text:
Talk:Say's law

Origin?
It notes that J.B. Say was not actually the creator of the law, but only mentions that it had come about earlier. Perhaps the actual origin (or as much information as possible) would be a good addition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.149.62 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Opinions differ on who created Say's law. Leading contenders include Adam Smith, Say, and James Mill. See the Thweat citation for more information on this issue. Thiesen (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Say's Law & Business Cycles
Agree with him or not, here is economist Steven Kates on Say's law:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.109.66 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

modern interpretation
Say lived in 1767-1832, that is, quite some time ago. The article on Say's law mostly discusses modern interpretation and usage of Says law and modern opposition to it. What I'd find interesting is more information about how Say himself and people of his time thought about Say's law. --EnSamulili 11:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your comment. I think I have addressed this issue. See "early opinions." Thiesen (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Some comments
Some comments:

1. In reading Say's Treatise (1803), in the french version, Say's law translates to, "Inherent in production is the wherewithal for its own consumption". It simply means that one has to produce something to trade with in order to demand anything from the market. In that sense, "supply creates its own demand". Say's Law should be interpreted as axiomatic.

2. J. B. Say was a businessman who operated in a money economy. His Treatise was a practical guide. Say's Law was not meant to apply solely to a barter economy. The barter example is used to illustrate the principle more clearly.

3. Say's Law has nothing to do with "supply side" or "demand side" theory. And it certainly does not lean toward "supply side". Remember, Say's Law is axiomatic. It is not a statement of economic policy.

4. Keynes did not disagree with Say's Law, though he may have disagreed with others who used it in poor context. Remember that Keynes championed government policies to create jobs in times of depression. It is the product of those jobs, and its value in wages received, that provided the newly employeed the wherewithal to consume.

5. It is inappropriate to characterize either J.B. Say or Adam Smith as Laissez-faire economists. Neither advanced such a theory. Nor does today's concept of "laissez-faire" equate significantly with what they wrote about. Both tried to illustrate the self-organizing nature of many (but not all) aspects of the market (i.e., the invisible hand concept). But both also affirmed the government's role regarding property, taxation, and fair trade. And they did not assail the public works of their time: roads, bridges, dams, aqueducts, municipal buildings, cathedrals (yes), schools, libraries, military service and armaments. --Cmoneti 22:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Just because Say's Law is "axiomatic" (if indeed it is so) doesn't mean that it's accurate outside of a barter economy. It's not. Further, in macroeconomics, Say's Law is used to justify a laissez-faire attitude toward depressions and the like. The "real business cycle" theory -- which ignores the demand side except in price determination and therefore represents a kind of supply-side economics -- follows this line. Jim 00:14, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * The part which I highlighted (sorry if it's inappropriate to do so) was the reason I asked about Say's law in the first place, ie. how Say's law is used today may not tell how Say used it. How it's used is of course important but - being equally interested in history - what Cmonet said I find interesting to know. --EnSamulili 06:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * My impression is (and correct me if I'm wrong, since I haven't read Say) that Say used his "Law" to justify a laissez-faire attitude toward depressions and the like (general gluts).

 * Perhaps there should be a different entry on "what Say said" as opposed to the "Say's Law tradition". Jim 01:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * That's what the article claims, at the moment, but what might not be the case. I'm reading a book about Say's law: what he said, why he said it, how it was interpreted by his contemporaries, how it was intpreted by Keynes and how it is interpreted by modern liberals (laissez-faireists). I'll get back to the article when I'm finished. --EnSamulili 15:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The first paragraph ends, "with gluts in one market balanced by disgluts in others." Can someone cite an economist who has used the word "disglut" and provided an exact definition?  I take it, as a "glut" is an excess, a "disglut" is a shortage.  However, I know of no theoretical mechanism under any economic theory that would cause a disglut in response to a glut.  At risk of repeating myself, I think this also needs a citation.  VegnaBlitz (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I didn't notice anything in Say's first few paragraphs about services. What I read talks only about products. 195.144.99.106 (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 * "Say's law, or the law of markets, is an economic proposition attributed to French businessman and economist Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832), which states that in a free market economy goods and services are produced for exchange with other goods and services" - This I think is misleading. Say doesn't have a 'law', firstly - his opinion is sometimes referred to as Say's law or Say's principal. In any case, he doesn't explicitly say anything about free markets as far as I can see - wrt to Say's law . Surely if the opening paragraph is to talk of goods and services, which Say does not, then the "protection" offered by kleptocracies and brutal authorities is a service too and covered by Say's law? As described here this is just another tautology or truism 195.144.99.106 (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 * 6. "Division of labor leads to a situation where one always has to anticipate what others will be willing to buy, and this will lead to miscalculations. However this theory alone does not explain the existence of cyclical phenomena in the economy because these miscalculations would happen with constant frequency, and to such a large scale that thousands of businesses in multiple sectors would simultaneously miscalculate (as during an economic bubble).[according to whom?]" The claim that miscalculations would happen with constant frequency should not be stated as a fact as it is clearly someone imposing their opinion on the article. if its going to stay it should be cited and referenced to a person or school of thought. The paragraphy underneath about Austrian economics is totally irrelvant also and should probably be totally removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.37.178 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

 * To this end, a government might need to expand a welfare state just to create a market for non-human production. Henry Ford may have insisted that his employees drive Ford vehicles, but his descendants may not be able to sell Ford vehicles to robots on the ultra-modern assembly lines. Capitalist societies may need a welfare system to avert Marxist socialism, and the more mechanized that work gets, the more a capitalist system may need a welfare state. The alternative is to rely upon a few people getting so fantastically rich that through their lavish spending they create a secondary economy, a suspect concept to all but a few.

 * Obviously, production without buyers is an unstable situation, one that can correct itself by stopping production.

 * 7. Gluts are always possible, either through bad decisions by businesses (think of cinematic bombs such as Gigli) or technological obsolescence. There is practically no demand for new recordings of video on VHS tapes or music on 8-track tapes. Garbage is the definitive glut, and getting people to accept it is often expensive. Damaged items may be irreparable.

