text:
Talk:Polystrate fossil

Added a supporting external link
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-316.htm

--134.215.235.127 12:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Evolution science response" replaced
I have restored this section, as you have removed it in error. Try a Google for "Polystrate fossil", and you will indeed see that the most common criticism is as I stated (well, if you rule out mere invective, it is the most common response).

Your stratigraphy link isn't especially relevant (to this discussion, anyway). Nobody is disputing that the strata are in chronological order; the dispute is the length of time between deposition. Nothing on that page serves to refute the creation argument of polystrate fossils. An actual refutation would be appreciated.

If you would like to improve the "Evolution science response" section (or even rename it to "mainstream science response" or the like), please do so. Simply removing it is misleading. I'd prefer to avoid an edit war. Pretending to assume your opponents away is a poor excuse for intellectual rigor.

Gregholmes 00:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Evolution science response"
"Most criticisms of the creation science position on polystrate fossils seem to assume that creation science explains all polystrate fossils with a worldwide flood. This is then "disproved" by showing examples of succesive layers of such fossils in areas subject to frequent local flooding." I removed this here, as it's bogus. No such "disproval" is offered. Some basics of stratigraphy can be gleaned from its Wikipedia entry. Normal science is not involved here in any way. Wetman 18:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
This needs POvvifying. Firstly, a proper geologist needs to take a look. But the mainstream position needs to be written about first and correctly (properly referenced), followed by the YEC nonsense. Dunc|☺ 19:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you might have marked this article NPOV a bit hastily. I think it was doing fine until 66.218.60.219 came along and added a lot of creationist POV. I just reverted/modified some of that, and I don't really see any pov left here... Although I agree that a proper geologist and proper references would be nice. I also don't see any problem with putting the creation science section after the mainstream one (except that I think the mainstream one should refer to the creation science section somehow and that flows better if the creation science part comes first). Also, I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong, but does anyone have a reference for polystrate trees going through coal seams? I've only heard of this from creationists, and it may not be something that both sides agree on. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 19:49, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

 * Actually, two of the three articles linked in the "Mainstream Geological" section mention coal. -- I removed the NPOV tag; I think it was justified when it was added, but it seems fixed now. Rl 20:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * They mention coal, but only that the trees are rooted in the top of the coal, it seems. Like I said, the claim that "In some cases they are actually found upright in the coal, even crossing the whole 2-3 foot thick seam," seems to be a uniquely creationist claim (or rather, I should say that I only hear it from creationists.) For example, one of the creationist links says that there is a 40 foot upright fossil penetrating a coal seam (see under the heading "The Mysterious 40 Foot Fossil Tree"). The author doesn't actually show any mainstream authors who discuss the tree, but infers its existence from two seperate passages written by two different authors. The article then goes on to provide documentation for the existence of polystrate trees in general. If mainstream geologists acknowledged the existence of such finds, it seems like he wouldn't have had to do all that to establish the fossil's existence.

 * One Talk Origins link has a section that mentions such a tree going through multiple coal seams, but it seems to be quoting a Usenet article critically. The article doesn't directly address the claim, but it doesn't seem to support it either. Again, I could be mistaken in this being a uniquely creationist claim, I'm just curious if anyone has a better reference to a confirmed polystrate fossil going through coal. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 21:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

 * Ah, I see. Good point. I don't have an answer, either. Rl 16:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've removed the quote. It's preseved above in my previous commentary if anyone ever finds any decent source for it. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 18:54, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Just to answer Deglr6328's edit summary question: the creationist position is largely above the mainstream one for historical reasons. This page originally only dealt with "polystrate fossils" a term used by creationists to describe upright fossils. The term was almost always associated with creationist claims about the inability of mainstream science to explain those features. This page reflected that by defining the term, stating the creationist position and then having a mainstream "rebuttal" sort of paragraph. However, it seems that the upright fossils page has been merged with the polystrate fossils page, so it now makes more sense to put the mainstream position first. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 17:02, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

ALL CAPS IS SCREAMING
i clarified the grammar and removed the all caps(on "virtually NONE"), i learned the creationist theory when i was 10 and it is better explained without screaming. Iosef Aetos

Messiah jonz 07:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)==Create article: Polystrate fossil (non-religion)== I am pretty sure that the religious stuff in this article is ALL inappropriate. How it got in here is beyond me, but I assume that: "Polystrate fossil" refers to Fossils, and not to RELIGION. SonoranDesertIndividual ..-Mmcannis 18:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Polystrate fossil is a term coined by creationists, so the religion is entirely appropriate. ornis 19:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a geology student, and work with many geologists as well. I have discussed this term..."polystrate" with many of them. It does turn out to have been coined by creationists. In fact, geology professors do not recognize the term. It appears to only be used by those that try to perpetuate creationism and those that read their material. messiah_jonz September 26, 2007
 * If 'polystrate fossil' is a mainly creationist term, why does this article spend about 9/10 of its length discussing its use in geology? Shouldn't it begin '"Polystrate fossil" is a term used by creationists to argue against traditional geology...', or something like that?

 * At the very least, the creationist POV should come first, since they're clearly the ones who have come up with and propagated this concept. The geology section reads like a counterargument to the creationist views, with statements like 'in sharp contrast to creationists...', which is rather odd since at the moment it comes first and the creationist views haven't been explained yet! Terraxos 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Points of Grammatically-Induced Ambiguity
There are several places in this article where there are points grammatical ambiguity, such as
 * "In sharp contrast to creationists like Dr. Harold Coffin and Dr. N. A. Rupke, geologists, who have studied polystrate fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years, have described polystrate fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable paleosols."

Is this referring to the fact that the the gelogists have been studying polystrate fossils for 30 years, where as the creationists have not? Or is the intention to say that the findings are in conflict with the claims of the creationists. If that were the case, it would be better to say, "Geologists who have studied polystrate fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years have described polystrate fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable palesols. This is in shart contract to the claims made by creationists such as Dr. Harold Coffin and Dr. N. A. Rupke."

This example is the most striking to me, and I think that the ambiguity should be resolved as soon as possible. This article should also be reviewed for any other ambiguity.

In6Days 21:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As it has been over 1 month, and no one has objected to this revision, I am going to go ahead and make it. If I find other points of ambiguity, I will post them here, so that people can see what I am revising. In6Days (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

why the hell is this in the "creationism" series?
???

 * While this is an interesting theological question, I believe that it is in the creationism series for its being referenced as evidence for catastrophic occurrences (multiple layers apparently deposited during a time which was short compared to the existence of the original object which became the 'polystrate fossil.' Dan Watts (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears the phrase "polystrate fossil" is not a standard geological term, and is used most often by creationists. I spoke to a geologist and they said this article needs some serious clean-up, as true "polystrate" (literally: many stratus) fossils are extraordinarily rare, and right-up fossilization usually occurs because of shifting tectonics (i.e., not entirely in situ). PyroGamer (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as polystrate fossils
Polystrate fossils are NOT merely "upright" fossils. The word polystrate etymologically means "multiple strata". Upright tree fossils are common, yes, but they occur because of:

1. Volcanic eruption covering trees in a few days. 2. Sand dunes covering trees on the scale of years (if you've ever been to the dunes around lake michigan you can see this happening right now) 3. By flooding in areas prone to periodical flooding, thus done in a few years.

If it is in multiple strata, it's because of #3, in which case each strata (likely mudstone), would be laid down consecutively each year.

There are even examples of upright trees being slowly buried today.

There are NO examples of "polystrate fossils" that cross stratum of more than a couple decades (about the time that a tree would be able to sit exposed).

This article needs a severe rewrite.

PyroGamer (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Your point: "There are NO examples of "polystrate fossils" that cross stratum of more than a couple decades" is exactly in harmony with creationist flood theory. Your statement is worthy of being quoted. Thanks. Dan Watts (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of the claims made in the statement "There are NO examples of "polystrate fossils" that cross a stratum of more than a couple decades (about the time that a tree would be able to sit exposed)" are readily shown to be false by an examination of the published literature. This statement is certainly not worthy of being quoted by anyone. It should not be quoted by anyone as it is false. It would be of use only to people who want to manufacture arguments using the technique of "quote-mining".

