text:
Talk:Gustav Stresemann

Untitled
I swear he got killed.... or does my memory fail me?

 * Heart attack. You're thinking of Walter Rathenau, I think. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Yes. You foul. Come on and hit me. Cara al sol con la camisa nueva que tú bordaste en rojo ayer, me hallará la muerte si me lleva y no te vuelvo a ver.

Formaré junto a mis compañeros que hacen guardia sobre los luceros, impasible el ademán, y están presentes en nuestro afán.

Si te dicen que caí, me fui al puesto que tengo allí.

Volverán banderas victoriosas al paso alegre de la paz y traerán prendidas cinco rosas: las flechas de mi haz.

Volverá a reír la primavera, que por cielo, tierra y mar se espera.

Arriba escuadras a vencer que en España empieza a amanecer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.142.218 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Poland
Molobo, in the final analysis international scholarship agrees that Stresemann was rather a peacemaker than a warmonger. On a more speculative note, he might arguably even have felt compelled to pay lip-service to the anti-Polish consensus of the time in order to keep his conservative adversaries at arm's length. Anyway, his occasional aggressive remarks concerning Poland remained inconclusive, which is why they are often forgotten. Kindly do not reverse the text's meaning to give our readers the opposite idea. --Thorsten1 22:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * In response to repeated attempts at disfiguring the wording on Stresemann's position towards Poland, let me repeat the point above: Stresemann's aggressive remarks towards Poland notwithstanding, it remains a fact that Stresemann is generally credited with stabilising German democracy and preserving peace. This included containing nationalist forces that were pushing towards a renewed border conflict with Poland. Wikipedia should not present Stresemann as a warmonger, when most scholars, all things considered, describe him as a peacemaker. Such an incongruity would certainly damage Wikipedia's esteem more than Stresemann's.
 * If anyone believes that Stresemann's overall peacemaker image in historiography is undeserved, they should try and revise it outside Wikipedia first, preferably in peer-reviewed publications; if their views gain wider currency, we can include them here. Anything else constitutes a violation of the no original research rule.
 * Before anyone accuses me of whitewashing interwar German foreign policy or Stresemann in particular: It was me who translated and added Stresemann's hostile statements about Poland. But, ultimately, such information can only add nuance to the big picture - we should not try to redraw it here. --Thorsten1 08:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't really believe this to be true

Wikipedia should not present Stresemann as a warmonger, What you believe about him is unimportant. Facts and what he said is important. --Molobo 19:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Streseman a peacemaker? Maybe for the west. Streseman once said that Germany has no territorial quarrels and demands - and that he is quite satisfied with 1914 borders. Streseman policy was actively agressive against Poland and he wanted to get Silesia and Pomerania. What's most terrifying is that France and UK were actually agreeing with him, causing a lot of bad blood and distrust in Poland. Szopen (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As for Pomerania, he had that already. Poland had gained part of Upper Silesia at Versailles, but as for the other part of Upper Silesia, the whole of Lower Silesia (except for the Lusatian parts of the erstwhile province that are German to this day - in Catholic terms: the diocese of Görlitz), and Eastern Pomerania were only ceded in 1945/70/90.--2001:A61:21B5:1801:D90A:8B32:F42F:A0ED (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Molobo's renewed attempts to overstate Stresemann's "aggressiveness" towards Poland
I just reverted Molobo's latest attempt to distort the description of Stresemann's role. For my rationale, see above. --Thorsten1 17:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved text
Somebody wrote a long text on Stresemann at Stresemann, Gustav (Weimar Era). I couldn't identify it as copyvio through just googling, and moved the text to Talk:Gustav Stresemann/Moved text, where it is available for possible later merging or other use. up+land 20:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

From WP:RD/H
I read an article recently that suggested that Gustav Stresemann was the one senior German politician who might have stopped Hitler. The Wikipedia page says that his death further 'tilted the slippery slope towards towards World War II.' Can either of these statements be supported? Captainhardy 07:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Sort of and yes, Captain. Hitler's rise to power was, in one way at least, the failure of democratic politicians to solve the crisis of the Great Depression.  After Bruning, von Papen and Schleicher (that spelt right?) had come and gone, the Depression was still there.  Stresemann, if he had survived to see it, could have been a "fourth lifeline" for Hindenburg before having to resort to Hitler.  Other than that, personally I don't think it's fair to say "Gustav Stresemann was the one senior German politician...".  Maybe there were other politicians who could have, but circumstances didn't work in their favour.martianlostinspace email me 10:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tilted the slippery slope?! How on earth does one tilt a slippery slope? Sorry, sorry; please forgive the levity, Captainhardy; this is a good question. Unfortunately, it is not one that can be answered with any real authority, because so much depends on hunch and guesswork. I have seen statements to the effect that Stresemann was the one individual who could have given real leadership to the 'middle ground' in German politics in the crisis that followed the Crash of 1929; that a new form of Protestant Liberalism may have been shaped from the ruins of the DVP, Stresemann's own party, and the DDP. He certainly had the personal and the organisational skills; but there is nothing to suggest that the hemorrhage of votes away from middle towards the Nazis could somehow have been prevented by force of personality alone, even if the personality was Stresemann.

