text:
Everytime

"Everytime" is a song by American singer Britney Spears from her fourth studio album, In the Zone (2003). It was released as the third single from In the Zone on May 10, 2004, by Jive Records. After her relationship with Justin Timberlake ended in 2002, Spears became friends with her background singer Annet Artani. They started writing songs together at Spears' house in Los Angeles, and then traveled to Lombardy, Italy, where they collaborated on "Everytime". Musically, it is a piano-driven pop ballad, which lyrically pleas for forgiveness for inadvertently hurting a former lover. Spears composed the music herself and wrote the lyrics with Artani about a romantic breakup.

"Everytime" received universal acclaim from music critics, who praised its lyrics, composition, and Spears' breathy vocals and songwriting, deeming it amongst the highlights of In the Zone. Commercially, it became a global success, topping the charts in five countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom, and reached the top-ten in 16 other markets. In the United States, the single peaked at number 15 on the Billboard Hot 100. Spears did a series of live performances, such as for TV shows Saturday Night Live on NBC and Top of the Pops in the United Kingdom. On her tours, Spears also performed the song on piano in a flower-themed setting at The Onyx Hotel Tour (2004), while suspended on a giant umbrella at The Circus Starring Britney Spears (2009) and in an angel costume at Britney: Piece of Me (2013). The song has been covered by artists like Glen Hansard, Ethel Cain, Kelly Clarkson, Lewis Capaldi, and James Franco in the 2013 film Spring Breakers.

Inspired by the cinematography of the 1995 film Leaving Las Vegas, the accompanying music video for "Everytime" was directed by David LaChapelle. It features Spears as a pop star fighting with a male companion as she is hounded by paparazzi. She starts to drown in her bathtub after bleeding from a head wound. In the hospital, doctors fail to resuscitate her, while simultaneously a child is born in the next room (implying she has been reincarnated). The original concept had Spears kill herself from a drug overdose, but that part of the plot was removed after it received criticism from organizations such as Kidscape, who perceived it as a glamorization of suicide. Critics took note of the video for its religious references to The Passion of the Christ, Kabbalah and stigmata, as well as for foreshadowing Spears' own struggles with fame.

Background and writing

Spears's three-year relationship with singer-songwriter Justin Timberlake ended in 2002 after months of speculation. In November 2002, Timberlake released the song "Cry Me a River" as the second single from his debut solo album Justified. The song's music video featured a Spears lookalike and fueled the rumors that she had been unfaithful to him. "Cry Me a River" is often credited as being the song that propelled Justified into the charts. In September 2001, Annet Artani accepted an offer to become a backing vocalist for Spears's 2001–02 Dream Within a Dream Tour. Her interactions with Spears during most of the tour were limited to small conversations at the gym and vocal warm ups. Artani had begun a relationship with the show's musical director during 2002; however, it was not working out well by the end of the tour. Before the final date in Mexico City, Spears called her and asked about the relationship. Artani told her they were going to break up, to which Spears responded, "Don't worry about it, you're going to hang out with me." Concluded the tour, Spears and Artani began to forge a friendship. Spears invited Artani to her house in Los Angeles. According to Artani, their relationship grew out of their shared romantic experiences at the time. She explained, "Basically, we commiserated because she, at that time, had broken up with Justin [Timberlake]. Maybe like nine months before, but of course it was really fresh in the media. I was just breaking up with this guy, so we kind of like—I think we kind of needed each other." Artani stayed at Spears's house for a few weeks, in which they started writing songs at the piano. Shortly after, they traveled to Lake Como in Lombardy, Italy. Artani added, "It was me and her, her stylist and Felicia, and we had this humongous house to ourselves, and they had a piano there as well."

According to Artani, "Everytime" was written in large part as a response to "Cry Me a River" as well as various radio interviews. Artani explained, "He was getting personal. Here, she had a different type of image, and he was really exposing some stuff that she probably didn't want out there, and in front of her little sister ... I remember her sister being mortified and her being mortified. I'm sure that that really hurt her." The song was also speculated to be a reply to Timberlake's "Never Again", a ballad which appeared on his debut solo album Justified. With the release of Spears' memoir The Woman In Me, fans have started to speculate if the song is about the abortion that she had with Justin Timberlake. "Everytime" was recorded at Conway Studios in Los Angeles and mixed at Frou Frou Central in London, England. During an interview with Hip Online, Spears commented about the recording sessions, saying, "... Like with 'Everytime' I wrote the whole thing from scratch on the piano. Musically there was no track or anything. I was just at my house and I did the whole thing by myself. And then I went and I played it for [Guy Sigsworth] and I just basically told him exactly how I wanted the song to sound. And he was so amazing because there's a lot of producers you tell them things and they don't get it. And you're like oh, that's not the right way. He got it just right. He was amazing. And so that song specifically, you know, I did everything." "Everytime" was one of the first songs finished for In the Zone, previewed on May 30, 2003, to Quddus Philippe of MTV at Battery Studios in New York City. It was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on April 26, 2003, under the title of "Everytime I Try" and SRU000530591 registration number with a given recording year of 2002. Spears named it the most personal song on the album along with "Touch of My Hand", explaining, "It's one of the songs that when you hear, it's like the kind of song when you go to heaven. It kind of takes you away. You know, it takes you in to a very cool consciousness I think."

Composition
"Everytime" is a pop ballad. It begins with a music box introduction accompanying Spears's breathy vocals, which build from soft to strong through the song. According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by Universal Music Publishing Group, "Everytime" is composed in the key of E♭ major, with a tempo of 110 beats per minute. Spears's vocal range spans from the low note of A♭3 to the high note of E♭5. "Everytime" lyrics are a plea for forgiveness for inadvertently hurting a former lover. In the song, the singer explains she feels unable to continue in lines such as "Everytime I try to fly I fall / Without my wings I feel so small". Jennifer Vineyard of MTV compared the song lyrically to another ballad from In the Zone, "Shadow", since they both speak "about how reminders of a lover can still linger after he's gone." During an interview with Jennifer Vineyard of MTV, Spears said about "Everytime", "It's about heartbreak, it's about your first love, your first true love. That's something all people can relate to, because you all have that first love that you think you're going to be with the rest of your life." When asked if "Everytime" was about Timberlake during an interview with Diane Sawyer in PrimeTime, she responded "I'll let the song speak for itself." In 2023, in excepts from Spears's memoir The Woman in Me, Spears revealed that she became pregnant with Timberlake's child in 2000 and had undergone an abortion, leading many to speculate the song was about said abortion. However, the co-writer Annet Artani disputed this claim, stating the song was written mostly about a breakup Artani herself had gone through.

Critical reception
"Everytime" received widespread acclaim from music critics, who complimented its lyrical content and Spears' breathy vocals, while others deemed it a standout track on In the Zone. Gavin Mueller of Stylus Magazine considered "Everytime" to be the best track on In the Zone, explaining "it is just a spare piano ballad, simple yet effectively fragile". Ali Fenwick of The Johns Hopkins News-Letter complimented Spears' songwriting and added the song "shows a glimmer of the talent that hides behind the robotic, synthed-out vocals on the rest of the album". Christy Lemire of MSNBC called it "actually a pretty tune" and named it the best ballad in Greatest Hits: My Prerogative. Jason Shawhan of About.com said "Everytime" "screams Single!". For Daniel Megarry from Gay Times, it's "one of the most stunningly heartbreaking songs of all time". Nayer Nissim, from Pink News, wrote that "despite some limp efforts scattered around her albums, Britney can actually do some utterly compelling and heartbreaking ballads, and this is her very best. Beautiful, disarming, and emotionally raw". Digital Spy's Alim Kheraj praised its "lullaby-like production, wonderfully simple piano riff and confessional lyrics".

For Alex Macpherson from The Guardian, it's one of the best examples of Spears' "distressing vulnerability" as well as her fifth best song; "one of Britney's oddest curveballs was following the gleaming banger 'Toxic', with its polar opposite. [...] ['Everytime'] is a rare pop hit that seizes attention by shrinking further away". Spence D. of IGN said the song "continues to mine the Zone turf and unleashes what is ostensibly Britney's first mature ballad, at least in terms of being musically staid and stripped of any danceteria sweat and gloss". Linda McGee of RTÉ.ie said that along with In the Zone's "Brave New Girl", they were "individually impressive", but disrupted the direction of the album. David Browne of Entertainment Weekly commented, "With its dainty piano, 'Everytime' plays like a forlorn postmortem on her Justin Timberlake era." In 2016, the staff from Entertainment Weekly placed it at number six on their ranking of Spears' songs and called it "her finest ballad and one of the most emotionally affecting songs of her career". Sterling Clover of The Village Voice called it "a weeper in the best 'Time After Time' (1984) tradition." William Shaw of Blender said that while "Everytime" was not her greatest ballad, the lyrics were "certainly heartfelt". A reviewer from the Huddersfield Daily Examiner stated, "[the] breathy ballad [has] got a stage musical feel to it, but Britney's no Elaine Paige". Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine named it along with "Shadow" "two sappy ballads".

Commercial performance
On May 22, 2004, "Everytime" debuted at number 61 on the US Billboard Hot 100, becoming the "Highest Debut" of the week. On July 3, 2004, it peaked at number 15 and stayed in the position for four weeks. The song also peaked at number four on Billboard ' s Pop Songs and at number 17 and number 25 on the Hot Dance Club Songs and Adult Pop Songs charts, respectively. On November 18, 2004, "Everytime" was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) selling 500,000 copies. As of July 2010, "Everytime" has sold 469,000 paid digital downloads in the United States. In Canada, the song peaked at number two on the Canadian Singles Chart.

In Australia, "Everytime" debuted at the top of the ARIA Singles Chart on June 28, 2004 – for the week ending date July 4, 2004. It received a gold certification by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) for shipments over 35,000 units.

In the United Kingdom, "Everytime" debuted at the top of the UK Singles Chart on June 20, 2004 – for the week ending date June 26, 2004 – becoming her second consecutive number one song in Britain from In the Zone, following "Toxic" in March 2004 and her fifth number one overall. According to the Official Charts Company, the song has sold 523,000 copies in Britain.