First, there are documented examples of "polystrate trees" that cut through ("cross") a layer (stratum) of sediment that took more than "a couple of decades to accumulate. One example is the "ghost forests" of dead trees, which are found partially buried within tidal flats and marshes along the coasts of Washington and Oregon. They are "polystrate trees" that "cross" a layer (stratum) of sediments that accumulated over a period of 320 years. These trees, whose trunks are still standing, were killed by a Cascadia earthquake that occurred in January of 1700. The January 1700 earthquake caused the land, on they grew, to sink such that it was submerged during high tide. As a result, they died because of this intrusion of salt water. Since 1700, they have been partially buried by tidal and marsh sediments that have accumulated over the last 320 years. This stratum of sediments, which these partially buried upright trunks "cross", definitely took more than "a couple decades" to form and soundly refutes the claim of there being no examples of such polystrate trees. They also refute the false claim that under the right circumstances, that in situ tree trunks cannot remain exposed for more than a couple of decades without completely decaying. These "ghost forests" has been studied in great detail by Dr. Brian Atwater of the United States Geological Survey. The age, origin, and nature of these trees are documented in several published papers, including:

Atwater B. F., S. Musumi-Rokkaku, K. Satake, Y. Tsuji, K. Ueda, and D. K. Yamaguchi, 2005, The Orphan Tsunami of 1700: Japanese Clues to a Parent Earthquake in North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper no. 1707. Reston, Virginia.

Monastersky, R., 1990, Rattling the Northwest. Science News. vol. 137, No. 7 (Feb. 17, 1990), pp. 104-106.

Satake, K., and B. F. Atwater, 2007, Long-Term Perspectives on Giant Earthquakes and Tsunamis at Subduction Zones. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. vol. 35, pp. 349-374.

In addition, the accompanying statement about a few decades being the maximum "time that a tree would be able to sit exposed" is another false claim that is readily refuted by an examination of the published literature. As noted previously the "ghost forests" found along the Washington and Oregon coasts have remained standing for the past 320 years after being killed by a Cascadia earthquake in January of 1700. In another case, in situ and upright trees trunks, called "snags", protrude from the bottom of lakes in Washington. These trunks have been exposed at the bottom of these lakes for a period of 1,000 to 1,300 years. At low lake levels, they are sometimes exposed above lake level. Given the right environmental conditions, tree trunks can be exposed and resist decay for over a thousand years. The upright tree trunks found in Washington lakes are discussed, documented, and illustrated in a number of papers, including:

Logan, R. L., and T. J. Walsh, 1995, Evidence for a Large Prehistoric Seismically Induced Landslide into Lake Sammamish. Washington Geology. vol. 23, no. 4 (December 1995) pp. 3-5. (Photographs of exposed upright tree trunks that are some 1,000-1,300 year old are illustrated on the cover of this issue of Washington Geology.)

Logan, R. L., R. L. Schuster, P. T. Pringle, T. J. Walsh, and S. P. Palmer, 1998, Radiocarbon Ages of Probable Coseismic Features from the Olympic Peninsula and Lake Sammamish, Washington. Washington Geology. vol. 26, no. 2/3 (September 1998), pp. 59-67.

Schuster, R. L., R. L. Logan, and P. T. Pringle, 1992, P rehistoric Rock Avalanches in the Olympic Mountains, Washington. Science. vol. 258, no. 5088, pp. 1620-1621.

Finally, if a person looks at the descriptions of "polystrate fossil trees", found in the published scientific literature, they will find that the typical "polystrate fossil tree" penetrates only one layer (stratum) of sedimentary rock. For example, the upright fossil trunks of the Yellowstone National Park petrified forests are typically restricted to a single layer (stratum) much like the upright fossil tree trunks found in Pleistocene and Holocene lahar deposits of Mount Hood and Mount St. Helens. Although, polystrate fossil trees penetrating multiple layers (strata) of sedimentary rock are known, they are exceedingly rare.Paul H. (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 * The observation that the vast majority of "polystrate fossils" / "polystrate fossil trees" are actually "monostrate fossils" / "monostrate fossil trees" is an excellent point.Paul H. (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionist ...?
Don't rightly know what an "Evolutionist" is, don't recall seeing any university degree programs with that title. Nor have I heard of "Evolutionary geologists". Seems someone is attempting to insert a POV with those edits - nah, surely not... Vsmith (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 * An evolutionist is one who accepts evolution as a theory or fact, just as a creationist is one who accepts creation as a theory or a fact. Evolutionary is a simple adjective, just a creationary is a simple adjective.  A geologist who is an evolutionist promotes evolutionary geology.  A geologist who is an creationist promotes creationary geology.  There is no such thing as "neutral" geology.  All scientifically studied geology is interpreted within a paradigm.  S. J. Gould said in Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle, (paraphrased) First you determine the assumptions within which you do geology, then you go to the outcrop, not the other way around.  Either you start with naturalism's uniformitarianism / actualism or you start with creationism's catastrophism.  There is no middle ground.   Christian Skeptic (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 * "Evolutionary" in creationist parlance translates to "legitimate" (as applies to science or a practitioner thereof) in the real world. It is used in contrast to the made up word "creationary" which they consider to be nicer than its real-world equivalent "religiously-motivated pseudoscientific". The former violates WP:UNDUE ("an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view") and the latter is made-up, so neither should be used in wikipedia. "Creationary science" is simply pseudoscientific Christian apologetics. It serves no scientific purpose, merely to shore up the rigid religious presuppositions of its adherents. It provides neither practical applications, nor a platform for theoretical research. It simply takes, as an article of faith, that 'God did it', and proceeds on this basis to 'interpret' the evidence (suitably and heavily cherry-picked) to lead to the conclusion that 'God did it'. HrafnTalkStalk 03:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The term "evolutionist" once had a specific technical meaning, generally in the first half of the 20th century, At that time, this term meant a biologist who specialized in evolutionary biology just as "zoologist" is a biologist who studies animals and "ecologist" is a biologist who studies ecology. The term "evolutionist" as defined by mainstream scientists, had nothing to do with whether a person either accepts or promotes evolution as a valid scientific theory or fact. It meant that a biologist's specific subspecialty and research focus in biology is the specific study of evolution. Since geologists study rocks that do not reproduce and evolve like organisms do, terms like "evolutionary geology" in scientific terms are nothing more than meaningless and nonsensical technobabble. Radiometric dating, sedimentology, stratigraphy (even biostratigraphy), petrography, tectonics, "deep time", and so forth are all based on the direct observations and application of physical sciences that is independent of and does not promote evolutionary theory. Even biostratigraphy, although it can be explained by evolution and even was explained in creationist terms by George Cuvier, is based on the direct observation of how fossils are distributed in sedimentary rocks and developed before the theory of evolution was developed by Charles Darwin.Paul H. (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionists writing wiki
"The word polystrate is not a standard geological term, and is found most often in creationist materials."

Can you imagine a wiki paper saying something like

"The word ring-species is not a standard scientific term, and is found most often in evolutionist materials."

I think not despite the fact that dawkins use of the ring species in the herring gull as one "proof" of evolution being quietly falsified.

Accumulating sterility is a very grave problem that evolutionists cannot answer. If it is possible then why hasnt it been tested on mammilia taxa these past 100 years? Or perhaps it has and the results were not liked ...?

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.220.184 (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * This comment is an attempt to convince you that evolutionists and creationists are somehow on equal footing. They are not.  Creationists regularly ignore falsification of their ideas (see the Talk Origins reference in this very article).  Evolutionists encourage you to try to falsify their ideas. Try harder next time "Matt". Jim Stuby (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If a person looks at any dictionary, glossary, or encyclopedia of geology, they will find that they as a rule lack any mention of the term "polystrate." If a person looks at the papers discussing the taphonomy of upright fossil tree trunks, i.e. Waldron and Rygel (2005) and DiMichele and Falcon-Lang (2011), they will find a complete absence of any mention of the term "polystrate" in them. Finally, on July 30, 2011, a search of GEOREF resulted in no hits for the term "polystrate." This striking absence of the term polystrate from geological dictionaries, glossaries, encyclopedias, peer-reviewed papers, and the GEOREF database is clear proof that the term "polystrate" is definitely not a standard geological term and that Young Earth and Old creationists are the primary people, who use "polystrate" as if it was a standard geological term. It is nothing more than a simple statement of fact to say:

"The word polystrate is not a standard geological term, and is found most often in creationist materials."

References Cited,

DiMichele, W.A., and H.J. Falcon-Lang, 2011, Pennsylvanian 'fossil forests' in growth position (T0 assemblages): origin, taphonomic bias and palaeoecological insights. Journal of the Geological Society. vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 585-605.

Waldron, J.W.F., and M.C. Rygel, 2005, Role of evaporite withdrawal in the preservation of a unique coal-bearing succession: Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia. Geology. vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 337-340.

