text:
The Bloody Chamber

The Bloody Chamber (or The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories) is a collection of short fiction by English writer Angela Carter. It was first published in the United Kingdom in 1979 by Gollancz and won the Cheltenham Festival Literary Prize. The stories are all based on fairytales or folk tales. However, Carter has stated:

"My intention was not to do 'versions' or, as the American edition of the book said, horribly, 'adult' fairy tales, but to extract the latent content from the traditional stories."

The collection contains ten stories: "The Bloody Chamber", "The Courtship of Mr Lyon", "The Tiger's Bride", "Puss-in-Boots", "The Erl-King", "The Snow Child", "The Lady of the House of Love", "The Werewolf", "The Company of Wolves" and "Wolf-Alice".

The tales vary greatly in length, with the novelette "The Bloody Chamber" being "more than twice the length of any of the other stories, and more than thirty times the length of the shortest [the vignette "The Snow Child"]."

The collection's contents are also reprinted in Carter's Burning Your Boats.

Story summaries
The stories within The Bloody Chamber are explicitly based on fairy tales. Carter was no doubt inspired by the works of author and fairytale collector Charles Perrault, whose fairy tales she had translated shortly beforehand.

The Bloody Chamber
(Based on "Bluebeard".)

The narrator, a beautiful teenage girl, marries an older, wealthy French Marquis, who met her while she was playing the piano at a tea-party. Her governess, though pleased she has made a good match, notes the Marquis has formerly wed three women, all of whom died in mysterious circumstances. He gifts his bride a choker made of rubies, warning her against taking it off, and takes her to his coastal castle in Brittany, where she discovers his collection of pornographic engravings and paintings. He takes pleasure in her embarrassment, and they consummate their marriage that night, in a bedroom filled with white lilies and mirrors. The following morning, he hears of urgent business he must attend to in New York. When he leaves, he entrusts her with a chain of keys, telling her she can use them to go about the castle as she wishes. He forbids her from using a certain key, telling her it opens his private den. She tries to grow accustomed to her new-found decadence, but, being a talented pianist, feels most comfortable with the blind piano-tuner. Closer to her age, he lives in a nearby town and, after tuning the piano her husband gave to her as a wedding present, asks to hear her play once in a while. But still, her husband's absence makes her feel melancholy, and she telephones her mother. Afterwards, she starts going through the Marquis' things in order to learn more about him. After going through his desk, she learns more of his previous wives, which pushes her to take the forbidden key and enter his chamber. She soon realizes the full extent of his perverse and murderous tendencies when she discovers the bodies of his previous wives, presented in gruesome ways, some of which are surrounded by the same white lilies the Marquis filled her own room with. In her shock, she drops the key, staining it with the blood on the floor. When she meets the piano-tuner again, she confides the newly discovered secret to him. Before the two can flee, the Marquis returns home, his business trip having been cut short. Unable to clean the blood from the key, the Marquis discovers that she has entered the bloody chamber and presses the key into her forehead, leaving a red mark. He decides to kill her by execution upon a chopping block. The brave piano tuner is willing to stay and accompany her even though he knows he will not be able to save her. She is saved at the last moment at the end of the story by her mother, who bursts into the castle and shoots the Marquis just as he is about to behead the girl in the courtyard. The girl, her mother, and the piano tuner go on to live together and the young widow opens a little music school on the outskirts of Paris. Most of the money she inherited is given away to various charities and the castle is turned into a school for the blind. However, the girl is still stained with a red mark on her forehead with the key.

The Courtship of Mr Lyon
(Based on Beauty and the Beast – the concept of the Beast as a lion-like figure is a popular one, most notably in the French film version of 1946.)

Beauty's father, after experiencing car trouble, takes advantage of a stranger's hospitality. However, his benefactor – the Beast – take umbrage when he steals a miraculous white rose for his beloved daughter. Beauty becomes the guest of the leonine Beast, and the Beast aids her father in getting his fortune back. Beauty later joins her father in London, where she almost forgets the Beast, causing him to wither away from heartache. When Beauty learns that he is dying, she returns, saving him. Beauty and the Beast disclose their love for one another and the Beast's humanity is revealed. They live happily ever after.

The Tiger's Bride
(Also based on Beauty and the Beast. )

A woman moves in with a mysterious, masked "Milord", the Beast, after her father loses her to him in a game of cards. Milord is eventually revealed to be a tiger. In a reversal of the ending of "The Courtship of Mr Lyon", the heroine transforms at the end into a glorious tigress who is the proper mate to the Beast, who will from now on be true to his own nature and not disguise himself as a human. The story has similarities to the Indian story The Brahman Girl That Married a Tiger as well as ending elements of The Frog Prince.

Puss-in-Boots
(Based on "Puss in Boots" and similar to The Barber of Seville.)

Figaro, a cat, moves in with a rakish young man who lives a happily debauched life. They live a carefree existence, with the cat helping him to make money by cheating at cards, until the young man actually falls in love (to the cat's disgust) with a young woman kept in a tower by a miserly, older husband who treats her only as property. The cat, hoping his friend will tire of the woman if he has her, helps the young man into the bed of his sweetheart by playing tricks on the old husband and the young woman's keeper. Figaro himself finds love with the young woman's cat, and the two cats arrange the fortunes of both themselves and the young man and woman by arranging to trip the old man so that he will fall to his death.

Angela Carter had described Puss in Boots as "the Cat as Con Man... a masterpiece of cynicism... a Figaroesque valet – a servant so much the master already".

The Erl-King
(An adaptation of the Erlking in folklore; a sort of goblin or spirit of the woodlands.)

A maiden wanders into the woods and is seduced by the sinister Erl-King, a seeming personification of the forest itself. However, she eventually realises that he plans to imprison her by turning her into a bird, which he has done with other girls. Realising the Erl-King's plan, she kills him by strangling him with his own hair, thus keeping her freedom.

The Snow Child
(Has roots in various folktales, most apparently The Snow-child; The Snow, the Crow, and the Blood; and also tales such as Snegurochka and an obscure variant of Snow White. )

A Count and Countess go riding in midwinter. The Count sees snow on the ground and wishes for a child "as white as snow". Similar wishes are made when the Count sees a hole in the snow containing a pool of blood, and a raven. As soon as he made his final wish a young woman of the exact description appears at the side of the road. The Count pays immediate attention to her, much to the chagrin of the Countess. At the Countess' command, the girl picks a rose but is pricked by a thorn and dies, after which the Count rapes her corpse. After this, her cadaver melts into the snow, leaving nothing but a bloodstain on the snow, a black feather and the rose that she had picked.

The Lady of the House of Love
(Loosely based on "Sleeping Beauty" and more directly on a radio play called "Vampirella".)

A virginal English soldier, travelling through Romania by bicycle, finds himself in a deserted village. He comes across a mansion inhabited by a vampire who survives by enticing young men into her bedroom and feeding on them. She intends to feed on the young soldier but his purity and virginity have a curious effect on her. When they enter her bedroom she accidentally cuts herself and the soldier kisses it better. He wakes up to find her dead. He leaves to return to his battalion due to the outbreak of World War I.

The Werewolf
(Based on "Little Red Riding Hood".)

A girl goes to visit her grandmother, but encounters a werewolf on the way, whose paw she cuts off with a knife. When she reaches her grandmother's house, the paw has turned into a hand with the grandmother's ring on it, and the grandmother is both delirious and missing her hand. This reveals the girl's grandmother as the werewolf, and she is stoned to death. The girl then inherits all of her grandmother's possessions.

The Company of Wolves
(Closer adaptation of "Little Red Riding Hood".)

"Those are the voices of my brothers, darling; I love the company of wolves."

In the beginning of the piece, the wolf is described as an evil thing. One mini story in the beginning is about a witch who gets impregnated and left by a nobleman, who then visits his wedding and turns the whole wedding ceremony into wolves. She makes the wolves come to serenade her and the baby. In another mini story a young lady and a man are about to consummate their wedding night. As they get ready the husband says he needs to stop and relieve himself in the forest. The wife waits and he never returns. Off in the distance a wolf can be heard howling. She then concludes her husband will never return and marries a new man. With her new husband she bears children. Her first husband comes back and sees his wife. He then becomes furious, transforms into a wolf and bites the leg off the eldest child. Her second husband kills the wolf, who dies and looks exactly the same as he had when he disappeared; this makes her cry and her husband beats her. Later we meet a young girl walking in the woods who is "loved by everyone" and "[fears] nothing", who meets a handsome hunter who makes a deal with her; whoever can get to the grandmother's house first wins, and if the hunter wins she owes him a kiss. The protagonist lets the hunter win because she wants to kiss him. The hunter arrives at the protagonist's grandmother's house first, as planned, but tricks the woman to let him in. She is frail and sick, and holds a Bible in her hand to protect herself against any harm. The hunter is revealed to be a wolf and eats the grandmother, then waits for the girl. When she arrives, she notices her grandmother's hair in the fire and knows the wolf has killed her. He threatens to kill and eat her too, but she laughs in his face and proceeds to seduce him, stripping off their clothes and throwing them into the fire. The last lines are "See! sweet and sound she sleeps in granny's bed, between the paws of the tender wolf."

Wolf-Alice
(Based on an obscure variant of "Little Red Riding Hood" and with reference to Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, this tale explores the journey towards subjectivity and self-awareness from the perspective of a feral child.)

A feral child, whom some nuns have attempted to "civilise" by trying to teach her standard social graces, is left in the house of a monstrous, vampiric Duke when she cannot conform. She gradually comes to realise her own identity as a young woman and human being, and even develops compassion for the Duke, going far beyond the nuns' stunted views of life.

