text:
Zygmunt Wojciechowski

Zygmunt Wojciechowski (27 April 1900 – 14 October 1955) was a Polish historian and nationalist politician. Born in 1900 in then-Austria, he obtained a doctorate from medieval history at Lviv University. In 1925 he moved to Poznań, where he became a full professor in 1929. In 1934-1939 he became politically involved with the nationalist party Endecja. During occupation of Poland by Nazi Germany he worked in Polish underground opposing German genocide of Poles by providing underground teaching, which was banned by German state and worked on future concept of Polish borders that would provide Poland with safety against any further German aggression. He supported an alliance with Soviet Union and after the war he continued to work as historian in People's Republic of Poland and headed Western Institute that studied former Polish territories recovered from Germany and history of Polish-German relations. He was a recipient of Commander's Cross and Officer's Cross of Order of Polonia Restituta.

Biography
Wojciechowski was born in Stryj near Lviv (Stryi, Ukraine), then Austro-Hungarian Galicia. In World War I he volunteered Piłsudski's Legion but was not deployed anymore.

In 1921, Wojciechowski began studying at the Jan Kazimierz University in Lwów, which had then just been re-incorporated in the re-created Polish state (now Lviv in Ukraine). In 1924, he obtained a doctorate in medieval history, social sciences, and economics, and became assistant professor at the Institute for Auxiliary Sciences of History. In 1924 he published his first concept of the "motherland territories" of Poland. His definition of "Polish motherland" was the areas as acquired by 10th-century Piast Poland in the era of Mieszko I and Boleslaw Krzywousty (Greater Poland, Silesia, Pomerania, Neumark, West Prussia). In 1925, he moved to Poznań, where he first was the deputy holder of the chair for the history of the political system and Ancient Polish law at Adam Mickiewicz University (UAM). The same year, he completed his habilitation with a thesis on the territorial administration of medieval settlements. He became extraordinary (non-tenured) professor in 1929, and full professor in January 1937. From 1939, he was the dean of the university's Department of Law and Economics.

Political activity
Since 1934, Wojciechowski, a friend of Roman Dmowski (leader of endecja), had been one of the main ideologists of the Camp of Great Poland (OWP). He was active in the right-wing All-Polish Youth and the Liga Narodowa. In 1934 he founded the "League of Young Nationalists" (Związek Młodych Narodowców), whose aim was the foundation of an authoritarian, homogenous Polish state, and became its chairman until 1937. From 1937 to 1939 he was the chairman of the "Nation State Movement" (Ruch Narodowo-Panstwowy) In 1937 he called for a strong national state that would be democratic During his political career he opposed Dmowski and the movement he belonged to sought integration with Józef Piłsudski's sanacja faction, hoping that both main political factions in Poland would unite led by interest in well being of Polish nation However, he considered Dmowski one of the most influential persons of his life.

Wojciechowski initially saw "traces of a modern national thought" in the National Socialism. He initially admired Hitler's anti-Jewish policy as a good example for Poland. He accepted the Anschluss of Austria and the Munich Agreement but became more critical of Hitler's politics in the course of time. According to Tomasz Kenar he was alarmed by Hitler's expansionism but accepted the "Anschluss" of Austria, hoping that it would put Italy against Nazi Germany and into the sphere of Polish alliance. Regarding Munich Agreement he saw Czechoslovakia as too closely allied Soviet Union; while Czechs were in his view natural allies of Poles, their close contacts with the Soviets made such alliance impossible. He remained opposed to German annexation of Czechoslovakia, worried that such event would make Polish military situation difficult. Wojciechowski envisioned a Polish-led block in Central Europe composed of Hungary, Romania, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and in close relationship with Italy, that would oppose both German expansionism and Soviet pressure on these states; he wrote that such alliance would "rescue Christianity" from the threat of "Bolshevik communism" and "hitlerite paganism". Later on he focused his attention towards Fascist Italy, due to his interest in a "strong state", "depending on legal norms, in tradition of Roman law". While nation was for Wojciechowski at time the "greatest good" he didn't exhibit racist ideas or anything that would be similar to German "volkisch" elements in his works. During Nazi German occupation of Poland he along with his family sheltered a Jewish woman and in a 1945 publication he condemned the mass murder of Jews by Nazi Germany during the war as "monstrous"

Wojciechowski is described as a co-initiator of the Polish "Western thought" (myśl zachodnia), a "mirror image of the German Ostforschung with a pinch of pan-Slavic sentiment thrown in". Unlike Ostforschung this movement was marginal in Poland, and limited only to Poznań University, while the Ostforschung was influential and remained (unlike the Poznań thinkers who were in conflict with state authorities both before and after World War II) in friendly relations with Berlin government. The Polish researchers rejected the state model found in Germany, and preferred Francoist Spain or Salazar's Portugal, remaining distrustful of Hitler. They rejected such ideas as biological racism, eugenics and militarism and neo-pagan movement.

Fate during German occupation
While initially able to escape Germans, he was captured by them in October 1939 and held as hostage along with other Polish intellectuals, craftsmen, politicians and students. The group was held as part of German effort to crush Polish resistance, and they were threatened with murder in case of armed resistance. Every few days, Wojciechowski was allowed to visit home. If he wouldn't return, the others would be shot. Eventually he was released two months later, due to his pregnant wife's plea. Despite his release, the family faced further reprisals, as it had to flee Poznań as initial ethnic cleansing of Poles from the region was initiated by Nazi German authorities. Wojciechowski eventually found refugee at a friend's house in Kraków.

Underground activity
During the occupation of Poland in World War II, he was involved with the Polish underground authorities, teaching at the Uniwersytet Ziem Zachodnich ("University of the Western Territories", a part of the necessary underground education system) necessary, as all Poles were forbidden basic schooling as part of German genocide regarding Polish nation. He continued his research, and supervised his students (Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk, Kazimierz Kolańczyk) who finished two dissertations. In 1944 he also headed the Government Delegation for Poland's Science Section in the Department of Information, and briefly, after the fall of the Warsaw Uprising, he was the deputy director of the Department. As part of conspiracy during Nazi German occupation he was one of the founding members of Ojczyzna-Omega, a conspiracy movement that gathered surviving (as Germans carried out systematic extermination of Polish educated classes) Polish intellectuals, priests, journalists, lawyers and teachers, who organised charity work, secret education and worked on concepts of post-war Poland; most of the members were Christian democrats and National Democrats. Ojczyzna-Omega envisioned a post-war Poland that would be a democratic, efficiently administrated state populated mainly by Polish majority alongside Jewish population and Slavic groups. The organisation believed that Nazi Germany (which attempted a genocide of Poles) was far more dangerous than Soviet Union and pushed for a compromise with Soviets.

Commissioned by the Union of Armed Struggle, a forerunner of the Home Army, Wojciechowski created a concept of a post-war Polish–German border in 1941, which included an overview of the Polish and Polonizable part of the population in areas between the pre-war border and the Oder-Neisse line. In tune with and probably in charge of Wojciechowski the director of the library of Kórnik at that time prepared the takeover of archives, museums and libraries in the future Western territories. In his designs Wojciechowski wanted to avoid what he defined as the mistakes of the Versailles Treaty. The border at Oder and Lusatian Neisse was essential for him, as he considered it, the historical argument was not decisive here, the safest and most defensible one.

On 17 December 1944 Tomasz Arciszewski, the Polish Prime Minister of the Polish government-in-exile in London, declared in a Sunday Times interview, that a post-war Poland had no territorial claims towards Stettin (Szczecin) and Breslau (Wrocław) but considers Lviv and Wilna an integral part of the Polish state. This led to a vote of no confidence of the Ojczyzna-group against Arciszewski for this "renunciation of the Polish war aims" and finally to the breakup with the Polish government-in-exile in London. Also in December 1944 he resumed the consequences of the failed Warsaw Uprising that, from his view, had shown, that not the Home Army but only the Red Army was capable to liberate Warsaw.

On 13 February 1945 Wojciechowski met the Prime Minister of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland, Edward Osóbka-Morawski, and handed over a memorandum about the foundation and activities of the Western Institute in which he asked for the support of the institute. The memorandum was addressed to the “Polish government”, thus recognizing the Provisional Government, contrary to the London exile-government, as legitimate. Conversely Wojciechowski's concept aided the governmental demand to legitimize the Polish acquirements in the West

Post-war
In 1945 his book "Poland-Germany. Ten centuries of struggle" (first edition 1933) was reissued. To Wojciechowski the history of Polish-German relations was coined by an eternal struggle against German aggression which was founded on a lack of the ability of Germans to cohabit peacefully with Slavs and their "biological" hatred of everything Slavic. Wojciechowski described his view of the post-war situation:

"There is a new epoch of Slavic march to the west that has replaced the German Drang nach Osten. Who doesn’t understand it, won’t understand the new era and won’t see properly the place of Poland in the new international reality”

Wojciechowski supported a new German-Polish border that would allocate the whole Oder Lagoon up to the river Peene to Poland.

He resumed teaching at UAM. He became a member of the Polish Academy of Learning (PAU) in 1945 and of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) in 1952. In 1944, he established the Western Institute (Instytut Zachodni), an institution dedicated to studying the Polish history of what would become the Recovered Territories. Initially in Warsaw, the institute's seat moved to Poznań in 1945. Wojciechowski remained its director until his death in 1955. In 1945, Wojciechowski founded the affiliated journal Przegląd Zachodni ("Western Review") and remained his editor-in-chief until his death in 1955. (An English-language version of the journal under the title Polish Western Affairs was published from 1960 to 1994). From 1948–52, he was also founder and editor-in-chief of the "Journal of Law and History" (Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne), which continues to exist to this day. In his prologue to the bookseries "Old Polish lands" (1948–1957) he explained the purpose of the volumes to the reader: "Our publication ... is biased; in fact, it is consciously biased. ... We have not gone out of our way to write so-called objective history. Our task was to present the Polish history of those territories and to place the modern Polish reality of those territories within this historical context."