Note: DiMichele and Falcon-Lang (2011) also can be downloaded from Smithsonian Digital Repository, National Museum of Natural History(Paul H. (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC))

 * You're replying to an old talk section. That said ... I agree with you, should we rename the page? What name would you suggest? Vsmith (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't think the page should be renamed. While wiki should be 100% scientific, Wikipedia isn't a scientific publication. The term DOES exist, and I think the name should be kept (unless there's a scientific term for them, although I haven't heard one) as long as it is made clear in the article that it is not a scientific term. --TAW (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Another reason for keeping "polystrate" in the name is that this is the terminology that is found all over the Internet in many articles and, unfortunately, even in the popular press. As a result, "Polystrate" is the term that the majority of lay people will use to search for information about this type of fossil. I agree with Alphawolf that there should not be a problem using this term as the article's subject heading "as long as it is made clear in the article that it is not a scientific term."Paul H. (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 * The article is about "upright tree fossils" and buried "upright trees" -- which are not uncommon in the geologic and archeologic record. I am aware that creationists invented a new term "polystrate fossil" in their "research" propaganda. As these upright fossil trees are an interesting feature that have been addressed multiple times in the scientific literature without using "polystrate", the article should be renamed to acknowledge that with a redirect left at polystrate fossil for those searching that term. That way the article could be written about the phenomena of upright tree fossils (as it basically is now) without the constant refutation stuff. The use of the term "polystrate fossil" by creationists should be included as a brief note. Vsmith (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Takapuna Reef image
The image of Takapuna Reef is misleading and I think it should be removed from this page. The caption states that the reefs were exposed by sea-level rise. Sea-level rise would in fact cover reefs that were previously exposed. I am not sure what this has to do with so-called polystrate fossils, in which the process under debate is related to speed of burial and subsequent exposure by erosion or mining. Jim Stuby (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

inaccurate statement
This sentence is inaccurate. "Contrary to the claims of creationists,[5] these sedimentary basins are considerably smaller than the state of Texas.[6][7]"

Source 5 does not state that creationists claim that basins are the size of Texas. Here is what it says; "Polystrate fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments. Obviously, the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology." There is nothing at all about the size of sedimentary basin. Texas is not mentioned either.

What source 5 does say is that "the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates", which is exactly what is stated in the article. Therefore source 5 does not contradict the article.

So, the above statement about the "claims of creationists" is not supported by the source so it needs to be removed or corrected. AlmondRocaFanatic (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Removed "Creationist claims" bit and smaller than Texas unless they can be verified. Vsmith (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

focus of article is changing
The article is about Polystrate fossils. however, most of the material is on fossil forests. These are different but related topics. They should each have their own article. AlmondRocaFanatic (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 * It appears there is a de facto consensus that the topic named "polystrate fossil" deserves coverage somewhere in this encyclopedia, yet there is an anti-fringe pushback that is giving a very lop-sided coverage of the topic (it would be like having the crop circle page go so far as to completely refuse to mention that some people have claimed involvement of aliens). I suggest a new section entitled "Creationism and polystrate fossils" with wording along the lines of:

 * (For further information see taphonomy) The term "polystrate fossil" is not traditionally used within mainstream geology or paleaology, but is most commonly introduced in young earth creationist materials. Polystrate fossils can be used to estimate the period of time over which an interval of rock layers was formed, because the strata had to be deposited before the upper exposed parts of the organism completely decayed.(Note those two preceding sentences are obvious and uncontroversial.) Creationists have argued that the existence of polystrate fossils contradicts the mainstream interpretation of strata being laid down over long periods of time.(cite 2-3 examples such as ) However, ... (give equally brief refutation, citing anti-creationism sources. Then, moving to a completely separate section of the page, go on to give a detailed mainstream account of their formation, including a contemporary example such as from Paul H's citations of dead trees on the bottom of a rather old lake that are documented not to be deteriorating at any significant rate as sediment accrues.). Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 * It should be noted that the Young Earth creationist argument "that the existence of polystrate fossils contradicts the mainstream interpretation of strata being laid down over long periods of time." is based upon a gross misunderstanding (and often misrepresentation) of how mainstream Earth scientists interpret the strata containing polystrate fossils. Conventional Earth scientists interpret individual group of beds containing a single set polystrate fossils as having accumulated "rapidly" over the course of a single flood, multiple floods, volcanic eruption, or similar event(s) in terms of days, months, years, to decades with long hiatuses in time occurring between each group of beds, which is often represented by paleosols, that contain a single set of polystrate fossils. Thus, the beds containing polystrate fossils represent brief periods of rapid deposition that are separated by what are often very lengthy periods of nondeposition as indicated by paleosols and other features. As a result, the average sedimentation rates, which are misrepresented as indicating that conventional Earth scientists argue that sediments containing polystrate fossils accumulated at very slow rates are not the actual rates at which these beds actually accumulated. For more information go see:

 * William, W. A., and H. J. Falcon-Lang (2011) Pennsylvanian ‘fossil forests’ in growth position (T0 assemblages): origin, taphonomic bias and palaeoecological insights. Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 168, 2011, pp. 585–605. doi: 10.1144/0016-76492010-103. Paul H. (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 * It was written: "...however, most of the material is on fossil forests. These are different but related topics." All of the fossils forests mentioned in this article are all polystrate fossils created by different methods. If a person wants different types of polystrate "fossils", they can add to the list the polystrate telephone poles, churches, and houses that were created as a result of being buried by lahars over a period of several years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. For examples of polystrate telephone poles, churches, and houses in the processes of being formed go look at:

 * Newhall, C. G., and R. S. Punongbayan, R.S. (1996) Fire and Mud: Eruptions and lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London. 1120 pp. ISBN 978-0295975856 Paul H. (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, that should be noted, that's precisely what I'm proposing. (The problem was only that, since the entire topic of this article comes solely from a bad argument for creationism, it would be POV and totally counter-informative to completely remove the explanation of why the term is used. By the way, you put your finger precisely on the creationists problem; it has to do with their failure to recognise that "uniformatiarianism" is in most part a straw man which they themselves constructed in a failed attempt to present the mainstream as mired in philosophical preconceptions of comparable footing as their own.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the proper scientific term?
We're using the term "Polystrate fossil" because it's the only term I'm aware of. We should use the proper scientific term. What is the proper term? Clearly this type of fossilization occurs, so it has likely been properly studied. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 * There is not a specific geologic term that I have found for all "polystrate fossils" as creationist defined them as being a fossil surrounded by multiple layers of sedimentary rock. Mainstream geologists and paleontologists do not judge this situation to be either special enough or "anomalous" enough to give it a special, "proper" term. In case of fossil polystrate trees, they are known as either "fossil forests in growth position" or "T0 assemblages." We should keep "polystrate fossil" as that is what they are known as to the general public within the popular context of the evolution - creation discussion. For scientific terminology, go see.

 * William, W. A., and H. J. Falcon-Lang (2011) Pennsylvanian ‘fossil forests’ in growth position (T0 assemblages): origin, taphonomic bias and palaeoecological insights. Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 168, 2011, pp. 585–605.Paul H. (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Trees are only one kind of polystrate fossil. There are many different kinds of fossils, other than trees, that are buried in multiple strata, including of course virtually all significantly 3-dimensional fossils buried in deposits marked by multiple microstratum, i.e., very narrow strata. There are also corporate fossils, so to speak, assemblages, of an entire school of jellyfish, for example, buried in multiple rock layers. And there's a related phenomena, of relatively large organisms, like nautiloids in the Grand Canyon's Redwall Limestone, buried in a single rock layer, but where that rock layer is explained to have formed at rates of hundreds to thousands of years per inch. The terms, "upright fossil trunks, upright fossil trees, or T0 assemblages" do not express the essential multiple-strata aspect of the fossils being discussed in this article and so would include organisms buried, for example, in a single homologous volcanic ash, which are not an example of polystrates. In fact, even whether the organism was buried "upright" or not, like a whale skeleton lying in apparently undisturbed diatomaceous sediments, doesn't capture the point. If geologists don't have a name for this phenomenon, it's not going to be properly studied, giving a virtual monopoly on the study of polystrates to young earth creationists. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's basically a creationist fantasy concept, and they do not "study" anything. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

marine fossils
I put a pause on the following anonIP contribution because it reverses the meaning of the text and advocates a non-mainstream POV. Hopefully people might like to discuss this in more detail?

 * A detailed study of the microstructure of fossils, which have been traditionally identified as “Spirorbis” in the geological literature, by Taylor and Vinn (2006) revealed that they consist of the remains of at least two completely different animals. They discovered that the “Spirorbis” fossils found in sedimentary strata, including the Joggins and other Carboniferous coal measures, deposited from the Ordovician to Triassic periods are the remains of an extinct order of lophophorates (now called microconchids) unrelated to modern marine tube worms (Annelids) to which the genus Spirorbis belongs. This contradicts does not contradict arguments made by Harold Coffin and other creationists that "Spirorbis" fossils within strata containing polystrate fossils indicate their deposition in a marine environment, because these fossils are classified as the remains of extinct fresh and brackish water microconchids instead of the remains of the marine genera Spirorbis as they have been misidentified in the geologic literature.

