text:
Talk:Hegemony

Obviated the Spanish Empire
What is the criteria Jayantha Jayman in "Politics of International Political Economy" that not include Spain as the more sucesfull european empire? During the time from 1498 to 1826 Spain was by far the world's most powerful country with an empire consisting of New World territories from Nord America to Patagonia, Caribbean and Phillipines. Signsolid (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it not strange that the largest empire in history, longest surviving post-Roman empire is not mentioned? That such an empire is not even mentioned on an article about hegemony yet such empires as the Dutch Empire gets a whole paragraph is why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Signsolid (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why this article needs overhauled - this user has not understood what is meant by hegemony at all. I mean no offence by this, but that is empire building, not hegemony, which is entirely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasurashai (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. But it's worse than you think. Jayman actually refers to Spain as a "hegemonic pretender", although I'm not sure what he means. We should look for RSs that say Spain was a hegemony and put it in. Don't be to cruel, we do our best here. Myrvin (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Badly written article
Just read this article and parts are either badly written, or vandalised. The article is rambling and there are too many obscure terms. What the hell is a guwaweed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.197.220 (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hegemony and Offensive Realism
Perhaps adding the concept of hegemony in international relations theory would be a great addition. The school of Offensive Realism has hegemony as its dominant concept.

I'll work over the next couple days to gather my IR notes and try and type something that's coherent.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.143.52 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 13 December 2004

"protective right-to-work laws"
controversial right-to-work laws are matter-of-factly described as "protective"

 * unsigned one, they certainly make union membership more "voluntary", which is the issue in the context in which it is used. Whether they can really protect one in an environment of social ostracism is a matter of how well this and other laws are enforced.--Silverback 15:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * that's the pro-"right-to-work" version of things - it's a single perspective on a controversial issue that's mostly irrelevant to the main article - and it's presented in a manner that gives no indication that not everyone sees it that way. it's unnecessary and one-sided.  there should at least be some sort of an indication that a very different view exists, in which "right-to-work" laws are harmful anti-worker legislation masquerading as some sort of counter-hegemonic intervention.  really, any sort of sign that "protective" is a very, very controversial descriptor for these laws would be a good thing.

Merge
Projection of force should be merged here. -St|eve 20:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The idea of force projection is different in many examples.  The Yangtze Patrol of the U.S. Navy before World War II was not hegemony. Projection of force is the ability to realistically sustain or threaten the use of force at a distance from the main country.  It is a component of hegemony, but not exclusive of it.--Mtnerd 23:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Projection of force would be better merged into power projection, actually. — MC MasterChef  ::  Leave a tip — 10:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the implied use of force would be hegemonic, but the actual threat wouldn't be hegemonic. Hegemony is much too subtle to be overt, so the US hegemony in North America is sound, whereas it is attempting to build it in the Middle East, and therefore doesn't have hegemony there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.185.185 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation would be nice.
Someone has added a pronounciation in a rather disjointed way - and it's not obviously the correct pronounciation anyway. I agree pronounciation would be nice, but done more thoughtfully than this 129.67.2.244 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Not sure that Wiktionary has it any better...
 * I suggest something like: (pronounced hi jem΄ ə nē, hej΄ ə mō΄nē, hē΄ jə mō΄ nē)
 * Samatva 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * həˈjemənē; ˈhejəˌmōnē —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.32.179 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 4 June 2007

Sorry to go back to this, but the OED allows the hard g pronunciation as well; I think Chambers only has this. The UK version needs looking at. Myrvin (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

moved...
Moved to here: to be written: the idea of "hegemony" in Marxist theory.. 212.44.19.62 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

removed...
I've removed pronounced he-JEH-min-ee pending decent writeup, probably at the start. 212.44.19.62 12:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

restored
i'm restoring he-JEH-min-ee bc it's the only pronunciation that's useful for most of us  average readers. . i dont see what a "decent writeup" has  to do w/ it [whatever that is.] 173.61.96.10 (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"A little less slanted, please"
This article does not meet the wikipedia standards of objectivity. The assertion that common sense notions of social values can be identified as the Marxist Gramsci's theory, but cannot simply be stated at the opening of the article as if this were undisputed. A little more historical background to the ground of the concept, starting with the Athenian Hegemony, would also be usful.

It's a little hard to believe that someone hasn't included Rome as a hegemon in the history section. Is there a reason this obvious and probably most prototypical example is not included?

 * The article awaits the results of your broad reading and sense of balance.--Wetman 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Rome could certainly be described as a hegemon before the dissolution of the Latin League in 338 BC, but when people think of Rome they generally think of the later imperial power, so I don't think the addition would be helpful. Anarchangel23 (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Opening Sentence
This opening sentence isn't clear:
 * Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group.

I still don't know what Hegemony is. I have no clue what it is getting at, other than powergrasping. JoeSmack Talk 07:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The easiest way I think of it is that a society becomes so great, either culturally (Rome), militarily (British Empire) or socially (USA maybe?) that other people want to join or ally with that society. There is a lot of confusion about the Roman expansion where people think that a lot of the territory was conquered by the military - when in fact, outside cultures jumped at the chance to call themselves Roman and the movement of troops through the territory was a mere formality - because the cultural impact of calling oneself 'Roman', and all the benefits and power associated with that title, were very very seductive. Boris_Johnson did a fantastic series for the BBC where he discussed this very aspect of the Roman Empire, but I don't think he referred to it as a hegemony.

 * Also, the Catholic church could be used as an example of a religious hegemony, and the EEC/EU as an economic one?
 * My understanding of Johnson's series and book is that he discusses Rome under Augustus. By this time "Rome" was definitely an Empire rather than a Hegemon leading subordinate states. From reading reviews of his book, I am also sceptical of his use of history, but I'm reserving final judgment on that until I read it myself. Anarchangel23 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I changed the opening paragraph to something more clear, without changing much more than grammar. What I did remove was this: "It controls the ways that ideas become "naturalized" in a process that informs notions of common sense." It was bolded, which lends to importance, but really I don't see it contributing to the definition, let alone the lead-in to the article. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the introduction in an attempt to be sufficiently clear to a non-expert (which it was not) and sufficiently broad to encompass both of the definitions which seem to be fighting it out on this Talk page. Anarchangel23 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The word "indirect" is not supported by any of the citations, nor is the phrase "a form of government". We should change the lead to take them out. Also, all of the sentence referenced to the book on Mexico is doubtful. Pp 23-24 don't have the word. Only P. 27 has hegemonic, but the word is not further defined. I think the sentence is OR. Myrvin (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

 * The lead sentence should state what is it that makes Hegemony what it is, and what is it that makes it not something else. Separate Paragraphs should address educational, intellectual, technological, political, religious, military, economic, cultural, territorial, hegemony's and the hegemon or hegemons that dominate each.

 * Plato's reference to Atlantis controlling all the lands in the known world by controlling the waters that surrounded them reflects an ancient Egyptian feudal ideology wherein there is sustenance in return for service.

 * On the Narmer Pallete, in the Narmer stance perpetuated as the constelation Osirus, Narmer dominates Akre, the god of the lands themselves by means of a chisel placed on his forehead and an upraised club. Narmer thus uses control of the water by means of a hammer and chisel about to break through the dams that hold back the innundation.

 * The acceptance of this act of Hegemony will release Aker's fertile muds to the fields of those who have dug canals, and grant Narmer control of the land he irrigates. This stance indicates both dominance and submission and would be a good illustration for the concept of Hegemony.

 * An element of Patriotism exists as regards cooperative rather than competitive abilities. The benevolence of gene (family), oinkos (tribe), and phratre (brotherthood) extended to kingdom, state, nation, nationalism and finally globalism in the sense of the sustenance of everything we fight and die for as our contribution of service, will eventually save all of us from climate change or none of us. 2604:6000:1513:4927:64CD:1756:594A:F03A (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Davinatorially
What the heck does "davinatorially" mean in the opening sentence ("often davinatorially pronounced...)? I have searched and searched and can't even find any uses of this word on Google.  Is this an attempt to sound smart, or does it actually have a practical use here? -- Renesis (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the user might have been trying to reference a particular type of book louse. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Liposcelis+divinatorius

 * I can't be sure though. It is interesting that this is the only page in Google to reference that "word." That in and of itself is an impressive accomplishment. =) --Yock 14:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

RV Pseudo Pedantic Vandalism
removed:

 * Throughout what University of Pennsylvannia business professor Roland Barthes describes as the "ninety-degree angles of davinatorial history" in his book Hegemony is from Mars, And Sexy" (1994)

appears to be no such book,.

