text:
United States non-interventionism

United States non-interventionism primarily refers to the foreign policy that was eventually applied by the United States between the late 18th century and the first half of the 20th century whereby it sought to avoid alliances with other nations in order to prevent itself from being drawn into wars that were not related to the direct territorial self-defense of the United States. Neutrality and non-interventionism found support among elite and popular opinion in the United States, which varied depending on the international context and the country's interests. At times, the degree and nature of this policy was better known as isolationism, such as the interwar period, while some consider the term isolationism to be a pejorative used to discredit non-interventionist policy.

Due to the start of the Cold War in the aftermath of World War II and the rise of the United States as a global superpower, its traditional foreign policy turned towards American imperialism with diplomatic and military interventionism, engaging or somehow intervening in virtually any overseas armed conflict ever since, and concluding multiple bilateral and regional military alliances, chiefly the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Non-interventionist policies have had continued support from some Americans even after World War II, mostly regarding specific armed conflicts like the Vietnam and Korean wars or the more recent Syrian Civil War and Russo-Ukrainian War.

Background
Robert Walpole, Britain's first Whig Prime Minister, proclaimed in 1723: "My politics are to keep free from all engagements as long as we possibly can." He emphasized economic advantage and rejected the idea of intervening in European affairs to maintain a balance of power. Walpole's position was known to Americans. However, during the American Revolution, the Second Continental Congress debated about forming an alliance with France. It rejected non-interventionism when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner than a military alliance with France, which Benjamin Franklin successfully negotiated in 1778.

After Britain and France went to war in 1792, George Washington declared neutrality, with unanimous support of his cabinet, after deciding that the treaty with France of 1778 did not apply. Washington's Farewell Address of 1796 explicitly announced the policy of American non-interventionism:
 * The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

No entangling alliances (19th century)
President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas about foreign policy in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address. Jefferson said that one of the "essential principles of our government" is that of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." He also stated that "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none", should be the motto of the United States. Extending at times into isolationism, both Jefferson and Madison also practiced the boycotting of belligerent nations with the Embargo Act of 1807.

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." It was applied to Hawaii in 1842 in support of eventual annexation there, and to support U.S. expansion on the North American continent.

After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to "join in a protest to the Tsar." Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, "defending 'our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference."

President Ulysses S. Grant attempted to annex the Dominican Republic in 1870, but failed to get the support of the Radical Republicans in the Senate. The United States' policy of non-intervention was wholly abandoned with the Spanish–American War, followed by the Philippine–American War from 1899 to 1902.

20th century non-interventionism
President Theodore Roosevelt's administration is credited with inciting the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia, completed November 1903, in order to secure construction rights for the Panama Canal (begun in 1904).

President Woodrow Wilson was able to navigate neutrality in World War I for about three years, and to win 1916 reelection with the slogan "He kept us out of war." The neutrality policy was supported by the tradition of shunning foreign entanglements, and by the large population of immigrants from Europe with divided loyalties in the conflict. America did enter the war in April 1917, however. Congress voted to declare war on Germany, 373 to 50 in the House of Representatives and 82 to 6 in the Senate. Technically the US joined the side of the Triple Entente only as an "associated power" fighting the same enemy, not as officially allied with the Entente.

A few months after the declaration of war, Wilson gave a speech to Congress outlining his aims for conclusion of the conflict, labeled the Fourteen Points. That American proclamation was less triumphalist than the stated aims of some other belligerents, and its final point proposed that a "general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike." After the war, Wilson traveled to Europe and remained there for months to labor on the post-war treaty, longer than any previous Presidential sojourn outside the country. In that Treaty of Versailles, Wilson's "general association of nations" was formulated as the League of Nations.

Isolationism between the World Wars
In the wake of the First World War, the non-interventionist tendencies gained ascendancy. The Treaty of Versailles, and thus, United States' participation in the League of Nations, even with reservations, was rejected by the Senate in the final months of Wilson's presidency. Republican Senate leader Henry Cabot Lodge supported the Treaty with reservations to be sure Congress had final authority on sending the U.S. into war. Wilson and his Democratic supporters rejected the Lodge Reservations.

The strongest opposition to American entry into the League of Nations came from the Senate where a tight-knit faction known as the Irreconcilables, led by William Borah and George Norris, had great objections regarding the clauses of the treaty which compelled America to come to the defense of other nations. Senator William Borah, of Idaho, declared that it would "purchase peace at the cost of any part of our [American] independence." Senator Hiram Johnson, of California, denounced the League of Nations as a "gigantic war trust." While some of the sentiment was grounded in adherence to Constitutional principles, most of the sentiment bore a reassertion of nativist and inward-looking policy.

The United States acted independently to become a major player in the 1920s in international negotiations and treaties. The Harding Administration achieved naval disarmament among the major powers through the Washington Naval Conference in 1921–22. The Dawes Plan refinanced war debts and helped restore prosperity to Germany. In August 1928, fifteen nations signed the Kellogg–Briand Pact, brainchild of American Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand. This pact that was said to have outlawed war and showed the United States commitment to international peace had its semantic flaws. For example, it did not hold the United States to the conditions of any existing treaties, it still allowed European nations the right to self-defense, and it stated that if one nation broke the Pact, it would be up to the other signatories to enforce it. The Kellogg–Briand Pact was more of a sign of good intentions on the part of the US, rather than a legitimate step towards the sustenance of world peace.

The economic depression that ensued after the Crash of 1929, also continued to abet non-intervention. The attention of the country focused mostly on addressing the problems of the national economy. The rise of aggressive imperialist policies by Fascist Italy and the Empire of Japan led to conflicts such as the Italian conquest of Ethiopia and the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. These events led to ineffectual condemnations by the League of Nations. Official American response was muted. America also did not take sides in the brutal Spanish Civil War and withdrew its troops from Haiti with the inauguration of the Good Neighbor Policy in 1934.

Non-interventionism before entering World War II
As Europe moved closer to war in the late 1930s, the United States Congress continued to demand American neutrality. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts. For example, in the final Neutrality Act, Americans could not sail on ships flying the flag of a belligerent nation or trade arms with warring nations. Such activities had played a role in American entrance into World War I.

On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland, marking the start of World War II, and the United Kingdom and France subsequently declared war on Germany. In an address to the American people two days later, President Roosevelt assured the nation that he would do all he could to keep them out of war. "When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger," Roosevelt said. Even though he was intent on neutrality as the official policy of the United States, he still echoed the dangers of staying out of this war. He also cautioned the American people to not let their wish to avoid war at all costs supersede the security of the nation.

The war in Europe split the American people into two camps: non-interventionists and interventionists. The two sides argued over America's involvement in this World War II. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion. One of the rhetorical criticisms of interventionism was that it was driven by the so-called merchants of death - businesses who had profited from World War I lobbying for involvement in order to profit from another large war. By the summer of 1940, France suffered a stunning defeat by Germans, and Britain was the only democratic enemy of Germany. In a 1940 speech, Roosevelt argued, "Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we … can safely permit the United States to become a lone island … in a world dominated by the philosophy of force."

A Life survey published in July found that in the summer of 1940, 67% of Americans believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, that if such an event occurred 88% supported "arm[ing] to the teeth at any expense to be prepared for any trouble", and that 71% favored "the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men". The magazine wrote that the survey showed "the emergence of a majority attitude very different from that of six or even three months ago".

Ultimately, the ideological rift between the ideals of the United States and the goals of the fascist powers empowered the interventionist argument. Writer Archibald MacLeish asked, "How could we sit back as spectators of a war against ourselves?" In an address to the American people on December 29, 1940, President Roosevelt said, "the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy of government and our philosophy of government."

There were still many who held on to non-interventionism. Although a minority, they were well organized, and had a powerful presence in Congress. Pro-German or anti-British opinion contributed to non-interventionism. Roosevelt's national share of the 1940 presidential vote declined by seven percentage points from 1936. Of the 20 counties in which his share declined by 35 points or more, 19 were largely German-speaking. Of the 35 counties in which his share declined by 25 to 34 points, German was the largest or second-largest original nationality in 31.

Non-interventionists rooted a significant portion of their arguments in historical precedent, citing events such as Washington's farewell address and the failure of World War I. "If we have strong defenses and understand and believe in what we are defending, we need fear nobody in this world," Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago, wrote in a 1940 essay. Isolationists believed that the safety of the nation was more important than any foreign war.

As 1940 became 1941, the actions of the Roosevelt administration made it more and more clear that the United States was on a course to war. This policy shift, driven by the President, came in two phases. The first came in 1939 with the passage of the Fourth Neutrality Act, which permitted the United States to trade arms with belligerent nations, as long as these nations came to America to retrieve the arms, and pay for them in cash. This policy was quickly dubbed, 'Cash and Carry.'

The second phase was the Lend-Lease Act of early 1941. This act allowed the President "to lend, lease, sell, or barter arms, ammunition, food, or any 'defense article' or any 'defense information' to 'the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.'" American public opinion supported Roosevelt's actions. As United States involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic grew with incidents such as the sinking of the USS Reuben James (DD-245), by late 1941 72% of Americans agreed that "the biggest job facing this country today is to help defeat the Nazi Government", and 70% thought that defeating Germany was more important than staying out of the war.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor caused America to enter the war in December 1941, isolationists such as Charles Lindbergh's America First Committee and Herbert Hoover announced their support of the war effort. Isolationist families' sons fought in the war as much as others.

