text:
Talk:H.D.

Rewrite
This was the text before I started a rewrite Filiocht:

 * Alternate uses, see H.D. (disambiguation)

Hilda Doolittle, better known by the pen name H.D. (September 10, 1886 - September 27, 1961) was a United States Imagist poet and novelist. She was born in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

During H.D.'s adolescence in Pennsylvania, she befriended Marianne Moore and Ezra Pound. She enrolled at Bryn Mawr, but dropped out in 1911 and moved to England. In 1913, she married poet Richard Aldington, and in January of that year, three of her poems, "Hermes of the Ways," "Orchard," and "Epigram," were published in the journal Poetry.

In 1918, H.D. met Bryher, who would become and remain her companion and lover, despite H.D.'s marriage to Aldington and Bryher's marriages to Robert McAlmon and Kenneth Macpherson.

In 1933 and 1934, she was pupil and analysand of Sigmund Freud. H.D. later published a fictionalized account of this experience in Tribute to Freud.

After World War II, H.D. broke with Imagism, and her poetry began to reflect her interest in spiritualism, mysticism, ancient Greece, Egyptology, and astrology. These influences are particularly present in Trilogy.

Works

 * "Trilogy"
 * "HERmione"
 * "Helen in Egypt"
 * The Gift
 * Bid Me to Live

Marriage of convenience
Just one question: In 1921, Bryher contracted a marriage of convenience with Robert McAlmon which enabled him to fund his publishing ventures in Paris. What does this mean? How? Markalexander100 02:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Acronyms
I thought there was a policy at Wikipedia to never list articles under acronyms, and I would think that this would apply especially to an actual person with a real name (others, like NASA etc are more understandable)... surely most people would look her up with her real name, not H. D. (and obviously she would be linked from the disambiguation page as well)... Houshuang 21:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * She's almost universally referred to as "H.D." rather than by her full name. I think the policy is that we title articles by the name most commonly used, which would override the no-acronym thing. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Should we then make an edit to the HD disambiguation page to clarify that "Hilda Doolittle" referenced there is H.D.? ~E$ (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence
This sentence is unclear in meaning:

" Around this time, Doolittle entered into a relationship with a young art student named Frances Josepha Gregg. After spending part of 1910 living in New York City's Greenwich Village, she sailed to Europe with Gregg and her mother in 1911."

Was H.D. travelling with her own mother or with Gregg's?

If the former, the sentence would read better as

" Around this time, Doolittle entered into a relationship with a young art student named Frances Josepha Gregg. After spending part of 1910 living in New York City's Greenwich Village, she sailed to Europe with her mother and with Gregg."

If the latter, consider,

" Around this time, Doolittle entered into a relationship with a young art student named Frances Josepha Gregg. After spending part of 1910 living in New York City's Greenwich Village, she sailed to Europe with Gregg and with Gregg's mother, [Gregg's mother's name] in 1911.

I'll look for a bio with a clearer reference, but if anyone knows the answer feel free to change it.

 * It was Gregg's mother: .  Mark1 08:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Frances Gregg's Gender
A recent addition to this article identified Frances Gregg as a man and stated that both H.D. and Ezra Pound were romantically involved with Frances. I found this puzzling as while H.D.'s bisexuality is well documented I had never heard of Pound ever becoming sexually involved with a man. A google search and a look at "The Life of Ezra Pound" by Noel Stock soon made it clear that Frances Scott was a woman. I know the male version of Frances is usually spelled FrancIs, but I assumed Gregg was merely going by an unconventional spelling.

This same mistake appeared in the article about Pound and has been corrected.

Devil Doll 20:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Reference to Three Way Sex
I removed a reference to three way sexual encounters between H.D., Bryher and MacPherson as I cannot find any reliable verification. (The same poster who included this material also wrote about Ezra Pound's threeway encounters with women in the Pound article, material that was quickly removed by another contributor). If someone can come up with some verification about these alleged encounters, I'll consider myself corrected.

Devil Doll 20:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

High school
I am trying to update high school affiliations for Lehigh Valley people. Does anyone know where she went to high school? PAWiki 19:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what high school she attended, but it would have been in or near Upper Darby, Pa., because she moved there with her family when she was nine years old.

Page move
In my openion, this article is about Hilda Doolittle the person, not H.D. the pseudonym. I'd like to page move; thoughts? Ceoil 16:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally believe that the exchange in the Acronyms section explains how searching for "Hilda Doolittle" or "H.D." will bring you to this article with no disambiguation. I can understand the argument that "H.D." in ways refers to a different person given her different approach to poetry during the birth of that pseudonym, but ultimately H.D. and Hilda Doolittle are the same entity. Enderandpeter (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, she is known as H.D. books of poetry were published under this "name".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rockin' Intro
Kudos to whoever wrote the intro paragraph to this article, for noting her breakaway from both the Imagist movement and Pound's influence. The first hit in searching for "hilda doolittle" on Google brings up a page on the site imagists.org, and I fear that could be misleading. Again, superb work. Enderandpeter (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sappho
I've changed "the recently rediscovered works of Sappho" to just "Sappho." So far as I know, the Sappho H.D. would have read would have been the standard works that had long been in all the commonly available Greek texts; I can't see any way in which they were "rediscovered" in H.D.'s time (additional verses from papyri I think came mostly after H.D.) If anyone wants to keep the "rediscovered," please explain it in the text -- for instance, it could be argued that the existing works were "newly influential," though this would need references  Strawberryjampot (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ezra Pound
I've changed the first reference to Ezra Pound from "the leading British Modernist poet Ezra Pound" to just "Ezra Pound," because 1) he's American and 2) surely he's too well known to need description (like Freud, later in the same paragraph, who is not described as "the prominent Viennese psychoanalyst.") Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats fine, and better. I added the superative to emphasise the importance of Pound's role only. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

copyright vio on poem Oread?
is this still under copyright protection? she died in 1961, so arent all her works copyrighted for, i think, 80 years after her death? or am i totally off base on this?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 * American copyright laws are different and have changed over time. Anything first published in the U.S. before 1923 is in the public domain. Yworo (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll re inclusion of Infobox
Let's gauge current consensus of who supports or opposes inclusion of an Infobox. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll responses

 * Support - Infoboxes are useful and are encouraged on all biographies. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll discussion

 * We all get our kicks in differnt ways. Some are born with the desire to reduce difficult, complex people to one or two word 'sound bites'. Go Yworo, stalker and reductivist. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. Yworo (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Try and earn that right rather than gaming it. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * :I left this message for Modernist, and yeah, I admitted I wanted to take down the infobox. Now Yworo has hit each of the articles I've mentioned in my post. Yworo, please explain your reasoning, backed by a strong argument, and include exactly what should be done about subjective data in infoboxes for poets. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be subjective data. Anything in the infobox should already be somewhere in the article and cited, so not subjective. I'm not a big fan of the influenced and influenced by items myself, but if they are limited to what's supported in the article they are not too bad. Yworo (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Try tending one of these articles for six months, a year, four years, and then repeat what you've written above. It's subjective when people add indiscriminately to fields available in the infobox. Somebody has to tend those fields, which is a pain. Writing about poets, poetry, and literature in general is a bit different than other disciplines. Add in the modernist aspect - and really it's just best to avoid the infobox. You're mad because I posted on Modernist's page. What you don't understand is that I've been slogging through the world of modernism for most the summer, have a lot of these pages watched, and yesterday, really thought we needed a nav template. That was the gist of my post to Modernist - in addition, of course, that I don't think they should have infoboxes. You've taken that and run with it. Unfortunately this is one one of the few hours a day when I have the opportunity to actually work on an encyclopedia article, and tonight that time is being used for this unnecessary discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The same problems happen, with or without an infobox. Yworo (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the argument? I'm going to try to get some work done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia changes. Infoboxes are now the style. If you'd stop opposing inevitable progress, you could go right on editing rather than arguing. Yworo (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are not a style, nor are they mandatory. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus for their inclusion is increasing. It's only a matter of time. If not now, next year. Yworo (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is circular; the concencus you mention is only increasing becasue of your noise. Your matter of time argument just shows how you are evangelical, not thinking. Ceoil (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Still can't spell consensus, eh? Yworo (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Spelling mistakes are understandable - considering that all that he's saying is exactly right on...Modernist (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, you and he are both welcome to assume what you will. Doesn't make it right. Yawn. Yworo (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This needs to stop. It's unnecessarily disruptive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it has stopped. Yworo's arguments are not very sophisticated, and only go as far as ILIKEIT. After that its insults. So here we are. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DISRUPT; why is this poll occurring on multiple talk pages? I believe it would be more efficient to put the category up for deletion, as it's a disruptive category anyway-- there is no requirement for infoboxes, hence no reason for that template to exist. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe because of a comment I made to Modernist about infoboxes on his talkpage yesterday without realizing it would cause such disruption. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't you - he chose to do these things all on his own...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have happened anyway, sooner or later. Better it was a high profile blast and ended quickly. Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd better assume that you all actually responded Oppose to the poll? Or is the opposition actually weaker on this article? Yworo (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose to an infobox on this article as to the others that I listed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Yworo, sorry guy, the answer is the same tonight as it was last night; No. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction - Best Known for?
It's more than a little problematic that the article begins by stating that HD is best known for her association with two male poets. This dismisses the importance of her work on its own terms. I propose changing it from "best known for her association with" to "associated with". Taking out "best" would also make for a more objective statement.Qassandra (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not entirely sure I agree. HD indeed is well-known for her role in the imagist movement - the other two poets happened to be male. Without Pound, she might well never have been published, at all. In fact Ezra Pound's article also states that he is known for developing imagism - certainly am open to rewording along those lines, but I don't think much can done about the fact that Pound and Aldington were men. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the word "best" and think it makes sense. That way the association with Imagism is still there, but we're not qualifying it with a questionable term.  Arguably, nowadays, she is as well known for Trilogy as she is her Imagist work.--Oreadic (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It really depends on what the sources say. I had a look at some current bios and scholarship yesterday and everything mentions her association with Aldington/Pound/Imagism. Everything. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article?
After reading a rather short bio on her here and a longer one here I guess there is quite some info missing in the article and together with the fact that there is a lot of uncited text (also on personal life and psychoanalysis), its FA status might need a review.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi I'd encourage you to bring this to FAR: we could always use more help with the backlog of deficient featured articles that should be defeatured. (t · c)  buidhe  06:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Citation style
I'd like to change citation styles to use "Cite" templates and Template:Sfn for the shortened footnotes. It would mean readers could more easily see which source is being referenced. As I understand it, adding the cite templates would add to the load time of the page, so there's a trade-off. Any thoughts or objections? Pinging who are active in improving the page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good with meCeoil (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, you reverted a couple reference style changes needed to implement the above. Can you help me understand why? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok my bad; I was standardising the sources section and didnt realise you has stared work. Sorry about that. One thing, as I am older and find templates difficult would you mind doing the overhaul (I hope you are still interest) after the content additions), ie at the end of next weekend. Thanks so much for taking this on. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries! I'm happy to hold off for a few days. One thing I could use your thoughts on is how to cite Trilogy. It's a book by H.D. with notes by Aliki Barnstone, and we're (I'm guessing here) only using Barnstone's notes as references. Do you have a good idea on the best way to make it clear what's being cited? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy days. Will be much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Re anothologies, lets cite the edition editors (eg Aliki Barnstone) only. Best. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but let's postpone the detail discussion until later. You're working on the important stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't see it like that. Anyways, thanks so much for the help. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We're citing Barnstone so she needs to in the ref but not necessarily split into chapters (which is messy). WorldCat's citation has both H. D. and Barnstone as author, which seems right to me. I've tweaked it but am fine with having it changed. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely endorse, the citations here are cumbersome, and thanks so much for taking that on. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If I were working it, I'd be opposed for various reasons that aren't germane. But I won't be working here, so ok. Victoria (tk) 18:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks and thanks for everything, Victoria. If you feel like expounding on citation styles at my user talk page, I'd be interested! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No reason for thanks, and yes, I was too slow. Carry on all. Not interested in discussing templates, sorry.  Victoria (tk) 19:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm done with the templatification of the sources. I formatted the slightly complex reader's notes/intros/multiple chapter references in a way that makes sense to me. I'd be happy to hear if this works for others. During the review, I made notes for improvement in below. I can do another pass once others complete any expansion, so feel free to add sources that are formatted differently (esp. VE). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There are still quite a few sources returning HarvRef errors as they aren't used in the short notes (they can be seen by installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js). Is work still underway, or shall we delete, comment out, or move to Further reading the unused sources? Those are: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Evans (2010)
 * H. D. (1979)
 * Laity (1996)
 * Lucas (1993)
 * Wagner (1983)

