text:
User:Improv/lib draft dec2004

Scope of this page
'''ATTENTION: This page is NOT for debate on the topic, this is to prepare a set of statements that summarize the discussion and consider proposals. No anonymous or young-account contributions to this page are welcome, and no comments that are not on the meta-topic will be kept on this page.''' We are not here to vote on a poll, or to argue the case, we are here to agree on a presentation of the case. --Improv 15:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Scope

 * Libertarianism Talk:Libertarianism
 * Libertarian Capitalism Talk:Libertarian Capitalism
 * Libertarian theory Talk:Libertarian theory
 * Liberal Democratic Party of Australia Talk:Liberal Democratic Party of Australia
 * Libertarian League Talk:Libertarian League
 * Libertarian socialism Talk:Libertarian socialism
 * Libertarian capitalism Talk:Libertarian capitalism
 * other Libertarian-related articles or things that mention Libertarianism

Terms for use in this document
US-LP refers to the United States Libertarian Party, the social/political/etc movement that it represents/is tied to, and other movements in other countries that have a similar perspective, for purposes of this discussion.

Issue
Should Libertarianism as demonstrated by but not unique to the Libertarian Party of the United States be considered/referred to, as opposed to Libertarian Socialism, the "modern", "mainstream", "mainstream in the United States and some other areas", or in any other way the preferred meaning of the term Libertarian. Should mention of the term Libertarian in the encyclopedia always disambiguate which term is used, or should the US-LP term be the "plain meaning". Should Libertarianism be a disambiguation page between Libertarian Capitalism and Libertarian Socialism, or should it contain the content of the US-LP meaning, should that meaning become preferred.

Comments
Please leave comments here.

 * I already have major problems with the way this is going about, I can see that you are linking to all the people who advocate your view on this issue, having them comment and then are going to link this to the rfc, and have it seemed like I'm vastly outnumbered. People like Nat Krause that support my side but just aren't that fond of edit warring need to come here to Chuck F 19:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I placed notes in the talk pages of all the articles. It is established process to provide links from the article talk pages. I have only mentioned to one specific person, who was thinking of reopening a RfA on you, that if this proposal, which I did link to, goes through I hope we won't have conflict anymore. I don't think this constitutes grabbing all the people who share my views on the issue -- it's one person, and was intended to suggest an alternate route to arbitration for other issues that are somewhat related to this. If you do want to bring other established wikipedians into the discussion by leaving notes on their talk pages or whatever, please do -- the more participation in this, the more people we can expect to abide by the consensus or poll decision we get out of it. If you do feel strongly that I have acted improperly in this draft, please let me know. --Improv 19:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Chuck, you modified the above text, adding after Libertarian Capitalism the following parenthetical bit: (a page only recently created, and a term with less then 900 hits on google, 58 of which come from wikipedia, many more which come from listing libertarian and capitaliasm in a series of terms). This kind of discussion is an argument, not a question as to what should be done. Let's discuss that before it's added in -- I don't think it's appropriate to mix argument with proposal. --Improv 16:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * That's because the term doesn't exist besides very very sparse usage - your phrasing above makes it seem like it doesChuck F 18:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think my phrasing comments on the usage frequency anywhere. Do you think it does? What parts? --Improv 19:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Chuck F, please don't edit the links to spell Libertarian Capitalism with a "1". It's just vandalism -- it doesn't help the discussion and just makes people angry. --Improv 19:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Have you considered using the term "right-libertarianism" instead of "libertarian capitalism", and possibly even "left-libertarianism" in contrast to that (not necessarily replacing libertarian socialism, since by my understanding left-libertarianism also encompasses a number of other subtly different philosophies). The terms are attested to on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy among other places, although I'm not clear whether right-libertarianism encompasses only the anarchist factions of US-LPers, or if it also accurately describes minarchists. taion 22:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The libertarian-authoritarian dimension
There is no discussion about the basic dimension of political thought that libertatian creates with authoritarian. By clarifying this semantic differential one can better understand the use of the word since authoritarian is well understood everywhere. This dimension (contrasted with other usual dimensions of political thought) should be added to the text:

libertatian -  authoritarian left - right conservative - progressive (not liberal) etc...

All libertarians are against some authority of some kind. Being such, the word is used to qualify many other political movements.

To assume that only Libertarians are libertarians is to artificially reduce the usage of the word and in turn reduce the scope of the possible political debate throught rhetorics. Rauh 16:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Rauh, I appreciate your trying to contribute, but for now, we're just trying to build consensus among existing Wikipedians. As the note at the top of the page says, anonymous and young-account contributions are currently not appropriate. It's too easy for people to set up sock puppets for this discussion, and while I'm not saying you are one, we've seen a lot of use of probable sock puppets in this dispute so far. My apologies that this is necessary. --Improv 17:05, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A view from someone who is neither a libertarian nor a socialist --
The possession, meaning, and use of certain terms are often controversial amongst people with strong political views, especially with those who place claims on liberty and its synonyms or derivitives. There is nothing inherently "unencyclopedic" in illustrating this fact, which I have attempted to objectively state in the Libertarian theory article. I think the phrase libertarian capitalism is indeed uncommon, and, as FOo and others have said in these fora, it is largely perjoritive and an invention of the opponents of what most people in the English-speaking world (and I think several other languages) believe libertarianism means. But it exists and, perhaps more importantly, it serves to illustrate this point: socialists and kindred spirits who would claim the term libertarian want to distinguish themselves from libertarians who are not. I think this is something that ought to be made clear in the article(s). The other point I have tried to make, one that is not adequately made in the Libertarianism article, is that the theory is not simply or even largely an economic theory in the minds of many of its adherents, which the nomenclature "libertarian capitalism" incorrectly suggests. In any case, bottom line, I see nothing wrong with any article referring to these or other terms, even uncommon one or ones used with dubious intentions, as long as the article clearly identifies the common usage and understandings, and, of course, the theory itself is described accurately and neutrally. I believe the Libertarian theory article comes closer to doing this in its near-original form, pre-Chuck and pre-Reithy.icut4u

 * chuck's note: I beliver this user has told me in the past he is a follower of Trokstvy(sp), so his sympanthies are away from the market and towards the libertarian socalism view of things. While I'm saying this let me just say my main objection to libertarian Capita1iasm(besides the fact the page was created by Reithy, who by now has obviously been shown as being a troll), is the fact that wikipedia should not itself be influencing terms and definitions. Chuck F 19:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Who is Trokstvy? I subscribe to no overarching political ideology, and least of all, socialism or Marxism. Impartial rationality allows for private property and capitalist acts of exchange, but does not confer absolute rights in relation to them. Each question ought to be answered in conformance with logic and science.  That sums up my view.  icut4u

 * Chuck, this is unacceptable and damn close to red-baiting. You are clearly a free-market libertarian, but nobody's arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to participate on that basis alone. All of us have our own personal political beliefs, but editing Wikipedia requires that we set them aside and present information in an NPOV fashion. RadicalSubversiv E 20:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Radical - I agree with you, but when someone preluedes to thier comments by saying they are not something therefore they are an outside voice, then it becomes valid to say that they are. 20:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * That conclusion does not follow. I don't know what an outside voice means, and I did not say that.  I said I am not a socialist or libertarian.  It seems relevant to point out that I don't have a stake in the political argument that seems to dominate much of the discussion, often at the expense of analysis and objectivity. I also do not think name calling is productive. icut4u

 * I agree with a lot of the things that icut4u has said, but I have some additional points:

 * The other point I have tried to make, one that is not adequately made in the Libertarianism article, is that the theory is not simply or even largely an economic theory in the minds of many of its adherents, which the nomenclature "libertarian capitalism" incorrectly suggests. icut4u