The only possible grounds for serious counter-factual history would have been if Stresemann had stood for the Reich Presidency in 1932. The possibility was certainly discussed before his death. People often assume that Hitler came to power by electoral means; he did not. At no point did he obtain a majority in the Reichstag. He was, rather, 'elevated' to office by a small clique drawing on the constitional powers of President Hindenburg, himself lapsing into a state of senility. The Presidency, therefore, was the crucial political factor in Hitler's Machtergreifung. So, no Hindenburg, no Hitler. Stresemann, as President, is most unlikely to have appointed Hitler as Chancellor. But even then there may have been factors not completely within his control, not least of which was the attitude of the German Army, which had its own political agenda in the winter of 1932-3. Hitler happened; that much we do know. Clio the Muse 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While it is true that Hitler was elevated by this "Kamarilla" as it is called, the fact that he was the leader of the party which, yes, did have a majority in the Reichstag was certainly decisive. The majority was relative, of course, and the other (smaller, but taken together, of course larger) parties were vividly opposed to him (some of them: at first). In any case, the outspoken enemies of the Weimar Republic, which is: National Socialits 196 seats, Communists 100 seats, Conservative Nationalists (monarchist) 20 seats, theoretically held a comfortable majority (of the 584 seats) against those loyal to the Republic; add to that that the 20 members of the Bavarian People's Party were crypto-monarchists (at least for Bavaria; they did not necessarily like the Hohenzollerns) and that the 121 Social Democrats, while in practice one of the buttresses of the Republic, had still the long-term aim to replace the order of society by another (the Godesberg Programme dates from no earlier than the 1950s). Stresemann's party was reduced to 11 seats, the party that most identified with the Republic, viz. the German [Liberal] Democrats, to 5.
 * That said, Stresemann quite certainly would have stood in 1932 for President. Hindenburg (whose first presidency - despite, in the crisis situations, frequent use of Article 48 which however was, after all, an article of the constitution - does not seem to have been so thoroughly bad) was old; they only chose him because they found no other. And he would have been elected because the same parties would have rallied behind him as did behind Hindenburg; if anything, he would have been more acceptable to them. Now Hindenburg, by the way, particularly loathed the Social Democrats and Catholics (i. e. the Center Party) for electing him; he'd have preferred the votes of the DNVP, his own comrades-in-opinion... It seems probable that Stresemann might have withstood the pressure to swear in as chancellor the leader of the (relative) majority in Parliament (which was certainly among the president's prerogatives).--2001:A61:21B5:1801:D90A:8B32:F42F:A0ED (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is really POV
I have removed the following sentence "The reason were the atrocities against the German minority in the occupied territories committed by or tolerated by the Polish government, see: Hermann Rauschning" as this is grossly POV. The reference to the "occupied territories" implies that the lands lost by Germany to Poland after World War I still rightfully belonged to Germany. Through that was in fact Stresemann's viewpoint, presenting it like that as a statement of fact is very POV. Through the Polish government was more noted for breaching then observing the Minority Treaty, I think the term "atrocities" is a little too strong. Not allowing ethnic German children to attend a German language school for instance can hardly be considered an "atrocity". Anyhow, atrocities or no atrocities, Stresemann would had still wanted the former German lands back, so presenting Stresemann's determination to take all of the former German lands in Poland as only a response to Polish "atrocities" is highly misleading. Indeed, one can take this a step further and say that for Stresemann, like many other Germans in the 1920s, the problem were not so much Germany's borders with Poland, but the existence of Poland, period that was the issue. Plus, one is not supposed to be using another article to support a statement, so using the Rauschning article as a basis for that is also wrong. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This revision was clearly the result of a deep misunderstanding of Paul Schmidts text. It is true that the agendum of the session of the league of nations in Lugano 15 Dec. 1928 had been originally a complaint of the german minority in Poland about school questions. But the polish foreign minister Zaleski had taken this opportunity to blame the german minority in general "Wühl- und Hetzarbeit". As Stresemann heared this, he became very upset and formulated his charge against the polish government. And what did Stresemann say in detail? Heinrich Bauer gives an abstract (page 191): "Sofort trat ihm Dr. Stresemann entgegen in starker Emörung über diese Einstellung zu einem so erschütternden Fall menschlicher Leiden, der selbst vom Völkerbundsrat anerkannt worden sei. Er richtete einen so zwingenden Appell an den Völkerbund, seine Hand über die Rechte der Minderheiten zu halten, wenn er nicht sein ganzes Ansehen erschüttern wolle, daß Briand .." Confer the text of Briands replay in the article.I therefore re-introduced the removed passage, changing the vox "occupied territories" through "former german territories".In the Rauschning article the reader gets closer informations about what is meant by "atrocities" and therefore this link is unavoidable. And - by the way - why should cities which were founded and almost entirely inhabitated by germans until 1919 like Posen and Thorn belong to Poland and not to Germany?User:Jäger 01:10, 14 September 2010 (CET)
 * With all due respect, Jäger, you are wrong here. Your question posed here about why former German cities should not belong to Poland shows your problem here, namely you are following a German nationalist agenda. This is supposed to a talk page for dicussing improvements to this article, not a forum about why certain cities should belong to Germany, not Poland, but since the question was posed here, I'll give you an answer. First thing, it is totally irrelevant who founded what city when it becomes time to decide ownership. By your logic, New York should belong to the Dutch today since they founded that place. So the U.S. government should just surrender New York to give it back to the Dutch with no regard for the feelings of the vast majority of New Yorkers who see themselves as Americans. Second, Poznań was not "entirely inhabitated" by Germans. According to the German census of 1910, 57% of Poznań's population were Poles. And finally, the Polish people of Poznań were so unhappy about being under German rule that they revolted in December 1918 in order to rejoin Poland, something that you seem to have no interest in. Turning back to this article, you seem to be suggesting that Poland was waging some sort of genocide against its German minority in the 1920s. This is a most extraordinary claim that is only be backed up by a book written by Rausching all the way back in 1929. I'll have never, never' read anything to support that claim in any mainstream history book, ever (trust me, I'll have read a great deal about modern European history). If that is really true (and I'll very strongly doubt that it is), why don't you bring in some work by a historian publishing through an academic press or in a proper historical journal to support this uttery extraordinary claim that the Polish government was operating secret camps where thousands of ethnic Germans were "disappearing" (presumably murdered) in the 1920s, instead of a book published all the way back in 1929 by a man well known for his tendency to invent things? If your claims of genocide are true, you should have no trouble finding such an article or book by a historian published in the last ten years saying that (note that neo-Nazi cranks who often make that claim don't count). As far as I am aware, no historian today has ever endorsed Rausching's book, which makes it a bad source. Finally, the 1928 exchange at the League of Nations is being phrased to make it sound like the entire world stood in support of Germany's claims against Poland, and really needs to be rephrased. Really, I have no problem if you want to say that Stresemann complained about the schools question, but calling that an "atrocity" is way over the top. Saying that Stresemann wanted the land that used to belong to Germany returned is OK, but much of your edits seemed designed to defame Poland by painting that country as systematically oppressing its minorities, and thus justifying Stresemann's campaign, which is not OK. What you really should be thinking about is that is in the 1950s-1960s, the West German government rejected the Oder-Neisse line, and wanted a return to the German-Polish border of December 31, 1937, that is the frontier established by the treaty of Versailles. The same frontiers that Germans spent the entire 1920s-30s complaining about as totally unreasonable, a frontier that no German could live with is the same frontiers that Germans in the 1950s-60s wanted to see re-established, which might suggest that the borders set up by the Treaty of Versailles were no-where near as unreasonable as Stresemann and everybody else in Germany claimed in the 1920s. Given the fact that the Oder-Neisse line was created in response to World War II, which in its turn was caused when Germany attacked Poland in 1939, might that suggest this German campaign against the frontiers of Versailles was ultimately a self-destuctive one? Might not Germany been better off if it had accepted the frontiers of Versailles instead of seeking to challenge them? There is a very good book by Detlev Peukert which says that if Germany would done far better if had just accepted the frontiers of Versailles since seeking to challenge them caused the most bloody war in history, and which ended with Germany losing much more land than under Versailles. Peukert does not quite put it like this, but in essence he calls Stresemann an idiot for his views about Poland. After all, if Germany had not attacked Poland in 1939, what are now the Polish cities of Wrocław and Szczecin would still be the German cities of Breslau and Stettin. By seeking to challenge the frontiers of Versailles, Germany lost far more land to Poland than been the case under the much-hated Treaty of Versailles, which might suggest that Stresemann and company were no doing Germany any favors with their obsession with overthrowing Versailles. Something to think about. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Minister - info box
As well as being Chancellor, Stresemann was Foreign Minister of Germany from August 13th 1923 (while he was Chancellor he was also Foreign Minister)to October 3rd 1929,when he died. He was preceded by Friedrich von Rosenberg and succeeded by Julius Curtius. I tried to add this information to the info box but couldn't do it. If anyone knows how I would appreciate it if they could add a Foreign Minister section to the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.127.111 (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte
Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte is used as source to claim supposed atrocities in Poland. It so happens that it was the journal made by German nationalists Hans Rothfels who supported Nazis before the war untill he was forced to escape Germany due to his Jewish roots, and who repeatedly bashed Poland in German nationalist propaganda. In other words it seems to be very dubious source. I also made several edits to remove comments and claims not supported by sources and against Wikipedia is not an essey rule--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 * You deleted the period concerning Stresemanns Poland-Policy with the exception of one sentence, where is said that he was not ready to make peace with Poland. So the reader must get the impression that Stresemann has been a "war monger", which he wasn´t. Remember that this is the article of a Peace-Nobel-Laureate! The section "in the Weimar Republic" in the present form is a deep injury against him! This article has to inform the reader for what resons Stresemann acted as he did. On whole wikipedia there is not a single article, where the atrocities against the German miority in Polen, which were the reason, are mentioned. Therefore I have tried to furnish evidence of these happenings by citing some sources, principally those about the session of the League of Nations in Lugano in 1928. The claim that Hermann Rauschning is a "nazi author" has been completely refuted on the talk page of his article. I therefore invite you to restore the period in the original form!Jäger (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Neither this article nor the one on Hermann Rausching (where you you've been trying to insert similar material for the past two years against consensus) is a place for your POV pushing about supposed "Polish crimes".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Dear Marek, you know very well that these polish crimes are not "supposed" ones, but that they really happened. You should take a look at the Hermann Rauschning-talk page, where you will find the article of a contemporary Polish professor, his name is also Marek, who confirms this!Jäger (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

 * For the 1000th time, this isn't an article for this kind of stuff, EVEN IF there was some substance to it (rather than just being straight up POV pushing). We've been over this on Rauschning's page, on WP:RS several times - you've kept this up for something like 3 years now and each time you were told (not just by me but by many others) that these edits are not appropriate. Each time you failed to get any thing near a consensus for their inclusion. Keep em out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Miacek, I have no idea why you decided to jump in the middle of this since AFAICT you've never edited this article above, but please be advised that this part of a campaign waged by Jager for the past 3 years which has received no support from anyone anywhere, and in regard to which he's been told many times (and i don't mean by myself) to cut it out. So why are you supporting this?