 * I've been reading Laity and will likely have at least a little to add in §Appraisal. We could add an H.D. 1979 citation after "In End to Torment she approved of Norman Holmes Pearson's labeling of Helen in Egypt as "her 'cantos'"." in §Late work so we're citing both the secondary source and the primary. I'm on the fence about it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wagner (1983) removed. Victoria (tk) 22:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography, and any other help needed?
A glance at the biblio shows that it's riddled with important errors of two types: dating and categorization.

-The list hops at random between supplying dates of first publication and dates of authorship, with no indication of so doing. (Word to the wise: 60 year old bibliographies are almost never reliable for this kind of thing.)

-It furthermore lists individual poems as though they are collections, poems from collections as though they were never collected, and lists non-fiction works as though they were novels.

These bits I can fix myself in a few days time once I get the chance, if nobody else has.

There are, however, a few decisions which have to be made beyond mere correction of errors:

- A great many of H.D.'s works listed here were never published in her lifetime, and not just late works that never quite made it to press; many early and middle works weren't published until the '80s. This thus raises the question: should the entries be ordered by date of authorship or publication?

- [I'm now suddenly forgetting what I thought the other editorial questions I had here actually were... Maybe it will come to me later.]

On another related note, I'm currently doing work on H.D. and have a stack of a few dozen sources on H.D. in danger of falling down on top of me. I may not get a chance to comb through the whole article and sketch out what needs work, but if anyone wants to flag specific areas that really need either rewriting or better sourcing, I'd be happy to get on it once I get the chance time wise. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Note to self clean up intro. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * help totally needed!!! and thanks so much for this this view. I would reorder by date, regardless of publication, as it it fits better with her development. Ceoil (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a nice tune in thanks. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, just a note to all that I'm a little backlogged on getting my thesis in, but I haven't abandoned any of these bits and pieces. Fingers crossed I can help with this stuff, and other things mentioned under @Firefangledfeathers post that I noted, by next week. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is sorted for the time being. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Random stuff
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Apart from a number of visits to the United States, she spent the rest of her life in Switzerland." Source supports her living in Switzerland until death, but not remaining there all the time apart from US trips.
 * Agreed. "Spending the rest of one's life" in a place does not imply that you literally never left it, only that you continue to live there. Something like "She lived in Switzerland the rest of her life." would be sufficient. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reworded as suggested. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "She returned to the United States in 1960 to collect an American Academy of Arts and Letters medal, becoming the first woman to be granted the award." Source mentions the medal but not the distinction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for interjecting, but this was the American Academy of Arts and Letters Award of Merit or Award of Merit Medal, first conferred in 1942. It is awarded to one person each year, and rotates around a series of six artistic disciplines (painting, short story, sculpture, novel, poetry, drama).   The Academy makes lots of awards, but this one is relatively prestigious, and is accompanied by a substantial cash prize (currently $25,000). See https://artsandletters.org/awards/ (I suppose that could be turned into a reference somehow: I can't find an easy way to link to the full list, but you can find it by clicking on the headings there, or you can find HD by searching.)   HD's medal, for poetry, in 1960, was the first awarded to a female poet (the previous three poets were WH Auden, St. John Perse, and Jorge Guillen.) But the first woman to received the Award of Merit Medal was Enid Bagnold, for drama, in 1956.  So we need to be a little careful about how we describe this award. Theramin (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for interjecting! Knowing the exact award helped me track down a secondary source noting the distinction (Friedman mentions it in Signets), and I've added the citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which source mentions the family living in Highland Park? That bit could use a citation, since it's not covered by Friedman/DuPlessis 1990.
 * Which source places "Vale Ave" in 1957–58? Friedman 1975 just names it as an unpublished work.
 * If any do, they're wrong; it's squarely in 1957. Matte Robinson's 2015 introduction to the Hirslanden Notebooks: "She wrote the long poem Vale Ave in five weeks, April 15-May 13, 1957" (pg. ix). If I recall correctly, the H.D.-Pearson letters & some of the diaristic works attest to this. To be honest, Friedman's Psyche Reborn is not a very reliable source for this sort of thing at all any more. It's over thirty years old and most of H.D's texts were either unpublished or out of print at the time. Not knocking her work of course, it was an extremely important work of scholarship at the time, and is still of some use, but there's a lot more material that's become available in the interim. Probably most important up-to-date secondary source for some of this stuff is Matte Robinson's book The Astral H.D.; it's very much grounded in the full breadth of available archival material and doesn't make any factual claim of which the author can't be sure. The aforementioned introductory essay to the Hirs. Notes. is pithy but also very useful for some of this stuff. There's also a H.D. timeline in the Cambridge Companion to H.D. which mentions authorship and publication dates, but it doesn't cite where it's getting its info so to be honest I can't quite attest to its accuracy; it's a legit source that's there in the absence of anything else, though, especially for some of the very obscure prose works. I'm finishing up my thesis as we speak and am planning on overhauling the whole bibliography because there's a lot of things to be cleaned up there, and I have strong sources for it to hand, so I'll be able to get on that stuff in just over a week. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to wait. Congrats on being in the finishing stage on your thesis. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Kelvin supports "he was a main inspiration" and what follows, but the earlier part of the paragraph is unsourced. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's noticeable distance between the source and our summary in "H.D. was aware early on that the strictures of Imagism and Pound's control would limit and constrain her creative voice, and by the mid-1920s was attempting to break "beyond Imagism"." Does some other source fill in the gaps?
 * Did Doolittle become "romantically involved with the English writer Brigit Patmore"? Hollenberg only mentions an Aldington–Patmore fling and is also not explicit about who introduced Doolittle to Aldington.
 * Modernists trying to "make it new" is supported by Hughes p. 375 but most of the preceding sentence is not. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I got some of these and working on others. Annoyed I can't find the "make it new" sentence; will trawl through history. Looks like unsupported text was added over the years, and then & refs and text got shoved. Btw I fixed Moody b/c I'm working off the hardcopy (i.e dead tree version). Thanks for the hard work. Victoria (tk) 02:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixes look good to me. I struck the items you addressed. I like the tweak to Pound's controlling temperament. As far as I can tell, it's not in Hatlen, but I also am sure that it's true. Leaving the note above for now and I'll keep an eye out in my reading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just found the Eiffel Hotel bit re "make it new"; it's in a source I used on Pound. I'll make a fix but it'll be unformatted. This btw is why I objected to formatting refs; there's a suite of articles that are interrelated and I'd be cross if the refs on Pound are redone (long history there). Victoria (tk) 02:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No complaints from me. I admit I've been curious this whole time! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Re controlling, Hatlen explains on p. 111 that by 1920 H.D. had moved to the 'writing on the wall' experiment, beyond imagism, and on the earlier pages Hatlen uses the word "proprietary" on pages 107 and 108 in regards to Pound. Unless we go to direct quote, which really isn't needed, we're allowed to synthesize the source. This is fine in my view. Victoria (tk) 03:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding; I've tweaked the text there a bit. I really need to find some time to go through the history. One of the problems is that we're dealing w/ text that in some cases is quite old (15 year +), written by a poet, before w/ needed inline citations, then there were years of accretions, and now overlayed w/ new text. I'd noticed too that there were some messy parts. Victoria (tk) 03:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * One follow-up on this. There's some tension between §Appraisal's "By the mid-1920s she had gone beyond imagism" and §Imagism's "All of her poetry to the end of the 1930s was written in an Imagist mode". The latter is unsourced. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had to do some history diving to tease out what's supported by what. Messy indeed. No fight from me on the tweaked language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The §Late work section needs some source shuffling and hopefully a pg. range narrowing on Sword and Twitchell-Waas.
 * Added specific pages. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we fairly use File:Hilda Doolittle, later years.jpeg? Right now we're leaning on an NFCC#8 rationale of "To illustration the subject of the article. She is deceased, so a free used image is no longer possible", but free images are available. Is this a case where depicting her in her later years is a reasonable need that trumps the existence of free images of her when younger? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea and done. Was hesitant about using under the old reasoning. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Wagner 1983 does not support H.D. being an influence on Robert Creeley. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find the "Anthology. "Sagetrieb." University of Michigan, 2008. 49." source. I assume 49 is a volume or issue number, but it doesn't seem like they go up that high. Other sources are available for that snippet of The Walls do not Fall, but I didn't find one that supports "clearly and immediately signal her break with her earlier work".
 * Unfortunately Sagetrieb isn't digitised at all and appears to be out of print (which is extremely annoying for lots of reasons but I digress) so isn't the best thing to source from if it can be helped. I'm sure one could find plenty of people who say it or something like it, but to be honest, the phrase "clearly and immediately signal her break with her earlier work" puts it unnecessarily strongly, IMO. There's scholarly debates about the extent to which Trilogy "breaks with" or in some continuity with her earlier writing, and it's not really the sort of debate that needs to be written into the article. I'd imagine it'd be sufficient to simply note that Trilogy marked the first work in the long-poem form which she continued to utilise until her death. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. If I get my head back into the sources on this before you do, I'd like to add something like your suggested language with a citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ramsay needs a page number or range. It's a big ol' PDF with no searchability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * §Selected works needs some consistency on whether to include both year of writing and year of publication and on whether to be explicit about posthumous publication.
 * I'm on this, as above. I'm happy to redo the "Selected Works" - and make them a complete works - in a few days. The only question I'd have is whether to sort by publication date or authorship - given the sheer amount of works that were published posthumously (or barely "published" at all, i.e. texts like Kora & Ka were pressed in runs of less than a dozen), it would make far more sense to me to order them by date of authorship and note the date of publication when it differs in any significant way.Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I like your suggested approach. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither the NYT obit nor the Guest source I replaced it with verify "heart attack" as cause of death.
 * Don't know where the heart attack line is coming from. Should be removed.Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 * If File:Hilda Doolittle, later years.jpeg is the only one with a FUR, then yes. I might add to the FUR to strengthen it, though it looks fine to me. Victoria (tk) 21:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Re Wagner 1983 & inspiration - Wagner is refers to Robert Duncan (poet) only. Snipped out Creeley. Victoria (tk) 21:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Re Ramsay, I see it in the searchable abstract here. Victoria (tk) 21:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Structural changes
How would other editors feel about: Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