In 1950, as Poland underwent Stalinization, Wojciechowski was condemned for his "anti-German chauvinism" at a Polish historians conference. Hence the open synthesis of nationalist and communist historiography became less influential, though Polish Marxist publications maintained an anti-German undertone.

Zygmunt Wojciechowski died in Poznań, Poland, he was the father of historian Marian Wojciechowski (1927–2006).

Recognition
He was a recipient of Commander's Cross and Officer's Cross of Order of Polonia Restituta.

In 1984 the Western Institute was eventually named in his honor. In Poland Zygmunt Wojciechowski is recognised today as exceptional historian, and one of people who formed Polish intellectual elites.

Publications

 * Ustrój polityczny ziem polskich w czasach przedpiastowskich Lwów 1927
 * Początki immunitetu w Polsce 1930
 * Polska nad Wisłą i Odrą w X wieku. Studium nad genezą państwa Piastów i jego cywilizacji [Poland on the Vistula and Oder in the 10th century: A study on the genesis of the Piast state and its civilization], Warszawa: Nasza Księgarnia, 1939
 * Państwo polskie w wiekach średnich. Dzieje ustroju 1945
 * Polska-Niemcy. Dziesięć wieków zmagania [Poland-Germany. Ten centuries of struggle]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Zachodniego, 1945
 * Polska-Czech. Dziesięć wieków sąsiedztwa Poland-Czechs. Ten centuries of neighbourhood. 1947 (with Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, Kazimierz Piwiarski)
 * Państwo polskie w wiekach średnich. Dzieje ustroju [The Polish state in the Middle Ages: The history of its political system], Poznań: Poznań Księgarnia Akademicka, 1948
 * Zygmunt Stary (1506-1548) Sigismund the Old (1506–1548)], 1946, re-issue Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1979
 * (as editor) Poland's Place in Europe. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Zachodniego, 1947

title: Zygmunt Wojciechowski


text:
Private label

A private label, also called a private brand or private-label brand, is a brand owned by a company, offered by that company alongside and competing with brands from other businesses. A private-label brand is almost always offered exclusively by the firm that owns it, although in rare instances the brand is licensed to another company. The term often describes products, but can also encompass services.

The private-label process contains a company that manufactures products, while another company brands and sells those products. In this field of food and beverage, private labeling enables brand-holders to create personalized products for their target markets.

The most common definition of a private label product is one that is outsourced, in which a firm is contracted to make a product under another name. However, it can also define products made in retailer-owned firms. For example, in 2018, The Kroger Company had 60% of its private brands produced by third parties; the remaining 40% was manufactured internally by plants owned by Kroger. Private-label producers are usually anonymous, sometimes by contract. In other cases, they are allowed to mention their role publicly.

Etymology
The term private label originated in retail, but has since been used in other industries as well. Probably the best known private-label brands are store brands, which are managed by supermarket and grocery store chains. Examples are Simple Truth by Kroger and Great Value by Wal-Mart. Store brands compete with national brands or name brands, like Coca-Cola or Lay's.

The term private-label product overlaps with the term white-label product. They are sometimes used interchangeably, but they don't mean the same thing. A private-label product is created exclusively for a client, who sets specific demands on what the product or service must contain. A white-label product is not created exclusively for one company, and although white-label manufacturers might offer customizations to their products, these are usually limited. The specifications of a private-label product are set out by the client, whereas a white-label product is more generic and already designed.

Store brands
In the supermarket and grocery store industry, the term private label/brand is almost always used, even if the same product is sold non-exclusively to multiple retailers with different packaging (white label/brand).

A store brand, also called a house brand or, in British English, an own brand, is a private-label brand trademarked and managed by a retailer. This brand is almost always offered exclusively at the chain store that owns it, although in rare instances the brand is licensed to another company. Examples of store brands are Simple Truth by Kroger, Great Value by Wal-Mart, Kirkland Signature by Costco, Clover Valley by Dollar General, Market Pantry by Target, and Specially Selected by Aldi. Store brands can also be eponymous, or named after the store, such as Joe's O's cereal by Trader Joe's. Store brands compete with national brands, also called premium brands or name brands,  with its items sometimes being called brand-name products. Examples are Coca-Cola, Lay's, and Kellogg's. The general appeal of store-brand products is that they are usually offered at a significantly lower price than their name-brand counterparts.

Most private-label store brand products are manufactured by third parties, but some are made by companies owned by the retailer. For instance, a vice-president of The Kroger Company stated in 2018 that approximately 60% of their private-label products are outsourced. The remaining 40% is manufactured internally: in 2018, Kroger owned 38 plants, including 19 dairy farms, 10 bakeries, and 2 butcheries, strategically spread across the US. Similarly, Safeway Inc. owned 32 plants as of 2012. Most retailers prefer to keep the identity of their suppliers private, and accordingly have non-disclosure clauses in their contracts, making it difficult to determine the producer of a private-label product. In a few cases though, the manufacturer is allowed to mention it publicly, is revealed through a product recall, or in rare instances, is stated on the product itself. For example, the bags of Kirkland Signature coffee by Costco feature the text "Custom roasted by Starbucks".

Private-label brands emerged in the 19th century. Until the early 20th century, their general focus was on delivering quality at a price below that of the national brands. In the first half of the 20th century, the quality of private brands diluted and their standards dropped. In their competitive struggle against national brands, low prices were considered more important than quality. In the second half of the century, this trend gradually reversed. As quality and visual appearance improved, private labels rose to prominence in the 1970s and '80s. By the 1990s, they were increasingly seen as a threat to the established brands. Also, from the '90s onwards, a premiumization of store brands began to occur, giving rise to more expensive premium private labels.

Generic brands are often associated with store brands. Generic products were first introduced in the United States in 1977, quickly winning market share from national and private-label brands. A 1981 academic article described them as products "without brand names, in very plain packages with simple labels and usually sold at prices below both the national and private brands with which they compete". Packages of generic products often feature only the name of the type of product it contains, e.g. "Beer" or "Batteries". Nowadays, the terms generic brand and store brand are sometimes used interchangeably. The term generic can be used as a pejorative toward store brand items that are perceived as bland or cheap.

A private-label brand is often produced by the same company that manufactures the national brand of that product. Different brands target different consumers. For instance, Kimberly-Clark makes Huggies diapers, but also produces a Walmart budget version. Allegedly, some store-brand items are identical to their name-brand counterparts: they are said to be literally the same product, except for the packaging and price. In other cases, a manufacturer can have multiple formulas for one product, creating a private-label version using one method and the national-label version using another. In 2007, a mass-recall of contaminated pet food products brought to light that more than 100 different brands of pet food, both premium- and private-label, were in fact produced by a single company: Menu Foods Inc. in Ontario, Canada. The ingredients and recipes they used differed substantially among brands, depending on what their clients specified.

In the United Kingdom, supermarkets have been criticised for "fake farm" private label brands.

In fast food
Fast food restaurant chains sell their products under their private-label brands. Their core items are usually fries and meat-based items, but they might also offer brownies, muffins, cookies, and salads. These private-brand products are offered alongside national-brand products, such as soft drinks by Coca-Cola or Pepsi, and ice creams co-branded with Oreo or M&M's.

In finance
A private-label credit card (PLCC) is a type of credit card that can only be used at a specific company or chain of companies. Since this is virtually always a retail business, they are also called store cards. The retailer partners with a bank that issues the cards, funds the credits, and collects payments from customers. The cards themselves are branded with the logo of the store, but not the bank. Examples are the Target Debit RedCard (issued by TD Bank, N.A.), the Walmart Reward Card (issued by Capital One), and the Amazon Store Card (issued by Synchrony Bank). PLCCs also do not carry the logo of the payment network (e.g. Visa or Mastercard), but they do use that network for transactions.

Private-label store credit cards are sometimes compared to but not the same as co-branded credit cards. These cards usually feature the logo of the payment network, and sometimes the logo of the bank. Unlike PLCCs, co-branded cards work like 'normal' credit cards, usable at any place where that type of card is accepted. For instance, warehouse chain Nordstrom offers a Nordstrom Store Card (private label) and a Nordstrom Credit Card (co-branded), both issued by TD Bank, N.A. and using Visa's network.

Benefits of private label

 * Cost savings– Private label products are often priced lower than their branded counterparts, providing cost savings for consumers.
 * Quality control– Retailers have greater control over the quality of private label products since they work closely with manufacturers to meet their specific requirements. Retailers can ensure that their private label products meet their quality standards and customer expectations.
 * Flexibility and agility– Retailers have greater flexibility and agility in introducing new products and responding to changing market trends with private label products. They can quickly adapt to consumer preferences, experiment with different product offerings, and capitalize on emerging market opportunities.
 * Higher profit margins– Private label products offer higher profit margins for retailers compared to branded products. Since private label products are manufactured directly for the retailer, there are no intermediary brand costs involved.

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

title: Private label


text:
User talk:Jvedral

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

Here are some tips to help you get started:

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

Good luck!

title: User talk:Jvedral


text: Category:Dutch businesspeople

title: Category:Dutch businesspeople


text:
Gabriel Pierné

Henri Constant Gabriel Pierné (16 August 1863 – 17 July 1937) was a French composer, conductor, pianist and organist.

Biography
Gabriel Pierné was born in Metz. His family moved to Paris, after Metz and part of Lorraine were annexed to Germany in 1871 following the Franco-Prussian War. He studied at the Paris Conservatoire, gaining first prizes for solfège, piano, organ, counterpoint and fugue. He won the French Prix de Rome in 1882, with his cantata Edith. His teachers included Antoine François Marmontel, Albert Lavignac, Émile Durand, César Franck (for the organ) and Jules Massenet (for composition).