 * Libertarian socialism is not simply an economic theory either. "Libertarian" refers to the "political" aspect and "socialism" refers to the "economic" aspect.  Hence, to put "libertarian capitalism" on the same semantic footing requires that one call it "libertarian capitalism".  I understand that the word "capitalism" can be perjoritive, but in many people's minds so can the word "socialism".  I think it is hard to determine which of the two philosophies should be given priority to the word libertarianism, so we shouldn't even attempt to do so.  Libertarian capitalism might be simply known as liberatrianism to many people in English speaking geographic locations (the German libertarian article, for instance, says the word is misapplied to libertarian capitalists), but I think libertarian socialism has the historical precedence.  To decide between historical precedence and modern usage in some locations will inherently have POV.  If "capitalism" is unacceptable we should try to determine a better method of disambiguation, but libertarian capitalists do not have a copyright on the word libertarian (in fact the anarchism article mentions anarcho-capitalism, although every anarchist I know of, besides ones who are anarcho-capitalists, rejects the anarcho-capitalist claim to the term). millerc 19:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the strongest argument for not using "libertarian capitalism" is that the phrase is not in common usage, and it's not our business to invent terms. I've previously proposed Libertarianism (capitalist), so as to match our usual disambiguation rules, but found little support. The fact that some people dislike capitalism is irrelevant; support for a capitalist economic system is the major distinguishing feature here. Someone has suggested left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, both of whom are in more common circulation. Left-libertarian would be readily accepted by most of its adherents, I suspect, but I don't think the same is true of right-libertarians, given the Libertarian Party's obsession with presenting itself as neither-left-nor-right. (In my book, they're a specific flavor of extreme conservative, but I should probably hold my tongue on that one.) RadicalSubversiv E 20:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I was the one who made the left/right-libertarian suggestion. While it is true that "right-libertarian" is in slightly more common use than "libertarian capitalist", it's more attractive mostly because it's an established technical term. I'm also not entirely sure that Libertarians would be offended by this usage — the first hit on Google for "right libertarianism" is for, well, a right-libertarian site. My primary qualm with such an approach is that I'm not exactly sure whether all these words have the exact same meaning. Left-libertarianism would almost certainly encompass libertarian communism, for instance, and while I'm not clear on the specifics, I have it on good faith that libcom is different from libsoc, and in any event, potential "left libertarianism" and "right libertarianism" pages would not just be drop-in replacements for "libertarian socialism" and "Libertarianism", respectively. taion 22:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Left/right-libertarian sounds good to me (then libertarian socialist would be a subset of left-libertarianism). A major naming problem that I see, is that many libertarian socialists have and do refer to themselves simply as libertarian.  The Libertarian Labor Review comes to mind as a jurnal that's been around for quite some time, in which the word "libertarian" is used to refer specifically to left-libertarianism.  One problem that may arise from the above naming convention is that it is used by the politicalcompass.org, with which many right-libertarians seem to have a problem.  If we use the libertarian article as a disamig, I would suggest that we cite politicalcompass.org for the distinction between left and right-libertarians.  Also, I suggest separating out the question of disamig vs. how to disambig whenever this comes to a poll. millerc 18:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * are breathens over at Encylopedia Briticniia have contemporary libertarianism and Classical libertarnism, as Contempory libertarniasm is pretty obvious the domiant usage of the term today, I think these two dis-ambig words would work.

 * First off, just because Britannica does it one way doesn't mean Wikipedia ought to. Secondly, you're wrong. Best I can tell (I don't have full subscribers' access), Britannica has one article on "Libertarianism" which contains a section entitled "Contemporary Libertarianism." I can find nothing named "classical libertarian(ism)", nor any references to libertarian socialism, suggesting that in this area Britannica has a clear hole, and is not a good basis for adopting a standard practice. RadicalSubversiv E 20:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Britannica's article on libertarianism is entirely an article on right libertarianism. The section on "historical origins" basically deals with the development of classical liberalism. Left libertarianism is mostly just given treatment in the article on anarchism. I believe that any article we do have on libertarianism should handle the topic in essentially the same manner as liberalism, as millerc suggested previously. Mentioning the earlier use of libertarianism only shows that we're a better encyclopedia than EB, after all.
 * Another thought — does the use of libertarianism in the USLP sense actually trace directly back to the original use of the term, or was the term coined independently? Most articles I've seen talking about libertarianism as a whole tend to lump left and right libertarianism together, which is clearly inaccurate from a historical point of view, given the development from entirely separate traditions, but are they linked entymologically? taion 02:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed revision
First off, a point on style and clarity, just so there won't be any room for confusion once this is over with: In all cases except "Libertarian Party," the word should not be capitalized. Second, the question as written comes off as highly confusing to me, and I know all about the conflict being described -- someone who doesn't may not have a clue what's under discussion. I would also suggest breaking the questions up so they can be voted on separately. I would suggest something like:

Introduction
Taken alone, the term "libertarianism" may refer to two separate political philosophies/movements. Historically, the first usage is as in Libertarian socialism, roughly equivalent to (anti-capitalist) anarchism; The second is the philosophy of free markets, property rights, and limited government advocated by the Libertarian Party in the United States and ideologically similar groups. On Wikipedia, there exists significant dispute over the dominant usage of the term today, but there seems to be some agreement that, in the United States and a few other countries (Costa Rica), it is more likely to refer to the second philosophy. (Note that in the context of American politics, the un-modified, capitalized, "Libertarianism" refers unambigously to the political party.)

 * ChuckF wants to note that he doesn't feel that there is significant dispute over the dominant usage of the term today, on wikipedia or in other places. There was a previous comment here that stated that, but I misread it and deleted it because I didn't understand what it was saying. My apologies. --Improv 19:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Does "dominant usage" really matter? This issue affects the anarchism page as well (with anarcho-capitalism vs. non-capitalist anarchism).  I'm not sure of any wikipedia NPOV policy that states that  page titles must be of the current or historical dominant usage.  And how do you decide weather to go with historical usage (anarchists were calling themsleves libertarians two centuries ago) or current usage (to choose in itself seems POV)?  I've always tried to uphold the maxim that you have to let people self identify, but this policy seems to be a mess when dealing with libertarianism.  Is there some wiki policy that can be created to handle a similar situation on all pages on which this type of dispute arises? millerc 18:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I would like to point that the "dominant" use of libertarianism in Brasil is more close to neo-liberalism than any of what is discussed here. It is considered here to be the "European" usage of the word. It is certainly not social libertarianism neither Libertarianism (as in the US Libertarian party). Rauh 17:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * See comment above on young accounts. Again, my apologies. --Improv 17:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I like how the article on liberalism handles the situation. millerc 19:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Questions
1. In using the term "libertarianism", should Wikipedia articles attempt to disambiguate between the two meanings, or should one version or the other be considered the "plain meaning"?

2.In so doing, should articles briefly explain the different usages, with emphasis on the geographic differences, or should they present the second (historically) meaning of libertarianism as the dominant usage throughout the world through the use of such words as "mainstream" and "modern" ?

3. Should references to Libertarian socialism be included in such disambiguation?

4. Should Libertarianism continue to be located there, or should it be moved (perhaps to Libertarian capitalism or Libertarianism (capitalist)), and Libertarianism made into a disambiguation page?

Chuck, I'm not removing your comments, but I suspect this process will work best if we settle on what's being asked before we throw the gates open for comments from everyone. RadicalSubversiv E 19:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I removed the comments. We're here to talk about the questions, not the answers. --Improv 19:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * wtf is this? you remove my comments and then go and put in your own answers? 203.112.19.195 03:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I removed the additional responses. Chuck, please note that the people who complained about your responses are not the same people as the ones who proceeded to respond themselves. - Nat Krause 06:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If Chuck can't even abide having basic historical material included to clarify the context of the discussion, I don't know why we're bothering. Lots of good editors have wasted countless hours dealing with his bullshit, and for some reason now we're tiptoeing around him, even as he makes clear he's not the least bit open to compromise. He's violating policy willy-nilly, and ought to be under a 24-hour ban for violating the three-revert rule as we speak. RadicalSubversiv E 20:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct, Radical Subversive. He and Reithy both have caused many to waste a great deal of time and energy.  Compromise will not be possible, for that would mean an end to the attention they/he apparently crave.icut4u
 * I still believe this might be resolved, if not amicably, then at least finally. I hope that you two will continue at least through the end of this effort. --Improv 20:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Why? What is the basis for your belief? Here's my proposal: Chuck is banned for 24 hours for twice violating the three-revert rule. In the mean time, others settle on a fair way to phrase this RfC. Chuck abides by the result or is taken to ArbCom again. End of story. RadicalSubversiv E 20:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is clearly unacceptable. I want Chuck F to be part of the process. There are a lot of reasons for this.
 * Chuck F feels railroaded by the whole process. Considering that he was dealing with Reithy before, this is no surprise. He has done some problematic things since, true, but let's

see if we can overlook that for at least this effort

 * Chuck feels railroaded by any process which does not result in his desired outcome. Reithy has nothing to do with it -- Requests for comment/Chuck F clearly demonstrates he was engaging in POV revert warring before Reithy ever arrived. RadicalSubversiv E 19:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Chuck F may have legitimate input into the process

 * Not so far he hasn't. He's just changed text to a) remove basic context with which he finds inconvenient and b) insert his own arguments. RadicalSubversiv E 19:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * He may also feel more comfortable in the decision made if he's had significant input into the process. Wouldn't anyone?