On the first point, I would worry that it would make the level 2 list of drop down sections a bit too “busy”. As far as I can see, the current structure makes perfect sense. If others thought it should be renamed to something other than “Career” (to, say, “Life and Work” or something like that) because it’s basically general biography, I’d have no objections.

On the second point, I’m really not sure of the utility of so doing. A Works Cited list is not the same as a Further/Suggested Reading list. The former is there to state what one has cited, not to guide the reader in their own study. The latter would want to be far more selective; I’d be happy to do one up - consisting of some of the main important critical/biographical works - if others thought it would be useful. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi, I agree with Pseudo-Dionysius. If we don't have a level two - i.e "Career" or "Biography" or somesuch - someone will come along and add one. But I'm not attached to it and wouldn't protest a change. Re., changing sources, prefer to keep in alpha order without sectioning out to books/journals/etc. In my mind the various modernist literature articles are an interconnected suite and it would be nice to keep them as similar as possible, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 21:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I'd like to drop both proposals. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (resurfacing and trying to catch up with all the work): like Dionysius' suggestion of “Life and Work” and have renamed the sect. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * would you mind pinging me when you're done so I can look through? I am miserably behind and swamped in real life, but I'd like to get this closed up this week before I go on a much-needed semi-wilderness vacation where I will be mostly without internet access, followed by an extended period of a house full of guests.  If we can't get this sewn up this week, it may be a month before I can re-focus. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy, its not really my decision anymore, given the work by Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius, backed by Firefangledfeathers, in the last few days. This seems to be one of those rare events, where others take over and more than deliver. I've had a watchlist for some 16 years; usually boring af - few times has it been such a joy to refresh. Ceoil (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx, Ceoil; pinging then about my time constraints. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we're ready for it SG! I have time during the week next week to respond to review items, if all the others don't get to it first! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx ... busy for the rest of the day, but I can probably then make this tomorrow's venture ... bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be able to help over this weekend. It sounds like you have your hands full Sandy, to say the least; while the feedback will be very much appreciated, I think we are on a good track with 3/4 editors working on it, so pls dont feel time bound. Best Ceoil (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My sense is this is just about done, so it would be a relief to get it off the "to do" list :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Unfortunately I overcommitted a few months back, here and elsewhere, adding to my, and it seems, your stress levels. Am clawing back, but leasons learnt. Ceoil (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Need for consistency: are we calling her "H.D." or "Doolittle"?
There's a little bit of flip-flopping in the article between referring to H.D. by her given last name and by her chosen non-de-plume. This kind of inconsistency isn't great: it could be confusing for readers not familiar with H.D., and looks untidy to those are.

We need to decide clearly: 'should the article refer to the poet born "Hilda Doolittle" as "Doolittle" or "H.D." throughout?'

While of course referring to an article subject by last name is standard protocol for Wikipedia, H.D. is known ubiquitously by her initials, and virtually no serious scholarly source (at least for many many decades) refers to her by her last name.

For what its worth, I would feel pretty strongly that referring to H.D. by her last name "Doolittle" would be equivalent to calling the Icelandic singer "Guðmundsdóttir" throughout the article on Bjork.

I can anticipate the counter example of "A.E." George William Russell, who is "Russell" throughout his article, but this example is a lot less one-for-one as it looks, simply because H.D. was never known professionally as anything other than H.D. (excepting some work written under totally unrelated pseudonyms), whereas George William Russell was "George William Russell" in a lot of areas of his professional life, and modern scholarship uses his name much more often than they do "A.E." on the whole.

Either way, it's an important point to get some consensus on. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

 * My instinct has been to call her Doolittle until her adoption of pen name and then H.D. after that. I would also be fine with H.D. throughout. Great to see you around PPD! Hope the thesis work wrapped up well! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your logic, but I really don't think it's helpful to mix the two; we're talking about one person here, irrespective of whether they used different names at different times.
 * It's fairly normal to discuss people's past in terms that would not have been used at that given moment (e.g. articles for transgender people invariably use their latterly chosen pronouns, even when discussing their early life).
 * Beginning her history by reiterating her given name and then carrying on calling her H.D. for the rest would make more sense than jumping around, as far as I can see. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good points. I reread MOS:SURNAME and it supports your suggestion. I just changed most 'Doolittle's to 'H.D.'s. The one debatable one I'd like someone else to check on was Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Also, thank you for the well-wishes Firefangledfeathers!! I handed it in (eventually) and just found out my results today. Very pleased! :D Celebrating by curling up next to the fire with a takeaway and editing the Wikipedia article for H.D., because I am very cool. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem here
The problem I see, having now read this a few times and added some edits, is that it ambitiously seeks to combine both her personal and professional lives, which is unusual in a biographical article on here. It would be better structured, I think, if the two were separated, as they usually are. I understand the desire to tackle all of it chronologically and the idea that the two impacted each other, but that's often the case. I would separate all her relationship/marriage/pregnancy details into a personal section. In so doing, it would also make it easier to understand her actual work. Keystone18 (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined against that organization for this article. Will have a longer response soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Sorry, did not see this comment yesterday. I'm also inclined against that organization. There are plenty of articles that combine life with art, which in my view is difficult to separate because the one informs the other and vice versa. See James Joyce and Vincent van Gogh as examples. I think the organization as is works fine. Particularly for a woman, relationships/marriage/pregnacy tends to crowd out artistic endeavors and that should be part of the narrative. Victoria (tk) 23:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's broadly my view as well. I think there's too much interplay between the life and the work to cleanly separate them. Major personal life beats like her relationships with Pound/Aldington/Bryher, her psychoanalysis with Freud, and her bisexuality would leave her writing career undercontextualized if moved to a different section.
 * The resectioning that Keystone18 has already done looks fine to me. We discussed the structure a little bit during the FAR in . Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I missed yesterday's edits for some reason. The images should be put back as they were, or at least gain consensus to change. I'd be opposed to stacking them all up in the early part of the article rather than having them sprinkled throughout chronologically so that they illustrate the relevant sections. Also some of the sections look quite too long for easy readability to me now. Will look at it some more and get back. Also pinging since he chose many of the images. Victoria (tk) 01:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've boldly put most of it back as it was. In my view, especially since this is an FA and such a large amount of work went into it recently, it needs discussion/consensus for such large changes. Putting back section headings as they were edit is, repositioning images are clearly described in the edit summaries. I may try putting in some text box type things as we have in Ezra's article, but let's first see what the structure ends up looking like. Just for the record, I prefer it as it is. World War I & World War II were traumatic and in my view deserve their own sections, as in Ezra & Hemingway. Victoria (tk) 01:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I missed the image changes and prefer where you've placed them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Adalaide Morris
HI, I wanted to link to Adalaide Morris a notable H.D. critic, but how do I do that on a reference? Thank you!LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi . Somewhere in the relevant citation template, add "|author-link=Adalaide Morris". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!! LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:H.D.


text:
User talk:Stephen G. Brown

Thanks
Hi Stephen,

I just wanted to quickly thank you for your attentiveness in the Azerbaijan entry not allowing vandal Rovoam to get along with his sneaky vandalism. He introduced his "traditional" vandalism in this edit (just above the "Line 66"), which unfortunately went unnoticed by User:Picapica, but you fixed it promptly ). In the past Rovoam tried to introduce similar sneaky vandalisms in Azerbaijanis (e.g. ), Azeri (e.g. ) and many other Azerbaijan-related and even unrelated entries, such as Ottoman Empire (e.g. ) or Ottoman Turks (e.g. ).

