to match, just as the Treaty of Union, and the Acts of Union which ratified it state, and just as subsequent 18th-century legislation makes plain. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please forgive the slightly overkill nature of the citations, but it really is quite beyond contention that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by acts of parliaments in 1707, with a seal to match, just as the Treaty of Union, and the Acts of Union which ratified it state, and just as subsequent 18th-century legislation makes plain. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 * WP:WALLOFTEXT which will be ignored. On a scan, none of it seem relavant. To cut to the chase: here's WP:RS that reference it as the "Great Seal of Great Britain". End of. DeCausa (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , Your "RS" was originally published in 1874 and repeatedly uses the phrase "Great Seal of the United Kingdom". Under the heading "NOTE 84 - The Great Seal of the United Kingdom", it says the following:
 * This appears to directly contradict your claims. End of? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes end of. Just google "Great Seal of Great Britain" literally dozens and dozens of statutory references. This is a waste of time. Start an RfC if you're really that obsessed and ill-informed. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If I'm the one that's ill-informed, why is you that has repeatedly tried to support your arguments with documents that don't support your claims and clearly support the fact that "Great Seal of the the United Kingdom" was used in 1707 and after? Won't an RfC just tell you same thing? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just notice what you previously said! It only refers to the GS of the UK post-1801! It quite clearly refers to "great seal of Great Britain" prior to that. You seem to have a comprehension problem. I'm sorry, WP:CIR. DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I think it must be you who has a problem comprehending. The sources you produced say, quite unequivocally, "By Art. 34 of the Union between England and Scotland (5 Anne 8), it is provided that there should be one Great Seal for the United Kingdom". The "Union between England and Scotland" took place in 1707, by means of the Acts of Union 1707, which Wynne Baxter cites as "5 Anne 8",  i.e., in the reign of Anne, Queen of Great Britain. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And again, another source you supplied says: "There were Great Seals for Scotland and Ireland, but the Great Seal of the United Kingdom superseded the former in 1707 and the latter in 1800." The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Office of Keeper of the Great Seal of Great Britain". Can you read???? DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure I can read. I would be grateful if you have similar courtesy. I even put the relevant sections in bold to help you. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And I even put it in quotes for you. I ask again, can you read that? Or do you have a difficultly with the phrase "The Office of Keeper of the Great Seal of Great Britain". Is there something about that that confuses you? DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What confuses me is that you yourself have laid out two sources which unequivocally state that in 1707, a new seal was created which was called the Great Seal of the United Kingdom. Are you disputing this now? Are you questioning the reliability of the sources which minutes ago you described as "RS"? If not, why then do you continue to claim that the Great Seal was not called what it is called in the Acts of Union? Or have you dropped this untenable claim now? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * FFS, this is going in circles. The reference to "United Kingdom" is not to the 1707 creation but, as a name, to the 1801 creation. Your orthographic confusion was widely discussed across Wikipedia and what I'm trying to tell you is the WP:CONSENSUS. Check out multiple related articles - you're not saying anything that wasn't raised and dismissed a decade ago. Otherwise, how on earth do you explain the attestation of the Act of Union 1800 being "His Majesty...shall declare under the Great Seal of Great Britain..". (don't bother answering, I won't be reading it). Start an RfC. DeCausa (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid that your claim is untenable. It is not possible to derive the erroneous claim:
 * from the source text:
 * This text makes no mention of Ireland or of 1801. It cannot be reasonably denied that the source, just like all the others I have cited, and just like the Acts of Union themselves, explicitly says the "Great Seal of the United Kingdom'" was created as consequence of Article 34 [recte 24] of the Acts of Union. This Article 24 states, as has already been said:
 * "That from and after the Union there be one Great Seal for the United Kingdom of Great Britain which shall be different from the Great Seal now used in either Kingdom" … "the Great Seal of the United Kingdom"
 * If it's going in circles it's because you refuse to accept the obvious. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On the BBC Bitesize website it makes it clear for even for children: "A Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain would replace the separate seals of both Scotland and England. The Scottish crown jewels were to remain in Scotland." The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If there was any further room for doubt, on dealing with the actual seal Queen Anne had made following the union of 1707, Wyon & Wyon, in their very detailed work on the Great Seals, say of Anne's second seal:
 * That about nails down the coffin of any claim that there was not a "Great Seal of the United Kingdom" from 1707. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ha! WP:AGEMATTERS: antiquarian engraver quoting directly 18th century text (just as you did). Hardly! DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the source you quoted from 1874 is acceptable (even though it proves my arguments and disproves yours), but a source from 1887 is unacceptable because it's too old? Are you aware that that does not make sense? Previously you relied on a source from 1742. Aren't you applying a double standard in an effort to defend the indefensible? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And can you stop pinging me. It's not the norm to do that in an ongoing thread. DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That about nails down the coffin of any claim that there was not a "Great Seal of the United Kingdom" from 1707. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ha! WP:AGEMATTERS: antiquarian engraver quoting directly 18th century text (just as you did). Hardly! DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the source you quoted from 1874 is acceptable (even though it proves my arguments and disproves yours), but a source from 1887 is unacceptable because it's too old? Are you aware that that does not make sense? Previously you relied on a source from 1742. Aren't you applying a double standard in an effort to defend the indefensible? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And can you stop pinging me. It's not the norm to do that in an ongoing thread. DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Great Seal of the Realm