 * Furthermore, evolution proponents have never been able to explain how such polystrate fossils remained standing across multiple layers of rock representing millions of years. No reasonable person would ever assume that the standing organism remained standing without decaying for millions of years, or that it grew at a later time pushing its way in the midst of the sedimentary layers. The only realistic explanation is that the fossilization occurred in a short amount of time as it became quickly buried, and that the surrounding layers of strata were also deposited and hardened in a short amount of time, despite the fact that radiometric dating finds these materials in the millions of years from one layer to the next.

 * Despite the persistent attempts of evolution proponents to explain such events as the product of uniformitarian gradual processes that took millions of years, it becomes very clear that much of the geological structure of our planet has been shaped by natural disruptions which only took a short amount of time. A prime example of this are the multiple canyons formed within a couple of months following the eruption at Mount St. Helen's in 1980, which display the same features and characteristics as the Grand Canyon. Pictures and videos of this abound on the Internet.

Cesiumfrog (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * As far as “Spirorbis” is concerned, Taylor and Vinn (2006) provides a very detailed discussion that completely contradicts, even refutes, the interpretations made by Coffin (1975) and older papers that it was a marine organism. There is nothing in Taylor and Vinn (2006) that justifies the change in text from “contradicts” to ”does not contradict.” Such a change completely misrepresents the conclusions of and arguments provided in Taylor and Vinn (2006). The interpretations of Taylor and Vinn (2006) regarding Spirorbis have been further supported by more recently published paleontological papers. For example, Zaton et al. (2012) specifically states:

 * As a curiosity, it is here worth mentioning that creationists (e.g., Coffin, 1975) have argued for the rapid formation of coal deposits in the sea during the Biblical Flood, on the basis of some ‘‘Spirorbis’’ attached to terrestrial plant fragments in Carboniferous Coal Measures. Of course, as we now know that ‘‘spirorbiform’’ microconchids also occupied brackish and freshwater environments, such reasoning is completely faulty.

 * References Cited:

 * Coffin, H. G., 1975, The Spirorbis problem. Origins. vol. 5, pp. 51–52.

 * Taylor, P.D., and O. Vinn, 2006, Convergent morphology in small spiral worm tubes (‘‘Spirorbis’’) and its palaeoenvironmental implications. Journal of the Geological Society London. vol. 163, pp. 225–228.

 * Zaton, M., O. Vinn, A.M.F. Tomescu, 2012, Invasion of freshwater and variable marginal marine habitats by microconchid tubeworms – an evolutionary perspective. Geobios. vol. 45, pp. 603-610.Paul H. (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The other comments made in the changes associated with the “Spirorbis” edits are quite incorrect and highly misleading unsourced fringe material that sound very much like Young Earth Creationist talking points. First, these edits are quite wrong as neither geologists nor paleontologists argue that the sediments that buried polystrate fossils took million of years to accumulate. As the mainstream sources that are cited in the Polystrate Fossil article clearly demonstrate, geologists and paleontologists argue that the sediments surrounding polystrate fossils were deposited in a relativity short amount of time. For examples of the truth about how geologists and paleontologists interpret the length of time it took to bury polystrate fossils, a person can go read DiMichele et al. (2011), Gastaldo (1992), and Gastaldo et al. (2004). Second the associated and similarly unsourced fringe claim ''.. that radiometric dating finds these materials in the millions of years from one layer to the next.'' is also quite false, if not fictional in nature. Finally, the claim that the relatively shallow “canyons” of Mount St. Helens display the same features and characteristics as the Grand Canyon also lacks any scientific validity. For example, the Grand Canyon differs from the Mount St. Helens canyons it that it is at least a 100,000 times larger in volume of material eroded than any of them and is eroded into difficult to erode, hard, dense sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphics rocks instead of the very easily eroded unconsolidated debris flows and avalanche deposits of Mount St. Helens.

References Cited:

DiMichele, W.A., and H.J. Falcon-Lang, 2011, Pennsylvanian 'fossil forests' in growth position (T0 assemblages): origin, taphonomic bias and palaeoecological insights. Journal of the Geological Society, 168(2):585-605.

Gastaldo, R.A., 1992, Regenerative growth in fossil horsetails (Calamites) following burial by alluvium. Historical Biology, 6(3):203-220.

Gastaldo, R.A., I. Stevanovic-Walls, and W.N. Ware, 2004, Erect forests are evidence for coseismic base-level changes in Pennsylvanian cyclothems of the Black Warrior Basin, U.S.A in Pashin, J.C., and Gastaldo, R.A., eds., Sequence Stratigraphy, Paleoclimate, and Tectonics of Coal-Bearing Strata. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology. 51:219–238.Paul H. (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory paragraph?
There's a paragraph in this article which seems contradictory to me. Perhaps it could be re-written to be less ambiguous? The paragraph states:

"Geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils. This position of geologists is supported by numerous documented examples…" But the paragraph then goes on to give examples of.

Thus, the paragraph seems to be saying: "We know these strata and fossils were formed very slowly, because we can observe it happening rapidly."

Is this nonsense, or am I missing something here? Grand Dizzy (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 * No, that's not what the paragraph is saying. It's saying what it says, that there are other ways of explaining upright fossils that don't depend upon a global flood. They are not suggesting anything else. Doug Weller  talk 12:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I agree with Doug. What the paragraph shows is that Young Earth creationists are incorrect in arguing that the "...rapid formations of 'strata' and 'polystrate' fossils..." is unique to any "Global Flood model." The paragraph shows that there are numerous mechanisms by which the episodic and rapid accumulation of strata and the burial of upright tree trunks can occur in conventional depositional environments according real-world observations and actualistic models. From what I have read, the incorrect claim that mainstream Earth scientists argue that polystrate trees were buried slowly is the result of many Young Earth scientists confusing sedimentation rates during a single depositional event with average sedimentation rates, which also include long periods of either nondeposition (as indicated by paleosol and condensed intervals); slow deposition; periods of erosion of preexisting strata; or combination of all of these.
 * I will look over the paragraph and see if it can be improved anyway. Paul H. (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 * OK, so from what I can understand it seems that everyone agrees that 'polystrate' fossils formed relatively rapidly under conditions of great turbulence - it just wasn't necessarily a global flood that did it. Would I be correct in saying then that no polystrate fossil has even been found which intersects strata identified as distinct geologic periods? Grand Dizzy (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes. I have not found any documented examples of polystrate fossils crossing either strata identified as distinct geologic periods or the major bounding surfaces recognized in Sequence stratigraphy. Over the year, I have gathered a big collection of publications documenting several score examples of polystrate fossils, including modern, Quaternary, and pre-Quaternary. Paul H. (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed re-structure of lead
Throughout this talk page, we are at pains to point out that the term "polystrate fossil" is not a geological term but rather one coined by creationists. My own university geology days here in the UK are a long time ago, but this rings true. Further a quick Google search shows all the main hits to be of a religious/creationist nature; there seemed to be no scientific 'hits' actively using this term to describe science.

Yet the lead relegates this to the very end, being currently structured:

 * A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. This term is typically applied to "fossil forests" of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata. Within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata, it is also very common to find what are called Stigmaria (root stocks) within the same stratum. Stigmaria are completely absent in post-Carboniferous strata, which contain either coal, polystrate trees, or both. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically found in creationist publications.

This gives the impression, albeit unintended, until almost the very end, that the term is a true scientific term and, almost as an afterthought, that it happens also to be a religious/creationist term.

This is in contrast to other WP articles about creationism and their organisations, which are upfront in stating that the topic is about "pseudoscientific creationism" or similar.

I propose instead a restructure, probably using two paragraphs:

 * A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically found in creationist publications.

 * This term is typically applied to "fossil forests" of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata. Within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata, it is also very common to find what are called Stigmaria (root stocks) within the same stratum. Stigmaria are completely absent in post-Carboniferous strata, which contain either coal, polystrate trees, or both.

At this stage, I'm leaving the wording alone; I'm focussing on the structure of what is already there and reasonably well settled. One might go further and qualify "creationist publications" as "pseudoscientific creationist publications" or similar. But that is perhaps a detail for later. For now, the purpose of this "talk" item is the overall shuffling of the existing text.

Thoughts?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Done. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Replace "Paleontology" sidebar with "creationsm" sidebar
In a highly visible manner, this article displays the sidebar Template:Paleontology. This lends the article an unmerited semblance of scientific respectability. I propose replacing it with Template:Creationism sidebar. Any objections? Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Done. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Polystrate fossil


text:
Rawicz coat of arms

Rawa (Rawicz), is a coat of arms of Polish origin. It was borne by several noble families of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russian Empire and Ukraine.

