text:
Kellie Martin

Kellie Martin (born October 16, 1975) is an American actress. She is known for her roles as Rebecca "Becca" Thatcher in Life Goes On (1989–1993), Lucy Knight on ER (1998–2000), Samantha Kinsey in the Mystery Woman TV film series (2003–2007), and as Hailey Dean in the Hailey Dean Mystery TV film series (2016–2019).

Early life
Martin began her acting career at age seven, when her aunt who was a nanny for actor Michael Landon's children helped her land a guest spot on the Landon-produced series Father Murphy. At the age of 11, she was a contestant during Young People's Week on the Bob Eubanks-hosted version of Card Sharks.

Early years
Martin had a recurring role on season three of Valerie's Family: The Hogans (1987–1988). She also contributed the voice of Daphne Blake on the animated series A Pup Named Scooby-Doo in 1988–1991. In 1989, Martin began the role of Rebecca "Becca" Thatcher on the family drama Life Goes On, which ran on ABC for four seasons. She also played the role of Emily in 1989's Troop Beverly Hills, starring Shelley Long. Martin also co-hosted the 1989 pilot of America's Funniest Home Videos alongside Bob Saget.

1990s
From 1991 to 1995, Martin supplied the voice of Molly Tasmanian Devil on Taz-Mania. In 1993, she played Sherry in Matinee, and made a guest appearance as Cleo Walker on an episode of seaQuest DSV titled "Brothers and Sisters".

In 1994, she starred in her own series, Christy. Also in 1994, she starred in the Lifetime movie A Friend to Die For. In 1995, she starred in The Face on the Milk Carton, a TV film based on the book by Caroline Cooney about a teenager who finds out she was kidnapped from her real family 13 years prior and had been raised by the parents of her kidnapper. She was in A Goofy Movie as the voice of Roxanne, Max's love interest.

In 1996, Martin starred as deaf abuse-victim Laura Keyes on Lifetime's TV movie After the Silence (or Breaking Through). She starred in a made for TV movie Hidden in Silence (Lifetime Television). From 1998–2000, Martin appeared on the medical drama ER as medical student Lucy Knight. Martin was still going to Yale at the time and postponed her education so that she could join the cast. When she left ER, she stopped acting for three years and returned to Yale to finish her degree in art history.

2000s
In 2003, Martin starred in Mystery Woman, a Hallmark Channel movie about the owner of a mystery bookshop who solves actual crimes. From 2005 to 2007, she made ten more Mystery Woman movies for Hallmark, two of which she directed. Also in 2003, Martin had a supporting role on the comedic film Malibu's Most Wanted.

In 2006, she starred in the Lifetime movie Live Once, Die Twice, followed by No Brother of Mine in 2007. Also in 2007, Martin provided the voice for the adult-version of Barbara Gordon on "Artifacts", an episode of The Batman.

In 2009, Martin was a guest on Grey's Anatomy, episode "No Good at Saying Sorry." She also guest starred in the Ghost Whisperer episode "Stage Fright" as Cally O'Keefe. She has guest starred on the Private Practice episode "The Way We Were".

In 2012, she played Army Captain Nicole Galassini on the Lifetime Network television series Army Wives.

In 2016, Martin began starring in a new Hallmark Movies & Mysteries Channel show Hailey Dean Mystery as the protagonist Hailey Dean who is a former prosecutor turned therapist and solves mysteries. The Hailey Dean Mysteries are based on characters from Nancy Grace's New York Times best-selling series of mystery books about Dean.

In 2017, she played police officer Kimberly Leahy in seven episodes of the TBS comedy series The Guest Book.

Personal life
Martin graduated from Yale University in 2001 with a degree in art history. She was a member of the Saybrook Fellowship. She married Keith Christian on May 15, 1999, in his hometown of Polson, Montana. They have two daughters.

Martin owns and operates her own toy store and has authored a novel, Madam: A Novel of New Orleans from Plume.

title: Kellie Martin


text: Category:Architecture in the United States

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


text:
OpenVG

OpenVG is an API designed for hardware-accelerated 2D vector graphics. Its primary platforms are mobile phones, gaming & media consoles and consumer electronic devices. It was designed to help manufacturers create more attractive user interfaces by offloading computationally intensive graphics processing from the CPU onto a GPU to save energy. The OpenGL ES library provides similar functionality for 3D graphics. OpenVG is managed by the non-profit technology consortium Khronos Group.

History
The OpenVG group was formed on July 6, 2004 by a selection of major firms including 3Dlabs, Bitboys, Ericsson, Hybrid Graphics, Imagination Technologies, Motorola, Nokia, PalmSource, Symbian, and Sun Microsystems. Other firms including chip manufacturers ATI, LG Electronics, Mitsubishi Electric, NVIDIA, and Texas Instruments and software- and/or IP vendors DMP, Esmertec, ETRI, Falanx Microsystems, Futuremark, HI Corporation, Ikivo, HUONE (formerly MTIS), Superscape, and Wow4M have also participated in the working group. The first draft specification from the group was made available at the end of 2004, and the 1.0 version of the specification was released on August 1, 2005.

On January 16, 2007, Zack Rusin from Tungsten Graphics announced the start of an independent open-source implementation of OpenVG built on top of QtOpenGL.

Shortly after, Ivan Leben started another open-source project to implement an ANSI C implementation of the specification on top of OpenGL.

Since February 27, 2007 the OpenVG Sample Reference Implementation is available from the Khronos Website under MIT open source license.

On December 9, 2008, the Khronos Group publicly released the OpenVG 1.1 Specification. This latest revision includes glyph rendering for accelerated text, improved anti-aliasing, and Flash support. An updated reference implementation is also provided, as well as a conformance test suite.

On May 1, 2009 Rusin added OpenVG state tracker to Mesa, which enables SVG vector graphics to be hardware accelerated by any Gallium3D-based driver. It was removed again in Mesa 10.6 on June 15, 2015.

On September, 2011 OpenVG working group decided not to make any regular meeting for further standardization. However, working group decided to continue maintenance and promotion of OpenVG 1.1 specification.

In hardware

 * Renesas SuperH SH2A based SH7269 solution. Developed for low system-cost embedded GUIs, with up to 2.5MB of embedded SRAM for picture-buffer.
 * AMD/ATI Z160 and Z180 OpenVG 1.x Graphics core. Implemented in the Freescale i.MX35, i.MX51 and i.MX53. IP sold to Qualcomm and rebranded "Adreno" for Snapdragon cores.
 * ARM Mali Graphics Processing Units
 * Broadcom BCM4760 SoC – Announced 01/June/09. BCM4760 Contains “an OpenGL(R) ES 1.1/OpenVG(TM) 1.0-compliant graphics processor”
 * Digital Media Professionals Inc.(DMP Inc.) SMAPH-F(dandelion VG)
 * Imagination PowerVR VGX150 OpenVG 1.1
 * Imagination PowerVR SGX Series5 – API support includes OpenGL ES 1.1/2.0, OpenVG 1.1, OpenGL 2.0/3.0 and DirectX9/10.1
 * Takumi GV500 – GV300, GV500 Graphics Accelerator IP-Core
 * Think Silicon ThinkVG Graphics Core OpenVG 1.1
 * Vivante GC350 (2D graphics core) OpenVG 1.1
 * Vivante GC400 and above are 3D graphics cores supporting OpenGL ES 2.0 and OpenVG 1.1
 * Adreno GPUs support OpenVG 1.1. Qualcomm provides an SDK for Android.

For GPUs

 * Mesa Gallium3D – VMware/Tungsten Graphics provides an OpenVG implementations for cards with Gallium drivers (Gallium drivers for nVidia, AMD/ATI, and VMware are available). OpenVG has been removed from Mesa in version 10.6.

For media accelerators

 * Hanwha Systems AlexVG-forma – Accelerating Vector Graphics API on Media acceleration hardware. Using horse power of Multimedia or 2D bitmap graphics hardware.

On OpenGL, OpenGL ES

 * Hooked Wireless OpenVG – complete implementation of both OpenVG 1.01 and OpenVG 1.1, implemented on top of OpenGL ES, and is fully conformant. Claim “It leverages proprietary technology from Hooked in the areas of tessellation and triangulation for shapes and curve.” First released in Feb/2008.
 * Hanwha Systems AlexVG-forge – An OpenVG engine which is 2D vector graphic standard by using the graphic chip that supports OpenGL/OpenGL ES.
 * Mazatech AmanithVG GLE – commercial. Built on top of OpenGL 1.1+ and OpenGL ES 1.x. Claim “achieving better performance than software rasterizers in terms of high resolution animations and complex special effects (transparencies, fading, realtime rotoscaling and many others).”
 * MonkVG – open source (BSD), only "OpenVG like"
 * ShivaVG – open source (LGPL)
 * ShaderVG – based on ShivaVG but implements draw calls GLSL shaders

In software

 * Khronos OpenVG Reference implementation
 * Hanwha Systems AlexVG – First released in Sep/2005
 * Mazatech AmanithVG – OpenVG crossplatform library with pure software and OpenGL (/ES 1.1) rendering backends
 * Vega – Gallium3D state tracker
 * GingkoVG

title: OpenVG


text:
Minister of the Armed Forces (France)

The Minister of the Armed Forces (Ministre des Armées, lit. 'Minister of the Armies') is the leader and most senior official of the French Ministry of the Armed Forces, tasked with running the French Armed Forces. The minister is the third-highest civilian having authority over France's military, behind the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister. Based on the governments, they may be assisted by a minister or state secretary for veterans' affairs.

The office is considered to be one of the core positions of the Government of France. Since 20 May 2022, the Minister of the Armed Forces has been Sébastien Lecornu, the 45th person to hold the office.

