text:
Talk:J. D. Tippit

J.D./Jefferson Davis
I, like everyone else, have always thought that JD stood for Jefferson Davis, but I just learned via Dale Myers book that JD doesn't stand for anything at all. Myers quotes JD's brother Wayne Tippit as saying "It was just an initial name". (page 588) and, well, the guy's brother is a pretty authoritative source. Gamaliel 09:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I looked him up in the 1930 Census (Red River County, Texas) and he is listed there as "Jd" while his brother is listed as "Donald R.". Gamaliel 10:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * So this guy has no first name? Just the initials "J.D."?? Wolfdog 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not too uncommon in the Southern US for people to have names like that, so it would not surprise me. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you both missed Gamaliel's point. Myers refers to the brother as Wayne but the census lists him as Donald R. So if, and emphasizing the if, Myers got the name wrong, maybe he's wrong about the JD too. Or maybe somebody claiming to be JD's brother sold him a false story. Akld guy (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the above. JD had multiple brothers: http://www.jdtippit.com/tree.htm. - Location (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

J.D. and J.R. are pretty common as stand-alone names in that time and place. Sometimes an initial only would be given to stand in for more than one possible name. Harry S. Truman's middle initial is one such example.2605:6000:7B44:4500:A0C0:1046:D232:B861 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Assassination
Like all aspects of the Kennedy assassination, the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Officer Tippit has been questioned by conspiracy believers. Many assassination books discuss the Tippit shooting in limited detail. The most comprehensive authoritative volume, and the only book dedicated exclusively to the Tippit shooting and its aftermath, is Dale K. Myers' With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit. Myers' book discusses the conspiracy theories surrounding Tippit's murder and documents the true facts. While other conspiracy-oriented books provide alternative viewpoints, none are as complete and well-documented as With Malice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.110.76 (talk • contribs).

David Belin of the Warren and Rockefeller Commission is fond of saying, "Lee Harvey Oswald killed policeman Tippit. Since the case against Oswald for the Tippit slaying is so strong, it follows that Oswald also shot the President." The case against Oswald in the Tippit murder is as weak as the case against him in the JFK assassination. The most important evidence showing that Seymour and another one of the assassination team shot Tippit is the fact that six witnesses, ignored by the Warren Commission, saw two men shoot Tippit. One of them resembled Oswald. They ran away from the scene in opposite directions. Seymour ran toward the Texas Theater, throwing the planted shells up in the air so that witnesses would see and recover them. (This act would convince most people that Oswald did not shoot Tippit.) The other assassin ran in the opposite direction. There is some indication that Seymour entered the theater in a manner to draw attention and then left before the Oswald arrest. While the shells recovered were found to match Oswald's pistol, none of the bullets recovered from Tippit's body matched. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.1.5.244 (talk • contribs).

Page overhaul
Hi. I am responsible for the overhaul of this page. I have tried to lay out both the Warren Commission's version of Tippit's murder as well as the criticism of the Commission in a fair and accurate manner. I welcome you comments. Joegoodfriend 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I took out the statement of the Dallas DA because it may give his opinion undue weight, as he never had a chance to really develop a case and his opinion may have changed as the investigation continued. I also linked this article to the "theories" article and to LHO for clarity.  I also took out language like "substantial" in various parts because they usually violate NPOV.  Otherwise, I don't have much problem with what was added.  Although some other editors may want to challenge the books as reliable sources.  I won't get into that, I'm sure the publisher put these works through some sort of fact checking process before putting the information out. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Shot to the temple
It's stated by some investigators that Oswald went up and shot him in the temple (after shooting him three times), apparently no witness sees Oswald going close to Tippit and shooting him. Plus, Tippit's entrance wound does not bear any gunpowder burns. Detective Jim Leavelle himself has stated that "he wouldn't go up to him, he's trying to run away". In any case, Oswald fired ALL four shots from over the car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.48.255 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Markham testimony
I have removed the article's claim that:
 * Helen Markham however stated repeatedly in her testimony to the Commission that she could not identify anyone in the police lineup she was shown that included Oswald. Warren Commission Hearings Vol. III, p.310-1

From her testimony to the Warren Commission, vol. III, p. 311:
 * Mr. Ball: Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
 * Mrs. Markham: Mostly from his face.
 * Mr. Ball: Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?
 * Mrs. Markham: I am sure.

and again, vol. III, p. 318:

 * Mr. Ball: Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had seen shoot Officer Tippit?
 * Mrs. Markham: Yes, I did.
 * Mr. Ball: Did you identify him because of his clothing that he had on at that time in the lineup.
 * Mrs. Markham: Just like I told you. I mostly looked at his face, his eyes, and his clothing, too.

— Walloon 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to object to the phrase "Contrary to twelve other witnesses who saw a single individual either shooting Tippit or fleeing the scene". Many of these witnesses merely saw Oswald running somewhere between the murder scene and the theater. Joegoodfriend 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The pages you cite also do not contain the quotes you cite. Where did you get them? Here's an actual quote:
 * Ball: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
 * Markham: No, sir.
 * Ball: You did not? Did you see anybody? I have asked you that question before-did you recognize anybody from their face?
 * Markham: From their face, no.

Joegoodfriend 00:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Domingo Benavides testimony
I have removed the article's claim that:
 * The Commission incorrectly concluded that Domingo Benavides called police from Tippit’s radio immediately after the killing. Benavides had testified that he did not approach the car "for a few minutes" after the shooting, (Warren Commission Hearings Vol. VI, p.448) and even then he was unable to use the radio.

From his testimony to the Warren Commission:
 * Mr. Benavides: I saw him as he was falling. The door was about half way open, and he was right in front of the door, and just about in front of the fender. I would say he was between the door and the front headlight, about middleway when he started to fall. . ..
 * Mr. Belin: Then what did you do?
 * Mr. Benavides: Then I don't know if I opened the car door back further than what it was or not, but anyway, I went in and pulled the radio and I mashed the button and told them that an officer had been shot, and I didn't get an answer, so I said it again, and this guy asked me whereabouts all of a sudden, and I said, on 10th Street. I couldn't remember where it was at at the time. So I looked up and I seen this number and I said 410 East 10th Street.

— Walloon 00:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a modified version of Benavides and Bowley's statements. Joegoodfriend 01:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Poe testimony
I have removed the article's claim that:
 * There is also evidence to indicate that the cartridge shells recovered from the scene may not have been those subsequently entered into evidence. Two of the shells recovered at the scene were given to police officer J.M. Poe, who marked them with his initials. (Warren Commission Hearings Vol. VII, p.69) However, no initials were found on the shells later produced by the police.(Warren Commission Hearings Vol. XXIV, p.131-5.)

Officer Poe specifically testified he was not sure whether he initialed the cartridges or not. From his testimony to the Warren Commission, vol. VII, p. 69:
 * Mr. Ball: Now, I have here a package which has been marked "Q"--FBI lab. Q-74 to Q-77. Would you look those over and see if there is any identification on there by you to indicate that those were the hulls given to you by Benavides?
 * Mr. Poe: I want to say these two are mine, but I couldn't swear to it.
 * Mr. Ball: Did you make a mark?
 * Mr. Poe: I can't swear to it; no, sir.

— Walloon 01:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Modified version of the paragraph restored indicating that Poe merely believed he had marked the shells. Poe was adamant on all other occasions that he had marked them with his initials.Joegoodfriend 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Man, Scoggins, and source credibility