The ancestry of first bearers of Rawicz (the Rawici clan) is debated. Version supported by Polish chronicler Jan Długosz points out branch of Czech (Bohemian) Vršovci clan, version supported by Polish heraldist Kasper Niesiecki (as better) says that their origin is pagan Polish.

Lot of families were later legally adopted into the clan or ennobled with this coat of arms, some misattributed to the clan by similarity of arms, names or by simple error or usurpation.

Nowadays it (or its modification) is used as coat of arms of several Polish settlements.

Blazon
Main version (in others colours may differ):

Shield Or (gold) with a bear (probably ursus arctos) Sable (black) facing dexter (right) with a maiden on its back. The maiden, vested in royal attire Gules (red) and a crown Or, with flowing hair and hands upraised a little and expanded, all proper. Out of the crest coronet, between two antlers proper, a bear facing dexter. His left arm in front is lowered, and another one holds a rose on a stem, all proper, which the bear carries to his snout.

Power struggles in Bohemia: damnation, prosecution and salvation

The Vršovci (whose branch was probably the root of some Rawicz bearers) took part in cruel power struggles that occurred in Bohemia on the turn of the first millennium. Together with Přemyslids led by Boleslaus II the Pious they rivalised with Slavniki clan. During the struggles five members of rival Slavniki clan: Soběbor, Spytimír, Pobraslav, Pořej, and Čáslav were murdered. They were brothers of Czech missionary and bishop st. Adalbert of Prague (Svatý Vojtěch, święty Wojciech). In 995 he damned the murderers(Vršovci).

In historical records Czech duke Svatopluk of Přemyslids clan is accused of ordering to kill Mutyna and two his sons: Bożej and Boraszek also Unisław and Domisław (all of them belonged to the Vršovci family) during similar power struggles thirteen years later.

Being horrified by those events some of Vršovci fled to Poland, where they were received with honours by king Bolesław III Krzywousty who gave them lands in the duchy of Masovia, that were foundation of future Rawa Voivodeship.

Origin of Polish Rawici
Rawicz is an old coat of arms, one of the oldest used in Poland. According to the legend it was imported from Lorraine (where it is first mentioned in 1003) prior to 1109. According to a legend, the symbol was brought to Lorraine from England, where it was awarded to the descendants of Canute the Great.

The ancestry of first bearers of Rawicz (the Rawici clan) is debated:

 * version supported by Polish chronicler Jan Długosz points out one of branches of Czech (Bohemian) Vršovci clan, Early history of Vršovci is described by Cosmas of Prague in "Chronicle of Bohemians".
 * version supported by Polish heraldist Kasper Niesiecki (as better) says that their origin is pagan Polish.

Participation in the Battle of Grunwald
In 1410 Rawicz bearers took part in the Battle of Grunwald. Among 50 Polish gonfalons (regiments) one (the 26th) took the field under Rawa coat of arms and was led by Christian of Ostrów, Kraków castellan. He was also a war councilor, one of the seven chief members of General Headquarters of Władysław II Jagiełło. In addition, one of the Rawicz bearers is marked for his military valour in the Battle of Koronowo that occurred shortly after the Grunwald. This knight's name was Christian of Goworzici, Rawa coat of arms.

(Jan Długosz, Annales seu cronici incliti regni Poloniae)

Legend
According to the legend, an English king died without leaving a properly perfected testament, so his last will was expressed from the world beyond. He left a crown and all immovable property to his son, and all movables – to his daughter. Being instigated by his councilors, the Prince decided to fulfill his father's will nominally. He ordered to drive a black bear (which undoubtedly was a unit of king's movable property) to a Princess' bedchamber. In case of Princess' death that seemed inevitable, the King's wish would be fulfilled and Princess' failure to manage the movables would be proven. However, the Princess did not only tame the beast but even rode out her chamber on its back, upraising her hands and calling for justice. Her brother made sure that truth and heaven take sister's side. He asked her pardon and married her off to a Duke of Lorraine, with all due property as a portion. As a keepsake Princess gave her descendants a coat of arms with a girl riding a bear depicted on it. This coat of arms was called "Rawicz". It symbolizes ability to overcome difficulties with honour, to change confusion into victory.

This legend is stated in a well-known Polish armorial "Orbis Polonus" assembled by Szymon Okolski in 1641–1643.

Notable bearers
Notable bearers of this coat of arms include:
 * Andrzej Gawroński – Polish bishop
 * Jan Grot – Polish bishop
 * Aleksander Jakub Jasiewicz – grandfather of Lech Kaczyński (President of Poland) and Jarosław Kaczyński (former premier of Poland), father of pl:Jadwiga Kaczyńska
 * Krzysztof Kosiński (Криштоф Косинський) – Hetman of Ukrainian Cossacks
 * Stefan Kossecki-Polish army Officer
 * Szymon Okolski
 * Antoni Jan Ostrowski – one of commanders of Polish November Uprising
 * Kazimierz Ołdakowski – prewar director of Fabryka Broni
 * Tomasz Adam Ostrowski
 * Władysław Ostrowski – Marshal of the Sejm during November Uprising
 * Adam Petrovich Ozharovsky (Адам Петрович Ожаровский) – a Russian general of Polish descent
 * Piotr Ożarowski
 * Stanisław Przyjemski – Grand Marshal of the Crown (Marszałek wielki koronny)
 * Julian Ursyn-Niemcewicz
 * Jerzy Zdziechowski
 * Kazimierz Zdziechowski
 * Marian Zdziechowski
 * for others see notable people of Rawicz coat of arms on Polish Wikipedia
 * articles about notable Russian noble families of cognate coat of arms on Russian Wikipedia
 * Dylan Biedrzycki – Master of Mishkeegogamang First Nation and Future Chief (Half Breed)
 * Edward Olendzki - Virtuti Militari (List of Cavaliers)

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

title: Rawicz coat of arms


text:
Półkozic coat of arms

Półkozic is a Polish coat of arms. It was used by several szlachta families in the times of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

History
According to legend, this coat was assigned to knight Stawisz, who was defending the foreign castle of Etecz (or Eczech) against the pagans. When besieged, he ordered to kill a goat and a donkey, and then use their blood to paint ox's hide. With this hide he then ordered to decorate the walls of the castle. The pagans, seeing that defenders had so much meat as to waste it, lifted the siege and left. The knight was rewarded by the king Bolesław I Chrobry with a coat of arms and returned to Poland.

The bearers of the coat were mentioned since early Piast era. Initially they were tied to the land of Lesser Poland, (regions of Sandomierz and Kraków), regions near Lublin, Rawa Mazowiecka, Sieradz and then Red Ruthenia. After the Union of Horodło bearers of the coat of arms appeared also in Lithuania.

Blazon
Gules, donkeys head gardant Argent. Over the helm the crest composed of a goat passant proper Argent.

Notable bearers
Notable bearers of this coat of arms include:

 * House of Ligęza
 * Jan son of Pakosław (owner of Rzeszów)- a valued diplomat of king Casimir III in many diplomatic missions including mission to pope Urban V
 * Marcin of Wrocimowice - Standard-Bearer of the Territory of Kraków in the Battle of Grunwald
 * Michał from Czyżowo - member of Royal council of Władysław II Jagiełło.
 * The fictional family of Horeszko from the epic poem Pan Tadeusz by Adam Mickiewicz were bearers of Półkozic Coat of Arms.
 * Mikołaj Wolski
 * Baron Grunwald family, one out of two brothers Ligęza who purchased and owned the Grunwald village Battle of Grunwald where the Battle stand. He liked the village name so much so he changed his name after the village. Standard bearer of own regiment size force at the Battle. The last Baron Grunwald died in Warszawa 1981, ending his House.

title: Półkozic coat of arms


text:
User:Bishonen/Second War of the Theatres

Other subpages: User:Bishonen/WIP Vanbrugh

The phrase War of the Theatres usually refers to a conflict between playwrights Thomas Dekker/John Marston and Ben Jonson around 1600, which took the form of mutual satirical plays, Dekker/Marston's Histriomastix and Satiromastix, and Jonson's Poetaster. The second pitched battle of the London theatre world, a century later, was a conflict between theatre companies. It could also be regarded as a labour conflict, where the battle lines were drawn between management and employees (actors).

The change in English drama in the 1690s away from Restoration comedy of manners towards sentimental comedy is usually ascribed to political and social causes, and rightly so. But trends in the drama were also connected with the stormy theatrical events known as the war of the theatres in London 1695-1710, when the senior actors of the monopoly "United Company" broke away and formed their own cooperative acting enterprise, which immediately became a dangerous competitor for the parent company.