Publication history
The Bloody Chamber was first published in 1979, though many of the stories within the collection are reprints from other sources, such as magazines, radio and other collections. Only two are completely original to this collection, though many were revised or changed slightly from their previously published versions for this collection.

The stories' various origins are listed below

 * "The Bloody Chamber" made its début in The Bloody Chamber.
 * "The Courtship of Mr Lyon" originally appeared in the British version of Vogue. It was revised for this collection.
 * "The Tiger's Bride" made its début in The Bloody Chamber.
 * "Puss-in-Boots" was intended for a 1979 anthology The Straw and the Gold, edited by Emma Tennant, but the anthology was never published.
 * "The Erl-King" originally appeared in Bananas. It was revised for this collection.
 * "The Snow Child" was originally broadcast on the BBC Radio 4 programme Not Now, I'm Listening. It was revised for this collection.
 * "The Lady of the House of Love" originally appeared in print in The Iowa Review. However, it was originally written as a radio play entitled Vampirella which was broadcast on BBC Radio 3 in 1976. The story was revised from the previous printed version for this collection.
 * "The Werewolf" originally appeared in South-West Arts Review. It was revised for this collection.
 * "The Company of Wolves" originally appeared in Bananas. It was revised for this collection.
 * "Wolf-Alice" originally appeared in Stand. It was revised for this collection.

Style and themes
The Bloody Chamber can be treated as a collection of short stories that speak to a bigger narrative that deals with issues of feminism and metamorphosis instead of a set of individual tales. Although each particular narrative deals with a different set of characters, the 'oppressed female seeking liberation' is a common theme and concept that is explored throughout the collection. The characters seem to blend into each other and become indistinguishable from one another when recognising this theme in the text.

In particular to Carter's writing style, Margaret Atwood states that Carter presents a "macabre" painting, filled with gruesome and melancholy prose. "Not for her Hemingway's clean, well-lighted place, or Orwell's clear prose like a pane of glass. She prefers instead a dirty, badly-lit place, with gnawed bones in the corner and dusty mirrors you'd best not consult." It shows throughout these short stories, Carter's dedication to dark towers and dusky landscapes. Carter herself admits to being a fan of both Gothic horror and Edgar Allan Poe in particular, including in her stories such elements as incest and cannibalism in order to call upon the Gothic tradition. As such, her prose is also influenced by post-modern conventions, shown through her frank unorthodoxy and twisted proclivities towards sex and sexuality, such as the constant implications of virginity and deflowering in both "The Bloody Chamber" and "The Tiger's Bride". Oftentimes, her writing is also considered to be something similar to magical realism in relation to the insertion of inexplicable magical elements. This is shown in "The Bloody Chamber" when the narrator is unable to clean the blood from what seems to be a normal key in a semi-realistic setting.

The time periods of the stories are early 20th century. For example, in "The Bloody Chamber" the existence of a transatlantic telephone implies a date of 1930 or later. On the other hand, the mention of painters such as Gustave Moreau and Odilon Redon, and of fashion designer Paul Poiret (who designs one of the heroine's gowns) all suggest a date before 1945. "The Lady of the House of Love" is clearly set on the eve of the First World War, and the young man's bicycle on which he arrives at the tradition-bound vampire's house is a symbol of the encroaching modernity which fundamentally altered European society after 1914.

Feminism
Angela Carter's short stories challenge the way women are represented in fairy tales, yet retain an air of tradition and convention through her voluptuously descriptive prose. For example, in the opening tale "The Bloody Chamber", which is a retelling of Bluebeard, Carter plays with the conventions of canonical fairy tales; instead of the heroine being rescued by the stereotypical male hero, she is rescued by her mother.

Carter effectively draws out the theme of feminism by contrasting traditional elements of Gothic fiction – which usually depicted female characters as weak and helpless – with strong female protagonists. By contrasting the barren and horrific atmosphere found typically within the Gothic to the strong heroines of her story, Carter is able to create sexually liberated female characters that are set against the more traditional backdrop of the fairy tale. In doing so, Carter reinvents the outdated conventions of fairy tales and offers insight on the archetypes and stereotypes of women in these well-known and celebrated stories. In particular, and especially in "The Bloody Chamber", Carter creates familial ties between her heroines and their mothers, where in the original fairy tales their mothers would have either died at the beginning of the story, or gone unmentioned. By creating and strengthening said bond, Carter inverts the trope of a lone woman and creates a chorus of agency, where once there was none. It is notable that the conventions Carter analyzes and reimagines are of a patriarchal nature. Many of the original fairy tales that she draws inspiration from illustrate female characters in a vulnerable, damsel-in-distress position. In giving her female characters more agency, Carter is directly responding to and critiquing these traditional patriarchal tropes.

The stories deal with themes of women's roles in relationships and marriage, their sexuality, coming of age and corruption. Stories such as "The Bloody Chamber" and "The Company of Wolves" explicitly deal with the horrific or corrupting aspects of marriage and/or sex and the balance of power within such relationships. Themes of female identity are explored in the "Beauty and the Beast" stories such as "The Tiger's Bride". In one instance, Beauty, the story's heroine, is described as removing the petals from a white rose as her father gambles her away; this is a seeming representation of the stripping away of the false layers of her personality to find her true identity, an image that finds a mirror in the story's fantastical conclusion.

Gothic fiction
Carter continues to toy with Gothic fiction and gender, in a way that utilizes classic Gothic symbolism to push the narrative forward. She writes of Gothic fiction that "characters and events are exaggerated beyond reality, to become symbols, ideas, and passions," all of which work towards the singular purpose of creating an uneasy atmosphere. In "The Bloody Chamber", she extrapolates on the importance of symbolism, by placing emphasis on images such as the ominous Gothic castle, the blood on the key, or a blood-red choker awarded the heroine as a wedding gift. As in the Gothic tradition, these artefacts foreshadow the story to come, and the fate of the heroine as she spills blood on the bed sheets after consummating her marriage, the blood of her husband's previous wives as she learns his dark secret, and the blood that is meant to be spilt from her neck, once the Marquis vows to chop her head off. Gothic images placed within these short stories emphasise terror and the gruesome, attempting to build an atmosphere, while also working to flip certain gendered tropes on their heads: in the end, it is the virgin's own blood, her feminine energy in the form of her mother and her quick thinking, that save her from a terrible fate.

Furthermore, Carter seems to draw heavily from the understanding of Gothic literature as following specific, gendered structures. As English Professor at University of Georgia Anne Williams states, "The male Gothic plot employs the Oedipus myth, while the female Gothic plot draws on the myth of Psyche and Eros." The tale of Psyche and Eros, or Cupid and Psyche, can often be found in such story iterations such as "Beauty and the Beast", of which "The Tiger's Bride" is heavily based. Within this framework, as well, Carter bases many of her stories off of the female tradition. Particularly, in "The Bloody Chamber", she reflects on the sexual nature of Psyche and the beast that is Eros, as the narrator is trapped in a castle and ravished for her virginity. Though, unlike the original tale, Carter continues to darken the narrative in order to fit the Gothic landscape, in such ways as emphasising the nature of sexual acts in accordance to such horrors as cannibalism. While from Eros and Psyche bloom love, the Marquis is constantly looking to devour the heroine, to mutilate her body and objectify her in a show of Gothic horror that Edgar Allan Poe often used to influence the dark undertones in his short stories.

Aestheticism
In "The Bloody Chamber", Angela Carter reflects on the nature of artistry. Here, the Marquis, based on the character of Bluebeard from the original tale, is an art dealer, whose art comes in the form of his murder, and the "aesthetic" display of his former wives' corpses. His current wife's role, in this case, "is to act as his Muse... he instructs her with pictorial representations, which functions as self portraits," in the form of his wives, "that depict his birth as an artist." The Marquis is first drawn to our narrator because of her artistry in her piano playing, and by lavishing gifts onto the heroine, such as the choker, he attempts to show her mirrored in the bodies and pictures of his previous wives. Here, Carter displays patriarchal values through her antagonist. By presenting himself as the typical artist, and his wife as the muse, he is literally attempting to kill her and her unique proclivities in order to indoctrinate her into his artistic method. He attempts to fetishize her and strip her of agency, a criticism of Carter's on the "male literary tradition" of martyring women (literally and metaphorically in fiction) in order to present the fruits of their artistic labour.

Awards
The Bloody Chamber won the Cheltenham Festival Literary Prize in 1979.

Critical reception
The Bloody Chamber has received heavy praise and attention from numerous critics such as Jack Zipes (who called it a "remarkable collection" ) and Marina Warner (who, on its inspirational nature, said it "turned the key for [her] as a writer" ). Neil Gaiman cited the book as one of his inspirations. In a 2019 essay in the book Lost Transmissions, Grady Hendrix said of Angela Carter: "She's someone who fantasy doesn't claim, and she's huge. The Bloody Chamber is one of the all-time great fantasy novels."

The critic Patricia Duncker, however, was more reserved in her praise, criticising it for not breaking enough taboos. She said "Carter could never have imagined Cinderella in bed with the fairy God-mother."

Several critical works have been published that focus on Carter's use of fairy tales in The Bloody Chamber and her other works.

The collection has been taught and studied in University literature courses. It has been used as part of the AQA English Literature, the OCR English Literature and Edexcel English Language & Literature syllabus for A-Levels in schools and colleges across the United Kingdom.