That's really funny re Roland Barthes! Keep it in just for the smiles? I creased myself. 66.65.115.8 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)JBroughton

Erosion of text
The following proposed changes introduce looser grammar and thought, and reject a useful idea that is part of the effective definition of hegemony, of what it is and how it functions in the evolution of the ideas called "common sense":
 * Old version: "...the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group. Hegemony controls the ways that ideas become "naturalized" in a process that informs notions of common sense.
 * The italicized sentence has been suppressed in the proposed text; it describes a familiar effect of cultural hegemony, which apparently needs expanding to render it more obvious. Editors shouldn't cut ideas because they don't understand them.

 * Proposed version: "This can be advantageous in ways such as the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage. In an even more broad sense, hegemony can even result in cultural perspectives becoming skewed to favor the dominant group."
 * This has a floating antecedent; in ways such as is a disimprovement; more broad does not improve broader; the last thought was apparently obscure, so I suggest this revision: "The cultural control that hegemony asserts even affects commonplace patterns of thought: hegemony controls the ways that new or introduced ideas become "naturalized" or are rejected, in a process that subtly informs notions of common sense." Any objections? --Wetman 01:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Before I get into other parts of the lead in, lets fix the last sentence which i don't understand (er, or it's inferred as such).

 * 'new or introduced' is redundant. 'even' is cruft. removed the -s at the end of 'ways': there is only one way for both being rejected and being naturalized (as in, it happens or it doesn't). the quotes around 'naturalized' aren't necessary. switched 'naturalized' and 'rejected' to make grammatical flow a little nicer to the reader. removed unecessary comma. changed 'informs' to 'alters', which is a little more pragmatic. added 'in a given society' unless that isn't the correct bounds for this definition. how do you feel about this new one? JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 04:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I really enjoyed your user page. ;)
 * Due to no objections I am implimenting this sentence. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 19:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

definitions of hegemony
seems to me the definition to date fails to account for non-national hegemony - where, for example, is mention of the ideological hegemony that is capitalism? this isn't an american hegemony tho america is the greatest force in it and produces great cultural effects through it. the EU, cited as a competing hegemony with the US is part of a greater capitalist hegemon as is china and russia and india and just about anywhere outside of north korea and myanmar. even countries living in near autarky are respondent to - almost governed by - the external forces of capitalism. the oil regime and iran or venezuala for example. capitalism as the only present hegemony, led culturally and legally and militarily by the US. discuss.

POV addition
i reverted this passage from the article:

it feels extreme POV to me, talk it out here if you feel differently. JoeSmack Talk 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not just extremely POV, but massively wrong as well (and I say that as an atheist with no love for the Catholic Church). For example, the Salem Witch Trials were carried out by Protestants (who presumably wouldn't have existed had the RCC actually managed to kill off any religion that disagreed with them).  Likewise, the 6000-year-old earth tends to be a Fundamentalist Protestant doctrine, and is rejected by the RCC.  And the First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire which - despite its name - spent much of its history in conflict (including open war) with the RCC.  And the Egyptians and Sumerians were writing propoganda thousands of years before the Church even existed.  Iapetus (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the following passage.

Seems like extreme POV, but correct me if I'm wrong. Ichibani 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The above is non-NPOV, but I think that removing it outright is a little extreme. There is a certain amount of American hegemony in the world today. SirBob42 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I personally agree that there is considerable American hegemony. However, this statement is definitely very vindictive and contains almost no objective information; rewording it could not remove the POV, which is portrayed by the choice of information.  The paragraph that this one was after ("Since the end of the Cold War...") would no doubt benefit from elaboration on how America is a hegemony (or at least a pointer to the source discussing it), particularly with a solid source.  Ichibani 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Many argue that there is an American Hegemony since the end of the cold war (and even beginning since after WOII), though people may also argue that it ended at 9/11 2001. The world is more multipolar now (EU, India, China, Brazil, Russia) and the war in Iraq damaged the appreciation of the US on the world stage considerably, to the effect that they may have lost influence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.244.192.155 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It is practically fact that there is American Hegemony. The problem is that this article isn't describing hegemony -- its meaning as well as its ongoing history -- but is trying to criticize hegemony as imperialism.  As related as the two may or may not be, the spin it's putting on the topic is in violation of Wikipedia's policy for neutral point of view.  Focusing on the US hegemony simply compounds that effect as it is synthesizing criticism of the US.  Verifiable criticisms of U.S. hegemony may at some point in the future be a constructive addition to this article, but right now they wouldn't improve it at all. Ichibani  utc 04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For another POV, I've added an External Link to an essay in the New York Times which discusses declining American hegemony. I have no idea how long the NYT will allow free reading. --Marcusiologist (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a quote from NYT asserting Microsoft as a hegemony: "More than 10 million people are estimated to run Ubuntu today, and they represent a threat to Microsoft’s hegemony in developed countries and perhaps even more so in those regions catching up to the technology revolution."

Disputed
This article completely lacks references and presents a negative connotation POV. Particularly seeing as the word hegemony is thrown around a lot in a editorials and international political contexts, this is not acceptable. Most of the article needs to be rewritten with information from a reliable source. Ichibani 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. The article initial definition of the term is barely comprehensible and does little to enlighten the reader to the meaning of the term. This is then followed by a high degree of POV and a strong ideological bias. Additionally, considering how frequently this term is used in post-modern academia, there are frightfully few references noted.--Turtle585 18:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's just plain incorrect, let alone biased. This isn't an article about hegemony in context - it's been crafted into rhetoric about imperialism and a theoretical analysis of negative impacts of colonialism in history. Cyril Washbrook 00:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have edited the introduction to the article. Discussion welcome. Cyril Washbrook 00:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. The article goes so far as to say that the United States sought to be a hegemon but every book I have read suggests that the United States accepted that responsibility only after it was apparent that a hegemon was needed. For example the recurrence of World Wars. It can be argued that WWI and WWII were the same war but the United States, after WWI declined to take the role of hegemon and so WWII occurred. Unidentified March 5, 2010

Hegemonization
I noticed this term is not mentioned in this article anywhere, referring to the (basically) effect of 'mentally enslaving' a group to an ideal to the point where they oppose counter-ideals by themselves. 218.214.138.11 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Feel free to write about it, but please attribute the information to reliable sources. This article desperately needs referenced fact. Ichibani 05:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

 * [Editorial suggestion for the following...hegemonization is noun NOT a verb]

Not sure the verb "hegemonization" is necessary, but it might be helpful expansion nonetheless. A more serious prpobem is the confusion in the current definition around force: the point of ideology and hegemony is that neither need force at all -- in fact where there is coercion, it is not hegemony or ideology.
 * An important additional contribution would be to show the difference of hegemony from ideology (as in Raymond Williams excellent chapter in 'Marxism and Literature,' as well as his entries in 'Keywords'. JBroughton 66.65.115.8 00:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

 * No such thing as "fact" in social theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.32.179 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 4 June 2007

Strict Definition of Hegemony
The use of the actual definition should be used in its central definition. It is also used as a political buzz word, like "racism", "fascism", "chauvinism", and "imperialism", in political diatribe involving examples that don't represent its actual meaning. The derivatives shold get their own pages, along with an explanation of the use or misuse of the word by the theorists that are expounding it.

A true Hegemony is led by a Hegemon, a senior state that acts as the organizer or ruler of an alliance of states that may be composed of willing or coerced members. The Western NATO, SEATO, and CENTO alliances (with the U.S. as the major power) opposing the Warsaw Pact alliance (with Russia as its dominant power) during the Cold War are good examples. Hotspur23 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that the above political science definition of hegemony is the "true" definition participates in a hegemonic epistemology in which political fact (the existence of a senior state) obscures cultural networks of power. This is not to discount the "Hegemon" definition, but merely to dispute its status as the "true" definition. Instead of being true, it is based in a discipline. In cultural studies, the currently displayed definition, "the capacity of dominant classes to persuade subordinate ones to accept, adopt and internalize their values and norms", is more accurate. So perhaps Hotspur23 does have a point, that this political science definition should be included alongside the currently displayed cultural studies definition. Yabadaba (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The 'political science definition' is just a specific case of the general definition given in the article. Does it really require addition? Rykalski (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WP Is Not a Dictionary
Does this article really belong in an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Hegemony is a historical phenomenon, like extinction or diplomacy; its course can be traced, as can the usage and changing concept of the term: the history of ideas is the last kind of history to be grasped. Perhaps it's a stretch for the average Wikipedian. --Wetman (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of the British Empire?
Is it not strange that the largest empire in history, longest surviving post-Roman empire, and creator of industrialization and almost everything in the modern world is not mentioned? That such an empire is not even mentioned on an article about hegemony yet such empires as the Dutch Empire gets a whole paragraph is why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Signsolid (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of why this article needs overhauled - this user has not understood what is meant by hegemony at all. I mean no offence by this, but that is empire building, not hegemony, which is entirely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasurashai (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

