text:
Talk:Atheism/Archive 16

In case anyone is still interested in these:
 * Atheism/DR Dispute Resolution version of article
 * Talk:Atheism/DR Dispute Resolution talk page

3 definitions
How about we have three major definitions:

 * 1) Disbelief in the Abrahamic God.
 * 2) Belief that there are no gods.
 * 3) Lack of belief in any gods.

After all, there are those who think atheism is disbelief in their Hebrew God, and that's a POV to cover, and then there are those who accept the other two definitions, which are pretty distinct. And there will be no need to quibble over "God or gods", since in definitions 2 and 3, there is no distinction. --Yath 13:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Why single out the Abrahamic God? If we use BMs mention of some people use it to refer to being atheist in respect to a single god, then we've already got this covered for ALL religions considering nonbelievers to be "atheists". User:Titanium Dragon (sig added by [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC))

 * I also don't like the emphasis on abrahamic, but think your on the right track. Many people (the pagan romans for example) use the term "atheist" to describe the rejection of their Deity. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yup if it's right to give any specific god mention, then all gods should get a mention. This hardly seems necessary or indeed practical. Giving any specific god, such as the Abrahamic god.....which is what many think of when they refer to God, its own catagory, would make the article biased, even if there was agreement that the Christian, Jewish and Islamic God is one and the same thing (which there isn’t). Anyway generic atheism does not single out any specific deity to give special preference to be without belief in (weak) or to assert the non existence of (strong), how can it, as soon as you believe in one god you are no longer an Atheist ! --Nick-in-South-Africa 14:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, how about 1. Disbelief in a specific deity. I'm still trying to nail down what people mean when they say "God is not a god". (I'm pretty sure they don't mean "He's not just any god because he really exists .") --Yath 13:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC).

 * God is not a god doesn't even imply that gods don't exist, it meerely distingusihes between the anthropomorhic deities we are all familiar w from greek mythology and other polytheisms, and the superlatitive "omni" God, a being possessed of infinite attributes. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The "omni" God is still a god though, by its very definition. Being anthropomorphic (or even having form) is not a prerequisite of being considered a (lower case) god, at least from what I learned in mythology. I cannot think of any scholar who would say the "omni" God is not a god, and would be interested in seeing any resources which showed a scholar making a distinction and saying the former is not among the latter. Titanium Dragon 13:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Not really. The idea that God is not a god -- that is, God is not a being alongside other beings, supernatural or otherwise -- is quite common in Hinduism and more esoteric/philosophical forms of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.    Some of the people who believe in God conceived thus would deny the existence of all "gods" thinking of them only as symbols.   Defining atheism as the "denial of gods" defines certain believers in "God" as atheists, since they don't believe in "gods", any more than they believe in ghosts and other supernatural beings.   This is one reason, perhaps, why you see Sam so determined to have atheism defined as "denial of God".   Otherwise, you define him as an atheist, in his view.  --BM 15:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * But if God-with-a-capitol-G is not a god-with-a-lower-case-g, then an atheist does not by necessity disbelieve in them, as I explained below. If it is a philisophical construct as opposed to an actual deity, then an athiest (one who does not believe in deities) does not by definition disbelieve in God-with-an-upper-case-G, because God-with-an-upper-case-G is not a deity under that viewpoint. If Sam in fact does not think of God-with-an-upper-case-G as a deity, then by some people's definition he would in fact be an atheist of sorts, and it would be incorrect to say "God or gods" in the article because of it. As far as I can tell, there are two possibilities:

 * God-with-a-capital-G is a deity, and therefore falls under the words "gods" and "deities" and doesn't need to be specifically included.

 * God-with-a-capital-G is not a deity, and therefore does not fall under the words "gods" and "dieties" and shouldn't be included because atheists only by definition not believe in gods/deities, not philisophical concepts.

 * In either case, I don't see why God-with-an-upper-case-G should be included. Titanium Dragon 15:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Previous incarnations of the article have mentioned the idea that "atheism" has often been used in the past by believers in a particular god or pantheon to label those who disbelieve or deny that particular god or pantheon (who are atheists 'with respect to' that god or pantheon, to use the phrase from the article).  For example, Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenians for "atheism" although he clearly did not deny the existence of all gods, having his own religious ideas.  I think something in this vein should be mentioned, although I don't think it is any longer a sufficiently common meaning to be in the introductory sentence. --BM 13:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Re-reading the whole of the article, I noticed that the polemical section actually already contained (and has contained for some time) this very definition. I deleted the redundant section from the section concerning strong and weak atheism. If you think this was wrong... well, it certainly needs to be in the article somewhere, but it should all be in one place, and is probably more appropriately placed under the polemical section than in the section distinguishing between strong and weak atheism. Titanium Dragon 14:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Last Sentence of Header
The current header reads as follows:

 * Atheism is popularly known as the denial of the existence of gods and alternatively as the condition of being without theistic beliefs. These different positions diverged from the original meaning, "without theism", due to interpretations of the a- prefix as either "not" or "without". The issues concerning self-identification and categorization as an atheist are complex as both involve adoption of the former definition, the latter definition, both, or a variation of either of the two.

The last sentence seems a bit extraneous to me. Though it is undoubtedly important, I am not sure if it is quite so important as to belong in the header - we already have two definitions, and it seems a bit redundant. Moreover, it is awkward. Is there a reason this final sentence is in there? It doesn't really seem to add anything to the header to me, but I don't want to delete it unilaterrally as the header seems to be one of those things which has been a cause of reversion. Titanium Dragon 13:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, self identification should to my mind be dealt with in the article's body, maybe even in its own section. --Nick-in-South-Africa 14:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Repeat of the problems with the "The Types of atheism" section
I refer those interested to my original points on this topic here:

Talk:Atheism

Someone still insists making mis-characterizing statements in the article over the controversy between weak and strong atheism, implying that the controversy is wide-spread. It is not. It is certainly not at university academic levels and above. As I've posted here many times before, many, if not most, credible, neutral academic reference sources use, or at least present, the broad definition (weak atheism) prominently. Hence, it is not just weak atheists who make the distinction and use the weak atheism definition, and the article cannot make that assertion. Is it only theists who insist that all atheism is the denial of God/gods? That is a much easier argument to make.

I'm editing this paragraph yet again to remove biased characterizations and better reflect the nature and reality of the controversy, which again I remind everyone is limited to only some people.

If this intractable someone continues to insist that only weak atheists make the distinction and thus creating the controversy, then for balance we should mention that it is largely theists who insist that the strong atheism definition is the only correct definition; controversy implies two sides, and balance requires identification of both:

"The distinction between strong and weak atheism is controversial. Some, primarily weak atheists, define atheism broadly... Others, primarily theists, define atheism narrowly..."

We should consider a adding a section to the article outlining the controversy, perhaps.--FeloniousMonk 18:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

