text:
Avernum

Avernum is a series of demoware role-playing video games by Jeff Vogel of Spiderweb Software available for Macintosh and Windows-based computers. Several are available for iPad, and were formerly available for Android.

There are six canonical games in the series. The first three games in the series and the non-canon Blades of Avernum are remakes of the Exile series by Jeff Vogel, who owns the company, collectively entitled Avernum: First Trilogy. The next three games (Avernum: Second Trilogy), also by Vogel, were released in 2005, 2007 and 2009 respectively. The latter games are entirely original built on a newer game engine and not a remake of any previous game. The Avernum games, like other Spiderweb Software games, are designed with gameplay and storytelling before graphical elements. In December 2011, a newer version of Avernum has been released, Avernum: Escape from the Pit, followed by its sequels Avernum 2: Crystal Souls in 2015 and Avernum 3: Ruined World in 2018.

Improvements over Exile
The original Exile games used a top-down perspective tile-based graphical system, effectively displayed as an X-Y axis wherein each tile in the grid was filled by a base graphic and perhaps an item or character icon. Avernum features a 45-degree axonometric display that appears three-dimensional. The game also adds varying terrain height, allowing for more interesting map layouts.

As the first three games in the series are remakes of the Exile series, the primary plot devices remain relatively unchanged, while many new encounters and side-quests are added. With the design overhaul came improvements to the graphical user interface (GUI) and to the storyline as well. Also Avernum has a maximum of four party members instead of six (with a minor exception of two NPCs in Blades of Avernum). In-game art by Phil Foglio lends a more humorous feel to the game.

Games
The Avernum games take place largely in a subterranean world known as Avernum. The main clash of the game is between the Avernites and the surface kingdom, known as the Empire.

The game features several races. The humans are the dominant race in the series, with the Nephilim and Slithzerikai being two other primary races. Among notable encounters in the game are the Vahnatai, a race of highly magical and alien creatures who live in the deeper caves of Avernum.

The Avernum series, similarly to the Exile before it, is demoware. The user can download the program for free, and play a significant part of the game without restrictions. The demo ends at a certain point in the storyline, at which time the user must purchase a registration key to continue playing.

Avernum

Avernum, the first game of the Avernum series, features a party of characters thrown from the surface world into the subterranean Avernum. Once here, the player discovers a culture that has formed from the outcasts of the Empire above: a culture beset by constant warfare and monsters galore. In Avernum, adventurers meet with many who wish to get revenge on the Empire for the wrongs it has done to the Avernites.

Besides countless side quests along the way, the game offers three primary quests: killing the demon Grah-Hoth, discovering a route back to the surface, and assassinating Emperor Hawthorne of the surface world.

The game was re-released as Avernum: Escape from the Pit in December 2011 for OS X and April 2012 for iOS and Windows. This re-released version is the second remake of Escape from the Pit and uses a new game engine.

Avernum 2
Avernum 2 takes place five years after the events in the original Avernum. Upon assassination of Emperor Hawthorne, the Empire of the surface recognizes the threat the Avernites pose and begins sending huge military forces down to Avernum. To make matters worse, unknown barriers of energy are sprouting up around the Avernum, which divides Avernum's forces, making them weaker.

The player controls a party of characters that meets one of the Vahnatai creatures responsible for the barriers in Avernum, and travels to meet with their leaders to negotiate. The party finds out that the reason of the hostility is the theft of the crystal souls by the Empire. The party retrieves the crystal souls, and in turn the Vahnatai join the Avernites in opposition against the Empire. With their support, the Avernites turn the tables on the Empire and successfully repel the invasion.

Starting Avernum 2 player may choose to have Nephilim and Slithzerikai characters in the party, in contrast to the original Avernum that allowed only human characters.

Avernum 3

Avernum 3 takes place ten years after the events of Avernum 2. Avernites have done a lot of preparation and are ready to send a selected few back into the light of the surface. After those selected few vanish, they send a selected few more. While those who emerge are at first stunned by the sheer beauty of the land around them, they also begin to notice that things are not as perfect as they seem. The slimes encountered are only the first part of what becomes a series of monsters and terrible occurrences that are blighting the Empire and laying it to waste. When scouting the land, as per orders from the Avernite government, the player is asked by the Empire to help save the surface from its blight. Adventurers must bring the Avernites and the Empire together to find the cause of the destruction.

Blades of Avernum
Blades of Avernum is a non-canon installment in the Avernum series, released in June 2004. It comes with four pre-installed scenarios, three of which are only available after game purchase. Its most notable feature is a free scenario creation kit that can be downloaded and used to make scenarios that can be distributed to other players. It has come under fire for being "too complex" in comparison to Blades of Exile, its predecessor, which used a very simple instruction list instead of a script system. On the other hand, it has also been praised for allowing many new possibilities using said script system, which couldn't be achieved with the Blades of Exile system.

Spiderweb Software has released the source code for the editor and allows others to make enhanced versions and add-ons, which a number of players have done. The most notable adaptation of the editor is a 3D editor, which allows the user to view and edit a project using axonometric in-game view.

Avernum 4
Avernum 4 was released for Macintosh in late 2005 and released for Windows on March 2, 2006. It makes use of the Geneforge engine and merges it with the Avernum engine; essentially this means that the gameplay is entirely turn-based, but uses the Geneforge point-and-click navigation and user interfaces. In addition, there is a large amount of new art in order to bring the world of Avernum to life within the reworked Geneforge engine.

Avernum 4 takes place long after the other games – one of the dialogue options remarks that the events of the third game happened "before we were even born". Weird monsters have been appearing in the underworld, and three powerful shades have been attacking people in the cities. A group of assassins also appears and targets all travellers and especially player characters. The player takes charge of a group of heroes which will, in the end, determine the fate of all of Avernum.

Avernum 5
On November 12, 2007 Spiderweb Software released Avernum 5 for Macintosh, followed by the Windows version on February 16, 2008. The game utilizes the same game engine as its predecessor, but differs greatly in its plot element. Instead of being hired by Avernum (as with all other chapters in the series), the party of adventurers in the story fulfill the bidding of the Empire. The player controlling the party must hunt down the assassin Dorikas while dealing with numerous other obstacles such as spies and betrayal. Meanwhile, characters in the party are trained in over fifty spells and battle disciplines. Battle disciplines are applied on an axonometric game grid sharing an interface with Avernum 4.

Avernum 6
Avernum 6 was released late 2009 for the Macintosh and early March 2010 for Windows and was developed on a low budget. In the time since the last game, Avernum has been struck by several disasters. The mushrooms which provide most of Avernum's food have been infected with a disease causing them to become poisonous and die, and the Slithzerikai horde has attacked. The player controls a group of Avernite soldiers whose job is to save Avernum.

Avernum: Escape from the Pit
In 2011, the series was rebooted with Avernum: Escape from the Pit, which follows the same plot (and whose title is a portmanteau of) Avernum and Exile: Escape from the Pit, but features a greatly enhanced game engine and an expanded storyline.

Avernum 2: Crystal Souls
In 2015, following the reboot of the first game, the second game was rebooted, based on the same plot and title of Avernum 2 and Exile II: Crystal Souls. Once again it consists of game engine enhancements and additional plot elements.

Avernum 3: Ruined World
The third rebooted game, based on the same plot and title of Avernum 3 and Exile III: Ruined World was released on January 31, 2018.

Reception
The original titles in the Avernum series have frequently been met with praise for the depth of their storytelling and gameplay,  while simultaneously receiving criticism for the use of crude graphics and game engines and lack of better sound effects.

Although Avernum is an indie game, it is nevertheless compared to games released by publishers. A review of the original Avernum in July 2000 noted that it was "not even in the same league as current RPG/RTS products [in] the market". Newer games in the series, however, were praised for having much higher production values.

Several years later, in August 2002, the Just RPG review of sequel Avernum 3 reached a completely different conclusion. Scoring the game as an 88%, the review concluded, "Bottom line? Graphics don't make the game. Despite lack of animation and 32-bit graphics, this is a top-notch RPG that I would love to see more of in today's market."

The latter games in the series received more positive reviews. A June 2006 review at Game Tunnel for Avernum 4 commented that "lots of thought [was] given to the environment and background story, and the game itself seems very solid."

Reaction to the final game of the original series, Avernum 6, was reasonably positive and praised the storyline. IndieRPGs.com said it was "a game that lives and dies by the strength of its writing, and the writing is pretty good", while noting that "it lacks a certain level of polish". IT Reviews commented, "As long as you can get past the aesthetics, Avernum 6 is a compelling slice of old school role-playing, which is well designed on the character development and combat fronts." It was also nominated and became the runner-up on "Independent RPG of the Year" by GameBanshee.

The games have received very varying scores throughout the series, often the tipping point being the "inadequate" graphics. However, most reviews admitted to good storytelling and well-presented RPG gameplay elements, noting that the game is recognisable for its gameplay value.

The Avernum series was rebooted in early 2010s, and the ground-up rewrites Avernum: Escape from the Pit and Avernum 2: Crystal Souls have received a largely positive critical reception. For example, GameBanshee wrote, "Fans looking to get into the Avernum series will do very well with Escape from the Pit, and while the improvements beyond the game engine and visuals are relatively modest, there's still a lot to enjoy even if you've played through the game once before already."

title: Avernum


text:
Rose West

Rosemary Pauline "Rose" West (née Letts; born 29 November 1953) is an English serial killer who collaborated with her husband, Fred West, in the torture and murder of at least nine young women between 1973 and 1987; she also murdered her eight-year-old stepdaughter Charmaine in 1971. The majority of these murders took place at the West residence in Gloucester.