During the time of the British Empire, from the Napoleonic Wars to the First World War Great Britain was by far the world's most powerful country with an empire consisting for 25% of the world's land and 25% of the world's people and a navy larger than the next 2 largest navies combined so no I don't think I had misunderstood. Great Britain from 1801-1918 was the greatest global hegemony the world has ever seen yet the article never even mentions Great Britain. Examples of just what a huge effect British hegemony during the 19th and early 20th century still have to this day can be found even here on a large scale with the English language being used on here, the modern internet being a British invention, modern encyclopaedias derived from Encyclopedia Britannica, the factories computers are built in are a result of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, and even the computer itself can be said to be a British invention from British Second World War code breaking machines. So almost every aspect of using Wikipedia can be said to be an effect of the huge influence Great Britain has had on the world and that's just taking Wikipedia as one example of many. Signsolid (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the British Empire has most of its roots in Rome and so on back to Sumeria. There are a number of key cultures that have influenced the world, but a hegemony is more political - convincing other states to join up. The British Empire was most definitely created and ruled by force of arms, not through any kind of non-violent superiority that made people want to join the Empire.  I realise this goes against what I said above, and the more I think about it the less I think that the British Empire is a good example of military hegemony.  A military hegemony would be where a state gains such massive superiority in its military that people want to side with them, probably for protection.  Given that every colony of the British Empire demanded its independence from the Empire suggests to me that they didn't want to be there in the first place, which is a key concept in hegemony - the idea that the member states want to be part of it, and are not forced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasurashai (talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here. "It is used broadly to mean any kind of dominance, and narrowly to refer to specifically cultural and non-military dominance, as opposed to the related notions of empire and suzerainty." Suprisingly, it would seem the British Empire was an empire. Geno-Supremo (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Germany?
Why is it that in the introduction 'united Germany that has existed from 1871 to 1945 and from 1990 onwards.' listed without periods that it was a potential hegemon? France is listed with qualifications, and the introduction has no mention of the fact that the US is a unipolar power and is the subject of debate as to whether or not it is hegemonic or merely hegemonistic. 121.45.79.222 (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have deleted both Napoleonic France and Prussia/Hitlerian Germany. Although both conquered territory, I know of no credible claims that their rule was accepted by those that they dominated.  If anyone wants to put them back, they better have good citations.  To descibe any state as a "potentially hegemon" or "hegemonistic" is editors' opinion and offends WP:OR.  Unless a notable citation can be produced. --Red King (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we have a longer summary of the Kissinger citation, please? I can see why he would say the text quoted for the period 1870 to 1945, but I strongly doubt the 1990s claim since one of the founding purposes of the Treaty of Rome was to contain any hegemonic impulses among its signatories. Kissinger would certainly have known that. --Red King (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hegemony in fiction" et al.
These are all Science Fiction examples. This should at least read "Hegemony in SCIENCE fiction". And how does this flow from the classical and neo-Marxist perspective. Really.

BTW, I'm impressed with the quality of the critique so far.

However from a practical viewpoint of someone trying to use these ideas - who themselves will be in a hegemony, I think you are all being quite prudish & harsh.

Does anyone have an issue with the articles concretisation to assist understanding of the abstract??:

"The processes by which a dominant culture maintains its dominant position: for example, the use of institutions to formalize power; the employment of a bureaucracy to make power seem abstract (and, therefore, not attached to any one individual); the inculcation of the populace in the ideals of the hegomonic group through education, advertising, publication, etc.; the mobilization of a police force as well as military personnel to subdue opposition."

The fact that the hegemon determine what is thought of by the subjugated as commonsense, and they automatically defend the hegemon's position is the core modern theme here. The more important fact which no commentator has discussed is why this subjugation happens. What advantage do the dominated gain to permit them to offer no resistance? A provocative example of this is the question "When is slavery a better alternative?" (Jay, 2008)

Isn't there a historical AND critical social theory aspect to be explored? Adhart81 (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural hegemony?
Would it be appropriate to state that (I guess that some sort of reference would be nice) the U.S. is a cultural hegemony (and by cultural hegemony, I mean in the purest sense not necessarily as in the philosophy of socialism) in the sense that T.V., film, and music of the United States is a major influence if not "the influence" in other countries? I would like to hear others opinions on this.  Lighthead  þ 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

turgid prose
"said imperial war, speciously justified as ideologic (i.e. Communism vs. Capitalism), both superpower hegemons fought directly (propaganda) and indirectly (proxy war), each hoping to overcome and dominate the nemesis with an arms race (military superiority) and with economic aid (hearts and minds). In the event, each cold warrior forswore indirect (hegemonic) rule to ensure its direct imperium"

This reads like it was written by a young teen with only a partial understanding of the concepts, but an earnest desire to impress. I tried to rewrite the above paragraph, at least, but I don't think it is actually saying anything. Particularly the last sentence, which, if it did not seem to be semantically empty, would need a reference, anyway. As such, I am removing it. I know that it is better to fix, not to remove, but, in this case, it's hard to see that a "corrected" version of this paragraph could exist. In the event that it did, it would need to be properly sourced. THAT SAID, if anyone can find credible references supporting... whatever it says, then feel free to more adequately cover the topic. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 * On second thought, I don't even want to touch it. It has its tangled limbs, all through the section, and, to an extent, the article, and there is a constant use of odd terms, like "Vietnamese Civil War"... the Vietnamese call it the "American War", the Americans call it the "Vietnam War", so, where are we getting the term from? "Ideologic"? Not "Ideological"? Who classifies propaganda as direct war? By that definition most dictatorships are permanently at war with the West, but, now you're just muddying the concept and making it meaningless. The superpowers in the Cold War being referred to as "Cold Warriors" does not really make sense, in the same way that the Allies and the Axis, in World War II, were not "World Warriors". The uncritical use of "imperium", to refer to the USSR and the USA, also puzzles me, and I see no reason why we need to get into contested ground, merely to explain that the USA and the USSR are hegemonies. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since no one else was touching it I re-wrote that paragraph to make it readable. The whole article could use a heavy editing hand, I almost think it would be best to trim it down to a stub and re-write it from the ground up with a better structure. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Huge NPOV Problems
I think this article could use a lot of love. It's sources are all from what strike me as some pretty post-modernist or socialist sources, and which run pretty contrary to a more conventional definition of the term hegemony. I'm not confident that someone trying to better understand the use of the term in international relations literature, for example, would learn anything; they'd get lost in the density. The article seems to imply that the establishment of hegemony is a sort of malevolent, conspiratorial, and inherently imperial action - while those things could be traits of hegemony, they are not intrinsic to it, and their inclusion here detracts from the usefulness of the article.

I don't just want to start making edits, because this page feels like it is someone's baby, but I'd really like to see it get some revision to include much more practical IR language - where in a hegemon is the most powerful state in a system, and which possesses the power projection capabilities to ensure that, by and large, things go its way. If it is someone's baby and they're looking for someone to bring in that alternative position, let me know. Jordanp (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Split into two sections "Hegemony as a concept in the academic discipline of International Relations" "Hegemony in Gramsci, Marxism, and other writings"? The problem isn't NPOV in the Gramsci-inspired editor's text, its two academic terms using the same word without proper differentiation. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hegemony - a term of convenience
Hegemony in ancient Greece had a very clear meaning. It has, however over time, been used for a whole range of concepts that have little relation to each other. The problem with this article is that it is written as if there is one thing called hegemony. For instance the Chinese term Ba is translated as hegemon for want of a better term yet the article talks of it as if it is the same thing as a Greek hegemon.Dejvid (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I think this is the worst article I have ever read in WP. The introduction doesn't even give a good definition of the word and would leave anyone confused. I don't want to rag on the contributor, as it is plainly obvious that this was, or comes verbatim from some essay. I think that the only way to fix this article is to clear the entire thing and start over from scratch. Just my $0.02 Mr0t1633 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree it's no good - how much "no good" I cannot measure. So why don't you help us improve it? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this article is pretty terrible. Hegemony is not a synonym for dominance! Hegemony is not the acquiescence of people to rule by a state. Hegemony has nothing to do with capitalism. What the heck? I am going to work on this.76.103.241.159 (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Domination v. World domination
Merriam-Webster's has this: "Date: 1567

 * 1) preponderant influence or authority over others : domination
 * 2) the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group "

