text:
Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow

Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow (Frøken Smillas fornemmelse for sne), published in America as Smilla's Sense of Snow, is a 1992 novel by Danish author Peter Høeg tracing the investigation into the suspicious death of a Greenlandic boy in Denmark. A global bestseller, it was translated into English by Tiina Nunnally (credited as "F. David" in the British edition).

Title
During her Greenland childhood, Smilla developed an almost intuitive understanding of all types of snow and their characteristics. As an adult, she worked for a time as a scientist whose speciality was snow and ice. Her certainty about the manner of a child’s death is due to this visceral "feeling for snow".

Background
The novel is ostensibly a work of detection and a thriller, although beneath the surface of the novel, Høeg is concerned with rather deeper cultural issues, particularly Denmark's problematic post-colonial history, and also the nature of relationships that exist between individuals and the societies in which they are obliged to operate. The protagonist Smilla Qaaviqaaq Jaspersen is a sympathetic and useful vehicle in this respect, her deceased mother being Greenlandic Inuit and her father a rich Danish doctor.

Having been brought in childhood from the poverty and freedom of Greenland to the affluent and highly ordered society of Denmark, Smilla's relationship with Denmark and Danish society is strained and ambivalent. Smilla investigates the death of a neighbour’s child whom she had befriended—a fellow Greenlander, with an alcoholic, neglectful mother and a mysteriously deceased father. The story begins in Copenhagen, where the child has fallen to his death from the snowy rooftop of an old warehouse. The police refuse to consider it anything but an accident—there is only one set of footprints (the child's) in the snow leading to the edge of the roof—but Smilla believes there is something about the footprints that shows that the boy was chased off the roof. Her investigations lead her to decades-old conspiracies in Copenhagen, and then to a voyage on an icebreaker ship to a remote island off the Greenlandic coast, where the truth is finally discovered. But the book ends unresolved, with no firm conclusion.

Plot
Smilla Qaaviqaaq Jaspersen, 37-year-old product of the stormy union of a female Inuit hunter and a rich urban Danish physician, is a loner who struggles to live with her fractured heritage. Living alone in a dreary apartment complex in Christianshavn, Copenhagen, she befriends Isaiah, the neglected son of her alcoholic neighbour, because he too is Greenlandic and not truly at home in Denmark. Smilla's friendship with Isaiah, recounted in the novel in flashback, gives some meaning to her otherwise lonely life. Isaiah’s sudden death is explained officially as a fall from the roof whilst playing, but Smilla’s understanding of the tracks the child left on the snowy roof convinces her that this is untrue. She complains to the police and quickly encounters obstruction and hostility from the authorities and other sources.

Working with Peter, a mechanic neighbour who had also known and liked Isaiah, and with whom she begins an affair despite her fear of dependency, Smilla discovers that there is a conspiracy centred on Gela Alta (a possible reference to the Latin verb gelo, "to freeze", and the places called Alta in North Norway or Alta Lake in Canada or the feminine Latin adjective alta, "high, deep"), an isolated glaciated island off Greenland. Previous expeditions have found something there (Isaiah’s father was a diver who died on one of them, allegedly in an accident) and now plans are afoot to return for it. Isaiah’s death is linked to this conspiracy in some way. After a long journey of discovery in Copenhagen, during which she learns that the mechanic is not who he says he is, Smilla braves intimidation and threats and eventually gets on board the ship chartered for the mysterious expedition to Gela Alta, ostensibly as a stewardess.

The final action takes place on the ship and the island. Smilla is held in deep suspicion by the ship's crew—who turn out to be all in some way compromised and in the pay of the mysterious Tørk Hviid, who is the expedition's real leader. Despite repeated attempts on her life by crew members, who assume she is from the authorities, Smilla doggedly pursues the truth, even when she discovers that Peter has deceived and betrayed her. The secret of the island is revealed to be a meteorite embedded in the glacier, certainly uniquely valuable—perhaps even alive in some way. However, the water surrounding it is infested with a lethal parasite related to the Guinea worm, which is what really killed Isaiah’s father. Isaiah was forced off the roof because he had accompanied his father on the previous expedition and had evidence of the meteorite’s location—and the parasite itself was actually dormant in his body. When Smilla learns that Tørk Hviid had chased Isaiah off the roof to his death, she pursues him out onto the frozen sea. He tries to reach the ship and force it to sail away, but Smilla chases him, using her intuitive ice-sense to head him off, out into isolation and danger. Here the novel ends.

Reception
The New York Times called the novel a "publishing sensation" that "was America’s gateway drug to a long-term dependency on Nordic noir." It was named the 1993 Best Book of the Year by both Time and Entertainment Weekly and spent twenty-six weeks on the New York Times best-seller list. The novel was translated into seventeen languages, and published in over thirty countries.

As a genre novel, the book won the Crime Writers' Association Silver Dagger Award for Fiction in 1994, and was shortlisted for an Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America in 1994. It also won the 1994 Dilys Award, chosen by the Independent Mystery Booksellers Association as the mystery title of the year that member booksellers most enjoyed selling.

Literary critics have since considered its cultural themes, such as viewing it as a response to the "greed is good" spirit of the 1980s that pervaded Denmark and other western countries, showing "Danish society in terms of its limitations and injustices, particularly in relation to its treatment of Greenland and Greenlanders." Or as a nation coming to grips with its colonial past, showing "a number of puzzles that a colonial, and later a capitalist, hegemony and subordination" set up.

Film adaptation
The film, Smilla's Sense of Snow starring Julia Ormond, Jim Broadbent, Gabriel Byrne, Richard Harris, Jürgen Vogel, Mario Adorf and Tom Wilkinson, directed by Bille August was released in 1997. There were some changes to the plot, especially having a more conclusive end in which the villain Tørk Hviid gets killed, instead of the book's deliberately ambiguous ending. In the United Kingdom it was released as Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow.

Awards and nominations

 * Winner of the Crime Writers' Association Silver Dagger Award in 1994.
 * Winner of the Dilys Award for 1994 by the Independent Mystery Booksellers Association.
 * Shortlisted for an Edgar Award in 1994.

title: Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow


text:
Tim Martin (businessman)

Sir Timothy Randall Martin (born 28 April 1955) is an English businessman and the founder and chairman of Wetherspoons, a pub chain in the UK and Ireland. In 2016, Martin actively campaigned for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union and was a strong supporter of Brexit, donating £200,000 to the Vote Leave campaign.

Early life
Timothy Martin was born on 28 April 1955 in Norwich. His father served in the Royal Air Force and then worked for brewing multinational Guinness plc, where he became the Malaysian marketing director. He has two younger brothers, Trevor and Gerry, and a sister, Louise.

Martin was educated at eleven schools in New Zealand and Northern Ireland, including Campbell College, Belfast.

He earned a bachelor's degree in law from the University of Nottingham, and qualified as a barrister in 1979, but has never practised.

Career
His early jobs included working on a building site in Ware, Hertfordshire, and acting as a sales representative for The Times.

Martin is the founder and chairman of Wetherspoons. He bought his first pub, in Muswell Hill, in 1979 which was originally named Martin's Free House before renaming to Wetherspoons, named after one of Martin's teachers who could not control his class. His brother Gerry also ran a pub chain, Old Monk, which was listed in 1998, but went out of business in 2002.

After the initial opening of Martin's first location, the organisation kept growing and expanding as Wetherspoons started opening more locations throughout the north of London, and eventually across the whole UK. In 1992, Wetherspoons was listed on the Stock Exchange as JD Wetherspoon plc.

In 1998, Martin kept expanding the company's operations and opened 20 locations in one month in July, with seven opening on the same day.

In 2000, under Martin's leadership, Wetherspoons opened its 400th location and by 2008 the number had increased to 800 Wetherspoons locations.

In 2005, Martin was voted the fifth most influential person in the UK pub industry. He is an admirer of Sam Walton's business philosophy. He visits at least 15 Wetherspoons outlets each week.

In January 2023, the Wetherspoons pub chain closed 11 pubs across the UK with 35 more up for sale, Martin stated that pubs across the UK were being crippled via unfair taxes in comparison to supermarkets. Martin went on to state that he was pushing for tax parity with supermarkets and unless this is implemented the pub industry would inevitably shrink.

As of February 2023, Martin owned 30.77m shares (23.90% of shares).

Brexit
Martin was a staunch supporter of Brexit in 2016, representing these views for journalists and on political TV programmes such as the BBC's Politics Live, and Sky News, and BBC Radio 4 programmes including Today, Question Time and Farming Today. In 2016, Martin donated £200,000 to the Vote Leave campaign. Throughout the campaign, he gave his reasons for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

In January 2017, Wetherspoons published figures showing an increase in sales of more than 3%. Martin used this as evidence that there was no post-Brexit referendum slowdown as predicted by economists.

In June 2018, Martin announced that Wetherspoons would be ceasing the sale of products from other European Union countries in a 24-month plan, with the immediate example of Prosecco and Champagne being replaced by Australian wines. He believes the prediction of food prices rising and food shortages leading to stockpiling of supplies in the UK post-Brexit is merely scaremongering tactics deployed by pro-EU journalists, and mentioned the fact there were no increased queues in his restaurants as a result; after he removed French brandy from sale in his restaurants as an example.

Wetherspoons mass posted a pro-Brexit magazine to an unknown number of households in January 2019. The magazine claims to have a readership of two million. The employee campaign group, Spoons Workers Against Brexit, described the publication as dangerous propaganda, and said that Martin was exploiting his position as CEO. Wetherspoons responded by defending the mass mailing, stating it contained "... pro and anti Brexit articles to stimulate debate"; the proportionately minor mentions of views critical to a no deal Brexit were preceded by statements by Martin, deriding expert opinions and "the elite".