text:
Charles Dellschau

Charles August Albert Dellschau (4 June 1830 Brandenburg, Prussia – 20 April 1923 Houston, Texas) was a Prussian-American who gained posthumous fame after the discovery of his large scrapbooks that contained drawings, collages and watercolors of airplanes and airships. He has been classified as one of the first visionary artists.

Life
Little is known about Charles Dellschau's life. Primary sources are scarce and secondary sources often contain contradictory information. It is known that he emigrated from Brandenburg, Prussia to Texas in 1850, where he worked as a butcher. In 1860, Dellschau received his letter of citizenship in Fort Bend County, and in 1861 he married Antonia Hilt, the widow of Pierre Hilt, who already had a daughter from her previous marriage. Charles Dellschau's marriage to Antonia took place in Richmond, Texas., and at some point after the marriage, Charles started working as a sales clerk in his in-laws' saddlery shop. In addition to his stepdaughter, Dellschau had three children: two daughters, Bertha and Mary, and a son, Edward, who died in 1877 at age 6. Dellschau's wife, Antonia, died in the same year, leaving her husband a widower at age 47.

In 1865 Dellschau signed the Civil War Amnesty Oath, indicating that he was a soldier for the Confederate States Army. In this document Charles Dellschau is described as a fair complexioned man of 5'3" with auburn hair and hazel eyes.

After his retirement in 1899, he lived with his stepdaughter and her husband, and worked in their attic apartment in Houston, Texas, where he filled at least 13 notebooks with drawings, watercolor paintings, and collages depicting fantastical airships. He died at the age of 93, and was buried in the Washington cemetery in Houston in Stelzig Plot A-70. On his grave marker, the last name is misspelled as "Dellschaw," probably as a result of the "u" being written with an elongated tail on his death certificate. His grave marker also lists his initials on as C. A. instead of C. A. A.

Posthumous recognition
After his death, Dellschau's home remained in the hands of his descendants. His notebooks of paintings and drawings, as well as his diaries were left virtually untouched for half a century until the late 1960s. Following a fire, the house was cleared and at least 12 of the notebooks were placed on the sidewalk to be discarded. Fred Washington, a local antiques and used furniture dealer, spotted the books, and for $100 bought them from the trash collector. The books sat undisturbed in Washington's store under a pile of discarded carpet for over a year. In 1968, Mary Jane Victor, an art student at the University of St. Thomas in Houston stumbled upon the notebooks, and persuaded Washington to lend some of them to the university for a display on the story of flight. She also brought them to the attention of art patron and collector Dominique de Menil. Mrs. de Menil purchased four of the notebooks for $1,500. Of the remaining books, seven were purchased by Peter (Pete) G. Navarro, a Houston commercial artist and UFO researcher. After studying them, Navarro sold four of the notebooks to the Witte Museum in San Antonio, and the San Antonio Museum of Art. One notebook ultimately ended in the private abcd (art brut connaissance & diffusion) collection in Paris belonging to Bruno Decharme, a French filmmaker and art collector. The rest of the notebooks ended up in private hands. Some were dismantled and single pages were sold. In 2016, a double sided page dated 1919, sold for $22,500 at Christie's.

Dellschau's earliest known work is a diary dated 1899, and the last is an 80-page book dated 1921-1922, giving his career as an artist a 21-year span. His work was in large part a record of the activities of the "Sonora Aero Club," of which he was a purported member.