History
The minister in charge of the Armed Forces has evolved within the epoque and regimes. The Secretary of State of War was one of the four specialised secretaries of state established in France in 1589. This State Secretary was responsible for the French Army (similarly, the Naval Ministers of France and the Colonies was created in 1669). In 1791, the Secretary of State of War became Minister of War, with this ministerial function being abolished in 1794 and re-established in 1795. Since 1930, the position was often referred to as Minister of War and National Defence. In 1947, two years after World War II, the ministry merged with the Ministry of the Navy and the Ministry of Air (created in 1930), while being headed by a Minister of National Defence responsible for the French Armed Forces, often referred to as Minister of the Armies and since 1947 until 2017, designated as Minister of Defence.

Powers and functions
As the head of the military, the minister is part of the Council of Defence. In addition to their authority over the armed forces, the minister also heads the external and military intelligence community. In this capacity, they are also a member of the National Council of Intelligence.

Although the Minister of the Armed Forces is the official responsible for veterans affairs, they usually delegate their powers to a dedicated subordinate minister or state secretary.

The direct military subordinates of the minister are the:
 * Chief of the Defence Staff
 * Delegate General for the Armament
 * Secretary General for the Administration

title: Minister of the Armed Forces (France)


text: User talk:64.12.116.214

title: User talk:64.12.116.214


text: Talk:God Emperor of Dune

title: Talk:God Emperor of Dune


text:
Destroyers-for-bases deal

The destroyers-for-bases deal was an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom on September 2, 1940, according to which 50 Caldwell-class destroyer, Wickes-class destroyer, and Clemson-class destroyer-class US Navy destroyers were transferred to the Royal Navy from the US Navy in exchange for land rights on British possessions.

Generally referred to as the "twelve hundred-ton type" (also known as "flush-deck", or "four-pipers" after their four funnels), the destroyers became the British Town-class destroyer and were named after towns common to both countries. US President Franklin Roosevelt used an executive agreement, which does not require congressional approval. However, he came under heavy attack from antiwar Americans, who pointed out that the agreement violated the Neutrality Acts.

Background
By late June 1940, France had surrendered to Germany and Italy. The British Empire and the Commonwealth stood alone in warfare against Hitler and Mussolini.

The British Chiefs of Staff Committee concluded in May that if France collapsed, "we do not think we could continue the war with any chance of success" without "full economic and financial support" from the United States. The US government was sympathetic to Britain's plight, but US public opinion then overwhelmingly supported isolationism to avoid involvement in "another European war". Reflecting that sentiment, the US Congress had passed the Neutrality Acts three years earlier, which banned the shipment or sale of arms from the US to any combatant nation. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt was further constrained by the upcoming 1940 Presidential election, as his critics sought to portray him as being pro-war. Legal advice from the US Justice Department stated that the transaction was legal.

By late May, the evacuation of British forces from Dunkirk, France, in Operation Dynamo caused the Royal Navy to need ships immediately, especially as it was now fighting the Battle of the Atlantic in which German U-boats threatened the British supplies of food and of other resources essential to the war effort.

With German troops advancing rapidly into France and many in the US government convinced that the defeat of France and Britain was imminent, the US sent a proposal to London through the British ambassador, the Marquess of Lothian, for an American lease of airfields on Trinidad, Bermuda and Newfoundland.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill initially rejected the offer on May 27 unless Britain received something immediate in return. On June 1, as the defeat of France loomed, Roosevelt bypassed the Neutrality Act by declaring as "surplus" many millions of rounds of US ammunition and obsolescent small arms and authorizing their shipment to Britain. Roosevelt rejected Churchill's pleas for destroyers for the Royal Navy.

By August, while Britain was reaching a low point, US Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy reported from London that a British surrender was "inevitable". Seeking to persuade Roosevelt to send the destroyers, Churchill warned Roosevelt ominously that if Britain were vanquished, its colonial islands close to American shores could become a direct threat to the US if they fell into German hands.

Deal
Roosevelt approved the deal on the evening of August 30, 1940. On September 2, 1940, as the Battle of Britain intensified, Secretary of State Cordell Hull signaled agreement to the transfer of the warships to the Royal Navy. On September 3, 1940, Admiral Harold Stark certified that the destroyers were not vital to US security. In exchange, the US was granted land in various British possessions for the establishment of naval or air bases with rent-free 99-year leases, on:
 * Newfoundland
 * Eastern side of the Bahamas
 * Southern coast of Jamaica
 * Western coast of Saint Lucia
 * West coast of Trinidad (Gulf of Paria)
 * Antigua
 * British Guiana (now Guyana) within fifty miles of Georgetown

The agreement also granted the US air and naval base rights in:
 * The Great Sound and Castle Harbour, Bermuda
 * South and eastern coasts of Newfoundland

No destroyers were received in exchange for the bases in Bermuda and Newfoundland. Both territories were vital to trans-Atlantic shipping, aviation, and the Battle of the Atlantic. Although enemy attack on either territory was unlikely, it could not be discounted, and Britain had been forced wastefully to maintain defensive forces, including the Bermuda Garrison. The deal allowed Britain to hand much of the defence of Bermuda to the still-neutral US, which freed British forces for redeployment to more active theatres and enabled the development of strategic facilities at US expense, which British forces would also use.

Both the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Fleet Air Arm (FAA) maintained air stations in Bermuda at the start of the war, but they served only flying boats. The RAF station on Darrell's Island served as a staging point for trans-Atlantic flights by RAF Transport Command and RAF Ferry Command, BOAC, and Pan-Am and hosted the Bermuda Flying School, but it did not operate maritime patrols. The FAA station on Boaz Island serviced aircraft based on vessels operating from or through the Royal Naval Dockyard, but it attempted to maintain maritime patrols by using pilots from naval ships, RAF Darrell's Island, and the Bermuda Flying School.

The agreement for bases in Bermuda stipulated that the US would, at its own expense, build an airfield capable of handling large landplanes that would be operated jointly by the US Army Air Force and the Royal Air Force. The airfield was named Kindley Field after Field Kindley, an American aviator who fought for Britain during World War I. RAF Transport Command relocated its operations to the airfield when it was completed in 1943, but RAF Ferry Command remained at Darrell's Island. The US Navy had established the Naval Operating Base at Bermuda's West End, a flying boat station from which maritime patrols were operated for the remainder of the war (the US Navy had actually begun operating such patrols from RAF Darrell's Island by using floatplanes and was waiting for their own base to become operational). The RAF and FAA facilities were closed after the war, which left only the US air bases in Bermuda. The Naval Operating Base ceased to be an air station in 1965, when its flying boats were replaced by Lockheed P-2 Neptunes operating from the Kindley Air Force Base (as the former US Army airfield had become). Those US air bases were in fact only two of several US military facilities that operated in Bermuda during the 20th century. The US abandoned many of the bases in 1949, and the remaining few were closed in 1995.

The US accepted the "generous action... to enhance the national security of the United States" and immediately transferred in return 50 Caldwell, Wickes, and Clemson-class U.S. Navy destroyers, "generally referred to as the twelve hundred-ton type" (also known as "flush-deckers", or "four-pipers" after their four funnels). Forty-three ships initially went to the British Royal Navy and seven to the Royal Canadian Navy. In the Commonwealth navies, the ships were renamed after towns and so were known as the "Town" class, but they had originally belonged to three classes (Caldwell, Wickes, and Clemson). Before the end of the war, nine others had also served with the Royal Canadian Navy. Five Towns were manned by Royal Norwegian Navy crews, with the survivors later returned to the Royal Navy. HMS Campbeltown (I42) was manned by Royal Netherlands Navy sailors before her assignment to the St. Nazaire Raid. Nine other destroyers were eventually transferred to the Soviet Navy. Six of the 50 destroyers were lost to U-boats, and three others, including Campbeltown, were destroyed in other circumstances.

Britain had no choice but to accept the deal, but it was so much more advantageous to the United States than Britain that Churchill's aide John Colville compared it to the USSR's relationship with Finland. The destroyers were in reserve from the massive US shipbuilding program during World War I, and many of the vessels required extensive overhaul because they had not been preserved properly while inactivated. One British admiral called them the "worst destroyers I had ever seen", and only 30 were in service by May 1941. Churchill also disliked the deal, but his advisers persuaded him merely to tell Roosevelt: "We have so far only been able to bring a few of your fifty destroyers into action on account of the many defects which they naturally develop when exposed to Atlantic weather after having been laid up so long."

Roosevelt responded by transferring ten Lake-class Coast Guard cutters to the Royal Navy in 1941. The United States Coast Guard vessels were ten years newer than the destroyers and had greater range, which made them more useful as anti-submarine convoy escorts.

The agreement was much more important for being the start of the wartime Anglo-American partnership. Churchill said in the British Parliament that "these two great organisations of the English-speaking democracies, the British Empire and the United States, will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general advantage".

Newfoundland

Army Air Force airfields: A Naval Air Station: Coastal defense batteries: United States Army General Surveillance Ground Radar stations:
 * Pepperrell Airfield (later AFB) (closed August 1961; turned over to Canadian Forces as CFS St. John's)
 * Goose Bay Army Airfield (later Goose AFB) (turned over to Canadian Forces as CFB Goose Bay, July 1976)
 * Stephenville Army Airfield (later Ernest Harmon AFB) (closed December 1966; now Stephenville International Airport)
 * McAndrew Army Airfield (McAndrew Air Force Base in 1948; transferred to US Navy, 1955)
 * Naval Station Argentia (closed 1994). Location of the August 1941 Atlantic Conference resulting in the Atlantic Charter.
 * The Harbor Defenses of Argentia and St. John's under control of United States Army Coast Artillery Corps (closed 1945)
 * Allan's Island; Cape Spear; Elliston Ridge; Fogo Island; St. Bride's radar stations (closed 1945)

British West Indies

 * Antigua
 * Naval Air Station Crabbs at Crabbs Peninsula
 * An Army Air Force airfield (Coolidge Army Airfield (later AFB)) (closed 1949)

 * The Bahamas
 * Naval seaplane base on Exuma Island at George Town.