West is currently an inmate at HM Prison New Hall, Flockton, West Yorkshire, after being convicted in 1995 of ten murders. Fred West committed suicide in prison that same year while awaiting trial, following the couple's arrest in 1994.

Early life
Rose West was born Rosemary Pauline Letts in Northam, Devon, to William Andrew "Bill" Letts and Daisy Gwendoline Fuller after a difficult pregnancy. She was the fifth of seven children born into a poor family. Rose's mother suffered from depression and was given electroconvulsive therapy both during and immediately after her pregnancy; some have argued that this treatment may have caused prenatal developmental injuries to her daughter.

Rose grew up into a moody teenager, prone to daydreaming and performing poorly at school. After her parents separated she initially lived with her mother and attended Cleeve School for six months, then moved in with her father in Bishop's Cleeve, near Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. Letts's father, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, was prone to extreme violence and repeatedly sexually abused Letts and her oldest sister Patricia.

At the onset of puberty, Letts, reportedly fascinated by her developing body, would deliberately parade naked or semi-naked around the house in the presence of her younger brother, Graham (born 1957). On numerous occasions, at the age of 13, she would also creep into nine-year-old Graham's bed at nightfall and molest him and her youngest brother Gordon.

Meeting Fred West
Rose first encountered Fred West at a Cheltenham bus stop in early 1969, shortly after Rose had turned 15 and when Fred was aged 27. Initially Rose was repulsed by Fred's unkempt appearance, but quickly became flattered by the attention he continued to lavish on her over the following days as he invariably sat alongside her at the same bus stop. Rose twice refused to go on a date with Fred but allowed him to accompany her home.

Having discovered Rose worked in a nearby bread shop, Fred persuaded an unknown woman to enter the premises and present her with a gift accompanied by the explanation that a "man outside" had asked her to present this gift to her. Minutes later, Fred entered the premises and asked Rose to accompany him on a date that evening, an offer she accepted. Shortly thereafter, Rose began a relationship with Fred, becoming a frequent visitor at the caravan park where he lived with the two children from his first marriage to Catherine "Rena" Costello, daughter Anne Marie and stepdaughter Charmaine. Rose became a willing childminder to Fred's daughters, who she noted were neglected and whom she initially treated with care and affection. On several occasions in the early days of their courtship, Rose insisted she and Fred take the girls on excursions to gather wildflowers.

Within weeks of her first meeting Fred, Rose left her job at the bread shop in order to become full-time nanny to Fred's children; this decision was made with the agreement that Fred would provide her with sufficient money to give to her parents on Fridays to convince them she was still obtaining a salary at the bread shop. Several months later, Rose introduced Fred to her family, who were aghast at their daughter's choice of partner. Rose's mother was unimpressed with Fred's boastful and arrogant behaviour, and correctly concluded he was a pathological liar. Her father vehemently disapproved of the relationship, threatening Fred directly and promising to call social services if he continued to associate with his daughter.

Relationship
Rose's parents forbade their daughter from continuing to date Fred, but she defied their wishes, prompting them to visit Gloucestershire social services to explain that their 15-year-old daughter was having a sexual relationship with an older man and that they had heard rumours that she had begun to engage in prostitution at Fred's caravan. In response, Rose was placed in a home for troubled teenagers in Cheltenham in August 1969, and only permitted to leave under controlled conditions. When allowed to return home to visit her parents at weekends, Rose almost invariably took the opportunity to visit Fred.

On her 16th birthday, Rose left the home for troubled teenagers to return to her parents while Fred was serving a thirty-day sentence for theft and unpaid fines. Upon his release, Rose left her parents' home to move into the Cheltenham flat he then lived in. Shortly thereafter, Fred collected Charmaine and Anne Marie from social services. Rose's father made one final effort to prevent his daughter from seeing Fred, and Rose was examined by a police surgeon in February 1970, who confirmed she was pregnant. In response, Rose was again placed into care but was discharged on 6 March on the understanding she would terminate her pregnancy and return to her family. Instead, Rose opted to live with Fred, resulting in her father forbidding his daughter from ever again setting foot in his household.

Three months later, the couple vacated the Cheltenham flat and relocated to the ground floor flat of a two-storey house at Midland Road in Gloucester. On 17 October 1970, Rose gave birth to their first child: a daughter they named Heather Ann (speculation remains that Heather may have been sired by Rose's own father). Two months later, Fred was imprisoned for the theft of car tyres and a vehicle tax disc. He remained imprisoned until 24 June 1971. As he served this six-and-a-half-month sentence, Rose, having just turned 17, looked after the three girls, with Charmaine and Anne Marie being told to refer to Rose as their mother.

According to Anne Marie, she and Charmaine were frequently subjected to extensive physical and emotional abuse throughout the time they lived under Rose's care at Midland Road. Although Anne Marie was generally submissive and prone to display emotion in response to the abuse, Charmaine repeatedly infuriated Rose by her stoic refusal to either cry or display any sign of grief or servitude, no matter how severely she was treated. Despite the years of neglect and abuse, Charmaine's spirit had not been broken and she talked wistfully to Anne Marie of the belief she held that her "mummy will come and save me". Anne Marie later recollected her sister repeatedly antagonised Rose by making statements such as: "My real mummy wouldn't swear or shout at us" in response to Rose's scathing language.

A childhood friend of Charmaine's named Tracey Giles, who had lived in the upper flat of Midland Road, would later recollect an incident in which she had entered the Wests' flat unannounced only to see Charmaine, naked and standing upon a chair, gagged and with her hands bound behind her back with a belt, as Rose stood alongside the child with a large wooden spoon in her hand. According to Giles, Charmaine had been "calm and unconcerned", while Anne Marie had been standing by the door with a blank expression on her face.

Hospital records reveal Charmaine had received treatment for a severe puncture wound to her left ankle in the casualty unit of the Gloucester Royal Hospital on 28 March 1971. This incident was explained by Rose to have resulted from a household accident.

Murder of Charmaine West
Rose is believed to have murdered Charmaine shortly before Fred's prison release date of 24 June 1971. She is known to have taken Charmaine, Anne Marie, and Heather to visit Fred on 15 June; it is believed Charmaine was killed on or very shortly after this date. As well as forensic odontology confirming that Charmaine had died while Fred was still incarcerated, further testimony from Tracey Giles's mother, Shirley, corroborated the fact that Charmaine had died before Fred's release. In her later testimony at Rose's trial, Shirley stated that her two daughters had been playmates of Charmaine and Anne Marie when her family lived in the upper flat of 25 Midland Road in 1971. Shirley further stated that after her family had vacated the upper flat in April 1971, she had brought Tracey to visit Charmaine on one day in June, only for Tracey to be told by Rose: "She's gone to live with her mother, and bloody good riddance!"

As with the Giles family, Rose explained Charmaine's disappearance to others who enquired about her whereabouts by claiming that Fred's first wife, Catherine "Rena" West, had taken her eldest daughter to live with her in Bristol. She informed staff at Charmaine's primary school that the child had moved with her mother to London. When Fred was released from prison on 24 June, he allayed Anne Marie's concerns for her sister's whereabouts by claiming her mother Rena had collected Charmaine and returned to her native Scotland. In her autobiography, Out of the Shadows, Anne Marie—who was fully white while Charmaine was of part-Asian ethnicity—recollects that when she asked why her mother had collected Charmaine but not her, Fred callously replied: "She wouldn't want you, love. You're the wrong colour."

Charmaine's body was initially stowed in the coal cellar of Midland Road until Fred was released from prison. He later buried her naked body in the yard close to the back door of the flat, and he remained adamant he had not dismembered her. A subsequent post-mortem suggested the body had been severed at the hip; this damage may have been caused by building work Fred conducted at the property in 1976. Several bones—particularly patellae, finger, wrist, toe and ankle bones—were missing from Charmaine's skeleton, leading to the speculation the missing parts had been retained as keepsakes. This would prove to be a distinctive finding in all the autopsies of the victims exhumed in 1994.

Murder of Catherine "Rena" West
Rena maintained sporadic contact with her children on each occasion she and Fred separated. She is also known to have visited Fred's family in Much Marcle, Herefordshire, to enquire as to her children's whereabouts and welfare in the latter half of August 1971. Fred's sister-in-law, Christine, later recollected Rena was depressed and extremely anxious about her children. Being provided with Fred's Midland Road address, Rena sought to confront him—likely to discuss or demand custody of her daughters. This was the last time Rena was seen alive. She is believed to have been murdered by strangulation, possibly in the back seat of Fred's Ford Popular and likely while intoxicated. When Rena's body was discovered, a short length of metal tubing was found with her remains, leaving open a possibility she had been restrained and subjected to a sexual assault prior to her murder. The body was extensively dismembered, placed into plastic bags and buried close to a cluster of trees, known as Yewtree Coppice, at Letterbox Field.

Marriage
On 29 January 1972, Fred and Rose married. The ceremony took place at Gloucester Register Office, with Fred falsely describing himself as a bachelor on the marriage certificate. No family or friends were invited.