Non-interventionism after World War II
Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft was a leading opponent of interventionism after 1945, although it always played a secondary role to his deep interest in domestic affairs. Historian George Fujii, citing the Taft papers, argues: In 1951, in the midst of bitter partisan debate over the Korean War, Taft increasingly spoke out on foreign policy issues. According to his biographer James T. Patterson:
 * Taft fought a mostly losing battle to reduce government expenditures and to curtail or prevent foreign aid measures such as the British loan of 1945 and the Marshall Plan. He feared that these measures would "destroy the freedom of the individual, freedom of States and local communities, freedom of the farmer to run his own farm and the workman to do his own job" (p. 375), thereby threatening the foundations of American prosperity and leading to a "totalitarian state" (p. 377).
 * Two basic beliefs continued to form a fairly consistent core of Taft's thinking on foreign policy. First, he insisted on limiting America's overseas commitments. [Taft said] "Nobody today can be an isolationist.... The only question is the degree to which we shall take action throughout the entire world." America had obligations that it had to honor – such as NATO – and it could not turn a blind eye to such countries as Formosa or Israel. But the United States had limited funds and problems at home and must therefore curb its commitments....This fear of overcommitment was rooted in Taft's even deeper faith in liberty, which made him shrink from a foreign policy that would cost large sums of money, increase the power of the military, and transform American society into what he called a garrison state.

Norman A. Graebner argues:
 * Differences over collective security in the G.O.P. were real in 1952, but Taft tried during his pre-convention campaign to moderate his image as a "go-it-aloner" in foreign policy. His whole effort proved unsuccessful, largely because by spring the internationalist camp had a formidable candidate of its own in Dwight D. Eisenhower. As the personification of post-1945 American commitment to collective security, particularly in Europe, General Eisenhower had decided to run because he feared, apparently, that Taft's election would lead to repudiation of the whole collective security effort, including NATO.

Eisenhower won the nomination and secured Taft's support by promising Taft a dominant voice in domestic policies, while Eisenhower's internationalism would set the foreign-policy agenda. Graebner argues that Eisenhower succeeded in moving the conservative Republicans away from their traditional attacks on foreign aid and reciprocal trade policies, and collective security arrangements, to support for those policies. By 1964 the Republican conservatives rallied behind Barry Goldwater who was an aggressive advocate of an anti-communist internationalist foreign policy. Goldwater wanted to roll back Communism and win the Cold War, asking "Why Not Victory?"

Non-interventionism in the 21st century
During the presidency of Barack Obama, some members of the United States federal government, including President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, considered intervening militarily in the Syrian Civil War. A poll from late April 2013 found that 62% of Americans thought that the "United States has no responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and antigovernment groups," with only twenty-five percent disagreeing with that statement.

A writer for The New York Times referred to this as "an isolationist streak," a characterization international relations scholar Stephen Walt strongly objected to, calling the description "sloppy journalism." According to Walt, "the overwhelming majority of people who have doubts about the wisdom of deeper involvement in Syria—including yours truly—are not 'isolationist.' They are merely sensible people who recognize that we may not have vital interests there, that deeper involvement may not lead to a better outcome and could make things worse, and who believe that the last thing the United States needs to do is to get dragged into yet another nasty sectarian fight in the Arab/Islamic world."

In December 2013, the Pew Research Center reported that their newest poll, "American's Place in the World 2013," had revealed that 52 percent of respondents in the national poll said that the United States "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own." This was the most people to answer that question this way in the history of the question, one which pollsters began asking in 1964. Only about a third of respondents felt this way a decade ago.

A July 2014 poll of "battleground voters" across the United States found "77 percent in favor of full withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2016; only 15 percent and 17 percent interested in more involvement in Syria and Ukraine, respectively; and 67 percent agreeing with the statement that, 'U.S. military actions should be limited to direct threats to our national security.'"

Polls indicate growing impatience among Americans with the war in Ukraine, with 2023 polls showing just 17% of Americans think their country is "not doing enough" to support Ukraine. This percentage is the lowest since the war began.

Conservative policies
Rathbun (2008) compares three separate themes in conservative policies since the 1980s: conservatism, neoconservatism, and isolationism. These approaches are similar in that they all invoked the mantle of "realism" and pursued foreign policy goals designed to promote national interests. Conservatives were the only group that was "realist" in the academic sense in that they defined the national interest narrowly, strove for balances of power internationally, viewed international relations as amoral, and especially valued sovereignty.

By contrast, neoconservatives based their foreign policy on nationalism, and isolationists sought to minimize any involvement in foreign affairs and raise new barriers to immigration. Former Republican Congressman Ron Paul favored a return to the non-interventionist policies of Thomas Jefferson and frequently opposed military intervention in countries like Iran and Iraq.

After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Republican Party has been divided on Ukraine's aid, believing that it is not in the interests of the United States to get involved in a "proxy war" against Russia. Former President Donald Trump has called on the United States to push for peace talks rather than continue to support Ukraine.

Politicians

 * Justin Amash, former U.S. Representative from Michigan, 2020 Libertarian presidential candidate
 * Eric Brakey, former U.S. State Senator from Maine, 2018 Republican U.S. Senate candidate
 * Howard Buffett, U.S. Representative from Nebraska
 * Calvin Coolidge, 30th U.S. President, 29th U.S. Vice President, 48th U.S. Governor of Massachusetts, 46th U.S. Lt. Governor of Massachusetts
 * Tulsi Gabbard, former U.S. Representative from Hawaii (2013–2021)
 * Mike Gravel, former US senator from Alaska (1969–1981), Entered the Pentagon Papers into Public Record in 1971, Democratic Presidential Candidate in 2008 and 2020. Founder of the Gravel Institute think tank
 * Herbert Hoover, 31st U.S. President, 3rd United States Secretary of Commerce
 * Gary Johnson, 29th Governor of New Mexico (1995–2003), 2012 and 2016 Libertarian Presidential Nominee
 * William Langer, U.S. Senator from North Dakota
 * Louis Ludlow, U.S. Representative from Indiana pushed for the Ludlow Amendment
 * Thomas Massie, U.S. Representative from Kentucky
 * Ron Paul, former U.S. Representative from Texas, 1988, 2008, & 2012 Republican presidential candidate; Paul's stance on foreign policy is one of consistent non-intervention, opposing wars of aggression and entangling alliances with other nations.
 * Rand Paul, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, 2016 Republican presidential candidate, the son of Ron Paul
 * Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont, 2016 and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate
 * Henrik Shipstead, U.S. Senator from Minnesota, also a member of the America First Committee
 * Robert A. Taft, U.S. Senator from Ohio, Senate Majority Leader, 1940, 1948 & 1952 Republican presidential candidate

Government officials

 * Michael Scheuer, former CIA intelligence officer & former chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station, professor at Georgetown University, blogger, political commentator

Public figures

 * Karen Kwiatkowski, retired Lt. Col. of the United States Air Force, 2012 Republican U.S. Representative candidate from Virginia, whistleblower from the Pentagon
 * Tucker Carlson, television personality

Criticism
In his World Policy Journal review of Bill Kauffman's 1995 book ''America First! Its History, Culture, and Politics'', Benjamin Schwartz described America's history of isolationism as a tragedy and being rooted in Puritan thinking.