Radio
Carter later adapted "The Company of Wolves" and "Puss-in-Boots" into radio plays which were broadcast on BBC Radio 3 in 1980 and 1982 respectively. The 1982 adaptation of "Puss in Boots" (as it was retitled) starred Andrew Sachs in the title role. The scripts for both of these plays were published in Carter's Come Unto These Yellow Sands and later the posthumous collection The Curious Room, which also included production notes.

Film
The 1984 film The Company of Wolves by Neil Jordan was based upon the werewolf stories in this collection, in particular the Little Red Riding Hood analogue "The Company of Wolves". Carter also directly contributed to the screenplay of this film. Carter's original screenplay for this film is published in The Curious Room. Jordan and Carter also discussed producing a film adaptation of "Vampirella", the radio drama that became "The Lady of the House of Love", but this project was never released.

Music video
Punk band Daisy Chainsaw adapted the story of "The Lady of the House of Love" for their 1992 music video for "Hope Your Dreams Come True" (from the EP of the same name and also later the album Eleventeen).

Theatre
The stories within The Bloody Chamber are a popular subject for theatrical adaptation. The story "The Bloody Chamber" has been adapted for the theatre more than once, including a performance by the "Zoo District" which was accompanied by an amateur film adaptation of "Wolf-Alice". "The Company of Wolves" is also a popular subject for adaptation by amateur/student theatre groups (e.g. by a Welsh drama college ).

Neil Murray directed a haunting and erotic theatre production of Carter's story 'The Tiger's Bride' in 2001 at the Gulbenkian Studio, Newcastle Playhouse. Murray comments on his interest in Carter's work and refers to her discussion of fairy tales as 'an important medium.'

Read more: Neil Murray on his adaptation of The Bloody Chamber

In August 2013, Melbourne's Malthouse Theatre presented a stage adaptation of The Bloody Chamber by writer Van Badham, directed by Matthew Lutton, with composers David Chisholm (scoring for three live harps) and Jethro Woodward (live and replayed electronic soundscore). Set and costumedesign were by Anna Cordingley with lighting designer Paul Jackson. Save for a relatively brief appearance by Shelly Lauman, the piece was in essence performed by Alison Whyte. The three harpists were Jacinta Dennett, Jess Fotinos, and Yinuo Mu.

Music
The band The Parlour Trick featured a song called "The Lady of the House of Love" on their 2012 album A Blessed Unrest. Angela Carter is listed as an inspiration in the album notes. Wolf Alice is a band which named themselves after the story in the collection. The band Honeyblood also released a song, "Choker", on their 2014 self-titled album which retells "The Bloody Chamber".

title: The Bloody Chamber


text:
Historical development of Church of England dioceses

This article traces the historical development of the dioceses and cathedrals of the Church of England. It is customary in England to name each diocese after the city where its cathedral is located. Occasionally, when the bishop's seat has been moved from one city to another, the diocese may retain both names, for example Bath and Wells. More recently, where a cathedral is in a small or little-known town or city, the diocesan name has been changed to include the name of a nearby larger city: thus the cathedral in Southwell now serves the diocese of Southwell and Nottingham, and Ripon Cathedral was in Ripon and Leeds from 1999 until 2014. Cathedrals, like other churches, are dedicated to a particular saint or holy object, or Christ himself, but are commonly referred to by the name of the city where they stand. A cathedral is, simply, the church where the bishop has his chair or "cathedra".

The forty-two dioceses of the Church of England are administrative territorial units each governed by a bishop. Forty-one dioceses cover England, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly, and a small part of Wales. One diocese, the Diocese in Europe, is also a part of the Church of England (rather than a separate Anglican church such as the Church in Wales), and covers the whole of mainland Europe, the countries of Morocco and Turkey, and the territory of the former Soviet Union.

The structure of the dioceses within the Church of England was initially inherited from the Catholic Church as part of the English Reformation. During the Reformation, a number of new dioceses were founded. No new English or Welsh dioceses were then created until the middle of the 19th century, when dioceses were founded mainly in response to the growing population, especially in the northern industrial cities.

From 1787, the Anglican church also erected 41 dioceses outside these isles (see § colonial dioceses); these were part of the Church of England until they were separated from the home Church in 1863. From 1801 until 1871, the dioceses of Ireland were also part of the United Church of England and Ireland. In 1920 (by the Welsh Church Act 1914), the Welsh dioceses were separated to form the Church in Wales.

The last dioceses were created in 1927. The 42 dioceses are divided between two Provinces: the Province of Canterbury (with 30 dioceses) and the Province of York (with 12 dioceses). The archbishops of Canterbury and York have pastoral oversight over the bishops within their province, along with certain other rights and responsibilities.

History

The history of the cathedrals in Great Britain differs somewhat from that of their European continental counterparts. British cathedrals have always been fewer in number than those of Italy, France, and other parts of Europe, while the buildings themselves have tended to be much larger. While France, at the time of the French Revolution, had 136 cathedrals, England had 27. Because of a ruling that no cathedral could be built in a village, any town in which a cathedral was located was elevated to city status, regardless of its size. To this day several large English cathedrals are located in small "cathedral cities", notably Wells and Ely Cathedrals, both of which rank among the greatest works of English Medieval architecture.

Early organisation
In earlier times, populations were sparsely spread and towns were few. The population of the kingdom of England in the 11th century is estimated at between one and two million, with Lincolnshire, East Anglia, and East Kent the most densely populated areas; in other parts of the country many villages had been razed by the conquest armies. Instead of exercising jurisdiction over geographical areas, many of the bishops were linked to tribes or peoples, as the bishops of the South Saxons, the West Saxons, the Somersætas, etc. The cathedra of such a bishop was often migratory.

In 1075 a council was held in London, under the presidency of Archbishop Lanfranc, which, reciting the decrees of the council of Sardica held in 347 and that of Laodicea held in 360 on this matter, ordered the bishop of the South Saxons to remove his see from Selsey to Chichester; the Wiltshire and Dorset bishop to remove his cathedra from Sherborne to Old Sarum, and the Mercian bishop, whose cathedral was then at Lichfield, to transfer it to Chester. Traces of the tribal and migratory system may still be noted in the designations of the Irish see of Meath (where the result has been that there is now no cathedral church) and Ossory, the cathedral church of which is at Kilkenny. Some of the Scottish sees were also migratory.

Late Middle Ages
Between 1075 and the 15th century, the cathedrals of England were almost evenly divided between those ruled by secular canons headed by a dean and those ruled by monastic orders headed by a prior, all of which were Benedictine, except Carlisle, which was Augustinian. Two cathedrals, Bath and Coventry, shared their sees with Wells and Lichfield, respectively.

Reformation
The entire structure of the monastic and cathedral system was overthrown and reconstituted during the Reformation. Cathedrals which were once Roman Catholic came under the governance of the Church of England.

All the English monastic cathedral chapters were dissolved by Henry VIII and, with the exceptions of Bath and Coventry, were re-founded by him as churches of secular chapters, with a dean as the head, and a certain number of canons ranging from twelve at Canterbury and Durham to four at Carlisle, and with certain subordinate officers as minor canons, gospellers, epistolers, etc. The precentorship in these churches of the "New Foundation", as they are called, is not, as in the secular churches of the "Old Foundation", a dignity, but is merely an office held by one of the minor canons.

Henry VIII also created six new cathedrals from old monastic establishments, in each case governed by secular canons. Of these, Westminster did not retain its cathedral status. Four more of England's large historic churches were later to become cathedrals: Southwell, Southwark, Ripon, and St Albans Abbey.

Ancient cathedrals
The medieval Church of England was organised into 17 dioceses. About half of the diocesan cathedrals were also monasteries, with the prior serving double duty as dean of the cathedral. The rest were served by a college of "secular" canons – non-monastic priests living under no fixed rule of life. Both types often had Saxon foundations. Dioceses which exist in the Church of England today are indicated in bold type.

The Henrican Reorganisation
After Henry VIII's break with the Pope and the dissolution of the monasteries, the formerly monastic cathedrals were "re-founded" with secular canons. Furthermore, a number of new dioceses were formed, using some of the largest and finest of the other dissolved monasteries as cathedrals. Together, these two groups — the old monastic cathedrals and the new sees — were known as cathedrals of the New Foundation; the old cathedrals which had always been served by secular canons were known as those of the Old Foundation. Dioceses which exist in the Church of England today are indicated in bold type.

Colonial dioceses
During the British colonial era, the Anglican religion was exported to the colonies. From 1787 onwards, Church of England dioceses were founded in the colonies. A structure of provinces and metropolitans developed until, in 1863, the imperial Privy Council ruled that the English church hierarchy had no legal status in the colonies. Immediately prior to that point, the United Church of England and Ireland had a total of 82 dioceses worldwide.

From 1863 onwards, Anglican (former) colonial dioceses have been separate from and independent of the English church. Exceptionally, the Archbishop of Canterbury has retained (and retains to this day) some metropolitan jurisdictions outside England. Dioceses are listed by their name at creation and their present country, with only their cathedral(s) between creation and independence.

Irish dioceses
Between the 1801 Union and 1871 disestablishment, the Anglican dioceses of England and Ireland were united in one United Church of England and Ireland. As such, the Irish dioceses were, for a time, Church of England dioceses. Each diocese is listed with its cathedral(s) only during the United Church period.

Late modern foundations
No further cathedrals were founded until, in the mid 19th century, the huge population growth of north-central England meant that redistricting could no longer be ignored. Since then twenty new dioceses have been founded, each with a cathedral — some are great medieval monasteries or collegiate churches which were not elevated by Henry VIII but might well have been; others are glorified parish churches; and others are totally new constructions.