 * In sum, if he is banned for violating the three-revert rule, we will wait for him to get back and for us to feel we have a good amount of input from everyone, including him, before we move onward. We're not going to try to wrap it up without him. I do notice that many of the pages are protected right now, and that's a good step to keeping things calm until this is resolved. --Improv 17:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The pages are protected only because Chuck spent all night evading his block with open HTTP proxies. RadicalSubversiv E 19:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, kudos to Improv for trying to bring some order to this process. - Nat Krause 06:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Nat, it is inappropriate to remove the considered comments of others on a page such as this without any discussion. Moreover, it seems evident that, since no one suggested new ones or proposed a different schema for resolving these issues, the questions deserve to be answered. And finally, you are quite correct about Improv's efforts to bring about order, peace, and fairness to the process; alas, I fear it is doomed to fail.icut4u

 * Nat's action was completely appropriate. Improv made very clear the intent here is to come up with an RfC people can agree on before it's opened up for comments. However, given that Chuck apparently regards Nat as some kind of ally, I think Nat could do us all a huge service by advising Chuck to obey the three revert rule and stop evading blocks. RadicalSubversiv E 07:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Notwithstanding what Improv's intentions might have been, I disagree with the move. It was inappropriate to remove someone's considered comments on a discussion page such as this. But it does not really matter, for the issues at hand will not be resolved here anytime soon. Time for me to move on to non-ideological pastures.  Farewell for now. icut4u

 * I haven't been following the situation, so I don't know what Chuck or anyone else has been doing. But I definitely advise everyone to follow the three revert rule and I definitely definitely advise everyone not to evade blocks.  By the way, sorry if that appeared abrupt, Icut4you; it is discussed briefly above. - Nat Krause 07:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know, until reading the "libertarian socialism" article it had never occurred to me that "libertarian" meant anything other than the same thing to both left and right. Both sides want an end to formal regulation and structure: small government, in other words. To different ends, yes, but the concept is roughly the same. I had always thought the American "libertarians" had appropriated the word so as to give their ideology respectability. I could possibly describe myself as "libertarian" but never as a "Libertarian". If this ever comes to a vote, we should of course define "libertarian" neutrally. This is not Americopedia, despite Americans' predominance here. It is wholly wrong that an article on a strain of political thought that predates the US should set out to describe the American understanding of it.Dr Zen 05:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Private property is central to a right-libertarian conception of liberty, while antithetical to a left-libertarian view of the same. You can almost say it's coincidence that both philosophies support minimal government, given this massive contradiction.
 * And with regard to using American terms, well... I've no personal preference for American usage, mind, but I do believe that Americans make up the preponderance of English speakers.
 * Comments left by Taion --Improv 17:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I second Dr Zen and support that the libertarian page should be as neutral as possible with an etymology/philosophical discussion of the term and then moving to the different specific usages of the word in different political schools/thoughts. Rauh 17:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please see above for why I struck this out. --Improv 17:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are we ready?
Does everyone here agree with the proposed phrasing (the second one) and the questions, and are we ready to move forward? I'm willing to sign off as being content with the proposal and the questions. Everyone else who agrees, please add your note below.
 * Looks good, glad we got so much input on this. Improv 06:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the liberalism approach is much the best. I'm not convinced these are the right questions but they are probably as good as any amount of discussion would produce. Thanks to Improv for his effort.Dr Zen 06:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that the liberalism approach is best (basically a disambig with historical background), but I don't see exactly what questions to ask. There were proposals similar to this for the anarchism page (here and here), but it never panned out.  I fear that any efforts to solve the problem with libertarianism might share the same fate, unless we figure out just how to do it correctly. millerc 16:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I could see the questions restated in a slightly more neutral manner, but it doesn't really matter that much. Looks pretty good. taion 09:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Umm, no I deftienly don't agree with the 2nd verison of the article, it's entirley unnetural phrasing and contains little ticks in there that supports the libertarian socalism view on things
 * Previous comment left by Chuck F. —taion 07:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think the phrasing is "entirley unnetural" (sic), and I doubt that any bias is intentional, but I wouldn't mind seeing this rephrased in a more neutral manner either. The comment that left-libertarianism originated earlier doesn't belong in a formation of the dispute, but otherwise the introduction looks fine to me. I think question 2 can be eliminated entirely if the latter part of question 1 is reworded as "... or should one version or the other be favoured", as it seems a bit redundant. Question 3 could be better phrased as "Should articles explicitly dealing with a specific libertarian philosophy be required to disambiguate between the two libertarian philosophies?", and I don't think the parenthetical remark in question 4 helps matters. taion 07:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * ChuckF, would you mind providing, below, the draft with your proposed revisions? Perhaps by doing this, we can better understand where and how we differ. Thanks! --Improv 17:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fifelfoo's description of the RFC's Terms of Reference
The current Terms of Reference are: "Should [US-LP associated politics]...be considered...the preferred meaning of the term Libertarian?"
 * This is an adequate, if convoluted, Term of Reference.

"Should mention of the term Libertarian in the encyclopedia always disambiguate which term is used, or should the US-LP term be the "plain meaning"."
 * This is an adequate Term of Reference.

"Should Libertarianism be a disambiguation page between Libertarian Capitalism and Libertarian Socialism, or should it contain the content of the US-LP meaning, should that meaning become preferred."
 * This is an adequate Term of Reference.

 * Generally, and critically, I believe the Terms of Reference to be biased towards the US-LP politics position as predominant. The RFC should describe itself in a case-situation instead.

 * In relation to the RFC itself: International English is ambiguous on the usage of the word. While the word was commonly associated with anarchist politics, or civil libertarians, a major new usage has emerged (primarily and predominantly) in US English.  US English, as a major contributor to International English, has created an ambiguity of usage as a major political sub-culture in US English has developed a new usage.

 * Another major problem is the social isolation of the various usage communities. Few civil libertarians are anarchists or US-LP politics adherents.  Few anarchists are civil libertarians (seeing "civil liberty" as a statist and bourgeois concept), and fewer yet are US-LP politics adherents.  In Australian English the majority usage group for "Libertarian" are class-war anarchists, however, there is a much smaller US-LP style usage group for "Libertarian".

 * In relation to the RFC, my comment is: sort it out by disambiguation.Fifelfoo 03:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Improv/lib draft dec2004


text:
Leif Johansson (businessman)

Leif Valdemar Johansson (born 30 August 1951) is a Swedish businessman. He was President and CEO of the Volvo Group from 1997 to 2011 and Chairman of Ericsson from 2011 until 2017 and is currently Chairman of AstraZeneca plc. In 2012, the Fokus Magazine ranked him as Sweden's 6th most powerful person.

Background
Johansson was born on August 30, 1951, in Gothenburg, Sweden. His father was Lennart Johansson, for many years President of the SKF Group (1971-1985). He and his wife Eva have five children.

Education

 * 1958-1971 primary education, Gothenburg
 * 1968 Chatsworth High School, Chatsworth, California
 * 1971 matriculation, natural sciences, Kjellbergska Gymnasiet, Gothenburg
 * 1972 Sergeant, Swedish Air Force
 * 1977 Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg

Career
Johansson has worked in Swedish industry for most of his professional life. He assumed his first position as Managing Director in 1978 (age of 27), at Husqvarna Motorcycles. In 1982 he became President of Facit, an office machines manufacturer, followed by ten years with white-goods manufacturer Electrolux where he eventually advanced to the position of CEO. In 1997 Johansson was appointed President and CEO of Volvo in Gothenburg, a position he held until 2011.

1974-76 project consultant, Indevo

1977 product developer and assistant to the President, Centro-Maskin

1979 President of Husqvarna Motorcycles

1981 Divisional Manager Office Machines, Facit Sweden

1982 President of Facit

1984 Divisional Manager, AB Electrolux, Appliances

1987 President of AB Electrolux, Appliances

1988 Vice President, AB Electrolux

1991 President of AB Electrolux

1994 CEO, Electrolux

1997 President and CEO, Volvo Group

2011 Chairman, Ericsson

Other assignments
Chairman of the Board: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP Member of the Board: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget (SCA), Confederation of Swedish Enterprise

Member of Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA)

Chairman ERT European Round Table of Industrialists

Awards

 * 1977 Marcus Wallenberg ASEA Award
 * 2001 H. M. The King's Medal 12th size in the Ribbon of the Royal Order of the Seraphim
 * 2005 The Royal Automobile Club's Gold Memorial Medal
 * 2005 Knight of the National Order of the Legion of Honour, France
 * 2006 Honorary Doctor at the Blekinge Institute of Technology
 * 2007 Honorary Doctor of Medicine at the University of Gothenburg
 * 2009 The Mekanprisma Award
 * 2013 Officer of the Legion of Honour

Volvo Group
The Volvo Group is one of the world's largest suppliers of commercial vehicles with products such as trucks, buses, construction equipment, drive systems for marine and industrial applications, and aircraft engine components. The Volvo Group also offers its customers financial services. Today the Group has customers in more than 180 countries worldwide, mainly in Europe, Asia and North America. The Group has about 100,000 employees and production facilities in 19 countries.

Decisions adopted under Johansson's leadership:

1998 Acquisition of Samsung's excavator operation, South Korea

1999 Sale of Volvo Cars to Ford Motor Company

2001 Acquisition of Renault Trucks, France, and Mack Trucks, USA

2006 Acquisition of Nissan Diesel, Japan

2007 Acquisition of Ingersoll Rand's road construction machinery division, USA

2008 Agreement on joint venture company with Eicher Motors, India

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

title: Leif Johansson (businessman)


text:
Talk:Spanish verbs

List of simple verbs
Beware the list has moved to a page on its own (List of Spanish verbs). Make your additions there. I moved the list because the main article was becoming really unwieldy. I've also moved the conjugation paradigm to Spanish verb paradigm. I'm thinking of moving the section on vowel-alternating verbs elsewhere, too. Wikipedia guidelines say an article should be no more than 32 KB and this is about 36 KB. --Pablo D. Flores 22:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, should I add verbs that I know, even if I'm not sure if they're really simple? -Cookiemobsta 07:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The list of simple verbs should not contain:
 * Words which are not simple or not the most appropriate ones for a foreign learner of Spanish
 * Gratuitously offensive words
 * Dialectal words

I'd say this excludes chingar, a vulgar Mexican word included by an anon in order to shock.