"Everytime" was also successful elsewhere in Europe, topping the charts in Hungary and Ireland, peaking at number two in France, number three in Sweden and reaching top five positions in Austria, Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and Poland.

Development and release
On March 9, 2004, the treatment of the music video for "Everytime" was released online. It featured Spears as a star hounded by photographers, who eventually kills herself by taking prescription drugs and drowning in a bathtub. The suicide scene was perceived to be Spears's response to rumors that suggested she suffered from a mental disorder. After news of the concept broke, it was criticized by a number of organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom. MTV News' "You Tell Us" received numerous letters from upset viewers, who criticized Spears, saying they perceived the ending as a glamorization of suicide. On March 12, 2004, Spears announced through her label that she had removed the concept, "due to the potential for a fictional accidental occurrence to be misinterpreted as a suicide". She also clarified it was not her intent to present suicide in any sort of positive light.

The video was directed by David LaChapelle and shot on March 13–14, 2004, in Los Angeles. The lighting was described as "saturated, but low and naturalistic" to give the video a cinematic feel, referencing the film Leaving Las Vegas (1995). It premiered on TRL on April 12, 2004. Spears called the show and explained the video explored reincarnation. She added, "It's more like a movie. It's different than anything I've ever done. It's dark, and it shows me in a different light. Of course, I'm going to go back and do dance videos, but I wanted to be inspired and challenged." The video was released through a DVD single in the United Kingdom. An alternate version of the video which only features Spears singing in the white hallway scenes was released on the 2004 DVD Greatest Hits: My Prerogative.

Synopsis
The video begins with an aerial shot of Las Vegas, showing the Palms Casino Resort and continues with a shot of a marquee hotel that reads "Britney Spears Live from Miami The Onyx Hotel Tour Las Vegas", with a picture of Spears holding a leather strap and referencing her Showtime concert special from Miami. Christian author Eva Marie Everson compared the image to "Madonna doing her own impersonation of Marilyn Monroe". Spears and her boyfriend (played by Stephen Dorff) arrive at the hotel inside a limousine. They sit apart from each other, staring out separate windows. Spears wears a Birmingham Barons cap in these scenes. The boyfriend is talking on his cell phone, and when she attempts to get his attention, he puts his index finger up indicating he is unable to shift his attention to her at that moment. The entrance is full of fans and paparazzi taking pictures. When they leave the car, fans and paparazzi alike act in an extreme way and fights break out in the crowd. While her bodyguards try to protect her, her boyfriend throws magazines at the paparazzi. Stephanie Zacharek of The New York Times compared the shots of the paparazzi with the Jews in the film The Passion of the Christ (2004). During this scene, she gets hit in the head with a camera, and unknowingly gets a wound on her head, but keeps walking.

Inside their hotel room, Spears and her boyfriend start shouting at each other. When he tries to make amends and get close to her, she brushes off his attempts and walks away. Her boyfriend gets mad and then throws a vase at the wall while Spears goes into the bathroom, hurling a drink at the mirror. She begins to fill the bathtub and remove her clothes. After this, the video includes intercut scenes of a close-up of Spears singing in a white coat in front of a bright white light. As she lies in the bathtub, a red string, a custom associated with Kabbalah, is seen on her wrist. She touches her head and looks at her hand, realizing she is bleeding from the wound. Writer Jennifer Vineyard of MTV News speculated the blood in her hand is stigmata, but also indicates she did not know where the blood was coming from, meaning Vineyard may have missed the camera hitting Spears' head and that this is a misinterpretation. She loses consciousness in the bathtub and drowns. Shortly after, her boyfriend finds her and tries to resuscitate her. Meanwhile, it is revealed that in the close-up scenes Spears is actually inside a hospital hallway. The video continues with scenes of her being carried into an ambulance and surrounded by photographers, as well as scenes of her being resuscitated by doctors in a hospital bed. The ghost of Spears in a white shirt watches herself in the bed and walks into the next room, where a baby girl is born. Spears is then seen running away from the camera into the light. The music video ends with her rising from under the water, resting her head and smiling, suggesting the whole scene of her death was a dream or a morbid fantasy.

Reception
Eva Marie Everson wrote that the music video showed the reality "behind the glitz and the glamour". Dominic Fox commented, "Even in its bowdlerised form, the 'Everytime' video presents a moment of existential indecision, a fugue of suicidal ideation in which the singer fantasises about her own death". While reviewing the music video for her 2009 single "If U Seek Amy", James Montgomery of MTV called the music video for "Everytime" "underrated". Rolling Stone in their 2009 article "Britney Spears: The Complete Video Guide", called it "horribly prophetic and depressing" and added that the clip foreshadowed Spears's struggles with fame and mental instability during 2007 and 2008.

Live performances
On October 18, 2003, "Everytime" was performed by Spears for the first time during the twenty-ninth season of the American comedy show Saturday Night Live. She also performed it at Britney Spears: In the Zone, a concert special that aired in ABC on November 17, 2003. "Everytime" was also performed by Spears at 2004's The Onyx Hotel Tour. Before the tour began, Spears said that it was one of the songs she was looking most forward to perform, explaining, "I really think I'm talking to everyone when I perform 'Everytime'". It was the first song of the third act, titled "Mystic Garden". It began with a video interlude in which Spears walked into a garden wearing a rainbow-colored dress and sat in a flower-covered piano. As the video ended, it was revealed that she was sitting onstage in a similar setting. She started the performance talking to the audience about the media coverage of her personal life. She played the piano and sang until the second verse, where she stood up and walked to the center of the stage to continue the performance. Neil Strauss of The New York Times commented, "It was the only song that she appeared to sing unaccompanied by backing tapes". Kelefa Sanneh of Blender called it the best performance of the show.

"Everytime" was also performed by Spears at the British music chart show Top of the Pops in June 2004. Spears also performed the song at 2009's The Circus Starring Britney Spears. "Everytime" was the only song that was not included in the released setlist, and was added as a surprise. It was the sixth and last song of the second act, titled "House of Fun (Anything Goes)". After a Bollywood-inspired performance of "Me Against the Music" from In the Zone, Spears sat on a giant umbrella in the middle of the stage and briefly talked to the audience. She performed "Everytime" while the umbrella was lifted into the air. Spears included "Everytime" on the setlist for her Las Vegas residency, Britney: Piece of Me. After a brief interlude, descended from the ceiling as a "giant, white-winged angel". After a snow shower of confetti, the song transitioned into "...Baby One More Time".

Cover versions
Jackie Evancho covered the song for her debut album Prelude to a Dream (2009). On August 19, 2010, her version debuted at number three on Billboard's Classical Digital Songs chart.

British singer Cher Lloyd covered the song live on The X Factor in the United Kingdom in 2010. This caused the song to reenter the top 50 singles chart in the UK.

On July 27, 2012, Kelly Clarkson covered the song during the Las Vegas stop of her summer tour, as an audience request. Clarkson had a harpist accompany her during the performance, and told the audience, "This song is one of my favourite songs. [...] I actually prefer [Spears's] version better, because it just sounds really sad, but I'm going to try and do it." Spears approved of Clarkson's cover via her Twitter account, calling it "beautiful".

On May 24, 2019, American singer Slayyyter released a cover as a single. On March 8, 2022, American singer-songwriter Ethel Cain released a cover as part of Spotify Singles, in observance of International Women's Day.

On September 26, 2022, Lewis Capaldi covered "Everytime" for a BBC Radio 1 Live Lounge performance.

Track listings

 * European CD single
 * 1) "Everytime" (Album Version) – 3:50
 * 2) "Everytime" (Hi-Bias Radio Remix) – 3:29

 * Australian, Canadian, European and Japanese CD maxi single
 * 1) "Everytime" (Album Version) – 3:50
 * 2) "Everytime" (Hi-Bias Radio Remix) – 3:29
 * 3) "Everytime" (Above & Beyond's Radio Mix) – 3:47
 * 4) "Everytime" (The Scumfrog Vocal Mix) – 9:53

 * German CD maxi single
 * 1) "Everytime" (Album Version) – 3:50
 * 2) "Everytime" (Hi-Bias Radio Remix) – 3:29
 * 3) "Everytime" (Above & Beyond's Radio Mix) – 3:47
 * 4) "Don't Hang Up" – 4:01

 * DVD single
 * 1) "Everytime" – 4:09
 * 2) "Breathe on Me" (Performed on Britney Spears CD:UK Special) – 3:54

 * UK 12-inch vinyl
 * 1) "Everytime" (Hi-Bias Radio Remix) – 3:29
 * 2) "Everytime" (Above & Beyond's Radio Mix) – 3:47
 * 3) "Everytime" (The Scumfrog Vocal Mix) – 9:53

 * US 12-inch vinyl (The Remixes)
 * 1) "Everytime" (The Scumfrog Vocal Mix) – 9:53
 * 2) "Everytime" (Valentin Remix) – 3:28
 * 3) "Everytime" (Above & Beyond's Club Mix) – 8:46
 * 4) "Everytime" (Dr. Octavo's Transculent Mixshow Edit) – 5:18

Credits and personnel
Credits adapted from the liner notes of In the Zone.

Recording

 * Vocals recorded at Conway Studios, Los Angeles, California
 * Mixed at Frou Frou Central, London

Personnel

 * Britney Spears – lead vocals, songwriting
 * Annet Artani – songwriting
 * Guy Sigsworth – production, all instruments
 * Sean McGhee – mixing, engineering, editing

title: Everytime


text:
User talk:Pka54

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text
 * IRC channel
 * Mailing lists
 * Current polls

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 00:29, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Pka54


text: User talk:83.70.32.254

title: User talk:83.70.32.254


text:
J. Allen Hynek

Josef Allen Hynek (May 1, 1910 – April 27, 1986) was an American astronomer, professor, and ufologist. He is perhaps best remembered for his UFO research. Hynek acted as scientific advisor to UFO studies undertaken by the U.S. Air Force under three projects: Project Sign (1947–1949), Project Grudge (1949–1951) and Project Blue Book (1952–1969).

In later years, he conducted his own independent UFO research, developing the "Close Encounter" classification system. He was among the first people to conduct scientific analysis of reports and especially of trace evidence purportedly left by UFOs.