This person has been literally terrorizing various Azerbaijan and Turkey-related entries in WP, adding sneaky and blatant vandalisms of anti-Azeri and anti-Turk character. I am grateful to you along with many other editors, who track down and neutralize all his spurious edits.--Tabib 13:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * You’re welcome, Tabib. We’re experience similar problems with some of the Slavic pages, especially those concerning the languages and peoples of Bulgaria and former Yugoslavia. Where I’m from, such ethnic and cultural bigotry was dealt with and virtually eliminated decades ago, and today we find it difficult to believe that these attitudes are still rampant in large parts of the world. —Stephen 06:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unicode fonts
There has been a lot of discussion about unicode fonts and the order in which the fonts should be listed. What happens is that the browser (usually IE) scans the list and uses the first font it finds which is currently installed. This is why the rarer fonts are listed first: if a user has installed one of these it will be used. If you front-load the list with the more common, less populated, fonts then those users who have installed the less common better-populated fonts do not gain the benefit.

The article you asked about, Bulgarian language, looks fine to me. I note with interest that it actually uses unicode for "(Ѣ, ѣ)" and "(Ѫ, ѫ)": how do those now look to you?

 * That must be because you have some of those unusual fonts installed. I inserted the template into the Bulgarian page precisely so I could see the letters. Since the fonts were switched around, all I see in the above four letters are big, blank boxes. —Stephen 7 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)

If you are working extensively in cyrillic, there might be benefit in co-opting cyrillic (which currently REDIRECTs to Cyrillic alphabet for some reason) to specify fonts which are rich in cyrillic characters (as with polytonic for greek): would that help? HTH HAND --Phil | Talk July 7, 2005 10:59 (UTC)

 * Hmm. Perhaps I will make a new template using the "Unicode fonts" font order before they got switched around. The problem will be finding all of the instances of that I have inserted. I think there are quite a few of them...it will take a long time to find and change them.
 * As I understand it, Windows (or whatever program it is that handles this) only considers the first couple of fonts in a list. Fonts deep in the list might as well be taken out, because they are ignored. If you don’t have a font that comes early in the list, then you get the default font, which I believe is usually Times New Roman. However it works, these lists do not work on my machine unless my fonts are at the head of the list...and I only have the standard Windows set. —Stephen 7 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)

I have Code2000 which appears fairly close to the front of the list: maybe this would help since it claims to have good coverage of Cyrillic. You could also try here. --Phil | Talk July 7, 2005 15:39 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Stephen G. Brown


text:
John Carlos

John Wesley Carlos (born June 5, 1945) is an American former track and field athlete and professional American football player. He was the bronze-medal winner in the 200 meters at the 1968 Summer Olympics, where he displayed the Black Power salute on the podium with Tommie Smith. He went on to tie the world record in the 100-yard dash and beat the 200 meters world record (although the latter achievement was never certified). After his track career, he enjoyed a brief stint in the Canadian Football League but retired due to injury.

He became involved with the United States Olympic Committee and helped to organize the 1984 Summer Olympics. Following this, he became a track coach at Palm Springs High School. He was inducted into the USA Track & Field Hall of Fame in 2003.

He is the author, with sportswriter Dave Zirin, of The John Carlos Story: The Sports Moment That Changed the World, published in 2011 by Haymarket Books.

Early life and education
Born in The Bronx, Carlos was raised in Harlem, New York. His mother, Violis (née Lawrence, 1919–2016), was born in Jamaica West Indies to Black Cuban parents and grew up in Santiago, Cuba. His father, Earl V. Carlos Sr. (1895–1969), was from South Carolina. Carlos participated in a 200-meter dash and as a member of the 4×400-meter relay helped lead ETSU to the 1967 Lone Star Conference Championship. After his first year, Carlos enrolled at San Jose State University where he was trained by future National Track & Field Hall of Fame coach Lloyd (Bud) Winter.

Carlos was awarded an honorary doctorate from California State University in 2008. In 2012, he was awarded honorary doctorates from his alma maters Texas A&M University-Commerce (formerly East Texas State University) and San Jose State University.

Olympics
The 1968 Olympic Trials were held on the Californian side of Lake Tahoe at Echo Summit trailhead, which at 7,377 feet above sea level is approximately the same altitude as Mexico City. Carlos won the 200-meter dash in 19.92 seconds, beating world-record holder Tommie Smith and surpassing his record by 0.3 seconds. Though the record was never ratified because the spike formation on Carlos's shoes ("brush spikes") was not accepted at the time, the race reinforced his status as a world-class sprinter.

Carlos became a founding member of the Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR), and originally advocated a boycott of the 1968 Mexico City Olympic Games unless four conditions were met: withdrawal of South Africa and Rhodesia from the games, restoration of Muhammad Ali's world heavyweight boxing title, Avery Brundage to step down as president of the IOC, and the hiring of more African-American assistant coaches. As the boycott failed to achieve support after the IOC withdrew invitations for South Africa and Rhodesia, he decided, together with Smith, to participate but to stage a protest in case he received a medal. Following his third-place finish behind fellow American Smith and Australian Peter Norman in the 200 meters at the Mexico Olympics, Carlos and Smith made headlines around the world by raising their black-gloved fists at the medal award ceremony. Both athletes wore black socks and no shoes on the podium to represent African-American poverty in the United States. In support, Peter Norman, the silver medalist who was a white athlete from Australia, participated in the protest by wearing an OPHR badge.

International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Avery Brundage deemed it to be a domestic political statement unfit for the supposedly apolitical, international forum the Olympic Games were claimed to be. In response to their actions, he ordered Smith and Carlos suspended from the US team and banned from the Olympic Village. When the US Olympic Committee refused, Brundage threatened to ban the entire US track team. This threat led to the expulsion of the two athletes from the Games.

A spokesman for the IOC called Smith and Carlos's actions "a deliberate and violent breach of the fundamental principles of the Olympic spirit." Brundage, who was president of the United States Olympic Committee in 1936, had made no objections against Nazi salutes during the Berlin Olympics. He argued that the Nazi salute, being a national salute at the time, was acceptable in a competition of nations, while the athletes' salute was not of a nation and therefore unacceptable.

Carlos had his greatest year in track and field in 1969, equaling the world 100-yard record of 9.1, winning the AAU 220-yard run, and leading San Jose State to its first NCAA championship with victories in the 100 and 220 and as a member of the 4×110-yard relay. He was featured on the cover of Track and Field News' May 1969 issue.

He was also the gold medalist at 200 meters at the 1967 Pan American Games in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and set indoor world bests in the 60-yard dash (5.9) and the indoor 220-yard dash (21.2).

The 1968 Olympics were in the middle of several significant events pertaining to the Civil Rights movement: Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968, the Fair Housing Act law was passed on April 11, 1968, and the 1968 Olympics were in October 1968. At this time, countless protests around the country in response to the Vietnam War and US laws on individual human rights being actively fought for. The 1968 Olympics were broadcast nationally and internationally through television and radio, giving athletes a platform to share their thoughts on issues around the world in front of a large audience of people. The international press the games were given was a tool used in international relations during the cold war. Acts of peaceful protest by popular athletes in sports is something that is still very prevalent in today's society.

Career
Following his track career, Carlos, a 15th-round selection in the 1970 NFL Draft, tried professional football, but a knee injury curtailed his tryout with the Philadelphia Eagles of the National Football League. He then went on to the Canadian Football League where he played one season for the Montreal Alouettes. Following his retirement from football, Carlos worked for Puma, the United States Olympic Committee, the Organising Committee of the 1984 Summer Olympics and the City of Los Angeles.

In 1985, Carlos became a counselor and in-school suspension supervisor, as well as the track and field coach, at Palm Springs High School in California. In 2003, he was elected to the National Track & Field Hall of Fame. In 2005, a statue titled Victory Salute showing Carlos and Smith on the medal stand was constructed by political artist Rigo 23 and dedicated on the campus of San Jose State University.

In 2006, John Carlos delivered a eulogy at Peter Norman's funeral and was also a pallbearer at the ceremony, as was Tommie Smith.

In 2007, John Carlos was honored at the Trumpet Awards in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Carlos is the godfather of Chicago White Sox General Manager Kenny Williams. Carlos and Williams' father ran track together in college.

In April 2008, Carlos was a torch-bearer for the Human Rights Torch, which ran in parallel to the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay and focusing attention on China's human rights record.