 * OK, so obsolete stuff might be put to new purposes through refurbishing (as with old houses) or retrofitted to regain or recover a useful life (computers? commercial rail cars?). Unsalable books have frequently been pulped. Pbrower2a (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

major edits
I have now made some major edits to the article. A few points about them:
 * 1) My information comes from a book by Steven Kates called "Say's Law And the Keynesian Revolution - How Macroeconomic Theory Lost Its Way". I mentioned it above as the book which is "about Say's law: what he said, why he said it, how it was interpreted by his contemporaries, how it was intpreted by Keynes and how it is interpreted by modern liberals (laissez-faireists)."
 * 2) The current version may have some inconsistencies between what I have contributed and what other have contributed. This is because I'm still in the midway of the book and I can't say that I master the modern interpretations.
 * 3) For the time being I left the passages about money hoarding untouched. Hoarding of money was known to eg. Mill and, IMHO, the article at the moment speaks almost entirely for Keynes' interpretation of Say's law (which I find POV).
 * 4) I did a dirty trick and inserted a "modern (?)" (sic!) in the article. I inserted a contradicting example to show that pre-Keynesian proponents of Say's law in general were not against government intervention. Since someone had added the earlier statement, I suppose they know that some modern proponents might oppose government intervention. --EnSamulili 10:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Sorry for my language. Feel free to improve it. --EnSamulili 10:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keynes vs. Say
I find this section very unbalanced and I think that most of it doesn't even belong here but rather in Keynesian economics. --EnSamulili 10:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dropped the following passage "To contradict this, Arthur Cecil Pigou, who, according to himself, followed Say's law, wrote 1932 a letter signed five other economists (among them Keynes) calling for more public spending to alleviate high levels of unemployment." because it didn't make sense. Did whoever introduced this passage want to say that Say favored the introduction of increased public spending to deal with high unemployment? So Say was a Keynesian? Jim

Yes, Say was a Keynesian. In its original form Say's law said that there could not be a glut because the owner of capital would not allow his capital to remain idle. They would invest it to get a return. But later in life Say said that his law was dependent on the idea that there were profitable ways to invest. If the interest rate is at the lower bound, zero percent interest, then that suggests that there are no profitable ways to invest. If there were then interest would not be at the lower bound, at or very close to zero. So what Say ultimately said and what Keynes said were pretty much the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisrich1 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I doubt that Pigou was Keynesian (when it comes to economic theory, the political aspect I can't judge at all), but in the way I explained, he did support public spending to alleviate high levels on unemployment (in the middle of a huge economic crises, at least). He was not the only defender of Say's law who did that. Fred Taylor, who probably coined the term "Say's law" (1909, I'll add that information in the near future) also proposed road-making, building constructions etc. for the same purpose. (Even JS Mill saw that the government could collect taxes and use the money efficiently to reduce unemployment.)

 * I would put the text back but I know your English is much better and you can make the text more easily understood :) --EnSamulili 20:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Even Keynes didn't disagree with Says Law, but he criticized the assumptions that lead to this law (especially the absence of sticky prices, but also that there are no reasons for horting money). During the great depression, there was the goldstandard, which made it very attractive to hort money / gold, because the monetary base couldn't be expanded.  --217.184.198.19 (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This page would be much better off without any mention of Keynes. Quoting Keynes to explain something is like trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. RussNelson 21:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Henry Hazlitt's book, The Failure of the New Economics, chapter 3, talks about Say's Law and Keynes. Hazlitt claims that all of Keynes' arguments depend on a refutation of Say's Law. SkyDot (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire section is written poorly and often slips into first person, a very non-encyclopedic thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.177.162 (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

On money
I removed this paragraph:
 * "This view is a version of the common assumption in conservative orthodox macroeconomics that money is "neutral", a "veil" that has no effect on the economy besides determining the average price level."

I don't think this fit in the place it was put, but I will later write a chapter on money according to Say's law and reuse the paragraph there. --EnSamulili 18:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. EnSamulili 17:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Say's answer

 * Say's answer is simple: there is no reason to engage in hoarding. To quote Say from above:

 * "Nor is [an individual] less anxious to dispose of the money he may get ... But the only way of getting rid of money is in the purchase of some product or other."

 * The only reason to have money, in Say's view, is to buy products. It would not be a mistake, in his view, to treat the economy as if it were a barter economy.

I think it's a bit misleading to say that Say had an answer - he (or anyone else) probably was never asked the question! EnSamulili 22:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hoarding certainly was discussed in the period Say wrote. GeneCallahan (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Modern interpretations
This section is puzzling as there are many modern interpretations. The section seems to deal with Keynes' interpretation, so I think I will combine this section with "Keynes vs. Say" --EnSamulili 17:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subtitle "Say's law"
I created a subtitle with the same name as the page. Besides the chapters on recession and money, I intend to write about the difficulty of defining Say's law under this new title (and place it before chapter "recession and unemployment"). EnSamulili 17:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Persisting collapse

 * However, in Classical economics, there was no reason for such a collapse to persist. Persistent depressions, such as that of the 1930s, were impossible in a laissez-faire world. The flexibility of markets under laissez faire would allow prices, wages, and interest rates to adjust to abolish all excess supplies and demands.

What does persist mean in this case? For eternity? Classical economists lived through many depressions, so they should know that depression may last long. EnSamulili 22:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Laissez Faire?
I'm inclined to make an edit or two, particularly to this phrase:

 * Many advocates of laissez-faire economics (for example, economists at the International Monetary Fund) are quite activist in their approach, advocating the use of state power to destroy unions, minimum wage laws, and the like in order to make labor markets more "flexible" so that this idealized vision of labor markets can be attained.