 * British Guiana
 * An Army Air Force airfield (Atkinson Aerodrome (later AFB)) (closed 1949)
 * A Naval seaplane base near Suddie, NAF British Guiana

 * Barbados
 * NAVFAC Harrison's Point, Saint Lucy (closed 1979)

 * Bermuda
 * Not part of the exchange, but the US received base rights here for free, in addition to those that were part of the exchange. The US Naval Operating Base was established in 1940, operating as a flying boat base until 1965 (when the US Navy switched to using landplanes from Kindley Air Force Base). The base continued in use for other purposes as the US Naval Annex until 1995. Construction began at the same time of a US Army Air Force airfield, Kindley Field, which was attached to Fort Bell and later became Kindley AFB. Transferred to the US Navy in 1970, it operated as NAS Bermuda until it closed in 1995.

 * Jamaica
 * An Army Air Force airfield (Vernam Army Airfield (later AFB)) (closed 1949)
 * A Naval Air Station (Little Goat Island) and a Naval facility at Port Royal

 * Saint Lucia
 * An Army Air Force airfield (Beane Army Airfield (later AFB)) (closed 1949)
 * A Naval Air Station (Gros Islet Bay) NAF St. Lucia

 * Trinidad
 * Naval Base Trinidad, Major base 1941 to 1977
 * Two Army Air Force airfields
 * Waller Army Airfield (later AFB) (closed 1949)
 * Carlsen Army Airfield (later AFB) (closed 1949)
 * An emergency airstrip (Camden Airstrip)
 * A Naval Operating Base, a Naval Air Station, blimp base, and a radio station

Ships
A total of 50 ships were reassigned: 3 Caldwell-class, 27 Wickes-class and 20 Clemson-class destroyers.

title: Destroyers-for-bases deal


text:
Minister of Justice (France)

Minister of Justice (Ministre de la Justice), also known as Minister of Justice, Keeper of the Seals (Ministre de la Justice, garde des Sceaux), is a cabinet position in the Government of France. The current minister of justice has been Éric Dupond-Moretti since 2020. The ministry is headquartered on Place Vendôme in the 1st arrondissement of Paris.

Function
The roles of the minister are to:
 * oversee the building, maintenance and administration of courts;
 * sit as vice president of the Judicial Council (which oversees the judicial performance and advises on prosecutiorial performance);
 * supervise public prosecutions;
 * direct corrections and the prison system
 * propose legislation affecting civil or criminal law or procedure.

The Minister of Justice also holds the ceremonial office of Keeper of the Seals of France and is custodian of the Great Seal of France. This symbolic role is still shown in the order of words of the minister's official designation, Minister of Justice, Keeper of the Seals (Ministre de la Justice, garde des Sceaux).

France's Ministry of Justice might oversee the administration of justice in French Guiana, French Polynesia, Guadeloupe, Jersey, Martinique, Mayotte, New Caledonia, Réunion, Saint Barthélemy, Saint-Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Wallis and Futuna.

title: Minister of Justice (France)


text:
Central Siberian Yupik language

Central Siberian Yupik, (also known as Siberian Yupik, Bering Strait Yupik, Yuit, Yoit, "St. Lawrence Island Yupik", and in Russia "Chaplinski Yupik" or Yuk) is an endangered Yupik language spoken by the Indigenous Siberian Yupik people along the coast of Chukotka in the Russian Far East and in the villages of Savoonga and Gambell on St. Lawrence Island. The language is part of the Eskimo-Aleut language family.

In the United States, the Alaska Native Language Center identified about 400-750 Yupigestun speakers, considering “dormant speakers” who understand but cannot converse. In Russia in 2021, 172 people indicated that they speak the language, while only 92 of them use it in everyday life. Thus, the total number of speakers is no more than 550-900 people.

Dialects and subgroups
Siberian Yupik has two dialects: Chaplino (Chaplinski) Yupik (Uŋazigmit) is spoken on the shores of Chukotka Autonomous Okrug in the Russian Far North, and St. Lawrence Island Yupik (Sivuqaghmiistun) is spoken on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Chaplino, or Uŋazigmit, is the largest Yupik language of Siberia (the second one is Naukan Yupik), and is named after the settlement of Уӈазиӄ (Ungaziq; Chaplino or Old Chaplino in Russian). The word Ungazighmii / Уңазиӷмӣ (plural Ungazighmiit / Уңазиӷмӣт ) means "Ungaziq inhabitant(s)". People speaking this language live in several settlements in the southeastern Chukchi Peninsula (including Novoye Chaplino, Provideniya, and Sireniki), Uelkal, Wrangel Island, and Anadyr. The majority of Chaplino Yupik speakers live in the villages of Novoye Chaplino and Sireniki. In another terminology, these people speak Chaplino, and Ungazighmiit people speak one of its dialects, along with other dialects spoken by Avatmit, Imtugmit, Kigwagmit, which can be divided further into even smaller dialects.

The second dialect, St. Lawrence Island Yupik, is believed to be an offspring of Chaplino with only minor phonetic, phonological, morphological, syntactical and lexical differences, and the two dialects are virtually identical.

Consonants
Unlike the Central Alaskan Yupik languages, Siberian Yupik has a series of retroflex fricatives, more similar to the Alaskan Inuit dialects.

Morphosyntax
Morphosyntax is the study of grammatical categories or linguistic units that have both morphological and syntactic properties. Central Siberian Yupik’s structure most resembles this category. In addition, CSY can be described as using both internal and external syntax. Internal syntax is used here to describe the way that postbases are added to a base or added to one another, contrasted with external syntax, which refers to the order of independent words.

Central Siberian Yupik is a polysynthetic language, meaning it is made up of long, structured words containing many separate meaningful parts (morphemes). In fact, a single word can be an entire sentence. CSY is also an ergative-absolutive language, in contrast to the nominative-accusative structure of English and many Indo-European languages.

Most Siberian Yupik words consist of a "base" or "stem", followed by zero or more "postbases", followed by one "ending", followed by zero or more "enclitics":

angyagh- -ghllag- -nge- -yug- -tuq  -llu

boat big acquire want 3SG-PRES  also

stem postbase postbase postbase ending enclitic

"Also, he/she wants to acquire a big boat."

Generally, the “base” or “stem” contains the root meaning of the word, while the “postbases,” which are suffixing morphemes, provide additional components of the sentence (see example above). As shown, postbases include items with adjectival and verbal qualities, among other elements. The “ending” (Woodbury’s term) is an inflectional suffix to the right of the postbase that contains grammatical information such as number, person, case, or mood. Enclitics are bound suffixes that follow the inflectional ending of a word. An attached enclitic affects the meaning of the entire sentence, not just the element to which it is attached. The exception is the enclitic ‘llu,’ shown above, which has a basic meaning of ‘and.’

Bases
The base forms the lexical core of the word and belongs to one of three main classes: noun bases, verb bases and particle bases.
 * Noun bases (N)
 * Ordinary noun bases (intransitive, transitive)
 * Independent pronoun bases (intransitive)
 * Demonstrative bases (D) (intransitive)
 * Adjectival noun bases
 * Inflecting as ordinary noun bases (intransitive, transitive)
 * Independent relative bases
 * Quantificational bases (Q)
 * Numeral (NM) bases: cardinal (intransitive); ordinal (transitive)
 * Specifier (SP) bases: cardinal (intransitive); partitive (transitive)
 * Locational bases
 * Demonstrative adverb (DA) bases (intransitive)
 * Positional (PS) bases (transitive)
 * Temporal bases
 * Temporal noun bases (intransitive, transitive)
 * Temporal particle bases
 * Verb bases (V)
 * Exclusively intransitive (Vi)
 * Exclusively transitive (Vt)
 * Ambivalent
 * Particles
 * Independent particles
 * Sentence particles
 * Phrasal participles
 * Enclitics

Noun endings indicate number (singular, dual, or plural), case, and whether or not the noun is possessed. If the noun is possessed, the ending indicates the number and person of the possessor. Siberian Yupik has seven noun cases:

 * 1) absolutive
 * 2) relative (ergative-genitive)
 * 3) ablative-modalis
 * 4) localis
 * 5) terminalis
 * 6) vialis
 * 7) aequalis

Absolutive Case Noun Endings
As in other ergative-absolutive languages, absolutive case is used to mark nouns that are generally the subjects of intransitive verbs or the objects of transitive verbs.

Relative/Ergative Case Noun Endings
Ergative case identifies nouns as a subject of a transitive verb and acts as the genitive form in ergative-absolutive languages.

Ablative-Modalis Case Noun Endings
The ablative case is used to indicate the agent in passive sentences, or the instrument, manner, or place of the action described by the verb.

The endings of the locative and terminative cases are the same as those of the ablative case except that the locative case has -mi and -ni and the terminative case has -mun and -nun in place of the -meng and -neng at the end of the ablative case endings.

Prolative Case Noun Endings
In grammar, the prolative case, also called the vialis case, is a grammatical case of a noun or pronoun that expresses motion by the referent of the noun it marks.

Equative Noun Case Endings
Equative is a case that expresses the standard of comparison of equal values.

Postbases
Derivation is accomplished in CSY by attaching suffixes called postbases. Productivity in the context of CSY is defined as the free addition of a postbase to any base without an unpredictable semantic result; non-productivity implies that said postbases cannot combine freely but are limited to attaching to only a particular set of bases. Postbases are either nominal or verbal and select nominal or verbal bases or expanded bases to attach to (an expanded base is a base followed by one or more postbases). There are four kinds of postbases:

 * VN: postbases deriving nouns from verbs
 * NV: postbases deriving verbs from nouns
 * NN: postbases constructing complex nouns
 * VV: postbases constructing complex verbs

These postbases can indicate a wide variety of meaning, including:

For nouns:

 * quantification,
 * adjectival modification,
 * being and becoming,
 * a type of verbal noun-incorporation

For verbs:
 * changes in transitivity,
 * adverbial modification,
 * evidentially,
 * negation,
 * tense,
 * agent noun formation,
 * relative clause formation,
 * various types of verbal complementation

It is estimated that CSY has approximately 547 postbases: 75 NN, 55 NV, 30 VN, and 387 VV. It appears that in CSY the large majority of NN, NV, and VN postbases are productive; for the VV postbases, there are approximately 190 non-productive ones and 197 productive ones.