In June 2021, Martin called on the UK government to introduce a "reasonably liberal immigration system" controlled by Britain rather than the European Union. He suggested the government should adopt a visa scheme for workers from the EU to help the UK's pubs and restaurants hire more staff.

COVID-19 pandemic
Martin criticised the shutdown of businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, saying that it was "over the top" and that pubs should continue to operate but with social distancing measures in place. After criticism regarding the shutdown of all pubs due to the spread of COVID-19, Martin addressed his 40,000 employees by video message. He acknowledged the government would pay 80 per cent of the wages of staff at companies who have lost work during the crisis, but he said the money could take weeks to come through. Martin suggested that if some staff were offered jobs in supermarkets they should consider taking them and promised that he would give first preference to those who wanted to come back to Wetherspoons.

On 19 January 2022, in a statement to the London Stock Exchange, Martin accused the Prime Minister Boris Johnson of "hypocrisy" over the "Partygate" scandal, arguing that much of the controversy would have been avoided if Downing Street staff had been able to visit pubs which, at the time of the alleged lockdown parties, were closed due to coronavirus restrictions.

Cost of living crisis
Commenting in June 2023 on the effects of the cost-of-living crisis in the UK, Martin remarked that increasing costs in the British brewing industry may result in raised prices to consumers, and suggested that the price of a pint of beer could reach £8 or more. He also expressed concerns that breweries may consider watering down beer to gain tax breaks.

Personal life
Martin is married to Felicity (née Owen), whom he met while at university; they have four children and live in Exeter, Devon.

In the 2024 New Year Honours, Martin was appointed Knight Bachelor for services to hospitality and culture.

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

title: Tim Martin (businessman)


text:
West Virginia Public Broadcasting

West Virginia Public Broadcasting (WVPB) is the public television and radio state network serving the U.S. state of West Virginia. It is owned by the West Virginia Public Broadcasting Authority, an agency of the state government that holds the licenses for all Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR) member stations licensed in West Virginia. It is headquartered in Charleston with studios in Morgantown and Beckley.

On January 1, 2015, West Virginia PBS and West Virginia Public Radio merged their brands, branding exclusively as "West Virginia Public Broadcasting" across radio and television.

Television
The first public television station in West Virginia signed on July 14, 1969 under the callsign WMUL-TV, broadcasting from Marshall University in Huntington. In 1981, WMUL-TV changed its call letters to WPBY-TV; two years later, the public station at West Virginia University in Morgantown, WWVU-TV, was renamed WNPB-TV. WPBY-TV and WNPB-TV received their new call letters to underline that the operations were managed by the state educational broadcasting authority, and not the university system. In 1992, the state completed a microwave link that permitted it to convert WNPB and the state's third PBS station, WSWP-TV in Grandview to become repeaters of WPBY-TV in Huntington and form a state network. On January 5, 2015, WPBY-TV changed its call letters to WVPB-TV as part of an effort to unify all of West Virginia Public Broadcasting's services under a single brand; the television network had previously been branded as "West Virginia PBS", a name that was phased out starting on January 1, 2015.

The state network has a total of five low-powered repeaters serving other areas out of the range of the three full-powered stations, most notably Wheeling and Parkersburg. Three directly repeat WNPB, one repeats WVPB and one repeats WSWP.

In the past the network showed some Marshall University and West Virginia University sports content, but has abandoned this practice due to Conference USA/Big 12 exclusivity agreements with commercial and cable outlets.

The current local content consists of a daily recap of the state legislative session, shows produced by the West Virginia University medical school, and student produced news from campus weekly products from Marshall University and West Virginia State University. It also broadcasts original documentaries on West Virginia history and culture, as well as live musical performances of Mountain Stage and the West Virginia Music Hall of Fame.

The combined footprint of WVPB's television network covers almost all of West Virginia, as well as portions of Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. It is carried on the basic tier of all cable systems in West Virginia.

TV stations
Notes:

Translators
On June 1, 2016, West Virginia Public Broadcasting announced a plan to shut down five of its translators — W07DN-D, W08EE-D, W09CT-D, W30CO-D, and W41AO — due to state budget cuts and changes in viewing habits. All five translators were originally planned to be taken silent for a year in order to determine a long-term plan. Operations on W08EE-D (Martinsburg) and W30CO-D (Wheeling) resumed on August 10, 2016, while the licenses for W07DN-D (Wardensville), W09CT-D (Mathias), and W41AO (Hampshire) were surrendered to the FCC for cancellation on May 26, 2017.

Subchannels
All digital signals are multiplexed:

Analog-to-digital conversion
West Virginia Public Broadcasting's TV stations shut down their analog signals on June 12, 2009, the official date on which full-power television stations in the United States transitioned from analog to digital broadcasts under federal mandate. The station's digital channel allocations post-transition are as follows:
 * WPBY-TV shut down its analog signal, over UHF channel 33; the station's digital signal remained on its pre-transition UHF channel 34, using virtual channel 33.
 * WSWP-TV shut down its analog signal, over VHF channel 9; the station's digital signal relocated from its pre-transition UHF channel 53, which was among the high band UHF channels (52-69) that were removed from broadcasting use as a result of the transition, to VHF channel 10, using virtual channel 9.
 * WNPB-TV shut down its analog signal, over UHF channel 24; the station's digital signal remained on its pre-transition UHF channel 33, using virtual channel 24.

Radio
WVPB's state radio network includes eleven full-powered stations and seven low-powered translators, all on the FM band. The state network carries programs from NPR, PRI and other distributors, as well as classical and folk music. WVPB produces original weekly programs, including EclecTopia, A Change of Tune, Inside Appalachia and Sidetracks, plus the nationally distributed Mountain Stage. The network was known as "West Virginia Public Radio" until WVPB's 2015 transition to a single brand.

FM stations
Notes:

Translators
In addition to five low-powered, separate-frequency translators, two low-powered boosters also extend coverage. Boosters are licensed on the same frequency as the parent station but at a different location. They are given the same callsign as the parent station with a number added to differentiate the transmitter site.

Website and online services
West Virginia Public Broadcasting maintains a website with West Virginia news and free access to original video and audio productions. It also provides its videos through its YouTube page.

WVPB also operates a free website with educational videos and games for teachers, parents and students called West Virginia LearningMedia, part of PBS LearningMedia.

title: West Virginia Public Broadcasting


text:
Talk:Paul Celan

Untitled
I believe that the article is much better than what it was. I believe that the quality standard banner may be removed now. Is anyone in agreement? vkxmai 05:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a bit more depth to some of the sections. I have several excellent resources for biographical information on Celan (mostly in German, but I can translate) for our "verifiable sources." I will begin incorporating this later. I would like to re-work the section on his poetry into a time-frame set-up, perhaps even addressing his compositions based upon location, such as the importance of the Entstehung of earlier poems like "Nähe der Gräber." vkxmai 23:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found myself including further treatment of "Todtnauberg" and the Heidegger-Celan meeting in the Heidegger entry. I'm thinking therefore of creating a separate entry for "Todtnauberg" and, for the time being, treating the Heidegger-Celan meeting as context. Objections? Buffyg 09:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you, but if you mean transferring part of the specific material on "Todtnauberg" here to this new article, it's OK for me. The section is a bit unwieldy as it is now. RodC 22:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have edited a little bit edited your article on Paul Celan because it has many points in which u almost use anti Romanian propaganda ideas. In the old version it was written "Fascist Romanians came back". Romania was not fascist at that time, because the Legionar Party Rebellion was completely dismanteled in 1940. There was a special Antisemitic policy for Bukovina and Basarabia. It doesn`t make sense why Celan would want to leave Bukovina and live in Bucharest if the Jews there had such a terrible time. They were put at forced labour and at cleaning, moping etc. I think u can check a very nice book, Mihail Sebastian`s Diary, a Jewish writer whose diary has been translated to English recently. MayumaMayuma 20:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The section on antisemitism reads like Nazi propaganda. To suggest that antisemitism was born as a result of Jewish retaliation against German atrocities is idiocy bordering on evil. The entire section is rife with grammatical and spelling errors to boot, and should be deleted.