 * But I figured I'd bring it to the discussion page first. In what sense can the IMF be called "laissez-faire"? They're explicitly interventionist -- the sentence actually contradicts itself on this point. Does anyone have a compelling reason to leave it as-is? Eric.d.dixon 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think that the IMF advocates laissez-faire economics. Austerity programs that the IMF have promoted heavily in the past entail tax increases. I am happy for you to edit the sentence. Terjepetersen 05:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It is true that it isn't totally accurate to decribe the IMF as laissez-faire. Neo-liberal would be a better description, but this isn't a purely economic philosophy. --OneWorld22 08:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm removing the paragraph entirely because it is NPOV, has a failed citation (IMF is NOT laizzez-faire), and contradicts itself by stating economists are activist in their approach by advocating the removing of minimum wage laws "and the like". This is, by definition, a non-interventionist approach, and therefore they are NOT activist.  Someone who wrote this was very confused. David Samra 14:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The article could be improved since it comes out of nowhere with the hording concept. I had to read it twice to understand where that was coming from.  Hording should be seperated into two categories: A) Where money is a commodity (e.g., gold, silver, salt, etc.) in which case so-called "hording" is really use of the underlying commodity (such as Roman soldiers using the salt given on their food instead of trading it).  The second situation would be under fiat money where money has no real use except for wiping your backside or trading it for something of use.  Furthermore, lumping all non-Keynesian economists under "classical" is misleading.  Milton Friedman "classical" is quite different from Austrian School "classical" and not making this clear can be confusing to a reader who isn't already familiar with the topic and the ramifications thereof.200.60.249.217 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is Say's Law not in an article called Say's Law?
All Say is trying to point out is that the amount of things sold is, of course, the same amount as things bought. So if people want to buy more things, they will have to sell more to pay for those. If they sell less, inevitably they can buy less. That's all people! Nothing mysterious going on here. Any 6 year old could come up with this theory now, but many kudos for a man stating the obvious 2 centuries ago. Unfortunately the article does not explain Say's law at all. It tries to confuse the reader by explaining why people like Keynes think that this fundamental law could somehow be avoided and it even links to Supply creates its own demand. That would be a perfect example to show that Keynes was an extreme lunatic but Keynes' insanity has no place in this article until at least the law itself is explained to the reader. Which the article currently doesn't. Joepnl (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The above is a very weak understanding of Say's Law -- There are at least six different propositions that a part of the "Say's Law" controversy. If anyone wants to understand the complexities actually involved, read Sowell's book on the topic. GeneCallahan (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Insanity
Holy hell, look at this opening paragraph. It's a giant screed against (what the author considers to be) common misinterpretations of Say's Law, with special emphasis on Keynes. What gives? Not only does it look like a big ol' NPOV violation, but as JoePNL points out, it doesn't even tell us what Say's Law is!

Would somebody with an Econ 101 textbook handy care to provide a textbook definition and citation to replace this thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.59.53.171 (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I have attempted to address some of these problems. More work needs to be done.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sowell on Say's Law
"Economists such as Thomas Sowell (who wrote his doctoral dissertation on the idea) of the Chicago School have advocated Say's law."

Just plain wrong. Sowell documents very clearly why Say's Law DOESN'T always hold, both in his book _Say's Law_ and his more recent book on classical economics. GeneCallahan (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you should change it, good sir... unless the claim is well cited in the article.-- Dark Charles 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted it myself. Problem fixed:)-- Dark Charles 22:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-write necessary
This entire article is pretty much what Keynes has to say about Say's law; very little of the actual article is about Say's law. HUGE NPOV violation imo; references to Keynes should be limited to a criticism section, and that section should be small and basically redirect to keynesian economic theory. Nodrogj (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. The article needs re-writing but with the following constraint; Say's ideas were confined to specific markets not all markets in a general sense. In other words this article should deal with microeconomics not macroeconomic matters. Many people do not see much difference between these two subjects but the various developments by Ricardo, Mill, Keynes and others are ALL about macroeconomics and should therefore be put somewhere else.Macrocompassion (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Say's formulation
In the following passage of the article : "In Say's language, "products are paid for with products" (1803: p. 153) or "a glut can take place only when there are too many means of production applied to one kind of product and not enough to another" (1803: p. 178-9). or "the supply creates its own demand" Explaining his point at length, he wrote that"

The last part ("the supply creates its own demand") seems to be incorrect, according to the french version of this article, and should attributed to Keyne's critique of Say, as a caricature of his thought, not to Say himself. On the one hand, there is no source for this statement, and on the other hand, the citation that follows does not include such statement. Thus the statement should be removed.

So, taking matters in my own hands, I edited this part out : or "the supply creates its own demand", which was included in the second sentence of the first paragraph of this section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.143.47 (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Keynes vs. Say (again)
There’s an unresolved discussion above in which says that
 * I find this section very unbalanced and I think that most of it doesn't even belong here but rather in Keynesian economics.

, rather combatively, adds that
 * This page would be much better off without any mention of Keynes. Quoting Keynes to explain something is like trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

and an IP address says that
 * The entire section is written poorly and often slips into first person, a very non-encyclopedic thing to do.

Well, I don’t agree with RussNelson – discussing modern views of Say’s Law without mentioning Keynes would be a tiny bit like Hamlet without the Prince. But I do agree with the other writers.

However apart from that I have doubts of the accuracy of the account. Firstly, does Krugman express the views the article attributes to him? Secondly, does Keynes express the views the article considers Krugman to attribute to him? And thirdly, apart from the question of who expresses them, are these views sound?

The answer to the second question is No. Keynes’s bugbear is saving, not hoarding. Saving includes hoarding but is not limited to it, and although Keynes occasionally refers to hoarding it is in a minor role. On pp160 and 212 (RES edition) he makes clear that saving comprises lending as well as hoarding; and in practice the former will far outweigh the latter. His whole theory is based on the relationships between saving and consumption (one of complementarity) and between saving and investment (equality). Hoarding is not the complement of consumption and is not identical to investment, so Keynes’s whole theory makes no sense if it is interpreted in terms of hoarding.

And what does Krugman think? It would be helpful if the article provided a citation here. If you go to the text around Fig 1 in Mr Keynes and the Moderns you see an exposition based on Samuelson’s cross in which the equilibrium condition is that desired expenditure equals income, which seems to imply the absence of hoarding.