He succeeded César Franck as organist at Sainte-Clotilde Basilica in Paris from 1890 to 1898. He himself was succeeded by another distinguished Franck pupil, Charles Tournemire. Associated for many years with Édouard Colonne's concert series, the Concerts Colonne, from 1903, Pierné became chief conductor of this series in 1910.

His most notable early performance was the world premiere of Igor Stravinsky's ballet The Firebird, at the Ballets Russes, Paris, on 25 June 1910. He remained in the post until 1933 (when Paul Paray took over his duties).

He made a few electrical recordings for Odeon Records, from 1928 to 1934, conducting the L'Orchestre Colonne, including a 1929 performance of his Ramuntcho and a 1931 performance of excerpts from his ballet Cydalise et le Chevre-pied.

He died in Ploujean, Finistère.

Music
Pierné wrote several operas, choral and symphonic pieces as well as a good deal of chamber music. His most famous composition is probably the oratorio La Croisade des enfants based on the book by Marcel Schwob. Also notable are such shorter works as his March of the Little Lead Soldiers, which once enjoyed substantial popularity (not only in France) as an encore; the comparably popular Marche des petits faunes is from his ballet Cydalise et le Chèvre-pied. His chamber work Introduction et variations sur une ronde populaire for saxophone quartet is a standard in the saxophone quartet repertoire.

His discovery and promotion of the work of Ernest Fanelli in 1912 led to a controversy over the origins of impressionist music.

Honours
Pierné became a member of the Academie des Beaux Arts in 1925. He was made a Commandeur de la Légion d'Honneur in 1935. His tomb at Père Lachaise Cemetery has a headstone designed by sculptor Henri Bouchard.

Square Gabriel Pierné in Paris is named after him.

Orchestral works

 * Serenade for Strings
 * Trois pièces formant suite de concert, 1883
 * Suite No. 1, 1883
 * Envois de Rome (Suite – Ouverture – Les Elfes), c. 1885
 * Fantaisie-ballet, for piano and orchestra, 1885
 * Piano concerto, Op. 12, 1886
 * Scherzo-caprice, for piano and orchestra, 1890
 * Ballet de cour, 1901
 * Concertstück, for harp and orchestra, 1903
 * Poème symphonique, for piano and orchestra, 1903
 * Two suites from the incidental music for Ramuntcho, 1910
 * Paysages franciscains, Op. 43, 1920
 * Fantaisie basque, for violin and orchestra, 1927
 * Divertissement sur un thème pastoral, Op. 49, 1932
 * Gulliver au pays de Lilliput, 1935
 * Viennoise, suite, Op. 49bis, 1935

Works for band

 * Marche des petits soldats de plomb (March of the Little Lead Soldiers), 1887
 * Marche solennelle, 1899 (dedicated to Gustave Wettge)
 * Petit Gavotte et Farandole
 * Ramuntcho (also arranged for orchestra), (published 1908)

Operas

 * La Coupe enchantée, 1895
 * Vendée (Drame lyrique), 1897
 * La Fille de Tabarin (opéra comique), 1901
 * On ne badine pas avec l'amour (opéra comique), 1910
 * Sophie Arnould (opéra comique), 1927
 * Fragonard, 1934

Ballets

 * Le Collier de Saphir, 1891
 * Les Joyeuses commères de Paris, 1892
 * Izéÿl, 1894
 * Bouton-d'or, 1895
 * Salome, 1895 (premiere starring Loie Fuller at the Comedie-Parisienne, Paris) March 4, 1895 closed 27 April.
 * Cydalise et le Chèvre-pied, 1923
 * Impressions de music-hall, 1927
 * Giration, 1934
 * Images, 1935

Music for theatre

 * Yanthis, 1894
 * La Princesse Lointaine, 1895
 * La Samaritaine, 1897
 * Francesca da Rimini, 1902
 * Ramuntcho, 1908
 * Les Cathédrales, 1915

Chamber works

 * Sonata in D minor, Op. 36 (violin or flute and piano), 1900.
 * Piano Quintet, Op. 41 (2 violins, viola, cello and piano), 1917
 * Trio in C minor, Op. 45 (violin, cello and piano), 1920–21
 * Sonata in F sharp minor, Op 46 (Sonate en une partie) (cello and piano), 1922
 * Sonata da camera, Op.48 (flute, cello and piano), 1926

Piano works

 * Étude de concert in C minor, Op. 13, 1887
 * Album pour mes petits amis, Op. 14, (published 1887)

Solo works

 * Serenade, Op. 7 (violin and piano), 1881
 * Impromptu-Caprice, Op. 9 (harp), (published circa 1901)
 * Piece in G minor (oboe), 1883
 * Solo de concert (bassoon and piano), 1898
 * Canzonetta, Op. 19 (clarinet and piano), 1888
 * Trois pièces Op. 29 (organ), (published circa 1892)

Choral works

 * L'An Mil, (published 1898)
 * no. 1. Miserere Mei
 * no. 2. Fete Des Fous Et de L'ane
 * no. 3. Te Deum
 * Les Cathédrales, 1915
 * no. 1. Prélude des cathédrales
 * no. 3. Chanson Picarde
 * no. 7. Épisode des églises
 * no. 8. Épisode des Flandres

Songs

 * 6 Ballades françaises de Paul Fort, (circa 1920)
 * No. 1, La Vie
 * No. 2, La Baleines
 * No. 3, Complainte des Arches de Noé
 * No. 4, Le petit rentier
 * No. 5, Les dernières pensées
 * No. 6, La Ronde autour du monde
 * Deux mélodies
 * Découragement
 * À Saint Blaise
 * Poèmes de Jean Lorrain
 * no. 1. Le Beau Pirate
 * no. 2. Les Petites Ophélies
 * no. 3. Les Petits Elfes
 * no. 4. Une belle est dans la forêt
 * no. 5. Ils étaient trois petits chats blancs
 * Soirs de Jadis
 * no. 1. La princesse au bord du ruisseau
 * no. 2. Ils s'aimaient
 * no. 3. Ce qui frappa ses yeux d'abord
 * no. 4. Le soir tombe sur la rivière
 * Trois adaptations musicales sur des vers
 * no. 1. La marjolaine
 * no. 2. Nuit divine
 * no. 3. Noël

title: Gabriel Pierné


text:
William Hulbert

William Ambrose Hulbert (October 23, 1832 – April 10, 1882) was an American professional baseball executive who was one of the founders of the National League, considered by many to be baseball's first major league, and was also the president of the Chicago White Stockings franchise.

Biography
Born in Burlington Flats, New York, Hulbert moved with his family to Chicago two years later where he lived the rest of his life save for a stint at Beloit College beginning in 1851. When he returned to Chicago from school, he married into the family of a successful grocer and expanded the business into the coal trade. A backer of the Chicago White Stockings baseball club of the National Association from its inception in 1871, Hulbert became an officer of the club in 1874 when it resumed play after being forced to sit out two seasons due to the Great Chicago Fire. He assumed the club presidency the next year.

In his brief tenure as a club president in the National Association, Hulbert soon became fed up with the circuit's lack of definite structure, organization, and integrity. He was particularly disgusted by the Davy Force case in 1874. Force, the shortstop of the White Stockings that year, was a notorious "contract jumper", a common occurrence in the National Association in which players would move from team to team each year selling themselves to the highest bidder. Determined to keep his shortstop, Hulbert signed him to a contract for the 1875 season in September, before the 1874 season had concluded, a violation of league rules. In December, Force signed a second contract with the Philadelphia Athletics, and Hulbert protested. The Association Judiciary committee originally awarded Force to Chicago, but at a second meeting in early 1875, after a Philadelphia man had been elected president of the association, the decision was reversed.

Hulbert became convinced that the Eastern ballclubs were conspiring to keep the Western clubs second-class citizens and plotted to overthrow the might of the Boston Red Stockings, which won each association pennant between 1872 and 1875. To do so, he convinced Illinois native and star Boston pitcher Al Spalding to sign with Chicago for the 1876 season and also signed Boston stars Cal McVey, Deacon White, and Ross Barnes and Philadelphia stars Cap Anson and Ezra Sutton, though Sutton later backed out of his deal. The signings were made while the 1875 season was in progress, but Hulbert decided to anticipate league disciplinary action by establishing his own league.

After enlisting the support of Western clubs including the Cincinnati Red Stockings, the St. Louis Brown Stockings, and the Louisville Grays, Hulbert held a meeting with the Eastern clubs of the Mutual of New York, the Athletic of Philadelphia, the Boston Red Stockings, and the Hartford Dark Blues on February 2, 1876, at the Grand Central Hotel in New York City and sold them on his vision for a new league founded on the principles of square dealings, recognition of contracts, and business integrity. He also proposed a more orderly game on the field through prohibitions on drinking, gambling, and Sunday baseball, and more definite organization off it through limiting membership to cities of 75,000 inhabitants or more, giving clubs exclusive territorial rights, and mandating teams to complete a predetermined schedule. The result was the founding of the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs. At the founding meeting, straws were drawn to determine the first president of the circuit, and Hartford president Morgan Bulkeley drew the short straw. He only remained president for one year and took little interest in the affairs of the league, not even bothering to attend the 1877 league meeting. When he did not show up, Hulbert was elected the new president, retaining his presidency of the White Stockings as well.

In his tenure as president from 1877 to his death in 1882, Hulbert ruled with an iron fist and took steps to ensure league integrity and compliance with league rules. His first major act was expelling the New York and Philadelphia clubs from the league for failure to complete their 1876 schedules as required. While losing clubs in the two most populous cities in the United States was a serious blow, the expulsion sent a clear message that the lax adherence to league rules that had plagued the National Association would not be tolerated. Also in response to the New York/Philadelphia scheduling problem, Hulbert ended the practice of clubs determining their schedules through the club secretaries by declaring that the league itself would establish the schedule. Hulbert also instituted the practice of the league hiring of umpires to bolster public perceptions of league integrity.