Several months later, with Rose pregnant with her second child, the couple moved from Midland Road to an address nearby: 25 Cromwell Street. Initially the three-storey home, located close to Gloucester city centre, was rented from the council; Fred later purchased the property from the council for £7,000. To facilitate the Wests' purchase, many of the upper-floor rooms were initially converted into bedsits to supplement the household income. To maintain a degree of privacy for his own family, Fred installed a cooker and a washbasin on the first-floor landing in order that their lodgers need not enter the ground floor where his family lived. Only Fred and his family were permitted access to the back garden of the property.

On 1 June, Rose gave birth to a second daughter. The date of her birth led Fred and Rose to name the child Mae June.

Prostitution
Shortly after giving birth to her second child, Rose began to work as a prostitute, operating from an upstairs room at Cromwell Street and advertising her services in a local contact magazine. Fred encouraged Rose to seek clients in Gloucester's West Indian community through these advertisements. In addition to her prostitution, Rose engaged in casual sex with both male and female lodgers within their household, and individuals Fred encountered via his work; she also bragged to several people that no man or woman could completely satisfy her. When engaging in sexual relations with women, Rose would gradually increase the level of brutality to which she subjected her partner, with acts such as partially suffocating her partner or inserting increasingly large dildos into her partner's body. If the woman resisted or expressed any pain or fear, this would greatly excite Rose, who would typically ask: "Aren't you woman enough to take it?"

To many of these women, it became apparent Rose and her husband (who regularly participated in threesomes with his wife and her lovers) took a particular pleasure from taking women beyond their sexual limits—typically via sessions involving bondage. The Wests openly admitted to taking a particular pleasure from any form of sex involving a strong measure of dominance, pain and violence. To cater to these fetishes, they amassed a large collection of bondage and restraining devices, magazines and photographs, later expanding this collection to include videos depicting bestiality and graphic sexual abuse of children.

Rose controlled the West family finances, with Fred giving her his pay packets. The room Rose used for prostitution was known throughout the household as "Mandy's Room" (Mandy being the working name Rose used when she was with her clients), and had several hidden peepholes allowing Fred—a longtime voyeur—to watch her entertain her clients. Fred also installed a baby monitor in the room, allowing him to listen from elsewhere in the house. The room included a private bar, and a red light outside the door warned when Rose was not to be disturbed. Rose carried the sole key to this room around her neck, and Fred installed a separate doorbell to the household which her clients were instructed to ring whenever they visited. Much of the money earned from Rose's prostitution was spent on home improvements.

By 1977, Rose's father Bill had come to tolerate his daughter's marriage, and to develop a grudging respect for Fred. Together, he and Fred opened a café they named The Green Lantern, which was soon insolvent. Bill was also known to visit Cromwell Street to solicit his daughter's services. By 1983, Rose had given birth to eight children, at least three of whom had been conceived by clients. Fred willingly accepted these children as his own and falsely informed them the reason their skin was darker than that of their siblings was because his great-grandmother was a black woman.

Domestic violence
When each of the West children reached the age of seven, they were assigned numerous daily chores to perform in the house; they were seldom allowed to socialise outside the household perimeters unless either Fred or Rose were present, and had to follow strict guidelines imposed by their parents, with severe punishment—almost always physical—being the penalty for not conforming to the household rules. The children feared being the recipients of violence from both parents, but Rose inflicted the vast majority of the abuse. The violence was sometimes irrational, indiscreet or just inflicted for Rose's gratification; she always took great care not to mark the children's faces or hands in these assaults.

First Heather, and then her younger brother Stephen (born 1973), both ran away from home; they returned to Cromwell Street after several weeks of alternately sleeping rough or staying with friends; they were each beaten upon their return. Between 1972 and 1992, the West children were admitted to the casualty units of local hospitals 31 times; the injuries were explained as accidents and never reported to social services.

On one occasion, as Stephen was mopping the kitchen floor with a cloth, Rose accidentally stepped into the bowl of water he had been using. In response, Rose hit the boy over the head with the bowl, then repeatedly kicked him in the head and chest as she shouted: "You did that on purpose, you little swine!" On another occasion, Rose became furious about a missing kitchen utensil, then grabbed a knife she had been using to cut a slab of meat, repeatedly inflicting abrasions to Mae June's chest until her rib cage was covered with light knife wounds. All the while, Mae screamed, "No, Mum! No, Mum!" as Stephen and Heather stood by, helplessly sobbing.

On one occasion in August 1974, Rose chased after Fred with a carving knife in her hand; Fred was able to slam shut the door of the room into which he had run as Rose lunged at him with the knife, resulting in the knife embedding itself in the door, and three of Rose's fingers slipping down the blade, almost severing them from her hand. In response, Rose calmly wrapped her hand in a towel and said: "Look what you done, fella. You've got to take me to the hospital now."

Anne Marie West
In September 1972, the Wests led eight-year-old Anne Marie to the cellar at 25 Cromwell Street. The child was ordered to undress, with Rose tearing her dress from her body upon noting the child's hesitation. She was then stripped naked, bound to a mattress and gagged before Fred raped her with Rose's active encouragement. After the rape, Rose explained to the child: "Everybody does it to every girl. It's a father's job. Don't worry, and don't say anything to anybody." Making clear these sexual assaults would continue, Fred and Rose then threatened the child with severe beatings if they ever received word she had divulged the sexual abuse she endured at their hands.

Rose occasionally sexually abused Anne Marie herself, and later took extreme gratification in degrading her with acts such as binding her to various items of furniture before encouraging Fred to rape her, or forcing her to perform household chores while wearing sexual devices and a mini-skirt. Fred and Rose forced Anne Marie into prostitution from the age of 13, telling clients she was aged 16. Rose was always present in the room when these acts occurred to ensure the girl did not reveal her true age. On one occasion when Anne Marie was aged 13 or 14, Rose took her to a local pub, insisting she drink several glasses of barley wine. Several hours later, Fred arrived at the pub to collect Rose and Anne Marie. Once they had left the premises, Anne Marie was bundled into her father's van and beaten by Rose, who asked her: "Do you think you could be my friend?" before she was sexually abused by her father and stepmother.

Caroline Owens
In October 1972, the Wests hired 17-year-old Caroline Owens as their children's nanny. They had picked her up one night on a secluded country road as she hitchhiked from Tewkesbury to her home in Cinderford, having visited her boyfriend. Learning that Owens disliked her stepfather and was looking for a job, Fred and Rose offered her part-time employment as a nanny to the three children then in their household, with a promise she would be driven home each Tuesday. Several days later, Owens moved into 25 Cromwell Street and shared a room with Anne Marie, whom Owens noted was "very withdrawn".

Rose, who had begun to engage in prostitution by this time, explained to Owens that she worked as a masseuse when the younger woman enquired about the steady stream of men visiting her. When Owens herself became the recipient of the Wests' overt sexual advances, she announced her intentions to leave Cromwell Street and return home.

Knowing Owens's habits of hitchhiking along the A40 between Cinderford and Tewkesbury, the Wests formulated a plan to abduct her for their shared gratification. Fred later admitted that the specific intent of this abduction was the rape and likely murder of Owens, but that his initial incentive was to determine whether his wife would be willing to at least assist him in an abduction. On 6 December 1972, the couple lured Owens into their vehicle with an apology for their previous conduct and the offer of a lift home. Initially, Owens believed the Wests had been sincere in their apologies and obliged, believing she had simply mistaken their earlier intentions. Rose joined her in the back seat, with the explanation she wanted a "girls' chat" as Fred drove.

Shortly thereafter, Rose began to fondle Owens, as Fred questioned whether she had had sex with her boyfriend that evening. When Owens began to protest, Fred stopped the car, referred to Owens as a "bitch" and punched her into unconsciousness before he and Rose bound and gagged her with a scarf and duct tape. In her subsequent statement to police, Owens stated that, at Cromwell Street, she was given a drugged cup of tea to drink before being again gagged and subjected to a prolonged sexual assault from the Wests. When Owens screamed, Rose smothered her with a pillow, further restrained her about the neck and performed cunnilingus on her. Realising the gravity of her situation, Owens ceased resisting their sexual assaults.

The following morning, having noted Owens' screaming when one of his children had knocked on the door of the room in which she was restrained, Fred threatened that he and his wife would keep her locked in the cellar and allow his "black friends" to abuse her, and that when they had finished he would bury her body beneath "the paving stones of Gloucester". Fred then claimed he had killed hundreds of young girls, adding that Owens had primarily been brought to the house for "Rose's pleasure". He and Rose then calmly asked Owens whether she would consider returning to work as their nanny. Seeing her escape avenue, Owens agreed and vacuumed the house to indicate her belief in becoming an extended member of the family. Later that day, Owens escaped from a launderette she and Rose had entered and returned home. Although initially too ashamed to divulge what had happened, when her mother noted the welts, bruises and exposed subcutaneous tissues on her daughter's body, Owens burst into tears and confided her ordeal.

Owens' mother immediately reported her daughter's story to the police, and the Wests were arrested and charged with assault, indecent assault, actual bodily harm and rape. The case was tried at Gloucester Magistrates Court on 12 January 1973, but by this date Owens had decided she could not face the ordeal of giving testimony. All charges pertaining to her ordeal were dropped, and the Wests agreed to plead guilty to the reduced charges of indecent assault and causing actual bodily harm; each was fined £50, and the couple were allowed to walk free. When Owens heard this news, she attempted suicide.