God or gods
Titanium Dragon replaced "God or gods" with gods or deities. Please understand that God is not considered a god or deity by some, and that for these people, denying "gods" or "deities", is not the same as denying "God or gods". It may seem dumb to you, but it contributes to the stability of the article to leave references to "God or gods" alone. --BM 14:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * If God is not a god or deity then an atheist doesn't necessarily disbelieve in it, because the definition of atheist is "someone who does not believe in deities". If "God" (with a capitol G) is not a deity, then an atheist doesn't necessarily not believe in it. Just because many atheists are irreligious does not mean all of them are, and thus theoretically if you define "God" not to be a deity then some atheists might well believe in the concept. Titanium Dragon 15:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * In fact, come to think of it, I actually know a few "atheists" (who do not believe in any deities) to believe in the concept which Sam seems to be referring to (the concept of some great philisophical whatever/all of creation/Force-like conceptish thing), though they do not refer to it using the word "God" in particular, they seem to be addressing the same concept, which would rather imply to me that, if God is defined to mean such, we shouldn't say atheists do not believe in it. After all, I believe we have established atheists do not believe in gods, though whether they actively deny it or passively just don't believe in them is another matter. Titanium Dragon 15:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, if any specific entity is not a god then it is not the subject of atheism, because atheism relates to being without belief (weak) or actively asserting the non existence of (strong) all and any gods, to mention any specific god such as Allah, Yahweh, Thor, Zeus, Zaroester, Shiva, Granesh, Poseidon etc is POV unless we list them all. If there is some entity imaginary or real known as God that is not a god then a Wikipedia article is no doubt warranted on it and there should be a disambiguation page on God to separate it. The atheism article should perhaps contain within its body reference to the fact that atheism has no views on this specific 'God' entity.--Nick-in-South-Africa 15:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Basically, it is the idea of pantheism (or at least related to it), which is sort of ambigously defined and whether it is a theistic or atheistic view depends on your idea of what constitutes a deity. But if you define "God" as being the universe itself, and define atheists as not believing in "God or gods", then basically the only athiests that really exist are nilhists, who believe nothing really exists. Titanium Dragon 15:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I would venture the guess that most people, including atheists, are not aware of the philosophical/esoteric definition of God. For those people, atheism is the denial of deities or gods as supernatural beings, including the god of monotheism, "God" in English.    But of those people who are aware of the esoteric definition, they don't call themselves atheists if they revere God, esoterically defined. Of atheists aware of the esoteric definition, it is hard to say what they make of it in general.  It doesn't make sense to say this God does not "exist", because this God is defined as Existence, Being itself, etc and one does not say that Existence exists or does not exist.    An atheist aware of this concept of God will most probably have a variety of objections to it, including that it is incomprehensible, bad metaphysics, or that theists can't get from their definition to a conscious God interacting intentionally with the Universe without committing logical errors, and if they can't, then their "God" is no more than a somewhat idiosyncratic redefinition of words.  Right now I don't have a good idea about how to deal with this in the article.  It seems like a fairly advanced topic. --BM 15:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I was aware of it, but I don't refer to it as "God" and do not think it is really a good idea to do so because it is confusing. Really I don't consider the concept to really be a worthwhile one to begin with simply because it is so vauge as to be virtually meaningless, but it is interesting when it is more pinned down as it is in some belief systems. An irreligious atheist will likely have many objections to it, but a religious one might not. If you think about it, wouldn't a Jedi (that is, a member of the Jedi religion) be an atheist (they don't believe in any deities) but more or less believe in this conception of "God" with their belief in the Force? Titanium Dragon 15:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * In the Star Wars world, The Force might be a supernatural force pervading the universe, like chi, which the Jedi are able to manipulate.   But that is just guessing, since I don't think Lucas and the other SW writers are very clear on what The Force is supposed to be.  Though supernatural, The Force isn't a deity, and therefore isn't denied by atheism, although most atheists will deny it for the same reasons they deny deities.  "The Force" is not similar to the esoteric concept of God.   --BM 16:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The concept of God as something completely other than a deity is not some obscure, out of the ordinary theory. A great many Hindu's, Jews, Muslims, and Christians believe this, and refer to this entity as God. Many Buddhists also believe in this concept (especially The Ultimate) but usually do not refer to it as God. There is also the concept of the negative theology, which is especially inclusive of people who today call themselves "atheists". My definition of atheism is very different from (I assume) pretty much all of you, altho Titanium Dragon seems to be beginning to understand it. For me, true atheism is the rejection of everything, Nihilism, satanism, amalek. That is why I find the concept of "weak" and "strong" atheism so upsetting. By these horrible terms, I would be a weak atheist in regards to many things. Of course I violently reject any such labeling, but if we are to accept these terms, I would be so labeled. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sam, I really don't know from where the 'weak/strong' terminology comes from and, also, I don't like it. But, again, it's used and we must accept it. About 'god v/s God', I'd use 'deity' or 'divinity' for this is a kind of 'universal' and neutral term accepted by both theists and atheists. If we use 'God', some may think we're talking about the Jewish/Christian God (although muslims also use 'God' for Allah) and if we use 'god(s)', it can be interpreted as the pagan greek, roman or germanic gods. --Neigel von Teighen 17:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem w that reasoning is that many, if not most people are refering to this very same universal when they say "God". I'm not sure how much you know about theology, metaphysics, theosophy, etc.., but a review of Pantheism and Panentheism would probably help alot, if your not well versed in these concepts. the summary is: many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, Sikhs, Jains, etc... worship this very same, singular, infinite God. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * We should not assume what "many, if not most people" think. To do so is to spoon feed them again. God/gods covers all the bases for all readers, and should be used exclusively in the article.--FeloniousMonk 18:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Using simple deductive reasoning (which is admittedly in some ways over-simplifies), if one is not a theist, then one must be an atheist. How one comes to not accept theistic belief dictates what sort of atheist one is. Regardless of the terms, theist/atheist, weak/strong atheism, implicit/explicit atheism, the concepts are natural and arise from basic deductive logic.--FeloniousMonk 18:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That might make sense if your premise is that God doesn't exist. if God does exist, you can't be apart from him w/o rejecting him, and even then he is still always with you. Your making the same mistake catholics did w infant baptism, attempting to claim converts before they can make a reasoned descision. Nobody is an atheists until they have consciously rejected God. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 19:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Your reasoning is specious. So then it follows everybody is a theist until they consciously reject God. That is the natural conclusion to your logic. Nobody can be a theist until they have chosen to believe in God or gods. Again, using the most simple of logic and terms, a person is either a theist or an atheist. Your logic only makes sense to those who also assume god or gods exist, and so far, there's no universally compelling evidence that they do.--FeloniousMonk 19:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what true atheism is (as opposed to the false atheism that we are writing an article about, I presume). And therefore I don't begin to understand how true atheism is the rejection of everything, and equivalent to nihilism, satanism, or amalek (whatever that might be). You need to be a good deal less enigmatic in your comments if you want other people to understand your POV as one which should be reflected somehow in the article. --BM 17:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't want my POV in the article, that would be original research, POV, etc... I was just letting you know where I'm coming from here in the talk. What I want in the article is NPOV, and factual accuracy. Failing to adress the differences of definition of God and god serves noone, except those seeking to promote divisiveness and a swelling in the ranks of atheism. For example, I had a recent insightful conversation. My boy said that he thinks most "atheists" are simply rejecting a false god, such as the god of calvinism, rather than the real God who is all. I think this is likely true, and its quite funny, since I also reject the god of calvinism! How to explain it better, I don't know, but I;ll keep trying if need be ;) Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If what you are looking for is a neutral point of view, why do you insist upon the capitalised 'God' instead of the far more neutral term, 'deitie(s)', and why should there be any differentiation between the terms 'gods' and 'God'? It seems to me that you are trying to give on particular god (no doubt the one you happen to believe in) a more prominent placing than all other gods. The term 'deity' incorporates every single god that has ever existed without giving priority to any particular god or godess, including the one that you very clearly happen to believe in. You clearly have a very aggresively anti-atheistic agenda, and have constantly edited the article in the past to reflect this. The term 'deities' is more neutral than the term 'God or gods', and as a result of this, I have once again edited the article to a genuinely more neutral point of view.

Aaarrrggh

I've added a paragraph which I think describes Sam's POV, which is by no means an unusual one. --BM 14:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that BM, and I have no problems whatsoever with the paragraph you added. It states the position, I think it does so quite fairly, and it does so in an informative and nonjudgemental manner. Mentioning and describing a position that exists as you have done is not the same as presenting the article from that position, as I believe was the case prior to these changes. The article does at least appear to be finally taking shape - I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this.

Aaarrrggh 15:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Too many main headers
I think that the article organization is very cluttered and there are too many headings for each section that don't make sense together. You can see what I mean:

 * 1) Types of atheism
 * 2) Morality
 * 3) Persecution
 * 4) In Communism, Marxism and the Cold War
 * 5) Contemporary atheism
 * 6) Statistics
 * 7) Polemical usage
 * 8) Atheistic religious organizations
 * 9) Religious views of atheism
 * 10) Judaism
 * 11) See also
 * 12) External links
 * 13) References

There is no pattern, no "regular article" sort of approach, and Atheism covers many things, history, current events, influences and so forth. There are way too many long headers that focus on specific things for an article of this type. I tried rearranging it, but what I'm suggesting would require sections to be broken down and moved around. Does anyone agree that it isn't organized well? Ambush Commander 21:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that the article is in pretty sorry shape, but thats due to the sort of squabbling which is likely to interfere w you repairing it. I agree w you generally, however, at least in theory. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 22:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with you in general. It just got unprotected yesterday, and it is pretty hard at present to make large changes since each small change is pretty tentative while people see if they have consensus. --BM 22:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV Patrol
This edit is riddled with bad edits and POV-pushing. I think it's ok to revert something this bad on sight, hint hint.

Specifically:

 * Strong atheism, also known as explicit atheism or positive atheism, is the acknowledgement that there is absolutely no basis in rational thought, and no need, for the god(s) or the devil(s).

This makes it sound like Wikipedia has concluded that there's no god.

 * Atheism prescribes an anthropomorphic orientation of values.

This isn't POV-pushing so much as just being plain wrong. I'm glad someone did change this fairly quickly.

Since people started making minor edits after this large, bad edit, we now have several little problems needing to be fixed, but a revert would destroy some good edits that followed.

In case I'm not making myself clear, it should have been reverted. Let's insist on people using the talk page a little more. Apparently, this article is just a little too attractive to people who are clueless or POV-pushing, and I'm not referring to anyone who has participated in the discussion here. --Yath 00:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I largely rewrote the offending edit, perhaps I should have just reverted it, my apologies. Feel free to revert my rewiting of it.

 * 207.189.131.233 seems to be a one of our resident POV warriors here just going anon, judging by the tone and verbiage. No points given for guessing who.--FeloniousMonk 00:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that something needed to be done after the anon edit, Felonious, but you seem to have lost the "lack of evidence" versus "a priori argument from contradictory attributes" content that we had a bit earlier by simply bringing in the second clause ending in "rational". I'm not going to work on it tonight, but maybe tomorrow, although perhaps you will beat me to it again. --BM 01:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me
I have been unblocked from my wrongful blocking Wikipedia:Administrator%27s_noticeboard#Accusation_of_breaking_the_revert_rule_against_Sam_Spade, but am rather disturbed, and won't be editing here for sometime. Good luck, and God be with you. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 16:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I didn't realize you had been blocked. It wasn't because of this article, surely? I don't think you violated the three-revert rule yesterday. Who said you did? Anyway, I see you added the NPOV Dispute header again. Would you mind saying why? Was it because of "god or Gods" being replaced by deities? If so, I thought the paragraph I added dealt with that issue. To be honest, it gets tiresome constantly wrangling over "God" versus "god" or "deity", "gods" versus "God or gods", etc. People are going to come along all the time and change "God or gods" to "gods" or "deities", thinking it is just making the text smoother and less clunky, and not realizing that anyone would object to God being subsumed under "deities" or "gods". You have to admit that the "God is not a deity" idea is not going to occur to people and is going to strike many as bizarre. I think the better way to handle this is to deal with it directly, as I tried to do in the new paragraph. --BM 17:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was indeed due to this page, but thankfully it was reversed w concensus that it was a wrongful block. MGM seems apologetic tho, so I see no point in being angry w him about it. That said, the whole experience upset me a good deal, and I am not planning to edit this page for some time. I put the dispute header for exactly the reason you thought, and if there is concensus to remove it, thats what should be done. I darn sure won't revert it if its removed! Anyhow, good luck, happy holidays, merry X-mas (or whatever atheists celebrate ;) and goodbye. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I for one vote that we take down the dispute header as soon as possible. Aaarrrggh 17:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good luck, and Merry Christmas, Sam. By the way, this atheist's family celebrates Xmas. Tree, presents, egg nog, decorations, Santa Claus, etc. Like good atheists-to-be, the kids know that "Santa is imaginary, but that at Christmas time, we all have fun pretending that he is real." So far, neither of them know that there is any connection between any of this and Christ's birth; but, then, the oldest is five. --BM 17:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I too vote to take down the header immediately.