Characteristics of polysynthetic postbases
There are no clear morphological position classes in CSY. A position class is the organization of morphemes or a morpheme class into a linear ordering with no apparent connection to syntactic, semantic, or phonological representation. In the example below, it is semantic restrictions that dictate the order.

negh- -yaghtugh- -yug- -umaeat -yagh- -pete- -aa -llu

eat go.to.V want.to.V PST FRUSTR INFER IND.3S3S also

‘Also, it turns out she/he wanted to go eat it, but. . .’.

Some postbases can be used recursively, as in the example below.

itegh- -sqe- -yaghtugh- -sqe- -aa

come.in ask.to.V go.to.V ask.to.V IND.3S3S

‘Hei asked himj to go ask himk to come in’.

Recursion can also be used for emphasis.

pinitun-(ngw/w)aagh-(ngs/w)aagh

really really well

There is variability in postbase ordering with no change in semantic outcome.

aane- -nanigh- -utke -aa

go.out cease.to.V V.on.account.of IND.3S3S

‘He ceased going out on account of it’.

aane- -utke- -nanigh- -aa

go.out V.on.account.of cease.to.V IND.3S3S

‘He ceased going out on account of it’.

Abbreviations: V, verb; PST, past tense; FRUSTR, frustrative (‘but . . ., in vain’); INFER, inferential evidential (often translatable as ‘it turns out’); INDIC, indicative; 3S3S, third-person subject acting on third-person object): (de Reuse 2006) Note: postbases noted in bold.  V:verb FRUSTR:frustrative aspect (‘but ... in vain’) INFER:inferential evidential (often translatable as ‘it turns out’) 3S3S:third-person subject acting on third-person object

Note: there is a general rule in CSY of semantic scope in which the rightmost postbase will have scope over the left. However, there are many exceptions, as in the example above.

Enclitics
Following are a brief list and description of enclitics in CSY. The table is recreated from de Reuse (1988).

 * 1) -lli: modal function, interrogative
 * 2) -tuq: modal function, optative
 * 3) -qa, -sa, -wha: modal function, exhortative or exclamative
 * 4) -nguq: evidential function
 * 5) -llu: focus marking or conjunction
 * 6) -iii: can be interrogative; sometimes marks a perlocutionary act
 * 7) -ta, -Vy: mark illocutionary acts
 * 8) -ngam, -qun: mark the “presupposition that the hearer is unaware that the speaker lacks crucial information”
 * 9) -mi: shifts the attention of the hearer

Note: the ‘position’ references above refer to the position of the postbase following the main base.

Other Yupik languages
Naukan, or Nuvuqaghmiistun, the second largest Yupik language spoken in Chukotka, is spoken in settlements including Uelen, Lorino, Lavrentiya, and Provideniya.

Debated classifications
Additionally, the Sireniki Eskimo language, locally called Uqeghllistun, was an Eskimo language once spoken in Chukotka. It had many peculiarities. Sometimes it is classified as not belonging to the Yupik branch at all, thus forming (by itself) a stand-alone third branch of the Eskimo languages (alongside Inuit and Yupik). Its peculiarities may be the result of a supposed long isolation from other Eskimo groups in the past.

Sireniki became extinct in early January 1997.

Russian

 * Yupik: Bibliographical guide
 * Yupik: Bibliographical guide

English

 * Badten, Linda Womkon, Vera Oovi Kaneshiro, Marie Oovi, and Steven A. Jacobson. A Dictionary of the St. Lawrence Island/Siberian Yupik Eskimo Language. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, College of Liberal Arts, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 1987. ISBN 1-55500-029-0
 * Bass, Willard P., Edward A. Tennant, and Sharon Pungowiyi Satre. Test of Oral Language Dominance Siberian Yupik-English. Albuquerque, N.M.: Southwest Research Associates, 1973.
 * Jacobson, Steven A. Reading and Writing the Cyrillic System for Siberian Yupik = Atightuneqlu Iganeqlu Yupigestun Ruuseghmiit Latangitgun. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, College of Liberal Arts, University of Alaska, 1990.
 * Collection of stories, originally recorded by Меновщиков among Siberian Yupik, then transliterated so that it can be read by Yupik of St. Lawrence Island.

title: Central Siberian Yupik language


text:
Parmenides (dialogue)

Parmenides (Παρμενίδης) is one of the dialogues of Plato. It is widely considered to be one of the most challenging and enigmatic of Plato's dialogues. The Parmenides purports to be an account of a meeting between the two great philosophers of the Eleatic school, Parmenides and Zeno of Elea, and a young Socrates. The occasion of the meeting was the reading by Zeno of his treatise defending Parmenidean monism against those partisans of plurality who asserted that Parmenides' supposition that there is a one gives rise to intolerable absurdities and contradictions. The dialogue is set during a supposed meeting between Parmenides and Zeno of Elea in Socrates' hometown of Athens. This dialogue is chronologically the earliest of all as Socrates is only nineteen years old here. It is also notable that he takes the position of the student here while Parmenides serves as the lecturer.

Most scholars agree that the dialogue does not record historic conversations, and is most likely an invention by Plato.

Discussion with Socrates
The heart of the dialogue opens with a challenge by Socrates to the elder and revered Parmenides and Zeno. Employing his customary method of attack, the reductio ad absurdum, Zeno has argued that if as the pluralists say things are many, then they will be both like and unlike; but this is an impossible situation, for unlike things cannot be like, nor like things unlike. But this difficulty vanishes, says Socrates, if we are prepared to make the distinction between sensibles on one hand and Forms, in which sensibles participate, on the other. Thus one and the same thing can be both like and unlike, or one and many, by participating in the Forms of Likeness and Unlikeness, of Unity and Plurality; I am one man, and as such partake of the Form of Unity, but I also have many parts and in this respect I partake of the Form of Plurality. There is no problem in demonstrating that sensible things may have opposite attributes; what would cause consternation, and earn the admiration of Socrates, would be if someone were to show that the Forms themselves were capable of admitting contrary predicates.

At this point, Parmenides takes over as Socrates' interlocutor and dominates the remainder of the dialogue. After establishing that Socrates himself has made the distinction between Forms and sensibles, Parmenides asks him what sorts of Form he is prepared to recognize. Socrates replies that he has no doubt about the existence of mathematical, ethical and aesthetic Forms (e.g., Unity, Plurality, Goodness, Beauty), but is unsure of Forms of Man, Fire and Water; he is almost certain, though admits to some reservations, that undignified objects like hair, mud and dirt do not have Forms. Parmenides suggests that when he is older and more committed to philosophy, he will consider all the consequences of his theory, even regarding seemingly insignificant objects like hair and mud.

For the remainder of the first part of the dialogue, Parmenides draws Socrates out on certain aspects of the Theory of Forms and in the process brings to bear five arguments against the theory.

'''Argument 1. (130e–131e)''' If particular things come to partake of the Form of Beauty or Likeness or Largeness they thereby become beautiful or like or large. Parmenides presses Socrates on how precisely many particulars can participate in a single Form. On one hand, if the Form as a whole is present in each of its many instances, then it would as a whole be in numerically different places, and thus separate from itself. Socrates suggests that the Form might be like a day, and thus present in many things at once. Parmenides counters that this would be little different from a single sail covering a number of people, wherein different parts touch different individuals; consequently, the Form is many.

'''Argument 2. (132a–b)' Socrates' reason for believing in the existence of a single Form in each case is that when he views a number of (say) large things, there appears to be a single character which they all share, viz.'' the character of Largeness. But considering the series of large things; x, y, z, Largeness itself, the latter is also in some sense considered to be large, and if all members of this series partake of a single Form, then there must be another Largeness in which large things and the first Form of Largeness partake. But if this second Form of Largeness is also large, then there should be a third Form of Largeness over the large things and the first two Forms, and so on ad infinitum. Hence, instead of there being one Form in every case, we are confronted with an indefinite number. This Largeness regress is commonly known under the name given to it by Aristotle, the famous Third Man Argument (TMA).

'''Argument 3. (132b–c)''' To the suggestion that each Form is a thought existing in a soul, thus maintaining the unity of the Form, Parmenides replies that a thought must be a thought of something that is a Form. Thus we still have to explain the participation relation. Further, if things share in Forms which are no more than thoughts, then either things consist of thoughts and think, or else they are thoughts, yet do not think.

'''Argument 4. (132c–133a)' Socrates now suggests that the Forms are patterns in nature (παραδείγματα paradeigmata'' "paradigms") of which the many instances are copies or likenesses. Parmenides argues that if the many instances are like the Forms, then the Forms are like their instances. Yet if things are like, then they come to be like by participating in Likeness; therefore Likeness is like the likeness in concrete things, and another regress is generated.

'''Argument 5. (133a–134e)''' Called the "great difficulty [ἀπορία]" (133a) by Parmenides, the theory of Forms arises as a consequence of the assertion of the separate existence of the Forms. Forms do not exist in our world but have their being with reference to one another in their own world. Similarly, things of our world are related among themselves, but not to Forms. Just as Mastership has its being relative to Slavery, so mastership in our world has its being relative to slavery in our world. No terrestrial master is master of Slave itself, and no terrestrial master-slave relation has any relationship to the ideal Master-Slave relation. And so it is with knowledge. All our knowledge is such with respect to our world, not to the world of the Forms, while ideal Knowledge is knowledge of the things not of our world but of the world of the Forms. Hence, we cannot know the Forms. What is more, the gods who dwell in the divine world, can have no knowledge of us, and nor can their ideal mastership rule us.

In spite of Socrates' inability to defend the theory against Parmenides' arguments, in the following transitional section of the dialogue Parmenides himself appears to advocate the theory. He insists that without Forms there can be no possibility of dialectic, and that Socrates was unable to uphold the theory because he has been insufficiently exercised. There follows a description of the kind of exercise, or training, that Parmenides recommends.