Early life
Hynek was born in Chicago to Czech parents. In 1931, Hynek received a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Chicago. In 1935, he completed his PhD in astrophysics at Yerkes Observatory of the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago. His thesis advisors were Otto Struve and William Wilson Morgan. Hynek joined the Department of Physics and Astronomy at The Ohio State University in 1936.

He wrote with George Gamow on the origin of the solar system in 1945. He specialized in the study of stellar evolution and in the identification of spectroscopic binary stars.

Career
During World War II, Hynek was a civilian scientist at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, where he helped to develop the United States Navy's radio proximity fuze.

After the war, Hynek returned to the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Ohio State, rising to full professor in 1950. In 1953, Hynek submitted a report on the fluctuations in the brightness and color of starlight and daylight, with an emphasis on daytime observations.

In 1956, he left to join Professor Fred Whipple, the Harvard astronomer, at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, which had combined with the Harvard Observatory at Harvard. Hynek had the assignment of directing the tracking of an American space satellite, a project for the International Geophysical Year in 1956 and thereafter. In addition to over 200 teams of amateur scientists around the world that were part of Operation Moonwatch, there were also 12 photographic Baker-Nunn stations. A special camera was devised for the task and a prototype was built and tested and then stripped apart again when, on Oct. 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched its first satellite, Sputnik 1.

After completing his work on the satellite program, Hynek went back to teaching, taking the position of professor and chairman of the astronomy department at Northwestern University in 1960.

Skepticism
In response to numerous reports of "flying saucers", the United States Air Force established Project Sign in 1948 to examine sightings of unidentified flying objects. Hynek was contacted to act as a scientific consultant to Project Sign. He studied UFO reports and decided whether the phenomena described therein suggested known astronomical objects.

When Project Sign hired Hynek, he was skeptical of UFO reports. Hynek suspected that they were made by unreliable witnesses, or by persons who had misidentified man-made or natural objects. In 1948, Hynek said that "the whole subject seems utterly ridiculous," and described it as a fad that would soon pass.

In his 1977 book, Hynek said that he enjoyed his role as a debunker for the Air Force. He also said that debunking was what the Air Force expected of him.

Change of opinion
In April 1953, Hynek wrote a report for the Journal of the Optical Society of America titled "Unusual Aerial Phenomena," which contained one of his best-known statements: "Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is. The steady flow of reports, often made in concert by reliable observers, raises questions of scientific obligation and responsibility. Is there ... any residue that is worthy of scientific attention? Or, if there isn't, does not an obligation exist to say so to the public—not in words of open ridicule but seriously, to keep faith with the trust the public places in science and scientists?"

In 1953, Hynek was an associate member of the Robertson Panel, which concluded that there was nothing anomalous about UFOs, and that a public relations campaign should be undertaken to debunk the subject and reduce public interest. Hynek would later lament that the Robertson Panel had helped make UFOs a disreputable field of study.

As UFO reports continued to be made, some of the testimonies, especially by military pilots and police officers, were deeply puzzling to Hynek. He once said, "As a scientist I must be mindful of the lessons of the past; all too often it has happened that matters of great value to science were overlooked because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook of the time."

In a 1985 interview, when asked what caused his change of opinion, Hynek responded, "Two things, really. One was the completely negative and unyielding attitude of the Air Force. They wouldn't give UFOs the chance of existing, even if they were flying up and down the street in broad daylight. Everything had to have an explanation. I began to resent that, even though I basically felt the same way, because I still thought they weren't going about it in the right way. You can't assume that everything is black no matter what. Secondly, the caliber of the witnesses began to trouble me. Quite a few instances were reported by military pilots, for example, and I knew them to be fairly well-trained, so this is when I first began to think that, well, maybe there was something to all this."

Hynek remained with Project Sign after it became Project Grudge (though he was far less involved in Grudge than he had been in Sign). Project Grudge was replaced with Project Blue Book in early 1952, and Hynek remained as scientific consultant. Air Force Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, Blue Book's first director, held Hynek in high regard: "Dr. Hynek was one of the most impressive scientists I met while working on the UFO project, and I met a good many. He didn't do two things that some of them did: give you the answer before he knew the question; or immediately begin to expound on his accomplishments in the field of science."

Though Hynek thought Ruppelt was a capable director who steered Project Blue Book in the right direction, Ruppelt headed Blue Book for only a few years. Hynek has also stated his opinion that after Ruppelt's departure, Project Blue Book was little more than a public relations exercise, further noting that little or no research was undertaken using the scientific method.

Turnaround
Hynek began occasionally disagreeing publicly with the conclusions of Blue Book. By the early 1960s—after about a decade and a half of study—Clark writes that "Hynek's apparent turnaround on the UFO question was an open secret." Only after Blue Book was formally dissolved did Hynek speak more openly about his "turnaround".

Hynek speculated that his personality was a factor in the Air Force keeping him on as a consultant for over two decades.

Some other ufologists thought that Hynek was being disingenuous or even duplicitous in his turnaround. Physicist James E. McDonald, for example, wrote to Hynek in 1970, castigating him for what McDonald saw as his lapses, and suggesting that, when evaluated by later generations, retired Marine Corps Major Donald E. Keyhoe would be regarded as a more objective, honest, and scientific ufologist.

It was during the late stages of Blue Book in the 1960s that Hynek began speaking openly about his disagreements and disappointments with the Air Force. Among the cases about which he openly dissented with the Air Force were the highly publicized Portage County UFO chase, in which several police officers chased a UFO for half an hour, and the encounter of Lonnie Zamora, a police officer who reported an encounter with a metallic, egg-shaped aircraft near Socorro, New Mexico.

In late March 1966 in Dexter, Michigan, two days of mass UFO sightings were reported, and received significant publicity. After studying the reports, Hynek offered a provisional hypothesis for some of the sightings: a few of about 100 witnesses had mistaken swamp gas for something more spectacular. At the press conference where he made his announcement, Hynek repeatedly and strenuously stated that swamp gas was a plausible explanation for only a portion of the Michigan UFO reports, and certainly not for UFO reports in general. But much to his chagrin, Hynek's qualifications of his hypothesis were largely overlooked, and the term swamp gas was repeated ad infinitum in relation to UFO reports. The explanation was subject to national derision.

In his reply dated October 7, 1968, to a request for scientific recommendations regarding Blue Book from Colonel Raymond Sleeper, commander of the USAF Foreign Technology Division, Hynek noted that Blue Book suffered from numerous procedural problems and a lack of resources, which rendered its efforts "totally inadequate". Hynek also noted that one wag had bestowed upon Blue Book the epithet of "Society for the Explanation of the Uninvestigated".

Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS)
Hynek was the founder and first head of the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS). Founded in 1973 in Evanston, Illinois (but now based in Chicago), CUFOS advocates for scientific analysis of UFO cases. CUFOS's extensive archives include valuable files from civilian research groups such as NICAP, one of the most popular UFO research groups of the 1950s and 1960s.

Speech before the United Nations
In November 1978, Hynek presented a statement on UFOs before the United Nations General Assembly's Special Political Committee on behalf of himself, Jacques Vallée, and Claude Poher. The speech was prepared and approved by the three authors. Their objective was to initiate a centralized, United Nations authority on UFOs.

UFO origin hypotheses
At the MUFON annual symposium in 1973, held in Akron, Ohio, Hynek first expressed his doubts regarding the extraterrestrial (formerly interplanetary or intergalactic) hypothesis, in a speech titled "The Embarrassment of the Riches". He was aware that the number of UFO sightings was much higher than was reflected in the Project Blue Book statistics. "A few good sightings a year, over the world, would bolster the extraterrestrial hypothesis—but many thousands every year? From remote regions of space? And to what purpose? To scare us by stopping cars, and disturbing animals, and puzzling us with their seemingly pointless antics?"

If not publicly, Hynek had been expressing his doubts about the extraterrestrial spacecraft hypothesis to his closest colleagues for years prior to that 1973 symposium. Jacques Vallee's journal entry of August 2, 1967, recounts a conversation with Hynek over lunch that day during which, "We turned to the subject of hypotheses. Hynek would like to write a set of axioms from which he would derive the whole study of UFOs. ... Third axiom: The physical plane is not the only level of existence. The hermeticists speak of an 'astral plane.' The spiritists talk about materializations ... ghosts that go through walls. Who knows if UFOs are not observational devices that are materialized into our world by the denizens of another?"

In a paper presented to the Joint Symposium of the American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics in Los Angeles in 1975, he wrote, "If you object, I ask you to explain—quantitatively, not qualitatively—the reported phenomena of materialization and dematerialization, of shape changes, of the noiseless hovering in the Earth's gravitational field, accelerations that—for an appreciable mass—require energy sources far beyond present capabilities—even theoretical capabilities, the well-known and often reported E-M (electro-magnetic interference) effect, the psychic effects on percipients, including purported telepathic communications."

In 1977, at the First International UFO Congress in Chicago, Hynek presented his thoughts in his speech "What I Really Believe About UFOs". "I do believe", he said, "that the UFO phenomenon as a whole is real, but I do not mean necessarily that it's just one thing. We must ask whether the diversity of observed UFOs ... all spring from the same basic source, as do weather phenomena, which all originate in the atmosphere", or whether they differ "as a rain shower differs from a meteor, which in turn differs from a cosmic-ray shower." We must not ask, Hynek said, simply which hypothesis can explain the most facts, but rather which hypothesis can explain the most puzzling facts.

Regarding hypotheses of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) and extradimensional intelligence (EDI), Hynek continued, "There is sufficient evidence to defend both". As evidence for the ETI hypothesis, he mentioned the cases involving radar as good evidence of something solid, as well as the cases of physical evidence. Then he turned to defending the EDI hypothesis: in addition to the observations of materialization and dematerialization, he cited the "poltergeist" phenomenon experienced by some people after a close encounter; the photographs of UFOs, sometimes in only one frame, and not seen by witnesses; the changing of form in front of witnesses; the puzzling question of telepathic communication; that in close encounters of the third kind, the creatures seem to be at home in Earth's gravity and atmosphere; the sudden stillness in the presence of the craft; levitation of cars or people; and the development by some of psychic abilities after an encounter. "Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?" Hynek asked.