Investigation and arrest
On 6 August 1992, Fred was arrested after being accused of raping his 13-year-old daughter three times and Rose was arrested for child cruelty. This case against them collapsed on 7 June 1993 when their daughter refused to testify in court. All five of the Wests' younger children were removed from their custody to foster homes. This case brought to light the disappearance of Heather, who had not been seen since 1987 and triggered the major investigation that followed.

After police found human remains and apparent signs of torture at 25 Cromwell Street, Rose, along with Fred, was arrested in February 1994. During her trial, Rose denied murdering any of the victims and insisted that her husband had committed the criminal acts alone. She also claimed to have tried to stop one of the sexual assaults her husband committed. Rose continued to profess ignorance of her husband's activities, but the circumstantial evidence that mounted against the couple was considered sufficient to prosecute her for ten murders: those of the young women whose bodies were found at Cromwell Street, and of Charmaine West. Fred was charged with two further murders committed before his association with Rose.

After his arrest in February 1994, Fred confided to his appropriate adult, Janet Leach, that Rose had murdered Shirley Robinson and had assisted in her dismemberment, personally removing Robinson's foetus from the womb in the process. Found under the patio at Cromwell Street was the body of the Wests' daughter, Heather, who was murdered in June 1987 after being abused by her parents all her life. It is said that Heather began to tell her friends about the abuse occurring in her home. Barry, her younger brother, would later describe watching, as a seven-year-old, his mother kick Heather repeatedly about the head until she was no longer moving. The Wests told friends and concerned parties that she had left home to work at a Devonshire holiday village and on one occasion fabricated a phone call, supposedly from Heather, to allay her siblings' suspicions regarding her disappearance. Fred would even taunt his children when they misbehaved by jokingly stating, "If you don't behave, you'll end up under the patio like Heather." This was the last known murder that the pair committed.

While on remand at HM Prison Birmingham, Fred killed himself by hanging on 1 January 1995.

Trial
At pretrial proceedings in February 1995, Rose pleaded not guilty to ten charges of murder (the murder of Charmaine having been added to the original nine after Fred's suicide, and two counts of rape and indecent assault of young girls having been dropped with a view for later resubmission) though her counsel conceded that circumstantial evidence indicated Rose's willingness to subject young girls to sadistic physical and sexual abuse. Her trial at Winchester Crown Court began on 3 October 1995, with Mr Justice Mantell and a jury. An important early decision by the judge was to admit testimony related to the sexual assault of three women by Fred and Rose, accepting the prosecution's argument that it established a pattern of behaviour repeated in the murders.

Prosecution
In his opening statement, prosecutor Brian Leveson portrayed the Wests as sadistic sex-obsessed murderers, terming the bodies discovered at Cromwell Street and Midland Road "more terrible than words can express"; "[The victims'] last moments on earth were as objects of the sexual depravity of this woman and her husband". He pointed out that Fred had been incarcerated when Charmaine was killed; claimed that Fred and Rose had each learned from their mistake in allowing Caroline Owens to live; and said that the gag on victim Thérèse Siegenthaler evinced a "feminine" touch—a scarf tied in a bow. Leveson promised to demonstrate Rose's controlling and sexually sadistic character, as well as her efforts to deflect suspicion about the disappearance of their victims.

Prosecution witnesses included Cromwell Street lodgers; victims' relatives; Rose's mother Daisy and sister Glenys; and surviving victims including Anne Marie West, Kathryn Halliday (a former lover of Fred and Rose), Caroline Owens and a "Miss A" (who had been sexually assaulted at age 14 by Fred and Rose in 1977, and who described Rose as the more aggressive perpetrator of the two). Neighbours described Charmaine's 1971 disappearance while Fred was imprisoned, and Rose's casual indifference to Heather's disappearance. Rose's counsel, Dick Ferguson, tried to discredit prosecution witnesses as either having financially exploited their connection to the case or motivated by grudges. Owens, though admitting to receiving £20,000 for her story, described her extreme survivor's guilt: "I only want to get justice for the girls who didn't make it. I feel like it was my fault."

Defence testimony
Ferguson emphasised that Fred, before meeting Rose, had committed at least one murder strikingly similar to those at issue in the present trial, and that the prosecution's case was largely circumstantial. He contended that Rose was unaware of the extent of Fred's sadism and urged the jury to not be prejudiced by her promiscuity and domineering manner.

Against the advice of her counsel, Rose herself testified; her affect sometimes morose and tearful, sometimes upbeat and humorous. She wept while describing herself as a victim of child sexual abuse who naively married a violent and domineering man, but joked about issues such as her "always being pregnant" and laughed while describing one victim's "grandfather glasses". Rose also claimed never to have met six of the victims buried at Cromwell Street, and to recall very little of her assault on Owens. When shown photographs of the victims buried in the cellar and of victim Alison Chambers, and asked by Leveson whether she recognised any of their faces, Rose's face turned bright red and she repeatedly stuttered as she replied, "No, sir."

When questioned as to life at Cromwell Street, Rose claimed she and Fred had lived separate lives, which was inconsistent with the earlier testimony of witnesses who had visited or lodged at their address. In reference to her relationship with her eldest child, Rose admitted her relations with Heather were strained before claiming to the court that her daughter was a lesbian who had physically and psychologically abused her siblings. Despite these allegations, Rose stated she had loved her daughter and held no knowledge of her murder. Further questioned as to the contradictory explanations she and Fred had given as to Heather's disappearance, Rose claimed these discrepancies had stemmed from telephone conversations she had had with Heather after she had left home.

The defence next called a succession of women who claimed to have been attacked or assaulted by a lone male whose physical description matched that of Fred between 1966 and 1975. These seven women each testified they had recognised their attacker as Fred when his photograph appeared in the media in 1994. The intention of this testimony was to illustrate to the jury that Fred was capable of abducting, assaulting or attempting to attack women without Rose, which the prosecution had never disputed. The physical recollections of several of these women varied greatly.

The final witness at Rose's trial was Fred's appointed appropriate adult, Janet Leach, whom the prosecution had called to testify on 7 November in rebuttal to the tape recordings of Fred's confession which had been played to the court on 3 November, in which he had stressed Rose had "known nothing at all" about the murders. Leach testified that through this role, Fred had gradually begun to view her as a confidante, and had confided in her that on the evening prior to his 25 February arrest, he and Rose had formed a pact whereby he would take full responsibility for all the murders, many of which he had privately described to her as being "some of Rose's mistakes". Fred had further divulged that Rose had indeed murdered Charmaine while he had been incarcerated and had also murdered Robinson. He had also confided that Rose had participated in the mutilation and dismemberment of Robinson, having personally removed her child from her womb after her death. In reference to the remaining eight murders for which Rose was charged, Leach testified that Fred had confided Rose had "played a major part" in these murders.

Upon cross-examination, Leach did concede to Ferguson she had earlier lied under oath about having sold her story to a national newspaper for £100,000, although she was adamant as to the sincerity of her testimony. While delivering this testimony, Leach collapsed and the trial was adjourned for six days. She returned to complete her cross-examination on 13 November.

Conviction
After seven weeks of evidence the judge instructed the jury, emphasising that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for a finding of guilt and that if two people take part in a murder the law considers them equally guilty regardless of which of them did the deed. On 21 and 22 November 1995, the jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts for all ten murders. Terming her crimes "appalling and depraved", Mr Justice Mantell sentenced Rose to life imprisonment, emphasising that she should never be paroled. The Lord Chief Justice later decided that she should spend at least twenty-five years in prison, but in July 1997, Home Secretary Jack Straw subjected Rose to a whole life tariff. This was the second instance of a whole life tariff imposed on a woman in the UK in modern times, the first being serial killer Myra Hindley in 1990.

Appeal
Almost immediately after being found guilty, Rose lodged an appeal against her ten murder convictions with the Court of Appeal, claiming that her husband (who had confessed to police during questioning that he had murdered up to thirty people) had committed the murders single-handedly, restating her claims that she had also been victimised by Fred and that she tried to prevent one of the sexual assaults. On 18 March 1996, however, the Court of Appeal refused to consider her application for an appeal to be heard. In September 2001, Rose announced her intention not to lodge further appeals against her convictions while maintaining her innocence.

Incarceration
Initially, Rose was incarcerated at HM Prison Bronzefield, Middlesex, as a Category A prisoner; she was later transferred to HM Prison Low Newton in County Durham.

It was first reported in May 1995 that Rose and the Moors murderer Myra Hindley—who were both incarcerated in HM Prison Durham at the time (Rose was on remand)—had formed a "friendship". Hindley denied the claims. Rose acknowledged that they knew each other from being on the same wing, but denied further speculation that the two were "having an affair".

In 2019, she was transferred to HM Prison New Hall in West Yorkshire. It was reported that serial killer Joanna Dennehy, who had just been transferred to Low Newton, had threatened to kill West and this was the reason for her transfer, although official sources stated that the reports were untrue.

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

title: Rose West


text:
WDRB

WDRB (channel 41) is a television station in Louisville, Kentucky, United States, affiliated with the Fox network. It is owned by Block Communications alongside Salem, Indiana–licensed dual CW/MyNetworkTV affiliate WBKI (channel 58). The two stations share studios on West Muhammad Ali Boulevard (near US 150) in downtown Louisville; WDRB's transmitter is located in rural northeastern Floyd County, Indiana (northeast of Floyds Knobs).