On July 16, 2008, John Carlos and Tommie Smith accepted the Arthur Ashe Award for Courage for their salute, at the 2008 ESPY Awards held at NOKIA Theatre L.A. LIVE in Los Angeles, California.

On October 10, 2011, Carlos spoke and raised his fist at Occupy Wall Street. He said: "Today I am here for you. Why? Because I am you. We're here forty-three years later because there's a fight still to be won. This day is not for us but for our children to come." The following day he appeared on MSNBC and on Current TV's Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

In July 2018, Carlos attended the Socialism 2018 conference hosted by the International Socialist Organization.

Personal life
Carlos married his first wife, Karen Benjamin "Kim" Groce, in 1965 when the two were still in high school. The two divorced in 1974, and in 1977, Kim committed suicide. He remarried to Charlene Norwood in 1984.

In 1986, Carlos was arrested for cocaine possession. After he was found guilty in court, he attended a drug rehabilitation program, after which his conviction was expunged

Carlos has identified with various religions, including a period of Catholicism that brought him into conflict with Black Power ideologies. He later stated that he is no longer a Christian.

title: John Carlos


text:
Tapanui

Tapanui is a small town in West Otago in New Zealand's South Island, close to the boundary with Southland region.

It is a forestry town at the foot of the Blue Mountains and the Pomahaka River. Popular pastimes include deer stalking and trout fishing.

Nearby locations include Landslip Hill, a fossil-bearing geologic feature.

History
For almost a hundred years, the town was serviced by the Tapanui Branch railway line, which despite its name never actually terminated in Tapanui. This line was formally opened in late 1880 and closed after being damaged by severe flooding in the region in October 1978. , which links at McNab, near Gore, to  at Raes Junction, passes through Tapanui.

In 2015, Tapanui was a filming location for the Disney production Pete's Dragon, with the main street and old timber mill serving as their equivalents in the fictional town of Millhaven.

Tapanui flu
In New Zealand the name Tapanui is closely associated with the mysterious ailment chronic fatigue syndrome, which — until it became an accepted ailment — was known as "Tapanui 'flu". The doctor who first documented the rise of the condition in New Zealand, Peter Snow, was based in the town.

Demographics
Tapanui is described by Statistics New Zealand as a rural settlement. It covers 1.97 km2, and had an estimated population of as of  with a population density of  people per km2. It is part of the much larger West Otago statistical area.

Tapanui had a population of 789 at the 2018 New Zealand census, an increase of 66 people (9.1%) since the 2013 census, and an increase of 45 people (6.0%) since the 2006 census. There were 351 households, comprising 381 males and 399 females, giving a sex ratio of 0.95 males per female, with 135 people (17.1%) aged under 15 years, 93 (11.8%) aged 15 to 29, 336 (42.6%) aged 30 to 64, and 219 (27.8%) aged 65 or older.

Ethnicities were 89.7% European/Pākehā, 14.8% Māori, 0.4% Pasifika, 1.5% Asian, and 3.4% other ethnicities. People may identify with more than one ethnicity.

Although some people chose not to answer the census's question about religious affiliation, 51.0% had no religion, 38.4% were Christian, 0.4% had Māori religious beliefs, 0.8% were Hindu, 0.8% were Muslim, 0.8% were Buddhist and 0.8% had other religions.

Of those at least 15 years old, 63 (9.6%) people had a bachelor's or higher degree, and 180 (27.5%) people had no formal qualifications. 51 people (7.8%) earned over $70,000 compared to 17.2% nationally. The employment status of those at least 15 was that 279 (42.7%) people were employed full-time, 114 (17.4%) were part-time, and 15 (2.3%) were unemployed.

Education
Tapanui School is a co-educational state primary school for Year 1 to 6 students, with a roll of as of. The school was established in 1868, became Tapanui District High School in 1902, and split into the current school and Blue Mountain College in 1976.

Blue Mountain College is a co-educational state secondary school for Year 7 to 13 students, with a roll of.

title: Tapanui


text:
Ocoee

Ocoee may refer to:

 * Ocoee, Florida
 * Ocoee, Tennessee
 * Ocoee Middle School, in Cleveland, Tennessee
 * Ocoee Street Historic District
 * Toccoa/Ocoee River in Georgia and Tennessee
 * USS Ocoee (SP-1208), a United States Navy patrol vessel in commission from 1917 to 1918
 * Ocoee, the Cherokee term for the Passiflora incarnata (Purple passionflower)

title: Ocoee


text:
Čáslav

Čáslav (Tschaslau) is a town in Kutná Hora District in the Central Bohemian Region of the Czech Republic. It has about 11,000 inhabitants. The historic town centre is well preserved and is protected by law as an urban monument zone.

Administrative parts
Čáslav is made up of the town parts of Čáslav-Nové Město ("New Town") and Čáslav-Staré Město ("Old Town"), and the village of Filipov.

Etymology
The name is derived from the personal name Čáslav.

Geography
Čáslav is located about 9 km southeast of Kutná Hora and 30 km southwest of Pardubice. It lies in a flat agricultural landscape of the Central Elbe Table. The Brslenka Stream flows through the town and supplies several ponds, including Podměstský in the town centre. The Klejnárka River crosses the western part of the municipal territory.

History
The history of Čáslav begins in the 9th century with the founding of a gord and settlement called Hrádek. In the 11th century, it became a Přemyslid administrative centre. A new royal town with a huge square was founded by King Ottokar II of Bohemia next to Hrádek in around 1250. In 1421, Bohemian parliament debated in Čáslav and voted in a new Hussite government.

Two large fires in 1452 and 1522 severely damaged the town. During the Thirty Years' War, in 1639 and 1642, Čáslav was devastated and burnt down by Swedish troops. The town however recovered and in 1715, Čáslav became the centre of a region.

Jewish population
From the 14th century there was a Jewish settlement in Čáslav, but in the 15th century the Jews were expelled. In the middle of the 19th century, only one Jewish family lived in the town. After the equality of the Jews in 1867, many from the area moved to the town of Čáslav. Around 1893, 245 Jews lived in the town, which was about 1–2% of the population.

Air base
To the northeast of the town, there is an active air base of the Czech Air Force, called the 21st Tactical Air Force Base. This base is responsible for protecting the airspace of the Czech Republic.

Transport
Čáslav is located on the interregional railway line Prague–Žďár nad Sázavou. It is also the starting point of a line of local importance to Třemošnice.

Sport
The town's football club, FK Čáslav, plays on the fourth tier of the Czech football system.

Notable is the Athletics Club Čáslav. Two of its most known sportswomen are Ludmila Formanová and Jarmila Kratochvílová, both World Champions in 800 m sprint.

Sights
The Church of Saints Peter and Paul is an early Gothic building from the end of the 13th century. The building included the Romanesque Church of St. Michael from the 11th century (today's sacristy), which originally stood here.

The town area was delimited by walls, which are preserved in one third of their original length. A unique monument of the Čáslav Gothic fortifications is the cylindrical Otakar's Tower, which stood at the Brod Gate.

Čáslav Town Museum, one of the oldest regional museums in Bohemia, was founded in 1864. Its building is from 1884.

The synagogue was built between 1899 and 1900 in Moorish style, designed by architect Wilhelm Stiassny. It was used until 1939 by the local Jewish community, which was then almost totally wiped out during the Holocaust. After World War II the abandoned building saw use as a warehouse, and then (between 1970–1989) as a gallery. In 1994, however, it was returned to the Jewish Community in Prague and has recently been restored.

In 1910, part of the skull of the Hussite general Jan Žižka was discovered in Čáslav parish church. The skull is exhibited in Žižka's Hall of Čáslav Town Hall.

Notable people

 * Jan Ladislav Dussek (1760–1812), composer and pianist
 * Antonín Chittussi (1847–1891), Impressionist painter
 * Rudolf Těsnohlídek (1882–1928), writer
 * Jiří Mahen (1882–1939), writer
 * Jaroslav Eminger (1886-1964), military officer
 * František Moravec (1895–1966), military intelligence officer
 * Josef Svoboda (1920–2002), scenographer
 * Eli Urbanová (1922–2012), poet, novelist and Esperantist
 * Antonín Rükl (1932–2016), astronomer
 * Miloš Forman (1932–2018), film director
 * Jarmila Kratochvílová (born 1951), athlete
 * Ludmila Formanová (born 1974), athlete
 * David Jarolím (born 1979), footballer

Twin towns – sister cities
Čáslav is twinned with:
 * Opfikon, Switzerland

title: Čáslav


text: Category:Towns in Lancashire

title: Category:Towns in Lancashire


text:
Talk:Biological classification/Archive 1

A new classification table - Jul 2002
A new classification table is at Hominid. --maveric149

I took out that insect orders end in -odea, because with only five or so exceptions, they don't.

I was talking about those orders that are named for genera. The divisions of fungi aren't named for genera, AFAICT, but it's specified in the ICBN that if they do, they end in -mycota (as the existing ones do). The endings of orders aren't specified by the ICZN, but those of fishes and birds are formed by adding -formes to the stem of a genus name. The orders of insects that are named for genera end in -odea; others end in -ptera or other endings. -phma

The classification of Homo sapiens - Sep 2002
''In the classification of Homo sapiens, minor morphological differences below the significance of Species are known as Subspecies, Races, and Subraces. Examples are the Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa, containing the Sanid (Bushmen) race; and the Lappish subrace of arctic Europe.''

Two things wrong with this. One, subspecies don't apply specifically to people, but to all sorts of different things, as with subclasses, subfamilies, and the like. Two, I don't believe there has been any concensus on how or even whether to divide Homo sapiens in such a manner, so examples are not going to be especially worthwhile.

-- Josh Grosse

 * Please sign your entries, so I can associate a person with the statements. -- done.