References and further reading

 * Adler, Selig. The Isolationist Impulse: Its Twentieth Century Reaction. (1957).; says it's based on economic self-sufficiency and the illusion of security, together with Irish and German ethnic factors.
 * Aregood, Richard, Richard Shafer, and Eric Freedman. "American Isolationism and The Political Evolution of Journalist-Turned-US Senator Gerald P. Nye." Journalism Practice 9.2 (2015): 279–294.
 * Cole, Wayne S. America First: The Battle Against Intervention, 1940–1941 (1953), the standard history.
 * Cooper, John Milton Jr. The Vanity of Power: American Isolationism and the First World War, 1914–1917 (1969).
 * Divine, Robert A. The Illusion Of Neutrality (1962) scholarly history of neutrality legislation in 1930s. online free to borrow
 * Doenecke, Justus D. "American Isolationism, 1939-1941" Journal of Libertarian Studies, Summer/Fall 1982, 6(3), pp. 201–216.
 * Doenecke, Justus D. "Explaining the Antiwar Movement, 1939-1941: The Next Assignment" Journal of Libertarian Studies, Winter 1986, 8(1), pp. 139–162.
 * Doenecke, Justus D. "Literature of Isolationism, 1972-1983: A Bibliographic Guide" Journal of Libertarian Studies, Spring 1983, 7(1), pp. 157–184.
 * Doenecke, Justus D. "Anti-Interventionism of Herbert Hoover" Journal of Libertarian Studies, Summer 1987, 8(2), pp. 311–340.
 * Doenecke, Justus D. "Non-interventionism of the Left: the Keep America Out of the War Congress, 1938-41." Journal of Contemporary History 12.2 (1977): 221–236.
 * Dunn, David. "Isolationism revisited: seven persistent myths in the contemporary American foreign policy debate." Review of International Studies 31.02 (2005): 237–261.
 * Fisher, Max. "American isolationism just hit a 50-year high. Why that matters." washingtonpost. com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/12/04/american-isolationism-just-hit-a-50-year-high-why-that-matters Washington Post. Dec 12, 2013.
 * Gilbert, Felix. "The English Background of American Isolationism in the Eighteenth Century." William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History (1944): 138–160. in JSTOR
 * Guinsburg, Thomas N. The Pursuit of Isolationism in the United States from Versailles to Pearl Harbor (1982).
 * Johnstone, Andrew. "Isolationism and internationalism in American foreign relations." Journal of Transatlantic Studies 9.1 (2011): 7-20.
 * Jonas, Manfred. "Isolationism" ''Encyclopedia of the New American Nation," online
 * Jonas, Manfred. Isolationism in America, 1935-1941 (1966).
 * Kertzer, Joshua D. "Making sense of isolationism: foreign policy mood as a multilevel phenomenon." Journal of Politics 75.01 (2013): 225-240.
 * Kupchan, Charles A. Isolationism: A History of America's Efforts to Shield Itself from the World (Oxford University Press, USA, 2020). online; also see online review
 * Nichols, Christopher McKnight. Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age (Harvard University Press, 2011).
 * Smith, Glenn H. Langer of North Dakota: A Study in Isolationism, 1940–1959 (1979). Senator William Langer
 * Weinberg, Albert K. "The Historical Meaning of the American Doctrine of Isolation." American Political Science Review 34#3 (1940): 539–547. in JSTOR

title: United States non-interventionism


text:
User:Folkie~enwiki

My name is John Archer (aged 71 in 2013)

I live in New Zealand, and I have been living at Waiouru since 2002.

As a child I lived further down the Whangaehu River at Mangamahu and I was involved with the recovery of bodies from the Tangiwai disaster.

I am the webmaster of the New Zealand Folk Song website. For the past 15 years I have researched the origins of old New Zealand songs, and their associated histories.

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

title: User:Folkie~enwiki


text:
Talk:Ericaceae

APG
The traditional Ericaceae, as described here, is paraphyletic with respect to Empetraceae, Monotropaceae, Pyrolaceae and Epacridaceae. In the APG system (as used, per policy, in Wikipedia - see discussion under angiosperm) it is expanded to include these groups. Consequently the list of genera is incomplete.

Rhododendron and Vaccinium are also paraphyletic. IIRC, fixing the former causes the loss of one or two genera.

Stewart R. Hinsley, www.malvaceae.info, 8 December 2004

Wikispecies
This taxonomic information should be folded into wikispecies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.239.228 (talk • contribs) 30 September 2005

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Ericaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010050931/http://delta-intkey.com/angio/www/monotrop.htm to http://delta-intkey.com/angio/www/monotrop.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213041459/http://delta-intkey.com/angio/ to http://delta-intkey.com/angio/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGW3303 Adv Writing for Environmental Professions 14387
— Assignment last updated by PlantNerd1002 (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Intended changes for WikiEdu course ENGW3303

 * 1) Expand on mycorrhizal relationships within Ericaceae
 * 2) Link to Ericoid mycorrhiza page
 * 3) Focus on impact of mycorrhizae on economically important members of Ericaceae
 * 4) Expand on the scope and ecological significance of heathland
 * 5) Link to Heath page
 * 6) Include citations regarding the physical area covered by heathlands and their cultural significance
 * 7) Possible sub-section on the cultural significance of Ericaceae as a whole?
 * 8) Elaborate on the importance of plants in Ericaceae to heath-dwelling species (current article has one awkwardly-inserted reference
 * 9) Clean up grammar, spelling, and citations where needed

Huskyhottie46 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ericaceae


text:
North London Collegiate School

North London Collegiate School (NLCS) is an private day school for girls in England. Founded in Camden Town, it is now located in Edgware, in the London Borough of Harrow. Associate schools are located in South Korea, Jeju Island, Dubai, Vietnam, and Singapore, all of which are coeducational day and boarding schools offering the British curriculum. It is a member of the Girls' Schools Association.

The school is included in The Schools Index as one of the 150 best private schools in the world and among top 30 senior schools in the UK. NLCS Jeju is also included in this index as one of top 15 school in China and Southeast Asia.

Location
North London Collegiate School is located at the western edge of Edgware near Canons Park. It is accessed by car through Canons Drive from Edgware's High Street. However both Stanmore tube station and Canons Park tube station are within walking distance.

History
The North London Collegiate School was founded by Frances Buss, a pioneer in girls' education. It is generally recognised as the first girls' school in the United Kingdom to offer girls the same educational opportunities as boys, and Miss Buss was the first person to use the term 'Headmistress'.

The small school opened in 1850 at No.46. later renumbered No.12 Camden Street, London. Buss believed in the importance of home life and it remained a day school. In 1929, the school bought Canons, a modest villa built by William Hallett Esq, on the site of a palatial residence originally built in the early 18th century by the Duke of Chandos, and relocated to the property (designed by Sir Albert Richardson) in 1940.

Lucinda Elizabeth Shaw, mother to George Bernard Shaw was a director of music at the school, followed in 1908 by Lilian Manson, J.B. Manson's wife. Her ambitious revival of Purcell's Dido and Aeneas in 1910 gained coverage in The Times.

The school introduced a house system in 2014, with the houses being named after noted past pupils. The houses have colours, and each house has two house captains amongst the pupils (a year 9 and a year 11), and a staff head of house.

Today the school caters to girls from ages 4 to 18. It comprises a Junior School (Reception to Year 6) and Senior School (Year 7–13). Former pupils are known as ONLs, short for Old North Londoners. The uniform of North London Collegiate School is light blue and dark brown in colour, however uniform is not compulsory in sixth form.

The co-ed boarding North London Collegiate School Jeju opened in Seogwipo, South Korea in 2011. The school opened another international school in Singapore in August 2020.

Curriculum
North London Collegiate is one of the most academically successful schools in England, having been placed in the top two in the Daily Telegraph exam league tables every year for over a decade. It has been an International Baccalaureate World School since October 2003. Girls may choose to take the traditional A Levels or the Pre-U or the IB curriculum.

The girls are also encouraged to participate in non-academic pursuits. The Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme is available similarly to all independent schools. They may also take part in activities such as World Challenge Expeditions, Young Enterprise, Model United Nations and various community service projects.

Alleged malpractice in deciding teacher-assessed grades
In 2021 90% of its A-level entries got A* grades, whereas in 2019 the figure was only 34%. In December 2022 the Guardian revealed that the school had been the subject of an investigation by an A-level examination board into the teacher-assessed grades given to pupils in 2021. A spokesperson for NLCS claimed that there was no centre malpractice by the school. However, a whistleblower told the Guardian that the school had made decisions "that had little integrity, even though they appeared to be within the rules".

Teacher assessment grades replaced the formal exams that were cancelled due to Covid. North London Collegiate School was not the only private school under investigation. In 2021, the percentage of A* grades from English private schools was 39.5%, but only 16.1% in 2019. Dr Jo Saxton, Ofqual’s chief regulator, confirmed in October 2022 that private schools were being investigated when she appeared before the education select committee.

Headmistresses

 * Frances Mary Buss (1850 – December 1894)
 * Sophie Bryant (1895–1918)
 * Isabella Drummond (1918–1940, previously Head of Camden School)
 * Eileen Harold (1941–1944)
 * Dame Kitty Anderson DBE (1945–1965)
 * Madeline McLauchlan (1965 – December 1985, previously at Henrietta Barnett School)
 * Joan Clanchy (1986–1997) previously Head of St George's School, Edinburgh
 * Bernice McCabe OBE (1997–2017, previously at Chelmsford County High School)
 * Sarah Clark (2018–2022, previously at Queen's School, Chester)
 * Vicky Bingham (2023–present, previously at South Hampstead High School)

Notable former pupils
• Roma Agrawal (engineer)

• Barbara Amiel (journalist)

• Peggy Angus

• Agnes Arber [née Robertson] (1879–1960) (botanist)

• Virginia Astley (musician)

• Alice Beer (TV presenter)

• Alison Britton (ceramicist)

• Eleanor Bron (actress)

• Sara Burstall (teacher, headmistress) (headmistress of Manchester High School for Girls)

• Tanya Byron (psychologist)

• Esther Cailingold, fought with the Jewish forces during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and died of wounds received

• Jo Coburn BBC political broadcaster

• Clara Collet (civil servant and promoter of women's education and employment)

• Gillian Cross (children's writer)

• Anne Digby (novelist)

• Jo Dunkley (Professor of Physics at Princeton University)

• Fenella Fielding (actress)

• Margaret Fingerhut (pianist)

• Lindsey Fraser (Olympic athlete, Team GB diving coach)

• Caroline Sylvia Gabriel (artist)

• Dame Helen Gardner (academic/writer)

• Stella Gibbons (1902–1989) (novelist)