WDRB went on the air in February 1971 as the first independent station in the Louisville market, being owned by a Missouri consortium, the Minneapolis Star & Tribune Company, and Block. It affiliated with Fox at the network's launch in 1986 and began producing local newscasts in 1990. Initially starting with just one newscast at 10 p.m., in the 2000s and 2010s it expanded its news operation into morning and evening time slots.

History
The first construction permit for channel 41 in Louisville was issued in 1953 to Robert Rounsaville, owner of WLOU (1350 AM), Louisville's first Black-oriented radio station. The station, if built, would have been the first Black-oriented TV station in the country. However, the construction of WQXL-TV depended on the success of the first of three planned stations, Atlanta's WQXI-TV, which failed and left the air in 1955. The permit remained active for several more years; the call letters were changed to WTAM-TV, and in 1963 the permit was sold to Producers, Inc., of Evansville, Indiana, but no station ever materialized. Producers was related to the Polaris Corporation, which in Louisville owned WKYW (900 AM).

As an independent station
On July 7, 1965, Consolidated Broadcasting Company, a group of five people from Chillicothe, Missouri, with no television station experience at the time (but were eventually shareholders in KCIT-TV in Kansas City), filed for a construction permit for the channel. The permit was granted on April 20, 1966, but it would be nearly five years before any station came to air. Antenna height issues and permitting setbacks caused delays for the new WDRB-TV and for another applicant on channel 21. Approval was finally obtained that summer, and Consolidated renovated a building that had housed a lithograph studio on East Main Street in the Butchertown neighborhood to serve as WDRB-TV's studios.

WDRB-TV finally signed on the air on February 28, 1971, becoming the first independent station in the Louisville market. Initially, the station signed on at 3 p.m. on weekdays; its programming included low-budget afternoon children's programming and occasional news updates provided by anchor Wilson Hatcher and, most notably, the Saturday night horror film strand Fright Night, hosted by local theater actor Charlie Kissinger. Not long after going on air, WDRB-TV debuted an afternoon children's program, Presto the Magic Clown, hosted by Bill "Presto" Dopp. The station was profitable within months and unexpectedly respectable, matching then-ABC affiliate WLKY (channel 32) in the ratings, even without a local news department. General manager Elmer Jaspan credited the station's immediate success to a strong signal, programming, and the fact that the Louisville market already had a commercial UHF station.

Consolidated Broadcasting Corporation sold the station in 1977 to the Minneapolis Star & Tribune Company (which later became the Cowles Media Company) for $6.5 million. In 1980, the station moved from Butchertown to its present location on Muhammad Ali Boulevard. However, one upgrade that Cowles sought failed to materialize. Beginning in late 1977, WDRB-TV had campaigned for a shift to channel 21. In 1981, however, an administrative law judge denied the application and preferred the competing bid from the Word Broadcasting Network, only for the FCC review board to overturn the decision.

Cowles exited television in the early 1980s; after selling its only other station, KTVH in Hutchinson, Kansas, it sold WDRB to Block Communications of Toledo, Ohio, for $10 million in 1983. Under Block, WDRB-TV dropped the channel 21 application, clearing the way for WBNA to launch on the channel. Block began to increase WDRB's profile in the market by acquiring higher-rated and more recent off-network sitcoms and dramas to its schedule, along with a focus on the broadcast rights for the burgeoning athletic programs of the University of Louisville's Cardinals, which the station won in 1985 and held for two years.

As a Fox affiliate
On October 9, 1986, WDRB-TV became an affiliate of the Fox network. For a time in the 1990s, it was one of two affiliates serving the overall market: in 1992, Campbellsville-based WGRB (channel 34, later CW affiliate WBKI-TV) affiliated with the network. WDRB became the sole Fox station in Louisville when WGRB became affiliated with The WB in 1997.

In 1990, the station also regained rights to Louisville athletics after the university spent three years with WHAS-TV and upgraded its transmitter, improving signal coverage. In 1994, Block Communications entered into a local marketing agreement to operate Salem, Indiana–based WFTE (channel 58, later WMYO, now WBKI), which it programmed with new syndicated shows and programs channel 41 no longer had time to air due to Fox network commitments. Block acquired WFTE outright in 2001, creating the first television station duopoly in the Louisville market; this was allowed by the FCC even though there were fewer than eight unique commercial station owners because WFTE had only been put on the air as a result of the original local marketing agreement.

On April 21, 2007, WDRB became the first television station in Louisville to televise the Kentucky Derby Festival's all-day "Thunder Over Louisville" air and fireworks show in high definition—which, at the time, was one of the largest technical undertakings ever attempted by an American television station. This was followed by a second—even more elaborate—"Thunder" telecast in HD in April 2008 as part of a new agreement under which the four major news-producing stations rotated the rights to Thunder.

The station began phasing out the "Fox 41" branding in favor of simply branding by the WDRB call letters in May 2011. While this occurred shortly after sister station KTRV-TV in Boise, Idaho, unexpectedly lost its Fox affiliation, station management stated that the rebrand was done in order to bring its branding in line with Louisville's other major network stations, which have all long branded with their call letters. Additionally, management wanted to distinguish the station from Fox News Channel.

In May 2013, WDRB began construction of an additional 11,000 sqft of space at its Muhammad Ali Boulevard studio facility, including an expanded newsroom and sales area; the addition of two conference rooms; offices for finance and editing departments; and the addition of a secondary studio to be used for commercial and station projects. The $1.7 million expanded facility opened on May 5, 2014; as a result of the expansion, sister station WBKI-TV relocated its 10 employees from that station's offices in the Kaden Tower into the WDRB facility. Bill Lamb, who had been general manager of Block's Louisville stations since 2001, was hired by Fox Television Stations in 2019 to run that company's KTTV and KCOP-TV in Los Angeles.

News operation
After more than a year of planning, WDRB launched its news department on March 12, 1990, with the debut of a half-hour 10 p.m. newscast, originally titled The News at 10. Many longtime news personalities in the Louisville market joined the new WDRB news staff when the station formed its news operation; many others have joined channel 41 from other stations since that time. The News at 10 was originally anchored by Lauretta Harris (who joined WDRB from WAVE), Jim Mitchell (who started in the market at WHAS-TV, before moving to WAVE), meteorologist Tammy Garrison, and sports anchor David Sullivan.

In 1995, the program was retitled as Fox News at 10 and expanded to one hour and added weekend editions on Saturday and Sunday evenings. Bill Francis (formerly of WLKY) and Susan Sweeney (formerly with radio station WHAS (840 AM)) joined the staff as anchors of the weekend newscasts; Tara Bassett (who had previously worked at WAVE) was the weekend weather anchor. The station launched additional newscasts on its schedule as its ratings position in the market strengthened: the first news expansion outside its established 10 p.m. slot came on October 5, 1998, when WDRB premiered the three-hour-long Fox in the Morning and a half-hour midday newscast at 11:30 a.m. (originally titled Fox First News); the latter program expanded to an hour on September 21, 2015, with the addition of a half-hour noon newscast. This was later followed by the debut of an hour-long 4 p.m. newscast in September 2001 and weekly editorials by general manager Bill Lamb, the first on any Louisville station since the 1980s, in 2002. The morning newscast was retooled in 2003 as a news-oriented program after ratings took a nosedive during the start of the Iraq War.

Since 2011, WDRB has continued to fill out its newscast schedule, with evening newscasts at 6:30 p.m. in 2011, 6 p.m. in 2014, and 5 p.m. news in 2019, the latter hosted by longtime WAVE anchor Scott Reynolds. One expansion—a 7 p.m. newscast for WBKI-TV (channel 34), was broadcast from 2012 to 2015. The station also has added morning newscasts, including weekend morning news in 2013 and a 9 a.m. weekday morning news extension in 2023.

In June 2013, WDRB gained notice in the television industry when it debuted a promo criticizing the broad, constant and generalized use of the term "breaking news" by other news stations (both within the Louisville market and around the United States), stating that "breaking news" has been overused as a "marketing ploy" by other stations, who tend to apply the term to stories that are low in urgency and/or relevance. To coincide with the promo, WDRB posted on its website a "contract" outline of its journalism practices with its viewers and advertisers, with the former list promising to judiciously use "breaking news" (applying the term to stories that are "both 'breaking' and 'news'"), as well as a general promise to deliver news in a truthful, balanced and informative manner, and without overt hype and sensationalism.

The station gained national attention in November 2019 for a sweeps interview with the founder of Papa John's Pizza, John Schnatter (who had been a controversial local figure since his July 2018 ouster over use of a racial slur on a conference call). Schnatter had made the claim to WDRB's Stephan Johnson that he had found the quality control of the chain had declined after saying he ordered forty pizzas to eat from it in a month-long period and warned of a 'day of reckoning' for company board member Mark Shapiro for participating in Schnatter's ouster from the company.

Subchannels
This station's signal is multiplexed: {{legend|#DFEBF6|Broadcast on behalf of another station}}

WDRB began broadcasting three subchannels of WBKI as part of that multiplex's September 2022 conversion to ATSC 3.0 (NextGen TV) broadcasting.