If u claim all Romanians were fascist at the time u are an idiot. Romanian army had nothing to do with German atrocities, there is no Nazi propaganda here but simple truth. They were no invaders, they just returned on a part of Romanian territory that was occupied by Soviet Army in 1940 after the Viena dictatum. Ribbentrop and Molotov cut Poland in two halves and Bukovina had the same fate, the Northern part became Russian and the Southern remain in Romania. Where have u taken your information from? Romanian army had nothing to do with the fact Paul Celan`s parents were taken to a labour camp and died in Muntenia( u used Wallachia). There was no Nazy party at the time it had been already completely wiped out in 1940 after the Iron Guard Rebellion. The Romanian political parties were forbidden by King Carol II who created his own party called "Totul pentru tara". General Ion Antonescu was appointed prime minister without any free elections and the country became a royal dictatorship. General Ion Antonescu himself conducted the massacre against gypsies, Jews and other ethnic groups in Basarabia and Bukovina. He did this because he was allied to German army and it was his own personal decision. No Romanian politician was aware of his plans. He was put on public trial after the war and executed for war crimes he comitted there. Show me one document that attest Celan s parents were arrested by Romanian army, or police and sent to death. It may be possible but I don`t think u have any information. U also stated in your article that a SS commando the Romanian mayor arrested Celan s parents, who told u this? I think if u are not Ukrainian or Russian, u have no anti Romanian bias u would better study Second World History and improve your information. Wikipedia is not a mean of anti Romanian propaganda but an encyclopedia for the general public and u shouldn t use its power to spread lies. Paul Celan came to seek refuge in Romania because here Jews had a special status. For your quite scarce and shattered information there were no Jews deported from Romania to the Polish concentration camp as many Jews were taken there from Germany, Hungary, even from the occupied France. I have typed this text at 3 am in the morning and I am not interested in having an argument with an arrogant guy like u. The typing errors I haven t had enough time to proofread but I will do it perhaps some other time. I bet u have no proof Celan hated Romania, he was quite a good friend of the french romanian philosopher Emil Cioran, he translated many poems from and to Romanian, he welcomed many Romanian writers who travelled to Paris. I think u haven t read even professor Andrei Hoisie- Corbea`s books on the Romanian heritage and roots of Paul Celan. And please sign your messages, if u are a phantom I won t have any connection with u. Mayuma211.16.104.143 19:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

For your relief I have deleted the passage on Antisemitism, it is enogh for me if these explanations will remain here on the talk page. If u don t want to erase them from here as well. Mayuma211.16.104.143 19:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

As soon as I have time, I will make some much needed changes to this page. I think the debate has been undermined by incendiary remarks. If you think that Celan's visiting of Heidegger deserves its own page and you can fill it, go for it. --vkxmai 00:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Romanian antisemitism
As a survivor of deportation to Transnistria and someone who had known Paul Antschel personally, I want to point out that the assertions about Romanian non-involvement are absolutely false. 1. The Romanian army together with the SS Einsatzkommando massacred a few hundred people, among them the Chief Rabbi Mark, when they entered Czernowitz in July 1941. 2. The Romanian gendarmes (not Germans) rounded up Jews brutally in October 1941 and confined us to a ghetto, from where the majority were deported to Romanian-run camps in Transnistria. I was present when a Romanina gendarme hit my mother with a rifle-butt. 3. The brutal inhuman behavior of the Romanian troops towards the Jews en route to Transnistria is well documented. 4. I need to remind the writers of the Yassy (Iasi) train -- also run by the Romanian army. 5. I and my family were deported to Transnistria in June 1942 (one week after Celan's parents). I could write a whole book about the inhumane treatment by the Romanian Gendarmes. One item: the patients of the Jewish mental hospital, who were in the camp with us, were all shot by Romanian gendarmes. Celan's parents had the misfortune to be taken across the river Bug to work for the Germans, where they were exterminated. Finally, even before Antonescu, in the 1930-s, we Jews were exposed to varipous antisemitic actions (revision of citizenship, revision of the right of doctors with foreign diplomas (read Jewish doctors) to practice medicine, frequent assaults on Jewish students (particularly at the Law Faculties) etc. I remember making a big detour around the headquarters of the Goga-Cuza party for fear of being beaten up on the way home from school.
 * Thanks for your poignant testimony. The interested reader may also consult Antonescu and the Holocaust| as well as this site. Stammer 13:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

introduction
I deleted the following sentence: "Others have speculated that when Celan changed his name from Antschel, he cast out the following letters: H for Hitler and ST for Stalin)" It's really total speculation, and doesn't belong into an intro paragraph, I think. Johannes Wich-Schwarz 04:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, that seems like a bizarre claim and I think the source given fails WP:RS, so I've removed it. "Celan" is simply a reversal of the two syllables in the Romanian spelling ("Ancel") of his German name ("Antschel"). Both versions sound something like "An-chel" in English. He removed the T, the S and the H because they aren't needed in Romanian. --Folantin 21:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

France?
I am a great fan both of Celan and of France, but honestly I can't see why Celan should belong to the France Wikiproject. Celan is not a French poet. Beside this quibble, I think the section about Todesfuge could be expanded. It is arguably the greatest poem of the 20th century and it offers the opportunity to illustrate the main threads of Celan's poetry, from the deep influence of Hölderlin, to the tragic and poetically frutiful conflict between Celan's Jewish and German cultural identities ("dein goldenes Haar Margarethe/ dein aschenes Haar Sulamith"). I may start adding some lines about the ominous "Meister aus Deutschland", who has been identified with Heidegger by some authors. A deep admiration for Hölderlin was a common trait of Celan and Heidegger. Stammer 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the template which was indiscriminately added by a poorly-designed bot. Please go ahead and expand the section on "Todesfuge" (maybe even make it into a separate article?). Remember to source your info though. Best. --Folantin 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont vorry, Stammer good boy. He source. Stammer 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I apolichise for teaching mein Grandmutter to suck Eier ;) All ze best. --Folantin 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Hamburger
I am not personally a German speaker. I wondered though, if it would be appropriate to add that Hamburger is the paradigm Celan translator? A professor of mine, in fact, the head my College's language department and daughter of one of the foremost American Heidegger scholars/translators (and(forgive all these parenthetical/subordinate clauses) actually the coordinator of the historic dinner at which Heidegger and Hannah Arrendt were reacquainted (J. Glenn Gray is the father's name - his daughter was in attendence at the dinner also, not that it matters here)); she tells me Hamburger is the Lattimore of German - that is, the Lattimore, the ancient Greek translator as opposed to the vulgar Mr. Fagles (ugh) who rewrites Homer, or the Jowett (eh(?)) who idiomizes, or the Longfellow (hehehmm) who forced Homer into rhyming couplets, or the Thomas Hobbes (who translated the Peloponesian Wars of Thucydides in his spare time, who, a man of his times, rendered fabulously the Greek for Libya as Africa, Libyans as Africans) who, to be frank, just makes a lot of mistakes. Not the most verifiable source, but, well, I've no reason to fib and I'm sure of her judgment. As a personal friend of David Farell Krell (save the fact that the man is an ass, I add), she did an uncredited proofread of the Red Bible (the Basic Writings of Martin Heidegger) and Krell's request, and knows German very very well. So, that's all I guess. Hamburger.

 * I'm afraid that, although what you say is interesting, it's not relevant to the needs of Wikipedia. It is not up to this site to decide who the "paradigm" Celan translator is.  By "paradigm" I assume you mean, more or less, "best".  Hamburger is a wonderful translator but even if there were a lively debate about who's the best 20th century translator of Celan, and there isn't one that I am aware of (because there are no warring camps on the issue), Wikipedia's role is to report on such a controversy, not to take a side in it.  Lexo (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Force of Light by Dan Kaufman
Hello - I just wanted to mention that Dan Kaufman of the eclectic experimental music ensemble called Barbez has recently released a recording called "Force of Light" (on John Zorn's Tzadik label) that is an interpretation through music of Celan's life and poetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.181.40 (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Todtnauberg
The section on Todtnauberg seems poorly written and irrelevant in general. I love Heidegger and I think a line or two about Celan's relationship to him is appropriate, but cutting a paragraph from your undergrad paper on a poem which is not even central to Celan's work as a whole is just weird. If no one objects and no one is willing to rewrite this mess, I recommend cutting the section out for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.101.111 (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Heidegger section has an inordinate weight in the otherwise terse article. That they met may be relevant, but the way it is written leaves a feeling of "so what". Why is this poem quoted in full? It's not his most important or representative poem.--88.73.6.122 (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro
The intro of this article is a mess. Referring to Antschel as "the Romanian Jew Paul Antschel" is a stylistic turn that leaves an exceptionally nasty taste in this reader's mouth. Celan's Jewishness was very important to him, but in the intro to an article about, say, André Gide, we don't refer to him as "the Protestant André Gide" (or even "the homosexual André Gide", which would be more to the point about Gide's identity.) His identity as an author should come first. I will recast it according to best practice on WP. Lexo (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bio Bio Gap
I have sources which suggest that the Gruppe 47 reading helped launch Celan, whereas the current article gives the opposite impression. In any case, there's a huge gap between 1955 and his death in 1970, omitting among other things his worldwide fame as a poet in those years. It's very inadequate.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I found sources as well that suggest that the 1952 Gruppe 47 reading helped bring recognition to Celan's poetry. I added a couple of references and some language to this section to reflect these. I couldn't find anything that said he didn't return to Gruppe 47 because a prize was given to someone else. This seems pretty subjective to me. --MLKLewis (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nelly Sachs
It appears to me that the section that says that Paul Celan and his wife Gisèle de Lestrange corresponded for 18 years is incorrect. There is no reference provided for this statement. In looking around I found that Celan and Nelly Sachs corresponded in the vein of two fellow poets sharing from their similar holocaust and poetic experiences. We should look at rewriting this section.--MLKLewis (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What are ....
"earlier socialist engagements" - was Celan engaged to be married to a plurality of socialist females at some time? BECAUSE OTHERWISE "engagement" is an absolutely bullshit word - is it the usual mistranslation of German "Engagement" (=commitment), or do you means "contacts", or maybe "flirtations" - if so, then say it! "engagements" is neither one or the other, it means (here) nothing. Maelli (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Paul Celan. 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/20040804091001/http://www.littlebluelight.com/lblphp/intro.php?ikey=4 to http://www.littlebluelight.com/lblphp/intro.php?ikey=4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090729085217/http://www.shackmanpress.com/books/paulcelan.php to http://www.shackmanpress.com/books/paulcelan.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204074806/http://www.cstone.net/~poems/essafels.htm to http://www.cstone.net/~poems/essafels.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711000124/http://www.fictioninc.com/issues/number54/the-one-and-only-circle-paul-c to http://www.fictioninc.com/issues/number54/the-one-and-only-circle-paul-c
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102092946/http://edocs.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/volltexte/2009/13938/ to http://edocs.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/volltexte/2009/13938/
 * Added tag to http://www.jubilat.org/n1/celan.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222150131/http://ekleksographia.ahadadabooks.com/skillman/authors/cal_kinnear.html to http://ekleksographia.ahadadabooks.com/skillman/authors/cal_kinnear.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100307124830/http://www.yes2art.com/DACH/todes_dead.html to http://www.yes2art.com/DACH/todes_dead.html