Dellschau's writings describe the club as a secret group of flight enthusiasts who met in Sonora, California in the mid-19th century. According to Dellschau, one of the club members discovered a formula for an anti-gravity fuel called "NB Gas." The club mission was to design and build the first navigable aircraft using the NB Gas for lift and propulsion. Dellschau called these flying machines Aeros. Dellschau never claimed to be a pilot or a designer of any of the airships; he identifies himself only as a draftsman for the Sonora Aero Club. His collages incorporate newspaper clippings (called "press blooms") of then-current news articles about aeronautical advances and disasters.

Though Dellschau's work mentioned names of purported Sonora Aero Club members, research of census records, voting rosters, and death records has found nothing to substantiate the existence of this group, though a few gravestones in the Columbia Cemetery share identical surnames. It is speculated that, like the voluminous "Realms of the Unreal" notebooks by outsider artist Henry Darger (1882-1973), the Sonora Aero Club is a fiction by Dellschau.

Dellschau's first one-person exhibition "Charles Dellschau - Aeronautical notebooks" and its accompanying catalogue was held in 2000 at the Ricco/Maresca Gallery in New York City, some 75 years after his death.

Witte (which mounted an exhibition of Dellschau and Da Vinci called "Flights of the Imagination") and the San Antonio Museum (which curated a solo exhibition of Dellschau entitled "Flight or Fancy? The Secret Life of Charles A. A. Dellschau", also shown at the Menillo Museum in Florida) and the Menil Collection. Dellschau's artwork is also in the collection of the Philadelphia Museum, the abcd Art Brut collection in Paris, which owns an entire book, the High Museum in Atlanta, the American Folk Art Museum in New York, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the John Michael Kohler Art Center, and several prominent private collections in America and Europe. Several Dellschau drawings were put on display at the Museum of Everything, London England in 2009 as well as in Turin in 2010. The American Visionary Museum in Baltimore has shown the work of Dellschau on several occasions and the INTUIT Museum in Chicago presented a one-person exhibition of Dellschau's art in September 2012.

Charles Dellschau's life and art is the subject of a monograph released in the spring of 2013 produced by Marquand Books, Stephen Romano and distributed by Distributed Art Publishers with essays by Thomas McEvilley, Tracy Baker-White, Roger Cardinal, James Brett, Thomas Crouch, Barbara Safarova and Randall Morris. The book has been reviewed in Raw Vision magazine by Tom Patterson, as well as in Bookforum, and Intuit magazine.

Critical analysis
Dellschau is regarded as one of America's earliest visionary artists. His work has been interpreted as a testimony to the sense of optimism that new technologies inspire as they change the way people see the world. Flight, up until that time, had been a metaphor for man's pathos - or his inability to accomplish what he was not meant to. Dellschau's work is also remarkable in that it uses the medium of watercolor brilliantly, often using water as the medium with a subtle tint of color.

Dellschau's work shows the influence of circus banner painting, in its use of centralized subjects and ornamental borders, and often possesses a jewel-like quality. Reviewing the 1998 Ricco Maresca exhibition, the New York Times said: "…his images define a fleet of craft that, at their most recognizable, suggest eccentric balloons or dirigibles, or flying carriages, and sometimes include pilots and passengers. Framed by further stripes, as well as words, names and numbers, the drawings intimate a universe almost as elaborate as Rizzoli's in a style reminiscent of Monty Python."