Does this therefore justify the article? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Gramsci "justifies" the article. The meaning of what you're saying is obscure, could you rephrase what you're trying to say? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Disregard this. It applied to the opening sentence of world domination (disambiguation) - where "hegemony" is listed in the DAB. But problem there is now solved. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
These are two separate, distinct ideas with different needs for citations. Influence (ie hegemony) is a subtly different concept then outright rule (ie imperialism). If the two articles were vastly improved, perhaps they could be merged but they are not in the state to do so now.--Work permit (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Oh, its a poorly worded merge proposal. Trivial no.  Imperialism is generally an interstate phenomena, hegemony is both inter and intrastate. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 * So, (1) improve the articles. And (2) imperialism is by far the more import term, notion, concept, whatever. Joke: "imperialist pig" vs. "hegemonic pig." --Ludvikus (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 * If you feel that way, go work on Imperialism. Prior to Gramsci's unique use of hegemony, the concept of a hegemon could have easily fitted under imperialism.  Hegemony's use in the social sciences is Gramscian and doesn't relate to relationships between states.  Oh, and its adequately voiced at length in the fourth paragraph of the introduction.  Fifelfoo (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Gramsci, the great Italian Marxist, is extremely important in Western and European history and scholarship.
 * However, this is the English language Wikipedia - and he did not succeeded in coining his usage. If you wish, you can Move the page to Hegemony (Gramsci).
 * That said, please do not Revert without discussion. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the English language wikipedia, Hegemony is known in English for Gramsci's use. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gramsci, the great Italian Marxist, is extremely important in Western and European history and scholarship.
 * However, this is the English language Wikipedia - and he did not succeeded in coining his usage. If you wish, you can Move the page to Hegemony (Gramsci).
 * That said, please do not Revert without discussion. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, Fifelfoo, you've been on this article since 2004. So I respect you dedication. I urge you, however, to reconsider reversing your Reversion of my Merge proposal Tag summarily as you've done. But I myself will not Revert your Reversion. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC). Also - is it possible that you're introducing Hegemony (Italian)?
 * PS: Reading the article's lede, it isn't Gramsci's use. So edit the article to do so. In the mean time, please Revert to my Proposed Merge - for discussion only. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 * The key non dictionary definition (ie: trivial, send to wiktionary) is Gramscis. Other uses in English follow on from the concept of consent management in power relations, and academic uses straining at that, or historical instances of that (Athen's status in history).  Suggesting Hegemony (Gramscian) is like suggesting Milk (Liquid). Fifelfoo (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Great. So let's split the article up according to the 2008 Tag:
 *
 * (which I didn't post) --Ludvikus (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

France is the hegemon of the EU?!?!?!
I'm not sure how that got to be there or why it is still there, but the idea that France exercises cultural hegemony over Great Britain, Germany, or even Italy, is ridiculous. This needs to be removed as soon as possible. Maybe I'll do it now and hope that it isn't reverted immediately by someone who is trying to impose their fantasies of French hegemony on readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.81.152 (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"It requires the consent of the majority to keep the dominant group's leader in power."
This statement is one of the most patently absurd things I have ever read on Wikipedia. Would anyone be upset if i removed it 'nailed it to a frisbee, and flung it over a rainbow'? This statement doesnt need a citation, it needs to be buried in an unmarked grave and never spoken of again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullys (talk • contribs) 05:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC) No black books here, too surreal (its collision with wikipedia, the discussion section of potentially the most influential idea on man's development, no less. 81.158.213.183 (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture?
Should there be a picture of american influence a tailored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Soviet_Union_Locator.png for instance? I think it would serve to show the greatest extent of hegemony thus far.

Sociology
I intend to expand this section with the material from the lead. It is too detailed for the lead and belongs in the Sociological section. Some part must remain behind in the lead. More to do. Myrvin (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Geography
I think this whole section should be removed. The whole paragraph beginning "In the ancient world" is not in Lefebvre. Some of it is about hydraulic despotism, but nobody says this is the same as hegemonism, including the relevant article. The rest seems to be trying to suggest there is something significant about the way hegemonies have moved around the world. Also, the L book does not use the word 'trialectical'. I think it is mostly OR. I can't even see where L says "human geography is constituted by mental space, social space, and physical space." Myrvin (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lenin and Hegemony
“The majority of commentators, anxious to stress the decisive contribution made by Gramsci, or more subtly, to oppose Gramsci to Lenin, end up by underestimating the place of hegemony in Lenin’s work and remaining almost completely silent on the Third International.” (Buci-Glucksmann, Christine; Gramsci and The State; p174)

“All the usual, regular and current work of all organizations and groups of our Party, the work of propaganda, agitation and organisation, is directed towards strengthening and expanding the ties with the masses.” (Lenin; Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in The Democratic Revolution, Lenin: Selected Works; p51)

“In a word, to avoid finding itself with its hands tied in the struggle against the inconsistent bourgeois democracy the proletariat must be class-conscious and strong enough to rouse the peasantry to revolutionary consciousness, guide its assault, and thereby independently pursue the line of consistent proletarian democratism.” (Lenin; Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in The Democratic Revolution, Lenin: Selected Works; p85)

"Only the proletariat – by virtue of the economic role it plays in large-scale production – is capable of being the leader of all the working and exploited people, whom the bourgeoisie exploit, oppress and crush, often not less but more than they do the proletarians, but who are incapable of waging an independent struggle for their emancipation.” (Lenin; The State and Revolution; Lenin: Selected Works; p281)

“In the East, the state was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous; in the West, there was a proper relation between state and civil society, and when the state tottered, a sturdy structure of civil society was immediately revealed. The state was just a forward trench; behind it stood a succession of sturdy fortresses and emplacements. Needless to say, the configuration of the state varied from state to state, which is precisely why an accurate reconnaissance on a national scale was needed.” (Gramsci, Antonio; Prison Notebooks, Volume III; trans. Buttigieg; p169)

Is China the 21st century's new hegemon?
The rise of China is evident and people fight over the idea whether China will be the new leading hegemony. I think it is important to have a competing argument to whether U.S continues to be a hegemon since the end of the Cold War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcghjk (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Map Explanation
The map used is misleading for several reasons. One, it purports to show that the US has a massive sphere of hegemonic power due to several treaties it is part of including proposed treaties. For example, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance is included in the map which has no influence or US domination in it, it isn't a military organization controlled by the US, it's a reciprocal defense treaty that not to forget, is ignored by many members of it, and many of those members actively oppose parts of US foreign policy. ANZUS also doesn't necessarily have US domination, when New Zealand didn't like a nuclear provision in it, it just withdrew and stopped participating in many US military exercises, if the US really had a hegemonic influence over them, then how did that work out to happen. NATO can be argued that it is heavily influenced by the US but again, NATO member states refuse to follow US foreign policy wishes all the time and openly defy US foreign policy in the region. The other three mutual defense treaties just mean that they will both come to each other's aid in the case of either being attacked. Those three countries are very close nonetheless due to aligned foreign policy goals in their regions but that isn't due to a US hegemony. Now to the other treaties such as the proposed treaties of the TTIP and the TPP. Those proposed treaties don't indicate any US hegemony, the TPP for example existed between several south asian nations before the US even started negotiations to join and even if the US joins the treaties, that wouldn't give them a hegemony over those countries in any way. The TTIP also doesn't show a US hegemony even if it were enacted and it is still proposed anyway. Two, the military bases shown on the map are not all actual US military bases but that is a smaller issue. Three, major non-nato ally status does not indicate a US hegemony over a country, simply increased cooperation. There is a big difference. - SantiLak  (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 * You definetely don't have neither academic references nor community consensus to support those claims. Changes reverted.

Relations between US hegemony and TTIP-TPP: http://www.feps-europe.eu/assets/64d92837-8f50-4d0e-8d32-798db061424d/ttip-contr-oct2014-mtelopdf.pdf http://janewatkinson.com/2014/08/13/the-ongoing-power-and-hegemony-of-the-us/ http://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Standpunkte/policy_paper/PolicyPaper_01-2015.pdf https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/11/18759878.php

"The US initiated TTIP to strengthen its hegemony through a strategy encompassing both the Atlantic and Pacific regions. Through TTIP and TPP"

Relations between US hegemony and TIAR: http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/10/new-threats-same-old-u-s-hegemony/ https://books.google.es/books?id=pbYbzoKoFgUC&pg=PT38&lpg=PT38&dq=US+HEGEMONY+TIAR&source=bl&ots=zMBXffdT3G&sig=nxv8Vk1ciDse3BjlPd5vBkC3Wpc&hl=es&sa=X&ei=nR8-Vbr0E-ee7ga7noHIAw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=US%20HEGEMONY%20TIAR&f=false "...an age ofuncontested U.S. hegemony over Latin America..."