 * 1. I use the term "the man" up to the point in the narration where Oswald is identified because that is precisely the convention used in the Warren Report.
 * 2. Scoggins did not see the shooting.
 * 3. Meagher, Summers and Hurt are researchers whose works have been published and reprinted for decades. Their works are well-regarded in the research community, and their verifiability is not any more in question than the dozens of websites cited as sources in all the JFK assassination related pages on wikipedia. Joegoodfriend 16:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I didn't add the tags, but was aware that their might be an issue with them. I am not sure if we are asking to verify the credibility of the research, but the credibility of the claim.  Personally, I was aware of Summers and Hurt, but I've never heard of Meagher.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Accessories After the Fact By Meagher is one of the best-regarded books on the subject from the 1960's. It deals almost entirely with comparisons the WC's conclusions with the evidence and testimony before it. As for Oswald's walking speed, Meagher simply calculated it by taking the times of his locations from the WR and measuring the distance between those locations.
 * Frankly, I consider marking these sources with the credibility tag to be a cheap shot, as there are dozens of web sites and dubious sources used as cites on the various JFK articles on wikipedia, and not one of them has a credibility tag.Joegoodfriend 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * With all the books and research I've seen and read on this subject, I guess one just slipped through the cracks. Although, I was aware of the issue some raised about the time it would take from Oswald's boarding house to Tippit's murder scene, I never knew that Meagher was the originator of the theory.  Well, that's why I come to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Picture
We need a picture of the officer, So this arcticle could be better.Poke mudkip 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Lane and Helen Markham
Mark Lane was notoriously manipulative in his telephone conversation with witness Helen Markham. He repeatedly tried to get her to say that Tippit's killer was "short, heavy, and with bushy hair." A transcript from Lane's own book. Mrs. Markham identified Tippit's killer as Oswald at the police lineup on Nov. 22, 1963, the day of the assassination, she identified Tippit's killer as Oswald in her telephone conversation with Mark Lane on March 2, 1964, and she identified Tippit's killer as Oswald in her Warren Commission testimony on March 26, 1964. — Walloon 01:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would characterize Markham's statements in a different way than you would. She was prompted repeatedly to identify Oswald as she continued to make vague, inconsistent and nonsensical statments. However, honestly, I have to admit you're right about Lane. If you want to cut the Lane stuff out, I won't fight it. Thanks for opening this in talk before making changes. Joegoodfriend 01:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * the WRC lead investigator described markham as a "fruit cake" and a "nut job". and wrote a memo suggesting that folks will figure out she is the only witness of tippits murder and that testimony is "nicely buried for now" kinda suggesting she is not a great witness, as to the police lineups the WRC investigator states "she is all over the yard here". 204.101.140.23 (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment of Mrs. Markham's reliability. If she were my witness, I'd be pulling my hair out. — Walloon 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Police lineups
"Oswald was also shown to witnesses in police lineups that otherwise consisted entirely of teenage boys." Here are the teenage boys from Oswald's police lineups at 4:35 and 6:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963, the first two of his four lineups. The other men in his third lineup, at 7:55 p.m. that day, were Richard Walter Borchgardt (born 30 May 1940), Ellis Carl Brazel (born 24 Nov 1941), and jail clerk Don Ables. The other men in Oswald's fourth and last lineup, at 2:55 p.m. on November 23, were John Thurman Horn (born 6 November 1945), David Knapp, 18, and Daniel Lujan (born 15 February 1937). — Walloon 05:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, you have done a good job on this research. Perhaps the lineups were not as "unfair" as some authors have suggested. Joegoodfriend 03:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * the lineups were not good, the first had two detectives in suits both at 6 foot towering over oswald and a janitor in long sleeves. the second had two teens who have been photographed and filmed at the time who look much younger than oswald and neither of them are weaing t shirts. 204.101.140.23 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Dallas Police dispatcher
"The original police transcript in the National Archives also lists the time of transmission as 1:10 PM. Reference: Armstrong, John, Harvey, Lee and Tippit: A New Look at the Tippit Shooting, Probe Magazine, Vol. 5, No.2." Not true. Verbal time stamps made by the Dallas Police dispatcher show that the first report of the Tippit shooting was transmitted over Channel 1 some time between 1:16 and 1:19 p.m. (Click on the speaker icon at the bottom right of each highlighted section to hear the recording.) Specifically, the transmission by T.F. Bowley from the site of Tippit's shooting begins 1 minute 41 seconds after the 1:16 time stamp. The original transcript also reports that the first report of the Tippit shooting was transmitted some time after the 1:16 time stamp. — Walloon 05:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have found several references to the transcript with the 1:10 timestamp, but I haven't seen the actual copy. Suffice to say that if it exists, it contradicts the evidence above. I also think there is the possibility that police tampered with the transcripts. However, under the circumstances, I have no objection to the change. Joegoodfriend 15:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When you click on the words "original transcript" above, you are seeing the "actual copy" in the National Archives. — Walloon 17:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My reference does not of course refer to that copy, but to a different version of the same document whose existence, alas, I cannot document with a hard copy. PS-I think all your recent edits to the page have been fine.Joegoodfriend 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm a law student, with a journalism background, and I'm trying to put both to use when editing here, e.g., standards of proof, rules of evidence. — Walloon 04:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconds
"17 minutes and 45 minutes" seems to be a mistake for "17 minutes and 45 seconds". — 86.139.209.191 03:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Minimise
Murray Jackson seems to be trying to minimise the extent to which his friend was behaving provocatively with Tippit's own gun. All witnesses say that Tippit's gun was completely out of its holster. This is probably the explanation of the sudden explosion of violence after the previous friendly conversation between the two. See http://www.jdtippit.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.205.24 (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From the testimony of Helen Markham:
 * Mr. DULLES. [Oswald] stepped back two steps from the car?
 * Mrs. MARKHAM. Just stepped back twice. Mr. Tippit, of course, the policeman — I didn't know it was Mr. Tippit —
 * Mr. DULLES. Yes.
 * Mrs. MARKHAM. He calmly opened the door. He calmly crawled out like he wasn't angry.
 * Mr. DULLES. Did he have a weapon in his hands?
 * Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't see one.
 * Who is Murray Jackson? — Walloon 13:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Murray J. Jackson was a friend a Tippit's and a policeman. M.J.Jackson is referred to in the web-site mentioned by
 * 212.158.205.24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Benavides said "The gun was in his hand." See Warren Commission, Vol.6, page 449.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See Warren Commission, Vol.23, page 817. This shows that Benavides was much closer to Tippit than
 * Mrs. Markham was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See Warren Commission, Chap.4, page 169. "Apparently he had reached for his gun;
 * it lay beneath him outside of the holster." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.212.139 (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cartridge shell argument
Suggest that the two paragraphs that begin with "presence of the cartridge shells" be deleted. They are argumentative, unencyclopediac, not supported by citation, and have only the most tenuous relationship to a biography of Tippit. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I've reverted it. I placed the tags in the hope that some citations would be forthcoming. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain this passage currently in the article:
 * Further[,] the appearance of cartridge shells at the crime scene raises question[s] for some because, according to Officer Hill, who took possession of Oswald's revolver at his arrest, the gun's six chambers were fully loaded with unspent cartiridges and that Oswald had no loose ammunition on his person.

What questions does it raise? Oswald was arrested about a half hour after the shooting of Office Tippit. Is that passage implying that Oswald didn't have time to reload his pistol in a half hour? — Walloon 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC) One thing I find strange is that Poe says he saw an automatic pistol, and Oswald had a .38 special revolver. Yet it isn't mentioned what kind of cartridge casings were found. .38 automatics use .38 ACP which is a different cartridge, so it would be a pretty big deal which kind the empty cartridges were, since if they were .38 ACP they wouldn't work in Oswald's gun, and if they were .38 special then there is something wrong with seeing an automatic pistol...85.157.155.247 (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any indication that Poe "saw" an automatic. I believe he indicated in his preliminary report that the evidence was suggestive of an automatic. Specifically, the fact that the casings were lying on the ground. An automatic ejects its casings, a revolver doesn't. Poe probably didn't think Oswald was crazy enough to empty the casings and reload right at the crime scene. Poe didn't know Oswald. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Taxi drop-off time
"However, the accuracy of Roberts' estimate can be confirmed by the fact that Oswald had been dropped off by cab three blocks away from his rooming house at 12:57 p.m. (Myers, With Malice, p.380.)" I have removed this inaccurate claim from the footnote about Earlene Roberts' estimate of Oswald's arrival at his rooming house. It is not an established "fact" that Oswald had been dropped off at 12:57 p.m. The only witness to Oswald's being dropped off was the cab driver, William Whaley, who recorded the journey in his log as occurring between 12:30 and 12:45 p.m. Whaley later testified that he routinely rounded off journeys to the nearest quarter-hour: "Now that could have been 10 minutes off in each direction because I didn't use a watch, I just guess, in other words, all my trips are marked about 15 minutes each." — Walloon (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is true that the word "fact" may be out of order. It is with irony that I quote the Warren Report, but here goes, "The Greyhound Bus Station at Lamar and Jackson Streets, where Oswald entered Whaley's cab, is three to four short blocks south of Lamar and Elm. If Oswald left the bus at 12:44 p.m. and walked directly to the terminal, he would have entered the cab at 12:47 or 12:48 p.m. If the cab ride was approximately 6 minutes, as was the reconstructed ride, he would have reached his destination at approximately 12:54 p.m. If he was discharged at Neely and Beckley and walked directly to his roominghouse, he would have arrived there about 12:59 to 1 p.m. From the 500 block of North Beckley, the walk would be a few minutes longer, but in either event he would have been in the roominghouse at about 1 p.m. This is the approximate time he entered the roominghouse, according to Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper there. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1119-A, p. 158.)"
 * I could rewrite the footnote using the above as 1:00pm being "the Warren Commission's estimate." What do your think? Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do, use "12:59 to 1:00 p.m." as the Warren Commission wrote. However, Vincent Bulgiosi makes a good argument that the WC was three minutes off on the taxi's departure time from the Greyhound Station:
 * Warren Commission assistant counsel, with a stopwatch, reconstructed with Whaley the route he took with Oswald, leaving the cabstand at the Greyhound bus depot around 12:48 p.m., most likely several minutes later than Oswald actually left there. I say that not only because Oswald would have probably been walking at a fast pace from the time he left the Depository, but most importantly because the most reasonable assumption is that Whaley put 12:30–12:45 p.m. on his trip ticket because he left at some time prior to 12:45 p.m., making the Warren Commission estimate of a 12:48 p.m. departure from the bus depot at least three minutes too late. It makes little sense that if Whaley left the depot at 12:48, he would record his departure time as being between 12:30 and 12:45 p.m.
 * You could also add that the HSCA, in its reconstruction of the event, concluded Oswald arrived at “approximately 12:55 P.M.” (HSCA Record 180-10115-10004, September 19, 1977, p. 2). — Walloon (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Impatient me just added both estimated times of arrival to the footnote. — Walloon (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This change has my endorsement. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Criticism of the case against Oswald
I have reverted the recent changes made to this section by an anonymous newbie editor. This is long-standing consensus text that should not be changed without discussion on this talk page. Furthermore, researchers need not automatically be labeled 'conspiracy theorists' simply because they uncover evidence possibly at variance with the Warren Commission's conclusions. Finally, the article does not need unsupported text regarding what is "generally accepted." Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tippit was behind Oswald