The remainder of the dialogue is taken up with an actual performance of such an exercise, where a young Aristoteles (later a member of the Thirty Tyrants, not to be confused with Plato's eventual student Aristotle), takes the place of Socrates as Parmenides' interlocutor.

Discussion with Aristoteles
This difficult second part of the dialogue is generally agreed to be one of the most challenging, and sometimes bizarre, pieces in the whole of the Platonic corpus. One of the second part is "whether Plato was committed to any of the arguments developed in the second part of the dialogue." It consists of an unrelenting series of difficult and subtle arguments, where the exchange is stripped of all but the bare essentials of the arguments involved. Gone are the drama and colour we are accustomed to from earlier dialogues.

The second part of the dialogue can be divided thus:

Hypothesis/Deduction n. 1 (137c-142a): If it is one. The one cannot be made up of parts, because then the one would be made of many. Nor can it be a whole, because wholes are made of parts. Thus the one has no parts and is not a whole. It has not a beginning, a middle nor an end because these are parts, it is therefore unlimited. It has no shape because it is neither linear nor circular: a circle has parts all equidistant from the centre, but the one has no parts nor a centre; It is not a line because a line has a middle and two extremes, which the one cannot have. Thus the one has no shape. The one cannot be in anything nor in itself. If it was in another it would be all surrounded and by what it is inside and would be touched at many parts by what contains it, but the one has no parts and thus cannot be inside something else. If it were in itself it would contain itself, but if it is contained then it is different from what contains it and thus the one would be two. The one cannot move because movement is change or change in position. It cannot change because it has no parts to change. If it moves position it moves either circularly or linearly. If it spins in place its outer part revolves around its middle but the one has neither. If it moves its position it moves through something else, which it cannot be inside. Thus the one does not move. The one must be itself and cannot be different from it. The one does not take part in the flowing of time so it is imperishable.

Hypothesis/Deduction n. 2 (142b–155e): If the one is. The one is, it must be and it is part of being. The one is part of being and vice versa. Being is a part of the one, the one is a whole that is a group of sections. The one does not participate in the being, so it must be a single part. Being is unlimited and is contained in everything, however big or small it is. So, since the one is part of being, it is divided into as many parts as being, thus it is unfinished. The parts are themselves sections of a whole, the whole is delimited, confirming the presence of a beginning, a centre, and an end. Therefore, since the centre is itself at the same distance from the beginning and the end, the one must have a form: linear, spherical, or mixed. If the whole is in some of its parts, it will be the plus into the minus, and different from itself. The one is also elsewhere, it is stationary and in movement at the same time.

The Appendix to the First Two Deductions 155e–157b

Hypothesis/Deduction n. 3 (157b–159b): If the one is not. If the one is not it participates in everything different from it, so everything is partially one. Similarity, dissimilarity, bigness, equality and smallness belong to it since the one is similar to itself but dissimilar to anything that is, but it can be big or small as regards dissimilarity and equal as concerns similarity. So the one participates of non-being and also of being because you can think of it. Therefore, the one becomes and perishes and, since it participates of non-being, stays. The one removes from itself the contraries so that it is unnameable, not disputable, not knowable or sensible or showable. The other things appear one and many, limited and unlimited, similar and dissimilar, the same and completely different, in movement and stationary, and neither the first nor the latter thing since they are different from the one and other things. Eventually they are not. So if the one is not, being is not.

A satisfactory characterisation of this part of the dialogue has eluded scholars since antiquity. Many thinkers have tried, among them Cornford, Russell, Ryle, and Owen; but few would accept without hesitation any of their characterisations as having got to the heart of the matter. Recent interpretations of the second part have been provided by Miller (1986), Meinwald (1991), Sayre (1996), Allen (1997), Turnbull (1998), Scolnicov (2003), and Rickless (2007). It is difficult to offer even a preliminary characterisation, since commentators disagree even on some of the more rudimentary features of any interpretation. Benjamin Jowett did maintain in the introduction to his translation of the book that the dialogue was certainly not a Platonic refutation of the Eleatic doctrine. In fact, it could well be an Eleatic assessment of the theory of Forms. It might even mean that the Eleatic monist doctrine wins over the pluralistic contention of Plato. The discussion, at the very least, concerns itself with topics close to Plato's heart in many of the later dialogues, such as Being, Sameness, Difference, and Unity; but any attempt to extract a moral from these passages invites contention.

The structure of the remainder of the dialogue:

The Fourth Deduction 159b–160b

The Fifth Deduction 160b–163b

The Sixth Deduction 163b–164b

The Seventh Deduction 164b–165e

The Eighth Deduction 165e–166c

Third man argument
Plato's theory of Forms, as it is presented in such dialogues as the Phaedo, Republic and the first part of the Parmenides, seems committed to the following principles: "F" stands for any Form ("appearance, property")—forma is a Boethian translation for εἶδος (eidos), which is the word that Plato used. Plato, in the Parmenides, uses the example "greatness" (μέγεθος) for "F-ness"; Aristotle uses the example "man".

 * One-over-many: For any plurality of F things, there is a form of F-ness by virtue of partaking of which each member of that plurality is F.
 * Self-predication: Every form of F-ness is itself F.
 * Non-self-partaking: No form partakes of itself.
 * Uniqueness: For any property F, there is exactly one form of F-ness.
 * Purity: No form can have contrary properties.
 * One/many: The property of being one and the property of being many are contraries.
 * Oneness: Every form is one.

However, the TMA shows that these principles are mutually contradictory, as long as there is a plurality of things that are F:

(In what follows, μέγας [megas; "great"] is used as an example; however, the argumentation holds for any F.)

Begin, then, with the assumption that there is a plurality of great things, say (A, B, C). By one-over-many, there is a form of greatness (say, G1) by virtue of partaking of which A, B, and C are great. By self-predication, G1 is great.

But then we can add G1 to (A, B, C) to form a new plurality of great things: (A, B, C, G1). By one-over-many, there is a form of greatness (say, G2) by virtue of partaking of which A, B, C, and G1 are great. But in that case G1 partakes of G2, and by Non-Self-Partaking, G1 is not identical to G2. So there are at least two forms of greatness, G1 and G2. This already contradicts Uniqueness, according to which there is exactly one (and hence no more than one) form of greatness.

But it gets worse for the theory of Forms. For by Self-Predication, G2 is great, and hence G2 can be added to (A, B, C, G1) to form a new plurality of great things: (A, B, C, G1, G2). By One-Over-Many, there is a form of greatness (say, G3) by virtue of partaking of which A, B, C, G1, and G2 are great. But in that case G1 and G2 both partake of G3, and by Non-Self-Partaking, neither of G1 and G2 is identical to G3. So there must be at least three forms of greatness, G1, G2, and G3.

Repetition of this reasoning shows that there is an infinite hierarchy of forms of greatness, with each form partaking of the infinite number of forms above it in the hierarchy. According to Plato, anything that partakes of many things must itself be many. So each form in the infinite hierarchy of forms of greatness is many. But then, given Purity and One/Many, it follows that each form in the infinite hierarchy of forms of greatness is not one. This contradicts Oneness.

Legacy
The third man argument was furthered by Aristotle (Metaphysics 990b17–1079a13, 1039a2; Sophistic Refutations 178b36 ff.) who, rather than using the example of "greatness" (μέγεθος), used the example of a man (hence the name of the argument) to explain this objection to the theory, which he attributes to Plato; Aristotle posits that if a man is a man because he partakes in the form of man, then a third form would be required to explain how man and the form of man are both man, and so on, ad infinitum.

Ancient commentaries
The Parmenides was the frequent subject of commentaries by Neoplatonists. Important examples include those of Proclus and of Damascius, and an anonymous 3rd or 4th commentary possibly due to Porphyry. The 13th century translation of Proclus' commentary by Dominican friar William of Moerbeke stirred subsequent medieval interest (Klibansky, 1941). In the 15th century, Proclus' commentary influenced the philosophy of Nicolas of Cusa, and Neoplatonists Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Marsilio Ficino penned major commentaries. According to Ficino:

"While Plato sprinkled the seeds of all wisdom throughout all his dialogues, yet he collected the precepts of moral philosophy in the books on the Republic, the whole of science in the Timaeus, and he comprehended the whole of theology in the Parmenides. And whereas in the other works he rises far above all other philosophers, in this one he seems to surpass even himself and to bring forth this work miraculously from the adytum of the divine mind and from the innermost sanctum of philosophy. Whosoever undertakes the reading of this sacred book shall first prepare himself in a sober mind and detached spirit, before he makes bold to tackle the mysteries of this heavenly work. For here Plato discusses his own thoughts most subtly: how the One itself is the principle of all things, which is above all things and from which all things are, and in what manner it is outside everything and in everything, and how everything is from it, through it, and toward it. (in Klibansky, 1941)"

Contemporary interpretations
Some scholars (including Gregory Vlastos) believe that the third man argument is a "record of honest perplexity". Other scholars think that Plato means us to reject one of the premises that produces the infinite regress (namely, One-Over-Many, Self-Predication, or Non-Self-Partaking). But it is also possible to avoid the contradictions by rejecting Uniqueness and Purity (while accepting One-Over-Many, Self-Predication, and Non-Self-Partaking).