If the vulgar, dialectal, secondary meaning of coger is to be given, then something of an equivalent register is required to translate it. "To have sex" really misses the mark. "To fuck" is a tad harsh. "To shag", or similar, is just right. Chamaeleon 10:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requests
If anyone has any questions about Spanish verbs, put them here and I shall answer them in the article. Chamaeleon 02:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isn't andar an irregular verb, because in the pretérito perfecto simple it's conjugated anduve not andé? And if it is, are there other verbs like it?

It is irregular indeed, there are other verbs that have a similar conjugation, such as tener (tuve) and derivated verbs: contener, sostener, mantener... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.136.36 (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The ending of some verb forms for andar and tener is similar, but the conjugation is not the same. In "anduve" the stem of the infinitive ("and-") is there, in "tuve", the stem of the infinitive ("ten-") is reduced to just "t-", also, in other tenses/persons the parallelism is lost (Cfr: yo ando vs. yo tengo). I'm not sure, but it looks very likely that andar is a one of a kind irregular verb... "Wenceslao Grillo" 1:40, 26 Aug 2013 (GMT -0300)

Could you please add some explanation and commentary around transitive, pronomial, reflextive verbs and how they relate (are some a sub-type of the others?), including (for example) that sometimes the "reflexive version" of a verb actually has a different meaning to the underlying verb? (Or perhaps this is more general and that the same verb has different meaning based on context / prepositions used, etc). Maybe this is already documented somewhere, but I couldn't find it.2A02:C7D:C5CC:DA00:7C9D:7531:18C9:91D1 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Near Future
This article is lacking of the near future (I'm going to go), which is prefered in South America over the Simple Future ("Esta noche voy a ir a bailar"/"Esta noche iré a bailar").

Perhaps it woud be also good to add a short comment on the preferences of use of the pasado simple (South America) and the pretérito perfecto ("Ayer fuí a bailar"/ "Ayer he ido a bailar").

Finally, the pretérito anterior continuo ("hubiera (hubiese) estado hablando") seams to me that exists, yet I haven't been able to find an example that couldn't be expressed in another splimpler form. -Mariano July 8, 2005 10:42 (UTC)

 * Note: List of Spanish verbs has been moved to Wikitonary under the name list of all spanish verbs K-unit 15:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Referring to the periphrastic future (ir a/going to), a recent edit interchanged "Spanish" with "English" in "This form is much more common in Spanish than in English." I wasn't aware that either language significantly outdid the other in use of the periphrastic future.  Can anyone cite a source in support of either claim?  By the way, "South America" includes Brazil and excludes Mexico and Central America—is that really what you want to say? Kotabatubara (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be so nice to IP editors. The quickest fix is to delete the sentence, which probably never was anything but a personal observation. --Jotamar (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Future
Hi, I am a native Mexican Spanish speaker; I just wanted to make a comment about the section about the future conjugation of spanish:

I am not sure about other countries, but here in Mexico, the future tense is not often used to express a future idea (like in english I will go) But to express a desire to know something like in this example:

JUAN: María, Laura quiere hablar contigo. / in English: Maria, Laura wants to talk to you

MARÍA: ¿Qué querrá? / literally, in English: what will she want? But correctly translated: What do you think she wants?

Future again
I just went further into the article and it seems my previous comment is already observed here. Sorry!

Perfective vs. Perfect
I believe the term "perfective" has been used incorrectly to describe the tenses/aspects formed with haber. See Grammatical_aspect.

"Perfective" refers to actions viewed as a simple whole, as opposed to actions viewed as a process (imperfective) and actions with a resulting later state or condition (perfect). Hence, the only necessarily "perfective" tense in spanish is the simple preterite (pretérito indefinido).

Unless i am completely misguided, the term "Perfective" as it currently appears on the page should be replaced with "Perfect," to correctly describe the Spanish perfecto.

 * I think you're right. I've seen the term "perfective" used to discuss more exotic languages, but only ever "perfect" in relation to Spanish. — Hippietrail 01:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Linkspam
Someone seems bent on including a link to www.helloworld.com.es in the external links section of this article (see the history). I have been deleting it (as have others) every time I return to see it. In my opinion it is irrelevant when they just link to the homepage of a site and you have to click throught several pages to actually find the conjugator and then, lo and behold, it's a 6Mb+ download instead of an online conjugator. What do you guys think? Should the link be included? If it is to be included, at least it should link directly to the download page (www.helloworld.com.es/english/downloads/spanishvm.htm) *and* clearly state that it is a download. This also might be a case of attemted self-promotion. LinguistAtLarge 15:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm, someone should download it and give it a try. I haven't tried any on-line conjugator, but if they are any good, then there's no need of a 'downloadable' one. Mariano (t/c) 08:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the user has been blocked. Hopefully that will take care of the problem. LinguistAtLarge 05:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Pablo-Flores I am the guilty party for the above link to www.helloworld.com.es. My native language is English and when first coming to Spain I really had a hard time learning the Spanish Verbs. The online Spanish verb conjugators were great if you just wanted the answer, but to actually learn the verbs I found it alot easier with some form of testing, so I searched the internet until I found the above link. The software does not just give you the verbs fully conjugated but actually tests you to see whether you are able to conjugate the verbs.

I do apologise for not linking directly to www.helloworld.com.es/english/downloads/spanishvm.htm I did not realise it would be such a big deal. These guys at www.helloworld.com.es provide this Spanish verb conjugator - Trainer for free, and I just thought your users would benefit from it. When you kept on removing the link, I just kept on adding it in, I just thought it was someone from the online conjugators removing it. Another thing Verbos is a software download as well and they require Java Runtime environment sort of like www.helloworld.com.es is a software download and requires .net framework.

 * I apologise once again if you interpreted my contribution as Spam. It was not my intension. —This unsigned comment was added by 88.9.154.171 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 20 March 2006.

 * I understand. However (and this is for everybody), I still think this is unnecessary. The external links sections of several Spanish language-related articles are very bloated. There are a million of Spanish tutorials, conjugators, quizzes etc. and we can't test them all to see which are good enough. And the prospective student of Spanish can easily find them using a common search engine. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Status of page
I'm looking through the main page, as well as the discussion page. The Discussion seems to have gone quiet about a year ago, and the main page has regular small updates. I'm thinking to make some changes to the main page, mostly as a vehicle for me to learn. I am not an expert in linguistics (or Spanish, for that matter).

The list at the top of the Discussion page is great; it seems to have a list of topics that still need attention (I say "seems" because I haven't checked the list versus the main page yet).

The biggest problems with the page, from my reading, is its inconsistency with similar pages (such as French verbs, English verbs, and so on); and its inconsistency with supporting pages (such as Grammatical mood, Grammatical tense, and so forth). Wouldn't it be great if the link to tense used the same definition as the words on this page ...?

Because of my lack of subject-matter knowledge, I'm hoping the community can help me improve the page. I'm not sure how the page will end up looking, but I am sure that I'll learn a lot.

DanielVonEhren 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Personalized, adjective form and other (IMHO) mistakes
Hi, as a native Spanish speaker, I'm afraid I can't agree with some of the contents of the article. Before making any correction, I would like to discuss here what I find to be mistakes.

As far as I know, there is no personalized, adjective form for every verb. It may sound convenient and can look similar to English, but nouns derived from verbs such as andante (from andar, walk), comedor (from comer, eat), hablador (from hablar, speak) do not mean, respectively walker, eater or speaker. I don't think it's a recognized form of any verb.

On the other hand, at least in Spain's Spanish language textbooks, we where taught a non-finite forms that is missing in the article: the compound gerund (e.g. habiendo hablado, having talked).

Another mistake is considering Conditional a mood. There are just three moods: Indicative, Subjunctive and Imperative. The conditional tense is part of the indicative.

I find a general trend in the article to assimilate Spanish verb conjugation to English verb conjugation. I personally think it's OK, as long as you don't introduce errors in order to avoid a long explanation. We can end up with a very clear but perfectly mistaken article.

For instance, in Spanish "continuous tenses" as such do not exist. It is true that you can use the auxiliary verb "estar" to form "continuous" tenses. You can also use "ir a" to form a future in exactly the same way you use "going to" in English. In Spanish this is called a "Perífrasis verbal" and there are lots of them, just as in English (for example: "used to do something" to indicate a habit). The thing is that they don't are "canonical" tenses.

I'll try to find a link to a complete and exact table of the verb tenses defined in Spanish to avoid misunderstandings. For the time being, allow me to list the tenses as taught in Spain:

-Indicative mood: Simple forms: Presente, pretérito imperfecto, pretérito indefinido, condicional simple, futuro simple. Compound forms: Pretérito perfecto, pretérito pluscuamperfecto, pretérito anterior, condicional compuesto, futuro compuesto.