 * Seeing as Tippit was driving east and Oswald was walking in the same direction, Officer Tippit had to have been behind Oswald-yet he was convinced that the slender white man walking ahead of him just had to be the 5'10, 165 pound, thirty year old, white man who had assssinated the President three miles away, less than an hour before. Pretty good reckoning for a guy who never went beyond the 10th grade in high school.--jeanne (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty insulting to imply that someone with a 10th grade education was stupid. Are you saying with a higher education Tippit could have better recognized Oswald? Tippit actually had two years of vocational training before he was hired as a police officer, and served as a patrol cop for eleven years before he was killed. Second point: There is evidence that Oswald was walking west on Tenth St., and turned around and began walking the opposite direction, away from Tippit's squad car, which was traveling east, when Tippit approached him. Half of the witnesses who saw Oswald on Tenth (before he met Tippit) said he was walking west; the other half of the witnesses, who saw Oswald only as he encountered Tippit, said he was traveling or facing east. See the section Why Tippit stopped Oswald of Dale K. Myers' blog. Myers wrote an entire book about the Tippit killing. — Walloon (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gasway or Gasaway
The article gives his wife's surname as Gasaway, but I have seen it on Tippit sites throughout the Internet written as Gasway. Which is the correct version?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Even the external link provided gives her name as Gasway so I'm going to change the article from Gasaway to Gasway.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Benavides, Reynolds
I have removed two paragraphs by Mardude containing erroneous information about Tippit shooting witness Domingo Benavides, and post-shooting witness Warren Reynolds. First, it claims, "His [Reynolds'] shooter, Darrell Garner, was caught and not convicted". Garner was never charged with the shooting. Garner was arrested because earlier that day he had been on the Reynolds car lot trying to sell a car without a title, and became very angry with Reynolds. No other evidence linked him to the shooting, and he was eventually released. It is unfounded and impermissible to say that Garner was Reynolds' shooter. Mardude also writes that Garner's girlfriend, Betty MacDonald, "was a former employee of Jack Ruby, a stripper at the Carousel Club." The Warren Commission investigated and found she had never worked there (Warren Report, p. 663).

Mardude also wrote, "[Domingo] Benavides look-alike brother Eddy Benavides was killed by a shot in the back of the head in a beer joint on Second Avenue in Dallas. Since the case remained unsolved, J.W. Jackson, Domingo's father-in-law, did some investigating himself." Actually, Edward Benavides was shot by a drinking companion, who confessed to the killing and served twenty months in prison for manslaughter. — Walloon (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Markham and the 'numerous witnesses'
Walloon, why did you delete the text, "Markham made numerous false statements before the Commission, such as claiming to have been alone with Tippit's body for twenty minutes after the killing." ?

Markham testimony: P. 584

Markham (referring to Oswald): ...he turned and run and that's when I run to Mr. Tippit.

(snip)

Question: I see, and you went over to Officer Tippit then?

Markham: Yes sir.

Question: Did you have a chance to talk to him?

Markham: Yes sir.

Question: And, did he say anything?

Markham: Yes sir, he tried to talk to me.

(Obviously untrue. Tippit was dead.)

P. 590:

Markham: They wouldn't even come out and help me and do nothing after it was over.

Question: Even after it was over they didn't come out?

Markham: Not till the police, the ambulance came first then the policemen came.

Question: I see. How long would you say it was after the shooting until the first person came out?

Markham: About 20 minutes before.

Question: About twenty minutes before anyone came out?

Markham: Yes sir.

Question: And the officer was in the car dying all that time?

Markham: On the ground dying.

Also, I have to object to the text that Tippit, "according to numerous witnesses... was shot and killed by Lee Harvey Oswald". I'm aware that numerous witnesses observed Oswald at or near the scene, but I believe only Markham is identified as literally seeing the shooting and literally identifying him as the shooter. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is from a transcript of a telephone conversation Helen Markham had with Mark Lane, not testimony she gave before the Commission, which is what the article claimed it was. — Walloon (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Oh yeah I get it. Wasn't this tape recorded though? She really did say it, right? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never heard the tape recording itself, so I can't vouch for it. Several words in the transcript are marked "(unintelligible)" or "(phonetic)"; the call was made to the diner where Markham worked, during her shift. As for Tippit appearing to try to talk, Frank Cimino, who lived across the street, and who was the first person to join Markham, said that he saw Tippit move slightly and groan.

 * This is the call infamous for Lane (acting as Marguerite Oswald's attorney, although he didn't tell Markham that) trying again and again to get Markham to say that Tippit's killer was short, heavy, and bushy-haired. — Walloon (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory section longer than standard official version official
Deleted conspiracy theory section since it is too long and since there is a separate article on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCDane (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverted your deletion. Criticism of the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting and JFK assassination conspiracies theories are two separate, only tangentially related subjects. There's no overlap between the two articles on the two subjects. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Redeleted for same resaonable cause originally stated.

reverting editor is mistaken when he characterizes deletion as "Criticism of the case against Oswald" and not "JFK assassination conspiracies theories". Any theory other than Oswald as lone gunman is an assassination theory, and the deleted text is concerned with nothing other than broader conspiracy. --NCDane (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary
The introductory summary of this article states that "according to multiple government investigations including the Warren Commission, was shot and killed by Lee Harvey Oswald after Tippit stopped Oswald". But I see no mention of any other government investigation that reached this conclusion. Could the article at least mention one of these other "multiple government investigations" to substantiate this statement? MisterSquirrel 18:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterSquirrel (talk • contribs)
 * I have added the House Select Committee on Assassinations and an appropriate source within the body of the article. Location (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Should this be kept on here?
I am not doing a vandlism. (Sorry for spelling mistake)

Butch Burroughs, the ticket collector at the Texas Theater who also ran the concession stand, says that Oswald came into the Texas Theater between 1:00 and 1:07 pm, making Oswald's alleged 1:15 shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p4AvezLnG0 should it be put on here which I did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.0.98 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please add a citation from a reliable source (something other than youtube). Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This youtube video is an excerpt from an interview of Butch Burroughs by author James W. Douglass, and is quoted on page 291 of his book "JFK and the unspeakable: why he died and why it matters". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.179.140 (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree that YouTube is not a reliable source. The discussion of the timeline in this context revolves around a conspiracy theory that is already discussed in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Location (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the case against Oswald
I have restored this section of the article to its long-standing consensus text. This text should not be deleted with the idea that the subject is covered in other articles. First of all, it is not in fact covered in other articles, and second, the details of JD Tippitt's murder are appropriate to this article. They are not inherently a part of any JFK assassination theory, nor are they inherently part of Lee Harvey Oswald's personal biography. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I have reverted this change. The subject of dissenting theories involving Tippit is covered sufficiently in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. In fact, this section was copied verbatim from it. An editor above put it correctly that the amount of text devoted to those theories was much more than that devoted to the official version... and that is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Elaborating on discrepancies based solely on primary sources is a violation of WP:OR. The secondary sources that elaborate on those discrepancies do so in the context of various conspiracy theories and that also warrants the "Main article" tag. If there is disagreement, an RFC should be opened for involvement by the wider community. Location (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Two or Four?
The Lee Harvey Oswald pages says four investigations but this section says two investigations, spelling error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.148.219 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears as though there were four investigations that said Oswald killed Kennedy, but only two of them touched on Oswald killing Tippit. I have made the change. Location (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Tippit's pistol
There is still no reference in the article to the fact that Tippit had drawn his pistol before Oswald fired. See the paragraph "Minimise" above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.67.194 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Warren Commission's report states: "Apparently he had reached for his gun; it lay beneath him outside of the holster. Callaway picked up the gun." This could mean that Tippit fumbled for his gun as Oswald raised his weapon. It doesn't seem to be an important addition, but you could certainly make a proposal for appropriate wording. Location (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

What type of service pistol did Officer Tippit carry? L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Smith & Wesson K-frame revolver, .38 calibre, 4-inch barrel (therefore presumably the usual Military & Police Model 10 .38 Special favoured by most officers), serial 138278, which Tippit had registered with the Police Department on recruitment in 1952 and carried ever since. It's Texas, so officers provided their own weapons and the Police Department just set certain requirements such as a minimum 4-inch barrel for revolvers for uniformed duty. Nowadays they are supposed to renew their sidearms every couple of years, but it wasn't a requirement then.