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) 18:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation
One might think a rearranged Antschel would be pronounced Tschelan, corresponding to the Romanian (rather than German) pronunciation of Celan. Paul_Celan however confirms, while noting that in Paris the accent seemed to have moved to the second syllable. The Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary ( however seems dubious once one peruses academic conferences on Youtube: the translator Pierre Joris and a multitude of other US scholars all use tseːlaːn; here one hears ˈtseːlaːn from Amir Eshel and tseː'laːn from Ulrich Baer. Sparafucil (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Birth year: 1920 or 1928?
The photo of his Nachmittag... poem on a Leiden wall gives his birth year as 1928. On the other hand, that same image misspells the poem title, which makes me wonder how careful the artist was. Assuming he really was born in 1920, should we call out the wrong date in the photo caption? Peter Chastain  [¡hablá!]  01:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Update needed
The Film section needs to be updated to include Wim Wenders' Anselm (2023). Paul Celan is very much present in this documentary, including through the reciting of poems. EAJ Dreessen (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paul Celan


text: User talk:66.215.83.134

title: User talk:66.215.83.134


text:
Sandomierz Voivodeship

Sandomierz Voivodeship (Województwo Sandomierskie, Palatinatus Sandomirensis) was a unit of administration and local government in Poland from the 14th century to the partitions of Poland in 1772–1795. It was part of the Lesser Poland region and the Lesser Poland Province. Originally Sandomierz Voivodeship also covered the area around Lublin, but in 1474 its three eastern counties were organized into Lublin Voivodeship. In the 16th century, it had 374 parishes, 100 towns and 2586 villages. The voivodeship was based on the Sandomerz ziemia, which earlier was the Duchy of Sandomierz. The Duchy of Sandomierz was created in 1138 by King Bolesław III Wrymouth, who in his testament divided Poland into five principalities. One of them, with the capital at Sandomierz, was assigned to Krzywousty's son, Henry of Sandomierz. Later on, with southern part of the Seniorate Province (which emerged into the Duchy of Kraków), the Duchy of Sandomierz created Lesser Poland, divided into Kraków and Sandomierz Voivodeships.

Sandomierz Voivodeship was also one of the voivodeships of Congress Poland. Created in 1816 from the Radom Department, in 1837 it was transformed into the Sandomierz Governorate.

Boundaries
Sandomierz Voivodeship in its original shape was one of the largest provinces of the Kingdom of Poland. After Lublin Voivodeship was created out of its eastern territories, the province stretched from Białobrzegi in the north, to the area north of Krosno in the south (the town of Krosno itself belonged to Red Ruthenia). It included such cities and towns of contemporary Poland, as Dębica, Dęblin, Iłża, Kielce, Kolbuszowa, Końskie, Kozienice, Lipsko, Mielec, Nisko, Opoczno, Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski, Pińczów, Pionki, Radom, Ropczyce, Ryki, Stalowa Wola, Starachowice, Staszów, Szydłowiec, Tarnów, Tarnobrzeg and Włoszczowa. The shape of the voivodeship remained unchanged from 1474 to the first partition of Poland (1772), when the Habsburg monarchy annexed the area south of the Vistula, with Dębica, Kolbuszowa, Mielec, Nisko and Tarnów.

Zygmunt Gloger in his monumental book Historical Geography of the Lands of Old Poland gives a detailed description of Sandomierz Voivodeship:

“Duke Boleslaw Krzywousty, before his death in 1138, divided Poland between his four sons, giving Henryk the Land of Sandomierz together with the Land of Lublin. The Duchy of Sandomierz was thus created (...)

During the reign of Wladyslaw Lokietek, the duchy was turned into a large voivodeship. In ca. 1471, the Land of Lublin was separated from it (...) The area of Sandomierz Voivodeship was 467 square miles, with 374 Roman Catholic parishes, 100 towns, and 2,586 villages. In 1397 left bank part of the province was divided into three counties – Sandomierz, Radom and Checiny. In the early 16th century the voivodeship had 9 counties: Sandomierz, Wislica, Checiny, Opoczno, Radom, Szydłów, Stezyca, Pilzno and Tarnów. By late 16th century, Tarnow county was annexed by Pilzno county, while Szydlow county was divided between Wislica and Sandomierz (...)

Sandomierz Voivodeship had nine senators: the voivode and the castellan of Sandomierz, and castellans of Wislica, Radom, Zawichost, Żarnów, Malogoszcz, Połaniec and Czchow. The voivodeship had several starostas, who resided in such towns, as Sandomierz, Radom, Checiny, Opoczno, Nowy Korczyn, Stezyca, Wislica, Pilzno, Stopnica, Solec nad Wisla, Zawichost, Szydlow, Przedborz, Ropczyce, Ryczywol, Radoszyce, Ryki, Zwolen, Gołąb and others. Local sejmiks took place at Opatow, at which seven deputies to the Sejm were elected, as well as two deputies to the Lesser Poland Tribunal in Lublin (...)

The soil in the northern part of the voivodeship was sandy, while in its center and south it was very rich. In the area of Opatow, famous wheat was produced, called sandomierka or opatowka. There also were large forests, as well as deposits of marble, copper, iron and lime (...) Among oldest urban centers of Sandomierz Voivodeship were Sandomierz, Wislica, Nowy Korczyn, Zawichost, Radom. Main castles were at Chrobrze, Osiek, Ilza, Checiny, Janowiec nad Wisla. Most important monasteries were at Lysa Gora, Sieciechow, Opatow, Wachock and Koprzywnica".

Municipal government
Voivodeship Governor (Wojewoda) seat:
 * Sandomierz

Regional council (sejmik generalny) seats:
 * Nowe Miasto Korczyn

Administrative division
In 1397, part of the Sandomierz Voivodeship which was located on the western bank of the Vistula, was divided into three counties:
 * Sandomierz County (Powiat Sandomierski), Sandomierz
 * Radom County (Powiat Radomski), Radom, which was traditionally called Radom Land (Ziemia radomska)
 * Chęciny County (Powiat Chęciński), Chęciny.

In 1662, Sandomierz Voivodeship consisted of the following counties:
 * Sandomierz County,
 * Chęciny County,
 * Wiślica County,
 * Stężyca County,
 * Radom County,
 * Opoczno County,
 * Pilzno County.

Voivodes

 * Jan z Melsztyna (since 1361)
 * Jan z Tarnowa (before 1385)
 * Spytek z Tarnowa i Jarosławia (since 1433)
 * Jan Feliks "Szram" Tarnowski (since 1501)
 * Mikołaj Firlej (since 1514)
 * Jan Kostka (since 1574)
 * Jerzy Mniszech (since 1590)
 * Jan Zbigniew Ossoliński (since 1613)
 * Stanisław Koniecpolski (since 1625 to 1633),
 * Mikołaj Firlej (1633–1635)
 * Jerzy Ossoliński (XI 1636-III 1638)
 * Krzysztof Ossoliński (since IV 1638 to 1645)
 * Władysław Dominik Zasławski (since 1649)
 * Aleksander Koniecpolski (since 1656)
 * Jan "Sobiepan" Zamoyski (since 1659)
 * Jerzy Aleksander Lubomirski (since 1729)
 * Jan Tarło (since 1736)

Cities and towns of Sandomierz County

 * Sandomierz,
 * Opatów,
 * Koprzywnica (Pokrzywnica),
 * Połaniec,
 * Osiek,
 * Staszów,
 * Łagów,
 * Nowa Słupia,
 * Bodzentyn,
 * Wąchock,
 * Ćmielów,
 * Kunów,
 * Lasocin,
 * Rudnik nad Sanem,
 * Iwaniska,
 * Zawichost,
 * Tarłów,
 * Mielec,
 * Janików,
 * Ożarów,
 * Waśniów.

Cities and towns of Chęciny County

 * Chęciny,
 * Przedbórz,
 * Kurzelów,
 * Secemin,
 * Małogoszcz,
 * Włoszczowa,
 * Oksa (Oxa),
 * Sobków,
 * Daleszyce.

Cities and towns of Wiślica County

 * Wiślica,
 * Nowy Korczyn,
 * Szydłów,
 * Pierzchnica (Pierśnica),
 * Pińczów,
 * Busko,
 * Opatowiec,
 * Pacanów,
 * Żabno,
 * Stopnica (Stobnica),
 * Kurozwęki,
 * Oleśnica,
 * Chmielnik.

Cities and towns of Stężyca County

 * Stężyca,
 * Żelechów,
 * Łaskarzew,
 * Bobrowniki,
 * Okrzeja,
 * Adamów (Jadamów),
 * Jeziorzany (known in 1662 as Łysobyki),
 * Wojcieszków,
 * Maciejowice.

Cities and towns of Radom County

 * Radom,
 * Ciepielów,
 * Skaryszew,
 * Iłża,
 * Szydłowiec,
 * Zwoleń,
 * Przytyk,
 * Wierzbnik (now a district of Starachowice),
 * Jedlińsk (Jedleńsko),
 * Odechów,
 * Jastrząb,
 * Nieznamierowice (Znamierowice),
 * Klwów,
 * Skrzynno,
 * Sieciechów,
 * Solec nad Wisłą,
 * Kozienice.