-Subjunctive mood: Simple forms: Presente, pretérito imperfecto, futuro simple. Compound forms: Pretérito perfecto, pretérito pluscuamperfecto, futuro perfecto.

-Imperative mood: Presente.

By the way, it seems that there is a confusion between perfect tenses and compound tenses. In Spanish, they are called perfect because the action indicated by them is finished. The pretérito indefinido is also called pretérito perfecto simple, because it is a perfect, simple tense, and right now it is listed as non-perfect. So I would rename what the article refers as perfect tenses to compound tenses since they are conjugated by the composition of haber and the corresponding participle.

Sorry for the long exposition. --78.24.136.36 (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your suggestions. Over time, a lot of your recommendations appear to have been integrated into the article, for example, merging the conditional mood into the tenses section. I cleaned up that section some more yesterday and I think it's in pretty good shape right now. I also went ahead and removed the part about a personalized adjective form for every verb, as that seems to be WP:OR. And finally, I made it clear in the periphrasis section that those forms exist but are not canonical. If you're still around, I'd be happy to hear more of your suggestions and work with you further on improving this article. Sincerely, – Novem Lingvae (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Condicional is not a mood, and there are no continuous tenses oficially as in English
I would like to make some comments or suggestions for correcting this article. First of all, according to the modern Spanish grammar, condicional simple and condicional compuesto are not a mood, but two tenses in the "indicative mood". There is no such mood as "conditional" in Spanish. Secondly, there are no "continuous tenses" the way it is now in the article. The verb estar and the gerund is just a periphrasis or circumlocution (of many other) that expresses continuity, but they are not verbal tenses and never were. My suggestion is consulting a conjugation of a verb from DRAE online and using the terms and categories as they are there. Regards, --TheMexican (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the necessary corrections, I also completed with some examples and explanations. --TheMexican (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Vosotros habéis / hesties
Can someone confirm the form hesties? I learned this as vosotros habéis. Foros2000 (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

helper verb "haber" conjugated: he, has, ha, hemos, hesties, han)

 * I also learned it as vosotros habéis. I have never seen hesties in any of my textbooks, and to be honest, it doesn't even look Spanish. I'll take a quick look in the article right now and make appropriate changes. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Habeis:

Hi i´m spanish and the correct form is HABÉIS (HABER). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carran (talk • contribs) 10:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Habemos is a barbarim
As "Habemos" in this is a barbarism I proced to modificate this coment→The form habemos is common, and in certain contexts it is even acceptable in formal or literary language.

Time expressions with preterit or imperfect
Based on scans of the Davies corpus at , I have revised the lists of time expressions that were said to "indicate" (better: "tend to co-occur with") either the preterit or the imperfect tense. Most of the expressions were well-matched with one of the two tenses, but — based on the corpus scans — I have moved "por un rato" from the imperfect list to the preterit list because, like "por un día", "por un año", etc., it specifies a measured length of time, which is likely to focus attention on the beginning and ending of the action or state. (In the corpus there are only 7 tokens of "por un rato" adjacent before or after a preterit or imperfect, but 6 of these involve the preterit.) Other expressions I've moved to the preterit column because of their correlation in the corpus are "durante" (following the verb — 94%), "varias veces" (91%) "nunca" (73%) and "tantas veces" and "muchas veces", both weakly favoring the preterit at 62% and 61% respectively.

I have deleted "en ese momento", "siempre", and "mucho" from both lists as being too weakly correlated with their indicated verb tense (51%, 56%, and 58% respectively). "En ese momento" does focus on a moment, but that moment can just as well be within the duration of the action or state (imperfect) as at its beginning or end (preterit). I've deleted "de momento" ("for the time being, for now") as too rarely used with past tenses to be useful here.

I've added 6 expressions to the preterit list: "hoy" (80%), "luego" (83%), "[number] veces" (78%), "tan pronto como" (78%), "después que" (87%), and "desde que" (77%). To the imperfect list, I've added "todavía" (85%) and "ya" (67% with imperfect, even without counting the "había" etc. of the pluperfect).Kotabatubara (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Idiomatic English
I'm reverting many of the 19 June 2011 revisions by 79.154.193.209 because they replaced idiomatic English with stilted or ungrammatical forms. Kotabatubara (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Comprender" is usually translated "understand". English "comprehend" doesn't reflect the ordinary conversational register of Spanish "comprender".
 * Contractions such as "I'm" for "I am", etc. are the normal way that English is spoken. In speech, the uncontracted forms are used only in sermons and other formal orations, or for emphasis.  They are not a faithful translation of the Spanish examples (which are in the conversational register). Run Google searches on "I'm travelling" and "I am travelling" to see which one is more numerous.
 * The title "Mr." (Mr. Ruiz) is rarely spelled out as "Mister". Compare "Mr. Smith" (17.3 million Google hits) and "Mister Smith" (232,000).
 * People named Eduardo are called Eduardo in English nowadays, not Edward. Names are rarely translated.
 * "Entró" and "came in" are good conversational equivalents; "entered" is of a higher register, and more rarely used. Google searches support this.
 * Spanish "tranquilo" is conversational; English "calm" is conversational; English "tranquil" is stilted, bookish language, not a good equivalent for "tranquilo".
 * "That'll be Fabio" -- this contracted form is much more likely than "That will be..." when it acts as the "future of probablility".
 * "Latin America" includes countries where Spanish is not much spoken, e.g. Brazil. "Spanish America" is a more frequent expression than "Hispanic America".
 * "It rained much" is of doubtful grammaticality. "Much" is normally used only in "non-assertive" sentences (negatives and interrogatives).  "It rained a lot" is the grammatical, normal way to say "Ha llovido mucho".  You can also say "It rained a great deal", but not "It rained much".
 * "Let's eat!" is the only way to say "¡Comamos!" in English. The uncontracted form "Let us eat" is likely to be heard as a request for permission.
 * "Commoner" is a noun (a person not of the nobility). Make "common" comparative with "more". A Google search bears this out.
 * There is no such word as "ereyesterday". And "ere" is archaic.  "Yesternight" is also archaic.
 * "Thrice" is virtually archaic.
 * "I bathed": 319,000 Google hits. "I had a bath": 1.08 million.  "I took a bath": 2.03 million.
 * "I want that the doors be closed" is not grammatical English.

Tables on "vos" negative imperative are contradictory
The table headed "Negative imperative (imperativo negativo)" shows the conjugational ending for vos without final s's: -e, -a, and -a for ar, er, and ir verbs respectively.

The table headed "Negative command forms of the verb comer" shows the conjugational ending for vos with two options for this er verb, both with a final s: "¡No comas!" or "¡No comás!"

I think the second table is probably correct. Could someone please make the appropriate corrections? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.37.37 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no information about Spanish principal parts here
Will this information be added in the future? Jarble (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "principal parts" is much used in the tradition of English grammar, to help learners keep track of irregular verbs like "go"/"went"/"gone" (as opposed to regular ones like "help"/"helped"/"helped"). For English it is a practical concept, because the forms that change are seen as whole words. But in Spanish the forms that change are the "stems" of verbs (which are bound to "endings"). So the information you are looking for is in the article, but it is called by other terms, such as "stem-changing". Kotabatubara (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm deleting the note at the top of the article that says "This article is missing information about principal parts of Spanish verbs" etc. "Principle parts" are not part of the Spanish grammatical tradition. See the article "Principal parts", where it says "In Spanish, verbs are traditionally held to have only one principal part, the infinitive, by which one can classify the verb into one of three conjugation paradigms (according to the ending of the infinitive, which may be -ar, -er or -ir)." Kotabatubara (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

comí / he comido
"Esta mañana comí huevos y pan tostado" doesn't sound good to me (a Spanish speaker from Spain). I would say: "Esta mañana he comido huevos y pan tostado" and: "Ayer comí huevos y pan tostado" --84.123.71.253 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence is OK for Latin America and the Canary Islands. Jotamar (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Spanish voice information missing?
There is nothing here about how Spanish inflects it's verbs with voice. I, not being a Spanish learner or speaker, have no idea how it works. The current section just describes a very general definition for Voice, not how spanish inflects its verbs with Active or Passive Voice. Frozenfire71 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Spanish verbs don't inflect for voice, they just use an auxiliary verb for the passive voice, as explained in the page, section The Passive. If there is something not clear enough in that section, please let us know. --Jotamar (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

imperative of 'go' for vos
"Used because the general norm in the voseo imperative is to drop the final -d and add an accent; however, if this were done, the form would be í"

What is this intended to mean? It reads like a tangle of conflations (infinitive-fixation where it doesn't apply, i.e. suppletion; prosody and orthography "add an accent"...) and maybe -- it's difficult to decipher -- invoking teleology where there is none (because... if this were done...). Can someone help to sort this out? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Categories, sections, accidents, and counting: structuring of the contents and the form of the article
I am thankful for the efforts of all those who have layed out extensive information about Spanish verbs on Wikipedia: it helps me get a better understanding and more knowledge of this language.