The great, indeed overwhelming, advantage of the new cooperative over the remainder of Rich's company was acting talent and acting experience. With them went "the very beauty and vigour of the Stage", explains the anonymous Comparison Between the Two Stages (1702). Rich's company was left "in a very despicable condition": "The disproportion was so great at parting, that 'twas almost impossible, in Drury-Lane, to muster up a sufficient number to take in all the Parts of any Play; and of them so few were tolerable, that a Play must of necessity be damn'd that had not extraordinary favour from the Audience." Moreover, Rich now had to pay well to keep what was left of his company loyal, while the town flocked to see the stars at Lincoln's Inn Fields. "Actors at double sallaries, and not half the usual Audiences, to pay them!" exclaims Colley Cibber in his autobiography, still in 1740 gleeful over the deserved misfortunes of Christopher Rich.

Rich's advantage was the two good playhouses at Drury Lane and Dorset Garadens, and, most importantly, capital, which the cooperative lacked. The patent company owners still believed in the ultimate value of their investment and were willing and able to run at a loss to get the enterprise back on its feet (or in other words to kill the competition and get back the stars).

Lincolns Inn's Fields

-

Late november/early December

(Indeed, the company had staged one of its greatest public successes only ten months earlier with the première of Thomas Southerne's The Fatal Marriage, a "she-tragedy" tailored to the talents of Elizabeth Barry.)

Within a few months of this document, which has not survived to our day, both Mountfort and Leigh had fallen victim to the hired assassins of noblemen who had been unflatteringly portrayed on the stage. The murder of Mountfort was a scandal that undermined the United Company's reputation further, besides depriving them of a valuable and versatile actor,

Judith Milhous emphasizes that "a close reading of the Reply of the Patentees must raise serious questions as to their good faith, not to mention their honesty." Rich, a lawyer, had the advantage of being able to present his underhand tactics effectively on paper, but on the other hand, he had a great political disadvantage: Betterton and the Earl of Dorset had been friends for twenty years.

in general and outside investors were prepared to support performers like the legendary Thomas Betterton, the famous tragedienne Elizabeth Barry who had recently given one of her most celebrated performances in Thomas Southerne's "she-tragedy" The Fatal Marriage (1694), and the rising young star Anne Bracegirdle, especially when they saw the company being drained of many other popular actors. when Doggett, Bowen et al mutiny in 1693, it's Betteron who persuades/coerces them into coming back.

Hume quote: "The history of play types in the next few years [following 1682] is eloquent testimony to the benefits of competition. Singularly little [p. 362] happens: most of the new plays are derivative samples of tried and true modes."

, and John Verbruggen, who had been Rich's second leading man. The biggest mistake the cooperative made at this early stage may have been in not offering Verbruggen's wife Susanna a share, but merely a salary. The Verbruggens were dissatisfied with this arrangement, reasonably so since Susanna was a very versatile and popular comedienne, and returned to the parent company, where they were an extremely valuable addition. The company had up to that moment had the notoriously drunken and quarrelsome George Powell as the nearest thing to a leading man, and the prim Jane Rogers, who lacked comedienne potential, as their leading woman. The Verbruggens were versatile and experienced and, very popular, especially Susanna, who specialized in "breeches parts".

Detailed and readily checkable figures are provided for recent prunings of especially Elizabeth Barry's salary and traditional perks.


text:
Jacob van Campen

Jacob van Campen (2 February 1596 - 13 September 1657) was a Dutch artist and architect of the Golden Age.

Life
He was born into a wealthy family at Haarlem, and spent his youth in his home town. Being of noble birth and with time on his hands, he took up painting mainly as a pastime. In 1614, he became a member of the Guild of Saint Luke (in Haarlem the architects and painters were both in the same guild, and many were both, such as Pieter Saenredam and Salomon de Bray), and studied painting under Frans de Grebber - a number of Van Campen's oils survive. About 1616 to 1624 he is thought to have lived in Italy. On his return to the Netherlands, Van Campen turned to architecture, applying ideas borrowed from Andrea Palladio, Vincenzo Scamozzi and classical influences from Vitruvius. He was primarily responsible for introducing the classical revival style into Dutch Baroque architecture, combining the native, Dutch brick style with the Vitruvian principles he had learnt to produce "Dutch Classicism", an internationally influential style.

Van Campen was friendly with Constantijn Huygens, and together they designed a new house for Huygens. Even after Van Campen's death, his work greatly influenced Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen, the designer of the Kleefse gardens (the gardens of Cleve), and on Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg. The latter to own a book by Van Campen regardless of the expense. The city hall and the city palace of Potsdam owe a debt to ideas by Van Campen.

Van Campen's first known building was the Coymans house built in 1625 in Amsterdam. In the 1630s Van Campen and Pieter Post designed the Mauritshuis in The Hague, a palace that is now home of a Royal Picture Gallery, and Van Campen alone designed the Netherlands' first theatre, Amsterdam's Stadsschouwburg. About 1645 Van Campen designed the Nieuwe Kerk in Haarlem, a church that influenced Christopher Wren. His best-known work is probably the large Town Hall of Amsterdam (begun 1648), now the Royal Palace in Dam Square.

Van Campen worked as an architect, a painter and a designer of decorative schemes, like that for the church organ in Alkmaar. His art also influenced sculpture. He was assisted in his work by Pieter Post, Daniël Stalpaert, Matthias Withoos, Philips Vingboons, Artus Quellinus, Tielman van Gameren and Rombout Verhulst. During the building of the city hall, Van Campen lived in very expensive lodgings in the nearby Kalverstraat and he spent freely. In 1654 Van Campen (and Willem de Keyser left after an argument, probably in connection with the design of the barrel vaults. Stalpaert won, but his completion of the project was reported to be less fine than Van Campen's designs.

After a long career, Van Campen died in 1657 in his buitenplaats (residence) Randenbroek near Amersfoort, which he had inherited from his mother, and was buried there. He had expanded it himself and had it decorated by Caesar van Everdingen. Van Campen never married, but had one son, Alexander Van Campen.

Designs
Van Campen was selective in what projects he took on. His best known works are:
 * The Royal Palace, Amsterdam, former city hall. In 1647, his name is mentioned for the first time in connection with the design of the new city hall.  It was to be a perfect building, perfect in its proportions and in the message it conveyed to the spectator. Its power lies in its strict and perfect proportions and extremely moderate decoration.  Critics loathed the simple entrance - without stairs - on the ground floor.
 * He is suspected to have had a hand in the alteration of the Rembrandthuis at the Jodenbreestraat in Amsterdam (1627), and in the design of the castle Drakensteyn at Baarn
 * The Mauritshuis in The Hague (1633).
 * the Theatre of Van Campen (1638), based on the example of Teatro Olimpico in Vicenza, in Amsterdam.
 * the Paleis Noordeinde, a royal palace in The Hague (1640).

As well as houses and palaces, he also designed a number of churches, such as those at Renswoude and at Hooge Zwaluwe, and the Nieuwe Kerk in Haarlem. Of that design, Pieter Saenredam made no fewer than three paintings and eight engravings. Furthermore, Van Campen designed gates and towers, e.g. for the Westerkerk and Nieuwe Kerk, both in Amsterdam. His paintings and wall decorations (such as those at Paleis Huis ten Bosch), show some similarity with the work of Paulus Bor, one of the founders of a group of painters calling themselves the Bentvueghels.

title: Jacob van Campen


text:
Link encryption

Link encryption is an approach to communications security that encrypts and decrypts all network traffic at each network routing point (e.g. network switch, or node through which it passes) until arrival at its final destination. This repeated decryption and encryption is necessary to allow the routing information contained in each transmission to be read and employed further to direct the transmission toward its destination, before which it is re-encrypted. This contrasts with end-to-end encryption where internal information, but not the header/routing information, is encrypted by the sender at the point of origin and only decrypted by the intended recipient.

Link encryption offers two main advantages:
 * encryption is automatic so there is less opportunity for human error.
 * if the communications link operates continuously and carries an unvarying level of traffic, link encryption defeats traffic analysis.

On the other hand, end-to-end encryption ensures only the intended recipient has access to the plaintext.

Link encryption can be used with end-to-end systems by superencrypting the messages.

