text:
List of rulers of Kongo

This is a list of the rulers of the Kingdom of Kongo known commonly as the Manikongos (KiKongo: Mwenekongo). Mwene (plural: Awene) in Kikongo meant a person holding authority, particularly judicial authority, derived from the root -wene which meant, by the sixteenth century at least, territory over which jurisdiction was held. The ruler of Kongo was the most powerful mwene in the region who the Portuguese regarded as the king (in Kikongo ntinu) upon their arrival in 1483.

The kings claimed several titles and the following royal style in Portuguese "Pela graça de de Deus Rei do Congo, do Loango, de Cacongo e de Ngoio, aquém e além do Zaire, Senhor dos Ambundos e de Angola, de Aquisima, de Musuru, de Matamba, de Malilu, de Musuko e Anzizo, da conquista de Pangu-Alumbu, etc", that means "By the grace of God King of Kongo, of Loango, of Kakongo and of Ngoyo, on this side of the Zaire and beyond it, Lord of the Ambundu and of Angola, of Aquisima, of Musuru, of Matamba, of Malilu, of Musuko and Anzizo, of the conquest of Pangu-Alumbu, etc".

Kandas, Gerações and Houses
The kingdom of Kongo had a formal state apparatus, in which most positions (rendas in Portuguese-language documents, meaning income bearing positions) were in the hands of the king, and the king himself was elected by powerful officials. Kings sought and held office with the assistance of a kanda. Each kanda (plural: makanda) was a faction which organized people according to a common goal, often but not always rooted in a kin-based relationship. Kandas generally took the name of a person (i.e. Nimi, Nlaza or Mpanzu), but could also take the name of a location or title such as Mbala (court) ) or birthplace (Kwilu or Nsundi ). The Kikongo prefix "ki" is added onto these names to mean "people with something in common". These factions were recorded as gerações or casas (lineages or houses) in Kongo documents written in Portuguese. Until the mid-seventeenth century, following the Battle of Mbwila, these factions were short-lived and fluctuating, but following the battle, factions were much firmer and lasted for generations, particularly the Kimpanzu and Kinlaza. The Quilombo dos Palmares, a Maroon kingdom formed in Northeast Brazil, was founded by princes and nobles who were enslaved and transported to Portuguese Brazil after the battle in Kongo. There, they retained their titles and their lineage survived even after the kingdom itself was destroyed.

Dynasties
When the Portuguese arrived in Kongo in 1483, the reigning king represented the Nimi kanda. This kanda was probably descended from Nimi a Nzima, father of the founder of Kongo. Divisions emerged within the kanda during succession disputes, for example, following the death of Afonso I in 1542, his son Pedro I and grandson Diogo I formed two opposed factions, that of Pedro was called the Kibala (court) faction, and the other, whose name is unknown that followed Diogo. Other elections in the sixteenth century probably also involved similar factions, though the details are unknown.

King Álvaro I was the first king of the House of Kwilu (Portuguese: Coulo). This kanda or lineage was named for the birthplace of Álvaro, north of the capital city. The Kwilu reigned until 1614 when Antonio da Silva, Duke of Mbamba intervened to place Bernardo I on the throne, in place of Álvaro II's minor son, who would eventually take office as Álvaro III.

Another kanda, the House of Nsundi, later known as the Kinkanga a Mvika, took control of Kongo in 1622 under Pedro II, and retained it through the reign of his son, Garcia I. Garcia never held power strongly, and the Kimpanzu returned to power under Ambrosio I. Kimpanzu domination ended in 1641 when two brothers Álvaro and Garcia of the new House of Kinlaza overthrew Álvaro V and took power. The members of the Kikanga a Mvika were all killed or absorbed into the Kinlaza by 1657. The Kinlaza dynasty would reign until Kongo's catastrophic civil war following the 1665 Battle of Mbwila, when sporadic and violent alternation followed.

The capital was destroyed in 1678. Its destruction forced the claimants from both sides of the conflict to rule from mountain fortresses. The Kinlaza retreated to Mbula where they founded the capital of Lemba. Earlier another branch of Kinlaza, under the leadership of Garcia III of Kongo founded a settlement at Kibangu. The Kimpanzu based their struggle for the throne at Mbamba Luvota in the south of Soyo. A new faction appeared in the form of the Água Rosada kanda, headquartered at the mountain fortress of Kibangu. This might be considered a new house formed from both the Kinlaza and Kimpanzu, its founders were the children of a Kimpanzu father and a Kinlaza mother. All parties claimed kingship over Kongo (or what was left of it), but their power rarely held beyond their fortresses or the immediately surrounding area.

The country was finally reunited by Pedro IV of the Água Rosada kanda. Pedro IV declared a doctrine of shared power by which the throne would shift (in due time) from Kinlaza to the Kimpanzu and back., while the Água Rosada appear to have continued as neutral in Pedro's fortress of Kibangu.

The system functioned sporadically, with considerable fighting, until 1764 when José I of the Kinlaza faction usurped the throne and thrust the country back into civil war. The Kinlaza enjoyed a short-lived second dynasty that ended in 1788. After that, the throne moved through various royal hands until the kingship was extinguished in 1914.

Elections
The selection of kings of Kongo was by a variety of principles, as kings themselves evoked different methods of selection in their letters announcing their succession. Typically the kingdom was said to pass by election, though the electors and the process they used changed over time and according to circumstances. Frequently election seems to have been a combination of elective and hereditary principles.

Kings of Kongo
The following section is divided into periods based on kanda or house rulership. Most houses reigned of a distinct period with few if any intervals. This is not the case, however; after the Kongo Civil War. During this period you will note the name of each king's kanda alongside their reign.

Ancestors of later rulers
According to oral tradition, the first king was the son of chief Nimi and his consort of unknown name, Mwene Mbata's daughter. Most of the succeeding dynasties either claim descent from this union or otherwise derive their legitimacy from it.

Civil War (1665–1709)
Kings of São Salvador (1665–1678 and 1691–1709)

Kings of Kibangu for the House of Kinlaza (1678–1704)

Kings of Nkondo for the House of Kimpanzu (1666–1709)

Awenekongo of Lemba-Mbula for the House of Kinlaza (1669–1716)

Mwenekongo of Mbamba-Lovata for the House of Kimpanzu (1678–1715)

Reunification and Elective Monarchy (1709–1888)

 * Pedro IV Nusamu a Mvemba of the House of the Agua Rosada (ruled Kibangu December 1695 – early 1709; ruled reunited kingdom from São Salvador February 1709 – 21 February 1718)
 * Manuel II Mpanzu a Nimi of the House of Kimpanzu (ruled February 1718 – 21 April 1743)
 * Garcia IV Nkanga a Mvandu of the House of Kinlaza from Mbula (ruled 27 July 1743 – 31 March 1752)
 * Nicolau I Misaki mia Nimi of the House of Kimpanzu (ruled 27 August 1752 – post 1758)
 * Afonso IV Nkanga a Nkanga of the House of Kinlaza
 * António II Mvita a Mpanzu of the House of Kimpanzu
 * Sebastião I Nkanga kia Nkanga of the House of Kinlaza
 * Pedro V Ntivila a Nkanga of the House of Kimpanzu (ruled September 1763 – 1764)
 * Álvaro XI Nkanga a Nkanga of the House of Kinlaza from Nkondo (ruled May 1764 – 1778)
 * José I Mpasi a Nkanga of the House of Kinlaza (ruled 1778–1785)
 * Afonso V of Kongo of the House of Kinlaza from Nkondo (ruled 1785–1787)
 * Álvaro XII of Kongo of the House of Kinlaza from Nkondo (ruled 1787–unknown)
 * Aleixo I Mpanzu a Mbandu (ruled unknown–1793)
 * Joaquim I of Kongo (ruled 1793–94)
 * Henrique II Masaki ma Mpanzu (ruled 10 January 1794 – 1803)
 * Garcia V Nkanga a Mvemba (ruled 1803 – start 1830)
 * André II Mvizi a Lukeni (ruled start 1830–1842)
 * Henrique III Mpanzu a Nsindi a Nimi a Lukeni (ruled 1842 – January 1857)
 * Álvaro XIII of Kongo, also known as Ndongo, (ruled January 1857 – 7 August 1859)
 * Pedro V of Kongo, also known as Elelo, (ruled 7 August 1859 – February 1891; signed treaty of vassalage with Portugal in 1888)

Pretenders to the throne since 1914

 * Álvaro XV Afonso of Kongo, also known as Nzinga, (ruled 1915–1923)
 * Pedro VII Afonso of Kongo (ruled 1923–1955)
 * António III Afonso of Kongo (ruled 1955–1957)
 * Isabel Maria da Gama of Kongo (f., 1st regency 1957–1962)
 * Pedro VIII Afonso of Kongo, also known as Mansala, (ruled September to October 1962)
 * Isabel Maria da Gama of Kongo (f., 2nd regency 1962–1975)
 * Interregnum, 1975–2000
 * Josè Henrique da Silva Meso (claimant to the title since 19 November 2000 and said to be the grandson of Pierre VII and living in exile in Cabinda).

The head of the nucleus of the Traditional Authorities of the Royal Court of Kongo is Afonso Mendes and is living in Mbanza-Kongo

Brazilian branch of Palmares
The Quilombo dos Palmares was a Maroon Kingdom formed in the Captaincy of Pernambuco in what is now Northeast Brazil sometime around 1605 by princes and nobles from the Kingdom of Kongo. They had been captured during the Battle of Mbwila, and were subsequently transported there as slaves. After escaping slavery, they resumed use of their royal and noble titles. The members of this branch probably belonged to the House of Awenekongo of the Nlaza kanda of Antonio I.