I'm not surprised that you were blocked, or that you were subsequently unblocked. You may not have violated the letter of the 3rr policy, but you violated its spirit by hiding your repeated reverts of language agreed upon by consensus within otherwise valid edits.

As evidenced by your recent vulgar email recently sent to me using the wikipedia email function, you seem to have a history of cynical manipulations of the policies. Your claim that "Email is not governed by wiki-policy" only means you tacitly admit your actions were an intentional cynical manipulation of a policy loophole. Considered with your creative side-stepping of the 3rr policy here, this constitutes a pattern. You seem to be quite adept at finding and exploiting policy loopholes and then claiming to be the aggrieved party; your hypocrisy here and elsewhere is a matter of record.

I note that MGM apologized to you, but he also went on to say that "the rules to include reverts hidden by useful edits in the future. There's no way to know for sure whether someone is trying to avoid the 3RR this way." Knowing your history of ignoring consensus on this very point (God vs. god), not many will buy that you weren't cynically trying to subvert the 3rr policy and consensus by hiding reverts within otherwise valid edits. Indeed, we've seen this from you time and again here, going all the way back to February 04, the archives are literally a memorial to your repeated refusal to abide with consensus and policy. Many, many editors here, past and present, share this view. Surely exploiting policy loopholes to subvert the policies must not go unacknowledged. I'm compelled to acknowledge them wherever I encounter them, including here at Talk:Atheism.

I think many recognize that the 3rr policy needs some improvement and it should extend to include reverts hidden by useful edits.--FeloniousMonk 19:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think these matters are so clear. For example, lets say an article says "A" and you think it should say "B". If all you do is keep changing it back to "B" whenever someone makes it say "A", it doesn't really matter if you achieve that through simple reverts or straight edits that achieve the same effect as a revert. You get three tries every 24 hours. But if there are other edits going on, including the case where the alleged "revert" is part of a larger edit that you do yourself, the situation becomes a lot more complex. For example, the larger edits that you do may not simply be an attempt to "hide" a revert, they might be a good faith attempt to compromise. For example, you change "A" back to "B", but you make other changes that you hope will make "B" more palatable to the A fans. Or there might have been an intervening change by you or a third party that you think indicates that "B" is now more acceptable, perhaps in combination with comments on the Talk page. The 3RR is easy to enforce when there are literally 3 reverts; that is easy to determine and it is pretty clear that someone doing that is just being insistent and/or stubborn. The 3RR says at some point you have to stop being stubborn and let someone else fight the battle for "B" (assuming there is someone). But declaring an edit to be "effectively a revert" and banning people on that basis is a lot less clear unless the effect is literally to restore the article to a prior state (like a revert) or to a state that is only trivially different from a prior state. I can't comment on past history, but the last couple of days, several people were working on the article, and I thought all of them were doing so in good faith, including Sam, and I don't believe Sam had 4 edits that restored the article to a prior state or a state only trivially different from a prior state. --BM 19:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You are mistaken. Sam indeed had 4 edits that replaced language arrived at consensus (god/gods or diety/dieties) with his particular POV content (God/god).

 * In reverse chronological order:

 * 4:
 * 22:05, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (God or gods)
 * 21:22, 14 Dec 2004 81.179.230.27 (Changed to 'Deities' again. The whole point is to take away from the focus of the christian god to the more general term.)
 * 21:11, 14 Dec 2004 Ambush Commander (Let's compromise. God and Deities (Gods redirects to Deity anyway))
 * 18:52, 14 Dec 2004 81.179.230.27 (Deities replacing god again.)

 * 3:
 * 17:23, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (various, mainly God or gods)
 * 14:34, 14 Dec 2004 Titanium Dragon ("God or gods" to "gods" or "deities", save in first occurance to preserve link to God entry (otherwise is redundant, "omni" God is a god by definition); "policies" changed to "policy" (grammar))

 * 2:
 * 12:49, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (merger of my version w an appropriate contribution by andreas)
 * 12:39, 14 Dec 2004 129.59.26.46 (Changed a couple of references to "God or gods" to "gods" or "deities")

 * 1:
 * 12:23, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (repair)
 * 11:39, 14 Dec 2004 Adraeus (rv. BM's non-consensus-based POV edits)

 * As I said before, Sam may not have violated the letter of the 3rr policy, but he violated its spirit by exploiting a policy loophole to subvert policy.--FeloniousMonk 20:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The spirit of the policy is that we compromise rather than reverting to a previous version. I made compromise edits, and general improvements, whilst discussing on the talk page. This is to be encouraged.

 * Well, the third on your list is clearly a case where Sam was making his typical change as well as well as merging one of the changes that Andraeus had made, in what looks to me like an attempt at compromise.   You can't count that one.  I haven't looked at the others, but excluding that one makes it no more that 3.  --BM 21:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Several admins did not agree with you on that point. Compromise is what Sam removed when he changed god to God. Compromise would have been "diety." Sam removed that in numbers 4 and 2. Sorry, but Sam compromising on this point is not something supported by the record. Go ahead and spend some time checking the page history, there's no shortage of instances of Sam editing against consensus here going all the way back to February. It was even the subject of an RfC.

 * Regardless, Sam violated only the spirit of the policy, not the letter, and so he's off the hook on a technicality. Smart. Whether content reached by consensus is removed by manual editing or by reverting, the net effect is the same. The former only violates the spirit of the rule, while the latter the letter of the rule. Both violate the spirit of wikipedia. Sam is smart enough to know the difference, and apparently feckless enough to exploit it while flaunting consensus and thereby wasting all the patient efforts of good faith editors here. This very issue has already been the topic of one RfC involving Sam, which he seems to have benefited little from.--FeloniousMonk 21:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Frankly I think you, FM, ought to be celebrating the victory of your harassment, rather than perpetuating it in such a manner as to compel me to remain in order to defend myself. You keep hammering away on the fact I sent you a rude email. I did. It wasn't "obscene" by my definition, which is the only thing I have denied. I stand by that email, and feel the policy is good as it is. You may want to turn the wiki into a beaurocratic nightmare by increasing regulations, but many others and I do not. Take you rhetoric and emotion driven POV to the applicable policy or Meta pages. Your shrill repetition will likely have similar effect there as here. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I find it sadly funny and ironic that you'd accuse others of harassment when you admit here it is you that is sending the insulting emails. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 * The page history shows clearly that you have yet to compromise on the issue of God vs. god vs. deity. Res ipsa loquitur.--FeloniousMonk 21:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * BTW Sam, If you want me to stop discussing the vulgar email you sent me, then just offer an earnest apology on my Talk page for sending it. That's all I've ever asked for.--FeloniousMonk 21:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I sent you one email, not emails, and it was signed. Anything else your getting is not from me. How I am both smart and feckless in your estimation is beyond me, but you'll be getting no apology any time soon either way. Move on, discuss the article, not other users. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 22:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You are right. For accuracy's sake instead of "smart" and "feckless" I should have selected "cagey" and "dishonest."

 * Yes, there was only one vulgar, insulting email I received from you. How many have received from me? And that one email was sufficiently uncivil and insulting enough to show us your true colors. Your repeated claims of being the victim establishes you as hypocrite. And I'm sorry, but I do not abide hypocrites.

 * Do you deny the hypocrisy of you demanding an apology from MGM for performing his job in good faith, yet your refusal to make one to me after your intentionally vulgar personal insults sent to me in manner that violates the wikipedia policies and systems? Again, your hypocrisy here astounds.

 * Yes, indeed I'd like to move on and discuss the article and not other users. But when other users start sections about themselves titled "Me", where they commemorate their avoiding being banned on a technicality, it's rather difficult. When that same user makes hypocritical assertions while having been a primary source of strife and obstruction in article and the source of much incivility and insults, both on and off line, then that demands a response.

 * As long as you choose to very publicly claim to be a civil follower of the rules and only aggrieved by others all the while refusing to atone for your own recent incivility and blatant misuse of the wikipedia email system, I will continue to rightly remind of the dishonesty and hypocrisy of your claims. Since you are so proud of sending me your vulgar rant, I'm sure you'll have no objections.--FeloniousMonk 23:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Atheism/Archive 16


text:
Menshikov Tower

Menshikov Tower (Меншикова башня), also known as the Church of Archangel Gabriel, is a Baroque Russian Orthodox Church in Basmanny District of Moscow, within the Boulevard Ring. The church was initially built in 1707 to order of Alexander Menshikov by Ivan Zarudny assisted by Domenico Trezzini, a team of Italian-Swiss craftsmen from Ticino and Fribourg cantons and Russian stonemasons from Kostroma and Yaroslavl. The earliest extant Petrine Baroque building in Moscow, Menshikov Tower was substantially altered in the 1770s. The church traditionally functioned in summer only; in winter the congregation assembled in nearby Church of Theodor Stratelates, built in 1782–1806. Church of Saint Theodore also provides the bells for ritual ringing: despite its height, Menshikov Tower does not have bells.

History
The first church in the name of Archangel Gabriel on this site was first mentioned in 1551 census records. By 1657 it was rebuilt in stone, and was extended in 1679. Twenty years later the influential statesman Alexander Menshikov consolidated parcels of land south from present-day Clean Ponds. The church of Archangel Gabriel became a house church of his estate which stood one block to the west, on the site of present-day Central Post Office. In 1701 Menshikov repaired the old church, but in 1704 ordered it to be demolished. Menshikov assigned overall construction management to Ivan Zarudny. Domenico Trezzini, subordinate to Zarudny, was placed in charge of European craftsmen (of Fontana, Rusco, Ferrara and other Ticino families) but after half a year was dispatched to Saint Petersburg. The new church was structurally complete by 1707; its height, 81 meters, equaled that of Ivan the Great Bell Tower. The building initially had five structural stone levels (the nave, a square lower tower and three octagonal levels; the top two octagons were built of wood). By 1708 the tower acquired 50 bells and an English chiming clock. It was crowned with a 30-meter spire with a gilded angel-shaped weather vane. Menshikov tower was Moscow's first building richly adorned with figurative sculpture, but most of it was lost in the 18th century.