 * As to your first point, if the 'subspecies' classification applies to "all sorts of different things", then it should be added to the "seven layers" to make eight layers. In any case, I'd like to see a professional's definition of this term, not just the ramblings of me, a layperson.

The difference is that subspecies isn't a primary layer, in the sense that every organism is assigned to one category for each of the seven ranks, but not everything is divided into subspecies. There are a lot of ranks like that - off the top of my head

 * Domain
 * Kingdom
 * Subkingdom
 * Superphylum
 * Phylum / Division
 * Subphylum / Subdivision
 * Superclass

 * Class
 * Subclass
 * Infraclass
 * Superorder
 * Order
 * Suborder
 * Infraorder
 * Superfamily
 * Family
 * Subfamily
 * Tribe
 * Subtribe
 * Genus
 * Subgenus
 * Species
 * Subspecies
 * Race
 * Subrace

have all definitely been used to rank taxa - probably there are a few more, and nobody would be confused by the introduction of something like infratribes if they were truly needed. I think you can agree it would be needless obfuscation to try and expand the main seven to include all these extras.

 * As to the second point, I agree that a formal, accepted classification of the morphological subtypes of Man has yet to be done. However, the term 'race', and to a lesser extent, 'subrace', is, I believe, widely used in the literature of physical anthropology, among other sciences, and therefore also belongs in the article.

 * You may disagree with my example, but you should not remove 'race' from the article, because without morphological classification, overall classification is imprecise. Cladistics, for example, become confused in the absence of consideration of subspecies, race, and subrace. David 21:01 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)

That's fair. I'll mention them in the article, and should a better example come up somebody can add it.

 * Thanks. I've made some unrelated additions that you might want to review for accuracy. David 18:53 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

The classification of Homo sapiens - Nov 26 2002
I've added some details to the example of the classification of Homo sapiens. I have put them in the correct order, but I do not know the 'sub' names of the classification labels. Please, someone, add these. David 16:12 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

I've added ranks for the lower two groups. The other taxa you've added don't have definite ranks, so I've taken them out.

Josh Grosse, thank you. David 19:49 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

Creating a nomeclature in a scientific discipline - 15 Sep 2004
Why not consider that scientific classification is creating a nomeclature in a scientific dicipline, and there are as many of them as disciplines, nearly.

Just a fex examples (URLs) to check togehter with the relevant literature

http://www.anthro.palomar.edu/animal/default.htm classification of living things bevezetés a taxonómia elvei, az emberi osztályozási kategóriáira való koncentrálással: linkek, glossary of terms http://www.cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/iau-spec.html Specifications concerning designations for astronomical radiation sources outside the solar system http://www.ciser.cornell.edu/ASPs/search_athena.asp dot fájlok http://www.classweb.loc.gov/Auto/ kongresszusi könyvtári osztályozási rendszer, el?fizetéses használat www.completedb.ttc.lv/""+url+"' complete ttc database, lett egyetem www.dbhs.wwusd.k12.ca.us/Nomenclature/Nomenclature.htm Kémiai nommenklatúra kollégium feladatainak tartalomjegyzéke www.dir.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Systematics_and_Taxonomy/ /Zoological_Nomenclature/ http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binominal_nomenclature Wikipedia, többnyelv? enciklopédia, Bionimal nomenclature biol˘gi ban a fajok megnevez‚s‚nek szabv nya & ep.llnl.gov/msds/orgchem/nomenclature.html Nomenclature linkgyjtem‚ny & fp.bio.utk.edu/mycology/Nomenclature/nom-intro.htm Botanikai n˘menklatŁra egyetemi bevezet‹ tananyag & fttp.dcs.shef.ac.uk/share/ilash/Moby/ a Moby projekt nyilv noss gra hozott eredm‚nyei moby hyphenator moby language moby part-of-speech moby pronounciator moby thesaurus moby words rpoject gutenbeng gutenberg.net/browse/BIBREC/ & google directory subject-specific schemes & home.earthlink.net/~misaak/taxonomy.html A bol˘giai n˘meklatŁra kl”nlegess‚gei & jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/lab/TaxonomyLab.html the nuts and bolts of taxonomy and classification tannyag & les.aston.ac.uk/extdic.html external dictionaries and term bank links t”bbnyelvre & lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/users/allen/spectral_classification.html the classification of stellar spectra & library.thinkquest.org/17940/atomic_nomenclature/atomic_nomeclature.thml atomic nomenclature k”nyvt ri t j‚koztat˘ anyag & palimpsest.stanford.edu/lex/ lexical and classification resources linkgyűjtem‚ny sz˘t rakr˘l ‚s oszt lyoz si rendszerekr‹l & people.ouc.bc.ca/woodcock/nomenclature/index-2.htm Basic Organic Nomenclature alapvet‹ szervesanyag n˘menklatŁra & planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/ a bolyg˘k n˘menklatŁr ja & planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/asteroids/gaspTOC.html USGS GASPRA Nomenclature bolygk f”ldrajzi nevei? & publish.aps.org/PACS/pacsgen.html cikk az APS Journals-ban Physics and Atsronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) let”lthet‹ & s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/my-zshop/ intelligent entertainment oxford english dictionary & science.widener.edu/svb/pset/nome_b.html Vegyi n˘menklatŁra chemical nomenclature & sln.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/classify/classify.html oszt lyoz si tananyag, multim‚di s, gyerekeknek & tsk.fi/en/index.html the finnish centre for technical terminology & us.expasy.org/enzyme/ Enzyme nomenclature database & uscode.house.gov/uscct.htm amerikai t”rv‚ynek united states code classification tables & uwasa.fi/comm/termino/collect/ terminology collection online dictionaries & vizier.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/Dic Az ‚gitestek n˘menklatŁra sz˘t ra & www.acdlabs.com/iupac/nomenclature/ IUPAC szerves k‚mia n˘menklatŁra &

www.acm.org/class/1998/ The ACM computing classification sstem (1998-as v ltozat) ‚rv‚nyes 2003-ban & www.acog.org/from_home/departments/dept_web.cfm?recno=6 ACOG Coding and Nomenclature american college of obstetricians and gynecologists & www.ams.org/mathweb/mi-mathbyclass.html matrials organized by mathematical subject classification & www.amsta.leeds.ac.uk/~charles/statlog/ machine learning neural and statistical clasfication k”nyv let”lthet‹, eu projekt & www.amw.org/msc/ 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification & www.andrews.com/kysc/terms.html Nautical Nomenclature vitorl z si szakkifejez‚sek sz˘szedete a glossary of sailing terminology & www.arev.org t”bbnyelvű port l az eu sjogszab lyokhoz az eur˘pai bortermel‹ r‚gi˘k gyűl‚se (arev) & www.astrolog.org/labyrinth/glossary.htm labiirintus sz˘tr labirintus algoritmuosk is vannak & www.bacterio.cict.fr/ bakt‚tium nevek jegyz‚ke a n˘menklatŁr ban elfoglalt helykkel egytt & www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/default.htm Botanikai n˘meklatŁra nemzetk”zi k˘dja (a T˘ki˘ k˘d) aktu lis v ltozat neve St. Louis Code & www.biodiversity.soton.ac.uk/sp2000/DynamicChecklistSearch.html organizmusok tudom nyos nev‚t lehet f‹bb cosportokban megk‚rdezni &

www.biosis.org.uk/zrdocs/codes/codes.htm Codes of Nomenclature ide a woedb‹l az aktu lisakat & www.biosis.org.uk/zrdocs/zoolinfo/syst_tax.htm Biosis sytematics, taxonomy and Nomenclature & www.bls.gov/soc US department of labour standard occupational classification (soc) system feor & www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd9.htm National center for Health statistics classifications of diseases and functioning and diability & www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02htm az ipari k˘dsz mok ‚s megnevez‚sek & www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html NAICS North American Industry Classification system & www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/2carb/ Sz‚nhidr tok n˘menklatŁr ja & www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iubmb/enzyme/ NC-IUBMB enzim n˘menklatŁr ja & www.chem.umr.edu/~poly/nomenclature.html POLY - Nomenclature Committee & www.chem.vt.edu/RVGS/ACT/notes/Nmenclature.html egyetemi jegyzet a vegy‚szeti n˘menklatŁr r˘l (nyelvr‹l) & www.chemqmw.ac.uk/iupac/ IUOPAC elm‚leti ‚s alkalmazott k‚mia nemzetk”zi Łni˘ja javaslatai a szerves, biok‚miai n˘menklaŁr ra, jelekre ‚s terminol˘gi ra, stb. & www.classification-society.org/ international federation of classification societies honlapja & www.clres.com/ Cpmputational lexicons research naygon fontops anyagok & www.clres.com/singlex.html acl special interest group association for computational linguistics nagyon j˘ linkek, resources & www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/ wordnet a lexical database for the english language online lexical refernce system ftp-velűftp.cogsci.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/ & www.dagostini.it/patclass/patclass olasz szabadalmi sz m keres‹ hatnyelven & www.dsmz.de/bactnom/bactname.htm DSMZ legŁjabb baktr‚ium n˘menklatŁra & www.dsmz.de/dsmzhome.htm German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures & www.econlit.org/subject_descriptors.html econlit subject descriptor gazdas gi t‚mak”r”k taxonomi ja & www.english.bham.ac.uk/drc/ birmingham i egyetem dictionary research centre & www.ens-lyon.fr/LBMC/laudet/nomenc.html Nuclear Receptor Nomenclature Homepage & www.fgdc.gov/standards/status/sub5_8html biologiai n˘meklatŁra ‚s taxon˘miai adat szabv nyok & www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/ HUGO Gene NomenclatŁra bizotts g minden emberi g‚nnek ‚rtelmes nevet ad˘ szervezet & www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/guidelines.html Guidelines fo Human gene Nomenclatue (2002) & www.gutenberg.net/ free online literature & www.gutenberg.net/ free online literature & www.hgvs.org/mutnomen/ Nomenclature for the description of sequence variations http://lists.mokk.bme.hu/mailman/listinfo/hunglish-corpus levelez? lista