Partial list of exhibitions

 * "The Sky is the Limit" - University of St. Thomas, Houston, Texas, 1969
 * "The I at Play" - Institute of Arts, Rice University, Houston, Texas, 1977
 * "Texas Selections from the Menil Collection" - Galveston Art Center, Galveston, Texas, 1991
 * "Wind In My Hair" - American Visionary Museum, 1996
 * "Aeronautical Notebooks" - Ricco Maresca Gallery, 1998
 * "Plots and Inventions" - Ramapo College, New Jersey, 2000
 * "Visionary Dreamers" - University of Syracuse, New York, 2002
 * "Flight or Fancy? The Secret Life of Charles A. A. Dellschau" - San Antonio Museum of Art, Focus Gallery, 2002
 * "The Secret Life of Charles Dellschau" - San Antonio Museum, Menilo Museum, 2004
 * "Eye of the World: Miniature and Microcosm in the Art of the Self Taught" - Addison Gallery of American Art, Pennsylvania, 2002
 * "American Self Taught from the High Museum" - High Museum Annex, 2005
 * "Dopes, Dupes, and Demagogues: Viewed by Outsiders" - Louise Ross Gallery, 2004
 * "Create and Be Recognized: Photography on the Edge" - Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA), 2005
 * "Inner Worlds Outside" - Whitechapel Gallery, London, 2005
 * "Flights of Imagination" - Witte Museum, San Antonio, 2008
 * "ARTnow" contemporary art fair - Stephen Romano booth #21, New York NY, 2008
 * "Messages and Magic: Collage and Assemblage in American Art" - John Michael Kohler Arts Center, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, 2008
 * "Artists Books Through Time: Vol. 1", Cavin Morris Gallery, New York, 2009
 * Museum of Everything", London, England. 2009 -
 * Museum of Everything", Pinacoteca Agnelli, Turin, Italy. 2010 -
 * "Outsider Art Fair", Stephen Romano Booth #11, New York NY, 2011
 * "Seeing Stars: Visionary Drawing from the Collection", Menil Collection, Houston, TX, 2012
 * "All Things Round" - American Visionary Art Museum, Baltimore, MD, 2011 - 2012
 * "Darker Stars: The Roots of Steampunk Art", Cavin Morris Gallery, New York, 2012
 * "Jubilation/Rumination: Life, Real and Imagined", American Folk Art Museum, 2012
 * "Museum of Everything", Paris, France. 2009 -
 * "Farfetched", curated by Roger Manley and Tom Pattersen, Gregg Art Museum 2013
 * "Restless II", Cavin Morris Gallery, New York, 2013
 * "PULSE Art Fair New York 2013", Stephen Romano Booth B6 2013
 * "Outsider Art Fair Paris 2013", Cavin Morris Gallery 2013
 * "The Metro Show", New York, Stephen Romano Gallery 2014, 2015.
 * "Welcome To The Dreamtime", Stephen Romano Gallery New York 2014
 * "Mysterium Cosmograhicum", Stephen Romano Gallery New York 2014
 * "Abundae Cornu Copea", Stephen Romano Gallery New York 2014 -2015
 * "Opus Hypnagogia", Morbid Anatomy Museum New York 2015
 * "Lexicon Infernali", Stephen Romano Gallery New York 2015
 * "Charles Dellschau (1830 - 1923): American Visionary", Stephen Romano Gallery New York 2015
 * "Till It's Gone", The Istanbul Museum of Modern Art 2016
 * "Materia Prima", BLAM Gallery, Brooklyn, 2016
 * "STATIM FINIS", Stephen Romano Gallery 2016
 * "Outsider Art Fair", Stephen Romano Gallery 2017
 * "Art Basel Miami", Andrew Edwin Gallery 2016
 * "Outsider Art Fair", John Ollman Gallery 2018
 * "The Armory Show", John Ollman Gallery 2018
 * "SCOPE Art Fair", Stephen Romano Gallery 2018
 * "The Museum of Everything", The Gallery of Old and New, Tasmania 2017 - 2018
 * "Outsider Art From Texas", The Webb Gallery, Texas 2018
 * "Vestiges & Verse: Notes from the Newfangled Epic", American Folk Art Museum 2018
 * "L'Envol", La Maison Rouge, Paris 2018
 * ""Out of This World: Artists Explore Space", curated by Larry Gagosian for the 2018 Seattle Art Fair's Gagosian Gallery booth August 2018
 * Outsider Art Fair, New York, January 2019
 * "Opening the Third Eye", Stephen Romano Gallery, October 2018
 * "Charles Dellschau and the Mythology of Flight", Curated by Brian Chidester, Brooklyn Antiquarian Book Fair, October 2019
 * Outsider Art Fair, Paris, October 2019, Galerie Arthur Borgnis
 * "Supernatural America" organized by the Minneapolis Art Institute, curated by Robert Cozzolino on view at The Toledo Museum of Art through Sept. 5, 2021, October 7, 2021 – January 2, 2022: Speed Art Museum, February 19 – May 15, 2022: Minneapolis Institute of Art.