As to the substance can you point out where any of these sources mention the subject of the article? And come on, this text is so over the top POV pushing you should really be ashamed of yourself for restoring it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that you didn't even bother looking closely at the edits - they're badly formatted, full of simple errors and syntax and have things like links to the German wikipedia in them for some reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Dear Marek, You may constantly remove my edits but You can not remove the truth!Jäger (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My edition which is under constant attack by Marek without a reason follows here in full length. Heading "In the Weimar Republic", section Nr 6:

Stresemann was not willing to conclude a similar treaty with Poland: "There will be no Locarno of the east" he said. Moreover he never excluded the use of force to regain the eastern territories of Germany which had come under Polish control as a consequence of the Treaty of Versailles. The reason were atrocities against the German minority in the former German territories committed by or tolerated by the Polish government, see:  and Hermann Rauschning. In the session of the League of Nations of december 15.1928 in Lugano Stresemann formulated a furious charge against the Polish government because of these crimes which were well known to the league of nations. The chairman, Aristide Briand, French foreign minister, concluded the session after this speech with the words: "The league of nations must never break the sacred support of the minority rights". Jäger (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your attempts to endlessly add in "info" about these supposed "Polish atrocities against Germans" (red flag!) has been discussed elsewhere, particularly on the Hermann Rauschning article. There, it was pointed out to you by a half dozen of editors, over the course of something like four years, that the text you were adding was inappropriate, failed to observe Wikipedia guidelines and policies, was not NPOV, and was not properly sourced. Yet you persisted for four or something years. Then, after finally giving up there, you've come to this article and are trying to do the same thing here, in only a slightly different context (Stresemann rather than Rauschning). The issues are same, POV, non-reliable sources, irrelevance, outdated primary sources, misuse of primary sources etc. This has ALSO been pointed out already about a half dozen times. So I doubt you'll pay attention but here it is again.

And the talk page is NOT the place to post "alternative" POV-fork versions of the article. [[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer

Marek ''' ]] 15:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Dear Marek, what did Pope John Paul II. say under the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin: "Es gibt keine Freiheit ohne die Wahrheit" (there is no liberty wihthout the truth)Jäger (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Image of book?
The image near the bottom of a book (biography?) doesn't seem to have a purpose. It should be removed, or updated with subtext and moved to a relevant location if it is deemed important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.20.123 (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rentenmark
The paragraph on the Rentenmark just seems really shoddily written. I'd fix it myself but I'm busy right now.

Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic would reach its peak in November 1923.[11] Since Germany was no longer able to pay the striking workers, more and more money was printed, which finally led to hyperinflation. Eventually Stresemann introduced Germany's new currency- the Rentenmark. This ended this disastrous process by introducing a new currency, the Rentenmark, which reassured the people that the democratic system was willing and able to solve urgent problems.

See what I mean? TotallyNotEtreo 14:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gustav Stresemann. 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/20051027175954/http://www.orange.k12.oh.us/teachers/ohs/tshreve/apwebpage/readings/hitlerstresseman.html to http://www.orange.k12.oh.us/teachers/ohs/tshreve/apwebpage/readings/hitlerstresseman.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) 10:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Poland Paragraph
The paragraph on Stresemann's Poland policy has a number of serious problems. The following statement "In the same year, while Poland was in a state of political and economic crisis, Stresemann began a trade war against the country. Stresemann hoped for an escalation of the Polish crisis, which would enable Germany to regain territories ceded to Poland after World War I, and he wanted Germany to gain a larger market for its products there. So Stresemann refused to engage in any international cooperation that would have "prematurely" restabilized the Polish economy." is not sourced by the articles cited. Nor is the statement "Besides waging economic war on Poland, Streseman funded extensive propaganda efforts and plotted to collaborate with Soviet Union against Polish statehood." The article actually states "On another front, Stresemann courted the favor of the Soviet Union. Amicable relations with Russia would protect Germany from utter dependence upon the good will of the West and would intimidate Poland" (p. 39). Furthermore, the article says that Stresemann's hopes to redefine the border after 1925 came to naught because he assumed Poland would collapse into civil war and need Western aid, a condition of which would be the annexation of limited areas (Danzig, the corridor, parts of Polish Silesia). Poland remained stable, so this didn't happen. There's nothing here about plotting against Polish statehood, merely that Stresemann hoped to revise the borders. The statements about his trade war and plot to destroy Poland either needs to be sourced or removed.2601:85:C202:150:124:C63:BE66:BD68 (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wappen Deutsches Reich (Weimarer Republik).svg

title: Talk:Gustav Stresemann


text:
Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe

Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe (12 November 1894 in Kristiania – 8 June 1976 in Oslo) was a Norwegian zoologist and comparative psychologist. He was the first person to describe a pecking order of hens.

Life and work
Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe the son of sculptors Axel Ebbe (1868–1941) and Menga Schjelderup (1871–1945). At the age of 19, in 1913, he described a pecking order of hens. The findings were based on observing chickens at a farm during his summer holidays. The dominance hierarchy of chickens and other birds that he studied led him to the observation that hens had an established social order determining who-dared-to-peck-whom in a fight. This order was, Schjelderup-Ebbe concluded, not necessarily dependent on the strength or age of the hens, and not necessarily a strict ranking as he even observed triangles of dominance. Schjelderup-Ebbe studied for a Ph.D. in Germany, tried to present his thesis in Oslo, but was rejected.

Personal life
Schjelderup-Ebbe was married to Torbjørg Brekke. Their son was Dag Schjelderup-Ebbe, a musicologist, composer, music critic and biographer.

Publications

 * Hønsenes stemme. Bidrag til hønsenes psykologi, in: Naturen: populærvitenskapeling tidsskrift 37, 1913, 262–276
 * Kometen: mytisk roman, Kristiania 1917
 * Beiträge zur Biologie und Sozial- und Individualpsychologie bei Gallus domesticus, Greifswald 1921
 * Gallus domesticus in seinem täglichen Leben, Dissertation Universität Greifswald, 12 May 1921
 * Beiträge zur Sozialpsychologie des Haushuhns, in: Zeitschrift für Psychologie 88, 1922, 225–252
 * Soziale Verhältnisse bei Vögeln, in: Zeitschrift für Psychologie 90, 1922, 106–107
 * Aufmerksamkeit bei Mücken und Fliegen, in: Zeitschrift für Psychologie 93, 1923, 281-282
 * Beiträge zur Analyse der Träume, in: Zeitschrift für Psychologie 93, 1923, 312-318
 * Digte, Kristiania 1923
 * Der Graupapagei in der Gefangenschaft, in: Psychologische Forschung 3, 1923, 9–11
 * Das Leben der Wildente in der Zeit der Paarung, in: Psychologische Forschung 3, 1923, 12–17
 * Tanker og aforismer, Kristiania 1923
 * Weitere Beiträge zur Sozialpsychologie des Haushuhns, in: Zeitschrift für Psychologie 92, 1923, 60–87
 * Aufmerksamkeit bei Mücken und Fliegen, in: Entomologische Zeitschrift 1924, 38 (October 18), 31-32
 * Beobachtungen an Gryllus campestris, in: Entomologische Zeitschrift 1924, 38 (October 18), 31
 * Biologische Eigentümlichkeiten bei Insekten, in: Entomologische Zeitschrift 1924, 38 (November 1), 41-42
 * Fortgesetzte biologische Beobachtungen bei Gallus domesticus, in: Psychologische Forschung 5, 1924, 343–355
 * Kurzgefaßte norwegische Grammatik, Teil 1: Lautlehre, Berlin 1924
 * Les Despotisme chez les oiseaux, in: Bulletin de l'Institut Général Psychologique 24, 1924, 1–74
 * Poppelnatten: digte, Kristiania 1924
 * Schaukeln bei Mücken, in: Entomologische Zeitschrift 1924, 38 (November 29), 52
 * Zur Sozialpsychologie der Vögel, in: Zeitschrift für Psychologie 95, 1924, 36–84
 * Aufmerksamkeit bei Käfern, in: Entomologische Zeitschrift 38, 1925 (February 28), 93-94
 * Det nye eventyr: digte, Oslo 1925
 * Soziale Verhältnisse bei Säugetieren, in: Zeitschrift für Psychologie 97, 1925, 145
 * Zur Theorie der Mengenlehre, in: Annalen der Philosophie und philosophischen Kritik 5, 1925/1926, 325–328
 * Blaat og rødt: digte, Oslo 1926
 * Der Kontrast auf dem Gebiete des Licht- und Farbensinnes, in: Neue Psychologische Studien 2, 1926, 61–126
 * Sociale tilstande hos utvalgte inferiore vesner, in: Arkiv för psykologi och pedagogik 5, 1926, 105–220
 * Organismen und Anorganismen, in: Annalen der Philosophie und philosophischen Kritik 6, 1927, 294–296
 * Fra billenes verden, Oslo 1928
 * Overhöihetsformer i den menneskelige sociologi, in: Arkiv för Psykologi och Pedagogik 8, 1929, 53–100
 * Zur Psychologie der Zahleneindrücke, in: Kwartalnik Psychologiczny 1, 1930, 365–380
 * Psychologische Beobachtungen an Vögeln, in: Zeitschrift für Angewandte Psychologie 35, 1930, 362–366
 * Die Despotie im sozialen Leben der Vögel, in: Richard Thurnwald (ed.), Forschungen zur Völkerpsychologie und Soziologie 10, 1931, 77–137
 * Farben-, Helligkeits-, und Sättigungskontraste bei mitteleuropäischen Käfern, in: Archiv für die Gesamte Psychologie 78, 1931, 571–573
 * Liljene på marken, Oslo 1931
 * Soziale Eigentümlichkeiten bei Hühnern, in: Kwartalnik Psychologiczny 2, 1931, 206–212
 * Instinkte und Reaktionen bei Pfauen und Truthühnern, in: Kwartalnik Psychologiczny 3, 1932, 204–207
 * Social behavior of birds, in: Carl Murchison (ed.), A Handbook of Social Psychology, Worcester 1935, 947–972
 * Über die Lebensfähigkeit alter Samen, Oslo 1936
 * Sanger og strofer, Oslo 1949
 * Hva verden sier: en lyrisk, satirisk og virkelighetstro diktsyklus, Oslo 1953
 * Liv, reaksjoner og sociologi hos en flerhet insekter, Oslo 1953
 * Glansen og det skjulte: lyrikk, humor og satire, Oslo 1955
 * Høider og dybder: lyrikk, humor og satire, Oslo 1957
 * Life, reactions, and sociology in a number of insects, in: The Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 1957, 287–292
 * Sozialpsychologische Analogien bei Menschen und Tier, in: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Bericht über den 22. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Heidbelberg 1959, Göttingen 1960, 237–249
 * Sol og skygge: aforismer og tanker, Oslo 1965
 * Av livets saga: tanker, vers og shortstories, Oslo 1966–1969
 * Noen nyere undersøkelser om estetikk, særlig m.h.t. diktning og folklore, Oslo 1967