In the following table, bold type indicates the creation of a new diocese, whilst plain type is used to indicate changes to existing dioceses.

Line of descent since St Augustine
There were archbishops in London, York and Caerleon and bishops in Lincoln before the 4th century. The following is a simplified breakdown of the creation of dioceses since St Augustine's 6th/7th century dioceses. It is simplified in that not every new diocese is formed from only one predecessor – they have often taken territory from two or more neighbouring dioceses. Today's dioceses are highlighted in bold type.

 * Canterbury – 597–present
 * Rochester – 604–present
 * Hertfordshire and Essex split off to form Diocese of St Albans, 1876–present
 * Essex split off to form Diocese of Chelmsford, 1914–present
 * London – 604–present
 * seat at St Paul's 604–1539
 * split into Diocese of Westminster (seat at Westminster Abbey), 1540–50
 * seats at St Paul's and Westminster Abbey, 1550–56
 * seat at St Paul's, 1556–present
 * Hertfordshire and Essex moved to Rochester, 1846
 * York – 625–present
 * Lindisfarne added (bishop of larger diocese also called "Bishop of Northumbria"), 664
 * larger diocese split in 678 to form:
 * Diocese of York
 * Archbishop, 735–present
 * split to create (with part of Lichfield-and-Coventry) the Diocese of Chester, 1541–present
 * Province of Canterbury until 1542; Province of York since
 * split to create (with part of York) new Diocese of Ripon, 1836–2014 (renamed Ripon and Leeds, 1999)
 * split to form Diocese of Wakefield, 1888–2014
 * split to form Diocese of Bradford, 1920–2014
 * Diocese of Leeds, created from former territory of dissolved dioceses of Ripon and Leeds, of Wakefield and of Bradford, 2014–present
 * split to form Diocese of Manchester, 1847–present
 * split to form Diocese of Blackburn, 1926–present
 * split to form Diocese of Liverpool, 1880–present
 * split to form Diocese of Sheffield, 1914–present
 * old Diocese of Ripon, 678 (reunited to York before 700)
 * Bernicia diocese (split 685)
 * Hexham diocese (two parts reabsorbed into York and Lindisfarne, 854)
 * Lindisfarne diocese (see below)
 * East Anglia/Norwich – c. 630–present
 * "Bishop of the East Angles", c. 630–672
 * seat at Soham, c. 630 (purportedly, briefly before transfer to Dunwich)
 * seat at Dunwich, c. 630–672
 * split into Elmham/Norwich diocese, 672–present
 * seat at Elmham, 673–1070
 * seat at Thetford, 1070–1094
 * seat at Norwich, 1094–present
 * split to form Dunwich diocese, 672–c. 950
 * suppressed and reunited to Elmham, c. 950
 * Dorchester (Wessex)/Diocese of Winchester, 634–present
 * seat at Dorchester-upon-Thames until c. 660–680
 * seat in flux c. 660–680
 * seat at Winchester since c. 660–680
 * split to form Selsey/Chichester diocese, 681–present
 * seat at Selsey, 681–685 & 706–1075
 * suppressed & absorbed by Winchester, 685–706
 * seat at Chichester since 1075
 * split off to form Sherborne/Salisbury diocese, 705–present
 * seat at Sherborne until 1075
 * seat at Old Sarum, 1075–1225
 * seat at New Sarum since 1225
 * split off to form Crediton/Exeter diocese, 905–present
 * seat at Tawton until c. 909
 * seat at Credition, c. 909–1050
 * seat at Exeter since 1050
 * absorbed Cornish see, 1027
 * split to form Diocese of Truro, 1876–present
 * split to form Ramsbury diocese, c. 909–1058
 * suppressed and reunited to Sherborne
 * split to form the Somerset diocese, c. 909–present
 * Diocese of Wells; seat at Wells, c. 909–1090
 * Diocese of Bath; seat at Bath, 1090–1197 & 1219–1245
 * Diocese of Bath and Glastonbury; seat at Glastonbury, 1197–1219
 * Diocese of Bath and Wells; equal seats at Bath and at Wells, 1245–1539
 * Diocese of Bath and Wells; seat at Wells, 1539–present
 * south London area given to Rochester, 1877–1905
 * similar area formed the Diocese of Southwark, 1905–present
 * split off to form Diocese of Portsmouth, 1927–present
 * split off to form Diocese of Guildford, 1927–present
 * Lindisfarne/Durham – 635–present
 * seat at Lindisfarne, 635–664 & 685–875
 * united to York, 664–678
 * united to Bernicia, 678–685
 * seat at Chester-le-Street, 875–995
 * seat at Durham, 995–present
 * called Prince-Bishop, c. 1071–c. 1836
 * split to form Diocese of Carlisle, 1133–present
 * split to form Diocese of Newcastle (upon Tyne), 1882–present
 * Lichfield – 656–present
 * Mercian diocese; seat at Repton, 656–669
 * Diocese of Lichfield; seat at Lichfield, 669–1075 & 1837–present
 * Archbishop of Lichfield, metropolitan over Worcester, Leicester, Lindsey, Hereford, Elmham and Dunwich, 786–796 (seized from Canterbury)
 * Old Diocese of Chester; seat at Chester, 1075–1102
 * for new Diocese of Chester, see above
 * Old Diocese of Coventry; seat at Coventry, 1102–1228 (co-cathedral at Chester 1102–?)
 * for new Diocese of Coventry, see below
 * Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield; seats both at Coventry and at Lichfield, 1228–1539
 * Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry; seat at Lichfield, 1539–1837
 * split to form Hereford diocese, 676–present
 * split to form Lindsey diocese, 678–c. 1010
 * suppressed and given to the Dorchester (Mercian) diocese, c. 1010 (see below)
 * split to form Worcester diocese, 680–present
 * split to form Gloucester diocese, 1541–1552 & 1554–present
 * Diocese of Gloucester; seat at Gloucester, 1541–1552, 1554–1836 & 1897–present
 * Diocese of Worcester and Gloucester; seats both at Worcester and at Gloucester, 1552–1554
 * Diocese of Gloucester and Bristol; seats both at Gloucester and at Bristol, 1836–1897
 * split to form Bristol diocese, 1542–present
 * suppressed and merged to Gloucester diocese, 1836–1897
 * split to form Birmingham diocese, 1905–present
 * split to form new Coventry diocese, 1918–present
 * split to form old Leicester/Dorchester (Mercian)/Lincoln diocese, 681–present
 * seat at Leicester, 681–878
 * seat at Dorchester-upon-Thames, 878–1072
 * seat at Lincoln, 1072–present
 * split to form Ely diocese, 1108–present
 * split to form the Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, 1914–present
 * split to form Peterborough diocese, 1541–present
 * split to form new Leicester diocese, 1926–present
 * split to form Oxford diocese, 1542–present
 * seat at Osney, 1542
 * seat at Christ Church, 1542–present
 * some territory ceded to Worcester, 1837; some of which became Birmingham and Coventry dioceses, 1905 & 1918 ''(see above)
 * split to form Southwell diocese, 1884–present
 * Province of Canterbury until 1936; Province of York since
 * called Southwell and Nottingham since 2005
 * split to form Derby diocese, 1927–present
 * Old Cornish bishopric – c. 920–1027
 * See at St Germans
 * Called "Bishop of Cornwall" and "Bishop of St Germans"
 * Absorbed by Crediton (see above)
 * Glamorgan area – c522–present (Wales)
 * Bishop of (St) Teilo until before 1107
 * Under Canterbury's jurisdiction by 982
 * Bishop of Glamorgan (and Gwent), before 1107–1115
 * Diocese of Llandaff; Bishop of Llandaff; seat at Llandaff, 1115–present
 * Church in Wales since 1920
 * Bangor diocese – 546–present (Wales)
 * Under Canterbury's jurisdiction by c. 1081
 * Church in Wales since 1920
 * St David's diocese – 545–present (Wales)
 * Archbishop of St David's until 1115
 * Under Canterbury's jurisdiction by 1115
 * Church in Wales since 1920
 * St Asaph diocese – c. 583–present (Wales)
 * Under Canterbury's jurisdiction by 1143
 * Church in Wales since 1920
 * Sodor and Man diocese received from Norwegian jurisdiction – c. 1400–present
 * Province of Canterbury until 1542; Province of York since
 * Europe diocese, 1842–present
 * Diocese of Gibraltar (over southern Europe), founded 1842
 * merged with London's continental jurisdictions (over northern and central Europe) and renamed Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe, 1980

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


text:
User talk:80.225.55.228

Please leave messages here for this user.

Previous talk can be found at User talk:80.255.

title: User talk:80.225.55.228


text:
Virtual XI

Virtual XI (pronounced "Virtual Eleven") is the eleventh studio album by English heavy metal band Iron Maiden, released on 23 March 1998. It is the band's second and final album with Blaze Bayley on vocals. It also marks the first album to utilise a slightly modified logo, with the letters R, M, and N the same size as the other letters as opposed to them being extended. This goes on for the next few albums, until The Final Frontier, in 2010.

Background

Virtual XI's title is tied in with two extra-musical events: the release of the band's computer game, Ed Hunter, and the fact that the 1998 FIFA World Cup would be taking place in June of that year. Harris explains, "We figure our fans are pretty much the same as we are, with pretty much the same interests, so we thought, 'It's World Cup year in '98. Let's get the football involved in the new album.' And we were already working on a computer game at that time, so we thought, 'Well, let's bring that element into things, too.'" Prior to the album's release, the band organised a publicity tour in which they held football matches across Europe with "guest musicians and pro-footballers from the UK."