And is the monetary critique of Say’s Law valid? I accept the contention of the article that in the view of most economists it is, and that this includes many who would not accept the validity of Keynes’s larger theory. So the monetary critique is certainly worth discussing (but if it isn’t due to Krugman, who is it due to?)

Now my interest in this is that I recently revised the theoretical section in Keynesian economics and found myself writing more than I wanted to on this particular topic, precisely because I was fighting a battle against the interpretation of Keynes put forward in this article. It would be nice if someone who knows more than me about the subject were to revise the text here. Alternatively the section could simply link to Keynesian economics (which would then be free to discuss the topic in its own right, because the theory is certainly Keynesian even if it isn’t Keynes’s). I much prefer the first course.

In any case I have made a couple of minor edits. I deleted a link to the page on Keynesian economics which was now broken, and also the link promising more details under ‘Supply created its own demand’ because it didn’t really live up to its promise. Colin.champion (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I added a long misguided rider which I’ve deleted, correcting my original comment at the same time. Sign of my own confusion I’m afraid. Colin.champion (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 * A more plausible explanation of the attribution to Krugman lies in his writings about the liquidity trap, e.g. when he refers to increases in ‘public holdings of cash’ in his Introduction to the General Theory. These are not autonomous increases but a response which nullifies the intended effect of an increase in money supply. So I’m beginning to think that the section should be replaced by a reference to Keynesian economics, and that Keynesian economics should worry about what Keynes and his followers actually said. But I still see some interest in the theory that autonomous hoarding is a cause of unemployment. Colin.champion (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Well I did this, but a little half-heartedly. I cut out the abridged Keynes but retained the objections raised by unspecified classical economists to the theory that hoarding may be the cause of unemployment. Without citations these paras aren’t very satisfactory, but if the statements in them are true I would be sorry to lose them.

 * Incidentally Keynes’s response to Viner’s review is interesting. He misunderstood Viner’s misunderstanding and instead of clarifying his concept of saving read him a lecture on how liquidity preference influences the interest rate. Colin.champion (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A mess
This article is a mess, it looks like a running debate between a number of people. Probably could also lose a quarter of the current length. Frohike14 (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Funny to see how the article has gone from having a few problems to a complete mess in 10 years. You kind of expect that here. How about this for a doozy in the intro:

"Some maintain that Say further argued that this law of markets implies that a general glut (a widespread excess of supply over demand) cannot occur."

Well, either he did or he didn't argue that. Don't put it in if you're not sure. If someone does argue that then tell us who and why. I mean, the law itself is a very simple concept, very easy to understand, and not all that profound. Why turn it into complete nonsense? It's just crazy.--ෆාට් බුබුල (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Say's law


text:
Clan Kennedy

Clan Kennedy is a Scottish clan of the Scottish Lowlands.

Origins of the clan
The Votadini were a tribe in Lothian and their chief, Cunedda, was sent by the British leader, Vortigern, to establish settlements in order to resist Picto-Scottish sea raids in the south west of Scotland. These settlements spread down the west coast as far as Wales. Cunedda is rendered as Cinneidgh in the Celtic language, meaning ugly or grim-headed. The name became associated with the district of Carrick, Scotland.

During the early part of the reign of William the Lion, Gilbert Mac Kenedi witnessed a charter to Melrose Abbey granting lands in Carrick. During the reign of Alexander II of Scotland Gillespie Kennedy is named in charters as the senechal of Carrick.

Wars of Scottish Independence
Kennedys supported Robert the Bruce during the Wars of Scottish Independence. Kennedys inherited the Earldom of Carrick from the line of Sir John Kennedy of Dunure's wife, Mary de Carrick, who descended from Sir Gilbert De Carrick. In 1372, Robert II of Scotland rewarded John Kennedy of Dunure as chief of his name and baillie of Carrick.

15th and 16th centuries
In about 1457 John's direct descendant, Gillbert, was created Lord Kennedy. He was also a regent to the infant James III of Scotland. James Kennedy, brother of the first Lord Kennedy, was one of Scotland's best loved bishops. James served briefly as High Chancellor of Scotland and was also Bishop of Dunkeld, and also later Archbishop of St Andrews. In 1450 he founded St Salvator's College.

Hugh Kennedy of Ardstinchar was a Scots mercenary who fought at the Siege of Orléans for Joan of Arc. As a result, Joan figures on the arms of Kennedy of Bargany.

In 1509, Sir David Kennedy, the third Lord Kennedy was created Earl of Cassillis. He was killed at the Battle of Flodden in 1513. The second Earl of Cassillis was murdered in 1527. Gillbert Kennedy, the third Earl, was one of four Scottish commissioners who were poisoned on their return from the marriage of Mary, Queen of Scots to the Dauphin of France in 1558. The third Earl had inherited his title at the age of twelve and one of his first acts was to sign the death warrant of Patrick Hamilton, the first Scottish Protestant martyr.

The Moray Kennedys were a branch of the clan who travelled north with the sister of the third Lord Kennedy, Janet Kennedy who had a son by James IV of Scotland, as part of the possession of the earldom of Moray. The Moray Kennedys became a sept of the Clan Cameron.

17th century and Civil War
In 1601 the Kennedy Earls of Cassilis were involved in a feud against their relations, the Kennedy Lairds of Bargany. The Earls of Cassillis were supported by the Clan Fergusson and the Laird of Bargany was killed.

From 1649 to 1651, John Kennedy, 6th Earl of Cassilis was Lord Justice General of Scotland and a zealous Protestant. He and his son, the seventh Earl, were both firm supporters of Parliament during the Civil War. The Justice General also sat in Oliver Cromwell's House of Lords. The Kennedys suffered for their beliefs but their estates remained largely intact.

The Kennedy of Kermuck branch of the clan were hereditary constables of Aberdeen from at least 1413. The Kennedys of Kermuck were outlawed when in 1652 the father and son of the family mortally wounded John Forbes of Watertown.