Oswald's mail-order murder weapon was a version of the same revolver, but a wartime Victory Model manufactured for Lend-Lease supply to Britain, with British ordnance marks on the cylinder, and originally chambered for .38 British Service 200-grain or .38 S&W which is not the same as .38 Special. For US commercial resale, the gun was re-chambered for .38 Special and the 4-inch barrel was shortened. As .38 Special is actually .357, the barrel was slightly overbore. The fatal bullets were not precisely matched to Oswald's revolver because of the overbore factor, but the lands were consistent with Oswald's revolver and the gas-erosion marks meant that they were fired from an overbore weapon. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Myers' book a reliable source?
Myers' book With Malice is cited several times but the book was self-published. According to Wikipedia guidelines:

 * 'Self Published Sources

 * Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[9]'

Myers is known as a computer animation expert and in that capacity did work relating to images of the shooting of JFK. I'm unaware of anything that qualifies him on other aspects of the assassination let alone of the Tippit killing. Unless someone can justify its use I will edit the entry to remove claims sourced to the book.

Lenbrazil (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are only 3 cites to Myers, and I think they are all noncontroversial and available elsewhere. Should be an easy fix. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've recently bought Myer's updated book. It's been praised by many people including Vincent Bugliosi and James Ewell and uses actual documents and radio log transcripts as supporting evidence. Personally, think it's a pretty reliable book, but I'm not sure if the praise for the book passes the "established expert" matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeHarveyDongwald (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016
The words "allegedly" should now be added to all statements concerning the killing of Tippit by Oswald. There is no authoratative substantiate evidence of Oswald having any involvement with Tippit.

Mysteriogo (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: read through any of the cited sources in the J. D. Tippit section Cannolis (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2016
Revise Infobox from: | death_place = Dallas, Texas

Revise Infobox to, as previous versions were correct as stated:

 * death_place = Methodist Hospital Dallas, Texas

Note: Tippit was transported from the scene of the shooting on 10th Street by ambulance to Methodist Hospital where he was examined by two physicians, then pronounced dead at 1:25 pm by Dr. Richard A. Liguori.

69.209.233.203 (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I think that's a bit specific for the infobox field. Typically, it's just a location, with inline text in the article itself mentioning a particular hospital or venue. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 22:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Date of Burial
You give Officer Tippit's burial date as Nov 25th. Robert Morningstar insists Officer Tippit was buried the day after he was shot Nov 23. Also the photograph of Officer Tippit is the so called 'Elvis Photograph' which was taken 15 years before he was shot, why is a more recent photograph of the Officer never shown?

The current theory by some researchers is that it was Officer Tippit, not JFK who was shot in the Limo is Dallas while serving as a 'security stand in double for JFK'. The grounds for this theory are 1 No one anywhere in Dallas can provide credible proof for where Officer Tippit was on the day of the shooting. 2 Officer Tippit was a virtual twin of JFK and was the but of friendly jokes by his fellow Dallas Officers who called him 'Jack Tippit' after JFK. 3 there was a closed casket at the fallen Officers (alleged funeral) in which he was hurriedly buried (supposedly). The photographs of the 'President' in Bethsada Hospital look nothing like JFK they do resemble Officer Tippit. There was no conspiracy to kill JFK that day in Dallas, simply a security operation that went tragically wrong. The motive for the sensless murder of Officer Tippit while acting as a stand in was indignation at the 'fake' parade.

My sources for most of the data about Dallas Nov 22 are from the work of Robert Morningstar, but I have left out his frankly unbelievable theory that Officer Tippit was shot to provide a corpse for an autopsy. All the 'Mob Plots' 'CIA Plots' and goodness knows whatever els nonsense stories are just cover smoke to hide a tragic, but understandable failure of security in Dallas that day. Johnwrd (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. D. Tippit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120713021658/http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/index.asp to http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/index.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on J. D. Tippit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128163743/http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/21/15329670-dallas-to-mark-50th-anniversary-of-jfks-assassination-with-memorial-ceremony?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=7 to http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/21/15329670-dallas-to-mark-50th-anniversary-of-jfks-assassination-with-memorial-ceremony?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314091028/http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/jfk_19rosetta.html to http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/jfk_19rosetta.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Widow of Dallas officer slain by Lee Harvey Oswald dies
Widow of Dallas officer slain by Lee Harvey Oswald dies .... Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Why so much
There is barely anything known about J.D Tippet.So why is there so many topics on Talk 47.188.66.194 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Who are Cunningham and Nicol?
In the 10th paragraph of the Murder and Investigation section, the text refers to two names (Cunningham and Nicol) as if they had been previously mentioned in the article, when they were not. There is absolutely no context as to who these people are or why their opinion matters. I take it that they testified before the Warren Commission, but this section needs to be re-written to make more sense. As someone reading the article for the first time I was very bewildered when the two names were mentioned (when you mention someone by their last name only in an article like this, it's typically because they have already been introduced and context given, so when I got to this point I thought I had missed a section of text).  M r A urelius R  Talk! 22:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See note b and reference 39. They were FBI experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B901:6854:A6D5:E933:ABD (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Burns reference
I don't see why, in the first section, the Burns family is referenced along with the Tippit family. I can't find any other reference to Burns in the article and I don't see the connection. Al Begamut (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:J. D. Tippit


text:
Talk:Nicholas Humphrey

Untitled
from VfD:

Vanity. Has several books published, but what professor doesn't? As far as I can tell, he doesn't stand out from tens of thousands of other professors around the world. SWAdair | Talk 09:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Poor guy. Born in '43, and still got nothing to say about himself. Delete. - Vague | Rant 09:59, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete: There probably is quite a lot to say about him. Those are not everyday posts he's holding.  However, nothing has been said, so delete if the article is not expanded into a contextualizing and discussion of the figure before the end of VfD. Geogre 15:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Extreme, hyper keep, please do your research before firing off these deletes. I've added a partial bibliography. If Sollog gets an article, this guy should get three. If he put up the original article, he was just being modest. Wyss 22:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Dagnabbit. I hope someone can talk about the guy.  Seriously.  I want to vote to keep, but just a list of publications makes it "CV" territory.  Geogre 01:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * http://www.humphrey.org.uk/biograph__sketch.htm
 * Keep. This individual appears to be noteworthy.  There is no point in the destruction of this article.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 23:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. How many of those abovementioned professors have a book that's gone through four printings and been translated into five languages? --Carnildo 00:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? Supercallifragalistickeep.  —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:26, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure on the professor, but delete the journals. Every professor on earth has published in plenty of journals; unless any of them are some sort of breakthrough they don't establish notability and don't serve a purpose. Just looks like vanity. -R. fiend 07:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How many of them have multiple articles published in Nature? Wyss 12:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A very small proportion of professors have that many articles in the most elite journals such as Nature. I can't fathom what purpose it would serve to remove such information about this guy's career.  Wouldn't someone interested enough to look up an article on this guy also be interested in his most notable publications? Wolfman 18:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Then add to his bio that he's been published in Nature. Or maybe include one or two of his most important writings for journals (if you actually have any idea which they are), but by no means include them all. Since when is it incumbent on us to mention everything anyone has ever had published? Do we do that for all other professors and/or authors?-R. fiend 19:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's already clearly listed as a partial bibliography, apparently of his more important works. In what way will the article be improved by removing information about his research, the very essence of his notability?  Wikipedia is not paper. Wolfman 22:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "Apparently" his more substantial works. Has anyone verified that? Yeah, being published in Nature is a substantial achievement in the field of the life sciences. Outside of that it's worth a brief mention, but we don't need the guy's resumé here. Are any of those articles notable in and of themselves? I'm sure someone in the field who wants to know about this guy may want to know everything he ever published, but that person is not going to look in wikipedia for it. They're obviously going to look in the publications and websites associted with his field of science. I don't know where Wyss got this list, but I'm pretty sure he just cut and pasted it without knowing the details of what these articles are. My point is, no other professor has this sort of listing, why should he? Keep the books, mention he's been published in Nature and New Scientist and some others, but unless you can verify that some of these articles he wrote in these journals are particularly important (we don't have articles on every person who's ever been published in Nature) they shouldn't be listed.-R. fiend 23:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion
 * Keep Apart from writing all of the books listed in the article, this fellow has made a Channel 4 series and delivering the Bronowski Lecture on the BBC, he has worked with people such as Dian Fossey and Daniel Dennett. He is one of the leading thinkers on the development of the human mind. I would hope that we could turn this into a good article by the end of vfd - I hope to work on it tomorrow. If it is not improved, it should be sent to Clean up. Capitalistroadster 11:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment on SWAdair's deleteion rationale: First, the vast majority of professors do not have several books published (at least in economics, but I presume other fields are similar).  Most at major research universities do have quite a few journal articles published.  However, most professors are not at major research universities, and a good number of these have published very little (a handful of articles in minor journals) if anything.  Second, if this person were considered an "author" rather than a "professor" then surely publishing several (non-vanity press) books would be considered notable enough for an article.  Wolfman 18:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have added details of his significant research work, books and television series. Capitalistroadster 11:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep after Capitalistroadsters work (marginal keep even before). Also keep his bibliography, which is clearly significant for a researcher. As to the "professor test" and all that, it is simply too badly defined to be useful, or perhaps only intended to be applicable to American professors. / up+land 11:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is potentially useful material. P Ingerson 12:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Published various books on a scientific subject. I do think the current article is getting rather long for a subject like this, though. - Andre Engels 10:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Brilliant scientist, great broadcaster. He's up there with Susan Greenfield, but I don't support the nominator has heard of her either. We're getting some pretty whacky VfDs lately.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This academic is one of the founding fathers of Evolutionary Psychology. Furthermore, he along with Lawrence Weiskrantz has made notable contributions to certain neuropathologies like blindsight. One of his aforementioned articles on blindsight made the cover of Nature — I think that is notable in itself! Bmpdragon (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Skepticism of the paranormal
Would it be notable to mention in the article Humphrey's arguments against the paranormal? The book Soul Searching develops a principle that Humphrey calls the "Argument from Unwarranted Design" and applies it to reach a skeptical stance on psychokinesis, extra-sensory perception and other claims of the supernatural.MartinPoulter (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2x External Links
Why are there two different sections called "External Links"?--Stefan Hartmann (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Nicholas Humphrey


text:
Gilbert Cannan

Gilbert Eric Cannan (25 June 1884 – 30 June 1955) was a British novelist and dramatist.

Early life
Born in Manchester of Scottish descent, he got on badly with his family, and in 1897 he was sent to live in Oxford with the economist Edwin Cannan. He was educated at Manchester Grammar School and King's College, Cambridge; he started on a legal career, but turned to writing in 1908, after a short spell as an actor.

Career
Cannan worked first as a translator, and a reviewer in London publications. Many of his novels are in part autobiographical, and fit into a novel sequence the Lawrie Saga, around the character Stephen Lawrie. Samuel Butler was a major influence on his fiction. In 1914, the novelist Henry James in an article in The Times named Cannan as one of four significant up-and-coming authors, alongside D. H. Lawrence, Compton Mackenzie and Hugh Walpole.

He was employed as a secretary by J. M. Barrie, working with him in their efforts against censorship of the theatre by the Lord Chamberlain. A relationship developed in 1909 between Cannan and Barrie's wife Mary Ansell, a former actress who felt neglected in her marriage. Cannan had been wooing Kathleen Bruce, who at the same time was receiving advances from the explorer Robert Falcon Scott. When Bruce decided to marry Scott, Mary Barrie's sympathy for Cannan developed a momentum of its own. Her husband sought to be reconciled, but relented and divorced her in a high-profile case, and she and Cannan were married in 1910. Cannan was caricatured as Mr. Gunn, a minor character in George Bernard Shaw's 1911 drama Fanny's First Play.

During World War I he was a pacifist and then conscientious objector, and was involved in the National Council Against Conscription. He used his experiences in later novels, making the character Melian Stokes in Pugs and Peacocks a portrait of Bertrand Russell. He had known Ottoline Morrell from before the war. During it he moved in her circle, introducing her to D. H. Lawrence, and knew also Dora Carrington, Dorothy Brett and the artist Mark Gertler. Cannan's book Mendel was based on Gertler's early life (Mendel being his Yiddish given name), and explored his relationships with C. R. W. Nevinson and Carrington. Gertler painted Gilbert Cannan and his Mill; the picture is now in the Ashmolean Museum. The mill was at Cholesbury in Buckinghamshire, where Cannan was living in 1916, and which attracted a number of his intellectual circle (including Lawrence and his wife Frieda, and Katherine Mansfield and John Middleton Murry). The picture also shows the Cannans' two Newfoundland dogs, Sammy on the left and Luath, who was also Barrie's dog before his divorce from Mary Ansell and the inspiration for Nana, the Darling children's nurse in Peter Pan. In 1916, partly in response to the devastating effects of the war and the threat of conscription, Cannan suffered a mental breakdown, an experience which he vividly described in his book, The Release of the Soul.

His marriage ended in 1918 when he had an affair with Gwen Wilson who later married Henry Mond in 1920 while Cannan was lecturing in the United States. Unconventionally, Cannan lived with Wilson and her new husband in a ménage à trois in their home, Mulberry House, in Smith Square, Westminster. A hint of their relationship is suggested in Cannan's dedication of Letters from a Distance "to Gwen, without whose courage, tenderness and force there would have been no author to write these letters."

After the war Cannan devoted himself to writing, translation work and travel but another mental breakdown in 1923 proved untreatable. He became a mental patient at the Priory Hospital, Roehampton. He then spent the rest of his life confined to Holloway Sanatorium near Virginia Water where he died of cancer on 30 June 1955.

Family
The poet May Wedderburn Cannan and her sister, the writer Joanna Cannan, were cousins of his, daughters of the academic Charles Cannan (Dean of Trinity College, Oxford, and Secretary to the Delegates of Oxford University Press); as was Professor Edwin Cannan, the noted LSE economist (and brother of Charles Cannan); Joanna's daughter Diana Pullein-Thompson was his biographer. Joanna Cannan's son, Denis Cannan was also a dramatist.

Works

 * Jean-Christophe by Romain Rolland (1910–1913) translator
 * Peter Homunculus (1909) first novel
 * Heinrich Heine's Memoirs, edited by Gustav Karpeles (1910) translator
 * Devious Ways (1910) novel
 * Little Brother (1912) novel
 * The Joy of the Theatre (1913) essays
 * Four Plays (1913)
 * Round The Corner (1913) novel
 * Love (1914)
 * Old Mole (1914) novel
 * Old Mole's Novel (1914) novel
 * Satire (1914)
 * Young Earnest – The Romance of a Bad Start in Life (1915)
 * Samuel Butler: A Critical Study (1915)
 * Windmills: A Book of Fables (1915) fantasy
 * The Right to Kill (1915) play
 * Adventurous Love and Other Verses (1916)
 * Three Pretty Men (1916) novel (Published in the US as Three Sons and a Mother)
 * Mendel: a story of youth (1916) novel, closely based on Mark Gertler's early life
 * Everybody's Husband (1917) play, performed at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre with incidental music by Maurice Besly
 * The House with the Mezzanine, and Other Stories by Anton Chekhov (1917) translator with S. S. Koteliansky
 * The Stucco House (1917) novel
 * Freedom (1917) (Essays, Non Fiction)
 * The Anatomy of Society (1919) (Essays, Non Fiction)
 * Time and Eternity (1919)
 * Pink roses (1919) novel
 *  My Life (1920)
 * The Release of the Soul (1920) (Essays, Non Fiction)
 * Pugs and Peacocks (1921)
 * Sembal (1922)
 * Annette and Bennety (1922)
 * Noel – An Epic in Seven Cantos (1922)
 * Seven Plays (1923)
 * Letters From a Distance (1923) (letters reprinted from the New York Freeman.)
 * House of Prophecy (1924)
 * Diary of A. O. Barnabooth by Valery Larbaud, translator

title: Gilbert Cannan


text:
Category:Education in Denmark

This category collects all articles about education in Denmark. Please use the respective subcategories.

title: Category:Education in Denmark


text:
User:Trieu

 * <Trieu>

List of my contributions on Wikipedia:
Dual_space

title: User:Trieu


text:
User talk:Tarunthegreat

Welcome message
Hi Tarunthegreat. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

I noticed that you haven't signed your very useful contribution to the discussion on Purchasing Power Parity in Talk:India. It's not that you've to sign, but it helps.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp.