While most of the artwork in the album's booklet was taken from the Ed Hunter game, the cover was created by Melvyn Grant. According to Grant, he was asked to design something related to virtual reality, but was later asked to alter the artwork by adding a football game, the band then having decided to link the release with the World Cup. This was also the first album to feature the band's new alternate logo, with the extended ends of the "R", "M", and both "N's" removed. This variant would be used on all future studio albums, live albums (with the exception of Flight 666 and Maiden England '88), and singles up until The Final Frontier. Starting with The Book of Souls, the band's 16th studio album, the original logo was reused.

For this album some keyboard parts were performed by band founder/bassist Steve Harris whereas on previous albums all the keyboard parts had been handled by Harris' bass technician, Michael Kenney.

As with their previous world tour, several US shows on the Virtual XI World Tour had to be cancelled as Bayley had vocal issues, although the official reason was instead that he was suffering from a severe allergic reaction to pollen.

This would be the second and final studio album to feature Blaze Bayley, as he resigned from Iron Maiden following a February 1999 announcement that Bruce Dickinson and Adrian Smith, who had left in 1993 and 1990 respectively, would be returning to the line-up.

Songs
Stylistically, Bayley states that Virtual XI "was a more upbeat album [in comparison to its predecessor], because we'd survived the 'X-Factour'... we were a band and, I felt, we were on our way." According to Harris, "Futureal", whose lyrics were written by Bayley, is "about being locked up in virtual reality", and describes it as "a quite straightforward rocker but done Maiden style." Regarding the album's second single, manager Rod Smallwood claims that he "had a bit of a battle with Steve" over releasing "Futureal" instead of "The Angel and the Gambler" as the album's lead single, but "Steve put his foot down." According to Harris, "The Angel and the Gambler" "is the story of these two characters, one guy who's been a bit of a rogue, a fly by night, and an angel who gets sent down to try and put him right – except he isn't having it."

Of the album's remaining songs, "Lightning Strikes Twice" is, according to Harris, "a never say never-type song ... It's a very positive, hopeful song which you can read in lots of different ways." "The Clansman" was inspired by the film Braveheart which Harris states is "about what it's like to belong to a community that you try and build up and then you have to fight to stop having it taken away from you". Speaking about "When Two Worlds Collide", Harris says, "Lyrically, I think Blaze was trying to write about the different sort of worlds he's lived in and maybe about how his world has had to change and adapt to the world of being Iron Maiden's singer." "The Educated Fool" is, according to Harris, about "growing older and everyone expecting you to be wiser but how somehow the older you get and the more you know, the less you have the answers for any of it." "Don't Look to the Eyes of a Stranger" is inspired by Steve Harris' observation, from a parent's point of view, that "every stranger is a possible threat", while "Como Estais Amigos" is a tribute to the soldiers on both sides in the Falklands War; its lyrics were written by Bayley and the music by Gers, making this the first Iron Maiden album where Steve Harris did not write or co-write the final song.

After Bruce Dickinson rejoined the band, Iron Maiden continued to play both "Futureal" and "The Clansman" in concert. While "Futureal" was only performed live in 1999, "The Clansman" appeared in the group's setlists until 2003, and later in 2018 during Legacy of the Beast tour. Live recordings of both songs with Dickinson on vocals have been released officially: "Futureal" was issued as a B-side to "The Wicker Man" single, while performances of "The Clansman" can be found on the live albums Rock in Rio and Nights of the Dead. The Rock in Rio recording was also included on Iron Maiden's 2011 compilation CD From Fear to Eternity.

Four songs that were written during the sessions for Virtual XI ended up on its follow-up Brave New World: "Nomad", "Dream of Mirrors", "Mercenary" and "Blood Brothers".

Blaze Bayley recorded solo versions of "Futureal" and "When Two Worlds Collide" on his live album As Live as It Gets, and he regularly performs the album's closing song "Como Estais Amigos" in concert, a song which never appeared on any Iron Maiden setlist.

The track "The Clansman" was sampled by singer Brandy in her song "I Tried".

Critical reception
Virtual XI was met with mixed to negative reviews from critics. Stephen Thomas Erlewine of AllMusic commented that "on the surface, there's nothing terribly wrong with the record, as it delivers all the crunching riffs and demonic horror of their best records. The problem is that there's nothing memorable about the hooks, riffs, or songs, and there's little visceral energy to the music or production. As a result, it sounds lifeless to all but the most devoted fan." He also stated that Blaze Bayley is "a competent but faceless vocalist".

Personnel
Production and performance credits are adapted from the album's liner notes.

Iron Maiden

 * Blaze Bayley – vocals
 * Dave Murray – guitars
 * Janick Gers – guitars
 * Steve Harris – bass, keyboards on "The Clansman", "The Angel and the Gambler" and "Don't Look to the Eyes of a Stranger", production, mixing
 * Nicko McBrain – drums

Additional personnel

 * Michael Kenney – keyboards on all tracks except "The Clansman", "The Angel and the Gambler" and "Don't Look to the Eyes of a Stranger"

Production

 * Nigel Green – producer, engineer, mixing
 * Mick McKenna – assistant engineer
 * Simon Heyworth – mastering
 * Melvyn Grant – sleeve illustration
 * Synthetic Dimensions – sleeve design, 3D imagery
 * Simon Fowler – photography
 * George Chin – photography
 * Ross Halfin – photography
 * Rod Smallwood – management
 * Merck Mercuriadis – management
 * Andy Taylor – management

title: Virtual XI


text:
Category:Myrmecologists

Myrmecologists are people who study ants.

title: Category:Myrmecologists


text:
Category talk:Canadian lawyers

Judges
Should Category:Canadian judges be a subcategory of this? That is, is there any possible way that, at any point, someone could have been a Canadian judge without being a Canadian lawyer? Saforrest 20:31, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * More on this topic over at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canadian_law. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Who is a lawyer
The head of this page says that a person with a law degree is a lawyer. This is not correct. Is it intended to use this term in a broader sense (which could account for Joe Clark who neither completed law school nor ever became a lawyer, is included) or do we intend that the actual legal meaning of the term "lawyer" should apply? kgw 06:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the proper category name be Canadian solicitors? NorthernThunder (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming of sub-categories by province

 * Category:Lawyers in Saskatchewan to Category:Lawyers from Saskatchewan – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Lawyers in Quebec to Category:Lawyers from Quebec – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Lawyers in Prince Edward Island to Category:Lawyers from Prince Edward Island – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Lawyers in Ontario to Category:Lawyers from Ontario – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Lawyers in Nova Scotia to Category:Lawyers from Nova Scotia – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Lawyers in Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:Lawyers from Newfoundland and Labrador – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Lawyers in New Brunswick to Category:Lawyers from New Brunswick – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Lawyers in Manitoba to Category:Lawyers from Manitoba – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Lawyers in British Columbia to Category:Lawyers from British Columbia – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Lawyers in Alberta to Category:Lawyers from Alberta – C2C. Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose lawyers nominations. The categories make it clear that these lawyers are either a member of the local law society or practice in the province (they are not necessarily from there). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The same is true of all the other lawyer categories. Though most of the Canadian lawyers were clearly also from the areas.   We could change all the categories to be "in", but there are a lot more of them. Rathfelder (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Canadian lawyers


text:
User:GNAAdar

A REAL Wikipedian -- not like David Rhemal!

title: User:GNAAdar


text:
Bobby Digital (Jamaican producer)

Bobby Dixon (March 11, 1961 – May 22, 2020), known as Bobby Digital, was a Jamaican reggae and dancehall producer. He was given his nickname "Bobby Digital" because King Jammy, with whom he worked in the mid-1980s, had begun experimenting with digital rhythms at around the same time. He owned the Digital B label, and among the artists with hits on the label are Shabba Ranks and Sizzla. He has influenced reggae artists such as Admiral Tibet.

Biography
Dixon was born on March 11, 1961, the third of five children in the Waterhouse district of Kingston. He grew up attending dances in the 1970s, which featured sound systems such as Socialist Roots and Tippertone.

Dixon began working with King Jammy in Kingston in 1985. He struck out on his own in 1988, opening the Heatwave studio and forming the Digital B label, and thereafter a successful distribution company. In the 1980s, Dixon helped stylize the computerized phase of Jamaican music, as an accomplished digital engineer.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s he was the producer for works by Shabba Ranks, Cocoa Tea, Super Cat and Garnett Silk. He explored styles such as dancehall, lovers rock and roots reggae. He also formed his own sound system Heatwave.

In the late 1990s he began to work with artists such as Morgan Heritage, Sizzla, Anthony B and Richie Spice. He was the producer of Sizzla's Black Woman and Child album of the late 1990s. Morgan Heritage's Protect Us, Jah also released in the late 1990s was another known collaboration, as well as their three-volume Morgan Heritage Family and Friends. Also recorded to panamanian singer Reggae Sam various singles and dubplates for VP RECORDS.

Dixon produced more albums for Richie Spice, Anthony B, Morgan Heritage, Chezidek, Ras Shiloh, Louie Culture, LMS, Mikey Spice, and Norris Man.