Finally, he introduced a third hypothesis. "I hold it entirely possible", he said, "that a technology exists, which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental. There are stars that are millions of years older than the sun. There may be a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man's. We have gone from Kitty Hawk to the moon in some seventy years, but it's possible that a million-year-old civilization may know something that we don't ... I hypothesize an 'M&M' technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology."

In Jacques Vallee's Foreword to his 1992 collection of journal entries from 1957-1969, he writes that Hynek, looking far less than millions of years into the future, "liked to remind us that beyond today's science there would be a twenty-first century science that would have to take into account phenomena that seemed paranormal to us simply because of our parochial mental attitudes and the limitations of what he aptly called our cultural provincialism."

In Hynek and Vallee's 1975 book The Edge of Reality, Hynek published a stereoscopic photograph of a UFO he took during a flight. According to the book, the object stayed in sight long enough for Hynek to unpack his camera from his luggage and take two exposures. UFO researcher Robert Sheaffer writes in his book Psychic Vibrations that Hynek seemed to have forgotten the photographs when he later told a reporter for The Globe and Mail that he had never seen a UFO. The article states that in all the years he had been looking upward, Hynek "has never seen 'what I would so dearly love to see. Oh, the subject has been so ridiculed that I would never report a UFO even if I did see one—not without a witness'". Nevertheless, Hynek's role in ufology took a heavy toll on his  professional reputation, as noted in a March 1968 journal entry in Vallee (1992): "[Hynek's] colleagues' attitude towards him is changing to the point of contempt. ... He is not taken seriously among astronomers [anymore]. ... At the recent ceremony for the tenth anniversary of Sputnik they could not avoid inviting him to speak, but [they] told him to be sure not to mention UFOs."

Close encounter
In his first book, Hynek published the "Close Encounter" scale that he had developed to better catalog UFO reports. Hynek was later a consultant to Columbia Pictures and Steven Spielberg for the popular 1977 UFO movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind, named after a level of Hynek's scale. He made a cameo appearance in the film. At the end of the film, after the abducted World War II fighter pilots disembark from the "mother ship", he can be seen, bearded and with pipe in mouth, stepping forward to view the spectacle.

Controversies and criticisms
Hynek's most prolific public critic was acclaimed aerospace journalist and UFO researcher Philip J. Klass. In his book UFOs: The Public Deceived, the chapter on "Eyewitness Unreliability" begins (p. 81) with criticism of Hynek's insistence "for many years that no useful insights could be gained from the study of UFO reports that proved to be IFOs" (i.e., subsequently identified), as Hynek reiterated to a congressional committee in 1968: "These have little scientific value ... ; it matters not whether 100 or 100,000 people fail to identify [for example] an artificial satellite or a high–altitude balloon." Rather, argues Klass, "UFO reports that prove to be IFOs show that intelligent people, including pilots, scientists, and law–enforcement officers, unwittingly embellish their accounts with inaccurate details and seeming cause–effects that are really unrelated. It follows logically that similar inaccuracies in other UFO reports may prevent their explanations." In a later chapter (p. 287), he illustrates how "when Hynek speaks to those inclined to believe in UFOs and other paranormal claims, he is much more candid" about his mystical worldview. He quotes Hynek as telling the Spiritual Frontiers Fellowship, "I can feel freer [here] to discuss the more esoteric aspects of the subject of UFOs. ... You have an awareness of the possibilities that the solely materialistically oriented person, like scientists in general, do not have. Talking to them about certain subjects would be like trying to explain calculus to a kindergarten student." Klass then (pp. 287–288) cites the Center for UFO Studies' failure to fulfill Hynek's expectation of promptly and scientifically establishing UFO reality. From Hynek's article, "The UFO Gap," in the December 1967 issue of Playboy: "If UFOs ... actually exist, we would have photographs, movies, spectrograms, plaster casts of indentations (if a landing occurs) and detailed measurements ... of brightness, speeds, and so on within a year of the initiation of such a no–nonsense program. ... [But if not] this, in itself, would be of great negative significance." Klass concludes, "Nearly a decade has now passed since CUFOS was created. ... Today all that CUFOS has to show for this effort are several thousand additional [similar] reports ... plus a growing number of bizarre tales of 'occupants' and 'abductions.' ... Thus, this decade of CUFOS effort has provided what Hynek in 1967 called evidence of 'great negative significance,' that is, that there is no mysterious UFO phenomenon" (emphasis in original).

Robert Sheaffer, a Klass protégé who studied astronomy under (and somewhat befriended) Prof. Hynek at Northwestern University, accuses Hynek of gullibility on his Bad UFOs blog as well as in his 1998 book UFO Sightings: The Evidence and additional writings. While still a student in 1970, Sheaffer was afforded the opportunity to preview a chapter in Hynek's first book–in–progress, and their back–and–forth (along with an appraisal by Philip Klass of that correspondence) is among the material posted in the "Historical Documents" section of Sheaffer's UFO–related website, as is Sheaffer's commentary on Hynek's April 1969 Northwestern freshman orientation lecture on UFOs. Sheaffer's review of the Proceedings of the 1976 CUFOS Conference includes, "Having swallowed [one particular presenter's] tales with no apparent difficulty, [Hynek's CUFOS is] about ready for sightings of the Tooth Fairy. ... Papers that are generally skeptical about UFOs, or even those that shoot down faulty UFO cases, are not represented here" (emphasis in original). His review of Hynek and Vallee's Edge of Reality ("... the authors have gleefully swallowed a dismally high number of UFO hoaxes ...”) was followed by replies from both authors and by Sheaffer's response in which he thanks Hynek for "a reply that nicely illustrates all of my principal criticisms of his book," including "reckless errors of fact," adding that Hynek's "'scientific' UFO Center operates on the principle that 'responsible criticism does not exist.'" In UFO Sightings: The Evidence, Sheaffer further concludes that ufology, as practiced by Hynek (and others), is "a powerful social movement [that is] fundamentally a reaction against science and reason" (emphasis in original).

Andrew Fraknoi, Executive Officer of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific from 1978 to 1992, in a 1981 letter to Science Digest—speaking strictly for himself and not ASP—declined the magazine's invitation to offer a nomination for its Cutty Sark Science Award. An excerpt: "While I think such an award is an excellent idea, I have chosen not to participate in the process because of your inclusion of Dr. Allen Hynek on your panel of judges. I feel it demeans the entire process ... to have as one of the judges a man who has been one of the loudest and [most] exploitative exponents of pseudo–science in this country" (emphasis in original).

Researcher Curt Collins, in a comprehensive weblog titled "Dr. Hynek and the UFO Photo Investigation of 1967," chronicles Hynek's role as an "[unwitting] secondary dupe" in fanning the flames of what would become an indelible UFO–photo case—thanks in large part to the Associated Press and the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite—involving several Polaroid instant photographs of a "hamburger"–shaped object taken on January 9, 1967, by the two lone "witnesses," Michigan teenage brothers Dan and Grant Jaroslaw. Hynek was unfortunately denied the original prints by the family, and it would be nine years before a letter of confession from the brothers would ultimately convince him of their hoax. His premature endorsements (though hedged) led to newspaper headlines across the country such as "Expert Sees 'No Hoax' in Boys' UFO Photos" and "Saucers In Photo Real? UFO Expert Says 'Yes.'" [Apparently unbeknownst to Hynek at the time—despite an article widely disseminated by the Associated Press nearly a week prior to his initial endorsements—a local newspaper reporter, being shown the original prints within hours of the incident and observing Polaroid's sequential serial numbers on the reverse sides, noted that the photographs' sequencing was incompatible with the brothers' chronology of events.]

Author John Franch, in an article titled "The Secret Life of J. Allen Hynek," disputes the "legend" that "Hynek was a [scientifically oriented] skeptic before becoming an outspoken UFOlogist." He notes that "Since his teens Hynek had been an enthusiastic though closeted student of the occult" with "a particular fondness for the writings of the Rosicrucian secret societies, with their tantalizing promises of hidden ancient knowledge, and those of the so–called hermetic philosophers, especially Rudolf Steiner," and "even endorsed alleged instances of 'psychic surgery' and 'psychic photography.'" For these and other reasons, Franch asserts that Hynek's initial "skeptical attitude" toward UFO reality "was in fact a façade for public consumption."

Personal life
Hynek and his wife, Miriam (Curtis) had five children. Hynek's son Joel is an Oscar-winning visual effects supervisor. He oversaw the design of the camouflage effect for the movie Predator, and won the Best Visual Effects Oscar for his work on What Dreams May Come.

DocuSeries based on his life
In 2019, The History Channel created and aired a highly-fictionalized TV show based on his UFO research and the organization he worked for dubbed Project Blue Book.

Death
On April 27, 1986, Hynek died of a malignant brain tumor, at Memorial Hospital in Scottsdale, Arizona. He was 75 years old, and was survived by his wife Mimi, children Scott, Roxane, Joel, Paul, and Ross, and his grandchildren.

Books

 * The UFO Experience: A scientific inquiry (1972) ISBN 978-1-56924-782-2
 * The Edge of Reality: A progress report on the unidentified flying objects, with Jacques Vallée (1975) ISBN 978-0-8092-8150-3
 * The Hynek UFO Report (1977) ISBN 0-440-19201-3
 * Night Siege: The Hudson Valley UFO Sightings, with Philip Imbrogno and Bob Pratt (1987) ISBN 978-0345342133

title: J. Allen Hynek


text:
Martín Jaite

Martín Jaite (born 9 October 1964) is a former top-10 professional tennis player from Argentina.

Jaite's career-high Association of Tennis Professionals singles ranking was world no. 10, which he achieved in the summer of 1990, and he won a total of 12 titles and $1,873,881 in tour prize money during his career.

Jaite's playing style leveraged his consistency, speed, thoughtful use of tactics, and fitness to compensate for his lack of power.

Early life
Jaite was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and is Jewish.