If you need editing help, visit How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. You can use the Show preview button before you save, to make sure your edits do what you intended.

Some time when you're bored, you can read through our policies and guidelines.

If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

-- Sundar 09:30, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tarunthegreat


text:
Southwest Ranches, Florida

Southwest Ranches is a town in Broward County, Florida, United States. It is a suburban community part of the Miami metropolitan area and is located on the eastern edge of the Everglades, 15 miles (24 km) southwest of Fort Lauderdale and about 22 miles (35 km) northwest of Miami. It is unusual in that it consists of three non-contiguous areas, albeit they are in close proximity; the two largest being separated by 1455 ft. It became the county's 30th incorporated place in 2000 to avoid annexation into Pembroke Pines and to preserve its semirural lifestyle. Because the area has many horse ranches and is located in the southwestern part of Broward County, residents chose "Southwest Ranches" over other potential town names.

The population at the 2020 census was 7,607. The town includes the former census-designated places of Country Estates, Green Meadow, Ivanhoe Estates, Rolling Oaks, and Sunshine Ranches (as well as subneighborhoods Landmark Ranch Estates and Sterling Ranch Estates), all of which are now Southwest Ranches neighborhoods. To support its rural-equestrian lifestyle, the town has developed many equestrian trails.

History
Prior to European colonization, the Tequesta were the native people in the southeastern part of Florida for almost 2,000 years from 500 BCE to the 18th century CE when the Spanish conquered Florida. In the 1970s archeologist excavated a Tequesta burial site, with artifacts that go back to more than a thousand years, that was part of a former Everglades tree island. There is also an old Indian trading post in the town.

In 1996, Pembroke Pines proposed a bill to the Broward County Legislative Delegation to annex all the unincorporated areas between Griffin Road, Sheridan Street, Flamingo Road, and SR 25 into Pembroke Pines. Hundreds of citizens from the unincorporated area of Southwest Ranches packed the delegation hearing in November 1996 at Pembroke Pines City Hall to protest this takeover and to call for the right to form their own city. As a result of this grassroots effort, the State Legislature passed a bill in the 1997 session that called for a vote of Southwest Ranches' citizens in March 2000; they could be annexed into either Pembroke Pines or Davie, or become a new city.

Southwest Ranches Homeowners Association was an umbrella group composed of individual homeowners associations in the Southwest Ranches area. Anyone belonging to an individual homeowners association was also automatically a member of the group, with full voting rights. In 1997, its members agreed to actively promote incorporation of a new city for the area and formed a political committee to explore this option. A feasibility committee was appointed to determine if a new city would be viable. They would have to know if revenues would be adequate to cover the costs of running a city. Dr. Milan Dluhy of Florida International University was contacted and asked to complete a formal feasibility study; Dluhy had produced many such studies for groups that subsequently became successful cities. The committee also contacted Moyer and Associates, the company that provides contract services to Weston.

The feasibility committee determined that a contract city would be the best option. Contracting would allow the city access to experienced professionals without having to hire these individuals on a full-time basis. This would save taxpayers money and avoid many costly capital expenses. Moyer and Associates provided the feasibility committee and Dr. Dluhy with financial information on which to base estimates of both income and expenses. The committee also considered the figures provided by the PMG study. PMG is the company hired by Broward County to conduct a study comparing the costs of Pembroke Pines and Davie to the costs of being incorporated into a new city.

On July 3, 1999, the Southwest Ranches Homeowners Association sponsored a parade and picnic to declare the area's independence. Speakers at the event included then-Senator Howard Forman, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, County Commissioner Lori Parrish, Sheriff Ken Jenne, and Weston Mayor Harry Rosen. The bill passed in 1997 authorized the vote in 2000 to determine if residents wanted to form their own city. If the vote was for a new city, a charter was to be drawn up and an election forming the city held in 2001. Leaders realized, however, that if a charter could be drawn up sooner, it could be approved in 2000 and the city formed a year earlier, which would be financially beneficial to the residents.

A charter committee was formed to draw up a charter. The committee met almost weekly during July and August 1999, and formulated a new charter, using the Weston charter as a template. A contest was held to name the town, with 122 different names submitted. A vote was held on October 12, 1999, to select one of the top five names, which Southwest Ranches won. Southwest Ranches Homeowners Association members voted to move forward and request a local bill to allow incorporation in 2000 instead of 2001, which was approved. On March 14, 2000, residents voted overwhelmingly to form a new town rather than be annexed.

The most contentious issue during charter committee meetings was whether or not to have districts. The majority of members felt that council members should be elected at large, meaning that any qualified candidate could run for a seat, no matter where that individual lived, but some felt that candidates should only be able to run if they lived in one of four districts. When the election to approve the charter was held on June 6, 2000, the issue was put to a vote, and the majority of voters selected districts. Council members were elected on July 25, 2000, and the town was officially established.

The area is primarily residential, with most lots consisting of 1 acre or more. Some are small farms and equestrian ranches. The town has laws that keep homes from being built on lots less than an acre. To conserve the town's rural lifestyle, the laws also generally prevent streetlights and sidewalks from being constructed.

2020 census
As of the 2020 United States census, there were 7,607 people, 2,024 households, and 1,730 families residing in the town.

2010 census
As of the 2010 United States census, there were 7,345 people, 2,210 households, and 1,844 families residing in the town.

2000 census
As of 2000, before being annexed to Southwest Ranches, those who spoke only English accounted for 82.09% of Green Meadow residents, while those who spoke Spanish at home made up 17.90% of the population. In the Rolling Oaks neighborhood, those who spoke only English accounted for 70.42% of all residents, while Spanish speakers were 29.57% of the population. In the Country Estates neighborhood, English-only speakers were 78.46% of the populaiton while Spanish speakers made up 21.53% of the population. In the Sunshine Ranches neighborhood, 76.22% of residents spoke only English while 22.16% spoke Spanish 1.61% spoke Italian.

Economy
The Florida Department of Corrections operates the Region IV Correctional Facility Office on the grounds of Broward Correctional Institution in the former Country Estates CDP and in Southwest Ranches. The Broward prison formerly housed the female death row, which was moved to the Lowell Correctional Institution in February 2003.

Parks and recreation
To support its rural-equestrian lifestyle, the town has developed miles of multiuse trails. People can be often be seen riding horses or bicycles or walking the trails that spread throughout the town. Since incorporation, the town has also acquired seven open-space parks, only one of which has been developed so far. This park includes a schooling ring, a show ring, and the Equestrian Oasis, an art installation primarily used to provide drinking water for horses.

Government
From the time of its founding until 2012, the town conducted its business from a modular office at the South Broward Drainage District headquarters. In 2012, the town, under the leadership of Vice Mayor Doug McKay, renovated a former church to create Southwest Ranches' first permanent town hall. Police and emergency services are provided by the nearby town of Davie.

Southwest Ranches' charter defines the governing body as a council with one mayor and four council members. The mayor and the council members are elected at large from the electorate of the town, but the council members represent districts in which they must reside. The mayoral role is largely ceremonial with no more power than any council member. Other charter positions serving Southwest Ranches include the town administrator, financial administrator, and town clerk.

The town's first council consisted of Mayor Mecca Fink, Vice Mayor Johnny Dollar, Forrest Blanton, Freddy Fisikelli, and Astor Knight.

Education
Southwest Ranches is served by Broward County Public Schools.

 * Greentree Preparatory Charter

 * Archbishop McCarthy High School

Notable people

 * River Alexander, actor
 * Ricou Browning, actor and film producer
 * Gisele Bündchen, Brazilian model
 * Vernon Carey, American football player
 * Miss Cleo, television psychic
 * Daunte Culpepper, American football player
 * Karlos Dansby, American football player
 * Vontae Davis, American football player
 * T. J. Duke, racing driver
 * Juan Gabriel, Mexican singer, songwriter, and actor
 * Udonis Haslem, basketball player
 * Tyreek Hill, American football player
 * Dwayne Johnson, actor and former professional wrestler
 * Sean Kingston, rapper and singer
 * Raw Leiba, actor and film producer
 * Uncle Louie, American talent manager
 * Trippie Redd, rapper
 * Rick Ross, rapper and record executive
 * Reggie Wayne, American football player

In media
In April 2019, the WSVN show Deco Drive featured a Southwest Ranches farm owned by Uncle Louie.

title: Southwest Ranches, Florida


text:
Dashakumaracharita

Dashakumaracharita (The narrative of ten young men, IAST: Daśa-kumāra-Carita, Devanagari: दशकुमारचरित) is a prose romance in Sanskrit, attributed to Dandin (दण्डी), believed to have flourished in the seventh to eighth centuries CE. However, there is some obscurity surrounding its textual tradition, the identity of the author and the date of composition.