In 1710 Menshikov was appointed governor of Saint Petersburg and abandoned his Moscow projects, taking most of the craftsmen with him. Work on the tower interiors slowed down; Menshikov's private box inside the church was rebuilt in an ordinary side altar. In 1723 the tower was struck by lightning; the fire completely destroyed the upper wooden structure with the clockwork. The bells fell down, crushing the wooden ceilings and destroying nave interiors (still incomplete). The side altars, however, survived and continued operation while the main tower stood decapitated until 1773. In 1773–1779 the tower was restored and acquired its current shape: instead of recreating the destroyed upper octagon, the new architects replaced it with a compact but complex baroque dome. Vases on the corners of the first octagon, installed in the 1770s, replaced the statues lost in 1723 (the vases were later regularly replaced and are now made of concrete). Window arches of the octagons were filled up with brick, rendering installation of bells impossible. Otherwise, sculptural finishes of this period were close to lost originals (present-day sculpture, again, is mostly concrete replica).

Menshikov tower had no reliable heating facilities and was closed for the winters. Instead, the congregation built a smaller neoclassical church of St. Theodore Stratelates (completed 1806), which also doubled as the bell tower.

In 1821–1850s the tower was a house church of the Central Post Office. The postmasters entertained the plans to reopen the upper level windows and install the bells, but they did not materialize. The church was repaired externally, and the only significant addition was the pineapple-shaped spire which remains extant.

The church was looted in 1922 and lost its iconostasis; existing iconostasis comes from a church in Preobrazhenskoye that was demolished in the 1960s.

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

title: Menshikov Tower


text:
User:Charles Matthews/New - writers

1-50

 * J. C. Mardrus - Antoine Varillas - Norman Douglas - William Cooper (novelist) - Walter Allen - F. Anstey - Peter Opie - Robert Wilson Lynd - R. V. Vernède - Hugh Ross Williamson
 * Charles Ricketts - Jeffrey Farnol - J. D. Beresford - M. P. Shiel - Edgar Jepson - Cynthia Asquith - P. N. Furbank - Vincent Brome - Ferdinand Mount - Sheila Kaye-Smith
 * Charles Edward Montague - Christine Brooke-Rose - E. V. Lucas - Edward Garnett - Alasdair Alpin MacGregor - Ellen Key - Cecil Chesterton - A. N. Wilson - James C. Bennett - Gottlieb Rabener
 * Louis Tracy - George Urban - Sir James Denham Steuart - Heinrich Leopold Wagner - Charles Ganilh - Joseph Pearce - Philip Toynbee - Hans Carossa - Stephen Winsten - Lemuel Dole Nelme
 * Gilbert Cannan - Alfred Kerr - Johann Jakob Brucker - Oswell Blakeston - Guy Boothby - Christopher Dawson - Hugh Kingsmill - Augustine Birrell - Guy Alexis Lobineau - Douglas Goldring

51-100

 * A. L. Morton - Maurice Cornforth - W. L. George - Holbrook Jackson - Sisley Huddleston - H. J. Massingham - David Garnett - Maurice Reckitt - Charles Petrie - Philip Guedalla
 * Arthur Penty - Philip Mairet - May Sinclair - H. M. Tomlinson - Constance Holme - Allan Monkhouse - Cicely Hamilton - Violet Hunt - William John Loftie - Derwent Coleridge
 * E. H. Coleridge - Leo Myers - L. P. Hartley - Margot Heinemann - Noreen Branson - Lord David Cecil - Basil de Sélincourt - Anthony Bertram - Storm Jameson - Norm Ledgin
 * Jasper Ridley - Robert Speaight - Hesketh Pearson - Ronald Hayman - Enid Bagnold - Ian Buruma - Anthony Holden - Julian Symons - D. J. Taylor - Robert Liddell
 * Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy - Stephen Southwold - P. C. Wren - Kathleen Hale - Marina Warner - Harold John Timperley - Walter Johannes Stein - Jessie Weston - Brocard Sewell - Arthur Bryant

101-150

 * Anthony Ludovici - Philip Rahv - Alfred Nutt - Eric Linklater - Cecil Roberts - R. H. Mottram - Jiro Nitta - Theodor Haecker - Josef Bard - Raymond Mortimer
 * Caryl Phillips - Robert Graham Irwin - Raymond Federman - Ronald Sukenick - Elizabeth Elstob - Michel Leiris - Josef Pieper - Edward Davies (Celtic) - Adam Phillips - Edwyn Bevan
 * José Guilherme Merquior - E. W. F. Tomlin - Max Pemberton - Anthony Heilbut - Lodovico Castelvetro - Valéry Larbaud - Friedrich von Hügel - Percy Lubbock - Leila Berg - Oscar Levy
 * Roberto Calasso - Robert Kee - Gilbert Frankau - Pamela Frankau - Ethel Mannin - Sydney Schiff - Horace Scudder - Jean-Marie Domenach - Ada Leverson - Aubrey de Sélincourt
 * Denis Saurat - Will Herberg - Patrick Wright - Gerald Brenan - Charles Nisard - Bonino Mombritius - Giovanni Domenico Mansi - Louis Thomassin - Hurter - Ferdinand Hoefer

151-200

 * Arthur Chuquet - Johann August Apel - Philippe Alegambe - Paul Rosenfeld - Sbaralea - Charles Joseph Marty-Laveaux - Pavel Annenkov - Boris de Rachewiltz - Harry Collinson Owen - Johann Michael Raich
 * Cave Beck - Christoph Moufang - Nigel Nicolson - John Lawrence Hammond - Hilary Spurling - Nicolas-Hugues Ménard - Annius of Viterbo - Giambattista Gelli - John Chipman Farrar - François Picavet
 * Francesco Sansovino - Jacques Quétif – Jacques Échard - Astesanus de Ast - Giannozzo Manetti - Martin Bouquet - Philastrius - St. Gaudentius - Petrus Comestor - Louis Becq de Fouquières
 * Lambert of Ardres - René-Prosper Tassin - Charles-François Toustain - Faustino Arévalo - Raffaelo Maffei - Josiah C. Nott - Henri Brémond - Irwin Silber - Hugh Tootell - Joseph Berington
 * Walter Hilton - Jean Bourdeau - Edith Simcox - Eduard Munk - Albert Stöckl - Sigismund Koelle - John of Viktring - Johann Georg von Eckhart - Christoph Gottlieb von Murr

201-250

 * Nicola Coleti - Philippe Labbe - Paul Laymann - Odorico Raynaldi - Pamelius - Edmond Martène - Marquand Herrgott - Jakob Wimpfeling - Moïse Schwab - Ignaz Heinrich von Wessenberg
 * John Spelman - Conrad of Gelnhausen - James Hastings - Nehemiah Brüll - William McGuckin de Slane - Alexander Ross (writer) - Anthony Marinus Hendrik Johan Stokvis - Ange de Sainte Rosalie -Richard Bristow - Thomas Worthington (Douai)
 * Geoffrey Faber - Jean Papire Masson - Edward Metcalfe - Crinitus - Giovanni Rucellai - Thomas Sébillet - Vincent Cronin - Alison Uttley - Pietro Balan - Jan Dubravius
 * Pierre Bertaux - Jean-Baptiste Robinet - Denis de Rougemont - Godfrey Winn - Antoine Guenée - André Mandouze - Uri Nissan Gnessin - Marcus Meibomius - Adrian Stokes (critic) - Jean-Pierre Nicéron
 * Paul Ableman - 'Ali ibn Ridwan - Robert Nye - Noël-Antoine Pluche - Augustinus Triumphus - Victor of Capua - Christophe Justel - Gregory of St. Grisogono - Henri Justel - Edmond-Frederic Le Blant

251-300

 * Bernhard Josef Hilgers - Josef Hilgers - Siegmund Salfeld - Louis-Ellies Dupin - Jean de Launoy - Bucherius - Anatolius of Laodicea - Thierry Ruinart - Johann Benedict Carpzov II - Johannes Buxtorf II
 * Ramón Martí - Porchetus - Paul of Burgos - Johann Christoph Wolf - Geronimo de Santa Fé - Pietro Colonna Galatino - Juan Tomás de Rocaberti - Bzovius - Boverius - Rodrigo Sánchez de Arévalo
 * Andreas Schottus - Louis Carrion - Franciscus Dousa - Pierre de L'Estoile - Heinrich Rantzau - Joachim Sterck van Ringelbergh - Vincent Contenson - Hadoard - Paterius - Walter of Speyer
 * Juvencus - Conrad of Hirsau - Geoffrey of Vendôme - Engelbert of Admont - Manegold of Lautenbach - Gabriel Vasquez - Claude de Seyssel - Donato Giannotti - Gregory of Heimburg - Gerhoh of Reichersberg
 * Peter Paludanus - Pierre Bertrand (cardinal) - Radulphus Brito - Matthew of Cracow - Francesco Patrizi of Siena - Joseph-Alexander Martigny - Henry Nevinson - Francis Wrigley Hirst - Charles Sarolea - Thomas Wilson (1524-1581)

301-350

 * Pierre de La Primaudaye - Maximilian Van der Sandt - Francis Warre Warre-Cornish - Flaminius Annibali de Latera - Cuthbert Butler - Inez Holden - John V the Historian - Robert Needham Cust - Gertrude Rachel Levy - Gerardus van der Leeuw
 * Natalis Comes - Achille Bocchi - Valentin Weigel - Daniel Stolz von Stolzenberg - Johann Daniel Mylius - Baro Urbigerus - Jean D'Espagnet - Petrus Bonus - Johannes Romberch - Georg von Welling
 * Jacobus Typotius - Daniel Cramer - Gregor Reisch - John Dastin - Jean-Jacques Manget - Johann Ferdinand Hertodt - Johann Grasshoff - Adrian von Mynsicht - Joel Langelott - Heinrich Petraeus
 * Francesco Giorgi - John Melton - Luigi Mozzi - Restoro d'Arezzo - Ebenezer Sibly - Alpert of Metz - Galbert of Bruges - Melchior Cibinensis - Pierre Borel - Edward Forsett
 * Giacomo Filippo Foresti - Anthony Terill - John Capreolus - Yohanan Alemanno - Isaac ben Joseph ibn Pulgar - Abner of Burgos - Joseph Bergel - Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder - Giovanni Stefano Menochio- Eric John Holmyard