Tennis career
Jaite was a top junior in both Spain and Argentina. He joined Argentina's Davis Cup team. He began playing on the ATP tour in 1983, and soon was ranked among the top 20 players in the world. He reached the quarterfinals in competition at the French Open in 1985, defeating Paolo Canè, Trevor Allan, Miloslav Mečíř and Heinz Günthardt before losing to Ivan Lendl. In May 1986 at Forest Hills Jaite defeated world No. 4 Boris Becker in straight sets.

In May 1987, Jaite beat world no. 9 Henri Leconte in Germany in two tiebreaks. In September 1987, Jaite upset world no. 3 Mats Wilander in five sets to win a competition in Barcelona, Spain. In April 1989, he upset world no. 8 Jakob Hlasek in two sets in Monte Carlo.

Jaite became only the sixth South American to be ranked in the top 10 in the ATP computer rankings, reaching no. 10 in 1990. In May 1990, he defeated world No. 2 Stefan Edberg in three sets in Germany. Jaite defeated world No. 4 Guy Forget in April 1991 in France, and then again in July, in Gstaad, Switzerland.

Olympics
He participated for his native country at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, but lost to Brad Gilbert, the eventual winner of the bronze medal.

Davis Cup
Jaite was 14–20 in Davis Cup play, 11–7 in singles on clay, from 1984 to 1999.

Jaite was involved in a Davis Cup tie against the US in Buenos Aires when Andre Agassi was leading 6–2, 6–2, 5–0. Jaite was leading 40–0 in the sixth game of the third set, and missed his first serve. Agassi then called out to his then-coach Nick Bollettieri, "Hey watch this!", and then followed by catching the second serve in his left hand to give Jaite the game. Viewed as an act of disrespect, Agassi was booed by the crowd for five minutes.

After tennis
Jaite has had an important role in Argentine tennis since his retirement. He is the tournament director for ATP Buenos Aires, the Buenos Aires Challenger, and director of Futures events in Argentina. From July 2007 till December 2008, Jaite was coaching David Nalbandian, and helped lead him to titles in Madrid and Bercy, where he became the first man to defeat the top two players in the world, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, in consecutive tournaments. In 2011, Jaite was named captain of the Argentina Davis Cup team.

title: Martín Jaite


text:
George Rickey

George Warren Rickey (June 6, 1907 – July 17, 2002) was an American kinetic sculptor.

Early life and education
Rickey was born on June 6, 1907, in South Bend, Indiana. When Rickey was still a child, his father, an executive with Singer Sewing Machine Company, moved the family to Glasgow, Scotland, in 1913. They lived near the river Clyde, and George learned to sail around the outer islands on the family's 30 ft sailboat.

Rickey was educated at Glenalmond College and received a degree in history from Balliol College, Oxford, with frequent visits to the Ruskin School of Drawing. He spent a short time traveling Europe and, against the advice of his father, studied art in Paris at Académie L'Hote and Académie Moderne. He then returned to the United States and began teaching at the Groton School, where among his many students was future National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy.

After leaving Groton, Rickey worked at various schools throughout the country as part of the Carnegie Corporation Visiting Artists/Artists in Residence program (partially funded by the Works Progress Administration). His focus was primarily on painting. While taking part in these programs, he painted portraits, taught classes, and created a set of murals at Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois. He maintained an art studio in New York from 1934 to 1942, when he was drafted.

Rickey's interest in things mechanical re-awakened during his wartime work in aircraft and gunnery systems research and maintenance. Following his discharge, he studied art at the New York University Institute of Fine Arts and later at the Chicago Institute of Design, funded by the G.I. Bill. He taught art at variety of colleges, including Muhlenberg College. While at Muhlenberg, he was commissioned by J. I. Rodale to illustrate an edition of Anton Chekhov's The Beggar and Other Tales. Rickey later moved on to Indiana University South Bend. There, he encountered and was inspired by the work of David Smith.

Kinetic sculpture
Rickey turned from painting to creating kinetic sculpture. Rickey combined his love of engineering and mechanics by designing sculptures whose metal parts moved in response to the slightest air currents.

His first sculpture was shown in New York in 1951 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art group show American Sculpture 1951. The Museum of Modern Art, in New York purchased his Two Lines Temporal I, after Alfred Barr, MOMA's then director,  had seen it at the exhibition Documenta III in Kassel, Germany.

Rickey's sculptures can now be seen in major museums in the US and in most European capitals, Japan, and New Zealand. His work is often compared to the mobiles of Alexander Calder, but while Calder used organic, playful forms, Rickey's European lineage is more closely related to the Constructivist principles of geometric engineering. In 1967, he wrote Constructivism – origins and evolution, published by George Braziller,  Inc., New York.

In works such as Two Open Triangles Up Gyratory, Rickey's two wind driven elements (engineered to withstand winds of 80 mph) provide an endless series of combined, almost dance like, shapes and movements.

Rickey mastered not only ordered predictable movements, but also mastered methods of controlling both the speed and tempo of similar objects to respond more randomly, such as in his work Four Open Rectangles Diagonal Jointed Gyratory V.

Much of his work was created in his studio in East Chatham, New York, where he moved after taking a position as a professor of art (sculpture) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. His kinetic sculpture titled Two Rectangles, Vertical Gyratory Up, Variation III was a central element of the Rensselaer campus from 1972. It is now located in Zurich, Switzerland, at the headquarters of UBS. This sculpture was known as the Chrinitoid when it was located on the Rensselaer campus on long term loan. It was removed after Rickey and Rensselaer could not agree on a purchase price.

Rickey also lived and worked in Berlin for many years, following the Documenta III art show. His studio time was spent constructing sculpture and preparing for exhibitions in Europe. In Rickey's words the city was like a "cocoon" in the middle of communist East Germany, with a lively and advanced social and cultural life which he partook in fully. During this time he received numerous Honorary Doctor of Fine Arts degrees.

In 1979 he had a retrospective at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City. Rickey's sculptures are on permanent exhibition at the National Gallery of Art, and the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington, D.C., the Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Art Collection in Albany, New York, the San Diego Museum of Art, The Delaware Art Museum, The Indiana University Art Museum, the Honolulu Museum of Art, Frederik Meijer Gardens & Sculpture Park, and at the Laumeier Sculpture Park in St. Louis, The Hyde Collection in Glens Falls, NY, and many other institutions.

In 1985, George Rickey had a major retrospective in South Bend, Indiana, the place of his birth. His sculptures were installed outside (and inside) of the South Bend Art Center, and also at the Snite Museum of Art on the campus of the University of Notre Dame. Rickey gave a presentation of his work at the Snite. One of the stories he told concerned how, as a result of a World War II-era, government-administered aptitude test, he was assigned to design machine gun turrets for bombers. It was in this job that he became familiar with the high-quality ball bearings, balancing weights, riveted sheet metal, lightweight aircraft construction techniques, and modern hardware (and the vendors for same) that were to become the mechanical foundation for his later forays into lightweight, delicately balanced, wind-activated kinetic sculpture.

Rickey died at his home in Saint Paul, Minnesota, on July 17, 2002, at the age of 95. The Rickey Estate is currently represented by Kasmin Gallery in New York City. The Rickey archive will have a permanent home at Notre Dame.

Honors and awards

 * (1999) Lifetime Achievement in Contemporary Sculpture Award, International Sculpture Center.

title: George Rickey


text:
Wikipedia:Goings-on/August 1, 2004

Welcome to Wikipedia's goings-on. This page is a central point for community members to collect current information about the community project and to report on recent goings-on. In a sense, it's an announcement page, but it is supposed to collect even those kinds of information that are normally not announced on pages like Announcements (e.g. arbitration progress, outspoken newcomers, amusing things, etc.). However, please notice that this page is explicitly not for discussion. When listing topics here that are being discussed or have been discussed, please link to the appropriate discussion page and discuss it there. For a project-wide update of events, see the Meta goings-on.

This page is archived in a weekly digest-like fashion, every Sunday at 0:00 UTC.

{| cellspacing=3 width="100%"
 * bgcolor="#fffff6" colspan="2" style="border: 1px solid black;padding-left:1em;"|

Goings-on in the week starting Sunday August 1 2004

 * Arbitration Committee voting begins. Vote at Special:ArbComVote. Voting will continue through Friday, August 13.
 * The World War II wikireader project is getting started. Volunteers welcome!
 * Peer review is reorganised to better complement featured article candidates.
 * Congratulations to DropDeadGorgias, Kim Bruning, Lupo, Robin Patterson and Stormie who became administrators this week.

 * - valign="top"
 * bgcolor="#fffff6" style="border: 1px solid black;padding-left:1em;"|

Articles featured on the Main Page

 * Quantum mechanics (August 1)
 * Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson (August 2)
 * Economics (August 3)
 * Father Damien (August 4)
 * Order of the Garter (August 5)
 * Pufferfish (August 6)
 * Calvin and Hobbes (August 7)

 * bgcolor="#fffff6" style="border: 1px solid black;padding-left:1em;"|

Articles that gained "featured" status
 * Rights and privileges of peers (August 2)
 * Enigma machine (August 2)
 * Monopoly (game) (August 2)
 * Mains power plug (August 2)
 * 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens (August 5)
 * United States Constitution (August 5)
 * Order of the Thistle (August 5)
 * Order of the Bath (August 6)

Pictures that gained "featured" status
 * }

title: Wikipedia:Goings-on/August 1, 2004


text:
User:Skyler1534

Projects and organizations
I am the founder of the United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project. Any Wikipedians interested in United States Supreme Court cases should look into helping with the Project.

Vitals

 * Name: Patrick
 * Hometown: Norristown, PA, U.S.A.
 * Year of Birth: 1981

Interests

 * Global political affairs
 * Law
 * History
 * Classic literature
 * Movies
 * Billiards

Currently Working On...
Most of my work on Wikipedia is focused on the United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project.

See my Wikistress gauge above to see how much stress my current activities are causing me.

Major contributions
Who cares? The past is the past. Check my contribs page if you really want to know. I am but a humble servant of knowledge.