Texts and translations

 * Burnet, J., Plato. Opera Vol. II (Oxford University Press, 1903). ISBN 978-0-19-814541-7 (Greek with critical apparatus).
 * Fowler, H. N., Plato Vol. IV (Harvard University Press, 1926). Loeb Classical Library 167. ISBN 978-0-674-99185-9 (Greek and English)
 * Zekl, H. G., Platon. Parmenides (Meiner Verlag, 1972). ISBN 978-3-7873-0280-2 (Greek and German)
 * Allen, R. E., Plato's Parmenides, Revised Edition (Yale University Press, 1997). ISBN 978-0-300-07729-2 (English with commentary)
 * Cornford, F. M., Plato and Parmenides (Routledge, 1939). ISBN 978-0-415-22517-5 (English with commentary)
 * Gill, M. L. and Ryan, P., Plato: Parmenides (Hackett Publishing, 1996). ISBN 978-0-87220-329-7 (English with notes)
 * Scolnicov, S., Plato's Parmenides (University of California Press, 2003). ISBN 978-0-520-22403-2 (English with commentary)
 * Turnbull, R., The Parmenides and Plato's Late Philosophy (University of Toronto Press, 1998). ISBN 978-0-8020-4236-1 (English with commentary)
 * Hermann, A., and Chrysakopoulou, S., 2010, Plato’s Parmenides: Text, Translation, and Introductory Essay, Las Vegas: Parmenides Publishing.

title: Parmenides (dialogue)


text:
Talk:MESSENGER

What is causing the orbital decay?
In earth orbit, atmospheric drag is the only significant reason that orbits decay. Mercury has an almost nonexistent atmosphere, so what is preventing Messenger from continuing to orbit for centuries? 199.46.196.230 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the Sun's gravity that distorts its orbit: . Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

 * BTW, is it known if there are any stable orbits around Mercury? Messenger has had a very elliptic orbit, after all. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

 * "'Following this last maneuver, we will finally declare the spacecraft out of propellant, as this maneuver will deplete nearly all of our remaining helium gas,' said Daniel O’Shaughnessy, mission systems engineer at APL. 'At that point, the spacecraft will no longer be capable of fighting the downward push of the sun's gravity.'"
 * This is a poorly-worded explanation, as the sun's gravity pulls objects toward the center of the sun; it does not impart a "downward push."  Is a more rigorous explanation available?  Thanks 199.46.200.232 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So the Sun's gravity was reducing MESSENGER's periapsis? --JorisvS (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this explanation? - http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/qa/index.php?faq=1&ca=36#qn581 ghouston (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Because of gravitational perturbations by the Sun, the orbit of the spacecraft around Mercury is constantly drifting toward lower periapse"
 * Nope... that is a restatement of the assertion that the Sun's gravity took energy out of Messenger's orbit;  but still does not explain the mechanism by which it did so.  At least it did not use bogus phrases like "downward push." 199.46.200.231 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So then go to the Applied Physic Laboratory web forum and tell them they are wrong: . BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, your first source states that solar perturbations increased the minimum altitude in the first two years, before reducing it in the later years, and gives a more detailed explanation:
 * "Throughout the orbital mission, the orbital line of apsides, which connects the orbit's lowest and highest points, rotates clockwise around Mercury. The argument of periapsis (ω) is the angle between the northerly crossing of Mercury's equatorial plane and the minimum-altitude end of the line of apsides, as measured in the spacecraft's orbit plane. When ω is greater than 90°, the strongest gravitational forces that act on the spacecraft's trajectory, those due to Mercury and the Sun, increase the spacecraft's minimum altitude and shift the tilt (inclination) of the orbit closer to passing over the north and south poles. The argument of periapsis reached 90° on 6 March 2013, just prior to the end of MESSENGER’s first extended mission. As the argument of periapsis decreased below 90°, the spacecraft orbit's inclination decreased (moved toward the equatorial plane) and the minimum altitude decreased. " --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds rather authoritative. Thank you, Roentgenium111, for digging up this tidbit from the fascinating and sometimes counterintuitive world of orbital perturbations.

 * It sounds like, if perihermion had been higher, Messenger could have carried on this dance for centuries -- with the solar perturbation causing perihermion to tend to increase half of the time, and causing it to tend to decrease the other half of the time. GPS Pilot (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Without walking through the math on it, one concept related to this is the Hill sphere, and Mercury has a small one. It is complicated by its eccentric orbit.  Years ago I did work out that geosynchronous orbits on Mercury are impossible, but that is mainly due to the planet's slow rotation.  Also, gravity results from MESSENGER indicate that at least some  of Mercury's large impact basins have mascons, and these are known to disrupt orbital stability on the moon.  So the planet's eccentric orbit and proximity to the sun reduce the probability of stable high orbits and the mascons reduce it for low orbits. Jstuby (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Perihermion units ?
118.4 what? Presumably either miles or km.

Thermal design
Could note the use of phase change paraffin wax packs to control/limit camera temperatures - as in thermomechanical design section of - Rod57 (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"Avoid writing with all caps"
That's a quote from MOS:ALLCAPS. Why is this rule ignored for this article? - 91.10.52.4 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MESSENGER is a backronym for Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry, and Ranging. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would make sense, if anyone ever used "Messenger" as a Backronym, ever. Very clearly everyone calls it "Messenger", not M. E. S. S. E. N. G. E. R. - 91.10.52.4 (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since NASA conceived it, developed it, built it, and launched it, they can call it anything they want. They chose MESSENGER in all caps: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/
 * That is that. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is most certainly not that, and I wonder where that sentiment comes from.
 * Wikipedia has no obligation to follow marketing or other considerations applied by creators. Non whatsoever. That's why rules like MOS:ALLCAPS take precedence over the wishes of NASA. - 91.10.54.18 (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ironic you write NASA with all caps. Relax. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In the header of Manual of Style/Capital letters, it states "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.". Peer reviewed journals are among the most respected independent sources.  If you type "mercury messenger" (without the quotes) into Google scholar, you'll see that every reference on the first three pages (as many as I checked) is all caps.
 * Also, the very first sentence of Manual of Style/Capital letters it says: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."  So it's a guideline, and not a rule.
 * And most important, it's best for the reader. Anyone who reads about this anywhere else will find it in all caps (with overwhelming probability).  When they come to Wikipedia for more information, it should be in the form they saw it elsewhere; otherwise takes mental effort and jars the reading flow.  Likewise, if they read about it first here, they should not be surprised to see it in all caps in other sources they may check.   LouScheffer (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

First object on Mercury?
Is Messenger the first man-made object on Mercury? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.238.148 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, the wreckage is. Jstuby (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:MESSENGER


text:
William George Barker

William George Barker, (3 November 1894 – 12 March 1930) was a Canadian First World War fighter ace and Victoria Cross recipient. He is the most decorated serviceman in the history of Canada.

Early life
Born on a family farm in Dauphin, Manitoba, "Will" Barker grew up on the frontier of the Great Plains, riding horses, shooting, and working as a youngster on his father's farm and sawmill. He was an exceptional shot, using a lever-action Winchester that he had modified with his own iron sight. He was particularly adept at shooting on the move, even while on horseback. One biographer has suggested that he could have been a trick shooter in a circus. He was physically poised, emotionally intense, with wide-ranging interests, and had an innate flair for the dramatic act. He was a very good student in school, but had frequent absences due to farm and sawmill life; he was the hunter providing food for the workers in the sawmill while still a young teenager, and missed classes because of this obligation. Barker was a Boy Scout at Russell, Manitoba, and a member of the 32nd Light Horse, a Non-Permanent Active Militia unit based at Roblin, Manitoba. He was in Grade 11 at Dauphin Collegiate Institute in the fall of 1914, just before his enlistment.

First World War
In December 1914, soon after the outbreak of the First World War and the subsequent call to arms in the Dominion of Canada, Barker enlisted as No 106074 Trooper William G. Barker in the 1st Canadian Mounted Rifles. The regiment went to England in June 1915 and then to France on 22 September of that year. Barker was a Colt machine gunner with the regiment's machine gun section until late February or early March 1916, when he transferred as a probationary observer to 9 Squadron of the Royal Flying Corps, flying in Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2 aircraft.

Western Front 1916–1917
He was commissioned as a second lieutenant in April and was given five days' leave in London to acquire an officer's uniform and equipment. On his return, he was assigned to 4 Squadron and on 7 July transferred to 15 Squadron, still flying in the B.E.2. On 21 July Barker claimed a Roland scout "driven down" with his observer's gun, and in August claimed a second Roland, this time in flames. He was mentioned in despatches around this time. He officially qualified as an Observer on 27 August, and on 15 September he worked for the first time with Canadian troops, including his old regiment. On 15 November, Barker and his pilot, flying very low over the Ancre River, spotted a large concentration of German troops massing for a counter-attack on Beaumont Hamel. The crew sent an emergency Zone Call which brought to bear all available artillery fire in the area onto the specified target. The force of some 4,000 German infantry was effectively broken up. He was awarded the Military Cross (MC) for this action in the concluding stages of the Battle of the Somme. In January 1917, after spending Christmas on leave in London, he commenced pilot training at Netheravon, Wiltshire, flying solo after 55 minutes of dual instruction. On 24 February 1917, he returned to serve a second tour on Corps Co-operation machines as a pilot flying B.E.2s and R.E.8s with 15 Squadron. On 25 March, Barker claimed another scout "driven down". On 25 April 1917 during the Arras Offensive, Barker, flying an R.E.8 with observer Lt. Goodfellow, spotted over 1,000 German troops sheltering in support trenches. The duo directed artillery fire into the positions, thereby avoiding a counter-attack.

After being awarded a bar to his MC in July, Barker was wounded in the head by anti-aircraft fire in August 1917. After a short spell in the UK as an instructor, Barker's continual requests for front-line service resulted in him being transferred to become a scout pilot, being offered a post with either 56 Squadron or 28 Squadron. He chose command of C Flight in the newly formed 28 Squadron, flying the Sopwith Camel that he preferred over the S.E.5s of 56 Squadron. Although Barker was reportedly not a highly skilled pilot – suffering several flying accidents during his career – he compensated for this deficiency with aggressiveness in action and highly accurate marksmanship.

The unit moved to France on 8 October 1917. Barker downed an Albatros D.V on his first patrol, though he did not claim it as the patrol was unofficial. He claimed an Albatros of Jasta 2 (Lt. Lange, killed) on 20 October, and two more, of Jasta 18, on 27 October (Lt. Schober killed, Offstv. Klein, force landed).

Italian Front 1917–1918
On 7 November 1917, 28 Squadron was transferred to Italy with Barker temporarily in command; most of the unit, including aircraft, travelled by train to Milan. On 29 November he downed an Austrian Albatros D.III flown by Lt. Haertl of Jasta 1 near Pieve di Soligo. A Jasta 39 pilot was shot down and killed and a balloon of BK 10 was destroyed on 3 December.