title: Charles Dellschau


text: Category:Animaniacs

title: Category:Animaniacs


text:
Talk:Francis Parkman

EB1911
Here's his entry from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I may work on incorporating some of it, or someone else can. Gamaliel 06:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PARKMAN, FRANCIS (1823-1893), American historian, was born in Boston on the 16th of September 1823. His greatgrandfather, Ebenezer Parkman, a graduate of Harvard in 1721, was for nearly sixty years minister of the Con.gregational Church in Westborough, and was noted for his devotion to the study of history. One of this good clergymans sons, Samuel Parkman, became an eminent merchant in Boston, and exhibited, much skill in horticulture. Samuels son, Francis Parkman, a graduate of Harvard in 1807, was one of the most eminent of the Boston clergymen, a pupil and friend of Channing, and noted among Unitarians for a broadly tolerant disposition. This Dr Parkman, a. man of rare sagacity and exquisite humour, was the father of Francis Parkman, the historian. His mother was a descendant of the celebrated John Cotton. She was the daughter of Nathaniel Hall of Medford, member of a family which was, represented in the convention that framed the constitution of Massachusetts in 1780. Francis Parkman. was the eldest of her six children. As a boy his health was delicate, so that it was thought best for him to spend much of his time at his grandfather Halls home in Medford rather than in the city. That home was situated on the border of the Middlesex Fells, a rough and rocky woodland, 4000 acres in extent, as wild and savage in many places as the primeval forest. The place is within 8 m. of Boston, and it may be doubted if anywhere else can be found another such magnificent piece of wilderness so near to a great city. There young Parkman spent his leisure hours in collecting eggs, insects and reptiles, trapping squirrels and woodchucks, and shooting birds with arrows. This breezy life saved him from the artificial stupidity which is too often superinduced in boys by their school training. At the age of fourteen Parkman began to show a strong taste for literary composition. In 1841, while a student at Harvard, he made a rough journey of exploration in the woods of northern. New Hampshire, where he had a taste of adventure slightly spiced with hardship. About this time he made up his mind to write a history of the last French war in America, which ended in the conquest of Canada, and some time afterwards he enlarged the plan so as to include the whole course of the American conflict between France and Great Britain; or, to use his own words, The history of the American forest; for this was the light in which I regarded it. My theme fascinated me, and I was haunted with wilderness images day and night. The way in which true genius works could not be more happily described. In the course of 1842 an attack of illness led to his making a journey in Italy, where he spent some time in a monastery belonging to one of the strictest of all the monastic orders, the Passionists, brethren addicted to wearing hair shirts and scourging themselves without mercy. In the young historian.s eyes these good brethren were of much value as living and breathing historic material. In 1844 he graduated at Harvard with high rank.

He now made up his mind to study the real wilderness in its gloom and vastness, and to meet face to face the dusky warriors of the Stone Age. To-day such a thing can hardly be done within the United States, for nowhere does the primitive wilderness exist save here and there in shreds and patches. So recently as the middle of the x9th century, however, it covered the western half of the continent, and could be reached by a journey of i6oo or 1700 miles from Boston to the plains of Nebraska. Parkman had become an adept in woodcraft and a dead shot with the rifle, and could do such things with horses, tame or wild, as civilized people never see done except in a circus. In company with his friend and classmate, Mr Quincy Shaw, he passed several months with the Ogillalah band of Sioux. Knowledge, intrepidity and tact carried Parkman through these experiences unscathed, and good luck kept him clear of encounters with hostile Indians, in which these qualities might not have sufficed to avert destruction. It was a very important experience in relation to his life-work. This outdoor life, however, did not suffice to recruit Parkmans health, and by 1848, when he began writing The Conspiracy of Pontiac, he had reached a truly pitiable condition. The trouble seems to have been some form of nervous exhaustion, accompanied with such hypersensitiveness of the eyes that it was impossible to keep them open except in a dark room. Against these difficulties he struggled with characteristic obstinacy. He invented a machine which so supported his hand that he could write legibly with closed eyes. Books and documents were read aloud to. him, while notes were made by him with eyes shut, and were afterwards deciphered and read aloud to him till he had mastered them. After half an hour his strength would give out, and in these circumstances his rate of composition for a long time averaged scarcely six lines a day. The superb historical monograph composed under such difficulties was published in 1851. It had but a small sale, as the American public was then too ignorant to feel much interest in American history.