Cities and towns of Opoczno County

 * Opoczno,
 * Gowarczów,
 * Białaczów,
 * Fałków,
 * Odrzywół,
 * Drzewica,
 * Gielniów.

Cities and towns of Pilzno County

 * Pilzno,
 * Strzyżów,
 * Rzochów,
 * Tuchów,
 * Brzostek,
 * Ropczyce,
 * Frysztak,
 * Kołaczyce,
 * Sędziszów Małopolski,
 * Dębica,
 * Wielopole Skrzyńskie,
 * Czudec,
 * Głogów Małopolski,
 * Niebylec,
 * Przecław,
 * Tarnów,
 * Brzyska (Rzyska),
 * Radomyśl Wielki.

Neighbouring Voivodeships

 * Rawa Voivodeship
 * Mazovian Voivodeship
 * Lublin Voivodeship
 * Ruthenian Voivodeship
 * Kraków Voivodeship
 * Sieradz Voivodeship
 * Łęczyca Voivodeship

1939
Sandomierz Voivodeship was also a proposed voivodeship of Second Polish Republic, which never was created because of the Nazi and Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939. The idea of creation of this unit was the brainchild of Minister of Industry and Trade Eugeniusz Kwiatkowski, and it was directly linked with creation of one of the biggest economic projects of interbellum Poland, Central Industrial Region. It was to cover south-central Poland, and most probably, it was to be created in late 1939. Its projected size was 24.500 square kilometers, and it was to incorporate 20 or 21 powiats.

title: Sandomierz Voivodeship


text: User talk:65.24.246.19

title: User talk:65.24.246.19


text:
Wikipedia:Current surveys/MathsByVote

This is a survey to determine if 1+1 = 3 Does 1+1 = 3?

Support

 * 1) CheeseDreams 01:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

 * No, no, no. 2 + 2 = 5, for extremely large values of 2. - UtherSRG 02:10, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Current surveys/MathsByVote


text: User talk:68.7.135.57

title: User talk:68.7.135.57


text:
User talk:Boston (usurped)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:08, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Sox.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sox.gif, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Usurpation
Hello, Boston. A request has been made at Changing username/Usurpations to usurp, or "take over", your username because you have not used it to edit, and another user would like to use it to edit. Changing username/Usurpations says that any unused username may be usurped if the user is given seven days notice to object and does not do so.

If you have an email set in your preferences, you should be getting an email from a bureaucrat or changing username clerk explaining how to consent or object to this process.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to utilize the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one).

If you do nothing : the request will be filled after seven days, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed : please log in and make an edit to this page clearly stating that you object to usurpation.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time. House of Scandal (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Boston (usurped)


text:
Talk:Process philosophy

Reference Without Definition, Citation Without Substance
In Section 4.2 regarding philosophy and medicine this statement is made: "The philosophy of medicine began to deviate somewhat from scientific method and an emphasis on repeatable results in the very late 20th century by embracing population thinking . . ." Nevertheless, there is no definition or explanation to what "population thinking" may be. There is a hyperlink to the entry "Mental Health" but no explanation is found in the text of this entry either. So the reader is left concluding that the Philosophy of Medicine has deviated by accepting Population Thinking but is not allowed to know what that Population Thinking is nor just how it deviates from whatever conventional medical philosophy might be. LAWinans (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
"He understood quantum theory, even to the point of developing a Theory of Relativity similar to Einstein’s." This sentence is ambiguous. If Whitehead's theory of relativity is a physical theory of relativity like Einstein's, it is unrelated to his understanding of quantum mechanics. If it is an analogous philosophical theory with the same name as Einstein's physical theory, it is unrelated to his understanding of quantum mechanics, and also unrelated to Einstein. This should be clarified. -- Anon, (15 December 2004)

 * This was clarified in the article by Aliman on 20 December 2004. The anonymous writer is correct in that relativity, as presently understood is unrelated to quantum theory.  However, he probably does not know that Whitehead was a consumate mathematician of his day, and did formulate his relativity theory in mathematical terms, albeit unrelated to Einstein's principle of equivalence.  Whitehead's theory, rather than understanding matter warping spacetime as Einstein did, proposed (roughly) that gravity bent light rays in flat space.  Whitehead's 1922 theory was mostly overlooked until the 1960s, and is thought by some to have been disproved in 1972. (see the Wiki entry on Alfred North Whitehead or external website at Whitehead/Einstein Relativity Comparison).  Ironically, Anon is assuming the either/or Cartesian split between the physical and the metaphysical (or philosophical) realms, which Whitehead explicitly rejected.  Whitehead's philosophy is generalized from his physics, not separate from it. --Blainster 13:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Process Philosophy After Whitehead
1. I think that Process Philosophy does deserve an independent article. Whitehead is a thinker of sufficient renown and repute that his metaphysics deserves a place on this website---nor is process philosophy at all synonymous with the philosophical treatment of organism. One is basic ontology while the other represents a much higher order problem---one is foundational and the other is not. 2. The claims in the "Process Philosophy After Whitehead" section that refer to medicine are completely unsourced: I would say that Foucault has had no influence on medicine---and, even if he has, Foucault is not a follower of Whitehead's metaphysics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.205.125 (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

General relativity not until 1915!
The current version has a flatly incorrect discussion of relativity. Special relativity emerged in 1905 and deals with non-accelerating objects in a fixed flat space background. General relativity emerged in 1915 and deals with accelerating objects in a curved and dynamical spacetime. The idea of an expanding universe is also logically independent of general relativity, and only emerged some years later with investigation of possible cosmological models in the light of [Hubble]'s measurements of 1929. Like much else in the article the current discussion is mush. --Tdent 20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"In 1905, the theory of general relativity curtailed exploration of pure process views and made the case for a specific and expanding universe that did exist as an objective object of our human perception and cognition." Is incorrect...try 1915, as the hyperlink correctly tells you. 198.97.67.57 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) radar-mark, 29 Nov 2006

The equations for Einstein's general relativity (GR) have many solutions; hence GR is compatible with a (infinite?) number of scenarios for the origin and ultimate fate of the universe. The solution Einstein focussed implied a static universe. He did not contemplate an initial singularity followed by expansion (now called the Big Bang); that was first proposed by Alexander Friedmann in 1922, in work little noticed. A few years later, Georges Lemaitre showed that a Big Bang was consistent with Einstein's mathematics; see Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric. 2 years later, completely independently, Edwin Hubble empirically confirmed the expansion of the universe. That expansion is consistent with GR, but unlike Eddington's 1919 eclipse observations, cannot be taken as an experimental verification thereof. GR is indifferent as to whether the universe is melioristic; Frank Tipler's Omega Point (Tipler) theory is not. In any event, the connection between GR and process metaphysics is completely unclear. The connection between the Omega Point and process thought is, to my mind, intuitively evident, but to my knowledge has yet to be made in print.123.255.28.93 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-Whiteheadian process ontology?
Would this article be an appropriate place to add information about non-Whiteheadian approaches, e.g. Johanna Seibt's theory, Sellarsian stuff, etc? I know 'process philosophy' is often taken as synonymous with 'Whiteheadian philosophy' but it seems to me it may also function as an umbrella term including other approaches. Would anyone be opposed to the addition of a section on non-Whiteheadian approaches? Countermereology 15:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and without a shadow of a doubt Whitehead would have agreed with this suggestion. The idea of process philosophy being a personal project or being under the intellectual ownership of Whitehead solo would have repulsed him, I have little doubt. Whitehead was a great contributor to this field, probably the greatest since the 17th century, but there have been many, many others, Spinoza being a salient example. Brigantian (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of Citation Missing and Weasel Tags
This article includes a very large number of attribution of views to persons seemingly in the service of establishing the credentials of process philosophy. Virtually none of the attributions are substantiated by citations. Some of the attributions are controversial. Here are some concrete examples of worrisome passages in the article: "René Descartes, for instance, proposed that the mind and body were actually connected and unified by a single process, the imagination. This was often discarded or devalued by Descartes' followers and critics who attributed to him (incorrectly) advocating a mind-body dualism." Perhaps, contrary to common understanding Descartes was not a dualist. But this would need substantiation. Notice that in the above quote, it is the mind and the body that are connected - the most natural way of understanding this is that in Descartes' ontology substances like minds and bodies are fundamental which then somehow get connected. "Very similarly, the law of the excluded middle was raised to ontological status by those of Aristotle's followers, notably those practicing medieval scholasticism, who wished to ignore some of his telling observations about moderation (the very ones that Francis Bacon celebrated) and rhetoric (which Aristotle praised, seemingly foreshadowing Descartes' imagination)." What is an ontological status? And before the law of excluded middle was raised to that status, what status did it have? What are the telling observations about moderation that Bacon celebrated? Maybe there are such observations but the reader needs to be told what they are. Finally, I'm not sure anyone practiced scholasticism. "A number of other key Enlightenment figures ... made note of their working processes in terms that suggest change is what they seek to quantify because it is the most fundamental basis on which perception and thus reality proceeds." Citations? Are we sure that they did not see change as changes of objects such that the objects that are changing are not themselves changes? Process philosophy is not simply the view that processes are important - that 's a boring and uncontroversial claim - but the far more radical claim that changes are ontologically fundamental in the sense that they are not to be understood as changes of things that are not themselves changes. "Of other philosophers, more dominant at that time, Immanuel Kant noted that either experience made objects possible, or objects made experience possible. He seemed to have missed that processes might make both possible." How might processes make both possible? Which processes are we talking about here? Might the process of digestion make possible both experience and objects? "These hopes proved vain, although it remained for Russell and Whitehead to prove that so in 1913" Which hopes? And what exactly did Russell and Whitehead prove in 1913? "Since, it is argued, free will is inherent to the nature of the universe, God is not omnipotent in Whitehead's metaphysics." it is argued by who? "other process philosophers have questioned Whitehead's theology, seeing it as a regressive Platonism." Who are these other philosophers? Quatsch77 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I heartily concur that this entry is a philosophical muddle, starting with the claim that Principia Mathematica proved or disproved anything about the foundations of mathematics. Principia 's set theory is damned, because it was innocent of any axioms except an equivalent of the axiom of choice. In particular, it ignored the now-canonical ZF axioms published in 1908. All relations were primitive, because both editions of Principia were innocent of the set-theoretic definitions of the ordered pair, including the non-canonical one Kurotowski proposed in 1921. Principia committed many philosophical sins, starting with the confusion of use and mention (see Ivor Grattan-Guinness 2000). In my opinion, Whitehead turned to metaphysics because he was disappointed with Principia. Tellingly, he had nothing to do with the 1927 second edition.123.255.28.93 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Other Problems
Here are some more infelicities: "Process philosophy ... does not characterize change as illusory but as the cornerstone of metaphysical reality, or ontology" This insinuates that philosophical views other than process philosophy hold that change is somehow unreal. But it is one thing to hold that changes are not the most basic elements of ontology, quite another thing to hold that changes are illusory, just as it is one thing to say that tables are made from fundamental particles, quite another thing to say that the existence of tables is illusory. "This resulted in the most famous work of process philosophy—Alfred North Whitehead's Process and Reality. - a work which can be seen as a lighter and more accessible form of describing the basic Hegelian truth, namely that absolute, or 'philosophical', truth can only be a logical and /or worldly 'movement' in and through determinates, not these deteminates as fixed concepts or 'things'. Hegel is the real (modern) rootsource of what (clumsily) can be termed dialectical-dynamical-ontology, and of which process philosophy is a branch." This needs some serious reworking before it is intelligible. Whitehead's work is lighter and more accessible than what? Why is truth is qualified as 'absolute' or 'philosophical'? Are there unphilosophical and relative truths? And are those other truths fixed concepts? What exactly does it mean to say that a truth is a concept, fixed or otherwise? "The process metaphysics elaborated in Process and Reality proposes that the fundamental elements of the universe are occasions of experience." What is an 'occasion of experience'? Is it different from the plain experience? I'm sure there is a point in talking about occasions of experience, but the term here needs explaining. "Whitehead's philosophy resembles in some respects the monads of Leibniz." Whitehead's philosophy does not resemble monads. For that matter, Leibniz's philosophy does not resemble monad's, either. As the next sentence suggests, this should probably be: occasions of experience resemble in some respects the monads of Leibniz. "These experiences may be summed in some sense but can only approximately be shared, even among very similar cognitions with identical DNA." Cognitions don't have DNA. Quatsch77 19:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious parallels
Anyone else think this section would be better placed on the Process Theology page (if it belongs anywhere at all - it isn't terribly insightful)? 75.81.190.157 02:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