351-

 * John Hales (d.1571) - E. I. Watkin - Yevgeny Popov - Zénaïde Fleuriot - Charles Whibley - Alfred Polgar - Vernon Knowles

Hilaire Belloc's books - G. K. Chesterton's books - G. K.'s Weekly

 * List of Enid Blyton's books, 1922 to 1929 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1930-1939 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1940 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1941 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1942 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1943 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1944 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1945 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1946 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1947 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1948 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1951 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1952 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1953 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1954 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1955 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1956 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1957 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1958 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1959 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1960 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1961 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1962 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1963 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1964 - List of Enid Blyton's books, 1965 onwards - Enid Blyton's illustrators

title: User:Charles Matthews/New - writers


text:
Penshaw Monument

The Penshaw Monument (officially the Earl of Durham's Monument) is a memorial in the style of an ancient Greek temple on Penshaw Hill in the metropolitan borough of the City of Sunderland, North East England. It is located near the village of Penshaw, between the towns of Washington and Houghton-le-Spring in historic County Durham. The monument was built between 1844 and 1845 to commemorate John Lambton, 1st Earl of Durham (1792–1840), Governor-General of British North America and author of the Durham Report on the future governance of the American territories. Owned by the National Trust since 1939, it is a Grade I listed structure.

The monument was designed by John and Benjamin Green and built by Thomas Pratt of Bishopwearmouth using local gritstone at a cost of around £6000; the money was raised by subscription. On 28 August 1844, while it was partially complete, its foundation stone was laid by Thomas Dundas, 2nd Earl of Zetland in a Masonic ceremony which drew tens of thousands of spectators. Based on the Temple of Hephaestus in Athens, it is a tetrastyle temple of the Doric order, with eighteen columns—seven along its longer sides and four along its shorter ones—and no roof or cella (inner chamber).

One column contains a spiral staircase leading to a parapeted walkway along the entablature. This staircase was closed to the public in 1926 after a 15-year-old boy fell to his death from the top of the monument. The structure fell into disrepair in the 1930s and was fenced off, then repaired in 1939. It has since undergone further restoration, including extensive work in 1979 during which its western side was dismantled. Floodlit at night since 1988, it is often illuminated in different colours to mark special occasions. The National Trust began to offer supervised tours of the walkway in 2011.

Penshaw Monument is a local landmark, visible from up to 50 mi away. It appears on the crest of Sunderland A.F.C. and is viewed nationally as a symbol of the North East. It has been praised for the grandeur, simplicity and symbolic significance of its design, especially when seen from a distance. However, critics have said it is poorly constructed and lacks purpose; nineteenth-century architectural journals condemned its lack of a roof and the hollowness of its columns and walls. It features no depiction of the man it honours, and has been widely described as a folly.

Location
Penshaw Monument stands on the south-western edge of the summit of Penshaw Hill, an isolated 136 m knoll formed by the erosion of an escarpment of the Durham Magnesian Limestone Plateau. The National Trust landholding at the site totals 18 ha, including 12 ha of deciduous woodland to the west of the monument. The woodland is split into Dawson's Plantation in the north and Penshaw Wood in the south. Both the summit of the hill and the woodland are considered Sites of Nature Conservation Interest by Sunderland City Council.

The monument's car park is accessible from Chester Road (the A183); three footpaths lead from the car park to the monument, which can also be reached from Grimestone Bank in the north-west and Hill Lane in the south. The National Heritage List for England gives the monument's statutory address as Hill Lane, but Sunderland City Council lists the property as located on Chester Road. There have been few changes to the site since the monument's construction, although signs, fences and floodlights have been added, and footpaths have been improved by the National Trust. There is an Ordnance Survey trig point to the west of the monument.

The site receives over 60,000 visitors every year; people come to visit the monument, admire the views or engage in walking, jogging or photography. The Trust has placed a geocache at the site. The Penshaw Bowl, an Easter egg rolling competition for children, takes place on the hill every Maundy Thursday; this tradition is over a century old. The hill is also popular for Bonfire Night and New Year celebrations.

The surrounding area was formerly industrialised, but is now mainly arable farmland. The site is in the Shiney Row ward; it is south-west of Sunderland, north-east of Chester-le-Street, south-east of Washington and north of Houghton-le-Spring. To the north is the Washington Wetland Centre, managed by the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust; to the south is Herrington Country Park. The monument is visible from 50 mi away on a sunny day and can be seen from the A1 road; from the hill, it is sometimes possible to see the Cheviot Hills in Northumberland and the central tower of Durham Cathedral, as well as the sea.

History of the site
There is evidence that Penshaw Hill may have been an Iron Age hillfort: the remains of what may be ramparts have been identified at the site, and the expansive views from the hill would have made it a strategically advantageous location for a fort. In March 1644, during the First English Civil War, the hill served as an encampment for an army of Scottish Covenanters who fled there after a failed attack on Newcastle before the Battle of Boldon Hill. The hill is associated with the local legend of the Lambton Worm; a folk song written by C. M. Leumane in 1867 describes the worm wrapping itself "ten times roond Pensha Hill". The hill is the site of an 18th-century limestone quarry on Dawson's Plantation, which is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest; farming and quarrying on nearby land continued after the monument's construction.

The landholding is on the north-eastern edge of the historical township of Penshaw; the original village of Old Penshaw is approximately 0.5 km from the monument. After Penshaw Colliery opened in 1792, a new pit village was established to the south-west of the original village – it was known as New Penshaw. The earliest record of Penshaw is in the Boldon Book of 1183, where it is described as being leased by William Basset from a Jordan de Escoland, later Jordan de Dalton. Other former landowners of the vill include the Bowes-Lyon and Lambton families. The land on which the monument stands was eventually passed to the Vane-Tempest-Stewart estate and became the property of Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry, who gifted it as the site of the structure.

Background
John George Lambton (born 1792) was the son of William Henry Lambton and Lady Anne Barbara Frances Villiers. He attended Eton College, then joined the 10th Royal Hussars in 1809. Lambton became Member of Parliament for County Durham in 1813; politically, he had a reputation for radicalism and proposing electoral reform, earning him the nickname "Radical Jack". In 1828 he was raised to the peerage, becoming Baron Durham. In 1830 Durham was made Lord Privy Seal in Earl Grey's cabinet and was charged with producing a draft of the bill that became the Reform Act 1832. He resigned his position in 1833, and was created Earl of Durham shortly afterwards. He was a Freemason and became Deputy Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England in 1834.

The second Melbourne ministry appointed him Ambassador to Russia in 1835; he spent two years in the post. In 1838 Durham agreed to become Governor-General of British North America, and was sent to the British colony of Lower Canada (now Quebec) to deal with rebellions in the region. After a failed attempt to exile rebel leaders to Bermuda, he resigned from the post and left Canada after five months. His Report on the Affairs of British North America (1839) recommended that Lower Canada merge with the English-speaking province of Upper Canada to anglicise its French-speaking inhabitants; it also advocated limited self-government for the colony.

After an illness lasting several months, thought to be tuberculosis, he died on 28 July 1840 in Cowes, Isle of Wight. On 3 August, his body was taken in his own yacht to Sunderland, then in a steamship to Lambton Castle. His funeral took place on 10 August, and was attended by over 300 Freemasons; they wanted to perform a Masonic ceremony for the occasion, but were asked not to do so by Durham's family. The ceremony began at the castle, where the Earl lay in state in the dining room. A procession, consisting of around 450 people in carriages and hundreds more on foot, then conveyed the body to the parish church of St Mary and St Cuthbert, Chester-le-Street, where Durham was buried in his family vault. A large crowd gathered to observe the procession; its size has been estimated as between 30,000 and 50,000 people. The Marquess of Londonderry, a political opponent of Durham's, travelled from London to act as a pallbearer at the funeral.

1840–1842: proposals and selection of the site
At a meeting at the Lambton Arms pub in Chester-le-Street on 19 August 1840, it was decided to form a Provisional Committee to raise funds for a monument to the Earl by subscription. The next day, at the Assembly Rooms in Newcastle, a committee of 33 men was formed for that purpose; it included the mayors of Newcastle and Gateshead. The chairman of the committee was Henry John Spearman. The following motion was put forward by William Ord MP:

"That the distinguished services rendered to his country by the late John George Lambton, Earl of Durham, as an honest, able, and patriotic satesman, and as the enlightened and liberal friend to the improvement of the people in morals, education, and scientific acquirements, combined with his unceasing exercise of the most active benevolence, and of the other private virtues which adorned his character, render it the sacred duty of his fellow-countrymen to erect a public monument to perpetuate the memory of his services, his talents, and his virtues, and to act as an incitement to others to follow his bright example."

Around £500 was pledged at this meeting. There were initially disagreements about the site of the monument: proposals included Durham, the Earl's territorial designation; Chester-le-Street, his burial place; Sunderland, where he had trading connections; and Newcastle, due to its size. In a letter to the Durham Chronicle, published in October 1840, an anonymous subscriber to the monument urged that members of the public be allowed to submit designs, and that the final design be chosen by subscribers. The letter warned of a "vicious system of jobbing" in which the exercise of private influence led to the adoption of inferior designs, which it claimed had influenced the planning of other monuments such as Nelson's Column.

At another meeting at the Bridge Hotel in Sunderland on 28 January 1842, William Hutt MP proposed that "the monument should be of an architectural character", and suggested Penshaw Hill as a location because it was the Earl's property, and the monument would be visible from much of County Durham and close to the East Coast Main Line. Durham's wife had expressed support for this site before her death. According to The Times, "a more suitable spot for the erection of a monument to the late lamented Earl could not have been selected". Hutt hoped to erect a statue of Durham, and read out a letter from a sculptor who had offered to make one. By this point, around £3000 had been subscribed. More money was later raised by a London-based committee.