18th and 19th centuries
When the Eighth Earl of Cassillis died there was a court dispute lasting three years to determine the succession. The titles and estates of the Kennedys were claimed by William Douglas, afterwards duke of Queensberry, a great grandson in the female line of the 7th earl and also by Sir Thomas Kennedy, Bart., of Culzean, a descendant of the 3rd earl, i.e. by the heir general and the heir male. In January 1762, the House of Lords found in favour of Thomas. On 30 November 1775, Thomas died unmarried, and was succeeded by his brother David, who commissioned Robert Adam to build Culzean Castle, and died unmarried on 18 December 1792.

With David, the baronetcy became extinct. The earldom of Cassillis now passed to a cousin, Archibald Kennedy, a captain in the royal navy, whose father, Archibald Kennedy (died 1763), had migrated to America in 1722 and had become collector of customs in New York. His son, the 11th earl, had estates in New Jersey and married an American heiress; in 1765 he was said to own more houses in New York than any one else. He died in London on 30 December 1794, and was succeeded by his son Archibald (1770–1846), who was created Baron Ailsa in 1806 and marquess of Ailsa in 1831. His great-grandson Archibald (born 1847) became 3rd marquess.

Lieutenant General Sir Clark Kennedy served through the entire Peninsular War and in 1815 he commanded the centre squadron of the Royal Dragoons at the Battle of Waterloo. At Waterloo he personally captured the eagle and colours of the 105th Regiment of French Infantry. Sir Clark was from the Kennedy of Moray branch of the clan.

20th century
The lawyer, historian, author and campaigner for the righting of legal injustice, Ludovic Kennedy was a notable member of the Kennedy clan. In his collected writings, he recalls the story of his forebear, Captain Archibald Kennedy returning from New York at the end of the 18C to Culzean Castle to assume the earldom of Cassillis

Castles

 * Cassillis House, near Maybole. Seat of the chiefs.
 * Culzean Castle was a former seat of the chiefs.
 * Dunure Castle in South Ayrshire was the original stronghold of the chiefs.
 * Dalquharran Castle in South Ayrshire once owned by the Kennedys of Kirkhill and Dunure; now a ruin
 * Cruggleton Castle, Sorbie, Wigtownshire
 * Dunduff Castle
 * Greenan Castle in Ayr
 * Maybole Castle

Base of Scottish family tree
Here is the base of the family tree:

 * John Kennedy of Dunure and Cassillis M Heiress of the Carrick Earls
 * Sir Gilbert
 * James M Princess Mary (2nd daughter of Robert III)
 * Gilbert (Became Lord Kennedy in about 1457)
 * .x James Kennedy (He served as High Chancellor of Scotland and was Bishop of Dunkeld, and later Archbishop of St Andrews. At St Andrews he founded St. Salvator's College in 1450 and is one of the founders of the University of St Andrews)
 * Hugh Kennedy of Ardstinchar (Part of the Great Army of Scotland during the Hundred Years War and fought at the Battle of Bauge, and with Joan of Arc at the Siege of Orleans)
 * Sir David (Third lord of Kennedy, created Earl of Cassilis in 1509)

Scottish chief

 * The Most Hon. David Thomas Kennedy, 9th Marquess of Ailsa, who is also Earl of Cassillis, Lord Kennedy, Baron Ailsa and Chief of the Name and Arms of Kennedy, of Ailsa.
 * Arms: Scottish: Argent, a chevron Gules between three cross crosslets fichée Sable, all within a double tressure flory counterflory Gules.

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

title: Clan Kennedy


text:
Oyashio Current

The Oyashio Current (親潮), also known as the Okhotsk Current or Kurile Current, is a cold subarctic ocean current that flows south and circulates counterclockwise in the western North Pacific Ocean. The waters of the Oyashio Current originate in the Arctic Ocean and flow southward via the Bering Sea, passing through the Bering Strait and transporting cold water from the Arctic Sea into the Pacific Ocean and the Sea of Okhotsk. It collides with the Kuroshio Current off the eastern shore of Japan to form the North Pacific Current (or Drift). The nutrient-rich Oyashio is named for its metaphorical role as the parent (親) that provides for and nurtures marine organisms.

Climate impact
The current has an important impact on the climate of the Russian Far East, mainly in Kamchatka and Chukotka, where the northern limit of tree growth is moved south up to ten degrees compared with the latitude it can reach in inland Siberia. The waters of the Oyashio Current form probably the richest fishery in the world owing to the extremely high nutrient content of the cold water and the very high tides (up to 10. m) in some areas – which further enhances the availability of nutrients. However, the Oyashio Current also causes Vladivostok to be the most equatorward port to seasonally freeze and require icebreaking ships to remain open in winter. Nonetheless, this has relatively little effect on the fish yield through the Sea of Okhotsk, because the large tides mean freezing does not occur so easily.

History
During glacial periods, when lower sea level exposed the Bering land bridge, the current could not flow in the regions the Oyashio affects today. The level of cooling with the onset of glacial conditions (after an interglacial) was much less than in other areas of the Earth at similar latitudes. This allowed Tōhoku and Hokkaidō – the only areas of East Asia with enough snowfall to potentially form glaciers – to remain unglaciated except at high elevations during periods when Europe and North America were largely glaciated. This lack of glaciation explains why, despite its present climate being much colder than most of Europe, East Asia has retained 96 percent of Pliocene tree genera, whereas Europe has retained only 27%.

title: Oyashio Current


text:
More Adventurous

More Adventurous is the third studio album by American indie rock band Rilo Kiley. Released on August 17, 2004 by Brute/Beaute Records, a self-made imprint distributed by Warner Records, it was the band's major label debut.

As of June 2007, sales of the album in the United States had exceeded 173,000 copies, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Song information
"Portions for Foxes" references the bible verse.

"Ripchord" and "It Just Is" were written in response to the death of Elliott Smith.

"Accidntel Deth" was produced by Jimmy Tamborello, who is known for his work in The Postal Service and as Dntel (which explains the unusual spelling of the song's title).

"More Adventurous" alludes to a line from Frank O'Hara's "Meditations in an Emergency": "Each time my heart is broken it makes me feel more adventurous (and how the same names keep recurring on that interminable list!), but one of these days there’ll be nothing left with which to venture forth."