It describes the adventures of ten young men, the Kumaras, all of whom are either princes or sons of royal ministers, as narrated by the men themselves (however, there are irregularities in the text). These narratives are replete with accounts of demigods, ghosts, prostitutes, gamblers, intrigues with voluptuous women, astonishing coincidences, cockfights, anthropophagy, sorcery, robberies, murders and wars. The reader is treated to some very striking passages; for instance, a seductive young girl (all of whose anatomical features are very frankly described) deftly prepares a fragrant meal of rice-gruel and vegetables for her prospective suitor in the sixth chapter of the Dashakumaracharita.

The seventh chapter of the Dashakumaracharita contains a specimen of lipogrammatic writing (a species of constrained writing). At the beginning of the chapter, Mantragupta is called upon to relate his adventures. However, during the previous night of vigorous lovemaking, his lips have been nibbled several times by his beloved; as a result, they are now swollen, making it painful for him to close them. Thus, throughout his narrative, he is compelled to refrain from using any labial consonants (प,फ,ब,भ,म).

The text
Most extant texts of Dashakumaracharita are composed of
 * 1) Pūrvapīthikā (पूर्वपीठिका, Prologue) divided into 5 chapters (Ucchvāsa, उच्छ्वास);
 * 2) The Dashakumaracharita proper, divided into 8 chapters;
 * 3) The Uttarapīthikā (उत्तरपीठिका, Epilogue), without any subdivisions.

Some text at the beginning and the end of Dashakumaracharita proper has been lost; thus it contains only eight of the ten narratives, and furthermore, the stories of Rajavahan and Vishruta are incomplete. The 1st and the 3rd parts seem to have been added later by various authors (some of whom have tried to mimic the style of the original); indeed, there are several disparate versions for these parts in existence.

The plot, as described below, almost makes a coherent whole. However, as mentioned above, it comes from the hands of multiple authors writing in possibly different centuries. There are small discrepancies between the three parts; e.g., the patronage of Pramati as described in the prologue disagrees with the one in Dashakumaracharita proper.

The Kumaras
The ten Kumaras are named in the first chapter of the prologue as follows:
 * 1) Rājavāhana (राजवाहन)
 * 2) Sōmadatta (सोमदत्त)
 * 3) Pushpōdbhava (पुष्पोद्भव)
 * 4) Apahāravarmana (अपहारवर्मन)
 * 5) Upahāravarmana (उपहारवर्मन)
 * 6) Arthapāla (अर्थपाल)
 * 7) Pramati (प्रमति)
 * 8) Mitragupta (मित्रगुप्त)
 * 9) Mantragupta (मंत्रगुप्त)
 * 10) Vishruta (विश्रुत).

Prologue
The first two chapters of the prologue form the frame story.

I
King Rajahamsa of Magadha is defeated in a war by the rival King Manasara of Malwa, and thence retires into the Vindhya forest together with his ministers. During his sojourn, he and his ministers respectively sire sons. Several other young men are brought to his dwelling due to various incidents (e.g., one is rescued from a river, another from a tiger, and still another wanders off from a battlefield during a skirmish). These altogether make the ten Kumaras. The men are schooled in several disciplines such as law, grammar, astrology, music, medicine and warfare.

II
The men are dispatched together by the King for a Digvijaya (world conquest). Prince Rajavahana comes across a Matanga Brahmana. The latter lures him into a scheme to conquer Patala (the netherworld), and the two disappear into the earth through a chasm. After the scheme is accomplished (and the Brahmana marries the daughter of the King of Asuras), Rajavahana returns to earth, only to find that his friends have all scattered away. Eventually, the young men will meet again and relate their adventures, which will form the body of the present work.

Rajavahana travels to Ujjain, where he meets Somadatta. The latter begins his narrative.

III
Somadatta had gone to Ujjain in search of the lost Prince, where King Mattakala has usurped King Viraketu. Somadatta finds a jewel near a river, and then gives it to a destitute Brahmana in charity. The latter has him imprisoned as a jewel thief. Somadatta discovers that his fellow prisoners are loyal to the minister of King Viraketu. They break free from the prison, raise an army and overthrow the usurper. The old king is restored to the throne and Somadatta marries his daughter. At the end of this narrative, Rajavahana and Somadatta accidentally meet Pushpodbhava and ask him to relate his adventures. The latter begins his narrative.

IV
Pushpodbhava saves a man falling from a cliff, who turns out to be his father, who had tried to commit suicide after becoming despondent for having lost his family. Shortly afterwards, he saves a woman from throwing herself in fire due to grief; this turns out to be his mother. Later Pushpodbhava acquires vast wealth by applying magical collyrium to his eyes to detect subterranean riches. He becomes enamoured of the beautiful damsel Balachandrika, who is facing unwelcome advances from a certain Daruvarma. Pushpodbhava spreads a report that Balachandrika is possessed by a Yaksha. He accompanies Balachandrika to Daruvarma's apartment disguised as her female attendant, kills him when he tries to sport with her, and blames the death on the Yaksha. He then marries Balachandrika.

V
Rajavahana relates his adventures. He had gone to the town of Avanti where he became enamoured of Princess Avantisundari (the daughter of Manasara, his father's enemy). Meanwhile, Manasara has temporarily abdicated his kingdom to practice penance and left Chandavarman in charge. Rajavahana and Avantisundari are married by a friendly conjurer who makes Chandavarman believe that the wedding ceremony is a delusion. The couple retires into a private chamber for amorous sport.

The Dashakumaracharita proper
In Chapter I, the text begins in the middle of Rajavahana's story.

I
The lovers are discovered by royal attendants and reported to Chandavarman, who becomes furious, arrests Rajavahana and imprisons him in a wooden cage. Then Chandavarman launches a military campaign against his rival King Simhavarman (carrying along the wooden cage onto the battlefield) and vanquishes him. Meanwhile, a message arrives from Manasara commanding that Rajavahana be executed. As he is about to be trampled to death by an elephant, the chain tied to his feet falls off and is revealed to be a nymph who had previously been cursed into assuming that form. Meanwhile, Chandavarman is killed by a thief. Several military allies of Simhavarman arrive at the scene, amongst whom all of Rajavahana's remaining missing friends are found. Now Apaharavarman is asked to relate his adventures.

II
Apaharavarman travelled to the city of Champa, where he became a gamester and a burglar and helped the maiden Kulapalika to gain her lover by enriching her with burgled wealth. A devious prostitute named Kamanamanjari had defrauded several people in that city. Apaharavarman falls in love with her sister Ragamanjari, tricks Kamanamanjari into giving back her money to her former paramours, and marries the sister. Later he rashly attacks a soldier and is imprisoned. The jailor Kantaka uses his services to dig a tunnel out of the prison into the royal palace since Karnataka is enamoured of the princess and wishes to visit her in secret. However, Apaharavarman kills the jailor and escapes through the tunnel.

III
Next, Upaharavarman relates his adventures. He had returned to his own country Videha in search of the Prince. He meets his old nurse who informs him that his father's kingdom has been usurped by King Vikatavarman. He entices the king into a trap to perform a magical rite in order to exchange his (the King's) old and shrivelled body for a new one and succeeds in killing him. The kingdom is restored to his father.

IV
Arthapala narrates his adventures. He had gone to Kashi where he heard the plight of Kampala (his father, and a former royal minister). The latter was sentenced to death by the evil King Simhaghosha. While Kampala is being led to his execution, Arthapala drops a poisonous snake on his body and makes him fall down senseless. The seemingly dead body is carried away and later restored to life by Arthapala (who knows anti-poison charms). Later Arthapala overthrows Simhaghosha and marries the princess Manikarnika.

V
Pramati relates his adventures. While travelling through the Vindhya mountains, he fell asleep under a tree. During the night he was transported by a nymph to the palace of the princess Navamalika, with whom he fell in love. In order to gain the princess, he hatches a plan in consort with a Brahmana (whom he has met at a cock-fight). The Brahmana dresses Pramati in female garb, and leaves 'her' in the protection of the King (Navamalika's father) telling the King that 'she' is the Brahmana's daughter. While in the palace, Pramati wins the princess's affection, but then absconds and joins the Brahmana. The two approach the King, and the Brahmana presents Pramati as his prospective son-in-law who has come to claim his future wife. The King is, of course, unable to produce her, and is forced to give up his own daughter in order to propitiate the Brahmana (who otherwise threatens to immolate himself). Thus Pramati is wedded to Navamalika.