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/NNV/UN-NNV_ABC.html Nomenclature of Naval Vessels – hajózási értelmez? szakszótár www.ibiblio.org/patents/ Index to manual classification of patents www.iczn.org Zoológiai nomenklatúra, nemzetközi bizotság nómenklatúrája a www.iczn.org/code.htm helyen www.ifla.org/VII/s29/sci.htm classification and indexing section of international federation of library associations and instituions www.imm.ki.se/CYPalleles/ Human Cytochrome P450 (CYP) Allele nómenklatúra bizottság www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/fam/revfam.html Vascular Plant Family Nomenclature www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/pb250/nomc.html PBIO 250 jegyzet Nomenclature nemzetközi botanikai növénytan ICBN www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/ Mouse Nomenclature Home Page MGI MOuse Genome Informatics www.ishs.org/sci/icralist/icralist.htm Directory of ICRAs International Cultivar Authorities ISHS Commission Registration ISHS International Society for Horticultural Science and Nomenclature www.iupac.org/divsions/IV/IV.1/ IUPAC sucommittee on macromolecular terminology www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco.html Library of congress classification outline www.lub.lu.se/metadat/subject-help.html controlled vocabularies, thesauri and classification systems available in the www. dc subject dublin core www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~chris/MR/MR.html 1991 mathematics subject classification www.nauticom.net.users/jihall/bill/ions.htm ion n˘menklatŁra www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTV/intro_to_universal/virus_nomenclature.html Virus Nomenclature www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/nlmclassif.html national library of medicine nlm classification online www.nps.gov/legacy/nomenclature.html nemzeti park egységeinek rendszerbe foglalt kategóriái, értelmez? szótár az egységekr?l www.nursingworld.org/ojin/tpc7_1.htm ápolási módokról cikk és osztályozási kategóriák www.oclc.org/dewey/ Dewey Services, Dewey decimal Classification www.opm.gov/fedclass/ office of personnel management of the US gov. federal classification systems - munkakörök, foglalkozások besorolása & www.osha.gov/oshstats/sicser.html Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system Search occupational safety and health administration US department of labor - iparágak foglalkozási ágak, tevékenységek www.peterme.com/archives/00000063.html cikk - inovation in classification peter memes www.pitt.edu/~csna/csna.html Classification Society of North America www.redsun.com/type/classification/ bet?típusok osztályozása www.rtpcompany.com/info/data/number.htm RTP Company m?anyaggyártó - compounded thermoplastic products RTP product numbering company nomenclature syntax www.shodor.org/unchem/basic/nomen/ Nomenclature, egyetemi tananyag, kémiai www.sid.camac.uk/bca/bcahome.htm bliss clasification association honlapja www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb4/Labs/Classification_Lab/classification_lab.h lab.html oszt lyoz stani tananyag & www.snomed.org SNOMED International a College of ASmerican Pathologists (CAP) r‚szlege szabv nyos nyelv a betegs‚gek leˇr s ra & www.ss.astro.umd.edu/IAU/csbn/ IAU Division III Committee on Small Body Nomenclature & www.statsoftinc.com/textbook/stclatre.thml classification trees tananyag & www.udcc.org az eto honlapja & www.ukoln.ac.uk./metadata/desire/classification/ desire re 1004 te role of classification schemes in internet resource description and discovery & www.uspto.gov/go/classification/ usa szabadalmi hivatalnak oszt lyoz si rndszere egytt van a v‚djegyekkel & www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/roman_names.html R˘mai (n‚v) n˘menklatŁra & www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/nom.html biobib nomenclature of biofuel names & www.wave.net/upg/immigration/sic_index.html standard inustrial classification (sic) ndex & www.wipo.int/classifications/fulltext/new_ipc ipc 7 english version IPC Nice Vienna Locarn nemzetk”z szabadalmi oszt lyoz s IPC & www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/Sites/TreeDBS/Botanic/botanic.html Botanikai m˘nemklatŁra a f kr˘l, tudomnyo ‚s k”znevek & www.worldprintmakers.com/english/nomencla.htm Glossary of printmaking nomenclature and abbreviations & www.zoonome.net/ Zoonomen Zool˘giai n˘meklatŁra gyűjtem‚ny & www23.hhrdc-drhc.gc.ca/ national occupational classification & www23.hrdc_drhc.gc.ca/2001/e/generic/welcome.shtml national occupational classification of canada & xml.coverpages.org/classification.html resource description and classification xml fors

--- Now the best use of these nomenclatures is that they are automatically suitable for the assemmbly of multi-lingual dictionaries, since they have a structure of numeric identifiers, and are therefore a professional product in comparison with wiktionary, a crazy crap, if you ask me.

Apogr 17:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A merger with Linnaean taxonomy? - Jan 2003 - May 2004
Is there any reason this article shouldn't be merged with Linnaean taxonomy? --Ryguasu 01:24 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * If anything the opposite should happen; Scientific classification is an updated version of Linnaean taxonomy. --mav

 * Either way I've looked at both and they should at least cross refer with an explanation or the degree of repetition will get worse --(talk to)BozMo 12:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Separation of Linnaean taxonomy and Scientific classification? - Jun - Jul 2003
Moved from the Reference desk

Is there any reason why we have to separate articles on Linnaean taxonomy and Scientific classification? I'm guessing that Linnaean is an older system superceded by the neutrally-termed scientific classification. But then I'm no biologist. —seav 00:47 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Some common names are more inclusive or exclusive than their scientific "counterparts". Maybe somebody can fill you in with an example. --Menchi 00:50 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't see how Menchi's answer answers the question. There's a branch of biology called cladistics that's starting to steal Linnaeus's show, and I have seen it proposed as an outright replacement.  (I really don't see how the hierarchial Linnaean system can be discarded altogether, but it's really late at night, and I shouldn't be saying that a noted paleontologist is full of hot air.)  Of little practical interest, but of good encyclopedic interest, are systems of classification that preceded Linnaeus.
 * The other problem that jumps out at me is that this article is titled Scientific classification, not Taxonomic. Scientists classify lots of things - off the top of my head, stellar classification - but taxonomy is just the most elaborate and best-known such system.
 * That said, the text of the two articles must certainly be merged, but turning one of the two pages into a redirect is not appropriate. -Smack 07:28 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Apparently I didn't answer the Q at all! I misread seav's question as to why we need to have articles on scientific names when there exist already articles on common names. >_< --Menchi 01:42 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * So, ignoring cladistics for the meantime, there is nothing different between the Linnaean system and the "scientific classification"? So I guess that these two should be merged? (mav says otherwise) —seav 06:14 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

>>From Mav's talk page

The wrong title!
'''There should be more on "Linnaeus himself" at the other place (see its talk page too). As a non-specialist (or a lay visitor to Wiki) I would expect the title Linnaean taxonomy to cover the biological taxonomy that Linnaeus set out. I would expect there links to a page with title Biological taxonomy presenting the very latest in popst-Linnaean taxonomy, including everything in this article (i.e. currently called Scientific classification) and what is presently at Linnaean taxonomy, specifically the sum total of all the ranks and "subranks" (I mean including this huge table of all the weird ones you have there, in between the main ranks in the famous diagram. I have put this comment there too. The title Scientific classification should be on the disambiguation page only; it is too vague for anybody to reasonably expect it to refer uniquely to one particular area (what this article does at the moment). Iph 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)iph

Both Scientific classification and linnaean taxonomy - Aug 2003 - Feb 2004
Scientific classification: Could you expand a bit more on the talk page of that article why do we need both it and linnaean taxonomy? Ad verecundiam I'd tend to belive you, given your bs in bs, but I'd like more info (as do some more people there still discussing the matter). --One that is supposed to be gone, but is too much of a wikipediholic to do it

 * I didn't say that - I said that if there is to be a merger then everything from linnaean taxonomy should be put into Scientific classification. But if linnaean taxonomy is to still be an article then it should concentrate on Linnaeus' actual proposal and not all the modern stuff. --mav

 * I'd say that having Linnaean taxonomy talk just about Linnaeus is a pretty good idea. Then this article should be made a disambiguation page linking to something like taxonomy or taxonomic classification, as well as stellar classification, classification of minerals, and whatever other classification systems there are. Smack, who is also supposed to be gone