work this in!
GILLES DELEUZE, MANUEL DELANDA, BRIAN MASSUMI —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.78.155.202 (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Tags
In an attempt to remove the tags .... please place specific issues below. IF NOT, tags will be removed. J. D. Redding 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What requires cleanup?
Please place specific issues/items below. J. D. Redding 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Which insufficiently sourced phrases?
Please place specific issues/items below. J. D. Redding 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh .. the article appears to have no sources (except one undecipherable french website). Someone needs to buy or borrow a proper introduction to the subject and tie all the key information into it's pages. See WP:Citing sources or WP:Verification methods  CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality or factuality issues?
Please place specific issues/items below. J. D. Redding 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is clearly written by what i would not hesitate to call 'devotees' of the process perspective, and reads like an advertisement. This bias is present in the general tone of the article and causes me to doubt everything on the page. More concrete manifestations of this problem include: 1. The list of "Modern Process Philosophers" in the introduction. Many of these names (eg Nietzsche, Pierce) died prior to the invention of this philosophy as a particular school of thought. A phrase such as "Process Philosophy counts as ancestors of its approach, and attempts to systematize some of their 'process-oriented' insights and methodologies.

2. The previous fault is especially egregious in the section about Heraclitus, which not only lacks sources of the fragments in question but in fact attempts a definitive exegesis of this notoriously 'obscure' philosopher. We could not possibly claim that H. "began the formal development of theory", for reasons stated above and also because Heraclitus did not have theories or formal development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.109.250 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research issues?
Please place specific issues/items below. J. D. Redding 20:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Process Philosophy since Whitehead" section is a mess. Hardly anything mentioned in this section is directly related to Process Philosophy at all, certainly not enough to be considered extentions or further work in the field as the header seems to indicate. The Philosophy of Medicine section should probably be removed unless someone can explain what anything in that paragraph has to do with Process Philosophy besides vague similarites. The Psychology section seems more relevant but needs citations or a better explanation of the link to Process Philosophy. The Paul Erdos section should also be removed, it seems to be someones pet theory that his method is somehow derived from Process Philsophy but this is undocumented and tangential at best. This entire section really needs to be removed or heavily edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashaudiojack (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Twentieth Century subsection is very unclear and draws various tenuous parallels between the philosophy of math, the foundations of math, and ontology. In particular, the connection between PM and the abandonment of a certain form of ontology is original/unverified. Moreover, I don't think 'positivist' is precisely the right word for the program that PM attempted to carry out, although i'm not quite familiar enough with the positivists to know this. In fact, I believe that the proper designation is "formalist". I will attempt to edit this a little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.109.250 (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unverified claims?
Please place specific issues/items below. J. D. Redding 20:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Philosophy of Organism suggestion
The Philosophy of Organism article is brief, compararively useless without the information in this article, refers, in effect, to the same theory as that discussed on this page, and may contain information and references that are useful on this page. I propose a merge from 'Philosophy of Organism', with a redirect from that page to this. What do you think? Anarchia 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If "philosophy of organism" is actually an expression used by Whitehead, then it should not be merged here, as process philosophy is not restricted to Whitehead (see Bergson, Deleuze, etc.). Spirals31 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No. This page needs to stay but needs to be developed. It is certainly not limited to the "philosophy of organism" nor consumed by "process theology" It has connections to dialectics, pragmatism, semiotics etc. It is not limited to Whitehead's use.

 * I agree with these other two editors. philosophy of organism should remain a separate article due to its origin as phrase of Alfred North Whitehead. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Process Philosophy
Process philosophy has been discussed in "the East", especially India, for at least 2,500 years. The Buddhist idea of impermanence is one example. This could/should be noted in the History section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.125.16 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

change link
The word change is defined in the Wikipedia article on Identity and change. But that article is written from a philosophical perspective that radically differs from that of process philosophy, so that that article's definition of change reads as nonsense from the viewpoint of the present article on Process philosophy. To link this present article to the one on Identity and change would be a mistake, because it would read as nonsense. To remedy this, one might wish to revise the article on Identity and change, but that is perhaps beyond duty of editors of the present article, and I am not attempting it. My solution for the present: remove the link.

According to Whitehead (Process and Reality, page 34), "how an actual entity becomes constitutes what that actual entity is." Also (page 52), "Actual entities perish, but do not change; they are what they are." Thus it is not a very bad stretch of ordinary language to identify a Whiteheadian actual entity with a change, in the sense that a process may be regarded as a change, and also as a Whiteheadian actual entity. It does not make sense to say that "a change changes [itself]", or that "a process changes [itself]", although it does make sense in ordinary language to say that "a process changes something else".Chjoaygame (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

ordinary language for the lead
The term 'dynamism' that I have removed from the leading sentence is a specialized term of art, and as it is defined it does not give a good focus on the main idea of process philosophy. I have therefore replaced it with the ordinary language words 'change and development', deliberately not linked to Wikipedia disambiguation pages because they are intended as words of the ordinary language. In my judgment, they better summarize the intentions of process philosophy. I think that the summarizing function of the lead calls for a statement that is not specifically linked to a particular source. Whitehead writes of words "mutely appealing for an imaginative leap."Chjoaygame (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

new series of edits
It is good to see zeal for reliable sourcing.

The new series of edits is covered by a note that says that a huge section has recently been added. Well, not very recently. The section was much expanded by me in September 2011. Since then it has been sporadically revised bit by bit, including some recent revisions. The covering note is right to say that the section is hardly referenced.

I made my edits by working directly from Process and Reality. Perhaps it is very naughty to work from a primary source, but in the case of Whitehead, one finds that secondary sources often "improve" on the original, even to the point where the original is hardly recognizable. Nevertheless, I agree that the section should be properly sourced, and the new edit is working at that.

I have made an adjustment to the subsection sequence.

If I may be so bold, the new edit leaves something to be desired in the way of syntax. Perhaps the editor is still working on that. Also, a strict approach would ask for page references rather than a repeated blanket reference to a book. Full secondary sourcing for this section would be a big task. For myself, I have found Ivor Leclerc's ''Whitehead's Metaphysics. An Introductory Exposition'', George Allen and Unwin, London, Macmillan, New York, (1958), most helpful.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Because I do not wish to inhibit the zealous supply of references, I do not wish to be over-critical of the new edits, but I feel I ought to point out that Whitehead's work was radically original and not to be easily comprehended by mere description in terms of previously established ways of thinking. In expounding Whitehead's scheme, it is easy to slip into a more poetic or metaphoric than categorical way of expression; I think this is unhelpful and can easily mislead the reader. I will here make some comments on the particulars of the new edits, and perhaps later I will do some more editing myself. In summmary I will here conclude, with respect, that the material in the new edit functions more to provide a formal appearance of sourcing, than to further clarify the account of the Whitehead's scheme.