Undeterred by this inhospitable reception, Parkman took up at the beginning his great work on France and England in the New World, to which the book just mentioned was in reality the sequel. This work obliged him to trace out, collect, arrange, and digest a great mass of incongruous material scattered on both sides of the Atlantic, a large portion of which was in manuscript, and required much tedious exploration and the employment of trained copyists. This work involved several journeys to Europe, and was performed with a thoroughness approaching finality. In. 1865 the first volume of the great work appeared, under the title of Pioneers of France in 1/fe New World; arid then seven-and-twenty years more elapsed before the final volumes came out in 1892. Nowhere can we find a better illustration of the French critics definition of a great lifea thought conceived in youth, and realized in later years. After the Pioneers the sequence is The Jesuits in North A merica, La Salle and tile Discovery of the Great West, The Old Regime in Canada, Front enac and New France and Louis XIV., Montcalm and Wolfe, A Half Century of Conflict. As one obstacle after another was surmounted, as one grand division of the work after another became an accomplished fact, the effect upon Parkmans condition seems to have been bracing, and he acquired fresh impetus as he approached the goal. There can be little doubt that his physical condition was much improved by his habit of cultivating plants in garden and conservatory. He was a horticulturist of profound attainments, and himself originated several new varieties of flowers. His work in this department made him an enthusiastic adherent of the views of Darwin. He was professor of horticulture in the agricultural school of Harvard in 1871-1872, and published a few books on the subject of gardening. He died at Jamaica Plain, near Boston, on the 8th of November 1893.

The significance of Parkmans work consists partly in the success with which he has depicted the North-American Indians, those belated children of the Stone Age, who have been so persistently misunderstood alike by romancers, such as Cooper, and by detractors like Dr Palfrey. Parkman was the first great literary author who really understood the Indians character and motives. Against this savage background of the forest Parkman shows the rise, progress and dramatic termination of the colossal struggle between France and Great Britain for colonial empire. With true philosophic insight he shows that France failed, in the struggle not because of any inferiority in the ability and character of the men to whom the work was entrusted, but chiefly by reason of her despotic and protective rgime. There is no more eloquent commentary upon the wholesome results of British self-government than is to be found in Parkmans book. But while the author deals with history philosophically, he does not, like Buckle, hurl at the readers head huge generalizations, or, like Carlyle, preach him into somnolence. With all its manifold instructiveness, his book is a narrative as entertaining as those of Macaulay or Froude. In judicial impartiality Parkman may be compared with Gardiner, and for accuracy of learning with Stubbs.

Needs balance
I'm not the person to do it, at least not yet, but I would like to see more balance and perspective to this entry, instead of the almost wholly negative assessment in the last paragraphs.RodneyPWelch 00:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jennings
If Jennings is "controversial", should he be quoted here? The loudest, most vitriolic voice is not the one I seek out for objective information. The language in the quote might fit in a magazine article of greater length than this one, but here it just says more about the author than the subject. MarkinBoston 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much space should be devoted to Francis Jennings, but I believe his critique deserves to be mentioned. Jennings didn't just complain about Parkman's bias. He checked the great historian's footnotes and found that Parkman had taken liberties that can only be seen as dishonest.

I started to add

Jennings, Francis P. "A Vanishing Indian: Francis Parkman versus His Sources." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 87, no. 3 (1963): 306-23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20089627.

to the references or reading, but decided to leave it to others who might actually know what they are doing here! WhatIsItNow (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Question of Bias
The article says he is accused of being biased, but I can't tell in what way. Is it that he has very little or no respect for Native American societies? I simply can't tell. JoshNarins (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

originator of several flowers
I removed the phrase "originator of several flowers" from the article as I don't know what this means. Did he identify and name them? Did he develop them as varieties or cultivars? "Originator of several flowers" just doesn't make sense. I hope whatever was meant to be said here can be re-introduced to the article. - House of Scandal (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Legacy restored, with better balance
On 8 February 2008, someone deleted the entire Legacy section and replaced it with a nasty racial slur. Strangely, even though the slur was promptly removed, the Legacy section was never restored. This was unfortunate, because it contributed modern points of view on Parkman that deserve consideration from Wikipedia readers. Several of the commentators quoted under Legacy are respected historians.

However, I agree with the above opinions expressed by RodneyPWelch and MarkinBoston: overall, the prior Legacy section came across as far too negative in its assessment. The previous inclusion of extended quotes from Parkman's biggest detractors practically made this article into a soapbox for his critics. Why devote so much space to Jennings, who goes so far as to call Parkman a "liar"? To allow a statement like that to pass unchallenged seems patently unfair, given that Parkman is long past being able to defend himself.

Therefore, I have decided to take the middle path of restoring most of the prior text, but condensing the criticism.