Commonly Used Wikilinks

 * List of United States Supreme Court cases
 * List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

'''Wikipedia is knowledge. Knowledge is power.'''

title: User:Skyler1534


text:
Talk:Wolfram Mathematica

Free access
I see we just released the "Wolfram Open Cloud" which provides a second way to get free access to Mathematica (in addition to the Raspberry Pi version). The article currently says "Mathematica is proprietary software licensed at a range of prices for commercial, educational, and other uses." I don't think anyone might guess that "range or prices" includes free.

However, I don't think this is a sentance that I can try and update without being accused of 'advertising'. Could someone update the article to reflect those changes. More info here JonMcLoone (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think an update is in order to account for the recent free release of the Wolfram Engine for Developers on all three major platforms. Where should that go? Ackbeet (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Mathematica 10.4
Short summary of new features here, in case anyone wants to update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonMcLoone (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Be Bold!
Hello, I recently moved the page to this new title because I noticed the name that the program installs as is "Wolfram Mathematica". I was editing boldly. (Besides, iTunes doesn't install as Apple iTunes. Shouldn't we name the page what the program install as?)  However, if anyone feels that the page moves (I also moved the talk page archives) and edits were inappropriate, feel free to revert the edit.

Also note that, while I moved and edited most of the appropriate pages, I did not edit the corresponding Wikidata entry as I have no idea what to do there. (The only reason I know about the Wikidata entry is because the special move page told me after the move to edit it.)

-- Gestrid (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathematica 11
I have updated the page where it was factually incorrect. Others should consider which features are notable (this hasn't really been updated for several releases). The summary of new features can be found here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonMcLoone (talk • contribs) 15:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Mathematica 11.1
This release has not rendered anything in the article incorrect. The list of new capabilities to consider adding to the article is here...  JonMcLoone (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

User badges
I updated the logos in the user badges. Here they are:

Can this
Can this software generate fractals? Should it also be placed in the category for Fractal software and appear on this template? - Shiftchange (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Since Fractals have mathematical equations behind their making, Mathematica of course can make them given the proper input. It should not be listed as Fractal software, since Fractal software can usually only do Fractals, where Mathematica can do much more than Fractals.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wolfram Mathematica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121151440/http://www.macworld.com/2002/11/reviews/mathematica/ to http://www.macworld.com/2002/11/reviews/mathematica/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070320113853/http://www.electronicdesign.com/Articles/ArticleID/1323/1323.html to http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/ArticleID/1323/1323.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510202912/http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/ScientificAndTechnicalData.html to http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/ScientificAndTechnicalData.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120518031023/http://www.wolfram.com/company/scrapbook/page03.html to http://www.wolfram.com/company/scrapbook/page03.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The company that was Mathematica
There is no mention of the company that was named Mathematica, known for RAMIS (software). Pi314m (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There now is an article for "Mathematica (company)" so it's time to clarify:
 * MOVE "Wolfram Mathematica" -> Wolfram Mathematica (software)
 * point "Mathematica" to the company, with a note there re Wolfram Pi314m (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect
Why is the article called "Wolfram Mathematica (software)" if there isn't amy other article called that? We only need parentheses if there is another article called Wolfram Mathematica, but it redirects here. This is ridiculous.

I know there is distinguishment between here and Mathematica (company), but what is wrong with mentioning the company in the hatnote? Prodigy55 (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What is Mathematica
An admin has deleted the Features section, so now there is only a single line in the article that tries to describe what Mathematica is or does. The rest is mostly about how it connects to other things.

Apparently the article can only mention a few notable features in prose only. No bullets and no attempt to sum up what it does more broadly.

I am copying the deleted content below so that it is not lost. But I am not going to try and write new content...

Features
Features of Wolfram Mathematica include:
 * Libraries of mathematical elementary functions and special functions including Number theory function and combinatoric functions
 * Support for complex number, arbitrary precision arithmetic, interval arithmetic, numbers with uncertainty censored data, temporal data, time series, and unit based data, and symbolic computation
 * Matrix and data manipulation tools including support for sparse arrays and associative arrays
 * 2D and 3D data, function and geo visualization and animation tools
 * Solvers for systems of equations, diophantine equations, ordinary differential equations (ODEs), non-linear partial differential equations (PDEs), differential algebraic equations (DAEs), delay differential equations (DDEs), stochastic differential equations (SDEs), and recurrence relations
 * Finite element analysis including 2D and 3D adaptive mesh generation
 * Numeric and symbolic tools for discrete and continuous calculus including continuous and discrete integral transforms
 * Constrained and unconstrained local and global optimization
 * Multivariate statistics libraries including fitting, hypothesis testing, and probability and expectation calculations on over 160 distributions.
 * Calculations and simulations on random processes and queues
 * Supervised and unsupervised machine learning tools for data, images and sounds including artificial neural networks
 * Tools for text mining including regular expressions, semantic analysis, sentiment analysis and fact extraction
 * Data mining tools such as cluster analysis, sequence alignment and pattern matching
 * Computational geometry in 2D, 3D and higher dimensions and Euclid-style 2D geometry
 * Libraries for signal processing including wavelet analysis on sounds, images and data
 * Audio processing filters and measures including audio recognition
 * Tools for 2D and 3D image processing and morphological image processing including image recognition
 * Tools for visualizing and analysing directed and undirected graphs
 * Tools for cryptography including symmetric and asymmetric keys, hashing and elliptic curve cryptography
 * Tools for financial calculations including bonds, annuities, derivatives, options etc.
 * Group theory and symbolic tensor functions
 * Tools for Automated theorem proving
 * Linear and non-linear control system libraries
 * Microcontroller kit for giving symbolic specifications from which it automatically generates and deploys code to run autonomously in microcontrollers.
 * Tools for computational chemistry including bond length and angle calculations and databases of chemical properties
 * Programming language supporting procedural, functional, object-oriented constructs and parallel programming
 * Toolkit for adding user interfaces to calculations and applications
 * Tools for creating and deploying cloud based computational applications and services
 * Tools to connect to dynamic-link library (DLL), Java, .NET, C++, Fortran, CUDA, OpenCL, and Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) based systems
 * Using both "free-form linguistic input" (a natural language user interface) and Wolfram Language in notebook when connected to the Internet

UPE
Hello. I have just tagged this article undisclosed paid, because it was very heavily edited by a (highly likely paid) sockfarm that is focused almost exclusively on promoting Stephen Wolfram and his work. Please see this COIN thread (perma) and the related SPI for more information. The article will need a thorough review before the tag is removed. Thanks and best, Blablubbs | talk 15:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

1967-founded Mathematica
Although some may refer to Wolfram Mathematica as Mathematica, that does not eliminate first-claim to 1967-founded Mathematica. To avoid making Mathematica into a Disambiguation page, it seems best to follow the Wiki WP:MOS guideline of placing a hatnote atop each of the pair (this guideline is specifically when there are no more than two). At some point, 1967-founded Mathematica subdivided into three units: one for the RAMIS database software, one for the often-government-funded economic/econometric research, and another having to do with "Systems" in its title. There is a bit more above/2018. Pi314m (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding a picture of the documentation
Would it be helpful to include a picture of how Wolfram Mathematica's documentation center and help page? I am new to the patterns of Wikipedia. ScientistBuilder (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)ScientistBuilderScientistBuilder (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Version 12.3 Blog Release Notes Source Addition
Would it be helpful to include a source detailing the improvements in 12.3 in the sources? The blog is from https://blog.wolfram.com/2021/05/20/launching-version-12-3-of-wolfram-language-mathematica/ and includes updated graphs, control systems, chemistry, and video processing. ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)ScientistBuilderScientistBuilder (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

New Picture
Would it be helpful to include a picture of a more recent version of Mathematica in place of Version 8.0? I think it would be a good idea to because version 13 is going to be released in the few months. ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)ScientistBuilderScientistBuilder (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Version 13 Released
Mathematica 13 should be listed as the current version. https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/12/launching-version-13-0-of-wolfram-language-mathematica/?source=frontpage-carousel — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientistBuilder (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The current version (13) is listed under stable release in the Infobox. Montesquieu1789 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wolfram Mathematica Documentation Home Page.jpg

Add a Free Alternatives section!
Add a Free Alternatives section! 68.134.243.51 (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Release history like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software) ?
Would be good ? moueza (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wolfram Mathematica


text:
Enumerate

Enumerate could refer to:
 * Enumeration, a mathematical, theoretical concept of an exhaustive listing of compatible items
 * Enumerate (project), a collaborative research project about digitization of cultural heritage
 * Enumerated type in computer programming

title: Enumerate


text:
History of Russia (1721–1796)

History of Russia (1721–96) is the history of Russia during the Era of Russian palace revolutions and the Age of Catherine the Great. It began with creation of Russian Empire in 1721, the rule of Catherine I in 1725, and ended with the short rule of Peter III of Russia.

Era of Russian palace revolutions (thematically)
Peter changed the rules of succession to the throne after the death of his son Aleksey, who had opposed his father's reforms and served as a rallying figure for anti-reform groups. A new law provided that the Tsar would choose his own successor, but Peter failed to do so before his death in 1725. In the decades that followed, the absence of clear rules of succession left the monarchy open to intrigues, plots, coups, and countercoups. Henceforth, the crucial factor for obtaining the throne was the support of the elite palace guard in St. Petersburg.

After Peter's death, his wife Catherine I ascended the throne. But when she died in 1727, Peter's grandson, Peter II, was crowned tsar. In 1730, Anna Ivanovna, whose father Ivan V had been co-ruler with Peter, ascended the throne. The Supreme Privy Council, a government body established by Catherine I that put Anna on the throne, attempted to impose various conditions on her. In her struggle against those restrictions, Anna had the support of other nobles who feared oligarchic rule more than autocracy. Thus the principle of autocracy continued to receive strong support despite chaotic struggles for the throne.

Anna died in 1740, and her infant grandnephew was proclaimed tsar as Ivan VI. After a series of coups, however, he was replaced by Peter the Great's daughter Elizabeth (r. 1741-1762). During Elizabeth's reign, which was much more effective than those of her immediate predecessors, a modernised Russian culture began to emerge. Among notable cultural events were the founding of Moscow University (1755) and the Academy of Fine Arts (1757), along with the emergence of Russia's first eminent scientist and scholar, Mikhail Lomonosov.