Perhaps his greatest challenge was dealing with four members of the Louisville ball club who conspired to throw the 1877 pennant. In a move that established a precedent for future handling of dishonest ballplayers, Hulbert banned all four players from the league for life. The banning had a ripple effect across the league that led to the Louisville, St. Louis, and Hartford franchises folding, and the league began to face a crisis as Hulbert was forced to replace these and other teams over the years with clubs from smaller cities such as Providence, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and Syracuse. In 1879, after the Cincinnati franchise nearly collapsed amid controversy created by having three star players making more money than the rest of the team combined, Hulbert oversaw the imposition of the first reserve rule designed to curb player salaries and prevent players jumping from team to team.

Hulbert's final major act as president also involved the Cincinnati franchise. While it was understood from the league's inception that beer and Sunday baseball were inappropriate, they were not actually prohibited by league rules, and the Cincinnati club, playing in a city with a large German population fond of beer and Sunday entertainment, practiced both activities to boost revenue. This led the league to pass new rules banning both for the 1881 season and then expelling the unapologetic Cincinnati club for violating a rule that would not go into effect for two more months. This final league expulsion brought the National League its greatest challenge yet, as Cincinnati spearheaded the creation of the rival American Association in 1882 that moved into populous areas abandoned by the NL over the years such as New York and Philadelphia. Hulbert did not live to see this rival franchise begin play, however, dying of a heart attack in 1882 at the age of 49 two weeks before the AA made its debut.

For decades, Hulbert was kept out of the Baseball Hall of Fame despite his critical role in founding the first professional league. This was because when American League founder and first president Ban Johnson was elected to the Hall in 1937, it was decided that an early National League executive should be enshrined as well, and apparently not looking into history too closely, the electors chose to elect Morgan Bulkeley because he was the first president of the league. The Veterans Committee finally enshrined Hulbert in 1995.

Hulbert is buried in Graceland Cemetery under a grave marker designed to look like a baseball. In addition to his name and his birth and death dates, the marker includes the names of the cities that were in the National League at the time of his death.

title: William Hulbert


text:
User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive August 2004

links
Many thanks for the links Sam! I shall visit them and contact you if I have any doubts.

Richard Ponce-de-Leon 04:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Wonderful :D
 * Glad to be of assistance, Sam Spade 04:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers!
Really thanks, it's good to feel welcome in the community. I'm still working my way into the Wikipedia, but my fingers are sometimes faster than my conscience, which means that I've already tried a few edits (of course, I've chosen subjects that I was familiar with, and took care not to copy any copyrighted material). I hope that it will stick into the pages... until someone improves upon them, that's it. User:Carribeiro (signature added after by Sam Spade 17:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Was I doing something wrong?
Just got a list of links from you. Was I doing something wrong, or was it just a welcome note?

Ieshan 15:41, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks =)
Oh, thanks =)

And, your "Be Bold!" link should have "Audendum Est! Fortes Adiuvat Ipsa Venus!" (Be Bold! Venus herself favors the brave!) from Tibullus. =)

The information was useful- Ieshan 02:56, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

172
After all this time, I have the urge to bluntly ask you this. You seem to follow me around and try to provoke conflicts between other users and me. What is it that you want from me? What can I do to get you to leave me alone? 172 21:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * An insightful question. I only want one thing from you: for you to obey policy. You are a very good writer, producing far more bulk content than I. I appreciate this. You have been here a long time, and have done allot of good for the project. I applaud these efforts. However, you have done a number of things which I have found unhelpful, such as revert warring, adding POV content without clarifying it as such, incivility in talk pages, personal attacks (like calling me a troll) and so forth. That stuff is bad. I don't want you to go away. I'm not going to go away. I want to produce a high quality encyclopedia, and I think you do as well. You are not the first to misunderstand my intentions, and I sincerely apologize for any unhappiness I have caused you. I do not want you to be unhappy. I want you to try harder to conform to the rules and guidelines here. Let us be intellectually honest, willing to politely debate, and accepting of the diversity of opinions necessary to make this an even better encyclopedia than it already is. I want you to be an editor here. Sam Spade 21:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I have made mistakes, along with just about every user. (You have been accused of all the things of which you're accusing me right now.) I think that at the root of the problem between the two of us is a degree of mutual mistrust and suspicion. Because of this bad history, we are both probably inclined to interpret our actions as evidence as bad faith, which thus enflames all these situations unnecessarily. I think that it will minimize disruption if I stay uninvolved in your behavioral disputes and you try to avoid my disputes with other users that don't concern you directly. (This was the mutual understanding that ended my series of disputes with VeryVerily) In turn, I can stop stating or implying that you're a troll if you can stop setting out to demonstrate over and over again that I'm a rogue sysop; the withdrawal of your arbitration may also be a positive step. (BTW, I will concede my share of the responsibility for the bad history between the two of us. I suppose that I was condescending toward you on a few occasions. Given my background, I'm not used to the egalitarianism on Wiki; and I'm used to having the final say on things. For this I'll apologize to you.) 172 21:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That is appreciated and understood. I will place a mention of this dialogue as evidence in the current case request before the arbitration committee. You are right to think that I see you as an archetype of the "rogue sysop", right up there with User:RickK. I will not step out entirely, but I will maintain a backseat position. I will also let you know that I strongly oppose a permanent sanction against you, and any blocking. I do feel you have done a great deal of harm over time, mainly thru setting a bad example to other users and sysops. The idea that actions such as you have been known to take are acceptable or to be condoned and expected is IMO the greatest danger to the project whatsoever. Vandals and troublemakers cause precious little harm IMO, and are easily weeded out or reverted. Respected and well-known users such as yourself however simply must set a good example in their conduct. Of course mistakes will be made, but that is not the current problem. Due (in my assessment) to your sense of empowerment and difficulty accepting the egalitarian nature of the project, I feel that you have vigorously acted against the projects best interests at times. I do not think you did this in bad faith. I get the impression that you feel what you did was for the best, but I (and many others) clearly disagree.

 * What is the conclusion that is best for the community? Surely not removing a generally beneficial, long-term member of the community such as yourself. Rather I seek a primarily symbolic response from the arbitration committee, letting you (and most importantly the community in general) know that admins are to be held to a similar standard as the rest of us, and that they can and will be held accountable. My thought is that temporary desysopping would be for the best, not so much to punish you, but to make it clear the community position is solidly in favor of egalitarian policy enforcement. I will also mention that any public penitence or apologies would likely be well received by the community, and would be an important part of the forgiving and forgetting process. I hope my thoughts on this matter are well understood, as I mean you no distress. As I have been saying, you are a valued community member, and it is vital that you both understand and obey community policies, and that you remain an important member of our community.

 * Sam Spade 22:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I think that your interactions with all users, including myself, will be more constructive if you focus not only on how you see other users but take into consideration how other users see you. Once again, aren't you aware that many users accuse you of all the things you're accusing me of now? So, in this sense your preoccupation with "holding me accountable"-- for what in specific that hasn't been resolved I'm not aware-- strikes me as unreasonable. Neither of us is in the position to throw stones; so we both should stop throwing stones.

It will be better for the community if I stop going around from page to page, attempting to mobilize support for efforts to sanction you and if you do the same. There is a bad history between the two of us, which makes us both prone to misunderstand each other. I likely see you as more disruptive than you actually are and vice versa. This makes us prone to overreact to each other, thus enflaming the situation and making it harder to resolve conflicts. Thus, the community will benefit if I stay uninvolved in your disagreements with others and vice versa. (Other users are perfectly capable of entering the fray if they disagree with what we are doing; and others are far more likely to get either of us to come to an amicable, reasonable agreement with other users.)

In short, I don't want to be a perceived threat to what you want to accomplish on Wikipedia and vice versa. I can start off with a clean slate if you can. 172 10:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The trouble with this line of reasoning is that my motivation has nothing to do with self-protection. I am motivated by my concern for the project. If you feel I am in any way behaving in a manner detrimental to the project, I ask you to bring the specifics to my attentions. If I should fail to improve my performance, I shall encourage you to utilize Dispute resolution as a process to achieve what is best for the project. I assure you I am not "going around from page to page, attempting to mobilize support for efforts to sanction you" and I have no plans to do such. In truth, you are less the problem than the idea (held by not a few admins) that your policy violations are acceptable.

 * I will however give you a way out. If you apologize on the arbitration page for past policy violations, and avow at minimum to strive to become an example of how other users might maintain a policy abiding status, I will see that as an acceptable conclusion to the matter, and will withdraw my request until such time as it would again become necessary, in hopes that the occasion shall never occur. Again, I mean you no ill will, but rather only insist that you conform to the ideals of the project itself, and the Policies and guidelines which allow it to exist. A good day to you sir, God be with you.