Release
Two versions of the album were released: a version in a jewel case, which was sold in stores, and a limited edition (1,000 copies) digipak version sold at the release party and concert for the album.

"I Never" and "Ripchord" were included in several feature films, including Must Love Dogs, Conversations with Other Women, and John Tucker Must Die. "Portions for Foxes" is included as part of the Rock Band 3 soundtrack and was also featured in the first episode of the first season of the medical drama Grey's Anatomy. "More Adventurous" was featured on the soundtrack to the 2005 film Wedding Crashers.

Reception
The album received critical praise. Noted rock critic Robert Christgau named it the fifth best release of 2004 and later included it in his list of the greatest albums of the 2000-2009 decade, placing it in the twenty-fourth spot. Christgau also declared "It's a Hit" song of the year for 2004 and subsequently listed it as the eighth best song of the decade. The album placed fourteenth on the Pazz & Jop poll for 2004.

In 2017, NPR Music's Ilana Kaplan dubbed the album "a masterpiece in songwriting vulnerability." Kaplan dubbed Jenny Lewis "an emo pioneer", citing her "bold confrontation of anger and her ability to mourn in such a raw way" as reasons. She also noted that Lewis' handling of topics like marriage, divorce, and more "set apart her perspective in the midst of male voices" prominent within the genre.

In 2023, alternative music website Melophobe ranked the album as the 28th best indie rock album of all time. Melophobe subsequently ranked "It's a Hit" and "Portions For Foxes" as the 15th and 51st greatest indie rock songs since 2000 respectively.

Personnel
Sourced from AllMusic.
 * Jenny Lewis – vocals, guitar, Mellotron, keyboards, Wurlitzer, piano, harmonica, organ
 * Blake Sennett – vocals (lead on "Ripchord"), electric & acoustic guitars, 12-string acoustic guitar, handclaps, Optigan, JX-3P Arp, & Moog
 * Pierre de Reeder – bass guitar
 * Jason Boesel – drums, percussion

Additional musicians
Mike Bloom, Danny Cooksey, Amy Huffman, Clint Wheeler, Jamie Williams, Jon Hischke, Kianna Alarid, Mike Mogis, Nate Lefeber, Nate Walcott, Neely Jenkins, Nick White, No Better Cause, Rick Ricker, Summit Strings

title: More Adventurous


text:
Talk:Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee

 * Previous deletion debate

What the balance corresponds to
The balance of Nashville-Davidson would have to correspond to the former City of Nashville as in the past it said that the balance corresponded to the former City of Nashville. Plus Kaldari's drawings of Davdison County are not quite accurate. The satellite cities didn't just correspond to the selected areas of the county but other areas of the county. In fact the satellite cities incorporate large portions of Davidson County that there is still enough room for the former City of Nashville to be corresponded by the balance. Also the drawing of the former City of Nashville wasn't quite accurate. The former city was wider and larger than the drawing. The former city incorporated almost all of Davidson County even before the formation of the controversial Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in 1963 meaning that there was almost no unincorporated area in Davidson County. Anyway for any Nashvillians out there Nashville is not fully coextensive with Davidson County since other municipalities exist in the county and as people who live in the non-Nashville cities of Davidson County consider there homelands independent of the Nashville city limits and the balance corresponding to the former City of Nashville. Also, fuck Mayor Purcell. He's a dickhead. -- Heegoop, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Thank you for explaining your position. Until I can dig up a map of the City of Nashville from the 50s or early 60s, I'll accept your explanation and let it stand. One question remains, however: Why do you want this article listed as a City of Tennessee? Kaldari 03:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At Kaldari's request, I'll weigh in with what I can recall. The current Census definition of the "balance" is that portion of Davidson County that is not a part of any other incorporated municipality at the time of the census. I honestly have no idea how closely it matches the boundaries of the City of Nashville at the time of consolidation. I did a fair amount of research back when this article had been proposed for deletion, but I don't recall whether I looked at any historical maps or if there was some textual description of the areas involved. FWIW, I don't think this article should be in the cities in Tennessee category as it is only a stub for the demographics of a portion of a consolidated government. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nashville-Davidson balance does not even come close to corresponding with the old City of Nashville. Prior to the formation of the consolidated city-county government, the city of Nashville only legally encompassed the area roughly inside what is now Interstate 440. That's a tiny area compared to the Nashville-Davidson balance. According to the 1960 census (3 years before the consolidation), the area of the City of Nashville was 23.3 square miles. Compare that with the Nashville-Davidson balance at 497 square miles. Thus the Nashville-Davidson balance is over 20 times the size of the old City of Nashville! Immediately before the consolidation, Nashville annexed an additional 42 square miles, but even then that only put the city at 65 square miles total. If you need to confirm these facts, please go to your local library and have them pull up the Tennessee Census records for 1960. I will post some maps I photographed at the library later. Pretty much everything Heegoop says above is completely wrong. Heegoop, I would like to know why you were so insistent on including information in this article for which you had no evidence whatsoever. Even though I went out of my way to draw diagrams and post lengthy explanations about why the information was wrong, you insisted on having it your way (often without any explanation). So instead of doing research on more interesting subjects for Wikipedia, I spent the day at the library digging up census records so that I could prove a simple fact that I already knew to be true. At least now the issue is settled for good. In the future, I would suggest that you stop assuming that you are right without at least having some kind of evidence to back it up. To do otherwise is a breach of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:AGF. I would suggest you read over those policies before starting an edit war in the future. Kaldari 19:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: The definition of the balance has nothing to do (directly) with the old City of Nashville. There is no reason to even mention the old City of Nashville in this article. In fact, it is entirely plausable that there are areas of the old City of Nashville that are now not included in the balance (if any of the satelite cities have expanded inwards since 1963). If we wanted to make a list of what the current balance corresponded to in 1960 we would not only mention the City of Nashville, but also 11 unincorporated urban areas, and a dozen or so unincorporated suburbs (which now all have different boundaries than they did in 1960 anyway). This would be a pointless exercise, as the list would be an approximation at best and limited only to a comparison of 1960s Davidson County. What would be a lot more useful would be a map of what the current balance looks like (then people could do their own comparisons and choose any time period they wanted). But even then, I can't imagine why this would be useful to anyone. The only people who use the balance are the Census Bureau, and while I'm sure they would be appreciative that we had made a map for them, I don't see how anybody else on the face of the earth would even care. Kaldari 22:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree. The reason for mentioning it is to precisely clarify the sort of misunderstanding that we've been discussing. I'd find it extremely unlikely that any of the satellite cities could have incorporated any land that used to be a part of the old city of Nashville. If you can provide any evidence of that, I'd be interested to see it. If you want to add more information to clarify what this area corresponded to, please feel free. But I am going to revert your reversion of my earlier edit. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 23:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to your first argument: The only reason there was confusion was because you added false (and unsourced) information to the article back in 2004 and no one ever bothered to remove it. In response to your second argument I would like to quote the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability: "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." If you would like to add that information to the article, please cite a reference explaining where the information comes from. It is not acceptable to just make your own assertions and insert them into articles. That is a violation of the Original Research and Verifibility policies. And on a third point, I think your version of the intro is more confusing, not less, than the simple definition of the balance. For example, it says that the balance includes areas "not a part of any other incorporated municipality", but it doesn't explain that "other" refers to Nashville. It also leads you to believe that at the time of consolidation Davidson County consisted only of the City of Nashville, the current satellite cities, and unincorporated areas. This is not true. Kaldari 23:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Whatever. You seem to have taken "ownership" of this article and I really don't care a whit about Nashville, so you can have it your way. The definition of the balance not including other incorporated municipalities is based on Census use of the term. older ≠ wiser 14:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but the way you had it worded was not completely clear. It said "other incorporated municipalities", but other than what? I know that you meant "other than Nashville", but it didn't say that explicitly. Regardless, figuring out what the balance corresponded to in pre-consolidation geography is original research as I have not been able to find any references for it. In case anyone wants to figure it out though, I have now uploaded both a map of the balance and a map of 1960s Nashville, so hopefully that should clear up any confusion. Kaldari 17:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Brentwood
I have added Brentwood to the list of what the balance excludes in order to be consistant with the Davidson County and Brentwood, Tennessee articles. I do not have any evidence that Brentwood lies partially in Davidson County, but I'm going to take Blueboy96's word on it for now. If anyone knows whether this is correct or not, let me know. Kaldari 23:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Blueboy96 was wrong, none of Brentwood lies in Davidson County: Kaldari 15:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "All of incorporated Brentwood lies in Williamson County." - Joe Lassus, Planning & Codes Director, City of Brentwood
 * "The City of Brentwood has no jurisdiction over any areas of Davidson Co and never can due to the prohibition of annexation inside an area with Metro government." - Mike Walker, City Manager, City of Brentwood