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

title: Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe


text:
Bhatia caste

Bhatia is a group of people and a caste found in Punjab, Sindh and Gujarat. Traditionally, they have been a trading and merchant community. The Bhatias primarily live in Northwestern India and Pakistan. The Bhatias, Lohanas and Khatris were similar communities and were known to intermarry. The Bhatias recruit Saraswat Brahmins as priests.

History
The Bhatias are a mercantile community - traditionally they were merchants and traders. The Bhatias primarily live in Northwestern India and Pakistan. According to B.N. Puri, Bhatias are a part of the Khatri community but them along with Aroras and Soods maintained a distinct identity.

Before their traditional occupation of traders, both the Lohanas and Bhatia were involved in the profession of Agriculture. Historian Goswami states that their ritual position was "ambiguous", and, "they were considered neither a high nor a low caste". She further adds that as per the British Raj era Major general Alexander Cunningham, the word "Bhatia" is derived from the word "Bhat" meaning a warrior. The Bhatias claim that they are of Rajput origin. As per Goswami, they are a "traditional Bania caste". Historian Dwijendra Tripathi states that the Bhatias are associated with the Vaishyas like the Vaishnava Banias and sociologist A.M.Shah also considers the Bhatias to belong to the Vaishya varna like the Lohanas and Vanias.

The geographical origins of the Bhatia caste are uncertain. A more recent study by André Wink traces a 12th-century connection between the Bhatias of Jaisalmer and the Caulukyas of Gujarat, while Anthony O'Brien almost-contemporaneous attempt to discover their homeland caused him to place them around Sindh from the 7th century. Wink, who is a professor with interests in medieval and early modern Indian history, records that many of the community in Sindh converted to Islam during the reign of Firoz Shah Tughluq.

The Bhatias, who had been associated in particular with the Multan area in Sindh, were historically merchants and they probably formed part of the earliest Indian diaspora found in Central Asia, together with the Bhora and the Lohana communities. Their emergence as a significant merchant group pre-dates the 17th century and certainly by the time that India became subject to colonial rule, the Bhatias and the other two early diaspora communities had established trade and moneylending networks that, according to Scott Levi, who specialises in the history of Central Asia, "... extended across Afghanistan, Central Asia, and eventually reached even beyond the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa to the Caribbean islands in the west, and to Southeast Asia and China in the east."

Bhatias along with Khatris and Lohanas were prominent merchants who had contacts right from Volga River (Russia) to Kolkata (India) The Bhatias, who had been associated in particular with the Multan area in Sindh, were historically merchants and they probably formed part of the earliest Indian diaspora found in Central Asia, together with the Bohra and the Lohana communities. Their emergence as a significant merchant group pre-dates the 17th century and certainly by the time that India became subject to colonial rule, the Bhatias and the other two early diaspora communities had established trade and moneylending networks that, according to Scott Levi, who specialises in the history of Central Asia, "... extended across Afghanistan, Central Asia, and eventually reached even beyond the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa to the Caribbean islands in the west, and to Southeast Asia and China in the east." Bhatias of Thatta (Sindh) established a colony in Muscat (Oman) where they conducted international trade between Arabian peninsula and India.

During the Battle of Chamkaur, 5 out of the 40 Punjabi soldiers were Sikh Bhatias. They fought against a large army of Mughals. During the Battle of Mukstar, 40 Punjabis laid down their lives fighting against the Mughals. Out of the 25 soldiers whose caste is recorded, 3 soldiers belonged to Sikh Bhatia families.

Formerly the Bhāṭiyās were non-vegetarian.

Religion
Hindu Bhatias follow Vaishnavism. They revere Vishnu's avatars including Rama and Krishna. They also worship Hinglaj Mata as well as Dariya Sagar (sea). Moreover, some Bhatias are Jains. The oldest temple of Gulf, Shrinathji Temple in Bahrain was constructed by the Thatthai Bhatia community in 1814 and is still managed by them. It is dedicated to Lord Shrinathji, a form of Krishna. Dwarka Temples were largely funded by Bhatias.

Many Bhatias followed Sikhism. Bhai Banno was the son of Bishan Chand Bhatia of village Mangat of district Gujrat in Punjab (now in modern-day Pakistan). He became a faithful follower of Guru Arjan who involved him in the preparation of the Adi Granth. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's ancestors were initiated into Sikhism by the efforts of Bhai Banno Bhatia.

Sub-groups
Among the Bhatias, there are different sub-castes, such as Jakhar, Kutchi, Veha, Halai, Kanthi, Pavrai, Navgam, Pachisgaam, Thattai and Punjabi. Bhatias from Kutch are Kutchi Bhatias, those from around Jamnagar district are known as Halai Bhatia, those from Sindh in present-day Pakistan are known as Sindhi Bhatias and those from Punjab in present-day India and Pakistan are known as Punjabi Bhatias. A large number of Punjabi Bhatias settled in Pakistani Punjab in 1947.

Some of the major groups derived from the principal professions they follow or the crafts they practice.

title: Bhatia caste


text:
Root element

Each XML document has exactly one single root element. It encloses all the other elements and is, therefore, the sole parent element to all the other elements. ROOT elements are also called document elements. In HTML, the root element is the  element.

The World Wide Web Consortium defines not only the specifications for XML itself, but also the DOM, which is a platform- and language-independent standard object model for representing XML documents. DOM Level 1 defines, for every XML document, an object representation of the  itself and an attribute or property on the document called. This property provides access to an object of type  which directly represents the root element of the document. There can be other XML nodes outside of the root element. In particular, the root element may be preceded by a prolog, which itself may consist of an XML declaration, optional comments, processing instructions and whitespace, followed by an optional DOCTYPE declaration and more optional comments, processing instructions and whitespace. After the root element, there may be further optional comments, processing instructions and whitespace within the document.

Within the root element, apart from any number of attributes and other elements, there may also be more optional text, comments, processing instructions and whitespace.

A more expanded example of an XML document follows, demonstrating some of these extra nodes along with a single  element.

title: Root element


text:
Category:Kentucky culture

Things relating to the culture of the state of Kentucky.

title: Category:Kentucky culture


text:
Talk:Second Battle of Rappahannock Station

Copyright info
The text of this article is virtually verbatim from the public domain NPS source cited in the References, which is a problem according to Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. A general rewrite is in order. I will put this on my to do list, but other assistance in solicited in the meantime. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


text:
Elder (administrative title)

The term Elder, or its equivalent in another language, is used in several countries and organizations to indicate a position of authority. This usage is usually derived from the notion that the oldest members of any given group are the wisest, and are thus the most qualified to rule, provide counsel or serve the said group in some other capacity.

Elder systems
Elder is a role played in the organised community that is most common in tribal subsistence cultures, Elderhood being the condition or quality of being an elder. It is essentially the state of being in the latter portion of one's life and being looked to for leadership of either a passive or active nature by your peers and\or subordinates due almost exclusively to this fact. Sometimes it involves a ceremonial investiture of some kind, and other times it does not. Sometimes it involves a definite chronological milestone which must be surpassed, while at other times the required age is simply relative to the ages of all of the other members of the group in question. Once having met the peculiar requirements of their individual groups, however, all elders are generally expected to mentor, share their experience, create a sense of oneness for their followings and, most especially, act as the spiritual embodiments of their communities.