• Margaret Gilmore (former BBC correspondent)

• Eleanor Graham (1896–1984) (publisher and children's writer)

• Noreena Hertz (b. 1967) (academic)

• Caroline S. Hill (b. 1961) (scientist)

• Amy Horrocks (1867-1919) (composer)

• Gabrielle Howard (1876–1930) (plant physiologist)

• Mary Vivian "Molly" Hughes (1866–1956) (writer, educator)

• Margaret Calkin James (1895–1985) (graphic designer and artist)

• Dame Emily Lawson (head of the NHS COVID-19 vaccine programme)

• Lilian Lindsay [née Murray] (1871–1960) (first female dentist)

• Jane Lunnon (born 1969, headmistress of Alleyn's School)

• Ishbel MacDonald

• Sheila MacDonald Lochhead

• Anna Madeley (actress)

• Judy Mallaber (MP)

• Jane March (actress)

• Jan Marsh (expert on pre-Raphaelites)

• Katharine McMahon (author)

• Valerie Mendes (author)

• Margaret Theodora Meyer (1862–1924) (mathematician)

• Jessie Millward (music hall artist)

• Susie Orbach (psychologist/journalist)

• Kate O'Toole (actress)

• Ruth Padel (poet)

• Pat Phillips (diplomat, ambassador)

• Myfanwy Piper [née Evans](1911–1997) (librettist)

• Jessie Pope (1868–1941)(poet)

• Anna Popplewell (actress)

• Catherine Alice Raisin (1855–1945) (geologist and educationist)

• Louie Ramsay (actress)

• Esther Rantzen (television personality)

• Ethel Sargant (1863–1918) (botanist)

• Victoria Sharp (High Court Judge)

• Stevie Smith (1902–1971) (poet)

• Marie Stopes (1880–1958)(palaeobotanist,birth control advocate)

• Netta Syrett (1865–1943) (novelist and playwright)

• Eva Germaine Rimington Taylor (1879–1966) (geographer and historian of science)

• Gillian Tett (journalist)

• Angela Tilby (author, Anglican priest and Canon Emeritus at Christ Church, Oxford)

• Natasha Walter (writer)

• Olivia Wayne (news presenter)

• Judith Weir (composer)

• Rachel Weisz (actress)

• Anna Wintour (fashion journalist; editor of Vogue)

• Frances Wood (historian)

Notable former staff

 * Edith Aitken (founding head of Pretoria High School for Girls )
 * Peggy Angus (artist, tile and wallpaper designer), teacher 1947-70
 * Edward Aveling, teacher of elementary physics and botany (1872–1876)
 * Hannah Robertson, led middle school, later tutor of women at Leeds University from 1905 to 1921.

title: North London Collegiate School


text:
Talk:Annemarie Schimmel

Untitled
Added a list of works by Annemarie Schimmel, the list is still not complete since she wrote more than 50 books. --Vonaurum 22:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic anecdote removed from Annemarie Schimmel page and moved here
The following passage was moved here from the Annemarie Schimmel page:
 * In an obituary Habib R. Sulemani wrote, “I had the honor to listen to her lecture in 1996 at the Goethe Institute in Lahore. It was really amazing to hear her speaking her mind with eyes closed. Psychologically, it was a difficult relationship between the speaker and the audience, as obviously she used to disconnect her contacts with the audience - no eye-to-eye contact. It seemed as if she connected herself with a divine power and got her thoughts from it. As it is a common practice here in this society to ask someone's faith, after the lecture, someone asked her if she had embraced Islam? After a scholarly lecture it was indeed a very difficult question, but she said neither 'yes' nor 'no'. Thus, she handled the situation very successfully.”

In most cases, anecdotes such as this are not encyclopedic in nature. And with someone like Annemarie Schimmel, about whom there has been a great deal of academic commentary, journalists might not be the most authoritative source. Also see Talk:Habib R. Sulemani.

Convert to Islam?
I have never seen anything in her writings to suggest a conversion to Islam. I remember in one interview that she said she felt she was "Part Muslim" when someone pressed her on the issue, but this is a far cry from a full-fledged confession of faith. Until such a time as this can be verified, I'm removing her from the list of "Converts to Islam"Szfski (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Created References section
There was no References section, all the links were in the External links section. Have moved the Guardian obituary to References. Other than that, especially without footnotes, it's unclear what's been used to reference the article.  Esowteric + Talk  12:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Annemarie Schimmel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090508061228/http://www.amsscholarship.com:80/mem.htm to http://www.amsscholarship.com/mem.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

wrong quotation reference
the quotation mentioned under the grave picture is from imam ali ibn abi taleb and not from prophet mohamad: الناس نيام فإذا ماتوا انتبهوا 2001:9E8:431:D500:812E:CF36:3806:C63D (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Annemarie Schimmel


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requests for comment Slrubenstein

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - Keep

Requests for comment/Slrubenstein
This is an expired RfC page. It's continued existance is the result of a campaign by a certain group of users to harass me - see the RfC they have brought against me to see the pettyness of their complaints. CheeseDreams 22:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * delete CheeseDreams 22:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wiping the records of such tawdry events doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Let's keep them for reference in case of future problems. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 02:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as evidence - rernst 02:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Viriditas 03:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why would we erase this?  This VfD does not belong here. —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's normal to keep such pages. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)   Revision: I think it should be policy that such pages are kept.  However the RfC page explicitly says: "If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."  Accordingly I think this should be honored and the pages should be deleted.  The policy should be changed, not capriciously because it suits some of us to record what we consider to be abuse of process, but after proper discussion.  If process applies to Cheesedreams, it should apply equally to us. STRONG DELETE --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page has been introduced as evidence in an arbitration case against CheeseDreams. Deleting it would only deprive the community an opportunity to examine the evidence -- all arbitrators who are admins would still be able to view it.  In the interests of honesty and openness, it must be preserved. Jwrosenzweig 21:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP. It would be inappropriate to remove historical data like this. I will start keeping copies of such things on subpages of my user page and my personal wiki if these ever start being deleted. --Improv 22:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as evidence. Andre ( talk )A| 23:00, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP. -- 01:46, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Please sign your votes if you want them to count. --Improv 03:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Comment: I notice that one of our RFCs got removed for Quadell. If you want it I can give you the link as I undeleted it and moved to my own pages as a subpage. I'm considering restoring it to the right location. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please do. --Improv 03:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Wikipedia decision making and related pages should never be deleted. I would also support removing the listings of other "Requests for comment" from VfD -- Chris 73 Talk 03:34, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, for heaven's sake. I suggest de-listing these from VfD. Antandrus 03:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a helpful piece of evidence for the Arbitration Committee's case on CheeseDreams as it documents his/her abuse of RFC system. GeneralPatton 03:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly archive. - Evil saltine 05:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep (strong), as evidence, in some ways like the recent Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talk:Ambition (card game). (But don't short-circuit this VfD just bcz it should not have been started. This VfD seems to be an attempt to abuse the process in order to hide evidence, and such cases may deserve some standing policies for cutting VfD short. But i strongly support our going through the charade of voting down the VfD down within the normal rules, since no one has cited such a standing policy.) --Jerzy(t) 05:47, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * Keep as evidence of CheeseDreams' warmongering. JFW | T@lk  08:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This should really be a speedy delete, not a VfD. The RfC rules make it crystal clear that uncertified complaints are deleted after 48 hours. That's an important part of the whole process: users can try it to see if they have any support for their dispute without fearing that raising the issue will be held against them. It is disingenuous to ignore the promise of how that page will be used. It's even worse that the users who wish to keep the page wish to do so to try to demonstrate that CheeseDreams has abused the process. It is they who are abusing the process. I am no fan of CheeseDreams, but keeping this page is just not fair on her. jguk 20:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Question - There is a clear conflict here between the explicit policy to delete, and the apparent (near) concensus to keep. I'm not familiar with the case, so please forgive my ignorance when I ask the obvious: "what is the value in keeping this despite the standard?" -- ClockworkSoul 21:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nevermind - I made myself somewhat familiar with the case. On one hand, we have policy that specifies that such RfCs be deleted. On the other, there is some cause to keep these records (at the very minimum, as evidence in another case). Whatever your/our feelings about any user, whatever that user has done, it is wrong to ignore the policies that are in place so that we can maintain some level of order. Surely, nobody here would want any policies selectively applied to them? That being said: I propose that we temporarily delist these items from VfD, and open a vote to amend the current policy so that all such RfC's are archived regardless of their outcome. -- ClockworkSoul 22:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point about policy. I volunteer to tak all of these RfCs into my user namespace. Cool Hand Luke  00:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. IMO VfD is not the place for this discussion, but best now to just let this vote proceed and (hopefully) fail. Andrewa 16:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This really should be archived and the 48-hour rule re Rfc pages should be revised. It is too important even if for no other reason than to show how things can get out of hand. Dieter Simon 19:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Prolonging this dispute is in violation of policy.  --[[User:Eequor| ᓛᖁ  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ ᑐ ]]] 20:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The policy should be changed. Jallan 00:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The policy clearly states that failed RFC's will be deleted in 48 hours.  That should have been done.  Arguing that it should be kept as evidence is just silly.  Since when is filing an RFC a punishable offense?  Disagreeing with CheeseDreams is no reason to ignore policy.  And a vfd is no place to re-write policy.  Wolfman 19:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't we all notice the pattern?  Even this VfD nomination is frivolous. ---Rednblu | Talk 06:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Requests for comment Jwrosenzweig