 * Ganga Zumba, King (ruled 1630–1678). A son of Princess Aqualtune, daughter of an unidentified king of Kongo. She was present at the Battle of Mbwila.
 * Ganga Zona, King (ruled 1678–1678). A brother of Ganga Zumba.
 * Zumbi, also known as Francisco, King (ruled 1678–1695). A nephew of Ganga Zumba, son of his sister Princess Sabina. Today, a National Hero in Brazil.
 * Camuanga, King (ruled 1695–?). A son of Zumbi and the last known member of the lineage in the Americas.

title: List of rulers of Kongo


text:
Talk:List of rulers of Kongo

Version of names
This list contains many Anglicized Portuguese names that should be converted back to the actually Portuguese names as is now standard practice among historians. Also it would be good to add more of these kings African names. Rmhermen 00:53, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using the anglicized names, it is very common for monarch of the period.---moyogo 10:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

List according to Batsikama (1971)

 * Muzinga a Nkuwu Ndo Nzao +1506
 * Mpanzu a Muzinga 1506-1507
 * Mubemba a Muzinga Ndo Funsu 1507-1542
 * Muzinga a Mubemba Ndo Petelo 1542-1543
 * Mpanzu a Muzinga Ndo Fula 1543-1544
 * Muzinga a Mpanzu Ndo Dyoko 1544-1561
 * Muzinga a Mpanzu Ndo Funsu 1561
 * Muzinga a Mpanzu Ndo Mbeledanu 1561-1567
 * Mpanzu a Muzinga Ndo Diki 1567-1568
 * Mpanzu a Muzinga Ndo Luvwalu 1568-1578
 * Muzinga a Mpanzu Ndo Luvwalu 1578-1614
 * Muzinga a Mpanzu Ndo Mbele 1614-1615
 * Muzinga a Mpanzu Ndo Luvwalu 1615-1622
 * Mubemba a Muzinga Ndo Petelo 1622-1624
 * Mubemba a Muzinga Ndo Ngalasia 1624-1626
 * Mubemba a Muzinga Ndo Bolozi 1626-1631
 * Mubemba a Muzinga Ndo Luvwalu 1631-1636
 * Mubemba a Muzinga Ndo Luvwalu 1636-1638
 * Mpanzu a Muzinga Ndo Luvwalu 1641-1663 ? (1638-1641 maybe)
 * Muzinga a Muzinga Ndo Ngalasia 1641-1663
 * Mubemba a Muzinga Ndo Ntoni 1663-1665
 * Mpanzu a Muzinga Ndo Luvwalu 1666-1669
 * Mpanzu a Muzinga Ndo Luvwalu 1669
 * Mpanzu a Mubemba Ndo Lufwayi 1669-1678
 * Mpanzu a Mubemba Ndo Nanyele 1678-1680

This list was found in Histoire générale du Congo, by Isidore Ndaywel è Nziem. The NB about it says "Batsikama fait intervenir également les éléments de la tradition orale en même temps qu'il transcrit les prénoms des rois en langues Kongo", meaning the Kongo names come from oral tradition. The names are overlapping with the Portuguese or the anglicized ones: Nanyele = Daniel, Luvwalu = Alvaro, Funsu = Afonso, Dyoko = Diogo, Bolozi = Ambrosio, etc.---moyogo 10:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have added an new list at the end of the two presently posted. My list is based on a careful reading of all the extant manuscript and printed sources, including some that are not widely known, a summary of which is found in my introduction. I believe it to be authoratative and would like to make it the primary list.

I have given the names in Portuguese orthography, as this is the one that they themselves used in their substantial correspondence, most kings who ruled for any time left at least one letter. I have modernized their Kikongo names using the orthography in common use in Kikongo language historical texts such as Kinkulu kia Nsi Eto.

Some Corrections
Props to Shiraz4 for the organizing of the Kongo kings into houses. However, there are errors in the assignment which I have sought to correct. In the seventeenth century, it's clear that the acession of Alvaro I marks the advent of the house of Kwilu, and the other houses are also well documented. For the later 18th and 19th century we need to do more research before we can assign house membership, as, although sources of the time refer to two or three houses, they don't always name them (this would be the Castello de Vide and Raimondo da Dicomano reports). Hints about this are found in traditions, as recorded in Nkutama a mvila za makanda, and Kinkulu kia Nsi Eto, and their names might still be recoverable. However, to do this would be to provide original research and until that is published it seems premature to put it in Wikipedia. I asked about these matters when I did field research at Mbanza Kongo in 2002 but no one seems to know about this these days.

I have tried to fix the lists for the late seventeenth century, but have a lot of problems in grouping the kings. The lineage idea is intersting, but the division into lineage dynasties doesn't really work. We need to come up with a better way to show this information, right now there are still errors in presentation.

 * hi and thanks for catching some of my mistakes. however, i must contest at least one point.  Pedro II was definately not part of the house/kanda of Kwilu.  He established the House of Nsundi also called the house of Kinkanga.  i'm pretty confused on the Kwilu kanda in general and I will refrain from making any further edits to that branch.  A new book I came across fills in the holes on at least some of the later rulers in respect to their kandas.  i'll keep you posted.  god willing we'll hammer this baby out.  cheers!Scott Free 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Palmares addition
I do not think that the description of Palmares as having been founded by a branch of the Kongo royal family to be accurate in any way, and I plan to delete this section.

Most of the slaves brought to Brazil during the formation of Palmares were from the Kimbundu-speaking parts of Angola, not the Kingdom of Kongo. This is demonstrated by the Kimbundu form of names, such as ngana (=lord in Kimbundu) as a title. The local name of the kingdom of Palmares was Angola Janga, which is both Kimbundu and clearly refers to Angola and not Kongo or Congo. Several Portuguese reports tell us that that the language spoken in Palmares was Kimbundu (or the "lingua de Angola"). When the Portuguese governor of Angola exiled the puppet branch of the Ndongo ruling family, following their siezure of Pungo Andongo in 1671, they deliberately did not send them to Pernambuco for fear that they would escape to Palmares and be recognized there as kings.

I have no doubt that some Kongos were found in Palmares, even quite a considerable number, but there is no evidence in the written record, either in Recife, in Lisbon, or in Coimbra, to support any part of the claims in this entry.

I will wait for about ten days, and then, barring further discussion, delete this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dom Alvaro II of Kongo.jpg

Afonso and Pedro drawings by Jacques Grasset de Saint-Sauveur
Hello, can someone help me.

There are drawings (Roi de Congo and Roi de Loango) by Jacques Grasset de Saint-Sauveur that were each posted next to Pedro and Afonso names.

LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) didn ´t even say they are Pedro I Nkanga a Mvemba and Afonso I Mvemba a Nzinga in descriptions. https://collections.lacma.org/node/208546 https://collections.lacma.org/node/208545

https://books.google.com/books/about/Encyclop%C3%A9die_des_voyages.html?hl=fr&id=2D0TAAAAQAAJ Encyclopédie des voyages, Volume 1 by Jacques Grasset de Saint-Sauveur : Nothing indicated that they are Afonso and Pedro (page 51 and previous pages). Somebody040404 (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:List of rulers of Kongo


text:
User talk:Kathryn McNamara

Hi, Kathryn.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed that you made a contribution to the talk page of the Wiki article, which seems to be a popular place for new contributors to start practicing their Wiki-fu :-)

In case you didn't know, there is a dedicated "practice page": Sandbox. You can try anything there, and are actively encouraged to do so.

If you are interested in Australian Mist cats, you might be interested in the article we already have on the subject. You can edit the page directly if you'd like to make some corrections or improvements. Alternatively, you can become the first person to discuss the article on its talk page. Finally, in the interests of fairness (and legality!), Wikipedia has policies in place to ensure that we do not accidentally "borrow" copyrighted material (see here for instance). Again, this is not an issue if you're just experimenting, but please bear it in mind when contributing to articles.

I hope you enjoy your time here and decide to stay!

chocolateboy 00:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Chocolateboy. I am Wiki'ing away and it is FUN.

 * Hi there. I have taken the liberty to fix the links on your user page to correct internal links - if you really want external links you should format them like Alternative text (note its just a single bracket). I also move the sandbox article you create to User:Kathryn McNamara/Sandbox as you created it in the wrong namespace - if it really was just a test add a . andy 17:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kathryn McNamara


text:
Tori shogi

Tori shōgi (禽将棋 or 鳥将棋, 'bird chess') is a variant of shogi (Japanese chess), which was invented by Toyota Genryu in 1799 despite being traditionally attributed to his master Ōhashi Sōei. It was first published in 1828 and again in 1833. The game is played on a 7×7 board and uses the drop rule; it is the only traditional shogi variant, possibly besides wa shogi, to do so. This is one of the more popular shogi variants. There were tournaments in London and Royston in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Objective
The objective of the game is to capture your opponent's phoenix.

Game equipment
Two players, Black and White (or 先手 sente and 後手 gote), play on a board ruled into a grid of 7 ranks (rows) by 7 files (columns). The squares are undifferentiated by marking or color.

Each player has a set of 16 wedge-shaped pieces, of slightly different sizes. From largest to smallest (or most to least powerful) they are:

 * 1 phoenix
 * 1 falcon
 * 2 cranes
 * 2 pheasants
 * 2 quails (a left and a right)
 * 8 swallows

In line with the bird theme, each piece is named after a different kind of bird.

Each piece has its name in the form of a kanji written on its face. On the reverse side of some pieces is another character, often in a different color (commonly red instead of black) and are usually cursive; this reverse side is turned up to indicate that the piece has been promoted during play. (The quail are different: on one side is the character for "quail", while on the other is the character for left or right; some people will play with the "left"/"right" side up instead of the "quail" side up.)