Informal elderhoods
An example of informal elderhood is the role of the matriarchal grandmother as it appears in many parts of the global South. In the absence of viable male alternatives or even in the presence of them, grandmothers in these areas tend to serve as both the de facto heads of their groups of descendants and the catalysts of their periodic reunions and meetings. By doing so they provide their families with a cohesion that would probably be absent if they weren't present. Another example is that of the vocational mentor who guides his or her apprentices with tools of sponsorship, advocacy and the demonstration of skills. He or she serves to facilitate creativity in his or her charges by teaching the methods of the past as they pertain to their various occupations.

Formal elderhoods
In more formal examples of elderhood, elders serve as the members of the governing and/or advisory bodies of higher personages such as kings and presidents in the form of a council of elders. This often gives them a prestige amongst their peoples that's comparable to that of the classical nobility of ancient Europe. Due to this, elderhood of this variety is generally considered to be something worthy of aspiring to in the communities where it exists.

Elders in online communities
There are long established conceptualisations of elders on the Internet. In such online communities elders are typically thought of as established members who are outbound, often due to unwanted changes they can't prevent.

Titles in different cultures

 * Alderman in systems with Anglo-Saxon origins is synonymous with what in other systems might be known as a city councilman. It derives from the term ealdorman, meaning "elder man".
 * American Indian elder
 * Aqsaqal, "white beard" in Turkic languages.
 * Auncient, deriving from the Norman French noun ancien, signifying "an elder", has a restricted use in English ceremonial orders of precedence, especially in the legal profession.
 * Australian Aboriginal elders are widely respected men and women of authority who have a deep knowledge of traditional lore. They are consulted on any important aspect of Aboriginal life.
 * Gerousia was the Spartan equivalent of a council. The term means Council of Elders.
 * Hor Chan, from Mayan language, meaning "Chief of Chan". Chan was a term some Maya used to refer to themselves.
 * Kaumātua are the tribal elders in Māori society.
 * Oday is the term for elder in the Somali language. Elders hold an important position in Somali society, particularly within the Somali customary law or Xeer, where they serve as judges.
 * Oloye is the title of an elder of aristocratic rank amongst the Yoruba people of West Africa, though they usually translate it as chieftain.
 * Onyishi is a gerontocratic form of government in some parts of Igboland, Nigeria.
 * Senator: in the Senate of Rome, the senators were men. Senator comes from the Latin root sen- "old" (senex "old man", compare "senior"), and the senators were actually called patres (fathers).
 * Seniūnas, the ruler of Eldership, (seniūnija in Lithuanian), Lithuania's smallest administrative division.
 * Sheikh means "old man" in Arabic. The word has specific cultural and religious connotations as well.
 * Starosta, derived from Slavic word stary (old), is a title for an official or unofficial position of leadership that has been used in various contexts through most of Slavic history (see also Starets).
 * Vanem, ancient ruler of an Estonian parish and county. From 1920–1937, Estonian head of state and head of government was called Riigivanem, meaning "State Elder". Today, county governors are called maavanem and parish mayors vallavanem.
 * Witan in Anglo-Saxon and other Germanic traditions was a wise man although usually just a noble. The term is most often used to describe those who attended the Witenagemot.

title: Elder (administrative title)


text:
File:Krag Petersson 2.jpg

Krag-Peterssons repeating rifle M1876. Taken from the original issue training manual from the Royal Norwegian Navy.

title: File:Krag Petersson 2.jpg


text:
Tonotopy

In physiology, tonotopy (from Greek tono = frequency and topos = place) is the spatial arrangement of where sounds of different frequency are processed in the brain. Tones close to each other in terms of frequency are represented in topologically neighbouring regions in the brain. Tonotopic maps are a particular case of topographic organization, similar to retinotopy in the visual system.

Tonotopy in the auditory system begins at the cochlea, the small snail-like structure in the inner ear that sends information about sound to the brain. Different regions of the basilar membrane in the organ of Corti, the sound-sensitive portion of the cochlea, vibrate at different sinusoidal frequencies due to variations in thickness and width along the length of the membrane. Nerves that transmit information from different regions of the basilar membrane therefore encode frequency tonotopically. This tonotopy then projects through the vestibulocochlear nerve and associated midbrain structures to the primary auditory cortex via the auditory radiation pathway. Throughout this radiation, organization is linear with relation to placement on the organ of Corti, in accordance to the best frequency response (that is, the frequency at which that neuron is most sensitive) of each neuron. However, binaural fusion in the superior olivary complex onward adds significant amounts of information encoded in the signal strength of each ganglion. Thus, the number of tonotopic maps varies between species and the degree of binaural synthesis and separation of sound intensities; in humans, six tonotopic maps have been identified in the primary auditory cortex.

History
The earliest evidence for tonotopic organization in auditory cortex was indicated by Vladimir E. Larionov in an 1899 paper entitled "On the musical centers of the brain", which suggested that lesions in an S-shaped trajectory resulted in failure to respond to tones of different frequencies. By the 1920s, cochlear anatomy had been described and the concept of tonotopicity had been introduced. At this time, Hungarian biophysicist, Georg von Békésy began further exploration of tonotopy in the auditory cortex. Békésy measured the cochlear traveling wave by opening up the cochlea widely and using a strobe light and microscope to visually observe the motion on a wide variety of animals including guinea pig, chicken, mouse, rat, cow, elephant, and human temporal bone. Importantly, Békésy found that different sound frequencies caused maximum wave amplitudes to occur at different places along the basilar membrane along the coil of the cochlea, which is the fundamental principal of tonotopy. Békésy was awarded the  Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine  for his work. In 1946, the first live demonstration of tonotopic organization in auditory cortex occurred at Johns Hopkins Hospital. More recently, advances in technology have allowed researchers to map the tonotopic organization in healthy human subjects using electroencephalographic (EEG) and magnetoencephalographic (MEG) data. While most human studies agree on the existence of a tonotopic gradient map in which low frequencies are represented laterally and high frequencies are represented medially around Heschl's gyrus, a more detailed map in human auditory cortex is not yet firmly established due to methodological limitations

Cochlea
Tonotopic organization in the cochlea forms throughout pre- and post-natal development through a series of changes that occur in response to auditory stimuli. Research suggests that the pre-natal establishment of tonotopic organization is partially guided by synaptic reorganization; however, more recent studies have shown that the early changes and refinements occur at both the circuit and subcellular levels. In mammals, after the inner ear is otherwise fully developed, the tonotopic map is then reorganized in order to accommodate higher and more specific frequencies. Research has suggested that the receptor guanylyl cyclase Npr2 is vital for the precise and specific organization of this tonotopy. Further experiments have demonstrated a conserved role of Sonic Hedgehog emanating from the notochord and floor plate in establishing tonotopic organization during early development. It is this proper tonotopic organization of the hair cells in the cochlea that allows for correct perception of frequency as the proper pitch.

Structural organization
In the cochlea, sound creates a traveling wave that moves from base to apex, increasing in amplitude as it moves along a tonotopic axis in the basilar membrane (BM). This pressure wave travels along the BM of the cochlea until it reaches an area that corresponds to its maximum vibration frequency; this is then coded as pitch. High frequency sounds stimulate neurons at the base of the structure and lower frequency sounds stimulate neurons at the apex. This represents cochlear tonotopic organization. This occurs because the mechanical properties of the BM are graded along a tonotopic axis; this conveys distinct frequencies to hair cells (mechanosensory cells that amplify cochlear vibrations and send auditory information to the brain), establishing receptor potentials and, consequently frequency tuning. For example, the BM increases in stiffness towards its base.

Mechanisms of cochlear tonotopy
Hair bundles, or the “mechanical antenna” of hair cells, are thought to be particularly important in cochlear tonotopy. The morphology of hair bundles likely contributes to the BM gradient. Tonotopic position determines the structure of hair bundles in the cochlea. The height of hair bundles increases from base to apex and the number of stereocilia decreases (i.e. hair cells located at the base of the cochlea contain more stereo cilia than those located at the apex).

Furthermore, in the tip-link complex of cochlear hair cells, tonotopy is associated with gradients of intrinsic mechanical properties. In the hair bundle, gating springs determine the open probability of mechanoelectrical ion transduction channels: at higher frequencies, these elastic springs are subject to higher stiffness and higher mechanical tension in tip-links of hair cells. This is emphasized by the division of labor between outer and inner hair cells, in which mechanical gradients for outer hair cells (responsible for amplification of lower frequency sounds) have higher stiffness and tension.