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - kept

Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig
This is an expired RfC page. It's continued existance is the result of a campaign by a certain group of users to harass me - see the RfC they have brought against me to see the pettyness of their complaints. CheeseDreams 22:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * delete CheeseDreams 22:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Cheese Dreams went on a bit of a RfC fest and started rfcs against multiple wikipedians, all of which expired without certification. This one is being kept as evidence of cheese dreams's abuse of the rfc process. Keep for the time being. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wiping the records of such tawdry events doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Let's keep them for reference in case of future problems. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 02:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep - rernst 02:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep --Viriditas 03:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why would we erase this?  This VfD does not belong here. —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Same as the other. In any case I don't see how this can be a campaign against you since you're the one who brought the RfCs and both failed because of your failure to understand the RfC process. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)  Revision: I think it should be policy that such pages are kept.  However the RfC page explicitly says: "If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."  Accordingly I think this should be honored and the pages should be deleted.  The policy should be changed, not capriciously because it suits some of us to record what we consider to be abuse of process, but after proper discussion.  If process applies to Cheesedreams, it should apply equally to us. STRONG DELETE --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page's existence, CD, is a result of your campaign to harass me.  You will not delete it while it is being introduced as evidence in an arbitration case against you. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP. It would be inappropriate to remove historical data like this. I will start keeping copies of such things on subpages of my user page and my personal wiki if these ever start being deleted. --Improv 22:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP. -- 01:46, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Wikipedia decision making and related pages should never be deleted. I would also support removing the listings of other "Requests for comment" from VfD -- Chris 73 Talk 03:34, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you don't need another vote, but they don't get more obvious than this. Keep.  It has nothing to do with harassment.  CD opened the RfC herself. Antandrus 03:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a helpful piece of evidence for the Arbitration Committee's case on CheeseDreams as it documents his/her abuse of RFC system. GeneralPatton 03:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep (strong), as evidence, in some ways like the recent Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talk:Ambition (card game). (But don't short-circuit this VfD just bcz it should not have been started. This VfD seems to be an attempt to abuse the process in order to hide evidence, and such cases may deserve some standing policies for cutting VfD short. But i strongly support our going through the charade of voting down the VfD down within the normal rules, since no one has cited such a standing policy.) --Jerzy(t) 05:45, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * Keep as evidence of CheeseDreams' warmongering. JFW | T@lk  08:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This should really be a speedy delete, not a VfD. The RfC rules make it crystal clear that uncertified complaints are deleted after 48 hours. That's an important part of the whole process: users can try it to see if they have any support for their dispute without fearing that raising the issue will be held against them. It is disingenuous to ignore the promise of how that page will be used. It's even worse that the users who wish to keep the page wish to do so to try to demonstrate that CheeseDreams has abused the process. It is they who are abusing the process. I am no fan of CheeseDreams, but keeping this page is just not fair on her. jguk 20:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Question - There is a clear conflict here between the explicit policy to delete, and the apparent (near) concensus to keep. I'm not familiar with the case, so please forgive my ignorance when I ask the obvious: "what is the value in keeping this despite the standard?" -- ClockworkSoul 21:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nevermind - I made myself somewhat familiar with the case. On one hand, we have policy that specifies that such RfCs be deleted. On the other, there is some cause to keep these records (at the very minimum, as evidence in another case). Whatever your/our feelings about any user, whatever that user has done, it is wrong to ignore the policies that are in place so that we can maintain some level of order. Surely, nobody here would want any policies selectively applied to them? That being said: I propose that we temporarily delist these items from VfD, and open a vote to amend the current policy so that all such RfC's are archived regardless of their outcome. -- ClockworkSoul 22:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. IMO VfD is not the place for this discussion, but best now to just let this vote proceed and (hopefully) fail. Andrewa 16:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This really should be archived and the 48-hour rule re Rfc pages should be revised. It is too important even if for no other reason than to show how things can get out of hand. Dieter Simon 19:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Prolonging this dispute is in violation of policy.  --[[User:Eequor| ᓛᖁ  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ ᑐ ]]] 20:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now. We are caught between what current policy says and something obviously not taken into account when it was written. If not a complete change of policy, there should be a rider allowing for temporary undeletion of anything bearing on an abritration case. Jallan 00:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. follow policy. see reasoning above. Wolfman 19:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:83.103.224.80

title: User talk:83.103.224.80


text:
King of Dahomey

The King of Dahomey (Ahosu in the Fon language) was the ruler of Dahomey, an African kingdom in the southern part of present-day Benin, which lasted from 1600 until 1900 when the French Third Republic abolished the political authority of the Kingdom. The rulers served a prominent position in Fon ancestor worship leading the Annual Customs and this important position caused the French to bring back the exiled king of Dahomey for ceremonial purposes in 1910. Since 2000, there have been rival claimants as king and there has so far been no political solution. The Palace and seat of government were in the town of Abomey. Early historiography of the King of Dahomey presented them as absolute rulers who formally owned all property and people of the kingdom. However, recent histories have emphasized that there was significant political contestation limiting the power of the king and that there was a female ruler of Dahomey, Hangbe, who was largely written out of early histories.

The first king
Multiple lists of the kings of Dahomey have been put together and many of them start at different points for the first King of Dahomey. In various sources, Do-Aklin, Dakodonu, or Houegbadja are all considered the first king of Dahomey. Oral tradition contends that Do-Aklin moved from Allada to the Abomey plateau, Dakodonu created the first settlement and founded the kingdom (but is often considered a "mere chief"), and Houegbadja who settled the kingdom, built the palace and created much of the structure is often considered the first king of Dahomey. Oral tradition contends that the kings were all of the Aladaxonou dynasty, a name claiming descent from the city of Allada which Dahomey conquered in the 1700s. Historians largely believe now that this connection was created to legitimate rule over the city of Allada and that connections to the royal family in Allada were likely of a limited nature. In oral tradition of most accounts, Houegbadja is considered the first king and recognition of him happened first in the Annual Customs of Dahomey.

List of kings
(Dates in italics indicate de facto continuation of office)

Sources:

title: King of Dahomey


text:
Scotland's Forgotten Valour

Scotland's For gotten Valour is a 1995 book by Graham Ross, published by MacLean Press under ISBN 1-899272-00-3. (The typography of the title on the book uses capitalisation to contrast emphasis ( "SCOTLAND'S FORgotten VALOUR" ), to communicate additional meaning, namely a reference to the For Valour inscription on the medal—and presumably the idea that valour is so much a part of the national character as to justify suggesting that "Scotland exists for the sake of valour".)

The book ... Valour presents the stories of the 158 Scottish-born Victoria Cross recipients prior to its going to press, out of the 1351 VCs that had then been awarded. It points out that five of the first ten Victoria Crosses awarded went to Scottish soldiers.

title: Scotland's Forgotten Valour


text:
User:MrtnGslr

Hallo, I am Martin Geisler, a fellow from Århus, Denmark who has been enjoying Wikipedia for a long time. I know live in Zurich, Switzerland where I work on the ZeroVM project for Rackspace.

I've studying computer science (cryptology) and have authored a couple of open source projects:

 * VIFF, the Virtual Ideal Functionality Framework, is a Python library for writing  secure multi-party computations (SMPC) in.

 * PHP Exif Library (PEL) lets you both read and write Exif found in JPEG and TIFF images using just PHP,

 * PhpWeather lets you display current weather conditions on your webpage. These are based on METAR reports collected from airports around the globe,

 * PHP Shell gives you a more convenient way of using the builtin functionality of PHP to execute commands on a webserver.

title: User:MrtnGslr


text:
Talk:Tom Robbins

Mr. Robbins' wife and mother
They have the same last name? I'd read his mother's maiden name was Robinson, not D'Avalon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.209.13 (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

soundtrack
"...and featured a soundtrack by lesbian singer k.d. lang." There's no real need for that clarification. I've rewritten it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.199.49 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2004

partial list of works
if the work attributed to robbins was found to be by someone else, why is it still in the list of works? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.147.38.10 (talk • contribs).
 * I've commented it out (but left it in the code so that it doesnt get re-added). It should probably be placed into a prose section of the article eventually. -Quiddity 16:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed 'how to write like tom robbins' link.
I removed the 'how to write like tom robbins' external link because it goes to a generic search page, rather than any thing remotely like what it suggests. If anyone knows the real link, please add it. I'd love to see it! Hegar 13:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How to Write Like Tom Robbins - by Michael Dare
 * Not sure what's going on there, the link works fine for me. Maybe a temporary hiccup? I've replaced it for now. --Quiddity 18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now User:Irishguy has deleted the link as "spam". I've copied the link to the top of this thread, as I don't believe it is spam, but don't have time to read it and utilize it as a cited reference, currently. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete Bibliography
Doing a search for Tom Robbins on Amazon.com they have a listing for a book entitled Guy Anderson by Tom Robbins, a paperback written or published in 1965, about the painter. . . how come this listing is not on the Bibliography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.125.47 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2007
 * Probably because it's obscure. It should definitely be there... why don't you add it?!? MPS 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 * There's no mention at this fairly extensive bibliography. It might be by another person with the same name? If you can confirm it is by this Tom Robbins, then add it. --Quiddity 22:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Robbins mentions it in a smithsonian interview... link MPS 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * TOM ROBBINS: Um hmm.
 * TOM ROBBINS: Um hmm.