The pieces of the two sides do not differ in color, but instead each piece is shaped like a wedge, and faces forward, toward the opposing side. This shows who controls the piece during play.

Table of pieces
Listed here are the pieces of the game in English and Japanese:

The first pronunciation of each piece is the Japanese pronunciation, while the second is the Sino-Japanese pronunciation. The promoted pieces (*) are usually called eagle and goose in English.

Setup
Below is a diagram showing the setup of the pieces. Black pieces are in bold face in the first diagram, and bigger in the second, and move first:

Gameplay
The players alternate making a move, with Black moving first. (The traditional terms 'black' and 'white' are used to differentiate the sides during discussion of the game, but are no longer literally descriptive.) A move consists of moving a single piece on the board and potentially promoting that piece, displacing (capturing) an opposing piece or dropping a captured piece onto an empty square of the board. Each of these options is detailed below.

Movement and capture
An opposing piece is captured by displacement: That is, if a piece moves to a square occupied by an opposing piece, the opposing piece is displaced and removed from the board. A piece cannot move to a square occupied by a friendly piece (meaning another piece controlled by the moving player).

Each piece on the game moves in a characteristic pattern. Pieces move either orthogonally (that is, forward, backward, left, or right, in the direction of one of the arms of a plus sign, +), or diagonally (in the direction of one of the arms of a multiplication sign, ×).

Many pieces are capable of several kinds of movement, with the type of movement most often depending on the direction in which they move. The movement categories are:

Step movers
Some pieces move only one square at a time. (If a friendly piece occupies an adjacent square, the moving piece may not move in that direction; if an opposing piece is there, it may be displaced and captured.)

The step movers are the phoenix, falcon, crane, and the 8 swallows on each side.

Limited ranging piece
The eagle can move along a limited number (2) of free (empty) squares along a straight line in certain directions. Other than the limited distance, it moves like ranging pieces (see below).

Jumping pieces
The pheasant and goose can jump, that is, they can pass over any intervening piece, whether friend or foe, with no effect on either.

Ranging pieces
The quail and eagle can move any number of empty squares along a straight line, limited only by the edge of the board. If an opposing piece intervenes, it may be captured by moving to that square and removing it from the board. A ranging piece must stop where it captures, and cannot bypass a piece that is in its way. If a friendly piece intervenes, the moving piece is limited to a distance that stops short of the intervening piece; if the friendly piece is adjacent, it cannot move in that direction at all.

Promotion
A player's promotion zone consists of the two farthest ranks, at the original line of the opponent's falcon and beyond. If a piece crosses the board within the promotion zone, including moves into, out of, or wholly within the zone, but not including drops (see below), then that player must promote the piece at the end of the turn. Promotion is effected by turning the piece over after it moves, revealing the name of its promoted rank.

Promoting a piece has the effect of changing how that piece moves until it is removed from the board (see above). Only two pieces promote, as follows:

 * A falcon promotes to an eagle.
 * A swallow promotes to a goose.

When captured, pieces lose their promoted status.

Individual pieces
Below are diagrams indicating each piece's movement. Pieces with a grey heading start out in the game; those with a blue heading only appear on the board after promotion. Betza's funny notation has been included in brackets for easier reference.

Drops
Captured pieces are truly captured in tori shogi. They are retained "in hand", and can be brought back into play under the capturing player's control. On any turn, instead of moving a piece across the board, a player can take a piece he has previously captured and place it on any empty square, facing the opponent. The piece is now part of the forces controlled by that player. This is termed dropping the piece, or just a drop.

A drop cannot capture a piece; that requires an additional move.

Pieces that are dropped in the promotion zone do not promote as a result: Promotion requires that piece make a normal movement on a subsequent turn, as detailed under "Promotion", above. Pieces that are promoted when captured lose that promotion; they are unpromoted when dropped back on the board.

There are three restrictions when dropping swallows:

A swallow may not be dropped on the furthest rank, since it would have no legal move on subsequent turns.

A swallow cannot be dropped into the same file (vertical column) as two other unpromoted swallows controlled by the same player. (A goose, or promoted swallow, does not count as a swallow when considering this drop restriction.)

A swallow cannot be dropped where the opponent would have no way to prevent his phoenix being captured on the next move. In other words, a swallow cannot be dropped to give immediate checkmate.

Check and mate
When a player makes a move such that the opponent's phoenix could be captured on the following move, the move is said to give check to the phoenix; the phoenix is said to be in check. If a player's phoenix is in check and no legal move by that player will get the phoenix out of check, the checking move is also mate, and effectively wins the game.

A player is not allowed to give perpetual check. This is not a rule in itself, but arises from the repetition rule. Either the checker has to break off the checking, or the checked side has to stop evading, after which his phoenix is captured.

Repetition
The rule for repetition (千日手 sennichite) in tori shogi is that if the same position occurs three times with the same player to play by repetition of moves, the player starting the sequence must vary the move. For two positions to be considered the same, the pieces in hand must be the same, as well as the position on the board.

Game end
A player who captures the opponent's phoenix wins the game. In practice this rarely happens, as a player will resign when checkmated, as otherwise when loss is inevitable.

A player who makes an illegal move loses immediately. (This rule may be relaxed in casual games.)

Handicaps
Games between players of disparate strength are often played with handicaps. In a handicap game, one or more of White's pieces is removed before the start of play, and White plays the first move of the game. Note that the pieces removed at the beginning play no further part in the game—they are not available for drops. The imbalance created by this method of handicapping is not as strong as it is in chess, because material advantage is not as powerful in tori shogi as in chess.

Common handicaps, in increasing order of size, are as follows:
 * Remove White's left quail
 * Remove White's falcon
 * Two pieces: remove White's falcon and left quail
 * Three pieces: remove White's falcon and both quails

Other handicaps are also occasionally used. The relationship between handicaps and differences in rank is not universally agreed upon.

Game notation
The method used in English-language texts to express shogi moves was established by George Hodges in 1976. It is derived from the algebraic notation used for chess, but differs in several respects. Modifications have been made for tori shogi.

A typical example is Sw-6d. The first letter represents the piece moved: Sw = swallow, Q = quail, Pt = pheasant, Cr = crane, Fa = falcon, Ph = phoenix. Promoted pieces have a + added in front of the letter, as +Sw for a goose (promoted swallow). The designation of the piece is followed by a symbol indicating the type of move: - for an ordinary move, x for a capture, or * for a drop. Next is the designation for the square on which the piece lands. This consists of a number representing the file and a lowercase letter representing the rank, with 1a being the top right corner (as seen from Black's point of view) and 7g being the bottom left corner. (This method of designating squares is based on Japanese convention, which, however, uses Japanese numerals instead of letters. For example, the square 2c is denoted by 2三 in Japanese.)

If a move requires the player to promote the piece, then a + is added to the end to signify that the promotion was taken. For example, SWx4a+ indicates a swallow capturing on 4a and promoting.

In cases where the above notation would be ambiguous, the designation of the start square is added after the designation for the piece in order to make clear which piece is meant. For example, if Black has a crane at both 3c and 5c, which can be moved to the square 4b in front of the phoenix, then these are distinguished as Cr5c-4b (moving the left one) and Cr3c-4b (moving the right one). Optionally, a prefix may be added to the quail to distinguish the left quail from the right quail, LQ and RQ, when the left quail appears to the right of the right quail.

Moves are commonly numbered as in chess. For example, the start of a game might look like this: 1. Swx3c  Swx5e 2. Fax5e  Fax3c 3. Cr-5f  Q-1b

In handicap games White plays first, so Black's move 1 is replaced by an ellipsis.

title: Tori shogi


text: Template:To do

title: Template:To do


text:
Talk:Modern architecture

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ccharity. Peer reviewers: Liyahyow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

4.1 - Cubist architecture (1910-1931) - International Style since 1932
Between 1910 and 1931 nobody was talking about International Style. In the US Hitchcock and Johnson transformed the Dutch term "De Stijl" into "International Style" in 1932. For the artistic language, "De Stijl"-group used the term "Cubist", see poster by Theo van Doesburg (1920) and the video. In many articles about "De Stijl", the terms Cubist and Cubist architecture are used.

In 1932, the International Style suggested, that only one relevant style of Modern architecture existed. In 2017 there is a different view on Modern architecture. Today we see 3 relevant movements of the 1920s, depending on the great influence on the development of Modern architecture until now:

Cubist architecture, architectural language with cubist forms, still influential (part of the skyscrapers, housing projects etc.)

Expressionist architecture, architectural language with expressionist forms, still influential (Sydney Opera House etc.)

Constructivist architecture, architectural language with elements of construction, still influential (High-Tech architecture etc.)

The three terms Cubist-, Expressionist- and Constructivist-architecture are familiar, because they give information about the architectural form. In the term International Style, information about the architectural form is lacking.

My suggestion is, to use the title mentioned on top (for point 4.1) Leuk2 (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I respectfully disagree. I don't think the term Cubist architecture is appropriate here:  its not used in any source I've seen and it suggests a coherence and connection between cubist painting and architecture which I don't think really existed.  Its an oversimplification and is misleading. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Two different interpretations, a European and an American one. You are from California, I am from the country, where Ch.Jeanneret was born. I like the concept of the article Modern architecture you introduced a year ago. I think it's the most interesting article of all 44 versions in different languages. But until 21 October 2017, there was a missing part: No illustrations of the important and influential Dutch contributions on Modern architecture were added. (Perhaps the promotion of the term International Style in the US is stronger than the promotion of the Cubist architecture in the small country the Netherlands.)