Relations between UKUSA and US hegemony:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/echelon/echelon03.htm

https://books.google.es/books?id=a5rKferIbf0C&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=ukusa+agreement+%22us+hegemony%22&source=bl&ots=HFr06UT1Uf&sig=WNbVhGsPFFTSJj4ZXrKtxBGzbMw&hl=es&sa=X&ei=lSA-Va3UGqS17gb_jIDYBQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ukusa%20agreement%20%22us%20hegemony%22&f=false

 * There are thousands of references with a simple Google search. I can continue for ages, Santilak. Stop defending the indefensible.
 * LadyBeth (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We rely on reliable sources here, all you have provided are some blogs and leftist research institutes, all not RS and I don't doubt you can keep on searching and find a bunch more non-RS links to back you up. In other links such as the books, it is just backing up what I am saying, the US may be dominant in one tiny part, such as in the case of the UK-US intelligence relationship, but doesn't actually have a hegemony in their relationship. - SantiLak  (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Really, Santilak, are you really saying the US don't have the hegemony in TTIP, TTIP, NATO, UKUSA? You have definetely no authority. The "leftist" claims are all in your head, you have opinions from every pov regarding this. Nagihuin (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am because they don't and your claims don't have any basis. The only thing "leftist" I was talking about was the research institutes that you cited which aren't RS just like those blogs. - SantiLak  (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

SantiLak performs Wikihounding and Harassment even months after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SantiLak#Wikihounding, please stop the edit wars over the content of Nagihuin. 188.87.113.105 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

China's "ancient unity"
The "21st century" section mentions that Ostrovsky compared the Roman and Qin empires, and states that "China overcame all crises and preserved its ancient unity until today." This seems like a dubious statement, given that the Qin dynasty only lasted 5 years and between that time and the present day the region now known as China experienced several changes of rule including a complete conquest by the Mongols (see Yuan dynasty). 2601:644:101:9616:6508:1FC7:CAA7:24F6 (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

While I would agree that the statement overlooks several periods of breakaway states, civil wars, and foreign occupations, I am afraid you misunderstand the importance of the Qin dynasty. It lasted for 15 years, not 5 and it is the immediate predecessor of the long-lasting Han dynasty (206 BC–220 AD). It served as the template which the Han partly emulated and every other dynasty emulated the Han. Just about any Chinese state can trace its lineage to the Qin empire. Dimadick (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Dynasties in China rose and fell, but the established by Qin Great Unity with shorter interruptions persisted. This is the implied contrast with the Mediterranean world which never recovered its ancient unity.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hegemony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100328072123/http://milexdata.sipri.org:80/ to http://milexdata.sipri.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hegemony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328104327/http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/15majorspenders to http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/15majorspenders

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

First part really hurts the eyes.
It looks more like splatter software code than an ingress. You guys can do better than this. Slashes, obscure letters, broken sentences, parentheses, links, different colors, References, references, references.

My eyes bleed

Hegemony is the political, economic, or military predominance of one state over others [1]. In ancient Greece, hegemony denoted the politico–military dominance of a city-state over other city-states [5]. The dominant state is known as the hegemon [6].

How hard is it to make it easy?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hegemony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140914012708/http://people.uwec.edu/mdorsher/ica2001/hegemony_online.htm to http://people.uwec.edu/mdorsher/ica2001/hegemony_online.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Distinction from empire
One of the most confusing elements in the research on hegemony is the distinction from empire. The mess is greater because many works use the two terms synonymously. A passage on distinctions between hegemony and empire would be helpful. I tried this:

Hegemony is distinct from empire as informal rule versus formal, indirect versus direct, influencing versus controlling domestic affairs of other states,   avoiding versus exercising territorial control and collecting irregular contributions versus regular taxation.

This was deleted as NPOV.

NPOV??? --Maxaxa (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hegemony


text:
Tirpitz Plan

Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz's design for Germany to achieve world power status through naval power, while at the same time addressing domestic issues, is referred to as the Tirpitz Plan. Politically, the Tirpitz Plan was marked by the Fleet Acts of 1898, 1900, 1908 and 1912. By 1914, they had given Germany the second-largest naval force in the world (roughly 40% smaller than the Royal Navy). It included seventeen modern dreadnoughts, five battlecruisers, twenty-five cruisers and twenty pre-dreadnought battleships as well as over forty submarines. Although including fairly unrealistic targets, the expansion programme was sufficient to alarm the British, starting a costly naval arms race and pushing the British into closer ties with the French.

Tirpitz developed a "Risk Theory" whereby, if the German Imperial Navy reached a certain level of strength relative to the British Royal Navy, the British would try to avoid confrontation with Germany (that is, maintain a fleet in being). If the two navies fought, the German Navy would inflict enough damage on the British that the latter ran a risk of losing their naval dominance. Because the British relied on their navy to maintain control over the British Empire, Tirpitz felt they would opt to maintain naval supremacy in order to safeguard their empire, and let Germany become a world power, rather than lose the empire as the price of keeping Germany less powerful. This theory sparked a naval arms race between Germany and Great Britain in the first decade of the 20th century.

This theory was based on the assumption that Great Britain would have to send its fleet into the German Bight for a close blockade of the ports (blockading Germany was the only way that the Royal Navy could seriously harm Germany), where the German Navy could force a battle. However, due to Germany's geographic location, Great Britain could employ a distant blockade by closing the entrance to the North Sea in the English Channel and the area between Bergen and the Shetland Islands. Faced with this option a German Admiral commented, "If the British do that, the role of our navy will be a sad one," correctly predicting the role the surface fleet would have during the First World War.

Additionally the plan had domestic political concerns, mainly the preservation of the political status quo and combatting the rise of the Social Democrats. Tirpitz believed that the development of maritime power would advance Germany's economic interests and so serve as a "palliative against educated and uneducated Social Democrats". While Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow, wrote that the plan would "mobilize the best patriotic forces" and "appeal to the highest national emotions" which would in turn "keep the non-Socialist workers away from Social Democracy" and pull the worker away from "the ensnarements of the socialists and accustom him to the monarchical order".

Politically and strategically, Tirpitz's Risk Theory ensured its own failure. By its very nature it forced Britain into measures that would have been previously unacceptable to the British establishment. The necessity to concentrate the fleet against the German threat involved Britain making arrangements with other powers that enabled her to return the bulk of her naval forces to Home Waters. The first evidence of this is seen in the Anglo-Japanese treaty of 1902 that enabled the battleships of the China squadron to be re-allocated back to Europe. The Japanese fleet, largely constructed in British shipyards, then proceeded to utterly destroy the Russian navy in the war of 1904–06, removing Russia as a credible maritime opponent. The necessity to reduce the Mediterranean Fleet in order to reinforce the navy in home waters was also a powerful influence in its détente and Entente Cordiale with the French. By forcing the British to come to terms with its most traditional opponent, Tirpitz scuttled his own policy. Britain was no longer at 'risk' from France, and the Japanese destruction of the Russian fleet removed that nation as a naval threat. In the space of a few years, Germany was faced with virtually the whole strength of the Royal Navy deployed against its own fleet, and Britain committed to her list of potential enemies. The Tirpitz 'risk theory' made it more probable that, in any future conflict between the European powers, Britain would be on the side of Germany's foes, and that the full force of the most powerful navy in the world would be concentrated against her fleet.

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

title: Tirpitz Plan


text:
Lite-On

Lite-On (also known as LiteOn and LiteON) is a Taiwanese company that primarily manufactures consumer electronics, including LEDs, semiconductors, computer chassis, monitors, motherboards, optical disc drives, and other electronic components. The Lite-On group also consists of some non-electronic companies like a finance arm and a cultural company.

History
Lite-On was started in 1975 by several Taiwanese Texas Instruments ex-employees. The original line of business was optical products (LEDs). They then branched out into computer power supplies by starting the Power Conversion Division. Other divisions were soon to follow.

In 1983 Lite-On Electronics issued initial public offering as the first technology company listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange with Stock Code 2301. In 2003 Lite-ON appoint Dragon Group as their sole distributor in Indonesia. In 2006 Lite-On IT Corporation acquired BenQ Corporation's Optical Disk Drive Business to become one of the top 3 ODD manufacturers in the world.

In March 2007, Lite-On IT Corporation formed a joint venture with Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. for their optical disc drive division as Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corporation (PLDS).

Kioxia (formerly Toshiba Memory) announced on August 30, 2019, that it signed a definitive agreement to acquire Lite-On's SSD business for US$165 million. The transaction closed in 2020.

title: Lite-On


text:
Padre Burgos, Southern Leyte

Padre Burgos, officially the Municipality of Padre Burgos (Lungsod sa Padre Burgos; Bayan ng Padre Burgos), is a 5th class municipality in the province of Southern Leyte, Philippines. According to the 2020 census, it has a population of 11,159 people.

Padre Burgos is named after Fr. José Burgos, one of the martyred priests collectively called Gomburza. The town is being surrounded by Sogod Bay in the East, Padre Burgos was once called "Tamulayag", a vernacular slang which means "Let's go fishing". Fishing is the main livelihood in the town.