 * Sam Spade 17:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am uninterested in rehashing disputes that have already been resolved. I am especially uninterested in rehashing my disputes with other users that did not concern you with you. You are perfectly aware that I can accuse you of everything you're accusing me of above; and you're perfectly aware that I can document this and provide evidence. (I can revive Danny's arbitration request against you just as easily as you can revive VeryVerily's arbitration request with me.) However, this will just be a major distraction accomplishing nothing. That's why I offer you the choice of settling this 'out of court,' so to speak. (BTW, you have a libertarian bent-- you of all people should realize that this is better settled by dialogue between the two of us, not a slow, cumbersome, bureaucratic committee.) 172 18:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * To that last I will at least partially agree, not that I am a libertarian (I'm likely to vote libertarian in the upcoming U.S. presidential election it is true, but mainly as a protest vote. I am also far from decided. My political views, as I understand them, are listed here, if you are interested.) but that these matters are best resolved via communication between the concerned parties. It would appear that you are more comfortable speaking to myself than with User:Lir or User:Plato. I am willing to act as some sort of intermediary with them to explore their thoughts on the matter, which hopefully would result an actionable solution. The problem is that it has come to this, the second loftiest tier of Wiki-Hierarchy (next to a direct appeal to Laird Jimbo himself.) for us to communicate. I am confident that our communications, if continued amicably, will result in an amiable conclusion. But what is there in our history that assures me of such a continuation if I were to unilaterally drop all requests for intervention? You (and a handful of other admins) have regularly deleted my statements on your personal talk page(s), and ignored my statements on article talk pages (or responded to them rudely) for some time. I don't want to go back to where we started again. I don't want to repeat this downward spiral. What I want is for us to be intellectually honest (i.e. being civil, accepting diversity of opinion, and willing to accept NPOV). I am open to any logical solution, but dropping everything without resolution and retreating is not one of them. Sam Spade 22:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You (and a handful of other admins) have regularly deleted my statements on your personal talk page(s), and ignored my statements on article talk pages (or responded to them rudely) for some time. If you have evidence that any administrator has abused admin privileges (e.g., inappropriately protecting pages, blocking users, deleting pages), please submit a request for arbitration, a request for comment, or otherwise to take action on the matter. Without any evidence, I don't understand how your scores of conflicts with other users can be explained in terms of the fact that many of these users are admins while you're not an admin. (My impression is that your comments suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be an administrator. Administrators are not vested with any powers that you lack. Administrators are simply normal users who are trusted to use the few additional responsibilities they are given. They are not "leaders" or editors; indeed, admins cannot act as admins on pages they have been actively editing.)

Your statement begs the question of why so many other users have ignored your statements on article talk pages or have responded to them tersely. I think that you're making me a scapegoat for this. This is quite unfair to me, as I have only had a handful of interactions with you; and I am listening to you respectfully right now. Rather than blaming me for the problems you've had with other users, I think that you will become a more constructive user if you start considering patters in your own behavior and work that are at the root of the problem. 172 11:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * In order for us to maintain a useful dialogue, I ask that you read over your above statement (as of 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) ) and realize its irony. Sam Spade 16:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Do you think that the "administrators" are conspiring against you? 172 19:19, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Cough, choke, chortle...

My gracious no!, lol... Ok, let me see..

 * You say "Your statement begs the question of why so many other users have ignored your statements ... or have responded to them tersely"

 * This would seem to relate to your current predicament, begging the question of why there is so much conflict surrounding yourself, no? Despite your obvious attempts to redirect the discussion to one focused on my own failings (which are many and egregious, to be certain ;), the subject at hand is yourself. Have you pondered as to why you are surrounded by so much conflict?

 * You say "I think that you're making me a scapegoat for this"

 * Heavens no, I'm trying to make you an example, from which other rogue admins (and potential rogue admins) as well as lay-users might learn.

 * and finally you say "start considering patterns in your own behavior and work that are at the root of the problem"

 * To which I respond Please do! :D

Really, I didn't mean to make such a comedy out of this all, but I had thought my mention of irony would have reaped more productive results. I admit I am a man of somewhat merry disposition, and jokes all too often fail online, but how you read conspiracy in, I don't know. In truth I am grateful, your previous statement had irritated me somewhat, and this comic relief has been refreshing. No hard feelings I hope? Shall we resume our journey towards enlightened policy observance?

Sam Spade 22:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. I can see that I am going to have no luck encourage you to be less disruptive. I am going to revive Danny's arbitration request against you. There's no need to respond to this; this conversation is obviously over. 172 23:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To my opponent
I wish you the best of luck in this month's Arbitration Committee election. May the best Wikipedian win! Peace Profound! -- Merovingian ✍  Talk  10:30, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think at least two of us will be winning, no? Perhaps even more, there has been talk of "reserve members" and all other sorts of foolishness ;). In any case I appreciate your kind thoughts and words, and wish you all the best, Sam Spade 18:15, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

! Reserve members? It'll be like baseball! Peace Profound! -- Merovingian ✍  Talk  22:46, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

The importance of my contributions
The reason I stress my contributions and protect authorship is that they are the only proof of my expertise. I don't have a college degree that I can point to. Most of the contributors here have college degrees and can point to that as a matter of substance. I am a second class citizen and I have nothing. The only way to gain honor and respect is the quality, depth, and significance of my contributions. This is in lieu of a college degree. My submissions are a sign of my learning and professionalism and are necessary for my honor and respect.WHEELER 17:17, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * You are no second-class citizen to me. Indeed you are one of the very best amongst us here in citations and verifiability. Your weakness seems to be in the interpersonal aspects of the group editing process. For example, if you want to protect your authorship, the wikipedia is perhaps the worst place to be putting it. Are you familiar with the GNU Free Documentation License? I suggest you read that, along with Foundation issues and contemplate if this is something you want your writing to be associated with. I hope you decide you want to continue to donate your writing to the project, but you need to be aware that is what you are doing when you hit that "save page" button. Keep in touch, Sam Spade 17:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't get tired of them
Keep those haiku coming. :-) And thanks for your comment. I considered leaving out the sentence you noted, but decided that if I was too nice to have it be necessary, it wouldn't harm anything, but if I was ever wrong-headed enough that someone was offended, I'd want it there. I'll probably tweak that statement a little, however, given time and thought, and I'll keep your comments in mind. Thanks. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not *that* new here :P
I've been doing numerous minor edits for a while, beginning before I registered. :)

Nevertheless, thank you for the welcome.

Jonathan Grynspan 00:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * And thank you for being here :) Sam Spade 00:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks also from me. I appreciate the links: they look very useful. --AlexG 21:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 revisited
As Fred seems to be hinting here, it is obviously not in your interests to expose yourself to the arbitration committee. While I'm not afraid whatsoever of the request by you, Plato, and Lir regarding New Imperialism (by the time that case comes up Lir will have likely been banned already, making it effectively a dead case), my request will quite possibly be your day of reckoning. It is in your interest more so than it is in my interest that we both withdraw our respective cases. I am willing to withdraw my request if you are willing to withdraw yours, though, because I feel that this is an utter waste of time. In short, I am willing to reach a détente with you, as User:Danny did when he withdrew his case, if you will allow me to do so. 172 15:11, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Day of reckoning? Wtf? Next time, come correct if you want me to respect what you are saying. Sam Spade 18:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Look, we can either have dueling arbitration cases or we can just ignore each other/avoid crossing paths with each other. I certainly prefer the latter, but this is not possible without your cooperation. 172 18:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to cooperate, and to communicate. You have seen my demands. A formal, public apology for past mistakes, and a vow to at minimum "strive to set a good example of policy observance". Short of that, I will maintain my RfAR. Lir or Plato are a side issue, and banned or no, will in no way take away from my request. I will continue dialogue w you, but request that it be polite and respectful. I will accept mediation if you, or the arbitration committee requests it, but I am not currently of the opinion that it would meet w success, nor that you would accept it, so I am not myself requesting it. I agree w Fred that you are beginning to overburden the arbitration system w spurious requests, designed to protect you rather than to better the wikipedia. You revival of Danny's request is a perfect example of this.

"I am withdrawing my complaint against Sam Spade. I think it is unnecessary, and that a modus vivendi with Sam is possible. I would also ask that no one cites me as a reason to complain against Sam. This does not mean that I agree with everything Sam does, but that I believe that with patience and good will we can find common ground to cooperate. Danny 01:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

Take a long look at what he said. The attempt to distract matters and make me the villain will only bring more hardship. I strongly recommend you do as Fred suggested and search for examples of my failing to utilize talk pages. You will find that I copiously comment about controversial edits, and never engage in revert war without discussion. There is no smoking gun. Have a look:

 * I'm afraid you are reading a bit more into my comments than I intend to communicate. I see both of you as vulnerable as you are both bull-headed, that's all. Fred Bauder 18:56, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Practically every user makes mistakes. Are you going to demand now that every user who rubs you the wrong way is going to have to make 'formal, public apologies' on RfAR? This is absurd. You of all people lack the standing to demand an apologies of anyone. 172 19:02, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Heh. My request is spurious while yours is "designed to protect Wikipedia." Sure. 172 19:02, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * You mix egalitarian premises with insinuations of my lowliness and lack of standing. I find this a confusing mix. Are you sincere in thinking the problem here is one of interpersonal difficulties between the two of us? Shall I refer you to User:Sam Spade/Clients? Sam Spade 19:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an interpersonal dispute. We don't work well together and should avoid crossing paths, let alone dwelling on the past. 172 19:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't like that conclusion, but may be willing to accept it. What about the larger concerns about your edit warring and POV advocacy? Sam Spade 19:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * And what about your... That can be addressed in the future by other users who will disagree with either of us. Neither of us should be self-righteous. We should just leave each other alone. 172 19:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, so let me get this straight: You suggestion is that we drop all RfAR regarding one another, and avoid one another (i.e. no mediation, or continued dialogue). If one of us does anything to warrant it, someone else can RfAR regarding them if and when necessary. Is this a fair and correct summary of your proposal? Sam Spade 19:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, and I should try to stay uninvolved in disputes between you and other users and vice versa. If worse comes to worse and we are in a disagreement, we should both stay focused entirely on the content, not the personalities. 172 19:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But isn't that a mutual failure? Or perhaps even worse, a failure solely on my part, and a victory for yourself? I, for example am profoundly unfearful of the mediation attempt against me, (altho I admit it is rather unflattering to be accused thusly), other than the possibility of it annoying the overworked and understaffed arbitration committee. Actually I see it as a much-needed opportunity to explore admin abuses, the atmosphere of incivility on the wiki generally, as well as a method of publicly proving myself innocent of all charges via acquittal. I have long had an ugly stigma against me on the wiki, and I see the opportunity to explain myself publicly and be analyzed before the arbitration committee as perhaps the most effective method of validating my contributions. Also, I am honestly concerned that withdrawing at this time would give you a mandate for continued "POV crusading" and rule bending (I mean no offense by this last, only trying to be sincere in my clarity).