1842–1843: selection of the design
The committee sought advice from the Royal Institute of British Architects in London. Its secretary, Thomas Leverton Donaldson, advised approaching five or six skilled architects named by the Institute privately, rather than advertising publicly for designs. Donaldson told Hutt that if a public call for designs was made, the most skilled architects would not compete. The Institute surveyed Penshaw Hill and produced instructions to the architects, which described the hill and indicated subscribers' preference for a column. The instructions stated that the project could not cost more than £3000. Six of the designs submitted to the committee were exhibited at the institute's premises in London before they were seen in the north. These were all either columns or obelisks, each topped with a statue of the Earl. At a meeting in Sunderland on 8 July 1842, subscribers examined proposals by seven architects. These were:

 * John Augustus Cory—Two designs: a column in the style of Italianate architecture; and a column based on those of the Temple of Hephaestus
 * Thomas Leverton Donaldson—Design unknown
 * Harvey Lonsdale Elmes—Two designs: a Grecian column topped by a temple containing an urn; and a column with projecting balconies in imitation of a Roman rostral column
 * Charles Fowler—A Norman column, similar to those in the nave of Durham Cathedral
 * Arthur Mee—A column; details unknown
 * John Buonarotti Papworth—An obelisk, with a bronze statue and sarcophagus at the front
 * Robert Wallace—A Doric column, 13 ft in diameter, based on those of the Temple of Olympian Zeus, Agrigento and topped with a podium and a metal tripod

Some present at the meeting were unhappy that the preference for a column had been expressed—one felt that "it would have been better to have left the genius of the artists unfettered", and another wished to receive more designs before a decision was made. There was some consternation that the building of the monument was not taking place as quickly as had been anticipated. The Durham Chronicle disapproved of the proposed designs, writing that "a column, standing in solitary nakedness, is a palpable absurdity". It criticised the designs of Grey's Monument and Nelson's Column, believing them to belong to "the candlestick style of monumental architecture", and wrote that the monument to the Earl of Durham should be "lofty, massive, durable, and distinctive—simple in its features, and grand in its general effect".

On 8 November 1842, an executive committee with the power to choose a design and begin construction of the monument was formed in Newcastle. In May 1843, the committee met to consider new designs that it had received, and decided to recommend John and Benjamin Green's proposal of a Grecian Doric temple to subscribers. By July, the design had been officially selected. The Greens were father and son, and also designed Grey's Monument and the Theatre Royal in Newcastle. The initial design was in the style of the temples of Paestum, with an arrangement of four by six columns; this was later changed to one based on the Temple of Hephaestus. It was envisaged that the hill would become an enclosed pleasure garden after the monument's construction.

1844: construction and foundation stone ceremony
The stone used in the construction was a gift from the Marquess of Londonderry; it came from his quarries in Penshaw, about 1 mi from the hill. In a letter to subscribers, the Marquess explained his decision to provide the stone: "it has afforded me great satistfaction in a very humble manner to aid in recording my admiration of [the Earl of Durham's] talents and abilities, however I may have differed with him on public or political subjects". Lime used in the construction was made in kilns owned by the Earl of Durham, located in the nearby village of Newbottle; sand was obtained from a sand pit at the foot of Penshaw Hill. The materials were brought up the hill by a temporary spiral railway. Holes on the stone blocks of the monument's stylobate indicate that they were transported with a lifting device called a lewis.

In January and February 1844, an invitation to tender for the monument's construction was placed in the Durham Chronicle and Newcastle Courant newspapers. The deadline to submit tenders was initially 15 February, but was later extended to 1 March. By 15 March the builder Thomas Pratt of Bishopwearmouth, Sunderland, had been awarded the contract; little is known about him. By March, operations to clear the ground at the site had begun; an invitation to tender for the transportation of the stone from the quarry to Penshaw Hill appeared in the Durham Chronicle on 29 March. By May, a trench for the monument's foundations had been dug.

The foundation stone of the monument was laid on 28 August 1844 by Thomas Dundas, 2nd Earl of Zetland, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England. The construction had been underway for several months: all the columns had been built to around half of their final height, except two at the front of the structure. The monument's scaffolding was adorned with flags for the ceremony. The Great North of England Railway Company organised special trains from Sunderland, Newcastle, Durham and South Shields to bring spectators to the event, and galleries were erected on either side of the monument to allow them to watch the ceremony —most of those in the galleries were women. The Durham Chronicle estimated that between 15,000 and 20,000 spectators were present; the Durham County Advertiser reported at least 30,000.

A pavilion was put up in a field to the south of Penshaw Hill to accommodate the Freemasons present, including 400 members of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Durham. At around 1:30 pm, the Freemasons formed a procession and ascended the hill, accompanied by a marching band and the monument's building committee. The Grand Treasurer placed a phial containing Victorian coins into a cavity in the foundation stone, which was then covered with a brass plate bearing an inscription that dedicated the monument to the Earl of Durham. Zetland then spread mortar on the stone with a silver trowel, specially engraved for the occasion. A second stone was then lowered on top of it as the band played "Rule, Britannia!", and Zetland used a plummet, level and square to adjust the upper stone before strewing it with corn, wine and oil. The Reverend Robert Green of Newcastle said a prayer and the Freemasons examined the plans of the monument before returning to their pavilion as the band played "God Save the Queen". The Times described the event thus:

"[A] more animated and picturesque scene was perhaps never witnessed in this part of the country.... The gorgeous insignia of the masonic brethren brilliantly reflected the rays of an almost vertical sun, the various banners fluttering in the gentle breeze, the gay dresses of the ladies, and the vast assemblage of spectators on every side, formed altogether a magnificent spectacle."

That evening, two dinners were held in Sunderland to celebrate the event: one at the Wheatsheaf in Monkwearmouth and another at the Bridge Hotel. The former was attended by many of the Freemasons who had participated in the ceremony; the latter accommodated many members of the gentry. A dispute arose at one of these dinners when the vice-chairman, a Liberal solicitor called A. J. Moore, refused to take part in a toast in honour of the Marquess of Londonderry, a Tory. Moore left the room, and the toast was drunk in his absence. The Newcastle Journal condemned Moore's behaviour as a "brutal display of corrupt feeling, unmanly resentment, and base ingratitude". In September 1844, one of the monument's architects threatened legal action against J. C. Farrow, who had announced the publication of a lithograph depicting the structure. Green claimed that the monument—which was not yet finished—could not be depicted without reference to the architectural plans, and that the lithograph infringed his "rights of copy and design". The Durham Chronicle called Green's claim "utterly preposterous and absurd". In October, the Carlisle Journal reported that only one of the monument's columns had been topped with its capital, and that the structure was expected to be completed in 1845. The total cost of the construction was approximately £6000.

1880s to 1920s: early damage and fatal accident
On 29 May 1889, the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne was told of damage to the monument: many of the stones forming its stylobate had been removed and rolled down Penshaw Hill. The stonework was repaired in the 1920s after it became cracked.

It was once possible to pay a penny for the key to the staircase to the top of the structure. This ended after a fatal accident: on 5 April (Easter Monday) 1926, Temperley Arthur Scott, a 15-year-old apprentice mason from Fatfield, fell to his death from the top of Penshaw Monument. There were around 20 people at the top when he fell. He had ascended the structure with three of his friends; the group had climbed around the top twice and were attempting to do so a third time. Scott tried to climb over a pediment to cross between the two walkways when he stumbled and fell 70 ft. A doctor pronounced him dead at the scene. A police officer told an inquest at the Primitive Methodist Chapel in Fatfield that it was usual for people to visit the top of the monument on public holidays. He said the stonework at the top of the pediment was worn, suggesting that many people had scaled it. The deputy coroner declared a verdict of accidental death and recommended either that spiked railings be put on the pediments, or that the door to the staircase be permanently locked. The door was kept locked from then on; after repeated break-ins it was sealed with cement, and later bricks.

1930s to 1970s: National Trust restoration
At a conference organised by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England in Leamington Spa in summer 1937, J. E. McCutcheon of Seaham Town Council spoke about the need to protect tourist destinations in County Durham. McCutcheon's comments interested B. L. Thompson, who was attending the conference on behalf of the National Trust; the two men began corresponding. As a result, the Trust agreed to take over Penshaw Monument from John Lambton, 5th Earl of Durham on the condition that covenants be imposed on Cocken Wood, an area of woodland near Finchale Priory. The monument became the Trust's property in September 1939. In April 1950 it was classed as a Grade I listed building on the National Heritage List for England; its official name is the Earl of Durham's Monument. Grade I buildings make up only 2.5% of listed buildings, and are described by Historic England as "of exceptional interest".

In 1936 the Sunderland Echo and Shipping Gazette reported that multiple large stones had fallen from the monument and a fence had been erected around it —the fence was wooden and covered in barbed wire, and was still there in 1938. By July 1939 repair work was being carried out, and scaffolding was present around some of the monument's columns. It was not damaged during the Second World War, despite raids on Houghton-le-Spring during The Blitz. In 1942 it was struck by lightning; this caused damage to the top of the column containing the staircase. This damage—a hole at the top of the column and a fissure extending half its length—was still visible a decade later.

In 1951 the Sunderland Echo reported that children had unsealed the door to the staircase and climbed the monument to search for pigeons' eggs; the National Trust employed a local builder to reseal it. In 1959 the National Coal Board repaired the monument after it was damaged by subsistence caused by mining: its northern, western and southern sides had become cracked, and part of the walkway had detached and overhung the interior. Stone blocks were replaced with concrete slabs with stone facings. Because of further settlement, Penshaw Monument was underpinned in 1978. The next year the western side was taken apart, and damaged lintels were replaced with ones made of reinforced concrete; the new lintels have buff-coloured artificial stone facings.