One of his most successful, and also most controversial raids – fictionalized by Ernest Hemingway in the short story "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" – was on 25 December 1917. Catching the Germans off guard, he and Lt. Harold B. Hudson, his wingman, shot up the airfield of Fliegerabteilung (A) 204, setting fire to one hangar and damaging four German aircraft before dropping a placard wishing their opponents a "Happy Christmas." Lt. Lang of Jasta 1 was killed by Barker on 1 January 1918, and two balloons, two Albatros fighters (one flown by Feldwebel Karl Semmelrock of Flik 51J) and a pair of two-seaters fell to Barker during February. Awarded the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) in March, he also claimed three more Albatroses and an observation balloon.

Owing to his tendency to ignore orders by flying many unofficial patrols, Barker was passed over when the post of Commanding Officer of 28 Squadron became vacant. Dissatisfied, he applied for a posting and joined 66 Squadron in April 1918, where he claimed a further 16 victories by mid-July. On 17 April, he shot down Oblt. Gassner-Norden of Flik 41J, flying an Albatros D.III (OEF), over Vittorio. He then became Squadron Commander of 139 Squadron, flying the Bristol Fighter. Barker, however, took his Sopwith Camel with him and continued to fly fighter operations. He carried out an unusual sortie on the night of 9 August when he flew a Savoia-Pomilio SP.4 bomber to land a spy behind enemy lines. By this time, his personal Sopwith Camel (serial no. B6313) had become the most successful fighter aircraft in the history of the RAF, Barker having used it to shoot down 46 aircraft and balloons from September 1917 to September 1918, for a total of 404 operational flying hours. It was dismantled in October 1918, Barker keeping the clock as a memento, although he was asked to return it the following day. During this time, Barker trialled a series of modifications to B6313, to improve its combat performance. The Clerget rotary engine's cooling efficiency was poorer in the hotter Italian climate, so several supplementary cooling slots were cut into the cowling. The poor upward visibility of the Camel resulted in Barker cutting away progressively larger portions of the centre-section fabric. He also had a rifle-type, notch and bead gun-sight arrangement to replace the standard gunsight fitting.

Having flown more than 900 combat hours in two and a half years, Barker was transferred back to the UK in September 1918 to command the fighter training school at Hounslow Heath Aerodrome. Barker ended his Italian service with some 33 aircraft claimed destroyed and nine observation balloons downed, individually or with other pilots.

Victoria Cross

In London at RAF HQ, he persuaded his superiors he needed to get up to date on the latest combat techniques in France and he was granted a 10-day roving commission in France. He selected the Sopwith Snipe as his personal machine and attached himself to No. 201 Squadron RAF, whose commander, Major Cyril Leman, was a friend from his days as a Corps Co-operation airman. He was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions on Sunday, 27 October 1918, day 10 of his roving commission. While returning his Snipe to an aircraft depot, he crossed enemy lines at 21,000 feet above the Forêt de Mormal. He attacked an enemy Rumpler two-seater which broke up, its crew escaping by parachute (the aircraft was of FAA 227, Observer Lt. Oskar Wattenburg killed). By his own admission, he was careless and was bounced by a formation of Fokker D.VIIs of Jagdgruppe 12, consisting of Jasta 24 and Jasta 44, in a descending battle against 15 or more enemy machines. The dogfight took place immediately above the lines of the Canadian Corps. Severely wounded and bleeding profusely, Barker force-landed inside Allied lines, his life being saved by the men of an RAF Kite Balloon Section who transported him to a field dressing station. The fuselage of his Snipe aircraft was recovered from the battlefield and is preserved at the Canadian War Museum, Ottawa, Ontario. He is credited with shooting down the Rumpler and three Fokker DVIIs; German reports acknowledge a casualty: "27/10/18 Jasta 44 Ltn. Hinky is WIA and to hospital". A possible related casualty was Jasta 24 Vfw Schymik, killed in action, while Barker may have been shot down by Js 24's Ostv Friedrich Altemeier.

At a hospital in Rouen, France, Barker clung to life until mid-January 1919, and then was transported back to England. He was not fit enough to walk the necessary few paces for the VC investiture at Buckingham Palace until 1 March 1919.

Barker is officially credited with one captured, two (and seven shared) balloons destroyed, 33 (and two shared) aircraft destroyed, and five aircraft "out of control", the highest "destroyed" ratio for any RAF, RFC, or RNAS pilot during the conflict. The Overseas Military Forces of Canada recognized Barker as "holding the record for fighting decorations" awarded in the First World War.

Most decorated hero
Barker returned to Canada in May 1919 as the most decorated Canadian of the war, with the Victoria Cross, the Distinguished Service Order and Bar, the Military Cross and two Bars, two Italian Silver Medals for Military Valour, and the French Croix de guerre. He was also mentioned in despatches three times. The Canadian Daily Record, a publication of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada, wrote in December 1918 that William Barker of Dauphin, Manitoba was the Canadian holding the record for "most fighting decorations" in the war. No other Canadian soldier, sailor or airman has surpassed this record, and the Canadian War Museum exhibit, located in Ottawa, Ontario, states: "Lieutenant Colonel William G. Barker, one of the legendary aces of the war, remains the most decorated Canadian in military service". A plaque on his tomb in the mausoleum of Toronto's Mount Pleasant Cemetery, officially unveiled on 22 September 2011, describes him as "The most decorated war hero in the history of Canada, the British Empire, and the Commonwealth of Nations". Only two other servicemen in the history of the Commonwealth or Empire have received as many British medals for gallantry. These were Mick Mannock and James McCudden and, like Barker, both were "scout pilots" in the First World War. Barker, Mannock, and McCudden each received six British medals, including the Victoria Cross. McCudden was also awarded a French Croix de Guerre. But with his three foreign medals and three mentions in despatches, Barker received a total of 12 awards for valor.

Post-war
Barker formed a business partnership, Bishop-Barker Aeroplanes Limited, with fellow Victoria Cross recipient and Canadian ace Billy Bishop which lasted for about three years. In 1922 he rejoined the fledgling Canadian Air Force in the rank of Wing Commander, serving as the Station Commander of Camp Borden from 1922 to 1924.

Barker was appointed acting director of the RCAF in early 1924 and he graduated from RAF Staff College, Andover, England, in 1926. While waiting to start RAF Staff College Course No 4, Barker spent two weeks in Iraq with the RAF to learn more about the uses of airpower. He formally reported on his findings to the Minister of National Defence, and informally to Brigadier General Billy Mitchell, of the US Air Service. One of his achievements in the RCAF was the introduction of parachutes. After leaving the RCAF he became the first president of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey club and was involved in tobacco-growing farms in southwestern Ontario.

Barker continued to suffer from the physical effects of his 1918 gunshot wounds: his legs were permanently damaged and he suffered severely limited movement in his left arm. He also struggled with alcoholism in the last few years of his life. He died in 1930 when he lost control of his Fairchild KR-21 biplane trainer during a demonstration flight for the RCAF, at Air Station Rockcliffe, near Ottawa, Ontario. Barker, aged 35, was at the time the President and general manager of Fairchild Aircraft in Montreal.

Legacy
His funeral, the largest national state event in Toronto's history, was attended by an honour guard of 2,000 soldiers. The cortège stretched for more than a mile and a half, and it included the Chief of the General Staff and his senior officers, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, the Mayor of Toronto, three federal government cabinet ministers, and six other Victoria Cross recipients. An honour guard was also provided by the United States Army. Some 50,000 spectators lined the streets of Toronto en route to Mount Pleasant Cemetery, where Barker was entombed in his wife's family crypt at the Mausoleum.

On 6 June 1931, an airfield in Toronto was renamed Barker Field in his memory. At CFB Borden in Ontario, an elementary school was named after Barker before its closure in the mid-1990s.

In his hometown of Dauphin, Manitoba, an elementary school and the Barker Airport (dedicated in 1998) are named in his honour. The Dauphin squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets is named for Barker.

During the week of 8 January 1999, the Canadian federal government designated Barker a person of national historic significance. The Discovery Channel's Flightpath series, a television documentary, included an episode entitled "First of the Few", a biography of Barker, which was broadcast on 27 April 1999 in Canada. In 2003, History TV broadcast "The Hero's Hero – The Forgotten Life of William Barker."

Barker's only daughter, Jean Antoinette Mackenzie (née Barker), died in July 2007. A memorial at Mount Pleasant Cemetery in Toronto was unveiled on 22 September 2011 to mark Barker as the "most decorated war hero in the history of Canada, the British Empire, and the Commonwealth of Nations." In 2012, Southport Aerospace Centre named its new flight student accommodation building after him.

In October 2021, it was announced that the UK's seventh Poseidon MRA1 maritime patrol aircraft would be known as William Barker VC.

title: William George Barker


text:
Talk:IIRC

IRC client
Where can I find the website for this IRC client? The article is not explanatory, I can't find a website, and it's not on rpmfind.net or in the Debian or FreeBSD repositories, so I'm tempted to remove it from the IRC Template. - Centrx 21:09, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Removed. - Centrx 20:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Link
link has been killed 212.187.1.213 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:DABDIC
I see that Bagumba deleted the dictionary definitions, citing WP:DABDIC. This doesn't make sense to me. Before removing the link to Wiktionary, please explain your reasoning here. --199.227.58.66 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a dictionary definition; it's a link to Wiktionary. WP:DABDIC says it should be a template, which would be fine with me.
 * 99% of people who type this in are wondering about If I Recall Correctly. I myself was curious about the etymology of the term, and was astonished when I was redirected to some obscure reporting council in the middle of another article.

title: Talk:IIRC


text:
Kate Seredy

Kate Seredy (November 10, 1899 – March 7, 1975) was an American writer and illustrator of children's books. She won the Newbery Medal once, the Newbery Honor twice, the Caldecott Honor once, and the Lewis Carroll Shelf Award. Most of her books were written in English, which was not her first language. Seredy seems to be unknown (and untranslated) in her native Hungary, despite the fact that her story of the Good Master, and the sequel set in World War I are intensely about Hungary.