Analog-to-digital conversion
WDRB discontinued regular programming on its analog signal, over UHF channel 41, on June 12, 2009, the official date on which full-power television stations in the United States transitioned from analog to digital broadcasts under federal mandate. The station's digital signal remained on its pre-transition UHF channel 49, using virtual channel 41. The station was repacked from channel 49 to channel 32 in 2019.

title: WDRB


text:
X the Unknown

X the Unknown is a 1956 British science fiction horror film directed by Leslie Norman and starring Dean Jagger and Edward Chapman. It was made by the Hammer Film Productions company and written by Jimmy Sangster. The film is significant in that "it firmly established Hammer's transition from B-movie thrillers to out-and-out horror/science fiction" and, with The Quatermass Xperiment (1955) and Quatermass 2 (1957), completes "an important trilogy containing relevant allegorical threads revealing Cold War anxieties and a diminishing national identity resulting from Britain's decrease in status as a world power".

Plot
The film opens in rural Scotland. In a deserted field, soldiers take turns familiarizing themselves with how to use a Geiger counter. Suddenly, there is an explosion. One soldier dies of radiation exposure while another is badly burned. At the site, there is a Y-shaped crack in the ground with no apparent bottom. Dr. Royston of the Atomic Energy Laboratory, is called in to investigate. He's later joined by "Mac" McGill, who runs security at the UK Atomic Energy Commission. That night, a local boy witnesses an horrific off-camera sight. He dies the next day of radiation burns. Royston investigates and comes upon a tower occupied by an old man in possession of a canister left over from previous radiation experiments. Later, in a local hospital, a young doctor collapses and melts after witnessing the same off-screen horror as the boy.

The same evening, when two soldiers mysteriously die while guarding the Y-shaped crack, Royston's colleague Peter Elliott volunteers to be lowered into the pit to investigate. Before long, he encounters the same off-screen horror as witnessed before. However, he is pulled out of the pit in the nick of time. The army uses flamethrowers to try to kill the unseen creature but to no avail. Royston hypothesizes an explanation for the phenomenon. His theory involves a form of life that existed in distant prehistory when the Earth's surface was largely molten. This entity had been trapped by the crust of the Earth as it cooled. But every 50 years there is a tidal surge that these creatures feel, causing them to reach the surface and find "food" in the form of radioactive sources.

The thing is finally revealed – an ever-growing blob, now crawling its way toward the Laboratory to feed on cobalt being used there. Royston and McGill accurately predict its movement. They proceed to a location where they set up two large "scanners" on lorries and a canister of cobalt as bait. Peter drives the bait by jeep, drawing the blob's deadly attention. Eventually, the creature is neutralized and explodes. But as the team approaches the crack from which the monster had emerged, a second, more powerful explosion occurs, knocking several off their feet. Puzzled, the team continues approaching the crack, presumably to make further tests, as the film comes to an end.

Cast

 * Dean Jagger as Dr. Adam Royston
 * Leo McKern as "Mac" McGill
 * Edward Chapman as John Elliott
 * William Lucas as Peter Elliott
 * Peter Hammond as Lieutenant Bannerman
 * Anthony Newley as Lance Corporal "Spider" Webb
 * Ian MacNaughton as Haggis
 * Michael Ripper as Sergeant Harry Grimsdyke
 * Michael Brooke as Willie Harding
 * Frazer Hines as Ian Osborne

 * Norman Macowan as Old Tom
 * John Harvey as Major Cartwright
 * Edwin Richfield as soldier burned on back
 * Jane Aird as Vi Harding
 * Neil Hallett as Unwin
 * Kenneth Cope as Private Lansing
 * Jameson Clark as Jack Harding
 * Marianne Brauns as Zena, the nurse
 * Brown Derby as the vicar
 * Anthony Sagar as security man (uncredited)

Production
The film was originally intended by Hammer to be a sequel to the previous year's successful The Quatermass Xperiment, but writer Nigel Kneale refused permission for the character of Bernard Quatermass to be used.

The original director of the film was Joseph Losey, working under the name Joseph Walton – Losey was an American director who had moved to the UK after being placed on the Hollywood blacklist. Although Losey did begin shooting the film and some of his footage is included in the final cut, he was replaced by Leslie Norman due to illness. An alternative version is that Jagger refused to work with him because of his blacklisting.

Norman was borrowed from Ealing. He had just made his directorial debut with The Night My Number Came Up (1955). He later said "I hated working at Hammer ... because I never got on with [Producer] Anthony Hinds."

Filming took place at Bray Studios in Berkshire. Half the film's budget was provided by Sol Lesser, a producer for RKO Pictures. This amount, $30,000, went towards the salary for Dean Jagger. Nonetheless, the American distribution deal between Hammer and RKO fell through due to the latter company's pending demise, and the film was distributed in the U.S. by Warner Bros.

Critical reception
Monthly Film Bulletin wrote: "X the Unknown intriguingly suggests a new addition to the science fiction repertoire of Things, but after a series of prolonged climaxes, with its potential victims staring directiy into the camera and shaking with fright, the "Unknown" finally emerges as a type of rolling rubber mattress, disappointingly unhorrific in content and appearance. Scientific explanations for the object's arrival are disconcertingly vague; one is left with the impression that the "Unknown" has been created with the sole purpose of manoeuvring its elaborate destruction, and the script sometimes suggests this in a number of unintentionally comic lines. It seems likely, therefore, that enthusiasts may find the present adventure rather tame when compared with the more grisly experiments of Professor Quatermass."

Variety reviewed the film twice. The first reviewer, "Myro", wrote in 1956: "X the Unknown is a highly imaginative and fanciful meller, with tense dramatic overtones which will help it along at the boxoffice. ... Made with creditable slickness, it tells a story which is completely absorbing, though totally unbelievable. There's little let-up in the action, and suspense angles are kept constantly to the forefront. Laboratory experiments in an atomic research station have an impressive, but familiar appeal, though ultimately they play a key role in the plot. War Office cooperated in the production, and its seal on a story of this kind should have some value. ... The scenes on the desolate moor, the sight of the grim atomic mass moving relentlessly towards its main target, the closeups of the radio-active victims, and the ultimate efficacy of the neutralizer combine in achieving a tense, almost horrific atmosphere. The acting, though mainly stereotype in style, is in the same vein, with Jagger, Edward Chapman and Leo McKern leading a vigorous cast. Marianne Brauns does a standout bit as the nurse, revealing a warm pert personality.'"The next reviewer, "Whit", said the following year: "Poor and complicated science-fictioner not for discriminating audiences. ... This picture carries a complicated structure difficult to follow. The 'unknown' that serves as the menace in [this] science-fiction yarn is so vague that audiences may be overmystified. ...Roles are strictly static and Leslie Norman's direction isn't able to rise above what was handed him."

Films and Filming called the film "a welcomed change from interplanetary yarns."

title: X the Unknown


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 7

What does eo- mean?
I have Google News email each day with a digest containing all news stories about whales. Today it informed of a discovery of a new (extinct) species - Eobalaenoptera harrisoni - I will add a spot of information about this work at the appropriate place. However I am a little unsure about where that place is - there is a genus Balaenoptera and families Neobalaenidae and Balaenopteridae (the latter contains Balaenoptera genus). Can anyone tell me what the prefix eo- means in this context? Is it possible for me to say where this animal, which died out millions of year ago, fits into the modern taxonomy. (At minimum it was a baleen whale, but that only takes us down to suborder level). Pcb21| Pete 22:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Took me a bit of Googling to get the right combo: Good answer at The Student Nurse Forum: eo- is 'dawn, early (eobacterium)'. - UtherSRG 22:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * A follow up: Eos is the Titan Goddess of dawn in Greek mythology. When in doubt, ask the Greeks or Romans. *grins* - UtherSRG 02:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * All animals, no matter when they died out fit into the "modern" taxonomy.--Oldak Quill 08:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry I am able to more clear now, armed with Uther's helpful responses. Should I treat Eobaleaenoptera as the same genus as Balaenoptera (with eo merely meaning old or extinct) as the popular press appears to do "The whale is like today's Blue Whale". Or is it more strict - different word, different genus. Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 09:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * New word, new genus. I'd place it close to Balaenoptera for now with a note that it was recently discovered and named (as I'm sure you would do anyway) so that its placement can be considered in flux. - UtherSRG 11:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * It may only be placeable to the suborder. If it has been extinct for a long time, the modern families may only have evolved their separation subsequent to its extinction. If so, then it would normally be ascribed to a fossil family within the suborder. Presumably the fossil family, if applicable, hasn't been named yet? - MPF 17:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Good point. - UtherSRG 18:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Quite possible. It died out 14 million years ago (cetaceans are about 50 million years old). Unfortunately I can't be sure because there are only press release sources (see e.g. http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--newwhale0614jun14,0,1047694.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia) - the science is in latest issue of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, to which I do not have access. Pcb21| Pete 20:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Check your other cetacean info... they may say when the various speciations happened, which would give you a possible placement for the newbie. - UtherSRG 20:41, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Good point, I have a book that might well help. Secondly I just re-checked - I do have access to that journal but that issue is not online yet - not surprising given the press release has just gone out... should be available in a week or so. Pcb21| Pete 20:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Fruits of labour now available at Eobalaenoptera harrisoni. Pcb21| Pete 09:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Creationism in Tree of Life articles
As I have no shame, I self-nominated Humpback Whale as a featured article candidate. The nomination was proceeding unremarkably, lots of reasonable objections and little article improvements. Just recently though there has been an interesting objection. I quote:

 * Object. The "Taxonomy and evolution" section needs tweaking for creation-vs-evolution NPOV; I guess it only needs a few careful changes of things like "it is known" to "evolutionary biologists believe" and the like.