 * MARTHA KINGSBURY: Where?

 * TOM ROBBINS: In Richmond, Virginia, at a school that at that time was known as Richmond Professional Institute of the College of William and Mary. It was a division of William and Mary, but completely separate. It was sixty miles away from the William and Mary campus which was in Williamsburg. It was essentially a professional school of art, drama, and music. And it was very exciting; it was so different from Washington and Lee [Robbins's first college--Ed.], with all the fraternities and the Joe College atmosphere.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPS (talk • contribs) 22:37, 29 June 2007
 * MARTHA KINGSBURY: You wrote some other kinds of things, like the piece on Guy Anderson. As we were saying earlier off the tape, you could have been an art historian in a sense also.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPS (talk • contribs) 22:37, 29 June 2007
 * MARTHA KINGSBURY: You wrote some other kinds of things, like the piece on Guy Anderson. As we were saying earlier off the tape, you could have been an art historian in a sense also.

 * TOM ROBBINS: Yeah. I like to think of myself as a fiction writer who liked art enough to write about it for a while, and then went on to his fiction. I think there are others, people like Donal Barthelme, Robert Coover, and John Ashbery, other novelists and short story writers and poets who also happen to like art a lot and write about it from time to time. And I'd rather be identified with that group than with a group of real critics, like Rosenberg and Fried and...
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPS (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 June 2007

 * I added the Guy Anderson biography back to the list. I found it listed in the bibliography of Tom Robbins by Mark Siegel. Jaldous1 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wives?
The "Background" section of the article currently reads:

"In 1969, Robbins moved to La Conner, where he married for the third time, to Terri."

This seems awkward to me.

 * "Third time", without reference to previous marriages.
 * "Terri", without last name or other reference to her as a person.
 * Doesn't this belong in "Personal life" section, rather than "Background" ...?

Karl gregory jones (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Anthem
An American Road Story: this film inspired many that I know of to delve into serious matters in education and other conquests of human nature and enviornmental issues also; have supported and intervened in all walks of life. Truly apreciatiate sincerely the efforts and examples I have learned from applying myself with certain instruction taught in the film. Have a Safe Day. Greendale. Hawkmoth <|>75.201.143.93 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth
Robbins stated his age as 77 on the June 5, 2010 edition of "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!" and specifically contradicted his Wikipedia article. I don't know what the protocol is for listing ages when birthdates are unknown. 72.244.206.31 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * He may have been making this up as a joke, though. His MySpace page lists him as 73, the age Wikipedia had him as. 72.244.206.31 (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Unless we can find a better source than this, we are better off not giving a date. Kingdon (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

More to the point than refuting your most easily spotted non-evidence, quantity is not quality (and quality starts with not swallowing our own vomit, as w/ FB). Who exactly do you hypothesize went and found a copy of his birth certificate, and which of those "sources" found it worth the effort to locate such an informant?? Do they say that they did so, as ]s do? Near the end of a mass of detail at [[#(Date of birth redux)|#(Date of birth redux) (a subsection of this section), i give a scenario for how essentially all practical sources can easily be wrong about his DoB. --Jerzy•t 14:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually we're better off keeping the date we had with a "citation needed" tag, while the matter is looked into. Deleteing information is not the best way to correct it.
 * With respect to those citations, a Google search for "Tom Robbins" "1936" or "July 22, 1936" gives over 15,000 possibilities:
 * The The Oxford Companion to American Literature article "Robbins, Tom" gives his birth year as 1936.
 * A Seattle Post-Intelligencer article from May 2, 2000 give his age as 63, which agrees with the 1936 date.
 * The Encyclopedia Britannica article "Thomas Eugene Robbins" states "born July 22, 1936, Blowing Rock, N.C., U.S."
 * The Smithsonian Institution also gives July 22, 1936 as Robbins' birthday.
 * Both Tom Robbins MySpace and Facebook pages give July 22, 1936 as his birthday.
 * The "Meet the Writer" tab on any Barns and Noble page for a Tom Robbins book gives his birthday as July 22, 1936.
 * and so on.
 * A comment/joke on a radio comedy show, might be worth adding a footnote, but it should not lead to deletionism. —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources. That settles the matter. Kingdon (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That settles nothing. For instance, i've noticed that FB celebrity pages look a lot like FB personal pages, but are not. They seem to be created by FB so that the fans can "like" the page, and consider friending other fans -- a case of the many kinds of similar-interest links that FB is built on. But don't just look at the DoB, look at the text of "his" FB page (which BTW shows no friends). I happen to have left a browser pane open on the diffs for one TR edit, and i can see at a glance that it has WP copy that we modified as to the 1st 'graph 11 months ago; you can probably use "WikiBlame" to zero right in on the exact revision that FB staff copied blindly from.

 * I heard it too, and while it didn't sound like he was making a joke at the time, his humor is definitely deadpan. Upon seeing all these sources, I'd agree it was probably a joke. 24.118.205.170 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another source, if anyone wants to add it: It's a Google Books image of p. 3 in the book Tom Robbins: A Critical Companion (cited in this article's bibliography), also giving his birthdate as July 22, 1936. If his birthdate isn't really in 1936, he's done a great job of making people think it is 1936 all these years-- a subterfuge I doubt he'd willingly throw away on a radio show. In other words, yes, it looks abundantly clear he was joking on WWDTM.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.205.170 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. You cannot take seriously a dialogue where he said that he was working on a reality show where he would feed middle-aged suburban males "magic mushrooms" and follow them around for six hours to see what happens.--Jorfer (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 * But I'm looking forward to seeing that program! Gorillatheape (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

He is obviously not 74. Obviously wrong information is not better than no information. This is an encyclopedia. CGameProgrammer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC). --Jerzy•t 14:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * CGP is right, except that "obviously" is an evasion of responsibility. CGP presumably didn't want to bother stating the kind of analysis that 81. and i make explicit in the following subsection.

(Date of birth redux)
Per instructions directly from Tom, I have updated and corrected the entire Tom Robbins Wikipedia entry. I have the great good fortune to be Tom's personal assistant. Many thanks

98.247.75.26 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Julie 02/07/2011. --Jerzy•t 14:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The diffs for the edit by the IP-editor (who goes by "Julie" & purports to be the subject's asst, editing on his behalf) are displayed as a diff-output. (The inline diffs seem more helpful than the parallel ones.) Many of the changes are factual, and should be left in place (even while we seek reliable sources verifying them). Many others involve nuance, and caution against COI should make us examine them critically for PoV including SYNTH.

If he was indeed born in 1936 then it seems strange that he gradiated in 1950 and went to university at age 14. If that is however correct some annotation by way of explanation might be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.42.154 (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC) replaced with 1933 (03:01, 25 January 2011) replaced with 1932 (19:06, 7 February 2011 by IP "Julie"), and replaced with 1936 (16:37, 16 March 2011)
 * It is not clear whether or not the above IP colleague noted (after the article having given 1936 as YoB) that the year was
 * removed (00:49, 13 January 2011)

In fact, we have one strong indication that TR was not broadcast in real time. At 07:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC) edited Tom Robbins and made the edit summary Finally, "74"? We had |1936|7|22|df%3Dyes&skipversions=0&ignorefirst=0&limit=50&offmon=6&offtag=4&offjahr=2010&searchmethod=lin&order=desc&force_wikitags=on&user= had the template name & parameters "Birth date and age|1936|7|22|df=yes" in the article for 11½ months, presumably delivering "72" until mid-July of '09, "73" until the time of the edit, and not due to say "74" until some weeks after the June 5 '10 show. (I'm now taking my turn to speculate about something i'm no authority on: prodigies, rock stars, and literary infantes terribles generally look more exciting the younger they are perceived to be: "imagine what she'll have grown into by the time she's 35 [or whatever you consider the age at which the field's stars are likely to 'peak']" makes that future more exciting to imagine, and the star more exciting to "follow", if you take the current age to be younger. Giving the wrong impression of your age, or getting others to do so, or not bothering to correct anyone who errs in the favorable direction, can increase your opportunities. Then at some point you'd like credit for still going strong at your real age, or you just feel like getting your legacy in order while you're still around to affect the process, and it becomes worthwhile to correct the record.) Once others have spread around a false age for you, you don't have to do anything for it to be self-sustaining, and you may not have it on the tip of your tongue how much its off by, especially given the tendency of people to be a year off by imagining that a person's age is the current year minus their year of birth (when actually it's a year less than that, until the birthday passes). You're much more likely to be confused about what age you're pretending to be than your real age, and the otherwise unexplainably premature "they say i'm 74" is an easy mistake if you are neither 73 nor 74. All that being said, not every confirmed (let alone self-described) assistant is a reliable source about age, no matter how much more plausible their account makes our article, and a fact tag seems in order. --Jerzy•t 14:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * but presumably they at least were aware it was
 * shown as 1936 at 15:40, 7 May 2011 (the time of their own comment),
 * and they may have eventually had their concern answered when it was (again)
 * replaced with 1932 (00:51, 15 July 2011).
 * In any case, birth in summer of 1932 makes it ordinary, in 1950, to complete secondary education in US (17 y.o., nearly 18 in June) and to start higher education (18 y.o., in Sept.). As to the radio show, June 2010 would make him a few weeks short of his 78th birthday, assuming the broadcast was live. (Otherwise, he might have been reflecting either the date his part was recorded or the date he anticipated it being broadcast, so without confidence that his portion was broadcast live, even being sure he was not joking or confused would leave the evidence less than definitive. )
 * Robbins stated his age as 77 on the June 5, 2010 edition of 'Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!'.
 * That was 3:40 AM (EDT), and 12:40 AM (PDT) in Seattle where that IP address is based. The June 5 edition is almost certain to be first broadcast on the official day, somewhere in North America where it's after about 10 AM. The edit corresponded to 5:10 (Newfoundland Daylight Time) (if that is used), and still earlier in the rest of NA. It was probably executed by a staff member of an NPR station in Seattle, having previewed the pre-recorded show and noted that an at least implicit embargo had expired at midnite local time.