Examples of Cubist architecture in Europe. In the article Arne Jacobsen the term "White Cubist architecture" is used in relation to the Weissenhof Estate in Stuttgart (1927), and in the article CIAM (1928) you can read: "CIAM promoted modern architecture in the 'Cubist style': the Bauhaus, Weissenhof, De Stijl et al." In Europe it would be incorrect to write, CIAM (1928) promoted the International Style.

Historical town and cubist architecture. In many (small) historical towns in Europe, conflicts arise by the mixture of traditional and cubist architecture, that often destroys the historical urban ensemble. In this situation we talk about the responsibility of the cubist architecture (not of the International Style).

Traditionalism. Beside the Cubist-, Expressionist- and Constructivist architecture is another influential style of the 1920s in Europe, called Traditionalism (architecture), see German and Dutch article. Today this traditional style is used for restoration of historical towns with the aim to get a more acceptable urban ensemble.

Coherence and connection. There are different Cubist movements in Europe; the most famous one was in Paris (painters) and another one in the Netherlands (painters and architects). In the Cubist movement "De Stijl" in the Netherlands, coherence and connection existed between the painters (Mondrian, van Doesburg et al.) and the architects (Oud, Rietveld et al.). The Cubist movement of "De Stijl" in the Netherlands was earlier than the Cubist architecture by Le Corbusier.

Oversimplification. In my opinion, the term International Style could be called an oversimplification. All three styles (Cubist-, Expressionist- and Constructivist architecture) are international styles and together they increase diversification. - Leuk2 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I disagree with much of this too. What is your source that states the Steiner house in Vienna by Adolf Loos (1910), is one of the first prototypes of Cubist architecture? I find this dubious because technically Cubism did not exist as a term before 1911. And, the first Cubist house wasn't until 1912: La Maison Cubiste. None of the sources I've looked at make the same claim as you. Finally, you have not yet answered a similar question I ask of you at Talk:De Stijl (De Stijl, International Style and Cubist architecture). Coldcreation (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Theo van Doesburg: The pioneers of "Cubist architecture" (1922)
in the Netherlands and in Germany

Theo van Doesburg published an article in the Dutch magazine "De Bouwwereld" 30/1922 (see WIKISOURCE) with the title 'De architect J.J.P. Oud "voorganger" der "kubisten" in de bouwkunst?' (Architect J.J.P. Oud "pioneer" of the "cubists" in architecture?). In this article Van Doesburg criticized the recent work by J.J.P. Oud in relation to "Cubist architecture". Van Doesburg accepted only the Villa Allegonda in Katwijk (J.J.P. OUD in collaboration with M. KAMERLINGH ONNES) as an example of "Cubist architecture". At the end of the article Van Doesburg named 5 Dutch architects which "must be called the real pioneers of 'Cubist architecture' ":

1. ROBERT VAN 'T HOFF - 1916, Villa Henny in Huis ter Heide

2. JAN WILS - 1921, Papaverhof in The Hague

3. GERRIT RIETVELD - 1921, Shop Kalverstraat 107 in Amsterdam

4. PAUW and HARDEVELD - 1921, Betonwoningen in Rotterdam

About the architectural development in Germany Van Doesburg was writing: "Since my stay and activities in Germany, the principles of 'De Stijl' are influential on architects such as: MEYER-GROPIUS (Theatre in Jena), FORBAT (Bauhaus-Siedlung), HILBERSEIMER, MENDELSOHN (Houses in Charlottenburg) and other architects." ... "For many young German architects, the Dutch architecture provides a new direction."

The conclusion of these statements is, that the European interpretation by Theo van Doesburg (Cubist architecture, 1922) should be combined with the American interpretation (International Style, 1932) by Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson. This combination would exclude a falsification of architectural history in Europe of the 1920s. The correct title in the main article should be formulated in the following sense:

4.1 Cubist architecture (1910-1931) - International Style since 1932

Leuk2 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent citations about "cubist architecture"?
The text cited, if I understand correctly, is from 1928. I've not seen any reference to cubist architecture in any of the recent histories of architecture and modern architecture cited in the article. Can you cite any recent recent book of architectural history that gives cubist architecture equal billing with modern architecture and modernism? Can you indicate some buildings which are described in recent books as examples of cubist architecture? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 * That Wikisource link utilizes quotes when referring to "so-called" "cubist architecture". It also states that "no so-called "cubist architecture" has been put into practice" and "The complexes of houses, with how much consultation and sense of good relations have also been put together, can not be used as examples of "cubist architecture"". I therefore agree with SiefkinDR that modern citations by qualified historians must be found, if any exist, before the expression cubist architecture is used here, or in the De Stijl article.
 * In a search for "cubist architecture" at GoogleBooks this came up: Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Architecture, edited by Stephen Sennott. Note: In relation to Czech "architectural history... the notion of Cubist architecture simply does not exist." There is a confusion between "cubist" and "cubic" in the relevant literature, as pointed out in the above link at the bottom of page 333. I suspected this might be the case, and that this confusion between "cubist" and "cubic" has blurred Leuk2 picture of modern architecture. Coldcreation (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This too may be of interest: Modern Architecture in Czechoslovakia and Other Writings, by Karel Teige: "...cubist architecture was not architecture but a second-rate, derivative form of applied art good only for sketching utopian monuments, which always remained on paper because of their technical impossibility." Coldcreation (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And this: Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review, edited by Marc Treib: "And while neither a true cubist architecture nor a true cubist garden ever really existed, several noted designers did employ shapes and features in their work that reflected the influence of cubism and purism." Coldcreation (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cubist architecture in Europe, citations
Czech Republic: Czech Cubism (Cubo-Expressionism), art and architecture movement, 1912-1914, see Wikipedia article.

France I: La Maison Cubiste by Raymond Duchamp-Villon, 1912. The architectural language of the Maison Cubiste is similar to the Czech Cubism (Cubo-Expressionism), see Wikipedia article.

France II: Cubist architecture by Le Corbusier et al. / "Indeed, the cubist influence is vividly evident in the various homes that Le Corbusier designed in the 1920s and is consummately realized in his Villa Savoye." - Steven Best, Douglas Kellner, in "The Postmodern Turn", New York-London 1997, page 141. / "Hejduk's analysis began with what one could see as expected readings of the Carpenter Center as a Cubist work of architecture..., that suggests a somewhat clear evolution of Cubism in architecture." - Steven Holl, in "House: Black Swan Theory", New York 2007, page 159.

Austria: Steiner House by Adolf Loos 1910, forerunner of cubist design principles of the International Style. / "Die kubistischen Gestaltungsprinzipien, die für die Entwicklung des »Internationalen Stils« der späten zwanziger und der dreißiger Jahre entscheidend waren, beim Haus Steiner vorweggenommen,... stehen in einer Linie mit den Tendenzen von Le Corbusier, der die Arbeiten Adolf Loos' kannte und schätzte." - Günther Feuerstein, in "Moderne Kunst in Österreich", Vienna 1965, page 16.

The Netherlands: "The earliest numbers of the review (De Stijl) published some of my works ... which I regarded as the first examples of a real cubist architecture…, also Dudok's cubism (brick cubism) derived from these works." - J.J.P. Oud, in Leonardo Benevolo, "History of Modern Architecture - Volume 2", Cambridge Mass. 1977, page 410. / "The architects Robert van 't Hoff, Jan Wils, Gerrit Rietveld, Pauw and Hardeveld must be called the real pioneers of 'Cubist architecture'." - Theo van Doesburg, in the Dutch magazine "De Bouwwereld" 1922 no.30, page 229-230.

Google Books citations. Leuk2 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I've already mentioned La Maison Cubiste (1912) as the earliest example of Cubism applied to architecture. Also above, Czech Cubism (Cubo-Expressionism) in architecture was "cubic", not "Cubist". As stated by Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Architecture: In relation to Czech "architectural history... the notion of Cubist architecture simply does not exist." Even if these architects were inspired by Cubism, and I'm sure some were, the experiments were short lived. Le Corbusier is well documented. He was not a Cubist, but a Purist. His architecture was not Cubist, though arguably inspired by it. There is a difference between Cubist-inspired and Cubism itself. The Steiner House (1910) is not at all Cubist architecture. The article confirms that fact. Nowhere is it mentioned. Finally, back to De Stijl. While also an off-shoot of Cubism, inspired by, or a reaction to it, De Stijl was not Cubism. And you have still not cited a source to back your claims made here or at Talk:De Stijl. Coldcreation (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note too, here at Wikipedia we do not use Wikipedia articles as sources or references. Coldcreation (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the exact translation in Dutch of "White Cubist architecture", and in which De Stijl magazine (date, issue number, page number) is it mentioned? Coldcreation (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Architect Oud was a prominent member of the De Stijl-movement. In the citation (9cm above) Oud was talking about two different cubist styles. The first term was "Cubist architecture" (=white cubist architecture). The second term was "Dudok's cubism" (=brick cubism with the colors of the bricks). - In the article De Stijl, the following architects (Oud, Rietveld, Wils) are presented as "Neoplasticists". In architecture publications (part of my job), nobody is talking or writing about "Neoplasticist architecture", because it is not useful in architecture. - The best translation of texts can be found in "Google Translate". - Leuk2 (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Witte kubistische architectuur"? There is nothing on the internet about this, except related to some houses in the Greek islands, nothing to do with modern architecture or Cubism. You wrote: "The Dutch magazine DE STIJL (editor-in-chief Theo van Doesburg) promoted the "White Cubist architecture"". In which publication does Doesburg mention "Witte kubistische architectuur"? Please provide a reliable and verifiable source, with date and page number(s).Coldcreation (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and here, white cubist architecture is mentioned in passing, but not as a particular style. It is not at all clear what that even means in the context of the article. Coldcreation (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cubist architecture (White Cubist architecture) - International Style
The term "Cubist architecture" is used by J.J.P.Oud in the "History of Modern Architecture" by Leonardo Benevolo. The term "White Cubist architecture" is used by prominent CIAM member Josep Lluís Sert in the article Peabody Terrace: to "bring the color and life of the Mediterranean to the white cubist architecture of northern Europe." The term "White Cubist architecture" is also cited in the article Arne Jacobsen and "Cubist style" in the article CIAM. The Dutch magazine DE STIJL (editor-in-chief Theo van Doesburg) promoted the "White Cubist architecture" among other themes.