Now I've never previously thought much about "npoving for creationism" in articles about specific species. Mentioning it general articles such as evolution or natural selection sure, but I really don't know about species-specific articles. If we do it for Humpback Whale, then we should do it for all ToL articles. This would be way out-of-line with scientific practice and could cause to get caught to get caught up all in sorts of knots (virtually everything we say might have to be prefixed by "According to scientists"). I am have to tempted to flatly object to the objection, but am interested in what others think. Pcb21| Pete 16:11, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree completely with Pcb21. Our articles should remain scientific. Creationism is mainly an American "thing", discarded by the rest of the world. But I grant Creationism its own page, where they can explain their beliefs. Anyway "the neutrality of this article is disputed" figures prominently on top of their article. JoJan 17:15, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, too, on general principle. However, I do think the "it is known" sentance could be rephrased to maintain scientificism without yeilding greatly to Creationist propaganda. "Fossil evidence shows that..." etc. - UtherSRG 17:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't touch creationism with a bargepole - it has no credibility at all outside the US, which in itself eliminates the need for any concessions to irrationality. jimfbleak 19:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that when NPOV was agreed to, it was precisely on the condition that we wouldn't have to worry about this, or at least that was my understanding. Creationism doesn't warrant mention on biological group pages, because it has exactly the same thing to say about each one. We shouldn't have to pad our talk to deal with it any more than we should for solipsism. Josh

 * I wholeheartedly disagree with the assements above. Saying that we accept those from scientists simply because we agree with scientists has a terrible POV.  First of all, there is not one generally accepted notion of science, as there are many philosophies of it.  Granted that in certain areas (say, the U.S.) certain forms are predominate, but that is a non-issue in this case.  To oversimplify, we have naturalism/evolution on one hand, and creationism on another.  *BOTH* are supported by evidence and the things commonly associated with "science".  Now each argument has its strengths and weaknesses, and as this is an encyclopedia, I have no desire to try and argue for either.  But both have underlying philosophical viewpoints.  The statement above that creationism has no credibility at all outside the US is blatently false (as a literal statement), and an opinion at best which should be used to decide on this issue.  There are many well respected scientists who express sincere concerns about the accuracy of evolution. -- Ram-Man 21:06, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm sure one or two could be found, but there are virtually no serious modern biological scientists - the relevant category - who do not accept and use Darwinian evolutionary theory as a matter of course. As Josh says, it's appropriate, in general articles about biology, evolution, etc - the Tree of Life itself - to give space to the full range of extant views.  It's not appropriate in an article way out on the distant branches of the tree to bother with an opinion that is held only by a tiny minority of those with relevant knowledge, and that has no special connection with the species under discussion.  (On the other hand, if creationism had made a cause celebre of a particular species or of facts about a particular species, that would deserve a mention in the article on that species.)  Similarly, in an article about, let's say, the history of a particular Christian denomination, you shouldn't have to debate the arguments for or against Christianity itself - whereas in main articles about Christianity, or the concept of religion, you'd expect to find that kind of discussion.  It's all about the appropriate level for parading a particular range of POVs.  Having said that, UtherSRG is clearly right - for reasons that have nothing to do with giving houseroom to creationism - that we should try to state propositions in terms that indicate the supporting evidence, rather than as bald "facts"; the beauty of science is that our confident assertions are always liable to be overturned by new evidence. seglea 21:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Hello folks, I raised the "creationism" NPOV objection mentioned above (now resolved with very little alteration). Executive summary of the objection: It's a wording thing, not a "let's give creationists a disproportionate platform" thing. The problem is that writing in a style which affirms evolution to be correct (e.g. "it is known that X evolved like this") is POV; the number of creationists in the world is sufficiently large that we cannot write quite like this and maintain NPOV. Whether or not creationism has credibility with scientists and researchers of Humpback Whales is irrelevant, as far as writing style goes. However, the  choice of facts that we include should roughly reflect mainstream opinion. It's perfectly fine to (only) put things like "fossil evidence indicates" and so forth. (Indeed, it's better to say things like that regardless of NPOV). NOTE: I certainly don't think we need make explicit mention of creationism (or anything else) every time the discussion of the provenance of animal Foo comes up. I don't think we should fall into the inanity of "Evolutionary biologists think that Foo evolved from Bar, while fundamentalist Christians believe that they were created on the Fifth Day." (By the way, I don't think creationism is only a US thing; maybe it's rejected by Europeans and educated people in other parts of the world, but given that a large proportion of the planet hold Christian (and, more generally, theistic) beliefs of one sort or another, it's safe to assume there's going to be many creationists worldwide. — Matt 22:04, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The idea of scientific creationism is a mainly American thing. The problem with the wording you suggest is it strongly demotes models, since it isn't done for any other subjects. You don't see historians always saying yes, there is evidence for this - even for theories as or more controversial! What would you point to to show people evolved from other primates? Comparative anatomy, genetic studies, fossils, all of the above? Should we have to list the entire range of biology every time a relationship is certain? This is not worth it, to solve a problem that almost doesn't exist. After all, for all this worrying, has there been any real indication that pro-creationists aren't content with simply summarizing their position on relevant pages and ignoring evolution on the others? Josh

The idea of scientific creationism is a mainly American thing. The problem with the wording you suggest is it strongly demotes models, since it isn't done for any other subjects. You don't see historians always saying yes, there is evidence for this - even for theories as or more controversial! What would you point to to show people evolved from other primates? Comparative anatomy, genetic studies, fossils, all of the above? Should we have to list the entire range of biology every time a relationship is certain? This is not worth it, to solve a problem that almost doesn't exist. After all, for all this worrying, has there been any real indication that pro-creationists aren't content with simply summarizing their position on relevant pages and ignoring evolution on the others? Josh

 * When you talk about creationists "ignoring evolution on the other pages", you seem to be suggesting that NPOV might be selectively applied across the Wikipedia, and that in some domains we should assume a certain foundational bias. I strongly disagree with this. Just as it would be inappropriate to assert as undisputed fact in a Book of Genesis article that the world was created in seven days, it would equally be inappropriate to assert that evolution is an undisputed fact in a biology article. I appreciate that it can sometimes take creativity to write in a neutral fashion without filling it up with awkward "in mainstream science"- and "evolutionary biologists believe"-style cruft. (I agree about scientific creationism being a mainly US thing.) — Matt 00:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not saying NPOV should be selectively applied, I am disagreeing about what it entails. Stanard chronology prevails within historical articles and big bang cosmology prevails within astronomical articles, the same should apply here, not because it is the correct point of view but because it is the best way of organizing information.  Padding is fine, I agree it can be done well with some creativity, but it shouldn't ever be considered mandatory.  As stated, when NPOV came in it was with the promise that this wouldn't be a problem. Josh

 * It's mandatory that things should be expressed from the NPOV; "padding" may be a way of doing that, there may be other ways. So yes, I agree that padding is not mandatory. But I don't think we should abandon NPOV just to achieve a neat wording. You say "Big bang cosmology prevails within astronomical articles". I don't know what you mean by "prevails", so I'll guess (please correct me if I'm wrong!) If you mean that, for example, an author of a biology article can write that the theory of evolution is correct, then I disagree; evolution shouldn't "prevail" in the sense of Wikipedia adopting a foundational bias for some articles. On the other hand, If all you mean by "prevails" is that the content should include only appropriate information on the subject (as pointed out by User:Maveric149 below), then I agree. — Matt 04:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I mean prevails in the sense that it needs discussion on pages like evolution and creationism but that most taxon pages should be able to completely ignore the issue. The way it works now, the way other things work.  For instance, Cambrian simply assumes the world is millions of years old.  Nobody has objected, nobody has objected here either.  This is how NPOV was supposed to work: being fair to controversy, but not forcing everyone to constantly concern themselves with it.  At least, this was how it was billed, and why we accepted it. Josh

If saying things like "molecular studies indicate" or "John Doe theorized in his 15 October 1985 Science article" fixes the problem, then I have nothing against that. That does, in fact, add more information to the article while at the same time giving the willfully anti-science Biblical absolutists no valid reason to complain.

But in general, blanket objections like creationism should not noticeably affect non-general articles (such as an article about a single species). NPOV deals with differing POVs about a single topic. So if creationists in general have a certain specific viewpoint about how a certain specific animal came into being, then we should include that information in the article. If they don't, then we needn't do anything more than be specific where it is appropriate (but not so much that it becomes distracting) - such as what was done at Humpback Whale. --mav 00:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can "believe" whatever they want. The correct terminology for the article being questioned is: "it is known" if the stated "facts" are based upon scientific evidence. The problem with the objection is that it comes from a person unaware of how evidence works, and therefore constitutes inappropriate POV. Without rules and understanding of how evidence is applied, modern society would not exist. Liberal societies allow for all manner of beliefs, so the objecting person essentially enjoys a free-ride on the benefits of modern society without ever really understanding the efforts made by others to provide those benefits. Such ignorance is bliss - Marshman 18:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * *cough* — what evidence do you have that I am "unaware of how evidence works"? ;-) (I objected to the "Humpback Whale" wording earlier...) — Matt 14:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of New Zealand birds
This seems to contravene several principles of ToL articles
 * it is alaphabetical, not taxonomic
 * listing is a mixture of Maori and English, this is English wikipedia, so listing should give English name with Maori alternative (or without -see history of list of Korean birds)
 * many links are incorrect

Any views - I'm reluctant to run amok on this page myself since I don't know the region. jimfbleak 17:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've a couple suggestions. In order: - UtherSRG 01:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Leave it for a little bit. You've listed it on ToLCleanup. Give that a chance to catch someone's eye.
 * Find the authors of some of the birds on the list and see if they can take a whack at it.
 * Run amok. :)

Hmmm .... my 2c worth.