The town is famous for its white-sand beaches such as the Tangkaan Beach, from where Limasawa Island can be seen; the Likay-Likay Beach, where you can go fishing and snorkelling; the Bukana which is like a small swam of water and serve as a home of many fishes in Buenavista, the floating Balsa of Bas. And the beaches in Barangay Lungsodaan. Padre Burgos is also famous to diving enthusiasts, the underwater beauty boasts of many colourful clusters of corals. With the Local Government's cooperation, Coral Cay, a foreign non-profit organization established its offices in Barangay Tangkaan whose main purpose is to provide help among local people to maintain fish sanctuaries, awareness programs on ocean-life preservation, and clean-up activities on the shorelines of Padre Burgos.

Padre Burgos is also known for its "budbod" (suman), a very sweet sticky-rice.

History
Padre Burgos was converted to a municipality from portions of Malitbog and Macrohon through Executive Order No. 265 signed by President Carlos P. Garcia on August 29, 1957.

Barangays
Padre Burgos is politically subdivided into 11 barangays. Each barangay consists of puroks and some have sitios.
 * Buenavista
 * Bunga
 * Cantutang
 * Dinahugan
 * Laca
 * Lungsodaan
 * Poblacion
 * San Juan
 * Santa Sofia
 * Santo Rosario
 * Tangkaan

Religion
Majority of the population are members of the Philippine Independent Church (IFI), while others belong to Roman Catholic, Hosanna Assembly of God, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), Iglesia ni Cristo, and UCCP, among others.

 * List of Churches:
 * Roman Catholic Church, Poblacion. Holy Mass every day: Monday & Friday – 5:30 pm; Tuesday & Thursday – 5:30 am; Sunday 5:30 am.
 * Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI), Barangay Santa Sofia
 * Hosanna Chapel Philippines (AG), Barangay Poblacion
 * United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP), Barangay Poblacion
 * Philippine Independent Church, Barangay Poblacion
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), Barangay Cantutang
 * Iglesia ni Cristo, Barangay Cantutang

Tourism

 * Peter's Dive Resort
 * Tangkaan Beach
 * Michael's Resort and Dive
 * Sogod Bay Scuba Resort
 * Padre Burgos Castle Resort

title: Padre Burgos, Southern Leyte


text:
Ray Ellington

Henry Pitts Brown (17 March 1916 – 27 February 1985), known professionally as Ray Ellington, was an English singer, drummer and bandleader. He is best known for his appearances on The Goon Show from 1951 to 1960. The Ray Ellington Quartet had a regular musical segment on the show, and Ellington also had a small speaking role in many episodes, often as a parodic African, Native American or Arab chieftain (but also often, with no attempt to change his normal accent, in counter-intuitive roles such as a female secretary or a Scotsman).

Early life
Ellington was born Henry Pitts Brown, at 155 Kennington Road, Kennington, London, England, the youngest of four children. His father was Harry Pitts Brown (c.1877–1920), an African American music-hall comedian and entertainer, his mother was Eva Stenkell Rosenthal (b. c.1879), a Russian Jew. His father died when Brown was four years old. Ellington was raised as an Orthodox Jew and attended the South London Jewish School (1924–30), before entering show business at the age of twelve, when he appeared in an acting role on the London stage.

Life and career
Ellington's first break came in 1937 when he joined Harry Roy and His Orchestra as the band's drummer, replacing Joe Daniels. His vocal talents were put to good use too, from the time of his first session when he recorded "Swing for Sale". Ellington was called up in May 1940 when he joined the Royal Air Force (RAF) as a physical training instructor where he served throughout the war. He played in service bands including RAF Blue Eagles (1945).

After demobilisation, Ellington resumed his career, fronting his own group, playing at The Bag O'Nails club. Early in 1947, he rejoined the Harry Roy band for a few months. The Ray Ellington Quartet was formed in the same year.

Ellington specialised in jazz but experimented with many other genres and his musical style was heavily influenced by the comedic jump blues of Louis Jordan. Ellington's band was one of the first in the UK to feature the stripped-back guitar/bass/drums/piano format that became the basis of rock and roll, as well as being one of the first groups in Britain to prominently feature the electric guitar. They were also reputedly the first jazz band in the UK to use an amplified guitar, which was produced and introduced by their guitar player, Lauderic Caton. The other members of Ellington's quartet were Dick Katz (piano) and Coleridge Goode (bass). When guitarist Caton moved on he was succeeded in turn by Laurie Deniz, Australian Don Fraser and Judd Proctor, who was a member of the quartet for six years from July 1955.

Early in The Goon Show's run, there were many jokes linking Ellington to the African nation of Ghana, thus leading Ellington to say that he came from Ghana. Ellington's recording of "The Madison" reached No. 36 in the UK Singles Chart in November 1962.

He was married to Anita West, who was to become the second female presenter of Blue Peter when she replaced Leila Williams, but she only lasted a few months in this role. They had had two young children (Lance and Nina) when the marriage ended in divorce. Ray's son Lance Ellington is a singer who has recorded several jazz-orientated albums, and is one of the backing singers in the BBC show Strictly Come Dancing. Lance Ellington also appeared in tributes to Peter Sellers, in the film The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, where he played his father, and took his father's part in the Goon Show "50th Anniversary Cardboard Replica" first broadcast on 12 April 2001, the day after Harry Secombe died.

Ray Ellington died of cancer on 27 February 1985.

title: Ray Ellington


text:
St. Michael's Basilica (Miramichi, New Brunswick)

The Basilica of St. Michael the Archangel is located on a hill overlooking the Miramichi River in the province of New Brunswick, Canada. It is a prominent feature of the former town of Chatham, New Brunswick, and one of the largest churches in Eastern Canada. It is now included within the city of Miramichi, which was formed in 1995.

Design
St. Michael's Basilica is among the largest churches in Canada, east of Quebec City. The sandstone neo-Gothic structure was designed by Patrick Keely, the same architect of Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago, and the St's. Peter and Paul Cathedral in Providence, Rhode Island. St. Michael's Basilica is 15 ft taller than Holy Name in Chicago, somewhat narrower, and about the same length. Holy Name seats about 300 more people (1,520 vs 1,200). Construction of the cathedral started in 1903 and finished in 1921. Italian marble with veined panels was used throughout the interior of the nave and the sacristy. The spire is visible for several miles, especially when approaching Chatham from the north, across the Centennial Bridge that spans the Miramichi River.

Congregation
St. Michael's Basilica has a historical connection with the Irish Catholics who immigrated to New Brunswick before the Great Famine. As late as the 1980s, large numbers of worshipers attended daily mass during Lent. The church was one way that the new Catholic immigrants of all ethnic origins maintained their unique identity.

When the Irish Catholics came to Canada, unlike their counterparts in the United States, they were barred from public office and the professions. They were required in the early days to tithe to the Church of England. These barriers were lifted during the 19th century, but Irish Catholics remained marginalized and banded together to protect their interests, with St. Michael's helping to bring them all together. The parish served by St. Michael's had a long history of providing priests for the area and sending others to the foreign missions or to Western Canada. By 1975, however, vocations to the priesthood from Chatham and the area had essentially dried up.

Features
The basilica was built as the cathedral of a once-extensive Diocese of Chatham, that covered the northern part of the province. The diocese moved to the French-speaking town of Bathurst, approximately 45 mi north, in 1938, and Sacred Heart Cathedral became the seat of the new Diocese of Bathurst.

Notable features of the cathedral are the Lady chapel to the west of the main church, a tall single spire (once illuminated by the Canadian Air Force because of the proximity of a fighter base), a green copper roof, and a matching Bishop's Palace to the southeast. Its bells, whether tolling a funeral, sounding the Angelus, or ringing in Easter or Christmas, have long been a feature of life in the town. A fine stand of linden trees, planted by Bishop James Rogers, stands to the east of the basilica, in front of the palace.

Designation
The church is unique in that it was the cathedral of the Diocese of Chatham, but lost that distinction when the see moved in 1938. The church was then designated a proto-cathedral until 1989, when Pope John Paul II elevated it to a minor basilica.

Pastors
List of parish priests since the construction of the basilica:


text:
User:Random account 47/Global climate change

The term global climate change is used to refer to a climate change of Earth. In the most general sense, it can means changes over any period of time and in all of the components of climate, including precipitation and clouds as well as temperature. Like regional climate change, global climate changes can be caused both by natural forces and by human activities.

Studying Global Climate
Much like meteorologists use weather models to predict weather,  climatologists use climate models to study and predict global climate, the Earth's statistical average weather.

One of the most important natural features of Earth's atmosphere they use in studying global climate and global climate changes is called the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the name given to the process which traps heat from the Sun and warms the planet. Some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases, prevent heat given off by the Earth after it has been warmed by the Sun to escape as it would if were there no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. If there are more greenhouse gases in the air, the average temperature of Earth will increase. If there are less, it will decrease. See greenhouse effect for an in depth explanation about this scientific theory.