Confusion w/ journalist
A colleague added a Distinguish tag creating a lk to
 * Tom Robbins, New York City journalist, active since the late 1960s

and summarized
 * Add Distinguish tag for another Tom Robbins who is an American noted for being a professional writer, more precisely a journalist.

but the documentation on that tag declares it is to be used at
 * Top of articles with only one alternative meaning and no disambiguation page.

That means it is clearly limited to the WP:Dab function, and may be applied only to provide a link to a WP article that has info about the "other" TR. Thus i Such an article would still not be pointed to by a Disting tag, but would, if retained, need an entry on some appropriate Dab -- which would be Thomas Robbins (disambiguation), unless its scope has changed by then. --Jerzy•t 00:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) have removed the markup to this talk page,
 * 2) note that if reliable sources have deemed it necessary, in their own discussions of the author, to make distinctions that they are not talking about the journalist, that will provide a basis for discussing on this page whether the confusion is a notable fact about the author that should be included in the prose of the accompanying article on the author (Note that if that is the most notable thing about the journalist, it is merely evidence that the journalist should not have an article on WP.), and
 * 3) suggest that those interested in the journalist consider working on a bio article, with reliable sources, at Tom Robbins (journalist), which will provide a basis for considering the journalist's possible notability.

Tom Robbins Virginia childhood home
Tom Robbins grew up in Warsaw, Virginia- not Richmond. Warsaw is in Virginia's Northern Neck region about 65 miles northeast of Richmond city. Robbins devotes several chapters of his memoir "Tibetan Peach Pie" to growing up in Warsaw and he is seen throughout the Warsaw High School yearbook for the class of 1949. That's online at https://archive.org/details/ambassadorthe1949wars Robbins visited Warsaw in October, 2015 and met with former classmates and neighbors and did a public reading from "Tibetan Peach Pie". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:1280:D700:C991:2F40:B255:CDE7 (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What About :Tibetan Peach Pie"? as the latest book [published in 2014]
as above, I respectfully submit this tidbit

john claude krusz, phd, md dallas, tx

Plural pronouns
Is there a reason that Robbin's works are referred to as 'their' works instead of 'his' works? I saw nothing to indicate his preference for plural pronouns and he is referred to as 'he' in later sections. Is this a convention for talking about authors' works that I'm unaware of?

Shmuelic (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tom Robbins


text:
Talk:Claudia gens

Untitled
Nero the Emperor of Rome bruns Rome down to the Ground and PLays a Fiddle... He Blammed the Christians For the fire that he had sent people to go and burn his town of Rome... The Christians were burnt with a torch...The GOOD thing that Nero did was stopped blood sports...Nero was and evil man he killed Familt members...
 * What does that have to do with this article? -- SFH 22:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
Is it true that the name comes from 'claudus' meaning lame?
 * That is how Antoine Meillet explains Claudius. Is it true? Who knows; the Romans were apparently innovating Claudius to serve instead of Clausus. No one knows what Clausus means. Why would they call the man lame? There is no evidence any of them were lame. It is possible the Romans knew Clausus meant lame. All this is total speculation. I think I will cover it in the article.Dave (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition Made
I added the note regarding Claudians without cognomen--Al-Nofi 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnexistent people
Theres listed some people unnexistent:

 * Gaius Claudius, consul 454(?)
 * Appius Claudius P.f. Crassus Inregillensis, consul 346 BC

I will check more...--83.52.17.74 19:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of non-existent people in there, the whole thing needs a thorough going-over. This article is unsat but there is some good information in it. Needs work.Dave (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Asellus's suit against Scipio
Scipio Aemilianus by A. E. Astin, Ch. XI seems to think that Ti. Claudius Assellus' suit against Scipio was in -140, not -139. To borrow a phrase from a controversial group, should we "teach the controversy"? Or is there some quick resolution here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.82.229 (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A brief search for the original sources didn't really clear up the date this occurred. The DGRBM says it occurred when Asellus was Tribune of the Plebs in 139.  Some modern histories say that this occurred in 140.  Do we know for certain in which year Asellus was tribune?  Broughton also gives 140.  I would say that 139 in DGRBM is in error.  Good source, occasionally mistaken.  Dates easy to transpose by a year.  I'll change the article text; if anyone ever finds evidence that it was 139 we can change it back. P Aculeius (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Julio-Claudian Nerones
Germanicus's sons Nero, Drusus and Gaius were never Claudii Nerones and as such probably should not feature on this list, just as nobody from the Julio-Claudian dynasty after Caligula is shown in the Julia gens page. Germanicus's name was also certainly not Decimus Claudius Nero, as is currently displayed here. It was probably the same as his father, but in reality it's not attested anywhere. Avis11 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 * They most certainly were Claudii Nerones—they were direct descendants of this branch of the gens and no other. Members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty descending from Tiberius' father bear various surnames, often serially, but did not and never did constitute separate and independent families.  They're in this article because they were all Claudii, by birth or adoption; most of them were never Julii, which is why they're not included on that page as well, although if they had been Julii, they would be properly included there.  So as far as where they belong, they're in the proper place.