text:
Monte Hacho

Monte Hacho is a low mountain that overlooks the Spanish city of Ceuta, on the north coast of Africa. Monte Hacho is positioned on the Mediterranean coast at the Strait of Gibraltar opposite Gibraltar, and along with the Rock of Gibraltar is claimed by some to be one of the Pillars of Hercules (the other candidate for the southern pillar being Jebel Musa). According to the legend, Hercules pushed apart the two mountains and created a link between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.

In classical civilization it was possibly known as Mons Abila (Mount Abila or Abyla), although this title could refer to Jebel Musa instead.

Monte Hacho is located on the Península de Almina and topped by a fort, the Fortaleza de Hacho, which was first built by the Byzantines, before being added to by the Arabs, Portuguese and Spanish. It is now occupied by the Spanish army. Monte Hacho also has a convent, Ermita de San Antonio, and Monumento del Llano Amarillo which is a monument to Generalisimo Francisco Franco and the start of the Spanish Civil War in North Africa in 1936.

title: Monte Hacho


text:
User talk:Amgine/Archive1

Looks nice. I'm not a graphics person myself; I suggest dropping a request for assistance to Village pump. If you do, someone will probably come up with an image. In the mean time, you could just take the image out of Template:Tutorial. Isomorphic 21:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, and welcome to the 'pedia! Isomorphic 21:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * what kind of graphic do you have in mind? Drop me a note if you likePedant 04:38, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

Help required
Biblical inconsistencies is currently a messy list. Could you help tidy it up (it is huge)?

It will probably need to be cut into sections (e.g. by part of bible) and each section moved to a new page. 00:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bad start
It is reasonable to want a vote page to keep some sense of order. When someone wants to insert a long rant, it is usually because they don't recognize that need. If you look at the history of that vote page, you'll not see long interjections. Vote pages are threaded discussions. The template talk page is for explaining the purpose of the template. Your account is very new, please don't get off to a bad start by running around causing trouble. If you have a complaint about someone, please address them directly, and from the perspective of assuming good faith. -- Netoholic @ 19:35, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

 * Read my expanded response at User talk:FT2.  -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

 * Please be aware that Netoholic has been disputing things with many users. Please don't let him put you off with his "your account is very new" talk. You should also be aware that you will have to dig through his edit history because he clears his talk page of all comments that could be seen to show him in a poor light. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which paragraph?
Pedant

Netoholic shifting comments on talk pages.
Can you please provide a link to the edit history of this? I would like to know where this is. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kings of Israel prior to Davidic line
There was one King of Israel prior to the David, Saul. After David was annointed, the Kingship only came from the Davidic line. Jayjg 14:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please clean up after radical changes
If you make radical changes to a template (Template:Tutorial) used on 10 pages in Wikipedia, it is generally assumed that you will have the courtesy to clean up the 10 pages your changes have made look stupid, instead of expecting others to go around tidying up after you. Thanks. Niteowlneils 17:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. If I had thot to check your history, I would have noticed how short your active history is, and especially how short it was at the time you changed the template, I probably would have gone to greater lengths to try and soften the tone of my message--my bad. Anyway, I think the 'be bold' suggestion mostly applies to editing single articles; in general doing things that affect many articles, such as editing a template or moving a highly linked page, have an inferred responsibility to try and follow up such changes. Anyway, I'm glad you're contributing, and hope you're enjoying it. Niteowlneils 22:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