The first new edit consists of two sentences. The first of them reads "Concrescence is a term coined by Whitehead to show the process of jointly forming an actual entity that was without form, but about to manifest itself into an entity Actual full (satisfaction) based on  datums or for information on the universe. " I have to confess that this seems to me to have problems of intelligibility. I do not see it as a fair rendering of its cited source.

The second sentence of the first new edit reads: "The process of forming an actual entity is the case based on the existing datums. Concretion process can be regarded as subjectification process. " I do not at present have a copy of this source and it will take me perhaps a week to get it. The sentence is perhaps intelligible to someone who is already familiar with the material, but is to some extent misleading to someone not familiar with it.

The next new edit reads " Creativity is a term coined by Whitehead to show a force in the universe that allows the presence of actual entity a new one based on actual entity, others actual entities.  Creativity is the principle of novelty. " I think this needs significant revision. As it stands it is likely to mislead or tend to create misunderstanding. I do not see it as supported by its cited source.

The third new edit reads "Datum is a term coined by Whitehead to show the different variants of information possessed by actual entity. In process philosophy, datum is obtained through the events of concrescence. Every actual entity has a variety of datum. " Agan, I think this needs revision.

The fourth new edit reads "Nexus is a term coined by Whitehead to show the network actual entity from universe. In the universe of actual entities spread actual entity. Actual entities are clashing with each other and form other actual entities. The birth of an actual entity based on an actual entity, actual entities around him referred to as nexus. " I doubt that this will enlighten someone not already familiar with the work. It needs revision.

Whitehead is not easy for a beginner to understand from scratch, and not easy to expound in way that will be easy for a beginner to understand. A main difficulty for the beginner is to unlearn ingrained theoretical prejudice and habitual dogma. Eventually, Whitehead's metaphysical system is simple and easy to use, but that is only after a significant amount of unlearning of previously established theory. It is an impediment to clear exposition to try to put too much of Whitehead's specialized terminology into an introductory account.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Star767, with your latest edit, I can see that you are set on a mighty improvement of the section. Therefore I will not further edit this section, but I will leave it to you. I have transplanted a revised version of this section to the article Process and Reality, and I will probably further edit that version.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Vandalism? Or just above my head?
"Psychology

In psychology, the subject of imagination was again explored more extensively since Whitehead, and the question of feasibility or "eternal objects" of thought became central to the impaired theory of mind explorations that framed postmodern cognitive science. A biological understanding of the most eternal object, that being the emerging of similar but independent cognitive apparatus, led to an obsession with the process "embodiment", that being, the emergence of these cognitions. Like Whitehead's God, especially as elaborated in J. J. Gibson's perceptual psychology emphasizing affordances, by ordering the relevance of eternal objects (especially the cognitions of other such actors), the world becomes. Or, it becomes simple enough for human beings to begin to make choices, and to prehend what happens as a result. These experiences may be summed in some sense but can only approximately be shared, even among very similar cognitions with identical DNA. An early explorer of this view was Alan Turing who sought to prove the limits of expressive complexity of human genes in the late 1940s, to put bounds on the complexity of human intelligence and so assess the feasibility of artificial intelligence emerging. Since 2000, Process Psychology has progressed as an independent academic and therapeutic discipline.[14]"

Above is the version I found of an entire section that is a bit confusing.

Rather than delete the whole section, I edited out what most looked like vandalism after copying it to here for discussion.

Here is what it would look like after I edited it. I decided to leave the article as it was until discussion had occurred:

"Psychology

In psychology, the subject of imagination was again explored more extensively since Whitehead, and the question of feasibility of "eternal objects" of thought became central to the theory of mind explorations that framed cognitive science. A biological understanding of the most eternal object, that being the emerging of similar but independent cognitive apparatus, led to an interest in the process "embodiment", that being, the emergence of these cognitions. Like Whitehead's God, especially as elaborated in J. J. Gibson's perceptual psychology emphasizing affordances, by ordering the relevance of eternal objects (especially the cognitions of other such actors), the world becomes. Or, it becomes simple enough for human beings to begin to make choices, and to comprehend what happens as a result. These experiences may be summed in some sense but only approximately be shared, even among very similar cognitions with identical DNA. An early explorer of this view was Alan Turing who sought to prove the limits of expressive complexity of human genes in the late 1940s, to put bounds on the complexity of human intelligence and so assess the feasibility of artificial intelligence emerging. Since 2000, process psychology has progressed as an independent academic and therapeutic discipline.[14]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Matthew Dalton (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Mark Matthew Dalton (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see vandalism occurring here ("impaired" theory of mind is a real thing, for instance). I do think the paragraph could really stand to be rewritten using plainer language, but that's a different issue.  The referenced article is online here, and more articles here, here, and here, if anyone wants to tackle it. Joseph Petek (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"process rather than substance"
Whitehead explicitly regards actual entities, instanced in their most general form for him by occasions of experience, as substances. That is to say, for Whitehead, process is the one and only kind of substance. It therefore is an unfortunate choice of language in the lead to say that processes are not substances. Yes, the word substance has two rather different usages, one the philosophical one that Whitehead uses, and another the more ordinary language usage in which a substance is a persisting and chemically definite material. But still the choice of language is unfortunate.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

undid good faith edit
I have undone a good faith edit because it was based on a single item of primary research, and I think it is self-contradictory and inaccurate. It makes deep and wide claims that verge on nonsense. As a piece of neurophysiological thought it verges on drivel. Reliable sources in such matters are preferably tertiary or at least secondary.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

sumary deletion
I have summarily deleted "e.g., he called God the "Supreme Fascist", echoing the role Whitehead assigned,". Perhaps this can be supported by a good reference, but I doubt it. To go a little further, I cannot see anything in the sub-section headed Process philosophy that justifies its presence in the article. Perhaps someone can correct me there?Chjoaygame (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

New section for Nicholas Rescher
I would like to add a new section about Nicholas Rescher and his ideas about Process Philosophy. This new section would be after Whitehead. I am not an expert so it will take a long time. My main reference will be his book "Process Philosophy, A Survey of Basic Issues." any suggestions would be appreciated.

I think that the importance of this article should be upgraded considering that it eliminate dualism and provides an ontological organization of everything. Pagatiponon (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Process philosophy. 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/20090206183341/http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/phi_sci/p1184676830986.htm to http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/phi_sci/p1184676830986.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

More suitable link
I have changed the recent link to Non-physical entity to entity. This is because there is apparently no full Wikipedia article on Entity, and because it is misleading to suggest that the Wikipedia article Non-physical entity is a good link for the purposes of the present article.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Process and determinism
It is not obvious that "Such process is never deterministic", some justification is required here. Even if this were true then it does not follow that "free will.. is inherent" as another alternative is randomness so, again, this claim needs justification.Richwil (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

reasons for undo of good faith edits
I have undone a sequence of edits that began here.

The edits appear to have been in response to an inappropriate request for explanation. Such an explanation is not needed in the context, which is just about what is Whitehead's doctrine. The edits were not about the topic of the section, Whitehead's doctrine, but were a more widely based discussion. The edits were original research and were without reliable sourcing.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Arthur M. Young
I added the name of Arthur M. Young. Young — primary inventor of the principle & mechanisms of the helicopter — wrote significantly expressing his process philosophy. His ideas developed out of lifelong personal interests, including mathematics, engineering, philosophy, psychology and other areas.Joel Russ (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Process philosophy


text:
Ian Laperrière

Ian Laperrière (born January 19, 1974) is a Canadian-American former professional ice hockey winger who played 16 seasons in the National Hockey League (NHL) and serves as the current head coach for the Lehigh Valley Phantoms, the American Hockey League affiliate and primary development team for the Philadelphia Flyers of the NHL.

Laperrière spent nine seasons of his NHL career with the Los Angeles Kings and also played with the St. Louis Blues, New York Rangers, Colorado Avalanche, and Philadelphia Flyers prior to his 2012 retirement.

Playing career
As a youth, Laperrière played in the 1988 Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament with a minor ice hockey team from Montreal.

Laperrière played in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL) from 1990 to 1993 and was drafted by the St. Louis Blues of the NHL in the seventh round and pick number 158 in the 1992 draft. He made his NHL debut with the Blues on March 3, 1994. On December 8, 1995, he was traded to the New York Rangers for Stéphane Matteau. On March 14, 1996, he was traded with Ray Ferraro, Mattias Norström, Nathan LaFayette, and a draft pick to the Los Angeles Kings in exchange for Jari Kurri, Marty McSorley and Shane Churla. Laperrière was a mainstay on the Kings roster from 1996 until 2004. On July 2, 2004, Laperrière signed a free agent contract with the Colorado Avalanche.

Laperrière, affectionately known as 'Lappy' to his fans, was an immediate success with Colorado in the 2005–06 NHL season, posting the best points totals of his career. He scored 21 goals and 24 assists for 45 points, far ahead of his previous bests of 13 goals and 14 assists for 27 points in the lockout-shortened 1994–95 NHL season. He quickly became a favorite with the Avalanche fans.

Laperrière scored the 100th goal of his career on October 29, 2006, against the Minnesota Wild. He also passed 800 career games on November 28, against the Calgary Flames in a 5–2 loss.

On April 1, 2009, Laperrière fought with David Hale of the Phoenix Coyotes for his 52nd hockey fight in an Avalanche jersey, passing Scott Parker in all-time franchise fighting majors. He was announced as the Avalanches' Masterton Trophy nominee for the 2008–09 season on April 3, 2009. He played in his 1000th NHL game on April 11, 2009, against the Vancouver Canucks in a 0–1 home overtime loss. He led the team that year with 163 penalty minutes, just one more minute than Cody McLeod.