Tonotopy also manifests in the electrophysical properties of transduction. Sound energy is translated into neural signals through mechanoelectrical transduction. The magnitude of peak transduction current varies with tonotopic position. For example, currents are largest at high frequency positions such as the base of cochlea. As noted above, basal cochlear hair cells have more stereocilia, thus providing more channels and larger currents. Tonotopic position also determines the conductance of individual transduction channels. Individual channels at basal hair cells conduct more current than those at apical hair cells.

Finally, sound amplification is greater in the basal than in the apical cochlear regions because outer hair cells express the motor protein prestin, which amplifies vibrations and increases sensitivity of outer hair cells to lower sounds.

Cortex
Audio frequency, otherwise known as the pitch, is currently the only characteristic of sound that is known with certainty to be topographically mapped in the central nervous system. However, other characteristics may form similar maps in the cortex such as sound intensity, tuning bandwidth, or modulation rate,   but these have not been as well studied.

In the midbrain, there exist two primary auditory pathways to the auditory cortex—the lemniscal classical auditory pathway and the extralemniscal non-classical auditory pathway. The lemniscal classical auditory pathway is tonotopically organized and consists of the central nucleus of the inferior colliculus and the ventral medial geniculate body projecting to primary areas in the auditory cortex. The non-primary auditory cortex receives inputs from the extralemniscal non-classical auditory pathway, which shows a diffuse frequency organization.

The tonotopic organization of the auditory cortex has been extensively examined and is therefore better understood compared to other areas of the auditory pathway. Tonotopy of the auditory cortex has been observed in many animal species including birds, rodents, primates, and other mammals. In mice, four subregions of the auditory cortex have been found to exhibit tonotopic organization. The classically divided A1 subregion has been found to in fact be two distinct tonopic regions—A1 and the dorsomedial field (DM). Auditory cortex region A2 and the anterior audiotry field (AAF) both have tonotopic maps that runs dorsoventrally. The other two regions of the mouse auditory cortex, the dorsoanterior field (DA) and the dorsoposterior field (DP) are non-tonotopic. While neurons in these non-tonotopic regions have a characteristic frequency, they are arranged randomly.

Studies using non-human primates have generated a hierarchical model of auditory cortical organization consisting of an elongated core consisting of three back-to-back tonotopic fields—the primary auditory field A1, the rostral field R, and the rostral temporal field RT. These regions are surrounded by belt fields (secondary) regions and higher-order parabelt fields. A1 exhibits a frequency gradient from high to low in the posterior-to-anterior direction; R exhibits a reversed gradient with characteristic frequencies from low to high in the posterior-to-anterior direction. RT has a less clearly organized gradient from high back to low frequencies. These primary tonotopic patterns continuously extend into the surrounding belt areas.

Tonotopic organization in the human auditory cortex has been studied using a variety of non-invasive imaging techniques including magneto- and electroencephalography (MEG/EEG), positron emission tomography (PET), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The primary tonotopic map in the human auditory cortex is along Heschl's gyrus(HG). However, various researchers have reached conflicting conclusions about the direction of frequency gradient along HG. Some experiments found that tonotopic progression ran parallel along HG while others found that the frequency gradient ran perpendicularly across HG in a diagonal direction, forming an angled V-shaped pair of gradients.

In mice
One of the well-established methods of studying tonotopic patterning in the auditory cortex during development is tone-rearing. In mouse Primary Auditory Cortex (A1), different neurons respond to different ranges of frequencies with one particular frequency eliciting the largest response – this is known as the "best frequency" for a given neuron. Exposing mouse pups to one particular frequency during the auditory critical period (postnatal day 12 to 15) will shift the "best frequencies" of neurons in A1 towards the exposed frequency tone.

These frequency shifts in response to environmental stimuli have been shown to improve performance in perceptual behavior tasks in adult mice that were tone-reared during auditory critical period. Adult learning and critical period sensory manipulations induce comparable shifts in cortical topographies, and by definition adult learning results in increased perceptual abilities. The tonotopic development of A1 in mouse pups is therefore an important factor in understanding the neurological basis of auditory learning.

Other species also show similar tonotopic development during critical periods. Rat tonotopic develop is nearly identical to mouse, but the critical period is shifted slightly earlier, and barn owls show an analogous auditory development in Interaural Time Differences (ITD).

Plasticity of auditory critical period
The auditory critical period of rats, which lasts from postnatal day 11 (P11) to P13 can be extended through deprivation experiments such as white noise-rearing. It has been shown that subsets of the tonotopic map in A1 can be held in a plastic state indefinitely by exposing the rats to white noise consisting of frequencies within a particular range determined by the experimenter. For example, exposing a rat during auditory critical period to white noise that includes tone frequencies between 7 kHz and 10 kHz will keep the corresponding neurons in a plastic state far past the typical critical period–one study has retained this plastic state until the rats were 90 days old. Recent studies have also found that release of the neurotransmitter norepinephrine is required for critical period plasticity in the auditory cortex, however intrinsic tonotopic patterning of the auditory cortical circuitry occurs independently from norepinephrine release. A recent toxicity study showed that in-utero and postnatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) altered overall primary auditory cortex (A1) organization, including tonotopy and A1 topography. Early PCB exposure also changed the balance of excitatory and inhibitory inputs, which altered the ability of the auditory cortex to plastically reorganize after changes in the acoustic environment, thereby altering the critical period of auditory plasticity.

Adult plasticity
Studies in mature A1 have focused on neuromodulatory influences and have found that direct and indirect vagus nerve stimulation, which triggers neuromodulator release, promotes adult auditory plasticity. Cholinergic signaling has been shown to engage 5-HT3AR cell activity across cortical areas and facilitate adult auditory plasticity. Furthermore, behavioral training using rewarding or aversive stimuli, commonly known to engage cholinergic afferents and 5-HT3AR cells, has also been shown to alter and shift adult tonotopic maps.

title: Tonotopy


text:
Elderships of Lithuania

A seniūnija (in English: eldership, elderate, ward, parish, or subdistrict) is the smallest administrative division of Lithuania. An eldership may comprise a very small region consisting of few villages, one single town, or a part of a big city. Elderships vary in size and population depending on their location and nature. A few elderships make up a municipality. Šilainiai, Dainava, Verkiai, Žirmūnai and Pašilaičiai are the most populous elderates, with population counts over 40,000, around twice the population of some entire municipalities.

Elderships manage small-scale local matters, such as repairing pavements and dirt roads, and keep records on all families living in the eldership. The premise of the concept is that - unlike in higher administrative divisions - an elder (the leader of the eldership) could have time to talk to every person in the eldership who wants to.

Modern Lithuania is divided into 10 counties, 60 municipalities, and 546 elderships. Elderships function as municipal districts. In cities, an elder is elected to each eldership district, along with a mayor for the city.

In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the term referred to significantly larger administrative units, such as the Eldership of Samogitia, the name of the Duchy of Samogitia during 1422-1441.

title: Elderships of Lithuania


text:
Talk:Alan Menken

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What's up with that image?
FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention of his stage musical adaption of The Hunchback of Notre Dame based on the Disney film? It premiered in Germany as Der Glockner von Notre Dame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.196.246 (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of Alan Menken
I too was wondering "what's up with that image". It's weird; it would only be acceptable if it were authorized by Menken but I can't see anything to that effect. Given that it's unsourced and not a true likeness, and also given that someone else raised the same comment, I'll "be bold" and remove it. It does leave the problem of finding a free-use replacement, though. If someone else disagrees feel free to revert and explain why on the talk page. --86.26.160.235 (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Did he just come out?
He thanked his "loving partner" after winning a Tony Awad. Or is that notable at all? -Mardus (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, the guy thanking his loving partner appeared to be Jack Feldman. -Mardus (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A New Image
Please, could we choose another image ? Because this is not his best photo. (talk) December 18, 2015 (UTC)

I'm changed to his main promotional image from here and elsewhere. Have added a detailed non-free use rationale for the image. Do not know what year the picture was taken; that would be helpful information. In any case, it's much better than the picture from 1977 it replaces. Fredclaymeyer (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alan Menken. 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/20140302173902/http://playbill.com/news/article/188119-Paper-Mill-Season-Will-Feature-Can-Can-Hunchback-Ever-After-Vanya-and-Sonia-and-More?tsrc=hpt2 to http://playbill.com/news/article/188119-Paper-Mill-Season-Will-Feature-Can-Can-Hunchback-Ever-After-Vanya-and-Sonia-and-More?tsrc=hpt2
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20071019222323/http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9112996 to http://disney.go.com/DisneyRecords/Biographies/Menken_Bio.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513071728/http://musicaltalk.co.uk/episodes_0063.html to http://www.musicaltalk.co.uk/episodes_0063.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) 17:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Menken. 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/20080723203618/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearch
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101212075313/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/144700-Alan-Menken-to-Be-Honored-with-Star-on-the-Hollywood-Walk-of-Fame to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/144700-Alan-Menken-to-Be-Honored-with-Star-on-the-Hollywood-Walk-of-Fame