Additionally, doesn’t this ignore the obvious fact that we so often edit the same pages, and that a policy of avoidance is therefore unrealistic? And with both of us accusing the other of some misdeed or another, isn’t it clear that at least one (if not both) of us is misbehaving in some manner deserving of correction? In what way is the community best served by either of us hiding from the light of arbitration?

Sam Spade 20:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * We should avoid finger-pointing. If disruption is avoided, this is a "victory" for everyone. 172 20:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no reason for us to go to mediation. We're not disputing the content of any articles right now. That means that there is no dispute, barring these arbitration cases. 172 20:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * If we both withdraw our arbitration requests, this will indeed to more to end this "ugly stigma against yourself" than these dueling arbitration cases. 172 20:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Not at all. We haven't really had a conflict over editing since Fascism, which was months ago. VeryVerily and I cross paths far more often than you cross paths with me, and VV and I have been able to avoid conflict with each other since we agreed to our detente. 172 20:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am honestly uncertain about the best way forward. I'd be interested in hearing some an advice from an arbitrator, if that is at all possible. Sam Spade 18:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The other arbitrators cannot give you advice. I can only because I have recused myself. (This would be totally unacceptable in the practice of law, any judge who recused themselves and then offered advice to the litigants would be off the bench in a flash). My general advice both in real life and on Wikipedia to to avoid litigation, it is a damaging and aggravating thing, of course, the means of avoiding litigation is to avoid conflict. This nice idea can only be carried so far if one is to edit with integrity. That said, I think you could both pledge to patiently communicate and negotiate with one another should conflict arise and to both go to mediation and in good faith attempt to work things out before you make arbitration requests. Fred Bauder 21:30, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

OK, in light of Fred's kindly and appropriate advice, I will agree to withdrawing my request for arbitration if 172 agrees to do likewise with his, AND agrees to attempting mediation. Sam Spade 21:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Mediation for what? There are no edit wars between the two of us. There will be no conflict if we can ignore each other. And believe me, I want to ignore you. 172 23:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well? Are we going to withdraw our dueling arbitration requests and reach a détente or what? 172 16:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * As I have said all along, I am uncomfortable with the idea of simply ending things here, leaving them as they are. I have thus far offered two compromises, both of which you have declined. I will offer one more, and then I am going to step back from all of this for a bit. I suggest we consolidate the cases, making things easier for the arbitration committee. You are allowed to make a counter-claim against me anyways, so there is really no reason for a separate case. I suggest you merge your request against me into the existing case against you, making the whole process more streamlined. Sam Spade 17:42, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Your "compromise" is going to mediation. Why are you interested in going through mediation? 172 17:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, do you have a reason for wanting to go through mediation? We are not fighting over the content of a single article right now. That's why I can only assume right now that your motive is wasting my time because I rubbed you the wrong way months ago. 172 18:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't believe mediation is designed solely for article content disputes. Our dispute is in regards to what I see as your policy violations, and I assume what you see as my POV? I'm actually not very clear as to the reasoning behind your RfAR against me, it might help if you explained it better. Perhaps mediation might accomplish that? Sam Spade 20:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please put this in perspective. Just about every active user has made mistakes. This includes both of us; this includes just about every admin. Frankly, you're making what should've been a non-issue into a huge burden for the arbitrators and both of us. These dueling arbitration cases started when you decided to second Lir's request regarding New Imperialism, a dispute that has never concerned you. Yet, we have not really dealt with each other extensively. You are just bringing up old disputes (resolved disputes) I have had with other users in order to undermine my credibility; and I am just bringing forward disputes you have had with other users in order to undermine your credibility.

To be honest, this struck me as an attempt to settle an old score because you disagreed with what I was saying on fascism and on FAC regarding critical theory. If you are indeed still fuming over our past encounters on these pages, I'll pledge to treat you respectfully, with the same benefit of the doubt that I afford, say, the professional academics on this site, but that is if (and only if) we are both able to withdraw our arbitration requests. If we don't withdraw our cases, I won't be able to accomplish this, as I'll be in the position of defending the terms of my case and vice versa. (I'll reiterate this pledge on your talk page so that you can have it on record.) With these dueling arbitration cases, there's no way of us avoiding further disruption and bad blood. 172 21:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't recollect anything about FAC critical theory, are you sure that was I?

 * The area I have found myself in conflict w you has been as a largely silent observer of copious policy violations (mainly Civility, Wikiquette, and Revert). I think I've been very clear about the importance that I place on this.

 * Are you agreeable to consolidating our two RfAR for the benefit of the arbitration committee? Sam Spade 02:45, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * If you're not interested in settling this like an adult, so be it. I cannot force you to do so. I already frittered away too much time dealing with you and your puerile games anyway. See you in arbitration. 172 03:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Greek Sperm
Hi, would you mind telling me where you get that stuff about the Greeks believing sperm to be the source of knowledge. Primary sources would be best. Thanks. --Haiduc 01:27, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I got it from History of homosexuality, and have heard a number of things from various sources of a similar bent over the years, such as the word origen of "seminary" being something to do w the mixing of semen, and something about greek men putting their hands on their testicles when testefying in court being the origen of the term "testify". I am not an expert on this however, and am less than eager to spend long hours of research investigating the particulars of ancient greek views on semen ;) Sam Spade 18:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * actually, they held the testes when testifying, but that is the origin of 'testify', it was akin to the modern 'swearing an oath on a bible', (and apparently the testes held a similar level of importance to the greek culture) as you state sorry... I can't help further off the top of my head.Pedant 02:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanx for the input. Sam Spade 02:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wiki: Babel?
Thank you for welcome message

Would like to compliment someone for this (Wikipedia) initiative (who?)!

I consider contributing also for the Portuguese edition. But have serious doubts:

-the entries do not seem to bear even a resemblance in e.g, English and Po. Is not this terrible duplication (/multiplication) of efforts?

I understand a language is a culture is a world; still...

Do you have any info (I missed) or suggestion? Yours

Csaba Deák 23:00, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

 * I agree, I think it is foolish to have distinct articles between the the langueages, but the problem is we haven't enough multilingual users with the interest to merge and standardize them. Perhaps you can help? The best is to translate good information from one to the other, back and forth, IMO. Thank you for your kind thoughts, Sam Spade 23:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * We do have a project here at Translation into English that attempts to translate articles from other language Wikipedias. Perhaps you would consider both volunteering to translate articles into English here from your native tongue, and also starting a similar project at the Portuguese Wikipedia? This is only a suggestion. I hope it is helpful. Thanks for your interest in the site, and your desire to contribute -- Jwrosenzweig 23:30, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for welcome msg and suggestion. I do plan making occasional intercourse between the two langages, although in a non-sistematic/regular way, as told in more detail in my answer to Sam below. Deák 23:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

 * In some cases articles in the Esperanto Wikipedia seem to have been translated from English articles, or articles in English were translated from Esperanto (e.g. Sidney S. Culbert). In many cases, though, the articles were independently written by people not aware of the other article, not having time to translate the whole of it, or not considering the whole text relevant to the interests of the other language community (e.g. I don't think any of A. E. van Vogt's works have been translated into Esperanto, so I did not think it necessary to translate the whole article about him). I suppose the same situations apply to all other language-pairs. I agree that it's a good thing to check the articles in any other languages you can read and use them as sources to improve the articles in any languages you can write competently. --Jim Henry 20:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam, since you did not answer my first Q I assume it is yourself who is to be congratulated for Wikipedia. It is a stupendous idea, which created something like a 'collective brain'. Regardless of how exactly it will work in its maturity, it is certainly worth finding out. Personally I see two major problems: the accomodation of actual conflicts, which you already addressed, and dealing with the multiplicity of languages. A minor problem is that the permanent state of flux of everything contained in Wiki makes difficult (impossible?) its use as a reference, both for external and internal (through internal links) use, except with a date/time tag ('according to Wiki.Entry, on Y/M/D,...').

On the 'languages problem' (Babel) this is what I came to think so far. It is not only a question of having (enough) people to do translation. The various languages are actually verious worlds (that's what I meant with "a language is a culture is a world" above). Maybe an entry like 'Pi' or 'Elton John' is virtually unproblematic (although in the latter case interest in it and therefore level of detail required may vary greatly, as between England and China, for example). But 'local' differences are bound to be more pronounced as the entry touches closer upon specific countries' history, culture, folklore. Thus maybe what we can do is something like what happens really among the cultures: each has its own life, but this includes getting into contact with other cultures at various levels of frequency, intensity and hierarchy. This would translate into multintongued wiki-ers picking occasionally material from one language and transpose (the relevant bit of) it into the other, whether in the form of a new entry or revision of an existing one. But it is only a sort of inoculation; the effect of which will spread further in its new context independently of the evolution of the same info in its original milieu. Until a new (unplannable) contact is made ... Anyway, my plan as of now is to do precisely this: make occasional forays from En to Pt and vice-versa.