Brick Cubism
The term "Dudok's cubism" (Brick Cubism) is used by J.J.P.Oud in the "History of Modern Architecture" by Leonardo Benevolo. - The Dutch magazine WENDINGEN (editor-in-chief H.Th.Wijdeveld) promoted different modern styles: Brick Cubism (Dudok, 4 issues), Expressionist architecture (de Klerk, 6 issues), Constructivist architecture (Van Nelle Factory, 1 issue), F.L.Wright architecture (8 issues), Traditionalist architecture and other themes. - In the Netherlands of the 1920s, two influential art and architecture movements existed: DE STIJL-movement (1917-1931) and the WENDINGEN-movement (1918-1931). - The term Brick Cubism is used analogously to Brick Expressionism.

Typical style of Modern architecture: Art Deco or Brick Cubism?
Leuk2 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Traditionalist architecture
Architectural movement since the beginning of the 20th century in Europe: Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany et al. Traditionalist architecture is a parallel movement to Cubist-, Expressionist- and Constructivist architecture since the 1920s. The early work of Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe et al. was realized in a traditionalist style. At the Delft TU in the Netherlands, Traditionalist architecture was a dominant movement from 1925-1955, promoted by M.J.Granpré Molière. See German and Dutch articles Traditionalismus (Architektur).

Leuk2 (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the montage are not, unfortunately, improvements
I don't think the recent changes to the lead montage are improvements. Why have a tiny black and white picture of Tatlin's tower, which was never built and never actually could be built, and leave out Saarinen's TWA terminal, which was one of the most influential buildings of the 20th century? It seems a little strange, and I don't think it accurately summarizes 20th century. I think the montage should contain a small number of buildings that were built and had a clear impact on architectural history, and where the images are big enough to be seen. It's a summary of the article. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, and will now proceed to revert it back to its original splendor. Coldcreation (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Coldcreation (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead montage not complete

In Modern architecture are three dominant styles: In the existing lead montage are no illustrations of Constructivist architecture. Examples of this style are: Tatlin's Tower maket 1919 year.jpg|Tatlin's Tower, model 1919-20 (Vladimir Tatlin) Openluchtschool - Open-air School (8157211576).jpg|Open air school in Amsterdam, 1928 (Jan Duiker) HK HSBC Main Building 2008.jpg|HSBC Hong Kong Headquarters, 1985 (Norman Foster) Pompidou center.jpg|Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris, 1977 (Piano and Rogers) Centre Beaubourg 2009.jpg|Centre Georges Pompidou  Leuk2 (talk), 12:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * International Style (Cubist architecture)
 * Expressionist architecture
 * Constructivist architecture (High Tech)

 * Not every important piece or style of architecture can, or should, be shown in the lead montage. As SiefkinDR stated above, "the montage should contain a small number of buildings that were built and had a clear impact on architectural history." (Also, no need to start a new section every time you post: the subject already has a header). Coldcreation (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 * See also Talk:Constructivist_architecture Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Years attributed to works
Why are the years attributed to the works referred to in the article the year the works were completed? Wouldn't it make more sense to date the works according to the year design of them commenced? You can't say that a work is a particular style just because it came to exist during that period if it was designed in the previous period. No architect could foresee the style that would be considered prominent in the year their work would be completed. I give the example of Jørn Utzon and the Sydney Opera House. His early works were designed in the era and style of Modernism, and indeed the year in which he designed the Sydney Opera House was 1956, yet the year given in the article for the Sydney Opera House is 1973 (the year of its completion and after Utzon had relinquished the completion of the project) - outside of the recognised Modernist timeline (as given on the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_architectural_styles) and within the Post-modernist era, giving what I believe is a false impression that his work was intended to be in the Post-modernist style, a style which he could not have foreseen 17 years prior. I think it would be more accurate to label the works of each architect in the year or year span in which the work was designed. RiffRaffMama (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, this article is a mess. Works need to be put in appropriate style section. Sagrada Familia wont be considered contemporary architecture when its finished, it will still be Gothic/Art Nouveau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.31.234 (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You deff should correct it, I will see delete nonsense that are 2 sections - early modernism in Europe and USA, makes no sense to just pile on early works of completely different styles and add Art Nouveau.MrStefanWolf (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Bad chronology and readability of article along with casual mistakes
Early modern architecture is definitely Art Nouveau which was in vogue 1890-1910 (section is unforgivably lacking, its only casually mentioned yet that is first modern style, Gaudi, Horta, Guimard not a single example given of those architects ). Birth of skyscraper should be in origin section. When sources are copied from Art Nouveau page along with photos style that follows is Art Deco. Inexplicably Art Deco is not dated unlike all other styles, it starts before WW1 and should therefore go before Bauhaus, expressionist, constructivist,international style (not even those 4 styles are in proper order). Article has overt American bias and focuses too much on American architecture and examples, especially in early origin, late 19th-early 20th century which are all in Europe. I assume that is why Art Nouveau is completely glanced over, it was called Tiffany style and there are little examples of it in USA. Théâtre des Champs-Élysées is not early modernism, it is early Art Deco and should be in that section. Stoclet Palace is Art Nouveau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.129.103 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Early modernism in Europe
There are massive issues with this article section in particular( I am sure some others have issues too). A lot of architects listed should be in separate Art Nouveau section that is not present in this article as of now, but I will make it while using some sources from this article and some from Art Nouveau. Antonio Gaudi, Victor Horda, Hector Guimard are not modernist architects. Art Nouveau was modern style as was Art Deco, but they are not modernist. If some more knowledgeable editor in architecture can improve article and correct potential mistakes along with better sources if they are possible I invite them to do itMrStefanWolf (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The work of Antoni Gaudí is Modernisme. Coldcreation (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, its modern in english term, there is confusion in translation of the terms. Also Vienna Secession is not modernist, its part of Art Nouveau and only modern. MrStefanWolf (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the work of Antoni Gaudí is not Modernisme? Coldcreation (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Mister Cold, what you are linking is just local Catalan varient of Art Nouveau, along with many local variants of Art Nouveau. See Vienna Secession, Stile Liberte, Tiffany Style etc. All Art Nouveau which is modern style in todays understending, they are not modernist. MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Confusion in terms modern and modernist
Some old links from 1979 in pages of architects still call them modern, while today they would be called modernist cause distinction is made for purely functional architecture without ornament and new and modern architecture but with ornament like Art Nouveau and Art Deco. Modern and Modernist are not same and even Royal Institute of British architects that I link in external source makes the distinction. Many confusion in this article cause it mixes 2 term but it is clear that it only relates to 1 (modernist) like the year given of beginning of modern architecture 1920s (its modernist actually). Modern architecture begins with 19th century, also article has heavy bias towards modernist architecture while reducing early modern and postmodernist architecture to footnotes. Modernist architects should not have sections dedicated to themselves with exception of maybe Corbusier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Disagree with the above. This article ia about the architecture of the 20th century which followed the Art Nouveau and the Art Deco.  It is commonly called modern architecture.  There are separate article on those other periods, and the periods that followed. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this article is about modern architecture which starts in late 19th century. Modernist architecture is timeline that was given, which is factually wrong. I was thinking about starting Modernist architecture article, maybe someone can help me out with that cause i am not that knowledgebla about it ? MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Heavy modernist and especially american modernist bias
Absolutely nothing warrants multiple sections for post war american architects. Why are there so many examples of numerous american architects with their section? I nominate some to be deleted, Richard Neutra and Charles & Ray Eames, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill and Wallace K. Harrison,Philip Johnson, Louis Kahn, I. M. Pei, Eero Saarinen.MrStefanWolf (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 * There is no reason to delete major Architects because they're American. They played a central part in the architecture of the period Also odd that you should want to delete  I.M. Pei, born in China, Eero Saarinen, from Finland, Richard Neutra, born in Austria, and Louis Kahn, born in Russia.  SiefkinDR (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, they are all representatives of modernist style, absolutly nothign warrants them having their own section, and Gaudi for example being a footnote. I would leave Pei cause he will switch to postmodernism which is another underrepresented section in this article. Some just have to go.MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Modernist bias and bad order in front page pictures too
I will be removing JFK airport and Chicago skyline pictures and replacing them with european example of Art Nouveau and American Art Deco skyscraper. Will put them all in chronological order.MrStefanWolf (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , The JFK airport (TWA building) and Chicago skyline are perfect examples of modern architecture. Coldcreation (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC

 * Agree with Coldcreation, JFK airport and Chicago skyline are classic and frequently cited examples of modern architecture. Please do not remove. SiefkinDR (talk)
 * Well we have to have more representative gallery of all styles, you choose what to remove then. Cause all thats representated is modernist architecture, nothing else. No Art Nouveau, Art Deco or postmodernism. 5 pictures of only 1 stlye, something needs to be removed. Corbusier and Franks then, they both have their own sections MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Confusion
There's a great deal of confusion now in the article, particularly in the lead. The citation given, the book by Anne Bony, does not support the idea that Art Nouveau and Art Deco are part of modern architecture; she describes them as predecessors. One of the basic ideas of modern architecture, as described by Bony and other writers cited, is the absence of ornament. Art nouveau and art deco, of course, are all about ornament. Also, Bony and others state clearly that Art Nouveau was not an architectural style but a movement with many different styles, and it came to a complete end with the First World War. This should be made very clear in the article.