During the rule of Peter's successors, Russia took a more active role in European events. From 1726 to 1761, Russia was allied with Austria against the Ottoman Empire and Crimean Khanate, which France usually supported. In the War of Polish Succession (1733–1735), Russia and Austria blocked the French candidate to the Polish throne. In the Russo-Turkish War of 1735-1739, Russia reacquired the port of Azov, but Russia's greatest reach into Europe was during the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), which was fought on three continents between Great Britain and France with numerous allies on both sides. In that war, Russia continued its alliance with Austria, but Austria shifted to an alliance with France against Prussia. In 1760, Russian forces were at the gates of Berlin. Fortunately for the Kingdom of Prussia, Elizabeth died in 1762, and her successor, Peter III, allied Russia with Prussia because of his devotion to the Prussian king, Frederick the Great.

Peter III had a short and unpopular reign. His father was Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. In his Manifesto on the Freedom of the Nobility, Peter III granted civil liberties to the nobility and ended mandatory state service for nobles. While his manifesto was popular, he alienated clergy by decision to pass church lands to the state and created deep resentment by forcing Prussian military drills on the Russian army, and depriving Russia of a military victory by establishing his sudden alliance with Prussia. Making use of the discontent and fearing for her own position, Peter III's wife, Catherine, deposed her husband in a coup, and her lover's brother, Aleksey Orlov, subsequently murdered him, so in June 1762 Catherine became Catherine II, empress of Russia.

Catherine I, ruled 1725–1727
Peter the Great had two wives, Yevdokiya Lopukhina (the daughter of a minor noble) and Marfa Skavronskaya (a Lithuanian peasant, renamed Catherine after her conversion to Orthodoxy). Catherine I's rise through Peter I's Table of Ranks, from a simple peasant to empress, embodied the Petrine spirit, making it seem as though Peter I literally “created” her. With the help of Aleksandr Menshikov (her advisor, ex-lover and leader of the palace guards), she gained the throne by emphasizing this connection to Peter I and her maternal nature. Due to her poor health, Menshikov did much of the ruling. With Catherine I's blessing, he created the Supreme Privy Council, which consisted of six or so members. It ultimately took over most of the functions of the Ruling Senate (an advisory body founded by Peter I to oversee judicial, financial and administrative affairs) Almost immediately, Catherine I appointed Peter II, the grandson of Peter the Great, as her successor and she died after only two years of ruling.

Peter II, ruled 1727–1730
Peter II was only eleven when he became emperor. Because Peter was so young his advisers manipulated him throughout his reign. Intent on maintaining his power, Menshikov took the young boy under his wing, banishing his competitors, including both Petar Zaitsev and Emil Vasilcin (who were related to Peter I), to Siberia and, ultimately, betrothing Peter II to his daughter Maria Menshikova. However, when Menshikov fell ill and had to leave court, Andrei Osterman and Alexis Dolgoruky ingratiated themselves with the young emperor and replacing Menshikov as Peter II's premier advisers. Both were nobles and members of the Supreme Privy Council and eventually had Menshikov tried and banished to Siberia on “a charge of ‘tyranny’”. Peter became, once again, engaged to a daughter of one of the Supreme Privy Council’s members (this time it was Dolgoruky’s daughter, Catherine). However, before the wedding took place, Peter died of smallpox without naming a successor, throwing the empire into another succession struggle.

Anna of Russia, ruled 1730–1740
When Peter II died, there were multiple candidates for the throne, including Peter I’s first wife, Yevdokiya, and his daughter, Elizabeth. However, Alexis Dolgoruky and his allies chose Anna Ivanonva, the daughter of Peter I’s half brother Ivan, because the Supreme Privy Council wanted a ruler who would not impose on the powers of the Council, allowing them to continue to virtually rule the empire. The Supreme Privy Council offered her the throne with “Konditsii” or Conditions. These included the inability of the empress to marry, designate a successor, declare war or peace, raise taxes, or spend state revenue without the consent of the Council. Many other nobles saw this as an aristocratic grab for power and told the would-be empress so as soon as she arrived in Moscow. Ultimately, Anna invalidated the conditions, abolished the Council, and sent many members who had advocated the conditions into exile. During her reign, Anna relied heavily on Ernst Johann von Biron (her longtime adviser and lover), making many refer to her reign as “Bironovshchina” (Biron's repressive regime). Together, they repealed Peter I's legislation which prohibited nobles dividing up their estates among their sons while similarly reducing the nobility's state service requirements. Many regard her reign as a time of foreign domination, particularly German, in the court. However, this mainly stems from the fact that a few Germans had high ranking positions. During her reign, Anna remained involved in external conflicts. In 1732, her government was forced to cede back all territories annexed several years earlier by Peter I in the North and South Caucasus to Persia, now led by Nader Shah, in order to forge a Russo-Persian alliance against the common enemy, the Ottoman Empire. From 1733–1736, Russia was allied with Austria against France and Spain in the War of Polish Succession. Russia and Austria joined to stop the election of a French candidate for the Polish throne, allowing Austria's favored candidate to win. Later, allied with Austria, Russia went to war with the Ottoman Empire in the hopes of gaining new territory. This war, lasting 1735-1739 “secured the restoration of Azov to Russia and some lands between Azov and the Dniester” but at high casualty rates, mainly due to disease. Anna Ivanonva named the young son of Anna Leopoldovna and the Duke of Brunswick, Ivan VI, as her successor and Biron as his regent.

Ivan VI, ruled 1740–1741
Anna Leopoldovna argued with Biron and replaced him as the babe's regent. A cabinet composed of both Russians and Germans advised Anna Leopoldovna. However, this regime lasted only a year due to its ineffective leadership. Peter I's last surviving daughter, Elizabeth, long on the sidelines, sensed this as her moment to obtain power and led a coup against Anna Leopoldovna and Ivan VI, imprisoning or banishing all who stood in her way.

Elizabeth of Russia, ruled 1741–1762
As the last surviving child of Peter I, Elizabeth's reign had a certain legitimacy and the people of the empire greeted her ascension as the end of German dominated rule. She was more interested in politics than any of her predecessors were, although she lacked much of her father's force and drive in the political sphere. She was impatient and unpredictable, unwilling to rely too heavily on one adviser.

Her administration continued much of Peter I's legacy. She restored the Senate's powers, abolished most domestic custom barriers, and founded the University of Moscow in 1755. During her reign, she ordered the building of some of the most famous structures, including the Winter Palace, although it was not completed until Catherine the Great. However, Elizabeth remained intent on keeping the nobility satisfied. During Elizabeth's reign, the nobility's control over the daily life of serfs increased: the landlord controlled who the serfs could marry. Indeed, the Senate passed legislation which allowed nobles to exile their serfs to Siberia. Despite the worsening life for the serfs, the majority of the population still saw Elizabeth as a benevolent ruler, when compared to the German brutes who dominated the court during Anna Ivanonva's and Ivan VI's reigns. Elizabeth remained very interested in diplomacy and Russia's foreign affairs. Under her rule, Russia took part in the Seven Years' War from 1755 to 1762. Russia entered the war as an ally of Austria and France against Prussia. The campaign advanced successfully but ended as a result of mounting financial difficulties and Elizabeth's death in 1762. Her nephew and successor, Peter III (grandson of Peter I), took Russia out of the war.

Peter III, ruled for six months in 1762
Peter III reigned for a mere six months before his wife, Catherine II, led a coup against him. He was born and raised in Germany in the court of his father, the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, and did not come to live in Russia until he was fourteen. It is difficult to ascertain his character because there exist many contradictory accounts. Catherine's journals describe him as incompetent bordering on mentally challenged, yet his acts as emperor illustrate a certain amount of shrewdness. Peter withdrew Russia from the Seven Years' War to salvage the remainder of the empire's finances and to save his beloved Prussia from complete defeat while depriving Russia of territorial advances. Instead, he threatened war with Denmark over his ancestral claims in Schleswig, though he was overthrown before fighting could begin. His “Manifesto on the Freedom of the Nobility” ended compulsory state service for the nobility. However, during his short reign Peter managed to irritate the nobility by dramatically decreasing the power of the Senate. He similarly angered the Church by his liberation of serfs on church land and his obvious contempt for Russian Orthodoxy.

Peter's passion for Prussian style military ultimately terminated his reign. His delight for rigid discipline alienated the palace guards, and ultimately allowed Catherine II, with the help of her lover Grigori Orlov who led the palace guard regiments, to overthrow Peter III on July 9, 1762. Peter's assassination symbolically showed the end of the era of palace revolutions.

Age of Catherine the Great
Catherine the Great's reign featured imperial expansion, which brought the empire huge new territories in the south and west, and internal consolidation. She resolved her husband's conflict with Denmark by exchanging his claims in Schleswig-Holstein for control of the Duchy of Oldenburg and an alliance that tied Denmark's foreign policy to Russia's through the Treaty of Tsarskoye Selo. A new Russo-Turkish War in 1768 ended with the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji in 1774, by which Russia acquired the regions of Kerch, Yinsdale, and parts of the Yedisan region, became the formal protector of Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire, and assumed military protectorship of the Crimean Khanate, which became nominally independent from the Ottoman Empire. In 1783, Catherine annexed Crimea, helping to spark the next War with the Ottoman Empire, which began in 1787. By the Treaty of Jassy in 1792, Russia expanded southward to the Dniestr river, annexing most of Yedisan. The terms of the treaty fell far short of the goals of Catherine's reputed "Greek project" - the expulsion of the Ottomans from south-eastern Europe and the renewal of a Byzantine Empire under Russian control. The Ottoman Empire no longer posed a serious threat to Russia, however, and had to tolerate an increasing Russian influence over the Balkans.