I promise not to come back with such long elocubrations in the future. --Csaba Deák 23:19, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

 * Quite alright, you can feel free to say as much as often as you like :). I am not the site founder, simply a volunteer here, if I misunderstand correctly. The site founder is User:Jimbo Wales, and he is generally too busy for greeting people ;) As far as your thoughts I generally agree, but personally would like more uniformity and less ethnocentrism. Glad to hear you are interested in putting your multilingual abilities to good use. Cheers, Sam Spade 23:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Entry needs attention
Hi Sam. New entry Alice cleaver needs dealing to by an admin, speedy deletion maybe. It is inaccurate because it combines info about two different Mary Cleavers. I believe it is a deliberate hoax. It has exactly the same odd formatting as previous hoaxes which have been deleted in the past, even down to the curious lower-case first letter for the surname. I'd put it on VfD myself but my softeware is having trouble handling it. Cheers ...Moriori 00:12, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I copied your note to Talk:Alice cleaver, and put a note on Cleanup as well. Have a look and see if it is all to your satisfaction :) Sam Spade 00:26, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the links
Much appreciated. Lots of useful information there!

LeeHunter 01:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Place of dialogue
I am at a loss where to pursue a dialogue (here, on Babel): you seemed to do it on your pg, but answered me one mine (where the Q is not there). Deák 02:49, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Lets talk @ User talk:Sam Spade. I have copied some from your talk page, I hope it helps. Sam Spade 02:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your comments
''Spade, I don't mean to be offensive but stop playing dumb! The link keeps getting removed not because the article was associated to a banned user, who may or may not be a good acquaintance or even friend of yours.

I am the one who keeps removing the mention of "cosmotheism" from the Article and will keep doing so every single day if necessary.''

 * These statements are offensive. Please review Civility, and refrain from such statements in the future. You do not own this, or any other page, and will not be the sole decision maker. It would appear you are a relatively new user. Please view this as a positive learning experience.

 * Sam Spade 23:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spade, you wrote me the following in my talk page:

These statements are offensive. Please review Wikipedia:Civility, and refrain from such statements in the future.

'''I clearly said that my first comment was not meant to be offensive. If it was, I apologize. However, I was making a valid point since you seem to be feigning ignorance of an issue that was directed to you and fully addressed on a previous occasion.'''

You do not own this, or any other page, and will not be the sole decision maker.

'''I have and will never make such a claim. I was simply stating my intention to preserve the integrity of a particular page I care about.'''

It would appear you are a relatively new user. Please view this as a positive learning experience.

Whatever...

Loremaster 17:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * If you intend to "preserve the integrity" of the page in a manner in accordance with policy, than you are required to discuss reverts and other controversial edits which you make to it, without making personal attacks of other acts of incivility. Sam Spade 17:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I have discussed the controversial reverts and edits on several occasions. As for making personal attacks, I've already explained myself so this "dispute" is over for me. Loremaster 18:00, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Intention is not the key factor in a personal attack. See that you do not do it again. Using all bold font is unfriendly, BTW. Sam Spade 18:05, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Please read my last update to the Talk:Transhumanism page Loremaster 23:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Welcome to the Wikipedia
Thank you, Mr. Spade. Edgarde 18:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message. I've been making edits for over a year, though I only created a user account for myself about 25 June 2004. --Jim Henry 20:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
plain_regular_ham 16:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Its what I do :) 16:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Sam, I appreciate it, I also use the program Sam Spade, if I have any questions I'll be sure to ask. If you need anything from me (computer related or whatnot) I'd be happy to help, have a good one. User:Tajas1 (added after by Sam Spade 22:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC))

 * How kind. Maybe you might be interested in improving the Sam Spade article? I don't know much of anything about the computer program myself, what does it do? Sam Spade 22:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Immortality
I saw you had been having some problems with transhumanism. I think you might want to take a look at Immortality as well, which is also a featured article candidate, just to make sure NPOV is followed. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:19, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

 * That article (Immortality) is going to take alot of work, and is quite far off from FAC material. I plan to work on it periodically, but am not terribly optomistic due to the intensity of obvious POV I am finding.

 * Would you mind lending a hand Re: Talk:Transhumanism / Requests for comment/Loremaster? I understand this is not an area in which you possess a technical expertise, but IMO the problem is much more one of user conduct than technical content. Thank you for your thoughtful note, Sam Spade 20:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll take a look, but I don't know how much help I'll be--philosophy not my strong point, I'd rather not have an argument unless I actually knew what I was talking about. Best, and good luck in the election, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:37, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

 * Haha!, good point! "I'd rather not have an argument unless I actually knew what I was talking about" I wish everyone were so thoughtful ;) Thanks again, Sam Spade 18:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome. I have made some comments on talk pages before and signed them with my email address. All the administrative stuff seems very complex, and seems to have almost no effect as far as preventing people from acting like goons. Weed Harper 14:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Well sometimes it’s the administrators who act like the goons ;) All in all tho, I think the process is reasonably well written. Have a look at Dispute resolution if your having a problem with a particularly intractable user. Glad to have you, Sam Spade 18:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

post-Soviet Russia
Your objection to the post-Soviet Russia article on FAC is transparently personal and in bad faith. (Yet, I am not the sole author of the article.) This shows a total disregard for all the work that A. Shetsen, Andris, Dan Gardner, Paranoid, and others have put into the article, including all the work that they've devoted to bringing it up to featured status. Furthermore, the motivation behind my nomination was a desire to help build a community of users working on Wiki's so far underdeveloped articles on postcommunist Russia, not personal valediction. A feature on the main page will bring in yet more users into the fold on post-Soviet Russia. People interested in Russia will see the article on the main page, start editing the article, and start working on all related articles linked to the page that are still languishing as stubs (e.g., all the articles on the Russian prime ministers, the oligarchs, parties, political institutions). Please find a way of dealing with users you dislike working with (Loremaster, AndyL, me, etc.) that do not thward efforts to help develop the encyclopedia. 172 20:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * How does me complaining about style errors and lack of prose interfere w your ability to improve the encyclopdia? Sam Spade 21:16, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't play dumb. You wouldn't have looked at the article had I not been involved. Like your request for arbitration against me and your request for comment page against Loremaster, this is just a part of your pattern of behavior of stalking users and doing whatever you can to get back at them . 172 22:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, I know full well that even if links are added gratuitously, your objection will not go away. The objection only stemmed from my involvement in the page. 172 23:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Havn't you noticed that I am regularly involved on FAC? Part of the RfAR you have against involves my involvement in the Gay bath house attempt. What actually happened (as if it matters) is that I saw your comment on Mav's talk page, and decided to read the article. So, in the sense that your involvement made me curious, you are correct. But it was while reading the article that I noticed the awkward prose, and unusual linking. Russia is the 1st word, but its not linked? The first usage of the word is the one to link. And what kind of prose is "(For backgrounding see the main article on the dissolution of the Soviet Union.)" or "The conversion of the world's largest state-controlled economy into a market-oriented economy would have been extraordinarily difficult regardless of the policies chosen. (For backgrounding on state economic planning in the former Soviet Union, see Economy of the Soviet Union.) The policies chosen for this difficult transition were (1) liberalization, (2) stabilization, and (3) privatization, which were based on the neoliberal "Washington Consensus" of the IMF, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department."? Thats no way to make links, nor to explain things in a readable fashion. I'd spend some time working on it, but you;d just revert me. Sam Spade 23:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)
1) Pro - Meritocracy: Most left wing ideologies do not support any kind of heirarchical structures for insitutions. I myself do not believe in Meritocracy because it basically says that those a the top are at the top because they are the most capable or most fit. Bullshit. This completely ignores the fact that not everyone is born into equal circumstances. A kid from Harlem and a kid born on the upper west side in Manhattan do not have the same oppurtunities. The kid from the upper west side has thousands more chances to suceed, most of them completely unrelated to how fit that person is. What I'm saying is all that meritocracy and heirarchy do is enforce structures where the people at the top stay at the top and those not at the top get fucked. It's wrong and evil and has been used to justify evertyhing from Fascism to Reagan's so called "homeless by choice" approach to fighting poverty.

2) Pro - Non racial eugenics: When was eugenics ever a good idea? I doubt you'll find any lefties who even consider eugenics a legitimate theory much less one that should be furthered. This I find kind of frightening to be honest. People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics.

3)Anti-equality, anti-affirmative action, anti-choice, anti-communism: Well you'll never find a left winger against equality. I love equality. I wish we loved in a society where everybody was equal. Anti-AA? Nope sorry, lefties arent against AA. I'm not going to argue with you on this one because I don't want to get into it. Anti-choice? Nope wrong again. I'm the most hardcore feminist male ever. And you better believe that most leftists view a woman's right to choose as something that they will fight to the grave over. Your stance is decidedly right wing. The last one, anti-communism actually kind of baffles me. If this were the cold war I'd understand. But whats the point of even saying your anti-communist now? There's that sad guy in Cuba who plays dress up in military fatigues and that crazy midget in North Korea. If you're gonna say you're anti-communism why not say you're anti-trancedentalist or anti-British loyalist. It's such an outdated idea. Oh and then why not say you're anti-fascism as well, fascism is a horrible ideology that killed millions of people as well. You're not pro-fascist are you? StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Meritocracy isn't a way to explain why the poor are poor and the rich are rich, it's a vision of a better world, where people who excel are promoted, and people who are unmotivated or incapable end up w subsistence positions, regardless of heredity. Its kinda the opposite of AA, since nobody is promoted based on their race, or given a special advantage due to a disability.

 * 2) I think so. Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we? ;)

 * 3) equality = serfdom, AA = racism, choice = baby-murdering, or more broadly, the option to do what is wrong, and communism = ...well, serfdom again ;) Feminism makes about as much sense as chauvinism, and gets less respect from me. Why? Because I'm male ;) Why would I point out my anti-communism? Because the "new-left" is very much like the old left, as in leaning towards revolutionary communism. Have you seen (or participated in, knowing you ;) those anti-globalism riots? Communism is back in chic, and I for one like to remind people of Stalin, Pol Pot, the "Great leap forward", and other such "humanism". The reason why I don't think I'm right wing is that I like clean air, socialized medicine, and everyone’s basic needs being met (food, shelter, medical care, job counseling... ;) When I think right-wing, I think laissez-faire, or worse yet, corporatism.

 * Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
FLASK

The Flux Advanced Security Kernel (FLASK) is an operating system security architecture that provides flexible support for security policies. It is a joint venture between the National Security Agency, the University of Utah, and the Secure Computing Corporation project designed to provide a framework for a more secure operating system. Development and implementation started with the Mach microkernel, and has since shifted its focus to the Linux operating system. FLASK is a core framework in security-focused operating systems such as NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux (SELinux), OpenSolaris FMAC and TrustedBSD. This means that SELinux can be thought of as an implementation of FLASK.

title: FLASK


text: User talk:65.123.241.91

title: User talk:65.123.241.91


text:
Eel River (Wabash River tributary)

The Eel River is a 94 mi tributary of the Wabash River in northern Indiana in the United States. Via the Wabash and Ohio rivers, its waters flow to the Mississippi River and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico. The Eel River rises southeast of Huntertown in Allen County and flows southwest through Allen, Whitley, Kosciusko, Wabash, Miami, and Cass counties to join the Wabash at Logansport. The river was called Kineepikwameekwa Siipiiwi - "river of the snake fish" by the Miami people, who inhabited the area at the time of European contact, the English rendered it as Ke-na-po-co-mo-co. It is the northern of the two rivers named Eel River within Indiana.

Natural history
Originating as an "ice-marginal channel" at the edge of the retreating Saginaw Lobe of the Wisconsin Glacier, the Eel River was later buried by the glacier's advancing Erie Lobe. As the Erie Lobe retreated, the Eel formed a single stream with what is now upper Cedar Creek in DeKalb and Allen counties. The ancestral Eel River was also fed by glacial meltwater surging under the ice from the southeast through a "tunnel valley" known today as Cedar Creek Canyon. Blockage of the Eel's channel by outwash from the canyon and a decline in the volume of meltwater forced the upper Eel to change course into the canyon, creating today's Cedar Creek. This is a classic example of stream piracy that shifted almost 175000 acre of land from the Eel-Wabash watershed to that of the St. Joseph-Maumee.

Indigenous peoples and French exploration
The waterways were where indigenous peoples settled in prehistoric and historic times, as they were sources of food and water, and the avenues for transportation and trade. The Miami, an Algonquian-speaking people, called the river Kineepikwameekwa Siipiiwi or Ke-na-po-co-mo-co, meaning "river of the snake fish." Later French explorers, who also followed the waterways, called it the Rivière L'Anguille (Eel River).

Political and military history
Before the United States consolidated its hold on the Northwest Territory, the Eel formed a rough boundary between the Potawatomi tribe on the north and the Miami tribe on the south. In addition, it was an area of competition between French and British colonial forces for decades before the American Revolution. Afterward, the US fought with American Indians in numerous battles sometimes called the Northwest Indian War.

In November 1780, a French militia force under Auguste Mottin de la Balme, who planned to seize a British trading post on the Eel near present-day Columbia City, was destroyed by the Miami led by Chief Michikinikwa, also known as "Little Turtle". On 19 October 1790, Chief Michikinikwa's warriors surprised and virtually annihilated a U.S. force under Colonel John Hardin in the Eel bottomlands southeast of present-day Churubusco.

On 7 August 1791, the Eel was the scene of another battle, when General James Wilkinson destroyed the Miami town of Kenapacomaqua 6 mi upstream from present-day Logansport.

In September 1812, Colonel James Simrall, acting under orders from General William Henry Harrison, ravaged Miami farms and villages along the Eel in present-day Whitley County. He defeated a Miami force that stood and fought.

Literary reference
Ross Lockridge Jr., Raintree County, Boston: Houghton Mifflin (1948), pp. 93–94.

"Johnny Shawnessy probably had a better guess about the river's name than anyone else as he was the only person in the County for years who made any research into the Indian culture. He finally decided that the river's name was related to the Indian word Shakamak, meaning long fish or eel. There was a Shakamak River in southern Indiana; and in the northern part of the state, an Eel River, which in the Miami tongue had been called the Kenapocomoko, or River of Snake Fish.

The only drawback to Johnny's theory was the fact that he never found an eel in the Shamucky River."

title: Eel River (Wabash River tributary)


text:
Rum Sodomy & the Lash

Rum Sodomy & the Lash is the second studio album by the London-based, Irish folk punk band the Pogues, released on 5 August 1985. The album reached number 13 on the UK charts. The track "A Pair of Brown Eyes", based on an older Irish tune, reached number 72 on the UK singles chart. "The Old Main Drag" later appeared on the soundtrack to the film My Own Private Idaho.

Title
The album's title is taken from a quotation attributed to Winston Churchill: "Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash." The title was suggested by drummer Andrew Ranken, who said "it seemed to sum up life in our band".

Artwork
The cover artwork is an altered version of The Raft of the Medusa, a Romantic-era painting by Theodore Géricault, with the band members' heads, painted by Peter Mennim, replacing those of various figures on the raft.

Recording
Elvis Costello, whose manager Jake Riviera approached the band, was originally employed to produce two songs for a single, "A Pair of Brown Eyes" and "Sally MacLennane", but after recording at Elephant Studios in Wapping was extended Costello agreed to record the entire album. Chevron later said, "The Pogues needed, more than anything, not to be not so much as produced as facilitated. Recording the band as live as possible, but with a great deal of natural acoustic presence in the instruments – was quite a revolutionary thing to do 1985." Costello said, "I saw my task was to capture them in their dilapidated glory before some more professional producer fucked them up."

Critical reception and accolades
Rum Sodomy & the Lash received very positive reviews from critics. Melody Maker's Adam Sweeting said, "The brightest, most intense moments of Rum ... aren't about particularities of style or delivery. This is, apart from anything else, music to hang on to other people by to stave off brutal fact and the weight of history. While The Pogues make music for drunks as well, probably, as anyone has they're also dragging an oft-ignored folk tradition into the daylight with an altogether improbable potency ... Rum ... has soul, if not a great deal of innovation, and somewhere among the glasses and the ashtrays lie a few home truths." Sounds' Jane Simon called Rum Sodomy & the Lash "the finest slice of story-telling your heart could wish for". David Quantick of NME described the record as "a collection of free-ranging stuff to be sure; from the funereal folk ballad to the near spaghetti-western instrumental, raucous celebration to brown study, cheerful melody to downright strangeness. It's never sentimental, it's rarely polite, and it's certainly not ordinary ... Rum Sodomy and the Lash is more than the best record The Pogues could be expected to make at this time. It's more than a brilliant example of a band using its resources in an imaginative manner. It's probably the best LP of 1985." Robert Christgau of The Village Voice wrote that "none of it would mean much without the songs—some borrowed, some traditional, and some proof that MacGowan can roll out bitter blarney with the best of his role models."

In a retrospective review, Mark Deming of AllMusic stated that Rum Sodomy & the Lash "falls just a bit short of being the Pogues' best album, but was the first one to prove that they were a great band, and not just a great idea for a band." Daniel Bristow of the Irish music website CLUAS awarded the album an eight out of ten, calling it "a record that will never cease to delight, always a pleasure to hear and highly, highly recommended if you're not familiar with it already". Mark Cooper of Q described the record as "a proud, defiant bruise of an album that manages to be both profoundly bleak and immoderately romantic and it remains MacGowan's and The Pogues' finest hour". Uncuts Jon Wilde wrote that "the most startling thing about their second album was the steep ascendancy of MacGowan's songwriting", while Spins Jon Dolan said that the album contained "some of the purest toothless lyricism in punk-rock history."

In 2000, Q placed Rum Sodomy & the Lash at number 93 in its list of the 100 Greatest British Albums Ever. In 2012, the album was ranked number 440 on Rolling Stone's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list. Pitchfork named it the 67th best album of the 1980s. The album was also included in the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die.

Reissues
A remastered and expanded version of Rum, Sodomy & the Lash was released for compact disc by WEA in the European market on 11 January 2005; this re-issue was released on September 19, 2006, by Rhino Records in the United States. The remastered disc added six bonus tracks, including the entirety of the Poguetry in Motion EP and the B-sides to "Dirty Old Town" – "A Pistol for Paddy Garcia" on seven-inch and "The Parting Glass" on twelve-inch singles. The reissue included liner notes by David Quantick and a poem about the Pogues by Tom Waits.

Personnel
Credits are adapted from the liner notes of Rum Sodomy & the Lash and Poguetry in Motion, except where noted.

The Pogues
 * Shane MacGowan – vocals
 * Spider Stacy – tin whistle, vocals on "Jesse James"
 * James Fearnley – accordion
 * Jem Finer – banjo
 * Cait O'Riordan – bass, vocals on "I'm a Man You Don't Meet Every Day"
 * Andrew Ranken – drums
 * Philip Chevron – guitar, mandolin on "The Parting Glass"

Additional personnel
 * Henry Benagh – fiddle
 * Dick Cuthell – French horn
 * Tommy Keane – uilleann pipes
 * Terry Woods – string instruments on Poguetry in Motion
 * Fiachra Trench – string arrangements on Poguetry in Motion

Technical personnel
 * Elvis Costello – producer
 * Philip Chevron – producer on "A Pistol for Paddy Garcia" and "The Parting Glass"
 * Nick Robbins – engineer (2005 reissue remastering)
 * Paul Scully – engineer
 * Dave Jordan – engineer on Poguetry in Motion
 * Bob Kraushaar – engineer on Poguetry in Motion
 * Nick Davis – engineer on Poguetry in Motion
 * Peter Mennim – cover art (heads)
 * Théodore Géricault – original painting
 * Frank Murray – sleeve concept
 * Cindy Palmano – photography
 * Lilly Lee – hand lettering

title: Rum Sodomy & the Lash