Also, based on the above, it doesn't make any sense to me to include images of Art Nouveau and Art Deco buildings in this article, other than as possible predecessors; buildings such as the Palais Stocklet and Glasgow School of Art, for instance. Gaudi is an entirely style of his own, and doesn't fit into modern architecture, unless you're defining all the styles of the early 20th century as modern architecture. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No they are supported, even in Art Deco section, opening line is that Art Deco is modern but not modernist (which was in blatant contradiction with entire article that no one was fixing). Written by mister Anwar. Modernist definition with link given supports your writing about modern architecture (confusion in names stems also from older literature). Art Nouveau is considered style with different local variations but style, nothing less. Here is good basis for starting purely modernist article

along with link from RIBA. All literature supports that modern architecture starts in late 19th century which is Art Nouveau and they mention Gaudi one best representatives of style. Maybe we need to find some better and more clear source than Bony? MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Think you were right so I replaced it with Victor Anwar definition that is very clear and easy to understand, and hopefully wont lead to confusion.Also no offence to Anne Bony but she is not expert on Art Nouveau so its probably better to use sources from Art Nouveau focused booksMrStefanWolf (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Modernist architecture article needed
There are many confusions with usage of terms, not being reduced by many languages in Europe. Modernist architecture is today clearly defined as architecture that starts in 20th century and has disdain for ornament. - The Viennese architect Adolf Loos believed that the decoration of functional objects was inefficient and wasteful. His manifesto ‘Ornament and Crime’ became a key modernist text, in which he argued that avoiding ornament was ‘a sign of spiritual strength’.- Art Nouveau and Art Deco dont belong to this type of architecture. They however do belong, to modern architecture which starts with use of new materials and rejection of classicism and Beaux-Arts. Should I start Modernist architecture to make clear distiction and avoid further confusion ? Do we have some some swedish speakers here ? Article Modernistik architecture is perfect for Modernist architecture in English.. Misters SiefkinDR and Coldcreation maybe you guys could be on it, and I think we should expand postmodernism section and include New Architecture and focus on sustainability that will dominate the profession since 1985. Think we should expand years of modern architecture to 2000 since I think thats widely accepted, 21th century is considered contemporary so we would not include that.Another useful article that explains key difference between modern and modernist, while also defining modernist as stricly without ornament MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like to highlight huge overlap that this article has with International Style (architecture) that warrants need to remove focus and invdividual architects of modernism. Corbusier, Ludwig Mies are explained there in depth so in same way we wont have deep dive about Gaudi here we should not have deep dive about them. All same examples when it comes to building, philosophy etc. This should focus and all late 19th and entire 20th century architecture, so I will be expanding postmodernism section with new architecture and removing dedicated sections to all but handful of modernist architects.MrStefanWolf (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggestion to add sentence to Corbusier and Mies sections about CIAM (1928) if you deem necessary cause I will be deleting that section - Modernism becomes a movement: CIAM (1928). Only reason CIAM was important was cause of Corbusier and Mies and they are already discussed in extensive manner.MrStefanWolf (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No consensus on your drastic changes
Mr. Wolf, there is no consensus on many of the changes you are making. You are completely rewriting the article and disregarding the sources cited and the opinions of other editors. This is not how Wikipedia works. Please stop and take into account the views of other editors. Discuss before you change. Get consensus. Otherwise the changes you have made will all have to be have to reverted andwe will have to start over. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr. Siefkin, all content is sourced, I have made numeruos topics and started many conversations that are very needed. Fixed numerous contradictions, critical chronological errors and some overt bias. I dont think that consensus is needed for those pressing issues that this article has. Also many commentators sadly do not know difference between modern and modernist architecture and think this article is for modernist architecture. It is not, International Style (architecture) is the style many are disscusing here. We have at least 3 subsections leading to that style, why? We have rise of modernism, than international style, then both postwar USA and postwar Europe all linking to international style. Aloso have made suggestions for postmodern section to be expanded, Vienna Secession can be added to Art Nouveau cause it will influence modernism, but do not know will that be overlap with rise of modernism. We lack sustainable architecture that will start in 1990(and in many ways dominate architecture to this day).MrStefanWolf (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with . These types of changes (dealing with definitions of words such as Modernist, Modernism, Modernismo, Modernisme and Postmodernism, as related to architecture) are exactly why wikipedia functions by consensus. Until these and other issues are resolved, I will revert edits back to the last good version. Coldcreation (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok you obviously dont want to make this page useful and live up to its name, instead it is just more in detail version of International Style (architecture). Type of changes were not dealing only with definition (it did among other things) it dealt also with lacking chronology, lacking styles and blatant contradictions that are already provide in article. Like - Art Deco (which does not even have chronology)- The Art Deco architectural style (called Style Moderne in France), was modern, but it was not modernist; it had many features of modernism, including the use of reinforced concrete, glass, steel, chrome, and it rejected traditional historical models, such as the Beaux-Arts style and Neo-classicism; but, unlike the modernist styles of Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, it made lavish use of decoration and color- Yet article mistakenly uses modern and modernist interchangeably What about that ? I think I will nominate this page or International Style for deletion, probably this one (or large parts of it) cause it has so many inaccuracies. MrStefanWolf (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you will have to merge International Style and expand Art Nouveau, Art Deco and postomodernism cant tell yet or maybe this wil just be deleted and merged with Internatonal Style, cause Art Nouveau and Art Deco including post modernist already have their own articles.MrStefanWolf (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Art Deco, Art Nouveau, Bauhaus, Blobitecture, Brutalism, Constructivism, Contemporary, Critical regionalism, De Stijl, Deconstructivism, Expressionism, Functionalism, Futurism Googie, High-tech, International style, Mid-Century modern, Modernisme, Neo-Futurism ,Neomodern, New Classical, New Objectivity, Organicism, Postconstructivism, Postmodernism, PWA Moderne, Prairie School, Rationalist-Fascist, Stalinist, Streamline Moderne, Stripped Classicism, Structuralism - Just thought this is curios but small blue bar on bottom of all architecture articles that I checked gives all this styles as part of Modern architecture link.Maybe something to think about (some are not really styles but more of sub-styles yet Wikipedia thought they were important enough to be mentioned). Would also like to point out that Modernism also has its own separate blue bar yet in architecture section of it it only list architects.Food for thought MrStefanWolf (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, numerous styles are lacking, this entire article needs rewriting. Someone bold with a lot of time, patience and knowledge needs to take this on, it would probably take days, possibly weeks.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, afraid I do not have time for that.Already added certain styles that were lacking but (((some))) editors reverted it, good luck to brave soul that even tries it, big possibility it could just be waste of time cause it will get reverted.MrStefanWolf (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * you wrote above: "I was thinking about starting Modernist architecture article, maybe someone can help me out with that cause i am not that knowledgebla about it." That is precisely why your edits were reverted. That is why there is a talk page. Your text was reverted pending some form of consensus here at talk. So far, your merger propositions have met with little success. I would suggest making a list of proposed changes (potential improvements) in outline form. Or drafting a new version of the article in your Sandbox, then discussing it here. Coldcreation (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yea, then I saw there already is modernist article under name used in older literature - International Style. Yet that has nothing to do with modern architecture for which Wikipedia has already given all styles and sub-styles and links to this page. How can you not know that and still edit this page is beyond me. There is not even half styles that should be here, and you talking about modernist architecture is a cop-out. Cause I sure as hell always said I know about modern architecure, which is what this article is about. There is nothing to discuss, Wikipedia has already laid it out what they consider modern architecture (and if you look at timeline and what styles they consider all my changes on point). Best idea is to get uninvolved editors that will rewrite entire article, covering all styles and sub styles (it will take weeks for sure). Also I think you disqualified yourself by claims that Catalan Modernisme is modernist architecture (it is not) MrStefanWolf (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You must be confusing me with someone else. I wrote 'The work of Antoni Gaudí is Modernisme', (not that it is modernist architecture) in an attempt to understand what you were trying to say. Are you saying Modernisme should or should not be included in this article? Simple question. Coldcreation (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It obviously should, Wikipedia lists it(as should Art Nouveau that I added but some removed along with Gaudi who I also added to introductory list of architects).MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Antoni Gaudí and others of the period surrounding Art Nouveau are mentioned already. And now Modernisme is added to See also. What is your point? Coldcreation (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Point is that all listed styles and substyles should have their short sections with links to main articles. Mentioned in lead up to International Style (which is manner in which they are mentione) is not suffiecent and enough, otherwise Wikipedia would not list them all separatly. Dont even get me started on completely absent styles and wrong chronology (if modern architecture starts in 1920 as is given in article how can Art Nouveau be even mentioned), I think my point is crystal clear. I dont want to insult you but you seem incompetent on subject, no offense. MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Mrsefan I can maybe add some style and fix some chronology but I really cant rewrite it all, hope some editors do that.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Revert to my last changes and let someone competent take over (I dont have time), mister Cold is sadly out of his depth and does not know what is he talking about.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting behavior for a 24-hour-old user account. Coldcreation (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Users that do not talk about improving article need to be aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is unacceptable. Coldcreation (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Coldcreation I have reported you stop spamming this page, stop edit waring the article and stop with personal attacks on me! I HAVE TOLD YOU TO TAKE IT TO YOUR OWN TALK PAGES MULTIPLE TIMES, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Continue productive discussion starting here....