1980s to 2000s: floodlighting and further repair

In 1982 a grant from the Countryside Commission allowed the National Trust to purchase 44 acres of land surrounding the monument, including much of the south-facing side of Penshaw Hill and the woodland to the north-west. The monument has been illuminated at night by floodlights since 1988, when Sunderland City Council paid £50,000 for them. Between 1994 and 1996, several of these lights were stolen; Northumbria Police said they may have been used as grow lights for the cultivation of cannabis. In 1994, The Journal reported that Penshaw Monument "might be sinking" after two surveys showed the levels of the bottoms of the columns were not even. The National Trust hired the civil engineer Professor John Knapton to carry out a third, more comprehensive survey of the monument to assess whether movement had occurred.

In 1996 the National Trust said it was spending over £100,000 to restore the monument. Its columns and lintels had deteriorated and were repaired. Its cast iron cramps had rusted, causing them to expand and stress the monument's stonework—these were replaced with stainless steel cramps bedded in lead. Repointing was done using lime mortar made from lime quarried at the National Trust's pits on the Wallington estate in Northumberland. However, the surface of the stone, which has been blackened by soot, was not cleaned so that it would remain "a reminder of the area's tradition of heavy industry". The Trust later said: "Now that mining has ceased, the blackness seems particularly evocative and proposals for cleaning have been resisted". On 16 November 2005 a group of 60 volunteers, recruited by the National Trust from local businesses, universities and Boldon School, South Tyneside, assisted with the upkeep of the monument by replacing the kissing gate at its entrance, building a plinth and path for its interpretation area, repairing and replacing the steps leading to it and planting 40 m of hedge.

2010s and 2020s: reopening of the staircase and vandalism
In August 2011 the National Trust opened the staircase to the public for the first time since 1926 and began to provide guided tours of the top of the structure. More than 500 people attended the reopening, although only 75 were initially allowed to climb it; further tours took place in subsequent months. The trust now normally provides tours every weekend between Good Friday and the end of September. Tours last 15 minutes and only five people are allowed to go up at once; National Trust members can do so for free, but non-members must pay £5. By March 2013, over 3600 people had taken the tours.

In March 2014 the council announced that it would spend £43,000 to replace the floodlights with 18 new energy-efficient LED lights, which it expected would save £8000 per year in operating costs; they produce a softer, whiter light than their predecessors, and can be programmed to illuminate the monument in different colours. They were paid for with a government loan and were expected to reduce annual energy consumption from 75,000 kilowatt-hours to less than 10,000. An archaeological watching brief was carried out during the lights' installation. In April 2015 nine of the new lights, worth £20,000, were stolen; thieves used bolt cutters to breach the monument's security gates and open the lights' steel enclosures. The installation was fully complete by August 2015. The monument has since been illuminated in various colours to commemorate events, including the colours of the flag of France after the November 2015 Paris attacks; the colours of Hays Travel in November 2020 to commemorate John Hays; the colours of the Union Jack on 31 January 2020 to mark Brexit; and blue on 24 March 2020 as a tribute to National Health Service and social care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 26 July 2014, extensive areas of the monument were vandalised with red spray paint. The graffiti included text and symbols related to the 2005 film V for Vendetta. The National Trust said it had hired specialist contractors to remove the graffiti at a "considerable cost". Although the Trust did not ask for donations, local residents and businesses gave £1500 to pay for the removal. In 2019, as an April Fools' Day joke, it was announced that Penshaw Monument would be "moved stone by stone" to Beamish Museum in County Durham. The museum claimed the move was due to "the discovery of an infestation of a rare breed of worm in Penshaw Hill"—a reference to the Lambton Worm legend. In August 2019 the National Trust received £200,000 from Highways England's Environment Designated Fund. It said it would use the money to provide better access to the monument by replacing old timber steps with new ones made of sandstone and limestone, and improve signage at the site using information from new ground surveys. Repairs were also carried out on the monument itself, including stone repair and repointing on its stylobate. It was originally proposed to add a new spur path, and ditches at the side of the main path with soakaway pits for drainage; however, these plans were abandoned, partly because of their archaeological impact. As part of the Lumiere in Durham light festival in November 2021, the monument is to be illuminated with 140,000 separate points of light to commemorate the UK dead in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Architecture
Although it was intended as a memorial to the Earl of Durham, many sources describe Penshaw Monument as a folly; it features no statue or sculpture of the man it was intended to commemorate. The monument was built in the style of a temple of the Doric order. It is based on the Temple of Hephaestus, which is on the Agoraios Kolonos hill on the north-west side of the Agora of Athens. The National Trust describes it as a replica of the temple; however, according to the Sunderland Echo, "at best it could be said it is 'slightly similar to' the Temple of Hephaestus".

It is an example of Greek Revival architecture, which is rare in the historic County Durham. The style first appeared there c. 1820 at country houses like Eggleston Hall; Penshaw Monument is a late example, as is Monkwearmouth Railway Station. John Martin Robinson cites the monument alongside Bowes Museum as an example of the "eccentric buildings" found in the county. Nikolaus Pevsner noted that the structure's proximity to the Victoria Viaduct produces a rare juxtaposition of Greek and Roman architecture. A booklet produced by Tyne and Wear County Council Museums compares Penshaw Monument to Jesmond Old Cemetery, whose gates were designed by John Dobson; it says that the monument "shares the Arcadian intentions of Dobson's Cemetery, but is very much more successful". In her survey of the monument commissioned by the National Trust, Penny Middleton states that its "closest architectural and cultural relation" may be the National Monument of Scotland, an unfinished Grecian temple on Calton Hill in Edinburgh.

Description

Penshaw Monument is 100 ft long, 53 ft wide and 70 ft high, making it the biggest structure serving only as a memorial in North East England. It is made of gritstone ashlar, which was yellow at first, but has darkened. The stone was originally held together by steel pins and brackets. Graffiti is present on many areas of the monument, in the form of both carvings and ink. Its foundations originally sat on limestone 20 ft below the ground. The base consists of the upper stylobate and the lower stereobate —the columns sit on the stylobate, which is made of large gritstone blocks. The height of the base varies from 1.23 m at the south-west corner to 2.35 m at the south-east. When the monument was built there were no steps leading up to the stylobate. The floor consists of setts, which are pointed in mortar and laid to falls to diagonal flagstones. These flagstones direct rainwater to a central gulley.

The monument is a tetrastyle structure. It has 18 tapered, unfluted columns: seven along the north- and south-facing sides and four facing the east and west. The columns are 6 ft in diameter, and 10 m high. There are two parapeted walkways running from east to west at the top of the monument; the parapets are 3 ft tall. One column—the second from the east on the south-facing side —contains a 74-step spiral staircase leading to the southern walkway. The columns support a deep entablature, whose blocking course serves as the walkways; the columns, and the walls of the foundation and entablature, are hollow. The entablature is made up of the architrave, frieze and cornice; the architrave and cornice are simple in design, and the frieze is adorned with triglyphs, although these are stylised and lack grooves. There is a triangular pediment at each end of the entablature; the total height of the entablature and pediments is 6.62 m.

The structure has no roof, leading The Illustrated London News to call it hypaethral; however, The Civil Engineer and Architect's Journal considered this adjective inappropriate. It asserted that "[a]n 'hypoethral' temple does not mean one without any roof at all... but only that peculiar kind of temple in which the cella was left partly uncovered"—the monument has no cella. The Athenaeum called it "not only hypaethral, but hypaethral in issimo—and after the most extraordinary fashion", and remarked, "Possibly it was at first intended that there should be a roof, but in order to save expense, it was afterwards thought that such covering might be dispensed with". According to the council, the monument was indeed originally intended to have a roof and interior walls but these were never built due to a lack of funding. However, The Chronicle has reported that this is a myth and a roof was never planned.

19th century
Before its completion, the Carlisle Journal said Penshaw Monument would be "one of England's proudest architectural wonders, and a fitting memorial of one of its wisest statesmen". However, its design initially met with a hostile response in architectural circles: in 1844 The Civil Engineer and Architect's Journal called it "as arrant a piece of 'nonsense architecture' as can well be imagined" and derisively compared it to a cattle pound. The Art Union was similarly scathing: it was critical of the idea of a Greek temple, which it said "does not bespeak much of either invention or judgement". It concluded: "To us it appears to be one of the most absurd, ill-imagined, and ill-contrived things ever devised, utterly devoid of significancy, purpose, or meaning."

The Civil Engineer and Architect's Journal termed the presence of pediments despite the absence of a roof a "gross and palpable violation of meaning and common sense". The Athenaeum was similarly critical of the roofless pediments—"the building will look as if there had originally been a roof to it, which had fallen in!"—and expressed disapproval of the lack of cella and inner walls, writing that the architects had "cut the Gordian knot" by omitting them. The decision to make the walls and columns hollow was condemned by The Athenaeum, which called the structure "nearly as much a sham, as if it were composed of cast iron coloured in imitation of stone" and said it "may be intended as characteristic... of an age which estimates plausible appearances above solid worth". The Art Union agreed: the hollowness of the columns, it said, "partakes too much of sham construction, with little if any thing to recommend it on the score of economy".

The Athenaeum wrote that climbing the monument's stairs could be dangerous, and The Art Union condemned the staircase as "dreadfully narrow and inconvenient". The Civil Engineer and Architect's Journal believed that those who ascended the monument would "have to promenade somewhat after the fashion of crows in a gutter", and suggested that the architects ought to have provided a terrace on the roof of the monument, accessible by a wider staircase. The Athenaeum expressed confusion at the absence of a statue or commemoration of the Earl of Durham, believing that "although it may not yet be definitely settled what it is to be, something must surely be intended".