Bulk encryption refers to encrypting a large number of circuits at once, after they have been multiplexed.

title: Link encryption


text:
User talk:Laube~enwiki

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Laube. Welcome to Wikipedia.  I noticed that the article you added at Holacanthus tricolor is from wetwebmedia.com.  It appears that their usage policy  is not compatible with Wikipedia's licence (which allows our content to be used by anyone - including for commercial purposes).  Do you have the author's permission to use the text here? And if so, is the author aware of the terms of the GFDL?  We also need information on the image you uploaded at Image:Holocanthus Tricolor.jpg - did you take the image yourself or do you have information on the source? Please see Copyrights for more information on our policies.  Welcome again and thanks for joining the project.  Regards -- sannse (talk) 19:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RURocking 19:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The image at Image:Holocanthus_Tricolor.jpg was taken by me, in my own aquarium. The article was an extract from wetwebmedia.com. I now realize what their policy is.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Laube. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Laube~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Laube~enwiki


text:
Talk:Jacob van Campen

Untitled
Article is a partial translation of a Dutch Wikipedia-article Wijker 19:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacob van Campen. 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/20070929111228/http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/c/campen/ to http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/c/campen/

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) 17:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacob van Campen. 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/20070607141647/http://www.bmz.amsterdam.nl/adam/nl/huizen/k177.html to http://www.bmz.amsterdam.nl/adam/nl/huizen/k177.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) 12:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jacob van Campen


text:
Ram Trilogy

Already responsible for a raft of drum'n'bass classics recorded throughout the '90s, Ram Recordings' bosses Andy C and Ant Miles - formerly known as Origin Unknown - united with fellow Ram producer Shimon to form Ram Trilogy. Fittingly, the three debuted with a trio of epic singles during the last half of 1998, the industrial-strength anthems "No Reality/Scanners," followed by "Mind Overload/Intercity" and "Chase Scene/Terminal 1." All three singles took as their template the darkstep style becoming increasingly ubiquitous throughout the jungle scene (a sound pioneered by Origin Unknown themselves), but advanced the cause considerably with a legion of future-shock beats and effects. A year later, the notoriously media-shy team emerged from the underground with the first full-length ever released on Ram Recordings, Molten Beats.

In 2003, Ram Trilogy released the Screamer EP on vinyl, including the tracks "Skittles" and "Evolution" (Marcus Intalex & ST Files Remix).

In 2008, Ram Trilogy had a song released on Audioporn Records, on the EP The Quarks entitled "Asylum".

In 2020, Ram Trilogy released a new album, Revolutions.

Remixes

title: Ram Trilogy


text:
Generic access profile

The Generic Access Profile (GAP) (ETSI standard EN 300 444 ) describes a set of mandatory requirements to allow any conforming DECT Fixed Part (base) to interoperate with any conforming DECT Portable Part (handset) to provide basic telephony services when attached to a 3.1 kHz telephone network (as defined by EN 300 176-2).

The objective of GAP is to ensure interoperation at the air interface (i.e., the radio connection) and at the level of procedures to establish, maintain and release telephone calls (Call Control). GAP also mandates procedures for registering Portable Parts to a Fixed Part (Mobility Management). A GAP-compliant handset from one manufacturer should work, at the basic level of making calls, with a GAP-compliant base from another manufacturer, although it may be unable to access advanced features of the base station such as phone book synchronization or remote operation of an answering machine. Most consumer-level DECT phones and base stations support the GAP profile, even those that do not publicize the feature, and thus can be used together. However some manufacturers lock their systems to prevent interoperability, or supply bases that cannot register new handsets.

The GAP does not describe how the Fixed Part is connected to the external telephone network.

title: Generic access profile


text:
Talk:History of East Germany

Top
The text of this article was funded by the US army. So much for NPOV. Anyhow, I suppose it is biased on some level throughout, but some of it is incredibly biased and wrong. One example is its description of democratic centralism, which is very biased and POV. Ruy Lopez 19:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's a great paragraph - "The SED imposed conformity to Marxist-Leninist ideology on the educational system, the press, social organizations, and cultural institutions. In order to guarantee the party's dominance within the state, all members of the SED who were active in state organs were obliged to carry out party resolutions. The State Security Service (Staatssicherheitsdienst, better known as the Stasi) and the Ministry of State Security monitored public life with a broad network of agents and contributed to eliminating opposition and regimenting political and social affairs."

Talking about ideological conformity to ideology on the educational system, the press, social organizations, and cultural institutions, we're using a text here that was funded by the US army. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Then it describes the Stasi as some monumental unusual thing, as if the US didn't have it's own FBI and Secret Service running around bugging Martin Luther King's bedroom and sending him threatening letters because he wanted free elections in the United States. Ruy Lopez 19:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The key point about the pot calling the kettle black is that both are black... Rd232

 * And what's wrong with expecting the members of a party to carry out its resolutions? People who have fundamental disagreements with a party should leave it. Shorne 05:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You're kidding, right? GDR was for most purposes a one-party state, certainly in career terms - if you wanted to get ahead, you (held your nose if necessary and) joined. Anyway, the German versions of this and related entries naturally have more info and better balance, so I'll do some translations in due course and hopefully we can then lose the dispute tag. Rd232 11:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the article doesn't mention the building of the Berlin Wall (though it does mention its fall). Clearly still a work in progress then, despite my cleanup of the financial situation... Rd232 23:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed that the article History of the German Democratic Republic was moved under its title via cut&paste (talk page redirects to here). Not knowing the regulations about this on en:wp, I´d yet like to give my consent for a proper moving. --213.54.223.60 17:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No mention of "40 Jahre 1989"
 Hm, all East German history articles seem to leave out the 40th anniversary of the Republic.  They go from "Hungary opens its borders" to "the Wall fell," which makes it almost sound as if protests starting the night of the 40th anniversary had nought to do with it

I'm surprised that this article doesn't even mention the 40th (and final) birthday celebration of the GDR. From what I understand, this was when the larger pro-democracy protests started, especially in East Berlin itself. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The history is too "economic"
we have to write more about other topics and not only economic one. the death of wilhelm Pieck for example is not mentioned. 62.0.209.167 10:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Montagsdemonstration in Leipzig.jpg
The image Image:Montagsdemonstration in Leipzig.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

GDR was a wall, not a country
The article doesn't tell that GDR was a wall, not a country.When the Berlin wall fell, in 1989, GDR became doomed.Agre22 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

-Technically it was a state. Not a country, an artifically created state that collapsed as soon as the people of the country (Germany) were asked whether or not they wanted one state for their one country. They did.

Population
It states that the population started at 19 million and decreased throughout the history of the state. So why does it also say that up to 20 million women were raped? There would never have been half as many women in the whole state at any one time; this estimate is therefore completely redundant. Either that or the population estimates are wrong. Can someone please find better figures? Or perhaps this occurred over decades; in which case could we figure out a percentage? It seems to me to be important that the scale of the atrocity is made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.223.140 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of East Germany. 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/20081202004411/http://www.osaarchivum.org/db/fa/300-3-1.htm to http://www.osaarchivum.org/db/fa/300-3-1.htm

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) 03:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of East Germany. 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/20150610215839/http://www.worldbook.com/wc/popup?path=features%2Fberlinwall&page=html%2F1989.htm&direct=yes to http://www.worldbook.com/wc/popup?path=features%2Fberlinwall&page=html%2F1989.htm&direct=yes

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) 16:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Berlin Mauer
Bb 2A01:598:A126:141D:1:0:4F61:9E15 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of East Germany


text:
Ogończyk coat of arms

Ogończyk is a Polish coat of arms. It was used by several szlachta families in the times of the Kingdom of Poland and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

History
Although the coat of arms was first mentioned in an armorial of 1384, it is probable that it stems from early mediaeval Slavic signs for marking the cattle. After the Union of Horodło of 1413 several Lithuanian boyar families were adopted to it. With time it also spread to Prussia, where several Germanized families used it.

Blazon
Gules, half an argent arrow heading upwards, supported by half of a ring. Out of the crest coronet two bare maiden hands (sometimes armed hands), holding a ring, all proper.