Russia's westward expansion under Catherine resulted from the partitioning of Poland. As Poland became increasingly weak in the eighteenth century, each of its neighbors (Russia, Prussia, and Austria) tried to place its own candidate on the Polish throne. In 1772, the three agreed on an initial partition of Polish territory, by which Russia received parts of Belarus and Livonia. After the partition, Poland initiated an extensive reform program, which included a democratic constitution that alarmed reactionary factions in Poland and in Russia. Using the danger of radicalism as an excuse, the same three powers abrogated the constitution and in 1793 again stripped Poland of territory. This time Russia obtained most of Belarus and Ukraine west of the Dnieper river. The 1793 partition led to the Kościuszko Uprising in Poland, which ended with the third partition in 1795. As a result, Poland disappeared from the international political map. Russia acquired territories in Lithuania and Courland in the third partition.

Although the partitioning of Poland greatly added to Russia's territory and prestige, it also created new difficulties. Having lost Poland as a buffer, Russia now had to share borders with both Prussia and Austria. In addition, the empire became more ethnically heterogeneous as it absorbed large numbers of Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, and Jews. The fate of the Ukrainians and Belarusians, who primarily worked as serfs, changed little at first under Russian rule. Roman Catholic Poles resented their loss of independence, however, and proved difficult to control, staging several uprisings against the occupation. Russia had barred Jews from the empire in 1742 and viewed them as an alien population. A decree of January 3, 1792, formally initiated the Pale of Settlement, which permitted Jews to live only in the western part of the empire, thereby setting the stage for anti-Jewish discrimination in later periods. At the same time, Russia abolished the autonomy of Ukraine east of the Dnieper, the Baltic provinces, and various Cossack territories. With her emphasis on a uniformly administered empire, Catherine presaged the policy of Russification that later tsars and their successors would practice.

Historians have debated Catherine's sincerity as an enlightened monarch, but few have doubted that she believed in government activism aimed at developing the empire's resources, creating an educated elite, and reforming administration. Initially, Catherine attempted to rationalize government procedures through law. In 1767, she created the Legislative Commission, drawn from nobles, townsmen, and others, to codify Russia's laws. Although the commission did not formulate a new law code, Catherine's Instruction to the Commission introduced modern legal principles. It would also form the basis for Catherine's later legal codes, including the Statue of Administration of the Provinces (1775), the Salt Trade Code and the Code of Commercial Navigation (1781), the Police Ordnance (1782), and the Statue of Education (1786).

During the 1768-1774 war with the Ottoman Empire, Russia experienced a major social upheaval, the Pugachev Uprising. In 1773, a Don Cossack, Emel'yan Pugachev, declared himself as the re-emergent tsar Peter III. Other Cossacks, various Turkic tribes that felt the impingement of the Russian centralizing state, and industrial workers in the Ural Mountains, as well as peasants hoping to escape serfdom, all joined in the rebellion. Russia's preoccupation with the war enabled Pugachev to take control of a part of the Volga area, but the regular army crushed the rebellion in 1774.

The Pugachev Uprising bolstered Catherine's determination to reorganize Russia's provincial administration. In 1775, she divided Russia into provinces and districts according to population statistics. She then gave each province an expanded administrative, police, and judicial apparatus. Nobles no longer had to serve the central government, as the law had required since Peter the Great's time, and many of them received significant roles in administering provincial governments.

Catherine also attempted to organize society into well-defined social groups, or estates. In 1785, she issued charters to nobles and townsmen. The Charter to the Nobility confirmed the liberation of the nobles from compulsory service and gave them personal rights that not even the autocracy could infringe. The Charter to the Towns that established self-government of the towns proved complicated and ultimately less successful than the one issued to the nobles.

The modernization of Russia continued during Catherine's reign. An increase in the number of books and periodicals also brought forth intellectual debates and social criticism of the Russian Enlightenment. In 1790, Aleksandr Nikolaevich Radishchev published his Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow, a fierce attack on serfdom and on the autocracy. Catherine, already frightened by the French Revolution, had Radishchev arrested and banished to Siberia. Radishchev later gained recognition as the father of Russian radicalism. In accordance with the treaty Russia had signed with the Georgians to protect them against any new invasion of their Persian suzerains and further political aspirations, Catherine waged a new war against Persia in 1796 after they had again invaded Georgia and established rule over it about a year prior and expelled the newly established Russian garrisons in the Caucasus.

Catherine brought many of the policies of Peter the Great to fruition and set the foundation for the 19th century empire. Russia became a power capable of competing with its European neighbors in the military, political, and diplomatic spheres. Russia's elite became culturally more like the elites of Central and West European countries. The organization of society and the government system, from Peter the Great's central institutions to Catherine's provincial administration, remained basically unchanged until the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 and, in some respects, until the fall of the monarchy in 1917. Catherine's push to the south, including the establishment of Odesa as a Russian port on the Black Sea, provided the basis for Russia's nineteenth-century grain trade.

During the early nineteenth century, Russia's population, resources, international diplomacy, and military forces made it one of the most powerful states in the world. Its power enabled it to play an increasingly assertive role in Europe's affairs. This role drew the empire into a series of wars against Napoleon, which had far-reaching consequences for Russia and the rest of Europe.

Internally, Russia's population had grown more diverse with each territorial acquisition. The population included Lutheran Finns, Baltic Germans, Estonians, and some Latvians; Roman Catholic Lithuanians, Poles, and some Latvians; Orthodox and Uniate Belarusians and Ukrainians; Muslim peoples along the empire's southern border and in the East; Orthodox Greeks and Georgians; and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Daily life during Catherine the Great’s reign
Daily life in Catherine the Great's Russia was highly stratified, with huge divisions existing between the nobles and the peasantry. Few qualities bind the classes together besides the climate, and different social castes experienced the Russian lifestyle in vastly dissimilar ways.

Nobles
Despite popular perception, a small estate owner often led a boring and primitive life. The owner had few pursuits to distract him besides maintaining relationships with neighbors, religious and family obligations, and hunting, all of which made for a dull existence in the interim. Palaces did not feature privies during Catherine's time, greatly inconveniencing the inhabitants of these abodes.

However, the most fortunate nobles enjoyed lifestyles of great luxury and refinement. They often had elaborate palaces staffed by squadrons of servants, and many of these majestic homes still stand in St. Petersburg today. The government often dictated minor details of life for the nobles; the table of ranks set up during the era of Peter the Great determined the number of horses and the type of carriage a person could use—a first rank man could have six horses and a carriage while a merchant could only have one horse and a coach. Catherine also mandated clothing styles such as the colors of threads and fabrics allotted only to a specific social class—nobles alone could wear gold and silver thread, for example. The wealthy and well educated garnered vast libraries, demonstrating their great opulence and worldliness.

Nobles often navigated around or influenced the legal system to suit themselves. A noble had the advantageous privilege of the freedom not to serve in the military, and in the event that he did choose to serve, he was given special treatment when being considered for higher positions. The government told army colonels to give young nobles preference over non-nobles when promoting soldiers to higher ranks, regardless of the quality of the man in question, though several members of the highest class went further, contending that commoners should not even be allowed to become officers. The upper class also believed—and often proposed—that they should be exempt from corporal and capital punishment and instead be charged with fines when convicted of crimes. The nobles even demanded different laws regarding property inheritance after death so that they would not be required to divide land between all of their children. All of these scenarios demonstrate the authority the nobles had in the government during Catherine's reign.

Peasants and serfs
The lower classes led a far less engaging and enjoyable life. Daily existence was difficult for peasants and serfs, who were at the mercy of their masters at all times. They could not escape poverty and difficult working conditions, especially given the poor quality of the farmland throughout much of Russia. Scarcity almost always occurred on farms because of the cold climate, during which animals could not be let outside. The long winters thus resulted in a short growing season.

As a result of the country's poorly developed agricultural system, the peasant diet was high in meat, fish, milk, and butter products, with bread and grains less crucial, except in especially indigent areas. The dominance of the Orthodox Church also further affected food consumption since the church often ordered that fasts be religiously observed on up to 200 days a year. Critics believe that due to the village structure of cultivation and land assignment, the evolution of agriculture was impeded for Russia.

Since the soil was often cold and difficult to farm, especially in the central and northeastern parts of Russia, many peasants went into other trades to support themselves. Many departed their towns for industrial enterprises like manufacturing or to get jobs as drivers, porters, carriers, or servants. The cottage industry also thrived during this period, and many peasants turned to methods other than farming to make a living.

In addition to the struggle to eat and survive, peasant serfs faced several other difficulties. In many ways, serfdom resembled North American slavery except that serfs belonged to the same race and religion as those who ruled over them and were bound to serfdom by their society's lack of social mobility rather than by some perceived inferiority inherent in serfs. Serfs also lacked the ability to buy their own freedoms for a fixed sum as slaves in some countries in South America could, which made their situations inescapable except in the rare instances where an owner agreed to release a serf from his duties, which occasionally occurred when a household master died. Serfs could also escape their plights if they survived twenty-five years of service in the armed forces. But in general, laws tied serfs to their masters for life and caused them to suffer under an owner's rule. The most harrowing part of the experience was the lack of rights given to a serf, whether he was a peasant, entrepreneur, or member of the serf intelligentsia. His state was one of constant vulnerability; a bad season farming his land could bring famine and its related difficulties to his family, and he was always at the mercy of a master who could switch from benevolent to vicious at any moment. One's stability was constantly threatened: a serf's family could be removed from their land, sold away, or raped by their owner. The serf could be conscripted for the army, sent to Siberia, punished viciously without cause or proof of guilt, beaten, or even killed.

Geography, topical maps

 * Barnes, Ian. Restless Empire: A Historical Atlas of Russia (2015), copies of historic maps
 * Catchpole, Brian. A Map History of Russia (Heinemann Educational Publishers, 1974), new topical maps.
 * Channon, John, and Robert Hudson. The Penguin historical atlas of Russia (Viking, 1995), new topical maps.
 * Chew, Allen F. An atlas of Russian history: eleven centuries of changing borders (Yale UP, 1970), new topical maps.
 * Gilbert, Martin. Atlas of Russian history (Oxford UP, 1993), new topical maps.
 * The first draft of this article was taken with little editing from the Library of Congress Federal Research Division's Country Studies series. As their home page at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html says, "Information contained in the Country Studies On-Line is not copyrighted and thus is available for free and unrestricted use by researchers. As a courtesy, however, appropriate credit should be given to the series." Please leave this statement intact so that credit can be given.

title: History of Russia (1721–1796)