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) 19:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Aladdin 2019
He also credited for Aladdin 2019 Phersh (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I see it in the table. Phersh (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3805:6300:2037:F2C4:A461:D7 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Razzie
Apparently, I need to do this. Alan Menken won a Golden Raspberry Award. This article says as much. It's even sourced. The article List of awards and nominations received by Alan Menken says the same, adding that he's "spoken of it proudly." There's a navbox on this article for his Razzie win. His writing partner is included in Category:Golden Raspberry Award winners for the song they jointly won the Razzie for. Why can't I add Menken to the same category? -IJVin (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alan Menken


text:
Talk:Solarquest

History
I searched long and hard, but was unable to find much info about Solarquest's game development history. Please add that if you can find it. Thanks, 205.217.105.2 12:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Math problem?
The article lists: * 34 moons; * 9 planets, of which 5 can be landed on; * 9 federation stations; * 6 research labs; and * 5 space docks. ... There are also 16 black dots, representing planets' gravity, and 17 blue dots, representing floating in space. Altogether, the board has a total of 91 spaces (compared to Monopoly's 38). According to my math, 34 + 5 + 9 + 6 + 5 + 16 + 17 = 92, not 91. Is something off here? Captain Zyrain 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Good catch. There are only 33 moons. CPColin (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Request to add SourceForge project
I'm working on a digital version of Solarquest, but I feel it would be a conflict of interest to add it to this article myself. If somebody else could make a determination and add this URL to the article, I'd be much obliged. http://sourceforge.net/projects/solarquest/ CPColin (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I've added it hopefully that's ok. Thanks for your honesty. Smartse (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks! CPColin (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Solarquest in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKfBWRgotHM&feature=related Tisane (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solarquest. 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/20110525040632/http://www.aboardgamesdatabase.com/aardmakehtml.mv?look4=1826.00000&src=DETAILS&title=Solarquest to http://www.aboardgamesdatabase.com/aardmakehtml.mv?look4=1826.00000&src=DETAILS&title=Solarquest

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) 05:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Solarquest


text:
Talk:Battle of Brandy Station

Copyright info
Much of the info in this article comes from public domain National Park Service brochures.

Comments from an anonymous reviewer
[Moved comments from the article itself to their proper home. Hal Jespersen 00:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)]

This battle was a tactical Confederate victory because the Federals failed in their mission (to "disperse and destroy" Stuart's cavalry division) and because they retreated from the field.

The Federals consisted of 8.000 cavalry, 3000 infantry and nine batteries of artillery. The Confederates had 9,700 cavalry and five batteries. Thus there were 17, 700 mounted men of about 22,000 participants in all.

The Federals (Gregg's division) did not enter the town of Brandy Station via the Stevensburg Road.

The site of the Confederate cavalry review on June 8, at Inlet, Virginia, is also marred by the presence of the modern Virginia Route 15/29.

Another correction is that Pleasonton expected to assemble his divided force at Brandy Station and advance against the Confederate cavalry at Culpeper Court house. He was surprised to find them in the vicinity of Brandy Station.

Other details of the battle may be obtained from the websites of the Civil War Preservation Trust and the Brandy Station Foundation, which together have preserved nearly 1,000 acres of the battlefield.

The Brandy Station operates a visitors center, the Graffiti House, in the town of Brandy Station; it is open several days a week during the summer.

Brandy Station is considered the first battle of the Gettysburg campaign.

Beverly's Ford?
Shouldn't this get a redirect from Battle of Beverly's Ford (the opposing ID)? I'd agree, it was phase 1 of the Gettysburg campaign; had Stuart not been beaten here, he wouldn't have felt the need to go chasing Federal booty, & would've been present at Gettysburg. Furthermore, "largest cavalry battle in U.S."? It's largest ever fought, isn't it? I don't see any mention of Gen Duffie, whose failure to support Stuart is blamed for the near-disaster in at least one TV doc I've seen... Trekphiler 06:46 & 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The National Park Service, whose articles formed the original basis of our namespace, does not list Beverly's Ford as an alternative name for this battle. Can you present some secondary sources that use that name? As to General Duffie, as you can see the description of the battle is relatively short. You are invited to expand it responsibly. If you would like the article to include your supposition about Stuart's motives in the Gettysburg campaign based on this action, you need to back it up with credible citations. I don't believe there are many historians who will make a direct connection as you have here. Stuart already had a demonstrated history of raiding in the federal rear and it would be difficult to credit specific motives for this particular battle. Hal Jespersen 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Incompetent?
I have reverted the addition of "incompetently-led" (should not have a hyphen, by the way) as POV. I agree with the sentiment, but in Wikipedia we allow historians in secondary sources to express such opinions, not merely claiming that the unnamed "consensus" agrees with us. If you can find a proper footnote for your opinion, it will be acceptable. (I could find one myself, but don't think it adds much to this article.) Hal Jespersen 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Suit yourself. Using your deletion as a guideline, I'm now going to walk through the article and remove anything that seems POV and demand that you provide footnotes in order to put the text back in.  Per Wiki guidelines, of course, just to make the editorial conceit consistent. Larry Dunn 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you treat a long-standing existing article that has not been footnoted by applying templates in the appropriate spots. Otherwise, indiscriminate deletions will appear as vandalism. If something is really egregious POV, simple deletion is within an editor's purview, of course. An alternative is to use the template that labels NPOV on the article or the section in question and then highlight the problems in the article's talk page. The difference in the case we are currently discussing is that adding a single, pejorative phrase to an existing article is something that can be deleted, and easily highlighted in the edit notes. I am aware that many of the Wikipedia ACW articles are not cited as fully as required by Wikipedia guidelines. I am doing my small part to add such citations on an article by article basis. But that does not mean that an article that currently lacks some or all of the needed footnotes is open game for indiscriminate additions. The general rule of thumb to follow is that if an assertion is an obvious opinion, whether you agree with it or not, it should be sourced to a reputable historian. Hal Jespersen 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Verifiability is not assumed away because an article has "long-standing" text. Long-standing text could be wrong and/or POV text.  As you indicated yourself, when the veracity of text is questioned, it is to be removed, and not put back in unless footnoted.  "Cite needed" does not do this job in any way. There is nothing holy about unsourced text because it's been laying around for a long time without scrutiny.  And to accuse a user of "vandalism," even obliquely, due to a factual dispute over unsourced text is deplored on wikipedia and against wiki policy.

 * Of course, many articles contain perfectly true information that is not footnoted. However, if the standard of review of edits is to be that all revisions will be reverted as POV unless proven otherwise, then the same applies to existing text.  This article has few if any sources cited in footnotes, and it seems odd to suddenly require meticulous footnoting for revisions.  Unfortunately, one uniform editing style can't be applied to every one of the millions of Wiki articles.  Let's at least try to apply it uniformly within one article. Larry Dunn 17:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I read this after the recent edit. It will be more productive for me to add the cites than to argue with you, so watch for those in the next day or so. Hal Jespersen 20:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Technically, rather than arguing with me, you would be arguing with your own edit style by doing so. Rather than dropping a "cite needed" into my recent revision, you just reverted.  Since you appear to have done a lot of work on the page, it appeared to me that the tolerance for unsourced material was very low, and have proceeded accordingly.  (Though that is a strange method for an article that has no footnotes, isn't it?)

 * I look forward to the source material, but the restored language should be closely supported by the cited work, with a minimum of glorification, which was strongly in evidence in the unsourced material I deleted (that tone is not encyclopedic). Larry Dunn 22:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It's good to see some citation; however, some of the restored material was not footnoted, so I took it out pending specific sourcing. The longwinded and adulatory description of the Confederate review is not relevant to the battle, so it's gone too, as is the highly POV info box from one of Stuart's sub-commanders. Wikipedia is meant to represent the NPOV overall -- and while it's fine to cite a quote like that from a participant, it should be balanced with an assertion from the other side, or from a more objective source.  POV, even if sourced, is still POV.  Overall the tone of the article became even more pro-Confederate POV after the edits than before.  Finally, the assertion that the Union cavalry was consistently inferior to the Confederate cavalry before Brandy Station should be sourced, and if relevant only to the Eastern theater, should be so specified. Citation and balancing becomes even more important when the tone of the article suggests that it does not have a NPOV, as is the case here.  Larry Dunn 16:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This reversion of material is getting to be irritating. The description of the cavalry review is in the Background section, not the battle; it is described in almost every book about the Gettysburg Campaign, so most historians do consider it relevant. The "POV" about the state of the cavalry before and after is also mentioned universally and I included 5 sources for it in footnote 1. I challenge you to find alternative POVs. The quote from McClellan bends over backwards to explain this--here's a senior Confederate acknowledging a negative fact about his own side. And I also included negative Southern press accounts. How you can think this is a pro-Confederate article is beyond me. As to Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, the links to the articles in the sentence are adequate citations that they were victories; putting in a footnote to document that is feasible, but not very valuable.