The study of global climate is relatively new, and not all scientists agree on the methods and tools used to study it. See climatology for more information about how climate is studied.

Global climate change factors
Global climate change factors, like regional climate change factors, are called climate forcings. There are many different ways that climate can be influenced, such as a change in the amount of heat from the sun, increased greenhouse gases from pollution or animals, plants absorbing more greenhouse gases, or dust and greenhouse gases from volcanic eruptions reflecting heat as well as contributing to a stronger greenhouse effect. Visit the climate forcings page to learn more about how climate is influenced.

Past Global Climate Changes
The study of past global climate is called Paleoclimatology. Earth normally goes through a periodic global climate change. Every 100,000 years the Earth's climate changes from what it is like now to an ice age. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago and one theory to explain the periodic ice ages is orbital forcing (also known as the Milankovitch cycles). Paleoclimatologists and other scientists have also discovered evidence of apparently non-periodic past global climate changes. Here are some examples:

Snowball Earth
Snowball Earth, also alternately known as Varangian glaciation, is a hypothesis which proposes that in the ice age of the Precambrian, 4.5 billion years ago when multi-cellular life was just developing, much of the Earth's oceans were frozen over, with ice 1 km (0.6 miles) thick. Other similar "snowball Earth's" have been proposed for the ice age which occurred 2.3 billion years ago, during the first appearance of atmospheric oxygen.

Permian-Triassic extinction event
This was Earth's most severe and sudden extinction event and occurred approximately 252 million years ago. 90 percent of marine life and 70 percent of verterbrate species became extinct. There are theories which suggest a global climate change was part of the cause of this extinction event. Some of the climate forcings suggested are the release of methane, a greenhouse gas, from underwater ice crystals called clathrates. Another is markedly increased volcanic activity or even a combination of both.

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
This was a great change in Earth's climate which occurred approximately 55 million years ago. The average temperature of the Earth rose almost 8 C in one thousand years, and due to this global warming the Earth's ocean and atmospheric circulation was severely upset. Like the Permian-Triassic extinction event, it also caused many creatures to die off. The release of methane from calthrates has been suggested for the cause of this global climate change.

Younger Dryas
Also referred to as "the Big Freeze," this short change, occurring approximately 12,000 years ago, was an abrupt climate change which scientists theorize was a result of a "shutdown" of the thermohaline conveyor, a type of ocean circulation which influences and regulates our climate. They believe the shutdown was caused by a sudden introduction of fresh water, likely from melting glaciers, into the normally salty ocean. Temperatures in Greenland were 15°C lower than today's, and fossil evidence suggests the mean annual temperature dropped 5°C in the United Kingdom.

Climate changes of 535-536
Reports of aberrant climate in the years 535 and 536, described as dark clouds with little sunlight, crop failures, and low temperatures, coincide with tree ring analyses in places as far apart as California and Finland. One hypothesis is that this change was caused by the eruption of the volcano Krakatoa.

Medieval warm period
This period of Earth's climate was characterized by high temperatures, with wine grapes growing up to 300 miles north of their current limits. It lasted about 400 years from the 10th to the 14th centuries. The reason for this particular global warming is not well known and, as with the Little Ice Age, some scientists believe the change may have only been regional.

Little Ice Age
The change to this global climate state, lasting through the 14th to 19th centuries is usually attributed to the reduction of solar activity or an increase in volcanoes. It is described as a modest global cooling of 1 C. However, some scientists argue that this change may have been regional rather than global.

Year Without a Summer
In 1816, dust from a volcanic eruption blocked sunlight over the northern hemipshere, reducing temperatures there significantly, with frost throughout the year killing crops and even snowstorms in the Canadian maritimes in June.

19th century to present global warming
The 19th century to present global warming page would be much like the current (Global warming) page.

Currently climatologists agree that the Earth is going through a global climate change, specifically, a global warming, and has been since the late 19th century. Most, but not all, of these scientists agree that the current global warming is being caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases created from pollution of fossil fuel combustion are what they believe is the main culprit.

Politics of Global Climate Change
The Kyoto Protocol proposes binding greenhouse gas limits for developed countries.


text:
Through line

A through line is a connecting theme or plot used in media such as films and books. It is sometimes also called the 'spine', and was first suggested by Konstantin Stanislavski as a simplified way for actors to think about characterization. He believed actors should not only understand what their character was doing, or trying to do (their objective), in any given unit, but should also strive to understand the through line that linked these objectives together and thus pushed the character forward through the narrative.

Through line is increasingly being used in other contexts as substitutes for words like thread, as seen in the following excerpt from an article by Alex Knapp: "There is a constant through line we see starting with A New Hope and running through to the end of the Return of the Jedi of the Emperor consolidating more and more power into his own hands and that of his right-hand man, Darth Vader."

title: Through line


text: Category:Cytokines

title: Category:Cytokines


text:
Algiz

Algiz (also Elhaz) is the name conventionally given to the "z-rune" of the Elder Futhark runic alphabet. Its transliteration is z, understood as a phoneme of the Proto-Germanic language, the terminal *z continuing Proto-Indo-European terminal *s via Verner's law.

It is one of two runes which express a phoneme that does not occur word-initially, and thus could not be named acrophonically, the other being the ŋ-rune Ingwaz. As the terminal *-z phoneme marks the nominative singular suffix of masculine nouns, the rune occurs comparatively frequently in early epigraphy.

Because this specific phoneme was lost at an early time, the Elder Futhark rune underwent changes in the medieval runic alphabets. In the Anglo-Saxon futhorc it retained its shape, but became otiose as it ceased to represent any sound in an Old English. However, possibly due to runic manuscript tradition, it was occasionally used to transliterate the Latin letter X into the runic script.

In Proto-Norse and Old Norse, the Germanic *z phoneme developed into an R sound, perhaps realized as a retroflex approximant, which is usually transcribed as ʀ. This sound was written in the Younger Futhark using the Yr rune, the Algiz rune turned upside down, from about the 7th century. This phoneme eventually became indistinguishable from the regular r sound in the later stages of Old Norse, at about the 11th or 12th century.

The shape of the rune may be derived from that of a letter expressing /x/ in certain Old Italic alphabets, which was in turn derived from the Greek letter Ψ which had the value of /kʰ/ (rather than /ps/) in the Western Greek alphabet. Alternatively, the rune may have been an original innovation, or it may have been adapted from the classical Latin alphabet's Y, or from the Rhaetic's alphabet's Z.

Name
The Elder Futhark rune is conventionally called Algiz or Elhaz, from the Common Germanic word for "elk".

There is wide agreement that this is most likely not the historical name of the rune, but in the absence of any positive evidence of what the historical name may have been, the conventional name is simply based on a reading of the rune name in the Anglo-Saxon rune poem, first suggested by Wilhelm Grimm (Über deutsche Runen, 1821), as eolh or eolug "elk".

Like the ng-rune, the z-rune is a special case inasmuch as it could not have been named acrophonically, since the sound it represents did not occur in word-initial position. Choosing a name that terminates in -z would have been more or less arbitrary, as this was the nominative singular suffix of almost every masculine noun of the language. Since the name eolh, or more accurately eolh-secg "elk-sedge" in the Anglo-Saxon rune poem represents not the rune's original sound value, but rather the sound of Latin x (/ks/), it becomes highly arbitrary to suggest that the original rune should have been named after the elk.

There are a number of speculative suggestions surrounding the history of the rune's name. The difficulty lies in the circumstance that the Younger Futhark rune did not inherit this name at all, but acquired the name of the obsolete Eihwaz rune, as yr. The only independent evidence of the Elder Futhark rune's name would be the name of the corresponding Gothic letter, ezec. The Gothic letter was an adoption of Greek Zeta, and while it did express the /z/ phoneme, this Gothic sound only rarely occurred terminally. Instead, it is found mostly in positions where West and North Germanic have r, e.g. Gothic máiza "greater" (Old Norse meira, English more).

The name of the Anglo-Saxon rune is variously recorded as eolx, eolhx, ilcs, ilx, iolx, ilix, elux.

Manuscript tradition gives its sound value as Latin x, i.e. /ks/, or alternatively as il, or yet again as "l and x". The reading of this opaque name as eolh "elk" is entirely due to the reading of the Anglo-Saxon rune poem's secg as eolh-secg (eolx-secg, eolug-secg, eolxecg) "elk-sedge", apparently the name of a species of sedge (Carex). This reading of the poem is due to Wilhelm Grimm (1821), and remains standard. The suggestion is that this compound is realized as eolk-secg, thus containing the Latin x (/ks/) sound sequence. The manuscript testimony that the rune is to be read as il would then be simply a mistaken assumption that its name must be acrophonic.