Unable to agree to a new deal with the Avalanche, Laperrière signed a three-year contract with the Philadelphia Flyers on July 1, 2009.

On November 27, 2009, Laperrière was hit with a slapshot in the mouth while killing a penalty at the end of the first period against the Buffalo Sabres. He sat out the second period receiving between 50 and 100 stitches but returned for the third period. He also played the following night against the Atlanta Thrashers. Laperrière lost seven teeth resulting from the incident (two fake and five real). A similar event occurred during the 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs on April 22. Laperrière was hit in the face near the end of a New Jersey power play, resulting in an orbital injury, and a mild concussion. Laperrière was listed as out indefinitely and his return to the playoffs was considered unlikely. However, after missing the Flyers second round series versus the Boston Bruins, he returned for game 4 of the Eastern Conference Finals against the Montreal Canadiens. In the May 2010 edition of The Hockey News, Laperrière was awarded THN's John Ferguson Award for "Toughest Player in the NHL" in the 2009–10 season.

NHL retirement
During training camp in September 2010, Laperrière experienced symptoms of post-concussion syndrome and nerve damage to his eyes from being hit in the face twice by pucks the previous season. He was then out for the entire 2010–11 season after being put on injured reserve before the season began and then on long-term injured reserve in mid-December to free up salary cap space. Doctors advised Laperrière to retire, although he did not do so at the time. The move was repeated again for the season to free up cap space when Laperrière's symptoms still had not subsided. His number 14 was reissued to rookie Sean Couturier. Despite never playing again after the 2010 Stanley Cup Finals, Laperrière continued to serve the Flyers off the ice as a mentor to younger players in the organization and in other capacities. For that, Laperrière was awarded the 2011 Bill Masterton Trophy for his perseverance in the sport of hockey. Laperrière officially retired June 12, 2012.

Philadelphia Flyers
On June 29, 2012, Laperrière was named director of player development for the Philadelphia Flyers. The following year, in 2013, he also began serving as an assistant coach for the Flyers.

Lehigh Valley Phantoms head coach
On June 5, 2021, Laperrière was named head coach of the Lehigh Valley Phantoms, the American Hockey League affiliate of the Philadelphia Flyers and the primary development team for the Flyers..

Personal life
Laperrière is married to Magali and has two sons: Tristan, born in March 2002, and Zachary, born in April 2004.

He was sworn in as a naturalized American citizen on August 30, 2011, in a ceremony in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.

Following his retirement from hockey, he turned his attention to triathlon completing the Ironman North American Championship at Mont-Tremblant in the Laurentian Mountains in 12 hours, 11 minutes, 55 seconds on August 19, 2013. He also ran the Philadelphia Marathon in 2012.

Laperrière and his family live in Haddonfield, New Jersey.

Films

 * In 2005, Laperrière portrayed Montreal Canadiens Hall of Famer Bernie "Boom Boom" Geoffrion in The Rocket, a film about the life of Maurice Richard who played with the Canadiens from 1942 to 1960.

 * In 2012, Laperrière appeared in the movie This Is 40 alongside Scott Hartnell, James van Riemsdyk, and Matt Carle.

title: Ian Laperrière


text:
User talk:Cce

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:10, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

thanks. i've edited pages before, but this latest one (dirty bomb) was my biggest edit so far. good to know someone's watching. i oughtta look at that style manual.

Cce 17:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cce


text:
Shoulders (band)

Shoulders was a highly popular alternative rock band in Austin, Texas in the 1990s; occasionally they still give performances. Shoulders toured nationally and throughout Europe, and they were especially well known in France and other European countries. Their material, written almost entirely by lead singer Michael Slattery and guitarist Todd Kassens, has been called "drunken carnival music," but it was wide-ranging, from hard rock to gentle ballads, from sea shanties to French cabaret music to Irish drinking songs.

Shoulders' lineup included Slattery, who sang and played everything from a huge parade drum which he also used as a trampoline to the "harmonica, out-of-tune cornet, hideous trombone, bent tin whistle," and "free-hanging river pipe"; Kassens on the guitars; Alan Gene Williams on the drums; and Chris Black on bass, piano, and organ. They were frequently accompanied by the well-known Austin cellist John Hagen, who plays in Lyle Lovett's large band. Shoulders' first album, Trashman Shoes, rose to the top of the rock charts in France. Their second was The Fun Never Stops, which did well in Europe but never attained the success of "Trashman Shoes".

Shoulders frequently played at the "Hole in the Wall" at the top of the Drag on Guadalupe in Austin, and for several years they played regularly at Austin's famous acoustic club the Cactus Cafe.

title: Shoulders (band)


text:
Talk:List of numbered highways in Washington, D.C.

Alignments
1927 RMcN (cut to the west) - the routes probably weren't signed in the city at that time - US 1/US 50 together to the east on Bladensburg Road, and US 240 on Connecticut Avenue (how far??)

1942 General Drafting Also note US 1 Truck in Alexandria.
 * 1942
 * US 1 - Highway Bridge, Maine Avenue, 17th Street, K Street, 11th Street, Rhode Island Avenue
 * US 1 Alternate - K Street, north side of Mount Vernon Square, New York Avenue (ended at New York Avenue and Bladensburg Road (US 1 Bypass))
 * US 1 Bypass/US 50 Bypass - 14th Street, D Street, Maryland Avenue, C Street, Maryland Avenue, Independence Avenue, 2nd Street, Maryland Avenue (both ways around Stanton Square), Bladensburg Road
 * US 29 - Lee Highway, Key Bridge, M Street, New Hampshire Avenue, 16th Street, Alaska Avenue, Georgia Avenue
 * US 50 - Lee Boulevard, Arlington Memorial Bridge, both ways around the Lincoln Memorial, 23rd Street, Constitution Avenue, 20th Street (looks like no one-way pair with 21st Street), K Street, north side of Mount Vernon Square, New York Avenue, Bladensburg Road, current MD 450
 * US 50 Alternate - 11th Street, Rhode Island Avenue, Barney Street?
 * US 50 Bypass - George Washington Memorial Parkway, Highway Bridge, US 1 Bypass (ended at New York Aveue and Bladensburg Road)
 * US 211 - Lee Highway, Key Bridge, M Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, K Street (ended where? probably at US 1 (17th Street))
 * US 240 - (probably began at US 1) George Washington Memorial Parkway, Arlington Memorial Bridge, both ways around the Lincoln Memorial, 23rd Street, Constitution Avenue, 20th Street and 21st Street (which was which direction?), Massachusetts Avenue, Wisconsin Avenue
 * US 240 Alternate - [21st Street, S Street](20th Street, Connecticut Avenue)?, Connecticut Avenue, East-West Highway
 * DC 4/DC 5 - (began at US 1 (17th Street)?) [E Street](State Place, West Executive Avenue), E Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, 1st Street, Independence Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue
 * DC 4 - Pennsylvania Avenue, Alabama Avenue
 * DC 5 - 11th Street, Anacostia Bridge, Nichols Avenue, Good Hope Road, Naylor Road

Washington West Alexandria Anacostia Washington East 1946 RMcN
 * 1940s
 * US 1 - Jefferson Davis Highway, Highway Bridge, 14th Street, Vermont Avenue, Rhode Island Avenue
 * US 1 Alternate - [D Street, Maryland Avenue](C Street), C Street, Maryland Avenue, 3rd Street, New York Avenue, Bladensburg Road
 * US 29/US 211 - Lee Highway, Key Bridge, M Street, New Hampshire Avenue, 16th Street, Alaska Avenue, Georgia Avenue (US 211 ended at ?)
 * US 50 - Lee Boulevard, Arlington Memorial Bridge, both ways around the Lincoln Memorial, 23rd Street, K Street, north side of Mount Vernon Square, New York Avenue, Bladensburg Road, current MD 450
 * US 50 Alternate - 23rd Street, Independence Avenue, 2nd Street?, Maryland Avenue (both ways around Stanton Square), Bladensburg Road (not on USGS)
 * US 240 - (beginning at the Ellipse?) E Street, 17th Street, Connecticut Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue, Wisconsin Avenue
 * US 240 Alternate - Connecticut Avenue (ended where?)
 * DC 4/DC 5 - (beginning at the Ellipse?) East Executive Avenue, Alexander Hamilton Place, Pennsylvania Avenue, Constitution Avenue, 2nd Street, Pennsylvania Avenue (shown as using E Street from the Ellipse to Pennsylvania Avenue on RMcN)
 * DC 4 - Pennsylvania Avenue, Alabama Avenue
 * DC 5 - Branch Avenue
 * DC 193 - (beginning at ?) Tilden Street, Connecticut Avenue (not on USGS)
 * DC 396 - (beginning at US 240) Massachusetts Avenue (not on USGS)

 * Current
 * US 1 - Jefferson Davis Highway, 14th Street Bridges, [14th Street, Constitution Avenue, 6th Street](Southwest Freeway, 9th Street, L Street), 6th Street, Rhode Island Avenue
 * US 1 Alternate - [New York Avenue](L Street), New York Avenue, Bladensburg Road
 * US 29 - Lee Highway, Key Bridge, Whitehurst Freeway, K Street, 11th Street, Rhode Island Avenue, 7th Street, Georgia Avenue
 * US 50 - Arlington Boulevard, Roosevelt Bridge, Constitution Avenue, [Constitution Avenue, 6th Street, New York Avenue](9th Street, L Street), New York Avenue