 * As for Germanicus, he was almost certainly not born "Tiberius", since that was his brother's name. A century later it would not have been unusual for two brothers to share the same praenomen and be distinguished solely by their cognomina, but at this period it was highly unusual.  If he was named after his father, he's more likely to have borne his father's birth name, Decimus, than the affected Nero; and the fact that his brother bore a traditional praenomen suggests that this was the case.  Certainly Nero is an extraordinary praenomen and would require extraordinary proof.  I was hoping that Drumann would shed some light on the matter, but the Claudii Nerones aren't included, probably due to their association with the imperial family.  The most that I can say is that Decimus is the most likely of the three names, but I can't point to a scholarly source attesting it at the moment.  P Aculeius (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this source (pp. 363–8) appears to accept the notion that he was called Tiberius Nero, but I agree that it sounds inherently unlikely. Most other sources seem to think that "Nero Claudius Drusus" is the most likely birth name (by the linked source's admission). It doesn't seem at all extraordinary if there was already a precedent for it, i.e. his own father did it – especially given that Drusus the Elder had long already discarded "Decimus" by the time Germanicus was born. The use of "Decimus" as a praenomen is in any event unprecedented in this family.
 * It seems a bit much to display "Decimus" as established fact, as it currently appears. To reflect scholarly uncertainty, perhaps the praenomen should be done away altogether, and have Germanicus displayed as "Claudius D. f. Ti. n. (Drusus? Nero?)". Surely the cognomen here should be Drusus (keeping in line w/ his father) and not Nero, as is currently displayed? Avis11 (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 * It's not clear when Nero Claudius Drusus substituted his surname for his original praenomen—and in any case there was no legal process involved: at most it was a personal decision. There's a short article on the subject on JSTOR, which seems like a good analysis, but it concludes that in any case he must have done it some time before his sons were born.  IMO that doesn't require changing their filiations—but it doesn't tell us what Germanicus' proper name was, either.  At this stage the solution I'd consider would be calling him "Nero Claudius D. f. Ti. n. Drusus", with a footnote indicating the uncertainty about his birth name.  I don't want to put question marks in the list—it's not done in any other instance, although m-dashes might be in filiations.  Parentheses are usually used for inferred names, not possible alternatives that really need further explanation.  That's what footnotes are for!  P Aculeius (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting literally putting question marks and garbling up the names – just outlining the uncertainty and implicitly asking your opinion. Admittedly I did not think of adding footnotes at first: my first instinct was to just omit the uncertainty and leave the detailed explanations to the article on Germanicus proper. I did what you suggested though. Avis11 (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Inregillensis etc.
Is there any reason Regillensis is preferred over Inregillensis when the latter is overwhelmingly used by secondary sources? The order of names "Sabinus Regillensis" also seems off: I'm familiar with the inverted order only, and the footnote saying the Fasti was subjected to later emendations is not properly referenced. The Fasti also does not give the surname Inregillensis for the consular tribune of 403 but does so for the consul in 349, yet their filiations are identical. If both have the same surname and filiation, they must be identical, otherwise the tr.cos.403 must not be called that. Am I missing something? Avilich (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Technically the difference is simply a matter of preference—but since the first Appius Claudius was from Regillum, and the surname Regillensis is also known from the Postumia gens, it makes much more sense than the otherwise inexplicable Inregillensis, which makes no sense, and has, as far as I can recall, no parallel in Roman onomastics—why would anyone add a preposition to a surname derived from a place? That's not how any other Roman surnames I can think of were formed—or any names at all.  And no source claims that he was from a place called Inregillum, as far as I know.  Until recently this was consistent across both this article and individual biographical articles—the one on the consular tribune of 403 is, I think, the first to break this pattern and prefer Inregillensis.  I could have moved it when I found it—yesterday—but I deferred to the choice made by that article's author, and merely created a redirect so that someone following the orthography in the gens article would still find it.
 * The order of some surnames varies from source to source; here I'm following the source I was using when I was first writing this article. Drumann, I see, always places Sabinus after Inregillensis, while PW places Sabinus first twice, and Inregillensis once, but once Sabinus is omitted, always places Inregillensis at the end.  The DGRBM gives Sabinus Regillensis, except for the decemvir, for whom it places Regillensis between Crassus or Crassinus and Sabinus—the same arrangement given by PW.  However, to a large extent this is hair-splitting.  Even if these names are authentically attributed to this distant period, they didn't ordinarily use all their names on a daily basis—they probably used just two, or sometimes three, except when they wanted to sound particularly impressive—and that usage may in some respects be a retrojection of later onomastic practices onto an earlier time; some scholars have argued that cognomina were barely used even among the aristocracy until the late Republic, and that most such occurrences in earlier times are anachronisms.  I don't think that's the majority position now, but there's probably a grain of truth to it, and we shouldn't be too dogmatic about one version being correct and another found elsewhere incorrect.  I think that the Romans would have found our concept of there being an official, i.e. legal, version absurd.
 * The identity of the consular tribune of 403 and the consul of 349 is not established, and their filiations are disputed, as indicated by a previous editor (I note that Drumann regards them as separate persons of uncertain relationship; PW treats them together as Claudius No. 122; the DGRBM considers them uncle and nephew). There are many sources we could go by to work out how they were related, or if it's possible for them to have been identical—but it's rather improbable that they are the same, even though the Fasti seem to give the same filiation—especially since there's no reason why one couldn't be the nephew or cousin of the other, which might explain the filiation, although that could also be a mistake.  For the same man to have stood at the head of the Roman state twice, fifty-four years apart, is exceptional; it may have happened in one or two cases, such as Marcus Valerius Corvus or Quintus Fabius Vibulanus—men who, unlike either of these Claudii, covered themselves in glory—but it's much more likely that the one of 349 was the son or nephew of the one of 403.
 * If we suppose that, even at this early period, it would have been unusual to be elected consular tribune before the age of thirty, a thirty-year-old Claudius in 403 would have been nearly eighty-five in 349—not merely old by the standards of the day, but by today's standards as well. And no doubt this is one reason modern scholars doubt that the two Claudii could have been the same person, meaning either that the filiation reported in the fasti is wrong for one of them, or that we simply know their family imperfectly—something we can probably assume to be the case, even if we're not sure about the filiation.  If the assertion that the fasti were subject to some editing (or perhaps errors) is controversial, I'm not aware of it—even sources that generally accept nearly all of the contents seem to accept that some degree of editing or interpolation occurred, even though it's not always clear where.
 * Now, as to whether to include the surname, we quite often see surnames borne by all the members of a family down to a certain point, then replaced by another; or they are omitted for a generation or two, but then reappear, from which it may be inferred that they belonged to the intervening generations as well, but were omitted from surviving written sources, perhaps for convenience. Note that as late as Livy's time it was quite normal to omit cognomina altogether when discussing early figures; and many of the surnames found in current reconstructions of the fasti are merely inferred. Drumann infers Inregillensis for several generations, down to the dictator of 337, and here he is followed by PW; the DGRBM continues it only down to the decemvir, but if we suppose that the consul of 349 and the dictator of 337 bore it, then presumably so did the consular tribune of 403, even if it isn't mentioned in the surviving sources.  P Aculeius (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain in detail. Livy (6.40) says that Appius, grandson of the decemvir (and thus the consular tribune of 403), was alive in 368, 35 years after his tribunate, so I don't see much difficulty in identifying him as the dictator of 362 or perhaps even the consul of 349. He could have assumed his first office at a very young age, like Valerius Corvus supposedly did. That he did die early in his consulship perhaps supports the idea that he was elderly. Or, as you said, we don't know the family in full and there could very well have been a cousin with identical name and filiation. Avilich (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can take for granted that we don't know the family in full—the idea that the Claudii held power for many centuries, but that there were never more than two or three adult male Claudii at a time before the time of Caecus, and seldom more than four or five thereafter, seems ridiculous. Doubtless there were numerous younger brothers who only rarely entered public life, or appear in the pages of history, but who had descendants of their own—typically leading more modest lives, but occasionally rising to prominence.  Which doesn't resolve our question here, or prove whether the filiations in the fasti are correct, but it's worth bearing in mind that we probably know only a small fraction of the members of even the most prominent patrician families, and that much of what we know—or think we know—about how they were related has had to be reconstructed or inferred.  And this process probably dates to Roman times—Fabius Pictor, Dionysius, Livy, etc. probably had to make their own inferences, or depend on others who claimed to have knowledge, although they also reconstructed the families based on logic and their best guesses, about persons who lived centuries earlier.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Filiation
I don't think filiation should be included when an individuals ancestry is disputed. Many of the ones included in this article seem to be based on speculation. ★Trekker (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe all of them come from reliable secondary sources, however. The earlier ones are probably based on Drumann, whom I believe devoted nearly an entire volume to the Claudii; the later ones may come directly from first-century BC sources mentioning who the father-in-law/son-in-law/brother-in-law of so-and-so was.  A few may be uncertain—but if that's the best guess of the scholars, then I see no reason not to include them until and unless some other source comes along with a different opinion.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But there are cases when scholars have different opinions, then who do we pick from? Many of these items of lesser known individuals have no articles, and therefore lacks explanations for why a majority prefer one over the other.★Trekker (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Claudia gens


text:
Template:Ripper letters

{{doc|content=

title: Template:Ripper letters


text:
Talk:Tapwave Zodiac

Firefly Link
Yeah, I was just wondering, under exclusive games, it has a game called Firefly listed. However, if you click on the name Firefly, it takes you to a wikipedia page about the insect. Should this link be removed until a page about the game is created?

poorly manufactured
I'm quite surprised that there's no info on how poorly made Zodiacs were, between me and my friend we went through five of them, all of them died to the wandering thumbstick problem, Zodiacs would usually only last a few months before the joystick on them would start registering movement when stationary, it would always be in a certain direction too (though which is a memory which eludes me presently). Tapwave were good with replacing them though, even towards the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.53.196 (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was more hit-and-miss, rather than them being uniformly bad - not entirely surprising for a new company's first-generation product with a small production run. If they'd made and sold more, they probably would have improved the production process or sourced better parts. I must have lucked out or just been extra gentle with mine, because I never had joystick problems in years of use; I did have lots of problems with the shoulder buttons, though. Anyway, this is all a bit personal-research-y, so it probably shouldn't go in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.126.85 (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking in lede?
Can anyone see any problems with changing the three-link "mobile entertainment console" in the lede to just "Handheld game console"? I could be wrong, but I think it's more succinct without losing context. DennisIsMe (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference removed

 * With fewer than 200,000 units sold, the Zodiac is the third worst selling handheld console, after the Gizmondo and the R-Zone

The above was referenced by this page ... but that doesn't mention the Zodiac at all, never mind sales figures. As such, I've removed the reference. Loganberry (Talk) 11:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tapwave Zodiac


text:
User talk:Wolfj~enwiki

I am off of this site for a while. Write to me on Simple English Wikipedia. By the way, postdlf, F*** you

Amphibian Visual Cortex== Well it was listed for "speedy deletion" and seemed to be nonsense, so I deleted it. I'm sure you can find more relevant things to say than whatever you saw on Jimmy Neutron, if you want to recreate it. Adam Bishop 18:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"It was on Jimmy Neutron, so it's science fact" is not valid. I'd suggest not recreating that here or on Simple:. -- Netoholic @ 18:46, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Jared, its Casey!!!!! this school is small but so confusing!!! i really miss you guys. tell everyone i said hi. tell maggie that if she wants to talk to me, she needs to go here for a while. your friend Casey Jones

Image Tagging Image:Light Map.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Light Map.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion ★ talk 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wolfj~enwiki