Having said that, in the current version of the article one finds:

 * [A] 7 categories listed in the introduction (1. tense, 2. number, 3. person, 4. T-V distinction, 5. mood, 6. aspect, 7. voice);
 * [B] 6 sections listed in the contents (1. person and number, 2. mood, 3. tense, 4. impersonal or non-finite forms of the verb, 5. voice, 6. verbal aspect);
 * [C] 5 accidents of the verb announced;
 * [D] 6 sections following this announcement (1. person and number [first person; second person; singular forms; plural forms; third person; singular forms; plural forms], 2. mood, 3. tense, 4. impersonal or non-finite forms of the verb [infinitive; gerund; past participle] , 5. voice, 6. verbal aspect).

Category is not defined here, but - from the lists and titles and announcement - it appears to be somehow related to accident of the verb. Their numbers, however, vary from 7, to 6, to 5, and back to 6 again. Their names too are not always the same, raising the question in the mind of a novice - I can imagine - whether or not the same things are meant. Furthermore, the five sections concerning what may be gleaned - from the terms used in the categories list [A] and the number of accidents announced [C] - to be veritable categories, are interrupted by a section on something that seems to be different than a category, namely impersonal or non-finite verb forms. And, strangely, T-V mood does not get its own section, though it seems to be very similar to an accident of the verb. Or am I wrong here?

Questions:

 * [Q1] Are accidents of the verb also categories? [I suppose yes.]
 * [Q2] Is T-V distinction also an accident of the verb (apart from being a category)? [I suppose yes.]
 * [Q3] Is there support for having a one-to-one correspondence between the categories (those related to verbs; not other categories like adverbs for instance), the accidents of the verbs, the sections about them, and the order in which they appear in the list in the introduction and the order of the corresponding sections?

I am convinced the article would be more readable, particularly to a novice, if its structure would be more along the lines suggested in [Q3].Redav (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess that the use of terminology such as accident, category, trait, etc., is entirely theory-dependent, and different grammarians will use different words and concepts. So, if you think that the current wording of the page can be improved so that the average reader will understand it better, go ahead and do it. --Jotamar (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Tense and Paradigm
User:Barefoot through the chollas suggests to use paradigm for what is traditionally called tense (group of six forms varying in person and number), so as not to confuse it with grammatical tense. Here is my answer:
 * Frankly, I hadn't heard about using the word paradigm for what traditionally has been called tense. In any case I would call it sub-paradigm perhaps. Can you point to sources that use the word that way? About tense, yes, it can be confusing for readers to speak of grammatical tense and also of conjugation tense, however that's how language works, it's a word with 2 meanings, and the second meaning is the one used in most language teaching texts. I've checked that this traditional meaning of tense is also used in the WP pages about French or Italian, for instance. Personally I think that in a page like this one it's better to use the traditional lingo, rather than the terminology of the latest fad in Linguistics. Needless to say, there are many alternative wordings to overcome the problem (the dual meaning of tense) but I don't think that using paradigm instead is a good idea. --Jotamar (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's useful if I repeat here what I wrote on your talk page, so as to avoid misunderstanding.
 * Jotamar, brief here, semi-swamped at present, but I'm thinking it would be good if we could work together to clean up the paragraphs you edited recently in Spanish verbs. Agreed that (verb) paradigm is used in two ways -- one to refer to the maximally six forms of the template for a specific tense-aspect-mood class such as imperfect subjunctive, the other, more traditional, a cover term for a specific verb's entire collection of forms, presumably conjugations as well as non-conjugated forms. I'm reasonably satisfied with the admittedly vague term system for a verb's entire suite of forms, and much more so with paradigm for a specific conjugated template, but I'm open to principled alternatives that could work. The main point is to sort out appropriate labels for those two so that tense is used to describe actual tense, thus avoiding confusing misapplication of that label to templates that are actually more than just tense. Cheers.
 * Perhaps that can serve as an intro to any discussion people might want to have here. I'll chime in to assure readers that labeling tense as tense and not labeling other things tense is not a fad in Linguistics. I'll also suggest that while an encyclopedia article is not intended to be a language-teaching text, it's helpful to those who use it as a reference to have an article that's descriptively accurate and as free of confusion as possible.

 * As for paradigm, it's often used as described above, in scholarship for sure, but also in pedagogical grammars. Here's a piece from a web page found very quickly for beginners in French:[]

 * ''Verb conjugations are traditionally presented in textbooks according to paradigms, a grammatical term for pattern. A paradigm always includes the infinitive followed by the conjugations according to person which is divided into first, second and third, as well as number, which is the distinction between singular and plural.

 * Here is the paradigm for the present tense of the French verb parler, 'to speak'.

''
 * (And the author provides the table that would be expected, i.e. je parle, tu parles, etc. I tried to copy it here, but format went crazy.)

 * Quibbling over "always includes the infinitive" is in order, and labeling this simply present tense without mentioning indicative is open to discussion, but the point here is the use of paradigm, which is easy to find in both scholarly work and in presentations for naive language learners.

 * And that sort of circles around to the point. Tense (in some way or another) refers to time. For the same of clarity, it would be best to use it for that in the article, not leave readers to confuse/conflate it with "conjugation template". Otherwise, we end up with absurdities, such as implicitly or explicitly claiming that imperfect indicative and imperfect subjunctive are the same tense (time reference), but two different tenses (conjugation patterns) -- and we miss or obscure the actual distinction of mood. Paradigm works fine, but suggestions for standard alternative labels are quite welcome. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Browsing the very same text about French that you use as example (FE), I find several relevant points. In your previous version of the page, you said that "The modern Spanish verb system has sixteen distinct complete [...] paradigms [...] plus one incomplete [...] paradigm ..."; however in FE they speak about the paradigm for the present tense, rather than the present paradigm. Then FE goes on to say: "The two common auxiliary verbs in French, avoir (to have) and être (to be) are used to form many tenses. A tense that has only a main verb and no auxiliary is called a simple tense. A verb tense that is composed of a main verb and its auxiliary is called a compound tense". In this text, it's obvious that the word tense is being used in the sense of conjugation tense (CT) rather than grammatical tense (GT), that is, it's used in the meaning that you consider wrong. And then FE does the same here: "In the first example, the main verb 'écouter' is in the simple present tense. In the second example, the verb is in the compound past tense, a tense which combines the auxiliary verb 'avoir' with the past participle of 'écouter'". What this means is that the word tense in the sense of CT is almost unavoidable in practice. Systematically using paradigm or even six-form paradigm is going to confuse readers, and, to be consistent, one would have to purge hundreds of WP pages where tense means CT.

 * The opinion of a third editor would be helpful. --Jotamar (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoever put that page together made it clear that s/he understood the usage of paradigm, and gave a good example (arguably minus the myth about infinitives), but it's true that the same person either expressed things badly or fell into the trap of equating tense with paradigm as s/he went on. 'I am studying French in college this semester' is, indeed, the way to form the V of one of the English presents, thus a genuine "present tense conjugation," but labeling of the forms composed of AUX + PP is a bit clumsy at best, precisely because it leaves the door wide open to confusion. The slightest nudge in the wrong direction and the imperative will end up described as "a tense" (which could lead to a real head-cracker for French). Fortunately, using tense to mean both 'a grammatical category that relates the time of the event or state denoted by the verb in relation to some other temporal reference point' and T-A-M templates/patterns/paradigms is very easy to avoid. Paradigm works fine, but, again, suggestions for standard alternative labels are quite welcome. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello again, User:Barefoot through the chollas, I'm sorry for delaying my answer. I still think that what we need is a third (and fourth etc.) opinion. I understand that you are short of time too, however since you seem to have quite a lot of interest in the question, and since the change that you propose would ultimately affect dozens of other pages, would you be so kind as to try to find other editors with expertise in this field? For example asking for help in talk pages about linguistic morphology, perhaps. I don't mean the regular third opinion mechanism for WP conflicts. What do you say? --Jotamar (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Conditionals as indicative
, this claim needs at least one respectable source, preferably more: "In older classifications there was a fourth mood, the conditional, that included the two conditional tenses (simple and compound), but nowadays those tenses are included in the indicative mood." Even once that's done, though, it still clashes with the Wikipedia article Conditional mood, which begins "The conditional mood (abbreviated cond) is a grammatical mood...", and continues thus for Romance: "While Latin used the indicative and subjunctive in conditional sentences, most of the Romance languages developed a conditional paradigm". Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a ref (Di Tullio & Malcuori 2012). There's no contradiction in having a page about the conditional mood and stating that in Spanish it's now considered a part of the indicative. Grammar models come and go. --Jotamar (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the page you mention, Conditional mood, check the 3rd paragraph in the lead: Some languages have verb forms called "conditional" although their use is not exclusive to conditional expression. Examples are the English or French conditionals... It's obvious that the Spanish and French conditionals are very similar. --Jotamar (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Subjunctive -ra vs. -se forms – any difference in nuance?
The page mentions that these two different endings exist (-ra and -se), but doesn't clearly state if there is any difference in meaning.