Life
Kate Seredy was born on November 10, 1899 in Budapest, Hungary. She was the only child of a schoolteacher, Louis Peter Seredy, and his wife, Anna Ireny. Seredy received a diploma to teach art from the Academy of Arts in Budapest. During World War I Seredy traveled to Paris and worked as a combat nurse. After the war she illustrated several books in Hungary.

In 1922 Seredy moved from Budapest to the United States. She studied English language, working as an illustrator and artist to support herself, while preparing to illustrate children's books. From 1933 to 1934 Seredy owned a children's bookstore. Though the store wasn't a success, she later credited it with helping her understand children and what makes a good children's book. In 1935 Seredy met May Massee, the children's editor at Viking Press. Massee didn't have any illustration work for Seredy, but encouraged her to write about her childhood in Hungary, promising to publish the book for Christmas. After several months of work, Seredy submitted what would become The Good Master, which she also illustrated. Though not autobiographical, Seredy did spend her summers as a child on the plains of Hungary. She used many of her impressions and experiences in the story about young Kate, who is sent by her widowed father from Budapest to the country to live with her Uncle and his family. The Good Master was named a Newbery Honor book in 1935, a runner-up to Caddie Woodlawn, which Seredy illustrated for Simon and Schuster. In addition she designed the jacket and endpapers for Young Walter Scott, which was another Newbery runner-up that year.

In 1936 Seredy wrote and illustrated Listening, set in rural New Jersey. That same year she purchased, "Listening Hill", a one-hundred acre farm near Montgomery, New York. It was here that she wrote The White Stag, an historical retelling of the legends of Huns settling Hungary. Seredy learned these stories from her father when she was a child. This book, which she also illustrated, won the Newbery Award in 1938. In 1959 it received the Lewis Carroll Shelf Award.

The Singing Tree appeared in 1939. A sequel to The Good Master, it tells of the effects of World War I on Kate and all of her family. The book shows the terrible effects of war on ordinary people, especially those who are forced to leave their lands and homes to fight. The Singing Tree was also named a Newbery Honor book. Seredy continued to write and illustrate her own books as well as those of other writers. In 1945 she illustrated The Christmas Anna Angel by Ruth Sawyer. When the Caldecott Honor list was created in 1971, Seredy was retroactively named an Honor winner for those illustrations.

Seredy had twelve children's books published, but she considered herself an illustrator before an author. She had a unique style, primarily based on drawing, and considered her books "an excuse for making pictures". Her last book, Lazy Tinka, is dedicated to her long-time editor, May Massee.

Kate Seredy died on March 7, 1975, in Middletown, New York, at the age of 75. Her papers and illustrations are held at the May Massee Collection at Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas, and the University of Oregon Library.

Written and illustrated

 * The Good Master, Viking Press, 1935 ^
 * Listening, Viking, 1936
 * The White Stag, Viking, 1937 +
 * The Singing Tree, Viking, 1939 ^
 * A Tree for Peter, Viking, 1941. Reissued Purple House Press, 2004, 2014.
 * The Open Gate, Viking, 1943
 * The Chestry Oak, Viking, 1948. Reissued Purple House Press, 2015.
 * Gypsy, Viking, 1951
 * Philomena, Viking, 1955
 * The Tenement Tree, Viking, 1959
 * A Brand New Uncle, Viking, 1961
 * Lazy Tinka, Viking, 1962

Selected illustrated books

 * Friendly Stories by Arthur I. Gates and Miriam Blanton Huber, Macmillan, 1930
 * The Pathfinder : Readings from Modern Literature by Lawton B. Evans, Macmillan, 1930
 * God our Father by Virgil George Michel and Basil Augustine Stegmann, Macmillan, 1934
 * The Prince Commands by Andre Norton (Norton's debut), D. Appleton–Century Company, 1934
 * Caddie Woodlawn by Carol Ryrie Brink, Macmillan, 1935 +
 * Common Sense for Mothers on Bringing up Your Children from Babyhood to Adolescence by Estelle Mulqueen Reilly, Funk & Wagnalls, 1935
 * Young Walter Scott by Elizabeth Janet Gray, Viking, 1935 ^
 * The Selfish Giant and Other Stories compiled by Wilhelmina Harper, David McKay, 1935
 * Winterbound by Margery Bianco, Viking, 1936 ^
 * Smiling Hill Farm by Miriam Evangeline Mason, Junior Literary Guild and Ginn and Co., 1937
 * An Ear for Uncle Emil by E.R. Gaggin, Junior Literary Guild and Viking, 1939
 * The Christmas Anna Angel by Ruth Sawyer, Viking, 1943 <
 * The Wonderful Year by Nancy Barnes, Junior Literary Guild and J. Messner, 1946 ^
 * Little Vic by Doris Gates, Viking, 1951
 * A Dog Named Penny by Clyde Robert Bulla, Ginn, 1955

+ Newbery Award Winner

^ Newbery Honor Book

< Caldecott Honor Book

title: Kate Seredy


text:
Electoral precinct

A precinct or voting district (U.S. terms), polling district (UK term) or polling division (Canadian term), is a subdivision of an electoral district, typically a contiguous area within which all electors go to a single polling place to cast their ballots.

Canada
In elections in Canada, the area is called a polling division. Canadian political parties do not have elections for positions representing the voters in a polling division, although parties may assign volunteers to canvass a poll, or to be an outside scrutineer pulling the vote (i.e. reminding supporters to go to vote) on Election Day or an advance polling day, or to be an inside scrutineer in the polling station noting who has come to vote so that can be communicated to an outside scrutineer.

United Kingdom
In elections in the United Kingdom, this subdivision is known as a polling district. It is typically a subdivision of a ward and the polling station for the voters within that polling district can be found within it. However, in urban areas where distances are short, the polling station for that district may for practical reasons be located in a neighbouring district, sharing polling place with that district's polling station. The UK polling districts are usually the same, regardless of type of election.

United States
In the United States, an electoral precinct or voting district is the smallest unit into which electoral districts are divided. A larger geographic unit such as a county, township, or city council district is typically subdivided into precincts and each address is assigned to a specific precinct. Each precinct has a specific polling station where its residents go to vote; however, more than one precinct may use the same polling station.

A 2004 survey by the United States Election Assistance Commission reported an average precinct size in the United States of approximately 1,100 registered voters. Kansas had the smallest average precinct size with 437 voters per precinct, while the District of Columbia had the largest average size at 2,704 voters per precinct.

The 2020 survey by the United States Election Assistance Commission found a total of 176,933 precincts or precinct equivalents in the United States, of which 175,441 were in the 50 states plus the District of Columbia and 1,492 were in overseas U.S. territories.

Electoral precincts usually do not have separate governmental authorities, but there are limited exceptions in some states. In Ohio, the voters within a precinct may vote on liquor control laws that will apply only within that precinct (called "local option elections"). When precinct boundaries are redrawn during redistricting, the result of the vote continues to bind the areas that were formerly inside the precinct's boundaries, although it does not bind any areas that have been newly added to the precinct since the vote. In addition, in Alabama, in those counties that have not abolished the constable system, constables are elected from individual electoral precincts.

In a political party, individuals, known by various titles such as precinct committeeman, precinct captain, or Precinct Committee Officer, are elected by ballot or county party executive committee, to represent precinct residents in every level of party operations. They report to the party on how the voters in a precinct feel about candidates and issues, and encourage people to vote.

title: Electoral precinct


text:
Viscount Savage

Viscount Savage was a title in the Peerage of England. It was created in 1626 for Sir Thomas Savage, 2nd Baronet, husband of Elizabeth Savage (whom he married in 1602) and heir-apparent by special remainder to his father-in-law's titles of Baron Darcy of Chiche (1613), Viscount Colchester (1621) and Earl Rivers (1626).

He died in 1635 before inheriting these titles, so on the death of Thomas Darcy, 1st Earl Rivers in 1640 the titles went instead to Savage's son John, 2nd Viscount Savage, who became 2nd Earl Rivers. Thomas' widow Elizabeth was created Countess Rivers in her own right in 1641.

The Savage daughters, Dorothy and Elizabeth, were great beauties, painted by Van Dyck. Dorothy married Charles Howard, 2nd Earl of Berkshire, and Elizabeth married Sir John Thimbleby of Irnham.

The Savage viscountcy and baronetcy became extinct along with the Rivers titles in 1737.

John Savage was created baronet, of Rocksavage, Cheshire, on 29 June 1611.

Savage Baronets, of Rocksavage (1611)

 * Sir John Savage, 1st Baronet (died 1615)
 * Sir Thomas Savage, 2nd Baronet (1586–1635) (created Viscount Savage in 1626)

Viscounts Savage (1626)

 * Thomas Savage, 1st Viscount Savage (1586–1635)
 * John Savage, 2nd Viscount Savage (1603–1654) (succeeded as 2nd Earl Rivers in 1640)
 * For further succession, see Earl Rivers

title: Viscount Savage


text:
Talk:Red curry

Thai curry article requested
Hmm, I think it would be good to have a combined "Thai curry" page that covers red, green and yellow curries. (I found this page in the hope of finding a list of curry colors in order of hotness.) I don't personally have the knowledge, however. -- metamatic 20040801T221300Z

 * A Thai curry article sounds like a great idea. However, which color is hottest depends on who is making them and how they did it at the time. I've been to restaraunts where it changes every night and ones where they try to keep it the same. The bottles I buy at the store (Thai Kitchen red and green) seem to be exactly the same in mildness. Hyacinth 21:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps curry paste would be more appropriate? Hyacinth 21:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. I was hoping to find the difference between red, green, and yellow thai curries.  But the red and green pages describe basically the same information, not a difference in flavors.  And there doesn't appear to be a page on yellow curries.  Jeffhoy 13:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Drool....--72.184.34.198 10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarianism
This article is awfully heavy on the vegetarian point of view....inappropriately (imho) given this dishes most common form in the actual country of Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.164.249.87 (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Red curry