Merger proposal International Style (architecture)
I propose that International Style (architecture) be merged into Modern architecture and think that is reasonable action to take cause it meats all requirements as listed by Wikipedia: 1. Duplicate (same topic really) 2. Overlap, like it says in given reasons wikipedia is not dictionary and there is no need for separate entry for every concept. 3. Text, International Style (architecture) page is pretty short and could easily fit here and I think even elevate the quality of this article Quick look at both pages will make extent of overlap obvious, even same photographs are used.Would like to hear everyones opinion, especially if there are genuine architects.MrStefanWolf (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. International Style is a subset of the more general Modern architecture. International Style is notable enough, as evidenced from the literature on the style, to bare its own article. A merge would result in an exceedingly lengthy article, both can be expanded into longer cross-linked articles, the topics warrant their own articles, per WP:OVERLAP. Coldcreation (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure WP:OVERLAP is in favor of keeping separate articles, cause this article goes in much more depth than International Style (architecture) while repeating same subject. But lets see what everyone has to say, discussion is just starting. Thank you for your input Mr.Coldcreation. MrStefanWolf (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Coldcreation. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons given by Coldcreation. SiefkinDR 12:48, 12 October 2018

Dated sources in direct contradiction with other sources. Please improve
Found reason why certain users that we wont name have engaged in very heated argument, it had gone to the point of flat out insults. Source quoted in opening of article (Tietz 1999) is dated (new consensus in 21th century for definition of modern) and in direct contradiction with rest of sources used in this article. Please replace it with reliable and up to speed source and check and verify all sources used if possible (could be more contradictions). I ask users not to tag me and drag me in, in their personal vendettas. Thank you all and have a good day.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfounded allegation. What is your 'new' source? Coldcreation (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * SiefkinDR I would also like to ask you to revert all sections you deleted, and if something is not clear about why they are modern architecture I am here to help you.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Coldcreation My source is Bony Anne, most quoted source in this article. My father is architect so I have a lot of architecture literature.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jürgen Tietz. Coldcreation (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am afraid i find this link useless if you can make your point a little bit more clear, that would be helpful.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jürgen Tietz is a reliable source: Here are some of his publications. Coldcreation (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * His book from 1999 is not WP:AGE MATTERS. AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For a user account created 15:03, 11 October 2018, you sure learned how to WP:EDITWAR in a flash. Coldcreation (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will now report you for WP:VANDAL. I dont have malicious intent, unlike you and your sidekick.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree with mr. Augustus. Would also like to see my changes reverted by (((some))) users cause it looks like I was right all along MrStefanWolf (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Skyscrapers
Early skyscrapers are in Neo-Gothic and Beaux-Arts style which article clearly defines as NOT modernist so I will be removing it, plus article skyscraper is clearly separate topic where it is covered. If anyone wants to make case thar Beaux-Arts and Neo-Gothic are modernist they are welcome to try but I am afraid there is no argument to be had cause this article is clear. MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus
Please don't make any more drastic changes to the article unless you get consensus from other editors. Any changes without consensus will have to be removed. That's now Wikipedia works. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Paul Rudolph??
Any thoughts on the incorporation of Paul Rudolph into the article? Paul_Rudolph_(architect)

Unexplained deletions
Dear new user Marsianas: please do not delete entire sections, with citations, without any discussion first on the talk page. The origin of skyscrapers is an important part of the period. Also, please explain why you added the templates saying that the article is unsourced (it has a great many citations) and that the sources given are unreliable (they're standard and commonly-used sources). Unless you have a justification, these tags should be removed. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite of article
Major rewrite of article is needed. It has poor in-line citations, uses plethora of dated 20th century sources and relies heavily on Anne Bony-"L'Architecture Moderne". Outdated sources should be replaced, it should have better in-line citations аnd should not as heavily rely on single author.I tried to improve it incrementally but gave up on close inspection of work required.Koralvion (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

What are the "Insufficient" and "Unreliable" citations?

 * Please give specific examples of "unreliable" citations in the article. Do you consider that all books about architecture written in the 20th century are "unreliable?"

 * The article currently has about seventy citations, many of which are multiple; that seems about right for an article of this length. Please explain what parts of the article you think need more citations.

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg

Unbalanced tag
I'm adding this tag because there is seemingly arbitrary choice of which styles are covered and which are not. Quick example would be Art Nouveau, Futurism, Brutalism, etc. Another complaint is architects covered, why not cover Louis Sullivan, Antonio Gaudi? Considering extent of this article someone will always be left wanting when it comes to architects, so it's maybe best idea to focus on styles. Also, article doesn't follow chronology.Sourcerery (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See section 'Consensus' above. Coldcreation (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is adding tag considered drastic change?Sourcerery (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to make poll or voting if it's even possible but here are what it would be - First is I'm adding unbalanced tag, because of reasons already listed. Second I am adding expand by translating from German and French because those articles have more information than this one, especially combined, they would fill the gaps. Third we are not changing a thing, article is great as it is, no improvements needed. Fourth is none of those three and you add your own suggestion. I'm asking because I'm making some articles and I would link them to this article so reader can go on in-depth exploration. Problem is, styles on articles in question while modern, they aren't on this article.Sourcerery (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Other minor changes
Corrected factually incorrect statement: "The RCA Pavilion featured the first public television broadcasts" to "The RCA Pavilion featured early public television broadcasts" in the section on the New York World's Fair. The first public television broadcasts were made three years earlier by the BBC from Alexandra Palace in London. Tdb36 (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Problems with montage
The montage with its new additions doesn't represent the full range of modern architecture. Each image is supposed to be an iconic image that illustrates an important aspect of modern architecture. That's why the skylines of New York and Chicago were included in montages. How can you possibly have a credible montage on modern architecture without a single skyscraper? Please fix.SiefkinDR (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No montage of 6 photos is ever going to completely represent "the full range" of modern architecture. It was previously less representative - 4 of the 6 images were of USA subjects, and there was certainly no need for two US city skylines, which were both poor quality photographs and didn't illustrate anything of value. I have now added a good photo of the Empire State Building, and the montage now has photos of iconic buildings from Brazil, Germany, France, US (2) and Australia, and of those we now have two houses, a government executive admin, an opera house, a factory and a skyscraper - that is a more diverse representation than it was before. Note also that some of the info in the caption was wrong - Fallingwater is not in Pittsburg 86.56.92.163 (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Villa Camembert 08.jpg

"Modernist architect" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Modernist architect and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"Modernist architecture" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Modernist architecture and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Home Insurance Building.JPG

Wiki Education assignment: Writings in Architecture
— Assignment last updated by Berry2799 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Будинок держпромисловості 1.jpg

title: Talk:Modern architecture


text:
Mote

A mote is a small bit of substance, such as a fleck or particle.

Mote may also refer to:

Art and entertainment

 * The Motes, a Canadian indie-rock band active in the 1990s
 * "Mote", a song by Sonic Youth from their 1990 album Goo
 * "Mote", a song by The Faint on the 2001 vinyl EP recording Mote/Dust
 * Mote, a fairy character in A Midsummer Night's Dream
 * The Mote and the Beam, a parable
 * The Mote in God's Eye, a science fiction novel

Other uses

 * Mote (name) (including a list of people with the name)
 * Mote (food), various types of cooked grains consumed in South America
 * Mote con huesillo, a non-alcoholic drink from Chile
 * Mote spoon, a type of spoon used when preparing tea
 * Mote (sensor), a node in a wireless sensor network
 * Mote Park, a park in Maidstone, England
 * Mote Park (cricket ground), the home ground of The Mote Cricket Club within the park
 * Mote Marine Laboratory, a marine research organization in Sarasota, Florida, US

title: Mote


text:
From Her to Eternity

From Her to Eternity is the debut studio album by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, released in May 1984 on Mute. Produced by Flood and the band itself, the album's title is a pun on the James Jones novel, From Here to Eternity, and its subsequent 1953 film adaptation.

Background and production
After the breakup of Nick Cave's former band The Birthday Party, Cave formed a new project with former band member Mick Harvey. Cave and Harvey were joined by a semi-fluid group of bandmates, initially including Einstürzende Neubauten member Blixa Bargeld on guitar, Hugo Race on guitar, and former Magazine member Barry Adamson on guitar, bass, and piano. After some studio work, the band's premiere public performance was held on New Year's Eve, 1983 at the Crystal Ballroom in Melbourne, under the name "Nick Cave – Man Or Myth?", followed by a tour. The band then briefly called themselves "Nick Cave and the Cavemen" before adopting the "Bad Seeds" moniker, in reference to the final Birthday Party release, The Bad Seed EP.

The majority of the album was recorded at Trident Studios in London in March 1984. "Saint Huck", "Wings off Flies" and "A Box for Black Paul" were recorded at The Garden studio (owned by John Foxx) between September and October 1983. J.G. Thirlwell, an early member of the group, co-wrote "Wings Off Flies" and made uncredited instrumental contributions to the album, but departed early in the recording sessions due to creative disagreements and to work on his own solo material. The band is also seen playing a live performance of the title track in the 1987 Wim Wenders film Wings of Desire. This version, recorded at Hansa Studio, Berlin in February 1987, is included on CD reissues of the album.

Cave later said, "Well, I guess we weren't kicking people in the teeth anymore. I mean, it just became different. I wanted it to be more lyrically orientated and getting Blixa Bargeld from Einstürzende Neubauten in the group made an incredible difference. He's a completely kind of atmospheric guitarist and incredibly economical and it gave me room to breathe."