The name of the corresponding Gothic letter ezec, however, suggests that the old name of this rune was not just eolx, but the full eolh-secg. This is puzzling, because the sound value of the rune was clearly not /ks/ in the Elder Futhark period (2nd to 4th centuries). Furthermore, the name of the sedge in question is recorded in the older Epinal-Erfurt glossary as ilugsegg (glossing papiluus, probably for papyrus), which cannot be derived from the word for elk.

A suggestion by Warren and Elliott takes the Old English eolh at face value, and reconstructs a Common Germanic form of either *algiz or *alhiz. They cite a "more fanciful school" which assumes an original meaning of "elk" based on a theonym Alcis recorded by Tacitus (suggesting that the name would have been theophoric in origin, referring to an "elk-god"). The authors dismiss the Old English "elk-sedge" as a late attempt to give the then-obsolete rune a value of Latin x. Instead, they suggest that the original name of the rune could have been Common Germanic *algiz ('Algie'), meaning not "elk" but "protection, defence".

Redbond (1936) suggested that the eolhx (etc.) may have been a corruption of helix. Seebold (1991) took this up to suggest that the name of the rune may be connected to the use of elux for helix by Notker to describe the constellation of Ursa major (as turning around the celestial pole).

An earlier suggestion is that of Zacher (1855), to the effect that the earliest value of this rune was the labiovelar /hw/, and that its name may have been hweol "wheel".

– Elder Futhark
In the Elder Futhark, Algiz represents the Germanic phoneme *z, which does not occur word-initially.

It is attested in final position in the earliest inscriptions, e.g. in ansuz (Vimose buckle), þewaz (Thorsberg chape). It was presumably present in the Ovre Stabu spearhead inscription (ca. AD 180), reading raunija[z], but is hardly legible now. The Nydam axe-handle (4th century) has the name wagagastiz. The Golden Horns of Gallehus (early 5th century) had the personal name hlewagastiz holtijaz.

In the earliest inscriptions, the rune invariably has its standard Ψ-shape. From the 5th century or so, the rune appears optionally in its upside-down variant which would become the standard Younger Futhark yr shape. There are also other graphical variants; for example, the Charnay Fibula has a superposition of these two variants, resulting in an "asterisk" shape.

– Anglo-Saxon futhorc
The name of the Anglo-Saxon rune is variously recorded as eolx, ilcs, ilix, elux, eolhx. Manuscript tradition gives its sound value as Latin x, i.e. /ks/, or alternatively as il, or yet again as "l and x". The relevant stanza of the Anglo-Saxon rune poem reads:
 * sec[g e]ard hæfþ oftust on fenne
 * ƿexeð on ƿature, ƿundaþ grimme
 * blode breneð beorna gehƿẏlcne
 * ðe him ænigne onfeng gedeþ.

Reading the rune as eolhx (as discussed above), and with the emendation of seccard to secg eard due to Grimm (1821), the stanza becomes about a species of sedge (Cladium mariscus) called "elk-sedge". In the translation of Page (1999):
 * The Elk-sedge usually lives in the fen,
 * growing in the water. It wounds severely,
 * staining with blood any man
 * who makes a grab at it.

The 9th-century abecedarium anguliscum in Codex Sangallensis 878 shows eolh as a peculiar shape, as it were a bindrune of the older with the Younger Futhark, resulting in an "asterisk" shape similar to ior.

The only known instance where the rune does take the sound value of Latin x in epigraphy is the spelling of rex "king" on the interlace coin dies of king Beonna (mid 8th century). Furthermore, it appears in the inscription on St Cuthbert's coffin (late 7th century) in the abbreviation of the name Christ, where Greek ΧΡΣ is taken as Latin xps and rendered as runic ᛉᛈᛋ.

– Younger Futhark
In the 6th and 7th centuries, the Elder Futhark began to be replaced by the Younger Futhark in Scandinavia. By the 8th century, the Elder Futhark was extinct, and Scandinavian runic inscriptions were exclusively written in Younger Futhark.

The Yr rune is a rune of the Younger Futhark. Its common transliteration is a small capital ʀ. The shape of the Yr rune in the Younger Futhark is the inverted shape of the Elder Futhark rune. Its name yr ("yew") is taken from the name of the Elder Futhark Eihwaz rune.

Its phonological value is the continuation of the phoneme represented by Algiz, the word-final *-z in Proto Germanic. In Proto-Norse it is pronounced closer to, perhaps. Within later Old Norse, the Proto-Norse phoneme collapses with by the 12th century.

Unicode has "Latin Small Capital Letter R" at code point U+0280 ʀ (IPA’s symbol for the uvular trill). A corresponding capital letter is at U+01A6 Ʀ, called "Latin Letter Yr". The rune itself is encoded at U+16E6 "Long Branch Yr". Variants are "Short Twig Yr" at U+16E7 and "Icelandic Yr" at U+16E8.

– Younger Futhark
Independently, the shape of the Elder Futhark Algiz rune reappears in the Younger Futhark Maðr rune, continuing the Elder Futhark rune *Mannaz.

– Anglo-Saxon
The Anglo-Saxon k-rune ᛣ (Calc) has the same shape as Younger Futhark yr, but is unrelated in origin, being a modification or "doubling" of the c-rune (Cēn).

"Life rune" and "death rune"
The Man and Yr runes in Guido von List's Armanen Futharkh were based on the Younger Futhark. List's runes were later adopted and modified by Karl Maria Wiligut who was responsible for their adoptions in Nazi occultism. Both List and Wiligut have an "Yr" rune of the same shape as the Younger Futhark Yr rune.

In this context, the Man rune (identical in shape to the Elder Futhark Algiz) came to be understood in the Germanic mysticism of the early 20th century as symbolizing "life" and called the "life rune" (Lebensrune). This term occurs as early as the 1920s in the literature of Ariosophy, and it came to be widely used within the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany, e.g. in official prescriptions for the various uniforms of the Sturmabteilung.

The Yr rune came to be seen as the "life rune" inverted and interpreted as "death rune" (Todesrune) During the World War II era, these two runes ( for "born", for "died") came to be used in obituaries and on tomb stones as marking birth and death dates, replacing asterisk and cross symbols (* for "born", † for "died") conventionally used in this context in Germany. It has always been clear that this association is an innovation of modern esotericism, without direct precedent in the medieval usage of the Younger Futhark alphabet. This fact was pointed out in an article in the German journal Stimmen der Zeit as early as in 1940.

After 1945, the term "life rune" continued to be used as völkisch nationalism. Contemporary examples include use by the American National Alliance (as of 2007), and in reference to the Algiz rune in the logo of the Flemish nationalist Voorpost as levensrune (as of 2016).

The term "death rune" has been used in the context of esotericist or occultist aesthetics associated with black metal, in the name of Deathrune Records (as of 2011), formerly Die Todesrune Records, a minor black metal record label.

Pop culture
Following Ralph Blum (1982), the Algiz rune is given a sense of "protection" in some modern systems of runic divination. Blum (1982) himself glosses for Algiz with "Protection; Sedge or Rushes; An Elk".

The neo-folk group Death in June used the Algiz in their cover of their double LP The Wörld Thät Sümmer, alongside their "Totenkopf 6" logo.

title: Algiz


text:
Talk:Placeholder name

Chemical elements
shouldn't this article contain a paragraph about Chemical elements placeholder names (e.g. ununseptium before being assigned the name Tennessine)? I should say yes.(talk) 17:03, 01 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't forget unobtainium! Msramming (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

troll
in the computing section, a the word troll is used to imply someone who knows little about computing or the hacker lifestyle. Troll has come to mean someone being purposefully ignorant or inflammatory for amusement. Furthermore, the citation used never mentions 'troll' at all, and, elsewhere in the document (the Jargon File), the more modern definition of trolls as internet jerks appears. I intend to change the phrasing to "J. Random Luser"; a somewhat antiquated but far more accurate portmanteau of "Loser" and "User".

'Flibbertigibbet'
Is 'flibbertigibbet' used as a placeholder for any loose woman?

Point A and point B?
Should point A and point B qualify as placeholder names? Here is an example from the Wikipedia transport lede paragraph: In other words, the action of transport is defined as a particular movement of an organism or thing from a point A to a Point B. I'm having trouble easily finding a reference. M.boli (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

GOMER

 * GOMER (Get Out of My Emergency Room) is a name in medical slang for any patient who continually uses emergency room services for non-emergency conditions; its use is informal and pejorative.

But is it used as a placeholder? —Tamfang (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Placeholder name


text:
Antonio Allegra

Antonio Allegra (1905 – 1969) was an Italian organist and lyricist. As one of the organists of St. Peter's Basilica at his time, he wrote the words to Inno e Marcia Pontificale, which was adopted in 1949 as the national anthem of the Holy See (Vatican City). The music was by Charles Gounod.

title: Antonio Allegra