Dixon died in Kingston on May 21, 2020, at the age of 59 following a kidney-related illness.

title: Bobby Digital (Jamaican producer)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katerina Mavromatis

Katerina Mavromatis
Non-notable exorcist. -Vina 20:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) Non-notable exorcist. -Vina 20:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page is only linked from two places. One of them is (oddly) the page itself; the other is the List of exorcists. Interestingly, the person (67.208.1.25) who wrote this article (if you can call it that) is also the person who linked to it from the LOE, suggesting it's just an ad. -Litefantastic 20:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: the subst:vfd code (or similar) may cause a page to link to itself. Ianb 23:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, advert.   — Gwalla | Talk 22:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Exorcise the foul spirit of advertising... Fire Star 23:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Perform WikiExorcism and Delete. Ianb 23:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Improv 12:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, delete, delete. ASAP. --mz 16:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY delete. This has been deleted at least once before. - Lucky 6.9 20:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


text:
AbioCor

AbioCor was a total artificial heart (TAH) developed by the Massachusetts-based company AbioMed. It was fully implantable within a patient, due to a combination of advances in miniaturization, biosensors, plastics and energy transfer. The AbioCor ran on a rechargeable source of power. The internal battery was charged by a transcutaneous energy transmission (TET) system, meaning that no wires or tubes penetrated the skin, reducing the risk of infection. However, because of its size, this heart was only compatible with men who had a large frame. It had a product life expectancy of 18 months.

AbioCor was surgically introduced into 15 total patients, 14 of them during a clinical trial and one after FDA approval. However, due to insufficient evidence of its efficacy, AbioMed abandoned further development of the product.

History
AbioMed was founded by Param Singh and David Lederman. The company began development of the AbioCor device in the 1990s, beginning animal studies in 1998 in preparation to demonstrate readiness for formal clinical trials in humans. On January 30, 2001, the FDA granted AbioMed an investigational device exemption (IDE) for implantation into humans via a clinical trial. This opened the door for the first implantation of the AbioCor into Robert Tools on July 2, 2001. He lived for 151 days before having a fatal cerebrovascular accident. Time magazine awarded the AbioCor its Invention of the Year award in late 2001.

The second patient, Tom Christerson, who was given less than a 20 percent chance of surviving 30 days at the time of his surgery, lived for 512 days after receiving the AbioCor, dying on February 7, 2003, due to the wearing out of an internal membrane of the AbioCor. An additional 12 patients had the device implanted into 2004, resulting in an average life span of less than five months among all 14 patients. In some cases the device extended survival by several months, allowing the patients to spend valuable time with family and friends. In two cases, the device extended survival by 10 and 17 months respectively, and one patient was discharged from the hospital to go home. For a patient to be eligible for implantation with the AbioCor, the person must have had severe heart failure (with failure of both ventricles) and had to be likely to die within two weeks without transplantation.

Though the device was initially rejected by FDA Circulatory System Devices Panel in 2005 for Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) status, it was eventually approved by the Food and Drug Administration on September 5, 2006, for HDE status. However, only one patient received the AbioCor after approval, a "76-year-old man with congestive heart failure, who did not qualify for a heart transplant."

In August 2012, key AbioCor researcher and developer David Lederman died from pancreatic cancer.

The company also had plans to improve the AbioCor with a second version based upon the AbioCor ventricles and the Penn State energy converter. It was expected to last for five years, more than triple the life expectancy of AbioCor. The company stated it would be 30 percent smaller than the original model, and it could be implanted in smaller men and women. Additional modifications were planned to reduce the patient's risk of stroke, which was a concern of the FDA. , AbioCor II has not come to fruition, however. Additionally, the AbioCor product has been removed from the AbioMed website, with several news agencies reporting in 2015 that the company had quietly abandoned further development of the device.

In 2019, Abiomed was marketing the Impella Ventricular Support Systems, left-side heart pump models "intended to help pump blood in patients who need short-term support (up to 6 days)".

In popular culture
The AbioCor heart is featured in the 2009 film Crank: High Voltage, when it is transplanted into the main character Chev Chelios's (Jason Statham) chest after he had been abducted by Chinese mobsters in the very beginning of the movie. However, the heart depicted in the film has a much lower battery life but gives Chev superhuman athleticism when fully charged (for dramatic purposes). The model of the heart in the movie is called AviCor.

title: AbioCor


text:
Talk:Union Pacific Railroad

Locomotive Modernizations
Wabtec is modernizing 600 older Union Pacific locomotives over a three-year period through 2025. The modernizations will improve fuel efficiency and reliability of these locomotives while also reducing emissions.

MJ UnionPacific (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggested for the Environmental Record section MJ UnionPacific (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC) MJ UnionPacific (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Shadow311 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please insert the following paragraph after the paragraph about Utah proposed bill HB405 at the conclusion of the Environmental Record section.
 * Wabtec is modernizing 600 older Union Pacific locomotives over a three-year period through 2025. The modernizations will improve fuel efficiency and reliability of these locomotives while also reducing emissions. MJ UnionPacific (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Locomotive Modernization Update
At the conclusion of the "Environmental Record" section, please consider adding the following paragraph at the very end:

Wabtec is modernizing 600 older Union Pacific locomotives over a three-year period through 2025. The modernizations will improve fuel efficiency and reliability of these locomotives while also reducing emissions.

MJ UnionPacific (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 * @MJ UnionPacific, Done. Sorry for the late response, as there is not much users working on the backlog with over 100 requests. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Union Pacific Railroad


text:
Talk:Surrealism/Archive

 The Talk:Surrealism discussion page has been archived 9 times. If you wish to reply to something that was said in an archived comment, please copy the relevant text to the current talk page rather than editing the archives.
 * Talk:Surrealism/Archive 1 - until Sep 17 2004
 * Talk:Surrealism/Archive 2 - until Sep 28 2004
 * Talk:Surrealism/Archive 3 - until Oct 13 2004
 * Talk:Surrealism/Archive 4 - until Nov 11 2004
 * Talk:Surrealism/Archive 5 - until Jan 25 2005
 * Talk:Surrealism/Archive 6 - until Aug 06 2005
 * Talk:Surrealism/Archive 7 - until Sep 03 2006
 * Talk:Surrealism/Archive 8 - until Sep 29 2006
 * Talk:Surrealism/Archive 9 - until Mar 03 2007

title: Talk:Surrealism/Archive


text:
Talk:Surrealism/Archive 4

Topic
The topic of Talk:Surrealism is the wikipedia Surrealism article, and how we can improve it. This is not the place to copy and paste lengthy texts or engage in arguments about non-wikipedia topics. Thank you for cooperating.

Relevent discussion only, please
As some here have pointed out, discussion on this page should be specifically about the Wikipedia Surrealism article and how to improve it. It is not a discussion board for anything vaguely related to Surrealism, nor about actions of Wikipedians which are not directly related to the text of the article. Please try to refrain from adding off topic rants or personal sniping here. -- Infrogmation 18:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb?
 * Two. One to hold the giraffe, and another to fill the bathtub with brightly colored machine tools.
 * Sorry, couldn't help myself. - Sigg3.net 13:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category
Having both Category:Art movements and Category:Cultural movements is unecessary, as "Art movements" is a sub-category of "Cultural movements". Hyacinth 00:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that someone looking for art movements in Category:Art movements should be able to find this article, either in that category, or in a subcategory. I don't see a problem with also having this article listed under Category:Cultural movements. It seems kind of useful actually, as it emphasizes that surrealism is not just an art movement. ~leif 01:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wigdor Poll

 * This poll was previously archived to Talk:Surrealism/Archive 03, but then 63.169.104.2 replied to it there, so I've moved it back to this Talk page for further discussion. ~leif 20:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The inclusion of Keith Wigdor in the Surrealism article has been the subject of much controversy and many article reverts.

VOTE
After researching Wigdor, and reviewing the article history and the arguments on this talk page, please vote for one of the following, or suggest another course of action below: Also this poll is not authorized and is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy.63.169.104.2 18:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * option #1: Keith Wigdor should be included in the article as the leader of Surrealism in the 21st century. The entire article could even be replaced with the simple statement "Surrealism is Keith Wigdor". (this option is included to recognize a POV that has been expressed by anonymous editor(s))
 * option #2: Keith Wigdor should not be included in the article at all because he is not notable enough, and because there is a strong possibility (based on writing style and Wigdor's history on the internet) that he actually is one or more of the anonymous wikipedia users who promotes Wigdor here and frequently reverts against general consensus.
 * this would be my first choice ~leif 18:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This would be my first choice. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Wigdor, whomever he is, does not appear in the Grove art database, which tells me, while he may be notable in his own way, that he does not merit mentioning, much less a larger mention than Ernst, Magritte, or Miro. Gamaliel 19:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I vote against this choice.24.168.66.27 21:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I Vote FOR this choice. I stumbled upon this article, and its problems, recently and I am very suprised. Keith Wigdor is NOT a notable artist....period. It is furthermore obvious to me that he is desperate to become notable as he has been personally attacking this article and its users. This is a large concern to a collective encyclopedia and thus I hope that he realizes this and stops his attempts to poison the record.Mach535 19:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * First choice. Hyacinth 21:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:14, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * option #3: Keith Wigdor should be mentioned briefly in the article, but his Surrealism in 2004 statement should not be (because it was just published last month, is only known at all because of rampant self promotion, and it's generally not notable)
 * this is my second choice ~leif 18:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This would be my second choice. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I vote against this choice24.168.66.27 21:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I Vote that Surrealism in 2004 should not be mentioned specifically because it was, as Leif pointed out, published last month and it has absolutely no relation to surrealism save its name! As for mention of keith wigdor, I am still against it. Mach535 19:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I vote to keep article intact. Mach535, please stop making attacks against article paragraph subject. You already made false allegations, stop. 63.169.104.2 18:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I vote to keep the article intact with Wigdor in, and I ask Mach535 to avoid making false and unsubstantiated allegations against Wikipedia policy.63.169.104.2 18:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 63.169.104.2 may be a sock puppet for 24.168.66.27. See below. ~leif 20:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the policy which this poll violates. Gamaliel 22:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Non-voting replies to this poll