 * Order: yes, taxonomic is probably best, though I'm not too fussed about it.
 * Maori names. I don't think we should force the people of a region to use English names where there is a substantial tradition of using local names. I think the standard names need to be listed as alternatives, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the use of local (in this case Maori) names as well. The actual linked-to articles, of course, must use the proper names, and common sense dictates that we create appropriate redirects from Maori (and other) names. Also, we should remember that many of the proper names are Maori names: kiwi, Kea, Kapapoo, and so on. English has already taken on a substantial number of Maori words, and wil take more on as time goes by. Our overall aim should be to create an article that is usable by all: New Zealanders first, but all other English speakers as well.
 * Wrong links? Err .. I can't find them. I went through List of NZB maybe 6 or 12 months back and sorted out the links, but it's grown a bit since then. Still, a half dozen random clicks didn't thrw up any obvious errors. Can you list the problem ones, Uther? (Or just go ahead and fix them.)

Tannin 02:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not me. I was just giving my input to Jim's query. - UtherSRG

 * Yeah, I realised that just after I pressed "Save page". For "Uther", read "Jim". Tannin

 * Takapu (Gannet) Sula serrator - I'll go back to this and fix
 * Taranui (Caspian Tern) - I've fixed this
 * Tarapiroe (Black-fronted Tern)

Richard's Pipit although linked correctly, is not shown by the name by which it is known everywhere except presumably NZ. I'm not going to make a big thing of this, it's not even my hemisphere, but I thought I should flag it up. I did think of replacing it with the ITIS listing, but the editing is too difficult for a European. Jim

OK Jim. I started sorting the list. I've left it in worse state than it was when I started, but I think I've made enough of a start that if we chip away at it, we can finish the job before too long. BTW, in working on it, I started to see more examles of the things that you were taking about above. I fixed a few of them, lots more to go. Cheers, Tannin 11:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Tannin - looking at this makes me wonder, is your photo at Richard's Pipit (Anthus richardi, recently split from A. novaeseelandiae) this, or an Australasian Pipit (A. novaeseelandiae sensu stricto)? - MPF 16:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Damn it, MPF, I was flat out deciding it was a pipit, never mind the finer points. :) Those brownish grassland birds - there are about half a dozen of them - are hard! It would be A. novaeseelandiae, no doubt, as it was taken ony a few miles from Ballarat. Until now, I wasn't aware there was a difference. My field guides say "Australian(Richard's) Pipit" and I never thought to wonder why. Tannin 07:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Tannin - thanks; I fear it may not be quite so simple, as although A. richardi breeds in Asia, it winters in Australia. So if your pic was taken between October-March, the possibility of A. richardi remains. Could you check HANZAB please, to see if richardi gets as far south as Ballarat? - if yes, we'll have to get someone familiar with both species to identify it on plumage :-) I had a go myself comparing it with pics on the net, and couldn't decide . . . - MPF 13:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Note that this section has today been copied to specific talk page Talk:List of New Zealand birds, where there seemed to have been no talk since 2003. Robin Patterson 03:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Animal homosexuality, intersexuality, and transexuality
I just picked up a copy of "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl (ISBN 1-86197-182-6). It's totally fascinating! I plan to add tidbits from it to the various articles we already have. There are some significant sections on primates (hence my particular interest) but also on other mammals (including cetaceans, Pete) and tons of info on birds. - UtherSRG 02:21, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That does sound very interesting. Dolphins have been recorded with all sorts of "human" behaviour... sex for fun, murder, gay behaviour. Looking forward to your additions. Pcb21| Pete 09:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll probably start reading this book today. The first half is less interesting from the Wikipedia standpoint, but I want to see where he's coming from. The second half is organized by species, documenting which behaviors are typically seen, etc. It'll probably take me most ofthe week to get through the first half. I've scanned through the species pages and they are fascinating... he's got one bit for river dolphins, describing how they perform penile-blowhole intercourse. - UtherSRG 14:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)97o, h yiuyj8ny nrtymv; ojorjmntvjooemtvgg mcm j hj g t gn ealjefjrjfepn jepnvi huiivn;g nuithbo8v76030358376vb0wt67bn4v7yk0-m8yj04m7vertnh v8uhjn fg78km4578yu63rgfmsvj8ugf7689yuihunf cf7r67676767676dheihfrcu

Taxonomist reference - brackets or not
I just read that the taxonomist reference is enclosed in brackets in case the group was later renamed or changed its parenthood, it is written without in case the taxonomist who first described it already "placed it correctly". As it was an astronomy magazine (sic!) I'd like to find confirmation on this, and of course the question arises whether we already follow this standard or should follow it. I saw taxoboxes with and without brackets already, but never noticed a system behind it. andy 11:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The Sand Lizard would be Lacerta agilis Linnaeus, 1758 because Linnaeus named it so. However, the Fire Salamander is Salamandra salamandra (Linnaeus, 1758) because Linnaeus originally named it Lacerta salamandra and not Salamandra salamandra. -- Baldhur 12:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed with the above for animals; conventions are slightly different for plants; e.g. Scots Pine is: Pinus sylvestris L. as Linnaeus so named it, whereas Norway Spruce is: Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. as Linnaeus originally named it Pinus abies but Karsten transferred it from Pinus to Picea. Note that (unlike with animals) the revising author is cited; that authors are commonly abbreviated (to a set of standard abbreviations); and dates are not given, unless giving a full citation with place of publication: Picea abies (L.) H. Karst., Deutsche Fl. 324 (1881). MPF 13:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pinophyta, Conifer
There are two pages Pinophyta (scientific name) and Conifer (vernacular name) covering the same taxon. I'd like to combine them; my preference is to make Conifer a redirect to Pinophyta, but would not object to the reverse if that is preferred by a majority of others. Anyone any thoughts? - MPF 09:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Redirect Conifer to Pinophyta, but make 'Conifers' the title of the taxobox JoJan 12:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Woot! Looks like the right thing to me! - UtherSRG 13:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will wait a bit longer in case anyone else has views. Jo, agreed on the title (it is already!). PS - anyone know what's happened to wiki? . . why has it reverted to the old style (search box top right, not left, etc)? - MPF 18:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Short answer: I don't know. The chart at Pinophyta indicates that it is a subgroup of Cycadophyta. My garden book says Cycas revoluta "is a primitive, cone-bearing plant related to conifers." It's apparently a bit mixed up on what "cone-bearing" means. Mackerm 18:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * BTW, are all the taxo-boxes going to have to be adjusted so that Cycadophyta is inserted above Pinophyta? Mackerm 19:59, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You are misreading the chart. It says that Cycadophyta broke off the "main path" first, then Ginkgophyta. All three are equal in taxonomic rank as Divisions. - UtherSRG 20:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi Mackerm - Uther's right, it doesn't, it shows that Pinophyta and Cycadophyta share a common ancestor (together with Ginkgophyta as well). Although cycads have cones or cone-like seed-bearing structures, they are not considered conifers within normal english usage of that term - MPF 20:16, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Then I agree with everybody else that the article should be on the Pinophyta page. Mackerm 20:42, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK thanks all, I'm proceeding with amalgamation - MPF 12:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Art styles, periods and movements

Thoughts? Should by name or by date be first? Should different countries or artistic traditions (e.g., "Western") be separated eventually? Are there any links to other pages or page associations that should be here?

...Or should there be sub-groupings, at least in the chronological portion (e.g., De Stijl under Modern Art)? --STLEric 01:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Added the limited geographic scope template, since this page has little mention of non-western art in the timeline. There is a little of greco-buddhism, tang dynasty, etc., but considering that eastern civilisation has been developing its own art for even longer than the west, it is very much under-represented. And then, of course, there is african art, mayan art, etc... -- Jel 09:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd looked around earlier for more geographic diversity in categories, but hadn't found much in the way of articles where I looked. Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right places, or new articles have been added since then? (And do note, I was also essentially pulling the categories I knew from a mainly Western-centric art history class in the hopes that others would add more.) I'll take a look for more articles... --STLEric 02:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

take out by date section?
How does this sound:
 * This page should just list style/movements. The Art history page with the series box does a much better job of this. Remove the 'by date' section. This page can be renamed 'Art styles and movements.' The styles and movements being Primitivism and Art Deco and so forth.
 * Items like ASCII art and graffiti are really art genres - genre being defined as by a particular means (computer art), in a particular place (public art) or in regard to a certain subject. There is no Art genres page now. Either that would need to be made or genres are listed here separately. Clubmarx 03:47, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

This has been merged. Art movements and Art history contain this info.

title: Talk:Art styles, periods and movements


text:
Talk:Francis Xavier Dilorenzo

The installation of Msgr. Francis DiLorenzo as the fourth bishop of Honolulu did not take place at the Neal Blaisdell Center. He took canonical possession of the Diocese of Honolulu at Solemn Vespers on November 11, 1994, at the Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace. He was formally installed as the fourth Bishop of Honolulu at a Pontifical Mass on November 12, 1994, at the Co-Cathedral of Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus.

title: Talk:Francis Xavier Dilorenzo