Are these semantically equivalent? Or is there any shift in nuance if you use one instead of the other? And how / why did these two forms both come to exist? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Selected obvious-by-title items in the bibliography here should help to answer your questions: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-variation-and-change/article/abs/dialectal-variation-in-mood-choice-in-spanish-journalistic-prose/A5078F72953A55482772B40D32295FED Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Barefoot through the chollas — Sadly, I don't have access, and I don't particularly want to pay $26 for the paper. If you've already read that, could you provide a summary, with regard to -ra vs. -se forms? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Although the article itself is of interest, I was referring to items in the article's bibliography. Any good library should be able to provide you access to the paper and to most of the items cited. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 * The main difference is that in many countries the -se form has virtually disappeared from the conversational language and is now typical of literary registers. --Jotamar (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jotamar, thank you. So presumably -se forms would only appear in formal writing, and come across as stuffy / stiff / archaic?  Perhaps even hyper-polite?  Are there any other differences in meaning compared to the -ra forms? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "... would ... come across as stuffy / stiff / archaic?" Probably, I don't live in one of those countries, so I can't be sure. "Are there any other differences ...?" Some works about the correct language mention a few specific uses where only the -ra form is possible, however even for those cases I have heard the -se forms. --Jotamar (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Spanish verbs


text:
Kea Channel

The Kea Channel, is a passage of water in the Aegean Sea. lying between the islands of Kea and Makronisos, just off Cape Sounion, Attica on the mainland of Greece.

The channel is the location of the wreck of HMHS Britannic, sunk on 21 November 1916.

title: Kea Channel


text: Talk:List of American advertising characters


text:
Jane Siberry (album)

Jane Siberry is the self-titled 1981 debut album by Jane Siberry. The album was re-released on CD by East Side Records in 1994.

Siberry did not yet display the new wave pop style that would make her a household name in Canada with her next album, 1984's No Borders Here. Instead, it's a largely folk-pop album, which has been described by Stewart Mason as "Joni Mitchell's early-'70s albums viewed through a post-punk prism".

Track listing
All songs written by Jane Siberry.

 * 1) "Marco Polo" – 3:04
 * 2) "This Girl I Know" – 2:17
 * 3) "The Sky Is So Blue" – 4:10
 * 4) "The Mystery at Ogwen's Farm" – 2:57
 * 5) "The Magic Beads" – 6:42
 * 6) "Writers Are a Funny Breed" – 5:30
 * 7) "The Strange Well" – 4:53
 * 8) "Above the Treeline" – 4:26
 * 9) "In the Blue Light" – 4:19

Personnel

 * Jane Siberry – vocals, harmonies, guitar, piano, synthesizer
 * Carl Keesee – bass, clarinet
 * John Switzer – bass, backing vocals
 * David Bradstreet – electric 12-string guitar, kick drum, backing vocals
 * David Houghton – drums
 * Trevor Ferrier - congas on "The Strange Well"
 * Bruce Fowler - synthesizer on "The Magic Beads"
 * Brenda Scott, Goldie Sherman, Sarah Farquhar - backing vocals
 * Technical
 * Chad Irschick - mixing
 * Brenda Scott - design, graphics
 * John Switzer - photography

title: Jane Siberry (album)


text:
We shall fight on the beaches

"We shall fight on the beaches" was a speech delivered by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom on 4 June 1940. This was the second of three major speeches given around the period of the Battle of France; the others are the "Blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech of 13 May 1940, and the "This was their finest hour" speech of 18 June 1940. Events developed dramatically over the five-week period, and although broadly similar in themes, each speech addressed a different military and diplomatic context.

In this speech, Churchill had to describe a great military disaster, and warn of a possible invasion attempt by Nazi Germany, without casting doubt on eventual victory. He also had to prepare his domestic audience for France's falling out of the war without in any way releasing France to do so, and wished to reiterate a policy and an aim unchanged – despite the intervening events – from his speech of 13 May, in which he had declared the goal of "victory, however long and hard the road may be".

Background
Winston Churchill took over as Prime Minister on 10 May 1940, eight months after the outbreak of World War II in Europe. He had done so as the head of a multiparty coalition government, which had replaced the previous government (led by Neville Chamberlain) as a result of dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war, demonstrated by the Norway debate on the Allied evacuation of Southern Norway.

Coincidentally, the German Wehrmacht offensive in the Low Countries and France had begun on 10 May with the invasion of the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Churchill had spoken to the House of Commons as Prime Minister for the first time on 13 May, to announce the formation of the new administration:

"I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government: 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.'"

In that speech, he mentioned nothing about the military situation in France and the Low Countries.

Expecting that the German offensive would develop along much the same lines as it did in 1914, the lines of communication of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) did not run through the "short crossing" Channel ports – Boulogne, Calais, Dunkirk, etc. – but rather through Dieppe and Le Havre. On 13 May, the Wehrmacht's attack through the Ardennes had reached the Meuse River at Sedan and then crossed it, breaking through the defences of the French Army. By 20 May, Wehrmacht armoured divisions had reached the coast of the English Channel at Abbeville, splitting the BEF and the French First Army from the main French forces.

The Wehrmacht next moved against the cut-off Allied forces, moving along the seacoast with only small Allied forces to resist them. After the capitulation of Belgium on 28 May, a gap had also appeared on the eastern flank of the Allied forces, which had been forced to retreat into a small pocket around the seaport of Dunkirk. From this pocket the bulk of the BEF and a considerable number of French troops had been evacuated in Operation Dynamo, but these troops had left behind virtually all of their heavy equipment (transport, tanks, artillery and ammunition). The French First Army had most of its units pocketed around Lille. Those of its units evacuated from Dunkirk were relanded in France, but saw no further action; they were still being reorganised in Brittany at the fall of France.

Churchill had made a brief statement to the Commons on 28 May reporting the Belgian capitulation, and concluding: "Meanwhile, the House should prepare itself for hard and heavy tidings. I have only to add that nothing which may happen in this battle can in any way relieve us of our duty to defend the world cause to which we have vowed ourselves; nor should it destroy our confidence in our power to make our way, as on former occasions in our history, through disaster and through grief to the ultimate defeat of our enemies." He had promised a further statement of the military situation on 4 June, and indeed the major part of the speech is an account of military events – so far as they affected the BEF – since the German breakthrough at Sedan.

The German breakthrough had not been exploited southwards, and the French had improvised a relatively thinly held defensive line along the Aisne and the Somme. The British military evaluation was that this was unlikely to withstand any major attack by the Wehrmacht. In the air, the French were short of fighter planes, and the shortage was worsening due to their many losses in combat. The French military commanders had hence asked for additional British fighter squadrons to be sent into the fight in France. Politically, there were considerable doubts over the French willingness to continue the war, even in the absence of any further military catastrophes. Churchill had argued in favour of sending the fighter squadrons to France because he considered that that move would be vital to sustain French public morale, and also to give no excuse for the collapse of the French Army. That would possibly lead to a French government that would not only drop out of the war, but also become hostile to the United Kingdom. The British War Cabinet discussed this issue at meetings on 3 June and on the morning of 4 June, but it decided to take the advice of the Royal Air Force and the Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair, that the British priority must be to prepare its own defences. The three squadrons present in France would be kept up to fighting strength, but no further squadrons could be spared for the Battle of France.

Despite relief that the bulk of the BEF had made it back to Britain, Mass-Observation reported civilian morale in many areas as zero, one observer claiming that everyone looked suicidal. Only half the population expected Britain to fight on, and the feelings of thousands were summed up as: "This is not our war – this is a war of the high-up people who use long words and have different feelings." Therefore, when talking about the future course and conduct of the war in this speech, Churchill had to describe a great military disaster, and warn of a possible German invasion attempt, without casting doubt on eventual victory. He needed to prepare his domestic audience for France's departure from the war without in any way releasing France to do so. In his subsequent speech of 18 June, immediately after the French had sued for peace, Churchill said: "The military events which have happened during the past fortnight have not come to me with any sense of surprise. Indeed, I indicated a fortnight ago as clearly as I could to the House that the worst possibilities were open, and I made it perfectly clear then that whatever happened in France would make no difference to the resolve of Britain and the British Empire to fight on, if necessary for years, if necessary alone." Finally, he needed to reiterate a policy and an aim unchanged – despite the intervening events – from his speech of 13 May, in which he had said: "We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be."

Possible inspiration
S.L.A. Marshall commented that the speech may have partially been inspired by General Ferdinand Foch at the Doullens Conference, who reportedly asked Douglas Haig: "You aren't fighting? I would fight without a break. I would fight in front of Amiens. I would fight in Amiens.  I would fight behind Amiens. I would fight all the time.  I would never surrender."

Another source of inspiration might have been Georges Clemenceau who said, in June 1918:

"Yes, the Germans can take Paris, that won't prevent us from making war. We will fight on the Loire, then on the Garonne if necessary and even in the Pyrenees. If at last we are driven off the Pyrenees, we will continue the war at sea and in Africa, but as for making peace, never! They don't count on me for that."