 * I kindly disagree with both Leif and Daniel since it is evident by their contributions to the Wikipedia Surrealism discussion page (and Boyer's refusal to validate the existence of his surrealist friends by not providing pictures) are biased against Keith. This is another attempt at bypassing consensus which was evident in the past administrator JRosenweig's success at successful agreement with the article. Plus, Infrogmation already started an article on Keith which states he is working in Surrealism. If Keith's, "Surrealism in 2004" is removed from the article, I will kindly propose an intensive investigative review into validating all of the information on the Surrealism article and all its related pages. Vague and invalid information dominates many of the surrealism related pages and particulary this surrealism article. Did you all know about Yvon Goll? His surrealist publication came out before Breton's first manifesto. I can provide the factual reference material on this. Also, Boyer's friends, The Rosemonts should be removed from the Surrealism article if Keith Wigdor's, "Surrealism in 2004" since there is much doubt as to the claim on the Rosemonts meeting with Breton and there is still no picture to prove that claim. Still Boyer will not provide one picture on this Brandon Freels either. Also, I recommend some kind of input from experts on Surrealism, hopefully Jennifer Mundy and Mary Ann Caws to validate the information on Boyer and all his friends. Gamaliel is welcome to his or her opinion as anyone here, but if you are really attempting to validate information on Keith Wigdor in regards to this surrealism article, you must apply the same scrutiny to all the reference information on here, which needs to be examined with intensive research. I cannot believe any claims by the Rosemonts that they met Breton until a picture of them with Andre Breton in 1965 is provided, same goes for Boyer's friend Freels, where is the picture? You really need to poll all the reference information links on The Surrealist Movement in the USA as well, plus everything in this article.24.168.66.27 20:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Please let the record show who is starting this poll in the first place and their credibility in providing accurate (and any information) to the Surrealism article here on Wikipedia. Leif, admitted in his own words regarding his first Wikipedia contribution on the Internation Surrealists against the RNC, that the article would be VfD. Also, why did Leif submit a surrealist article to Wikipedia that was written by an anonymous source? Who is, "Depth Squad Distro"? Is this a person? What do they look like? Are they real? Are they surrealists? What is the real name of the author? This is the kind of research that you already have with the surrealism article. Still no pictures to prove that the Rosemonts met Breton. Still no evidence to validate that Ron Sakolsky is a surrealist. Still no evidence to prove that Brandon Freels is a real person because there is no picture of this anonymous author who gets an entire article written for him here on Wikipedia. At least you all know that Keith Wigdor is a real person by his picture that is online. Still no evidence to prove the names of the members that expelled Dali. Still no proof as to the credibility of the book Rosemont edited that was written by Breton, "What is Surrealism". Why does Mark Polizzotti's book, "Revolution of the Mind" have no mention at all on this Rosemont? Why does this official autobiography on Andre Breton state that Jean Schuster did disband the Paris Group of Surrealists in 1969?24.168.66.27 20:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The article you're referring to is not relevant to this poll, or even this article. Please stop bring it up on Talk:Surrealism. Please stop making ad hominem attacks against myself and others. If you are interested in seeing Wigdor included in the article, you should vote for one of the three options or write a clear fourth option and ask for votes for it. Currently the vote is 3-zero to remove Wigdor from the article entirely. Please do not rename the poll I have created; if you want to create a poll that covers issues beyond Keith Wigdor you are welcome to do so. ~leif 21:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wigdor Poll and Surrealism Article Poll
If Keith's, "Surrealism in 2004" is removed from the article, I will kindly propose an intensive investigative review and poll into validating all of the information on the Surrealism article and all its related pages.24.168.66.27 21:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of Leif's bias against Keith Wigdor
This is Leif's own words, "is only known at all because of rampant self promotion". Also, "Currently the vote is 3-zero to remove Wigdor from the article entirely". That is not factual because I just made my vote and the poll that leif proposes is an attempt to provide a favorable idiosyncrasy to both Leif and his friend Boyer. I kindly protest any removal of Keith Wigdor from the Surrealism article. If that happens, then I will ask for an inquiry and arbitration into verifying all the information in the Surrealism article. Still no response from Leif to provide conclusive evidence to the credibility of the premises and his creation of argument as claimed to be valid. 24.168.66.27 21:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * When I said there was currently a three-zero vote, that was accurate, as you had not voted on any options but merely stated that you "kindly disagree with both Leif and Daniel [...]". Now you have stated that you are against two of the poll options, but still have not voted for something. If none of the options are satisfactory to you, you should offer another option in the poll so that others might vote for it.
 * I admit that though I had not heard of him before reading Wikipedia, at this point I am definitely somewhat biased against Keith Wigdor. I find his art mediocre, and his internet ramblings asinine and annoying. My opinion has nothing to do with this poll, however. If you propose a reasonable poll option for keeping Wigdor in the article, and that option gains consensus, I would abide by it. So far, you have not done this.
 * Also, if there are other inaccuracies in the article, why don't you correct them instead of complaining about it here? ~leif 22:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leif,why so fast to make a proposal to quickpoll?
"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism".

Sir, I have been providing good faith in regards to presenting and examining the quality of the Surrealism article's information. Leif, have you discussed your quickpoll attempt to remove the information on Keith Wigdor's manifesto, "Surrealism in 2004" with a Wikipedia Sysop? If you did, can you tell us all here who the sysop is that you spoke to, before you made the attempt at a quickpoll vote? I do not see you providing any good faith at all, if you did not inform me of your decision to quickpoll before discussing it with a Wikipedia sysop or administrator, that is my view on this matter.24.168.66.27 22:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not believe your edits have all been in "good faith".
 * I wouldn't exactly call this poll sudden, considering that Keith Wigdor has been an issue of reverts with 24.168.x.x vs. various users (some of them admins, IIRC) for months, since long before the Surrealism in 2004 statement was even published (as far as I've seen, it was first published in September, but I could be wrong).
 * But no, I did not contact an admin before starting this informal poll. I posted it on WP:RfC where admins might see it, and if you would like to contact an admin directly you are welcome to do so. ~leif 22:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What Now?
This poll was up for 5 days, and in that time received 4 votes to remove Keith Wigdor from the article, and 1 against it. The page got archived; and I removed Wigdor from the article. Then today 63.169.104.2 came along, restored the Wigdor paragraph, inclduing the Surrealism in 2004 statement, and made a number of edits to the poll (including voting twice) on the Archive page. So now I've moved the poll back here, so more people can vote if they want to... As to 63.169.104.2's comment that this poll isn't valid; I don't believe I am required to use any special protocol to start a poll. I just wanted to try and gain consensus from other interested parties, and my informal poll did that. I think it could have been left up longer, but it hadn't received any votes in two days when it got archived. ~leif 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

63.169.104.2
I think it is also important to consider the strong possibility that 63.169.104.2 is a sock puppet for the only other pro-wigdor voter, 24.168.66.27, so their votes in this poll should not be counted. See User talk:24.168.66.27 and Requests for comment/24.168.92.117. 63.169.104.2, can you confirm or deny that you are the same person as the 24.168 editor? The RfC page that says you are predates my knowledge of this dispute. ~leif 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This person 63.169.104.2 is right about this user Leif
Dear Leif, your admission to your bias against the surrealism article subject, Keith Wigdor, and your admission that your poll was not approved by a sysop, and your admission that you did not speak with an administrator, plus the overwhelming animosity and name-calling in your posts, "sock puppet" and the misguided efforts of your ad hominen attacks against anyone who posts in favor of the surrealism article subject, Keith Wigdor, proves that you are not to be trusted with editing this article in good faith. I will not deny the fact that you have the right to edit, but your failure at providing fairness and good faith, plus sincerity, proves that you are using this Wikipedia service for personal gains of entertainment or self-satisfaction. At least Daniel C.Boyer knows the Surrealism subject and though I firmly disagree with him, at least he is very aware and very knowledgable of the subject. You are on some kind of personal vendetta with anyone who posts in favor of the surrealism article subject, Keith Wigdor, and your own admission to having bias proves that you and your poll is not valid and totally inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and practices, plus you are a fairly new user here. Leif, you need to do these two things, in good faith, leave the Keith Wigdor paragraph alone and stop vandalizing the article by removing the paragraph or stop circumventing Wikipedia policy for your own self aggrandizement and personal attacks against those who post in favor of the surrealism article subject Keith Wigdor. I have a strong feeling that you will persist in carrying on with your attempts at bypassing consensus and any attempt to try to remove the information on Keith Wigdor from the surrealism article, so I will ask you to please stop and let it go! You have refused to co-operate with me in good faith and your sneaky attacks and questions are unjustified and they undermine the integrity of the editing process here on Wikipedia. You refuse to reach any kind of consensus and you are beyond compromise. Please stop the name calling and unfair labels and attacks and leave the article alone, unless you have any surrealist related information, hopefully on maybe, Aime Cesairre or Andre Thirion, like I asked you in the past, which you still refuse to examine. I will not engage in discussions with those who admit to bias and admit to violating Wikipedia policy. Stop!24.168.66.27 00:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia policy has been violated? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 00:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A response to Infrogmation's question about what policy has been violated
Dear Infrogmation, this is in good faith as in answer to your question. The user Leif has violated all of the following, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Do not make personal attacks on the Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy Consult widely - make a special effort to engage potential critics of the new policy, engage them and get them to help find the middle ground early. Do not rush - you will get there faster if you give the process the time it needs. People may oppose an idea simply because they feel it has not had adequate discussion, and especially if the feel a policy is being pushed through to circumvent discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policy#How_are_policies_decided.3F Key policies You don't need to read every Wikipedia policy before you contribute! However, the following policies are key to a productive Wikipedia experience, and the sooner you get to grips with them, the better. 1. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Use the criteria at Wikipedia:Survey guidelines to develop the survey (some parties may dispute the validity of the survey if this is not done properly). The survey should be carefully designed to present all sides of the dispute fairly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines The following is a page outlining the guidelines that may be followed when using surveys on the Wikipedia. These are not binding in any way. 1. Any Wikipedian may start a survey on any topic, but attempts to reach consensus are much, much, MUCH preferred, and should perhaps be followed even when it pains us most. 2. Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process. You will need to resolve the following issues: Infrogmation, I have the evidence to back up my case and Leif has refused consensus and admitted to bias against the surrealism article paragraph subject on Keith Wigdor.24.168.66.27 02:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The above survey guidelines specifically state that they are recommendations and need not be followed to the letter. I believe the poll here is as near as we'll get to consensus, with currently 5 votes to drop mention of wigdor, and 2 anonymous votes to keep him. The question of the second "keep" vote being a sockpuppet of yours is not an unreasonable one, or a "personal attack", considering that question has been raised before in an RfC and was not denied then. If you think you have a "case" and want to initiate some sort of official wikipedia dispute process, go for it. I bet they'll suggest you make a login name, too. I've been tempted to start such a process myself, but I'm reluctant to waste a sysops' time with you. ~leif 02:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leif's idea of a consensus?
"but I'm reluctant to waste a sysops' time with you."