Critical reception
From Her to Eternity has been well received by critics. Trouser Press wrote that while "the album relies less on shock effects than any the Birthday Party ever made, the explosive parts are that much more effective." Chris Long of BBC Music described it as "imperfect, visceral, exciting and, ultimately, classic."

Mat Snow said it was, "one of the greatest rock albums ever made. Dynamic, subtly layered, funny and plain obsessive, From Her To Eternity is the work of a visionary unfettered by worship of the romantic rock'n'roll mythology, and which thus reaches peaks hitherto unscaled."

Pitchfork ranked it 63rd on their list "The 200 Best Albums of the 1980s", calling it "ghoulish to the point of ridiculousness, which is the entire point [...their] visceral hyperbole is something powerful, as though we’re hearing humankind’s palm read by a fortune teller with a cockeyed grin and a hand snatching your wallet."

2009 remaster
The album was remastered and reissued on 27 April 2009 as a collector's edition CD/DVD set, along with the three subsequent albums in the Bad Seeds catalog, namely The Firstborn Is Dead, Kicking Against the Pricks and Your Funeral... My Trial. The CD features the original 7-song vinyl LP's track listing, while "In the Ghetto", "The Moon Is in the Gutter", and "From Her to Eternity" (1987 version) are featured as bonus audio tracks on the accompanying DVD, rather than being sequenced into the album as in earlier CD pressings. The DVD also includes music videos from the time and the first installment of 'Do You Love Me Like I Love You', a 14-part documentary by Iain Forsyth and Jane Pollard.

Personnel
All personnel credits adapted from From Her to Eternity's album notes, unless otherwise noted.

 * Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
 * Nick Cave – lead vocals, Hammond organ
 * Barry Adamson – bass, backing vocals
 * Blixa Bargeld – guitar, slide guitar, backing vocals
 * Mick Harvey – drums, piano, guitar, vibraphone, organ, backing vocals
 * Anita Lane (credited as band member, but does not perform on the album)
 * Hugo Race – guitar, backing vocals
 * J.G. Thirlwell (uncredited )

 * Technical personnel
 * Flood – engineering
 * Tim Tom – LP mastering

 * Design personnel
 * Marina – front cover photography
 * Jessamy Calkin – back cover photography

 * 2009 Collector's Edition Remaster personnel
 * Mick Harvey – executive production, 5.1 surround sound mixing
 * David Rowntree – executive production
 * Rachel Willis – executive production
 * Shaun Connon – executive production
 * Kevin Van Bergen – master-tape transfer
 * Kevin Paul – 5.1 surround sound mixing
 * Simon Heyworth – remastering
 * Amy Hanson – sleeve notes
 * Anne Carruthers – co-ordination
 * MJ Salisbury – co-ordination

title: From Her to Eternity


text:
User talk:Aliman

Atheism and Spirituality:
Atheism is essentially used in two ways, the first generally used in the Western World, is really a synonym for the results of rationalism (see also philosophy of science). However, there are religions such as Buddhism which do not have deities but have key concepts that are incompatible with rationalism. Subud seems to fall into this latter category. However, on their website they appear to use the word "God" as a synomym for "Universe", as a rather vague concept less well defined as Abrahamic monotheism but a deity nevertheless. My main problem with Subud is that it is obscure. With you having a perfectly legitimite interest in it, perhaps it might be worthwhile to wait until somebody more neutral writes about it. Atheism is a controversial issue (see talk:atheism), so we need to tread carefully. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:34, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear Duncharris,

Indeed! The Humanist Manifesto II, in part, says that:

--Authoritarian religion does a disservice to humanity; --There isn't enough evidence for the supernatural; --Nature is primary rather than God; --God won't save us, we must save ourselves; and, --Fear of Hell is harmful because it takes the focus away from life here and now.

Many folks in Subud would agree with this. My particular viewpoint goes along the lines of Process theology, which is directly in line with these statements and other statements like them. The problem with your point of view above is that you are arguing against an outdated version of theism (from as far back as the Middle ages). Some of these outdated ideas are that God is omnipotent and thus controls everything, that human beings have little or no power and God determines human destiny, that God is a personal entity and is supernatural, that classical or authoritarian religion is acceptable, that theism cannot solve the problem of evil, etc. None of these ideas (and a host of others, see, e.g., "Ominpotence and Other Theological Mistakes" by Charles Hartshorne) make much sense to a process theist, or to those (some of which are in Subud) who are open-minded theists.

Also, I'm not sure what you're saying about Subud being "obscure." Could you clarify this? Aliman 09:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Subud
Oh golly, this is a bid old! I really don't know about subud, but would be concerned that persons with a certain philosophical view are pushing their own POV. This had something to do with the atheism article didn't it? In which case the mention of subud in atheism should be proportional to its importance within atheism. Does that help? Dunc|☺ 17:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Still not sure what you mean about having a problem with Subud being obsure.

 * What is the context around the statement about persons with certain philosophical views pushing their own point of view?

 * Certainly Subud is fairly unique because it embraces theists and (at least) weak atheists and agnostics. But I agree that very little energy should be spent on Subud within the atheism article.  Maybe one sentence, mentioning it, with a link to Subud just like other "spiritual" things that atheists could partake in and not contradict with their atheistic views.  Aliman 00:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia
I'm glad that there's some Subud folks interested in the Subud article on Wikipedia. I don't think there's any way around spending at least an hour or two in self-education about Wikipedia before editing articles. There are various commands to learn, and if you simply enter and make changes without knowing them, the text may not come out right. Also, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia which anyone may edit, and people are "watching" the Subud article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Watching_pages), and, e.g., if changes are made that violate the NPOV policy (Neutral_point_of_view), the changes made will just be deleted, and, yes, chaos may ensue. Some people in Subud have to learn how to write objectively about Subud. As well as the above links, I suggest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

I also suggest that people establish an identity for themselves and log-in every time. This way, we all know who's doing what. Wikipedia is about community, and thus it requires knowing who you're talking to. Aliman 18:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aliman


text:
Dixie Lee Junction, Tennessee

Dixie Lee Junction is an unincorporated community in Loudon County, Tennessee, United States, situated at the intersection of U.S. Route 70 (US 70) and U.S. Route 11 (US 11). The community is named for its historical location at the junction of the eastern leg of the Dixie Highway (which followed US 70 through the region) and the Lee Highway (which followed US 11). From the advent of automobile travel in the late 1920s until the construction of the Interstate Highway System in the late 1950s and 1960s, these two highways were major cross-country routes, and Dixie Lee Junction developed as a "last chance" stopover for tourists traveling southward from Knoxville. While the completion of the interstates drew away most of the cross-country traffic, the US 70/US 11 intersection still serves a strategic role as the western end of the four-lane Kingston Pike, a major commercial thoroughfare in western Knox County.

The Dixie Lee Junction community lies adjacent to the town of Farragut, with the Knox-Loudon county line (which runs perpendicular to Kingston Pike) being the technical boundary between the two communities. US 70 approaches Dixie Lee Junction from Kingston to the west, and US 11 approaches from Lenoir City to the southwest. The merged highways then continue eastward for 20 mi through Farragut and Knoxville. Two major interstate highways, Interstate 40 (I-40) and I-75, merge just northwest of Dixie Lee Junction.

The Dixie Highway was conceived in 1914 to provide a convenient route from the Midwestern United States to Florida. Its eastern section entered downtown Knoxville via Broadway before veering westward along Cumberland Avenue and out into West Knoxville along Kingston Pike. The Lee Highway, which connected New York and San Francisco, entered Knoxville from Bean Station to the northeast, and merged with the Dixie Highway in downtown Knoxville.

Knoxville lay along the Dixie Highway roughly halfway between the Midwestern states and Florida, and thus made a convenient place for Florida-bound tourists to stop for the night. Throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, Kingston Pike was lined with motor courts and motels, and restaurants with oddly-shaped buildings and flashy signs designed to catch the attention of passers-by. Businesses in Dixie Lee Junction during this period consisted of "last-chance" ventures that provided food, fuel, and other supplies before south-bound drivers entered a predominantly-rural stretch of the highway en route to Chattanooga.

Arts and culture
Ronnie James Dio's band Elf released a song "Dixie Lee Junction" about the community on their 1972 album Elf.

title: Dixie Lee Junction, Tennessee


text:
Manitoba Labour Party

The Manitoba Labour Party (MLP) was a reformist, non-Marxist labour party in Manitoba, Canada. It was created in early May 1910 as a successor to the province's second Independent Labour Party (1906–08). Former Member of Parliament Arthur Puttee was a leading MLP organizer. The party fielded one candidate in the 1910 provincial election, and also ran candidates at the municipal level.

The party's founding convention declared that "the ultimate object of attainment shall be to preserve to the worker the full product of his toil". The ambiguity of this statement was criticized by the more radical Socialist Party of Canada (SPC), which called for collective ownership in industry.

After the SPC nominated candidates for Winnipeg North and Winnipeg West in the 1910 provincial election, the MLP sought to prevent confrontation and vote-splitting by fielding only one candidate of their own: Fred Dixon in Winnipeg Centre. Dixon was a moderate reformer, and campaigned in an unofficial alliance with the Manitoba Liberal Party. He was bitterly opposed by the SPC, which belatedly nominated W.S. Cummings to run against him as a spoiler.

Dixon lost to the Conservative Party incumbent, Thomas Taylor, by seventy-three votes. Cummings's ninety-nine votes may have made the difference in the outcome. The SPC was widely blamed for Dixon's loss, and became marginalized in Winnipeg's labour community for the next eight years.

The Manitoba Labour Party dissolved after the 1910 election. In 1912, its leaders formed the Manitoba Labour Representation Committee.

title: Manitoba Labour Party