By the way, I just today finished reading Parkman's "Montcalm and Wolfe", which I feel is a true masterpiece of English prose. Yes, he is quite opinionated. Parkman does not refrain from taking sides—but neither does he try to hide his predispositions (for example, he is baldly anti-Catholic). But his writing is far from one-sided and clearly very well researched, making constant reference to original source material. Dynamitecow (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Was Parkman's mysterious ailment Lyme Disease?
I re-read Bernard DeVoto's book, The Year of Decision: 1846, recently, in which DeVoto describes Parkman's visit to the Sioux. DeVoto mentions Parkman's physical ailments and it sounds to me a lot like Lyme disease. He may well have been in delicate health as a child, but after all his hanging out in the Massachusetts woods, what hit him at 17 could well have been a tick-borne illness. The malaise, the dysentery DeVoto mentions, the eye problems, a mysterious "brain fever," are all present in Lyme disease. Amazing that he lived to be 70 years old! D. Claridge drusillaclrdg@gmail.com 65.19.17.77 (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.17.77 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Trimming references to bias
I made a few edits, such as taking out the phrase "despite his obvious bias" from the first paragraph, and a short of Francis Jennings, while leaving quotes from historians about Parkman's work. It is proper to refer to historical discussion on parkman, but it seems better to let the reader decide if his work amounted to "bias." We should keep in mind what Francis Jennings apparently forgot: Parkman lived in the 1800's and should be judged by its standards more than our own, and Parkman was half blind and might not be responsible for some of the mistakes in his work.Chagallophile (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Francis Parkman


text:
Talk:Liberalism/old text classical liberalism

klassinen liberalismi & Classical liberalism is a political ideology that originated in the 19th century. It is often seen as being the typical ideology of the industrial revolution and the subsequent capitalist system. Ideas such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought were first proposed by classical liberal thinkers, before they were also adopted by thinkers of other ideologies. The influence of classical liberalism has been so widespread that the majority of Western countries are considered to be liberal democracies.

The key characteristics of classical liberalism:
 * The importance of the individual
 * Freedom
 * Reason
 * Justice
 * Toleration and diversity

Thinkers
As the industrial revolution began in the United Kingdom, so did the first conceptions of liberalism. The first liberal philosopher was John Locke (1632-1704) who defended religious freedom in his important work A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689). However, he would not extend his views on religious freedom to Catholics.

Locke was responsible for the idea of "natural rights" which he saw as "life, liberty and property". Natural Rights theory was the forerunner of the modern conception of human rights. To Locke, property was a more compelling natural right than the right to participate in collective decision-making: he would not endorse democracy in government, as he feared that the "tyranny of the majority" would seek to deny people their rights to property. Nevertheless, the idea of natural rights played a key role in providing the ideological justification for the (at least moderately democratizing) American revolution and French revolution.

The main economist of classical liberalism was the Scotsman Adam Smith (1723-1790), who broadly advocated the doctrine of "laissez-faire" or "let [it] act" -- minimal government or command intervention in the function of the economy. Adam Smith developed a theory of motivation that tried to reconcile human self-interestedness with unregulated social order (mainly done in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)). His most famous work, The Wealth of Nations (1776), tried to explain how an unregulated market would naturally regulate itself via the "invisible hand" of aggregated individual decisions.

American thinkers were also heavily influenced by liberal ideas. Both the third and fourth Presidents of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and James Madison (1751-1836), put the Liberal movement's ideas into practice. Not only did they set up a liberal democracy, they also furthered liberal ideology's influence on the American system of government, by advocating a system of checks and balances, federal states' rights and a bicameral legislature (two-chambered, like the US Congress' Senate and House of Representatives.) The seminal exposition of Liberal values in American govenrment is The Federalist (1788), more commonly known as The Federalist Papers, by Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.

Classical liberalism today
John Stuart Mill (J.S. Mill, 1806-1873) was influential in developing modern concepts of classical liberalism. He opposed collectivist tendencies but also placed emphasis on quality of life for the individual. He also had sympathy for female suffrage and (later in life) co-operatives -- positions which were, however, made somewhat unclear by his support of the British Raj, or British colonialism in India.

Two groups, libertarians and neo-liberals (such as Margaret Thatcher), also claim the ideological inheritance of classical liberalism. These political philosophies are notable for focusing on the notion of "freedom" as it applies to the market. Some argue that this conflicts with classical liberal ideas and that even Adam Smith recognised the limitations of the free market as a sole means of social organization.

Classical liberalism in its various interpretations remains one of the most pervasive ideologies in the world to this day.