In 1850 The Times was more complimentary: "The position and architecture of this structure are both extremely fine, and viewed from the railway it produces the best effect." At the Great Exhibition, which took place in the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, London in 1851, a model of the monument made of cannel coal was exhibited as part of the event's Mining and Metallurgy section. In 1857 William Fordyce wrote: "The temple is remarkable for its grandeur, simplicity and imposing effect, nothing in the shape of ornament or meretricious decoration being introduced". In his graphic novel Alice in Sunderland, which explores Lewis Carroll's connections to Sunderland, Bryan Talbot suggests that Carroll may have been inspired by the monument, comparing the door leading to the monument's stairs to a scene omitted from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865), in which Alice knocks on a door in a tree. In his 1887 story "The Flower of Weardale", author William Delisle Hay described the monument:

"Upon the crest of a bare and ugly eminence that towers above the Wear, there stands a mighty experiment in stone: a Grecian temple, splendid and solemn, with its columns and entablatures, yet blackened and stained by the sooty atmosphere, and looming grandly through the rolling smoke-clouds rising from the collieries down below, over which it lords, and with which it has no fellowship.

Queer art, curious taste, surely, which has raised this majestic memorial of an aesthetic age and clime, and planted it, severe and solid, here in the centre of the now most prosaic county of practical, toiling, prosaic England! A monstrous monument, set up a few decades ago in honour of some notability, dead and in spite of it forgotten! Yet may this modern Durham folly on Penshaw Hill emblematize the passage of the centuries, and serve, at any rate, to indicate to us a spot whereby there hangs a legend of elder England."

20th and 21st centuries
The monument is often described by recent sources as a landmark which indicates to locals that they have returned home after a long journey; it is no longer widely associated with John Lambton. It is a key part of Sunderland's cultural identity, frequently depicted by local photographers and artists. Nationally, it is viewed as a symbol of the North East alongside the bridges of the River Tyne and the Angel of the North. Sunderland A.F.C.'s current crest, adopted in 1997, features a depiction of Penshaw Monument; according to Bob Murray, the club's chairman at the time, it was included "to acknowledge the depth of support for the team outside the City boundaries".

In 2006 the monument featured alongside Hadrian's Wall and the Sage Gateshead in a television advertisement for the "Passionate People, Passionate Places" campaign, which was intended to promote North East England. It was produced by RSA Films, a company founded by the directors Tony and Ridley Scott, both natives of the North East. In 2007 the structure came second in a poll of places which inspired the most pride in residents of the region, behind Durham Cathedral and Castle; in a survey conducted by the advertising company CBS Outdoor, 59% of people from Sunderland said Penshaw Monument was an important landmark. It appears in Richard T. Kelly's 2008 novel Crusaders. The National Trust has said that since it reopened the structure's staircase in 2011, "for some making it to the top has become a sort of personal pilgrimage, with many visitors finding it an inspiring and often quite emotional experience".

Bryan Ferry, lead singer of the band Roxy Music, grew up in Washington, and often visited Penshaw Hill with his father. He told The Times that the monument made a significant impression on him as a child, and seemed "like a symbol... representing art, and another life, away from the coal fields and the hard Northeastern environment; it seemed to represent something from another civilization, that was much finer". He has conceded, however, that the monument is "essentially a folly, a building without purpose". In his book on Roxy Music, Michael Bracewell describes the experience of approaching the monument: "its immensity drawing nearer, the heroic ideal of the place falls away. Grandeur gives way to mere enormity, statement to silence, substance to emptiness.... [T]his solid memorial... was designed, like stage scenery, to be appreciated from a distance."

Alan Robson called the monument "a striking example of Doric architecture" in an article for the Evening Chronicle. The Independent James Wilson thought it "perplexing" and a "seriously silly folly". The Journal Tony Jones called it "a visible but under-rated symbol of regional identity". David Brandon described it in The Guardian as an "extraordinary... symbol of the Earl of Durham's insanity and county pride". The Northern Echo Chris Lloyd compared Penshaw Monument to the Angel of the North, calling both "beautifully pointless". Tony Henderson, also of The Journal, wrote that the lack of roof and interior walls "has been to the advantage of the monument as it allows the dramatic play of light among the columns". In her Monument Guide to England and Wales, Jo Darke called the monument "a great northern landmark"; architectural historians Gwyn Headley and Wim Meulenkamp have described its blackened surface as "a satanic response to the pure white Hellenic ideal". Nikolaus Pevsner wrote that "the monument looms as an apparition of the Acropolis under hyperborian skies". In his book The Northumbrians, historian Dan Jackson praised it: "It is a building of great gravitas, and its austere Doric silhouette dominates the landscape for miles around."

title: Penshaw Monument


text: User talk:80.134.196.86

title: User talk:80.134.196.86


text:
Niko Pirosmani

Nikoláy Aslánovich Pirosmanashvíli (ნიკოლოზ ფიროსმანაშვილი) or Niko Pirosmani (ნიკო ფიროსმანი), simply referred to as Nikala (ნიკალა Nik’ala; 1862–1918), was a Georgian painter who posthumously rose to prominence. Relatively poor for most of his life, he worked a variety of ordinary jobs. His rustic, everyday scenes are celebrated today for their depiction of the Georgia of Pirosmani's lifetime, and he has become one of the country's most beloved artistic figures.

Niko Pirosmani is alleged to be the inspiration for the male protagonist portrayed in the famous Russian song Million Roses.

Biography
Pirosmani was born in the Georgian village of Mirzaani to a peasant family in modern-day Kakheti province. His parents, Aslan Pirosmanashvili and Tekle Toklikishvili, were farmers, who owned a small vineyard, with a few cows and oxen. He was later orphaned and left in the care of his two elder sisters, Mariam and Pepe. He moved with them to Tbilisi in 1870. In 1872, while living in a little apartment not far from Tbilisi railway station, he worked as a servant to wealthy families and learned to read and write Russian and Georgian. In 1876, he returned to Mirzaani and worked as a herdsman.

Pirosmani gradually taught himself to paint. One of his specialties was painting directly into black oilcloth. In 1882, with self-taught George Zaziashvili, he opened a painting workshop, where they made signboards. In 1890, he worked as a railroad conductor. In 1893, he co-founded a dairy farm in Tbilisi, which he left in 1901. Throughout his life, Pirosmani, who was poor, was willing to take ordinary jobs including housepainting and whitewashing buildings. He also worked for shopkeepers in Tbilisi, creating signboards, paintings, and portraits, according to their orders. Although his paintings had some local popularity (about 200 survive) his relationship with professional artists remained uneasy; making a living was always more important to him than aesthetic abstractions.

In April 1918, he died in the 1918 flu pandemic as a result of malnutrition and liver failure. He was buried at the Nino cemetery; the exact location was not registered and is unknown.

Work
Pirosmani's paintings were influenced by the social conditions of his time and place. There are many works about merchants, shopkeepers, workmen, and noblemen groups. Pirosmani was fond of nature and rural life. He rarely employed city landscapes. He made many animal paintings. He was the only Georgian animalist. Pirosmani also was attracted by historical figures and themes such as Shota Rustaveli, King Tamar, Giorgi Saakadze, as well as ordinary Georgian people and their everyday lives.

Usually, Pirosmani painted on oilcloth. Unlike other artists, Niko didn't aim at a pure imitation of the nature and paid no attention to details. Some of his paintings are monochrome. His paintings demonstrate the author's sharp compositional consideration. Placements of the figures are frontal, while faces do not demonstrate a specific mood.

In the 1910s, he won the enthusiasm of the Russian poet Mikhail Le-Dantyu and the artist Kirill Zdanevich and his brother Ilia Zdanevich. Ilia Zhdanevich wrote a letter about Pirosmani to the newspaper Zakavkazskaia Rech, which it published on February 13, 1913. He undertook to publicise Pirosmani's painting in Moscow. The Moscow newspaper Moskovskaia Gazeta of 7 January wrote about the exhibition "Mishen" where self-taught painters exhibited, among them four works by Pirosmani: "Portrait of Zhdanevich", "Still Life", "Woman with a Beer Mug", and "The Roe". Critics writing later in the same newspaper were impressed with his talent.

In the same year, an article about Niko Pirosmani and his art was published in Georgian newspaper Temi.

The Society of Georgian Painters, founded in 1916 by Dito Shevardnadze, invited Pirosmani to its meetings and began to take him up, but his relations with the society were always uneasy. He presented his painting "Georgian Wedding" to the Society. One of the members published a caricature of him, which greatly offended him. His continuing poverty, compounded by the economic problems caused by the First World War, meant that his life ended with his work little recognised.

Posthumous reputation

After his death, Pirosmani gained international reputation when he became admired as a 'naïve' painter in Paris and elsewhere. His paintings were represented at the first big exhibition of Georgian painters in 1918. From 1920 onwards, a number of articles were published about him. The first monograph on Pirosmani was published in 1926 in Georgian, Russian, and French.

Interest in Pirosmani increased in the 1950s. In 1969, a film about him was made, titled Pirosmani. He inspired a portrait sketch by Pablo Picasso (1972). Pirosmani is also depicted on a Georgian lari bill (although this bill is rarely seen in circulation today, since 1 lari coins are far more common). A periodic newspaper titled Pirosmani is published in two languages in Istanbul. In 1983 Edward Kuznetsov produced the first catalogue raisonné on Pirosmani's work, entitled Niko Pirosmani, 1862-1918 .

Exhibitions of his work have been held in Kyiv (1931), Warsaw (1968), Paris (The Louvre) (1969), Vienna (1969), Nice and Marseilles (1983), Tokyo (1986), Zurich (1995), Nantes (1999), Turin (2002), Kyiv, Istanbul (2008), Minsk, Vézelay and Vilnius (2008–2009), Vienna again (2018–19) and Basel (Foundation Beyeler) (2023–2024).

Today, 146 of his works are shown in the Art Museum of Georgia and sixteen paintings are exhibited in the Historical-Ethnographic Museum of Sighnaghi. A monument was installed in Tbilisi. There is also the Niko Pirosmanashvili Museum in Mirzaani, Georgia, in one of his abodes.

Recent discoveries
In March 2011, it was discovered that the writing on the door of Qvrivishvilebi's wine-cellar in Ozaani was made by Pirosmani. On 31 May 2011, during an investigation, experts discovered a painting, which proved to be "Wounded Soldier" by Pirosmani. The painting was given to the National Gallery of Georgia.

title: Niko Pirosmani