Leif, your actions and statements are beyond the point of reaching any kind of understanding or willingness to obtain the goal of consensus and agreement. You have proven beyond a reasonable doubt to not being fair and sympathetic to differing views on the subject of Keith Wigdor in the surrealism article. Leif, read this,

1. Any Wikipedian may start a survey on any topic, but attempts to reach consensus are much, much, MUCH preferred, and should perhaps be followed even when it pains us most.

You admitted to bypassing this process and you also admitted to bias and not discussing this with a sysop, then to conclude your attempt at consensus, you state this, "but I'm reluctant to waste a sysops' time with you." Leif, you are really engaging in actions that are not in the best interests of the surrealism article. Why can't you just leave the article be and leave the paragraph alone as it was already? You refuse to offer any kind of diplomacy and good faith and your statements are evidence of personal attacks that do not help this at all. You leave me no choice, your actions have finalized any attempt at establishing the groundwork for fairness and agreement on the article. I ask that you please stop.24.168.66.27 04:18, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The poll achieved consensus-minus-one, which I believe is as close as we'll get on this issue. Please, go ahead, and initiate any official process you think is appropriate. I will participate, to try and reach an official decision on this issue, if you think that is necessary. In the meantime, please do not continue to revert the article to include the Wigdor paragraph.
 * I think you should focus your energy on improving the Keith Wigdor article, and be content that it can be listed in Category:Surrealism. ~leif 04:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leif! Infrogmation! We need your help on the Surrealism-related article on Zazie!
Dear Leif, Dear Infrogmation! We need your help on the Surrealism-related article on Zazie! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazie I think that Pierre went crazy and you have to see what he wrote in the article! He deleted the entire article and substituted some crazy and insane rant!24.168.66.27 19:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection
I am requesting the protection of this page or the blocking of 24.168.66.27, due to violation of the 3-revert rule (1, 2, 3, 4), as part of a continued practice of reverting against the consensus. I hope this page will not have to stay protected for long, and I am sorry 24.168.66.27 has insisted on pushing the issue this far. ~leif 00:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Leif, you admitted that it was your opinion. You violated policy by not addressing consensus first and talking with a sysop. Then you state that you, "will not waste a sysops time with you"24.168.66.27 01:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * What are you saying is my opinion? What consensus was not addressed? Do you even know what consensus means? The current vote is 6-1, and you continue to revert this article anyway... You are now making it necesary to waste a sysops time, after already having wasted far too much of mine. I'm going offline for a while; I ask again that you please stop using this article to promote Keith Wigdor. ~leif 01:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another false allegation made by Leif, since I did not break the 3 revert rule because...
Please read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version#Reverts_and_edit_conflicts 24.168.66.27 01:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * What? How does that say you did not break the 3 revert rule? You're not making any sense. ~leif 01:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism. Where you think an older version of a page is better than the current version, a revert is sometimes appropriate.

Wikipedia practices something along the lines of vigilante justice. Here's how it works:

First you spot some vandalism, for example someone replacing the entire page with profanity, or adding a page with useless content. So you revert the page to the last good version, or you mark the page as a candidate for speedy deletion. 24.168.66.27 01:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Disagreement over if a paragraph belongs in the article is not "vandalism". It may (or may not) be inappropriate, but please try not to throw around allegations of "vandalism" lightly or inaccurately. Multiple revert wars IS innappropriate and against Wikipedia policy, hence I am temporarily protecting the page; see below. -- Infrogmation 01:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection
Page temporarily protected due to continued revert war. If possible, please try to discuss and resolve differences. You may see Dispute resolution for further options. -- Infrogmation 01:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have tried to establish consensus on this issue, and resolve our differences, but based on the fact that this user has been reverting this change on this article for many months before I was involved, I think it's unlikely that they will just go away. What would you recommend as a next step here? ~leif 02:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Infrogmation, thank you for your insight and good faith decision
Infrogmation, I respect your authority and status here at this great Wikipedia service. I have absolute faith in your decision. I will obey your request and I ask that the user Leif stop making allegations and violating policy against me and anyone else that supports the paragraph subject.24.168.66.27 01:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * What request will you obey? Obviously you can't edit the page right now, but will you stop reverting after the protection is lifted? You're the only person reverting to your version, so if you will obey my request to abide by consensus and not include Keith Wigdor, then the protection can be lifted! Can you clarify what request you mean to say you will obey? Thanks. ~leif 01:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The surrealism article should be protected
The surrealism article should be protected so that the public, along with college students and everyone researching surrealism knows that this article is seriously flawed and dominated by a bias against Salvador Dali, Keith Wigdor, Andre Thirion, and anyone else who does not conform to the limited scope of the post-Breton era. Jean Schuster disbanded what was left of Breton's group back in 1969, (fact, read Revolution of the Mind), this paris group today is a total fugazi, so is the surrealist movement in the usa. All they appear to be is a bookseller outlet through Kerr and very limited. Definitely not recognized as any official representatives of surrealism and even its history. You wonder why this publication Arsenal went after Mary Ann Caws? At least the public can look at all the previous page history to review this surrealism article. Dali was the man who gave surrealism its international platform, Breton was a shadow and real jealous too.63.169.104.2 17:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is protected, but thats only a temporary measure. This being a wiki, the page will remain editable eventually. Will you please agree to not revert the surrealism article to include Keith Wigdor? There will be no bias against him in the article when he is not included in it, or at least no more "bias" than there is against the thousands of other surrealists who aren't mentioned. Again, I suggest that you focus on improving the Keith Wigdor article -- it's a mess right now, but I don't currently have the time or inclination to get into that one. ~leif 18:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Please stop giving orders, Leif, and please stop attacking those who do not agree with your POV. The Keith Wigdor article was first created by Infrogmation and others added to it. It is not a mess, please avoid causing any disputes on that article.63.169.104.2 20:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to "give orders" to you, and I've edited my language above slightly to avoid that impression. But you still didn't answer my question:
 * Will you stop reverting the Surrealism article to include Keith Wigdor? ~leif 23:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Re: User 63.169.104.2's personal opinions
 * Personal opinions are great. They're even better than great! Sometimes they're even objective through consensus. I will not have a discussion on the importance of Breton vs. this Wigdor character (which I, as I said earlier, have never crossed paths with in my dive into Surrealism as science), but I think we both can agree that we strongly disagree. Our task is then to create an "as stream-lined as possible" article on Surrealism. A general scope. In which Dali and Breton both are heavy set characters. In fact, the interviews of Breton by André Parinaud are regarded the most comprehensive and concliusive history of _the beginning of Surrealism_, but Breton clearly states that this all in his own views. Still he gives Dali alot of credit. And reason to believe Dali was not a Surrealist... (Oh, well.) I let out seemingly obscure, but brilliant minds of Surrealism (i.e. Witkacy as stated earlier) in order to reach an article other people can use. Maybe we should add an "Surrealism in depth" article or something.. This is a consideration I think all wikipedians would feel as "the right thing to do" given the complex matter at hand and the numerous misjudgements of Surrealism throughout history. - Sigg3.net 08:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected, for now
I've unprotected the page. I hope it can stay open to edits, and that I won't need to reprotect it or block anyone from editing. A suggestion: How about before anyone again makes an edit that they have seen reverted in the past, and hence already know is controvercial, they post the suggested change here in talk, with an explanation of why they think it would make the Surrealism article better? If other people think the proposed change would make the article worse rather than better, explain why they object. Please no personal attacks, let's just try to have a better article. -- Infrogmation 16:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The, "survey" and "consensus" are not binding
As it is stated by Wikipedia.63.169.104.2 20:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfC
I came here from RfC. Is the dispute still active? Maurreen 06:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Surrealism/Archive 4


text: Talk:Adam Smith (Kentucky)

title: Talk:Adam Smith (Kentucky)


text: User talk:213.42.2.11

title: User talk:213.42.2.11