Notable bearers
Notable bearers of this coat of arms include:
 * Ireneusz Roszkowski (1909–1996), Polish professor, founder of modern Polish gynaecology and obstetrics, a humanist, precursor of prenatal medicine
 * Wojciech Roszkowski born 1947, Polish historian and writer, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in 2004–2009
 * Teresa Roszkowska (1904–1992), Polish painter (pl)
 * Wacław Roszkowski (1886–1944), Polish zoologist (pl)
 * Aleksander Roszkowski born 1961, Polish painter (pl)
 * Kazimierz Twardowski
 * Krzysztof Wiesiołowski
 * Stanisław Chodecki
 * House of Działyński
 * Ignacy Działyński
 * Piotr Wiesiołowski (pl)
 * Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff
 * Count Jan Żółtowski
 * Marceli Żółtowski
 * Zbigniew Żółtowski (pl)
 * Ivan Kotliarevsky (1769–1838), Ukrainian writer, poet and playwright
 * Mykola Stakhovsky (1879–1948), Ukrainian diplomat, politician, medic.
 * Oleksander Ohonovsky (1848–1891), Ukrainian lawyer, legal scholar, and civic leader.
 * Jan Gotlib Bloch (1836–1901), Polish banker, economist, and railway contractor, advocate of universal peace.

title: Ogończyk coat of arms


text:
Hale

Hale may refer to:

Australia

 * Hale, Northern Territory, a locality
 * Hale River, in southeastern Northern Territory

United Kingdom

 * Hale, Cumbria, a hamlet near Beetham, Cumbria
 * Hale, Greater Manchester, a village in the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, Greater Manchester
 * Hale (Trafford ward), a former electoral ward in the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, Greater Manchester
 * Hale, Halton, a village in Halton, Cheshire
 * Hale, an electoral ward in the Borough of Halton, Cheshire
 * Hale, Hampshire, a village in the New Forest
 * Hale, Surrey, a village near Farnham
 * Great Hale, a village in the North Kesteven district of Lincolnshire
 * Little Hale, a hamlet in the North Kesteven district of Lincolnshire
 * Tottenham Hale, a district in the London Borough of Haringey
 * The Hale, an area of the London Borough of Barnet
 * Hale, an electoral ward in the London Borough of Barnet
 * The Hale, Buckinghamshire, a hamlet near Wendover

United States

 * Hale, Colorado, an unincorporated community in Yuma County, Colorado
 * Hale, Iowa, an unincorporated community in Jones County, Iowa
 * Hale, Kansas, an unincorporated community in Salt Creek Township, Chautauqua County, Kansas
 * Hale (Massachusetts), an educational and recreation organization in Westwood, Massachusetts
 * Hale, Michigan, an unincorporated community in Iosco County, Michigan
 * Hale, Missouri, a city in Carroll County, Missouri
 * Hale, Utah, a ghost town in Carbon County, Utah
 * Hale, Wisconsin, a town in Trempealeau County, Wisconsin
 * Hale (community), Wisconsin, an unincorporated community in the town of Hale
 * Hale, Minneapolis, a neighborhood near the southern edge of Minneapolis
 * Mount Hale (New Hampshire), a mountain located in Grafton County, New Hampshire
 * Hale County, Alabama
 * Hale County, Texas

Poland

 * Hałe, a village in Gmina Sokółka, Sokółka County, Podlaskie Voivodeship

Tanzania

 * Hale, Tanzania, a town in Korogwe district

Astronomy and space

 * Hale Telescope, 200 in telescope at Palomar Observatory in California
 * 60-inch Hale, a 60 in telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory in California
 * Hale (lunar crater), a crater on the Moon
 * Hale (Martian crater), a crater on Mars
 * Hale's law, a law in solar physics

People

 * Hale (given name), includes a list of people with given name Hale
 * Hale (surname), includes a list of people with surname Hale

Other uses

 * Hale (band), alternative rock band in the Philippines
 * Hale (album), by the band Hale
 * High-altitude long endurance (HALE), a type of air-borne vehicle
 * Healthy life expectancy (HALE), a World Health Organization statistic for life expectancy
 * Hale School, an independent boys' school in Perth, Western Australia
 * Camp Hale, a former U.S. Army training facility in Colorado
 * Hawaiian hale, Hawaiian architectural style

title: Hale


text:
Odrowąż coat of arms

Odrowąż is a Polish coat of arms of probably Moravian origin. It was used by many noble families known as szlachta in Polish in medieval Poland and later under the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, branches of the original medieval Odrowążowie family as well as families connected with the Clan by adoption.

History
Okolski tells that the progenitor of this clan cut off both halves of the moustache of an adversary at a jousting match, and the flesh with it, with the arrow. Bogdan Balbin in notes to Epitome "Rerum Bohemicarum" [Summary of Bohemian Affairs], chapter 15, calls the arms of the Odrowaz family Sagitta circumflexa ["bent arrow"], and adds that some of the earliest houses in Bohemia bore these arms, of whom Tobias was Bishop of Prague, during the times of Premysl Otakar II. In German the arms are known as a "Bartausreisser"

Blazon
Arms: Gules, an arrow in pale point to chief, the base double sarcelled and counter embowed, Argent. Out of a crest coronet a panache of peacock plumes proper, charged with the arms in fess. The shield is red, upon which is a silver arrow pointing upward, and the bottom is divided and curved on both ends. Out of a helmeted crown is a display of peacock plumes, upon which can be seen lying on its side the device as pictured on the shield.

The tinctures (colors) are: azure = blue; gules = red; sable = black; or = gold; argent = silver; vert = green. In heraldry all charges (pictures) on a shield are assumed to be facing dexter (right side).

Notable bearers
Notable bearers of this coat of arms include:
 * House of Odrowąż
 * Jacek Odrowąż
 * Czesław Odrowąż
 * Iwo Odrowąż
 * Jan Odrowąż from Sprowa
 * Zofia Odrowąż
 * Stanisław Odrowąż
 * Andrzej Odrowąż
 * Joachim Chreptowicz
 * Eugen Ritter von Sypniewski-Odrowaz
 * Sypniewski
 * Bonifacius Sypniewski
 * Stanisław Sypniewski
 * Feliks Sypniewski
 * Felicjan Sypniewski
 * Jan Chryzostom Pieniążek
 * House of Szydłowiecki
 * Jakub Szydłowiecki
 * Elżbieta Szydłowiecka
 * Krzysztof Szydłowiecki
 * Zofia Szydłowiecka
 * Piotr Wysocki
 * Maciej Szukiewicz
 * Wojciech Szukiewicz
 * Władysław Starewicz
 * Zygmunt Pacanowski

title: Odrowąż coat of arms


text:
Édouard Deldevez

Édouard Marie Ernest Deldevez (31 May 1817 – 6 November 1897) was a French violinist, conductor at important Parisian musical institutions, composer, and music teacher.

Biography
Deldevez was born and died in Paris. He won many prizes as a violinist. He progressed from violinist at the Paris Opera to conductor. He was principal conductor of the Orchestre de la Société des Concerts du Conservatoire from 1872 to 1885.

At the Paris Opéra-Comique Deldevez conducted the revival of La Fille du Regiment (with Marie Cabel) in 1857, Rose et Colas (first performance at the theatre, as well as 50th performance in 1862), the premiere of Lalla-Roukh on 12 May 1862, the first production at the Salle Favart of La Servante maîtresse on 12 August 1862 (Galli-Marié's debut at the house), runs of La dame blanche (including the 1,000th performance there in December 1862), Le pré aux clercs, Fra Diavolo (including the 500th performance in March 1863), and a revival of Joseph in 1866.

At the Paris Opera, Deldevez conducted La Juive at the opening night of the Palais Garnier in 1875, and the premiere of Massenet's Le roi de Lahore in 1877, along with revivals of La Favorite, Guillaume Tell, Hamlet, Les Huguenots, Le Prophète and Robert le Diable.

In 1867, Deldevez published his Notation de la musique classique. He wrote a number of other books and became a chevalier of the Legion d'Honneur in 1874. He published his memoires in 1890.

Some confusion exists concerning his name, which is occasionally misclassified as "Ernest", though not in reliable sources of the period. One source records the name as "Edmé Édouard Deldevez." The standard French edition of his musicological works reedited in 1998 and 2005 by Jean-Philippe Navarre gives only "Édouard-Marie-Ernest Deldevez."

The Sudre theory
Deldevez became part of a group of musicians around François Sudre (1787–1864) who were attempting to develop a way of transmitting language through music. Sudre trained Deldevez and Charles Larsonneur to play and interpret his alphabet. A given note would represent a word or a letter of the alphabet. The trio toured France, answering questions from the audience using Sudre's violin. A military application quickly presented itself. A bugler on a battlefield could transmit orders to a regiment by playing an appropriate tune. This promising hypothesis came to nothing because the system was too vulnerable to wind and weather.

Clearly grasping at straws, Sudre then offered the military a set of musical canons, but they declined the suggestion. In 1829, Sudre began to develop the system that is now known as the Do Re Mi method of notating music.

Works
His compositions include the operas Lionel Foscari (1841), Le Violon enchanté (1848), L'Éventail (1854), and La Ronde des sorcières, along with several lyric scenes and ballets.

His Messe de Requiem, Op. 7 is dedicated to the memory of Berton, Chérubini, and Habeneck.

Other works include Six Songs Without Words for piano, Three Piano Preludes, three-part hymns, and a cantata performed at the Paris Opera on 15 February 1853.

Deldevez also wrote the original score for the ballet Paquita (Paris, 1846). However, an 1881 revival by Marius Petipa included additional numbers by Ludwig Minkus (1826–1917), and this score is more widely known and used.

title: Édouard Deldevez


text:
Category:Islands of India

Various islands and island arcs of India.

title: Category:Islands of India