 * I agree. You have two articles discussing exactly the same thing (biological, linnaean classification), and one Linnaean taxonomy reads better in several parts. Most of the biological stuff should be taken out of this place except for links. Linnaean taxonomy can then lead into modern taxoniomy treatments and cladistics, which already exists as such in a very good article elsewhere in Wikipedia. If I am encouraged, I'd be happy to do the work, but there are too many good people involved in creating this page for me to just jump in and do the editing.  Marshman 20:31, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't agree. This page should not be a disambiguation page. Linnaean taxonomy is a dated concept that has been replaced by scientific classification. See my suggestion above. --mav 01:55, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry. I was not suggesting a disambiguation page. I think the two subjects have so much in common, that with respect to biological classification (taxonomy), there only needs to be one page on the subject, or if two, then one covering just Linnaean and the other more modern treatments (although I'm uncertain just how different these are that "Scientific Classification" is some kind of radical departure in methodology) up to cladistic approaches, which have their own article already. I think I'm agreeing with your previous comment above, where you want to preserve the article title as Scientific Classification and either merge in Linnaean taxonomy or greatly simplify that article. -- Marshman 02:54, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree with Marshman and Maveric149. We don't need a separate article on Linnaean taxonomy. We only need to preserve the article on Linnaeus himself. RK 03:45, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * And to clarify my position (and after going back and re-reading the articles) we should merge as Mav suggests, the Linnaean material into Scientific Clasification. However, material in Linnaean taxonomy should be moved with care and not just trashed — It is well written. - Marshman 05:46, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Are you just maliciously ignoring my reminders that taxonomy is not the only form of scientific classification, or do you have a good reason? Also, do you plan to discard the information regarding Linnaeus's original classification? -Smack 20:52, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * If there is to be stuff written about scientific classification in the abstract or about classification systems not oriented toward biological species, then I think that should be on a different page and we should do some disambiguation. "Scientific classification" isn't an abstract term that biologists attach out of lazy habit to a system of classifying species. It's a technical term with which they refer to precisely that.168... 05:23, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Not I. I thought your point was a very good one. Can you put on the Scientific Classification page at least a starter paragraph on that to be sure it does not get lost if pieces start getting shifted about.  It sounds like a good way to actually start the page: a general presentation of the definition/concept re all sciences, not just biological taxonomy - Marshman 21:26, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * For example, see List of particles for another specialty's need for a "Scientific classification".  Maybe Wikipedia articles named Scientific classification (biology), Scientific classification (particle physics), etc. ? Bevo 19:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could add a description of the difficulty in classifying microbes: their features are derived from direct visual observation, but include such procedural characteristics as Gram stain type, motility, ability to form spores, etc. However, given an unknown bacterium with a given set of characteristics, it is in general not possible to predict its phylogeny, toxicity, etc. Other methods, using genes, their DNA, and several types of RNA, are under development.

The species name both the Genus and species - 28 Aug 2003
I added a statement that one of the reasons why the species name is actually both the Genus and species name of the organism, is that sometimes the exact same species name (but never both Genus and species names) is used in different species (fishes are notorious for this :). There's probably a better way to note this however. Rgamble

I believe you are incorrect in your basic understanding (although what you say is correct). An organism is not a "species" in the same sense as the species level of taxonomic organisation. A species is named by the binomial Genus species — Genus being the name and species being a descriptor (an adjective). As a descriptor, there is no reason not to be reused for lots of different organisms, just like "red" could apply to shoes or cars or walls without confusion - Marshman 20:17, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I've been looking for the best place to make a comment. I strongly dislike the list of taxonomy ending with 'species = G. species" because the 'G' is the genus, not species.  This is the format used in all the wikipedia pages.  Although it's a huge number of pages to change, I believe they should be changed as they are edited.  When we have a list from kingdom down to species, the Genus initial is INCORRECT.  The binomial is right below it, and that is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talk • contribs)
 * This is not the correct place for this comment. Try WP:TOL and template talk:taxobox. You'll find the vast majority of us disagree with you. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, this is not the place for the comments. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Associate pages, like Family (biology)
The content on pages like Class (biology) and Family (biology) are almost entirely duplicates of the content here, and of each other, to the point where someone has listed one of the KPCOFGS acronyms on the latter. Instead of this duplication of effort, I'd like to suggest that they redirect here. They did at one point, but Node ue restored them over the objections of Stan and myself. We need a larger concensus on the matter, one direction or another. Josh

 * I wholeheartedly agree. The ones that were redirects previously should (unless any significant real work is present) be returned to redirects. Might want to mention it on WP:TOL as well, though. - UtherSRG 19:48, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with redirects. - MPF 22:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or to Linnaean taxonomy? 68.81.231.127 23:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * This would only be correct for a small number of the links. It would be better to redirect to here and then those who are interested in the historical usage can go to the Linnaean article. - UtherSRG 01:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it makes a lot of difference, but I'm not sure why it's incorrect. 68.81.231.127 02:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then. I think the three of you, plus Stan, are enough support to justify keeping them as redirects for the time being. Much of their content isn't appropriate anyways, since it repeats info for the entire set of ranks (like the acronyms), as well as included controversial ones like domain at the top. The pages can always be reverted if some substantial info on the rank in question shows up - though I don't think it's possible for most ranks; what a family is depends on the order. They can also be changed back if some unexpected support appears here. Historically, Tannin and node had restored them from redirects, but it's clear they're a minority by themselves. Josh
 * Darn it I wanted to link to Class (biology) but there's no point now. Kappa 05:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Scientific" Classification"?
Shouldn't this topic just simply be titled "Biological Classification". The entire article is based on the classifiation of organisms. I feel that "Scientific" classification is too vague, general or both, and doesn't apply to the article described here. I feel the term is really ill defined and a can of worms in that classification is not really scientific or not scientific. It's rather a procedure used to group things, and the purpose of so doing may or may not be scientific. Jeeb 2 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

 * 'Scientific Classification' is the term used in the fields of biology and taxonomy. - UtherSRG July 3, 2005 23:27 (UTC)

 * I also proposed this. I even changed this articles name into Biological classification but they changed it back. See also: Talk:Biological classification. The argument then and this argument now is hardly satisfying.... Mdd 12:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

More than a year later, I agree that this article should be titled "Biological taxonomy". The title "Scientific" Classification" is far too general. This is exacerbated if one follows the link to "folk taxonomy" which, we are told there, "can be contrasted with scientific taxonomy". Where does the phrase "scientific taxonomy" take us? To the article "Taxonomy". Clearly the word "taxonomy" is appropriate (and in my opinion mandatory) as the title for the subject of this article. Not all scientific classification is according to the Linnaean model; that which is, described here, is limited to the biological; and that would leave the "Scientific" Classification (disambiguation)" page not requiring the word "(disambiguation)" in its title. Iph 19:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)iph

Modern developments
Gdr added the following text, which I have moved here for the moment:

 * The general approach Linnaeus took to classifying species and many of his taxonomic groups have remained standard in biology for at least two centuries. It is now generally accepted that classification should reflect the Darwinian principle of common descent, so that taxa include a single section of the evolutionary tree.  Such groups are called monophyletic groups (see also paraphyletic and polyphyletic).

 * However, although the Linnean system continues to work well for living organisms, it copes less well when fossil species are attempted to be included. This is because biologists generally prefer taxa to be monophyletic — that is, to consist of all of the descendants of some ancestor. If all taxa are monophyletic then they form a nested hierarchy corresponding to the evolutionary tree, with each taxon corresponding to a branch of that tree. In the Linnean system the branches leading to a particular organisms need to be assigned different ranks, and for well-studied groups with good fossil records that are now many more named branches than there are ranks to put them in.

 * One approach to solving this is to multiply the number of ranks, for example by introducing new major ranks (branch, series, legion, cohort, tribe) and multiplying the prefixes that can be used to modify them (magna-, super-, grand-, sub-, infra-, nano-, parv-, mir-). This is the approach adopted by Systema Naturae 2000.

 * However, there is a problem with expanding the number of ranks. The Linnean system requires each taxon to be placed in taxa of every higher rank. But that makes little sense for many fossil species. For example, Ichthyornis is thought to be a close relative of the ancestors of the modern birds, Neornithes. Now Neornithes is a subclass, so in the Linnean system Ichthyornis must have its own subclass (Ichthyornithia?), order (Ichthyornithiformes), and family (Ichthyornithidae) as well. But placing them in separate subclasses exaggerates the difference between the Ichthyornis and other early birds such as Limenavis which if they were alive today might be placed in the same family.

 * An approach to solving this problem is to abandon the notion of ranks altogether, on the grounds that the branching tree of life is real but the notion of ranks is wholly artificial. In this approach, known as cladistic taxonomy, only monophyletic taxa or clades are used, and ranks are abandoned. This approach is widely used by paleontologists, and is used by the Tree of Life web project.

 * A formal code of nomenclature for cladistic taxonomy, the PhyloCode, has been proposed, but many of its rules are in conflict with established codes of nomenclature such as the international codes of zoological and botanical nomenclature, and it is unclear how the different codes will coexist.

Most of this should be returned to the article, but it badly needs to be reworked, and I don't have the time at the moment. The main problem is it operates on the assumption that taxa need to be monophyletic. It ignores the main problem in reconciling this with Linnaean taxonomy, which is that the nested hierarchy can't place ancestral forms in any of the subgroups. And it ignores the possibility that paraphyletic groups are ok, which many evolutionary biologists allow in theory or practice. For instance, I have not heard the argument that Homo sapiens needs to be classified as part of H. erectus, even if it developed from it. All in all, I think it needs balancing before we can include it. Josh

 * I agree. Gdr 17:22:35, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

 * Looks like a "tipped-over bookcase" to me. What is here is mostly from a zoological perspective. From a botanical point of view it is terribly wrong. I don't think this can be salvaged without splitting it.
 * PvR Sep 2005

 * Please explain what you mean. Also, please sign your "talk" edits with ~ . - UtherSRG (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Correction to Aristotle Reference, Sept. 19, 2005
I suggest deleting the reference to Averroes and Aristotle. Aristotle's work De Anima is his treatise On the Soul, not on animals, and contains no discussion of animal classification. Averroes is well known for his commentary on the Aristotelian theory of mind.

However, elsewhere Aristotle did make significant contributions to the study of taxonomy, and his work The History of Animals deals extensively with the classification of living things.

A helpful list of articles on Aristotle's taxonomy can be found in The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, edited by Jonathan Barnes (Cambridge University Press, 1995). See the bibliography, page 336. (ISBN 0-521-42294-9; ISBN 0-521-41133-5)

Comment by Glen Koehn, email: gkoehn(AT SYMBOL)gkoehn.com

sect.
Section (biology) redirected here, but this page doesn't cover sections. Snottygobble | Talk 22:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
User:Popemobile

I've been reading through the Wiki lately. I just find this idea really groovy and want to help out.

title: User:Popemobile


text: Template:Germany districts Lower Saxony

title: Template:Germany districts Lower Saxony