Peroration
The peroration is widely held to be one of the finest oratorical moments of the war and of Churchill's career.

"Turning once again, and this time more generally, to the question of invasion, I would observe that there has never been a period in all these long centuries of which we boast when an absolute guarantee against invasion, still less against serious raids, could have been given to our people. In the days of Napoleon, of which I was speaking just now, the same wind which would have carried his transports across the Channel might have driven away the blockading fleet. There was always the chance, and it is that chance which has excited and befooled the imaginations of many Continental tyrants. Many are the tales that are told. We are assured that novel methods will be adopted, and when we see the originality of malice, the ingenuity of aggression, which our enemy displays, we may certainly prepare ourselves for every kind of novel stratagem and every kind of brutal and treacherous manœuvre. I think that no idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered and viewed with a searching, but at the same time, I hope, with a steady eye. We must never forget the solid assurances of sea power and those which belong to air power if it can be locally exercised.

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government – every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old."

It is often said that in the sentence that begins "We shall fight on the beaches" and ends in "surrender", only the last word – "surrender" – does not have Old English roots.

Reception
It is said that immediately after giving the speech, Churchill muttered to a colleague, "And we'll fight them with the butt ends of broken beer bottles because that's bloody well all we've got!" Nonetheless, Churchill impressed his listeners and the speech was immediately recognised to be historic. Jock Colville, one of Churchill's secretaries, noted in his diary "A magnificent oration, which obviously moved the House." Chips Channon, a Conservative MP, wrote in his diary "he was eloquent and oratorical and used magnificent English; several Labour members cried." A Labour MP, Josiah Wedgwood, friend and admirer of Churchill since the Dardanelles campaign, wrote to him, "My dear Winston. That was worth 1,000 guns and the speeches of 1,000 years."

Unlike his subsequent "This was their finest hour" speech, Churchill's 4 June speech in the House of Commons was not repeated by him as a live radio broadcast that evening. Rather, as with his earlier "Blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech, extracts were read by the newsreader on that evening's BBC news broadcast. They made a great impression on Vita Sackville-West: "Even repeated by the announcer, it sent shivers (not of fear) down my spine. I think that one of the reasons why one is stirred by his Elizabethan phrases is that one feels the whole massive backing of power and resolve behind them, like a great fortress: they are never words for words' sake."

The next year American journalist H. R. Knickerbocker wrote that its words "deserve to be memorized by us all", observing that "With Churchill's picture these words are placarded in homes and offices throughout the British Empire."

No audio record was made at the time of the original speech; Churchill only produced an audio recording in 1949, by repeating his previous oration. Despite this, many people after the war misremembered that they had heard Churchill speaking on the radio in 1940 when all there had been were BBC news reports that quoted his words.

In 1984, English heavy metal band Iron Maiden mixed a section of this recording at the beginning of the video for their song "Aces High", which is inspired by the Battle of Britain, also using the recording as the introduction to the song when performed on stage, Iron Maiden also use this section as a beginning for many live shows namely during their 1984 World Slavery Tour. In "Fool's Overture", the closing track of Supertramp's 1977 album Even in the Quietest Moments..., some excerpts of the speech are heard along with London's Big Ben chiming.

title: We shall fight on the beaches


text:
User:Snarfevs

Engineering/chemistry undergraduate at Australian National University.

Doot Doot ^_^

Some punk on TPG keeps getting my IP blocked...

title: User:Snarfevs


text:
Hackney horse

The Hackney is a recognized breed of horse that was developed in Great Britain. In recent decades, the breeding of the Hackney has been directed toward producing horses that are ideal for carriage driving. They are an elegant high stepping breed of carriage horse that is popular for showing in harness events. Hackneys possess good stamina, and are capable of trotting at high speed for extended periods of time.

Breed history
The Hackney Horse breed was developed in the 14th century in Norfolk when the King of England required powerful but attractive horses with an excellent trot, to be used for general purpose riding horses. Since roads were rudimentary in those times, Hackneys were a primary riding horse, riding being the common mode of equine transportation. The trotting horses were more suitable as war horses than amblers with their pacing gaits. As a result, in 1542 King Henry VIII required his wealthy subjects keep a specified number of trotting horse stallions for breeding use.

In about 1729 a Norfolk Trotter stallion and an Arabian stallion contributed to the foundation stock for the modern Hackney Horse. The resulting Norfolk Roadster, as it was known, was a heavily built horse that was used as a work horse by farmers and others. It was also a fast horse with good stamina.

Another famous horse was the stallion Original Shales, foaled in East Anglia in 1755. He was by the stallion Blaze, the son of the famous undefeated racehorse, Flying Childers who was a grandson of the great Darley Arabian (one of the three foundation stallions of the Thoroughbred breed). Original Shales sired two stallions—Scot Shales and Driver—both of which had a great influence on the Norfolk Trotter.

Messenger (GB), a 1780 grandson of Sampson, was a foundation sire of the present American Standardbred horse. Hambletonian 10 had at least three crosses of Messenger in the third and fourth generations of his pedigree (3x4x4). In the 1820s "Norfolk Cob" was recorded as having done 2 miles in 5 minutes 4 seconds and was one of the famous horses of that breed along with "Nonpareil," who was driven 100 miles in 9 hours 56 minutes 57 seconds.

In 1820 Bellfounder a Norfolk Trotter stallion who was able to trot 17 miles in an hour with 14 stone up, was exported to America where he was the damsire of Hambletonian 10. In this era, match-trotters competed under saddle, not harness. Later with improvements in roads, the Hackney was also used in harness, and he was then a riding and driving horse of high merit.

Robert and Philip Ramsdale, father and son, took the Norfolk horses Wroot's Pretender and Phenomenon to Yorkshire, where they bred them with Yorkshire trotting mares. In July 1800, the celebrated Hackney mare, Phenomenon, was backed to trot 17 miles in 56 minutes for a bet of £400, which she did in 53 minutes. In 1832, one of Phenomenon's daughters, the 14 hands Phenomena, trotted 17 miles in only 53 minutes. During the 19th century, with the expansion of the railway, the Norfolk breed fell out of favour, to be revived later by the Hackney Horse Society. The Norfolk and Yorkshire Trotter were selectively bred for elegant style and speed, and were developed into the modern Hackney Horse. The brilliant gaits of the Hackney Horse, however, saved it from extinction, and began its use in the show ring. They are still extremely successful in harness, and can also produce very nice riding horses, many known for their ability in show jumping and dressage competition.

In 1883, the Hackney Horse Society was formed in Norwich and the society’s stud book has records dating back to 1755 in the Hackney Stud Book.

Alexander Cassatt was responsible for the introduction of the Hackney Pony to the United States. In 1878 he acquired 239 Stella in Britain and brought her to Philadelphia. In 1891, Cassatt and other Hackney enthusiasts founded the American Hackney Horse Society which is based in Lexington, Kentucky.

Hackneys come in both pony and horse height ranges, and are one of the few breeds that recognize both pony and horse sizes. The Hackney Pony was developed in the late 19th century, when Hackney horses were bred to various pony breeds in order to create a very specific type of show pony.

Breed characteristics
The Hackney Horse's height ranges from 14.2 hands (147 centimetres) to 16.2 hands (168 cm) tall. They may be any solid colour, including bay, brown, chestnut and black. Hackneys often have white markings, often due to the influence of sabino genetics.

The Hackney has a well-shaped head, sometimes with a slightly convex nose. Their eyes and ears are expressive and should show alertness. The neck is crested and muscular with a clean cut throat and jaw. The chest is broad and well-defined, the shoulder is powerful, long and gently sloping. The Hackneys have an average length of back, muscular, level croups, and powerful hindquarters. Their ribs are well-sprung. The tail is set high and carried high naturally. The legs are strong with broad, clean joints, long forearms and gaskins, with strong hocks, and pasterns medium in length, and are attached to round, fairly upright hooves.

In the trot, they exhibit showiness and an exaggerated high knee and hock action due to very good flexion of their joints. Their action should be straight and true with a distinct moment of suspension. The front legs reach up high with sharply bent knees that are stretched well forward with a ground covering stride. Their hind legs are well propelled underneath them in a similar exaggerated action. In addition to inherent soundness and endurance, the Hackney Horse has proven to be a breed with an easy, rhythmic canter, and a brisk, springy walk. Hackneys have been exported into Australia, the United States and the Netherlands.

In April 2022 the Rare Breeds Survival Trust declared the breed was at risk, with just 31 breeding females and 12 males left in the UK.

title: Hackney horse


text:
User:Dori/Disclaimers

Whatever I write is solely on my own behalf and is not meant to represent the opinions of anyone or any other entity. As far as I believe my statements are factual, but they may not be according to others or to some universal truth, so don't sic any lawyers on me, they're just my opinions.

title: User:Dori/Disclaimers


text: Category:Law degrees

title: Category:Law degrees