Please do not remove any cited materials. If you have alternative POVs beyond those of the historians cited, you are welcome to add them, not simply delete the ones you don't like. Hal Jespersen 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I think you have some misconceptions about the manner in which consensus is arrived at. Two points.

 * 1) Because you provide a source does not mean that something is not POV, or that something is ipso facto relevant to the article
 * 2) Because you site a source in references does not mean that you have verified an assertion that has been questioned

 * Some of the sourced material you provided was not in any form relevant to the article. That is why it was removed, particularly additions to the already-bloated introductory sections.  The article is much stronger without idylls about dashing cavaliers.

 * Other assertions which were contested were reinserted without providing sources, and that is why they were removed, again, because you have an obligation to verify them as they were challenged. "It's in one of these books, find it yourself," is not really the way to verify a contested fact.

 * I'm sorry this is irritating to you, but to quote the wiki guidelines, if you are not prepared to be edited mercilessly, do not contribute. The impression being created here is that you feel proprietary over this article, and that is not the case.  It belongs to the entire community, and will be shaped accordingly.

 * By the way, considering the mountain of serious scholarly books written about the ACW, some of these sources (Blue and Grey Magazine? Time Life Books?) are pretty shoddy.  Let's try to cite some better, preferably peer-reviewed, sources.  Larry Dunn 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the deletions in your second reversion. If you have alternative "POV" to include, do so, with proper citations. (What you are calling POV is actually widespread historical consensus. If you disagree, find historians who believe that the grand review prior to the battle was irrelevant the Stuart's performance the next day or that McClellan's judgment was unjustified.) The sentence about FB & CV is cited at the end of the paragraph, along with the rest. If you would like to upgrade the citations with peer-reviewed academic journals, be my guest, but leave the shoddy ones there in any case. They are legitimate sources from reputable publishers, written by professional historians. I use the Time-Life series for some of the more generic paragraphs in ACW articles, just for ease in full populating footnotes, but you are welcome to add more. Hal Jespersen 02:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Put the cites where they belong to support questioned text, and we can resolve on that count. Larry Dunn 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Because you haven't responded to the requirement for verifiability, and haven't further updated this discussion, I don't have any choice but to view your reverts as vandalism and treat them accordingly.Larry Dunn 14:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I have further edited the article to:

 * 1) remove extensive discussion of events not directly related to the battle, which distract from the subject and had a flowery, non-encyclopedic tone
 * 2) remove disputed assertions which were sourced only with other wiki articles, rather than external sources
 * 3) removed a redundant quote box from a participant containing left-handed praise which is POV

 * Please do not revert without further diuscussion. As I have said, at this point that appears to be nothing more than vandalism.Larry Dunn 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Help!
As a somewhat detached observer, I really am struggling to fully understand the constant stream of revisions to this article. I covered Brandy Station in some detail in my book Crossed Sabers, which has been a popular title in wargaming circles. However, I do not pretend to be an expert on this battle (my expertise is much more in the subsequent battles of the campaign). I would comment that the statements on Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville seem rather innocuous, and I am not grasping why they are constantly being pulled out. Short of having Ed Longacre or Eric Wittenberg rewrite the article to be a summary of their books, I think it has been an accurate and impartial review of the facts, without significant NPOV. I frankly didn't see any major issues with the old article, nor did anyone on the WP:ACW that I am aware of. Can we get to some middle ground ASAP? If not, then let's turn this matter 100% over to the ACW Task Force for resolution (binding arbitration, if you will, since you are a lawyer, Larry). Scott Mingus 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Largest
I had to duplicate a footnote to emphasize a point that perhaps is a little too subtle: Brandy Station was the largest predominantly cavalry battle in the war. The Battle of Trevilian Station in 1864 had slightly fewer horsemen engaged (about 16,000 at TS versus 17,000 at BS), but it was an entirely cavalry fight. Eric J. Wittenberg states in two of his cavalry references that TS was the largest all-cavalry battle. I can provide citations for that if needed; one is in the TS article already.

The Brandy Station Foundation has an obvious motivation for claiming it is the largest cavalry battle because their fundraising would be diluted by lesser claims. I deleted a claim that it was the largest such battle in US history because their website does not state as such (they say the largest in North America) and we would need to document that claim. Just off the top of my head, I know that the US 1st Cavalry Division is currently larger than the combined forces on both sides at Brandy Station, so it is possible they may have engaged in larger battles during their history. I agree that it is probable that Brandy Station was the largest predominantly horse cavalry engagement in US history, but we need a citation for that, instead of assumption. Hal Jespersen 16:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Comparing cavalry of the Civil War to contemporary armored divisions bearing the quaint but inaccurate title of cavalry is absurd. To state that "oh, largest cavalry battle with horses in it" is ridiculous.  If Brandy Station is the largest predominantly cavalry battle, then I gladly stand corrected.  As for a comparison with all US military history, it is hard to imagine where or when a larger battle with mostly "horses" would have taken place. I seriously doubt it would have been in Revolutionary War, WWI or any war since.  This leaves battles against the Native Americans which I doubt would be larger, the Spanish American War which again is doubtful.  Only Mexico strikes me as potentially having a larger cavalry battle "with horses."  I will continue to look for citations.EastmeetsWest 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)  Sorry, had not signed in.  EastmeetsWest 19:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you may find it ridiculous, but the Wikipedia article on cavalry states "In many modern armies, the term cavalry is often used for units that fill the traditional horse-borne light cavalry roles of scouting, screening, skirmishing and raiding." And, in fact, the U.S. Army is one of those armies. So making absolute statements about "cavalry" throughout history without clarification or citations is ridiculous as well. Hal Jespersen 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * When discussing the civil war, assuming that cavalry battle comparisons include modern heavy artilery units is indeed ridiculous. Death toll comparisons, for instance do make sense over time as human being and death do not fundamentally change.  But how does one make comparisons between horses and tanks?  How many horses equal a tank?  Are horses and tanks irrelevant in such comparisons leaving us comparing only numbers of human personnel?  In assessing the size of a battle for comparing armoured cavarly with horseback, should we just consider firepower?  Or perhaps engine horsepower ought to be compared with actual horses?  Depending on how this comparison is made one could end up with wildly different figures.  So, yes, it is absurd and ridiculous in the extreme to presume in comparisons with civil war cavalry battles that modern armoured division are included.  Stick with what you know.  129.74.86.6 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see what I know. I know the Civil War pretty well and have written about 275 Wikipedia articles on it. I'm a former U.S. Army officer with armor assignments. I know how to write English language sentences that are unambiguous and realize that formal writing in an encyclopedia usually shuns ambiguity. I know how to consult reference materials and create accurate citations. I know how to spell cavalry and artillery and know they aren't synonyms. OK, I'll stick with what I know. :-) Seriously, though, thanks for improving your citation. Although "on American soil" is rather colloquial and might be challenged by the crowd that believes "American" does not equate to "United States," it is more supportable than an uncited "in US history." (And I'm not saying the latter isn't true, but that you haven't found a citation for it.) Hal Jespersen 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal using different IPs
This person has been adding the same nonsense:
 * "On January 15 2015 Alan Jordan McNeely made a speech about the battle of brandy station for a band project"
 * "on januray 28 2015 civil war historian Alan jordan McNeely made the brandy station adress to help people remember the battle of brandy station"
 * "January 18th 2015 Waterford CT Alan Jordan McNeely did a speech at Waterford High School to help people learn about the battle of Brandy Station and march for band"

 * This is also the same person:
 * This is also the same person:
 * This is also the same person:
 * This is also the same person:
 * This is also the same person:

-- 12.180.133.18 (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Brandy Station. 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/20070928080034/http://brandystationfoundation.com/pages/battle.htm to http://brandystationfoundation.com/pages/battle.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Brandy Station


text: User talk:202.144.106.34

title: User talk:202.144.106.34