VI
Mitragupta relates his adventures. He had travelled to the Suhma country, where, by the grace of the goddess Durga, the king had obtained two children, a son (Bhimadhanva) and a daughter (Kandukavati). The goddess had stipulated that the son should be subordinate to the daughter's husband. The princess chooses Mitragupta as her husband in a public festival. This infuriates Bhimadhanva (who resents being subordinated to a stranger) and he throws Mitragupta into the sea. He is rescued by a passing vessel of Yavanas who want to hold him as a slave. However, at the same time, their ship is attacked by Bhimadhanva's party. Mitragupta helps the Yavanas in repelling the attack and wins their favour. The ship drifts off to an island and Mitragupta lands on the shore. There he meets a Rakshasa who threatens to eat him unless he answers the following four questions: 1. What is cruel by nature? 2. What ensures the happiness of a householder? 3. What is love? and 4. What is the best means of achieving difficult things? He answers 1. The heart of a woman, 2. The virtues of a wife, 3. Imagination and 4. Ability. He illustrates his answers by four stories (told in full in the text). The Rakshasa is appeased by these answers. Just then, another Rakshasa is seen forcibly carrying the princess Kandukavati through the air. She is rescued and then married to Mitragupta.

VII
Mantragupta relates his adventures, in a speech which is entire niroshthya (निरोष्ठ्य, i.e., without labial consonants). One night he sees that a Siddha (sorcerer) is about to sacrifice the princess Kanakalekha of Kalinga in order to obtain miraculous powers. He kills the sorcerer and rescues the princess who falls in love with him. The sorcerer's slave (a ghost) is overjoyed to be freed from his master and clandestinely carries Mantragupta into the palace, where he lives with the princess in the ladies chambers. One day, as the king of Kalinga (and the princess), is away on a hunting expedition, their entire retinue is surprised and made captive by the rival king Jayasimha. The latter wishes to possess the princess, who resists his advances. In order to rescue her, Mantragupta dresses in the rags and severed hair of the sorcerer and presents himself as an ascetic possessing magical powers. He convinces Jayasimha to bathe in a presumably enchanted lake which would frighten away the Yaksha who has presumably possessed the princess. Mantragupta hides himself in a cavity along the bank of the lake and drowns Jayasimha when the latter enters. He issues forth as the King (who has acquired a new lustrous body), frees the old king and marries the princess.

VIII
Vishruta begins to relate his adventures. While wandering through the Vindhya forest, he comes across a young boy accompanied by an old servant. The boy is the prince of Vidarbha whose kingdom has been usurped. This had forced the queen Vasundhara to take refuge (with her son and daughter) with Mitravarma, who proved to be a treacherous ally. Thus the queen is compelled to send away the boy to safety. Vishruta takes upon himself to help the boy. He sends back the servant and instructs him to spread a false report that the young prince is dead. He also sends a poisonous garland to the queen which she uses to kill Mitravarma. Then Vishruta arrives in the city with the young boy, restores the kingdom and meets the queen in a temple of Durga. The boy is restored to his rightful throne, and Vishruta marries the princess.

The text breaks off in the middle of Vishruta's story.

Epilogue
Later Vishruta restores the kingdom of Vidarbha to King Bhaskarvarman by leading an expedition against the usurper Vasantabhanu.

After the narratives have ended, a messenger arrives from the old King Rajahamsa (father of Prince Rajavahana). The King had been very mournful when the Kumaras had scattered away, but was comforted by a seer who assured him that they would return after sixteen years. This interval has now come to pass. The Kumaras return with an army to Ujjain, and succeed in defeating King Manasara. Various kingdoms are distributed to the Kumaras, which they govern with justice and happiness to all.

Authorship and relationship with the Avantisundarī
There has been extensive debate about the authorship of the Dashakumaracharita. The author is traditionally regarded as the poet and grammarian Daṇḍin who composed the Kavyadarsha, a manual on poetry and rhetoric, and according to Yigal Bronner, 'there is now a wide consensus that a single Daṇḍin in authored all these works at the Pallava court in Kāñcī around the end of the seventh century'.

In the early twentieth century, Agashe doubted this attribution on the grounds that the two works differ very widely in style and tone. Since a poet Dandin (presumably distinct from a prose writer) is also mentioned in sundry ancient Indian texts, he is led to conjecture the existence of at least three distinct Dandins. Since Dandin (literally, a staff-bearer) is also a common adjective for ascetics or religious mendicants, Wilson doubted whether it was the author's proper name at all.

On the other hand, in the mid twentieth century Kale accepted that Kavyadarsha and Dashakumaracharita had been written by the same person. On the basis of textual evidence from the Dashakumaracharita, he opines that the author must have lived earlier than the Muslim invasion of India, i.e., before the 11th century. Moreover, since the Kavyadarsha refers to the Prakrit poem Setubandha (सेतुबंध) composed in the 5th century, he is led to 6th-8th century as the most probable time of composition. (This remains in some tension with the fact that Dashakumaracharita is not referred to by any other text until the 10th century. There is also a conflicting tradition, generally considered unreliable,  which makes Dandin a contemporary of Kalidasa.)

Relationship with the Avantisundarī
Another work attributed to Daṇḍin is the Avantisundarī or Avantisundarīkathā (The Story of the Beautiful Lady from Avanti). Like the Dashakumaracharita this is in prose, but is even more fragmentarily preserved: the two surviving manuscripts break off early in the text. A later Sanskrit poem, the Avantisundarīkathāsāra (Gist of the Story of the Beautiful Lady from Avanti) seems to have summarised the full story, and its surviving portion covers more of the story, and more again is preserved in a thirteenth-century Telugu translation. These texts overlap significantly with the stories in the Dashakumaracharita. Precisely how the Dashakumaracharita and the Avantisundarī originally related is unclear. Although many have argued that the two must have been composed by different people, the Avantisundarī too is 'unmistakably ascribed to Daṇḍin by its colophons and by later sources'.

Several eminent scholars now believe on stylistic and other grounds that, as suggested by the verse summary and its Telugu translation, both the Avantisundarī and the Daśakumāracarita originally formed a single massive prose work that was broken up at a relatively early age in its transmission; another view is that the two represent separate stages in the life and work of the same author.

Editions and commentaries
The first translation, into Telugu, was produced by Ketana in c. 1250. Editions of the original Sanskrit text have been published in modern times by Agashe, Godbole and Parab, Kale, and Wilson. The work has been translated into English by Haksar, Jacob, Kale, Onians, and Ryder. In particular, the edition by Kale includes the original in Sanskrit, a literal English translation, as well as an extensive commentary on the stylistic and historical aspects of the text. In her translation of the lipogrammatic chapter, Onians omits the labial roman letters 'b', 'm' and 'p'. (E.g., she uses the circumlocution 'honey-creator' instead of 'bumblebee'). There is also a translation into German by Mayer.

Critical commentaries on the text have been written by, inter alia, Ghanashyama, Gupta and Pankaj. A more extensive bibliography may be found in Onians.

Historical research
The Dashakumaracharita has been used to examine the creation of the Ajanta Caves, interpreting it as an extended metaphoric telling of the 5th-century fall of the Vākāṭaka dynasty, and a comparison to the 7th-century Pallava dynasty, which is the period that the work is conventionally dated to. Spink argues that the work has an essentially historical core, almost readable as a roman a clef, which is an accurate account of the Vākāṭaka fall and that Dandin (or one of the Dandins) had a personal, perhaps familial, connection to the events in the 5th-century. Evidence from the text has also been used to establish the spread of the cult of Vindhyavasini in the period.

Criticism and analysis
The Dashakumaracharita has been compared to the Spanish genre of picaresque, linking the settings and drawing parallels 6th-century disorder of India to the disorder of Spain in the late mediaeval period. It has also been noted that the Dashakumaracharita, while fantastic, has realism that is not present in contemporary prestigious works, and involves thieves, prostitutes and other less exalted members of society. Dandin may have borrowed major themes from the Brihatkatha. It has been said to focus on "how people are, rather than how they should be".

title: Dashakumaracharita


text: Talk:Rabobank

title: Talk:Rabobank


text:
Talk:Yoo Young-chul

Untitled
Are there any references that say that Yoo Young-Chul is a cannibal ? Jay 09:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Did he keep his trophy? Did he have sex with the victims (before or after death)? -- Toytoy 12:06, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Clean-up
I took out everything except the introduction. There were no sources verifying the stories, and weren't written in a style appropriate for an encyclopedia. If anyone would like to add stories, check out the link at the bottom of the page. It offers background stories to some of his murders, and with a little digging one could better profile his actions and his victims. SolitaryThrush (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Yoo Young-chul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141112063430/http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=49958 to http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=49958

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yoo Young-chul


text: Template:Basketball positions

title: Template:Basketball positions


text:
File:Epr spectrum.jpg

EPR spectrum of spin-labeled (MTSL) cytochrome c Made by Przemyslaw "Tukan" Grudnik

title: File:Epr spectrum.jpg