citation discussion, reply

 * As it happens, I am rather closely aquainted with the status of texts versus juried journals, etc. Books, chapters in books, and textbooks are not considered on a par with journal articles in academia. They are not allowed to be considered when going up for tenure, for example, and are separated off from academic accomplishments on one's curricula vitae, as another. This seems to be an area of academia you are not particularly familiar with.
 * You are correct that they have some scholarly status, particularly as overviews of the state of a science (in which use they are synthesizing currently journaled research, often for textbooks.)
 * As I have repeatedly stated, biblical and talmudic studies are not my area of expertise (while my son has converted to Christianity and is a biblical scholar, I am not.) I am not at all averse to saying when I don't know something, and I usually do so succinctly. However, research and rhetoric are areas I have considerable background in, as well as some training in dispute resolution, all of which are why I am currently involved in this resolution process. I'm sure you will have noted that I have avoided adding any original text to the paragraphs in question, but instead have been inserting, moving, and editing text which has already been supplied by contributors with more knowledge than I of the content.
 * Given my background, and your history of distracting the arguement and then presenting an alternative text to the compromised text (which practice I counted 3 times in the process of archiving the talk pages), I have determined to shepherd through a compromise text to get beyond the locked editing status. I do hope you will consider getting to that point with a compromise text an important and respectable goal.
 * In getting there, I suggest we should avoid getting into a disagreement about citations. I have been involved in these in the past on a professional level and they are tedious, obstructionist, and expensive, and rarely resolve any differences. I'd rather focus on finding text we can agree on which reflects the contributions of everyone and neutrally presents it. - Amgine 18:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is you who made an argument about the citations. It is disingenuous of you to dismiss my sources and then say "but this is tedious, let's not discuss it" -- a tactic that has the effect of privileging your view and silencing mine. I will respond to you as succinctly as I can. In most tenure cases peer-reviewed articles count for more than books, but not in all. As you ought to know most universities allow each department to develop its own tenure guidelines appropriate to the discipline. In many of the social sciences and humanities -- like history -- writing a book is a crucial sign of scholarly achievement and necessary for tenure and promotion. In some cases, a published book is even necessary for getting a job. But your mis-stating the facts of the tenure process is but a diversion. The tenure process is only one way to measure scholarly status, and it is not appropriate here -- the process at hand is not tenure, but writing an encyclopedia. If you look at peer-reviewed journal articles in history, you will see that their bibliographies are full of books. Books are often important, credible, even authoritative sources of scholarly knowledge.

I mentioned the books I used not because I think every sentence in wikipedia needs a citation, but because I think every sentence in wikipedia needs to be verifiable. That I rely on books written by the preeminent scholars in the field is evidence as to the verifiability of my claims.

Your claims must be verifiable as well. I have pointed to several claims you have made and asked for verification. You have provided none. Instead, you asked me for sources. How dare you then accuse me of distracting the argument? You have done nothing but distract. For example, your continued use of the ridiculous phrase "king messiah." Every time I explained why this was a ridiculous phrase, you simply came up with sillier and sillier questions, and continued to repeat the mistake. Each time I explain why it is wrong to claim that there were many prophet/healer/messiahs, you again distract the argument (demanding I verify my claims, but refusing to provide any evidence or sources for your own claims) and then keep repeating the mistake.

When you first proposed a version of this section you invited people to "rip it" because it was a first attempt. But when I tell you what is wrong with it, you ignore me.

Then when I present a well-researched verifiable version, you complain that it isn't based on your version! How petty can you get! Like you, I invite people to tell me what is missing or wrong with my version. I specifically asked you what was wrong with it. You couldn't come up with a single defect or error.

To be blunt: although I gave you the benefit of the doubt until today, I now understand that your claim that you will shepherd through a compromise version is pompous and ridiculous. You utterly misunderstand the Wikipedia process, which is ultimately about a verifiable encyclopedia. The process invites anyone to contribute and encourages full discussion. But this does not mean that every contribution ends up in the final version. The talk page is a place to examine and debate. If a contribution is unverifiable, misleading, or simply wrong, there is no reason for it to be included in the article. Indeed, it must not be included in the article. You have made your own ignorance clear. You claim the authority to stitch together "compromise" paragraphs when you are simply unqualified to do so, since you have no idea what is true and what is not. If you want to edit merely on style, I recognize your right to do so. But you cannot admit to ignorance and then edit on content. That you want to write a paragraph on "messiah" when you do not understand the Hebrew usage; when you didn't know all priests are descended from Aaron; when you do not recognize who Shaye Cohen or Geza Vermes are; is just so absurd it blows my mind. Even now you claim that you have considerable experience in research, yet you haven't shown any sign of even knowing how to research this topic. That your claims to this ignorant authority have taken up so much space on the talk page isonly obstructionist. You have not contributed anything of value, and have only gotten in the way. Surely there is some article on a topic you actually know something about, that you can more fruitfully (and I am sure enjoyably) participate. Slrubenstein 18:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Having served as an editor on committees dealing with considerably more esoteric content than this, I feel I am aware enough of the scholarly process to serve here. That you are attempting to shift the argument to credentials suggests to me you lack of this type of experience. I believe we have fundamental differences of opinion on the "Wikipedia process" which may impede our ability to work toward a compromise. - Amgine 18:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe Slrubenstein has fundamental differences of opinion with everyone else as to what constitutes civility. CheeseDreams 19:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

your version of CaHBJ
User:Pedant:CaHBJv1 if you feel it wants any editing,feel free to do so, I'll be comparing them around thursday or friday. the rest will be at User:Pedant:CaHBJv2,User:Pedant:CaHBJv3, etc. thanks again for your contributions.Pedant 20:58, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Request for mediation
It is a requirement of Wikipedia policy that you are informed of the following link's existence: Requests for mediation

It is also a requirement to inform of the following link (although Slrubenstein failed to comply with the requirement): Requests for mediation

Son of Man
Replied on my talk page. —No-One Jones (m) 23:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Talk: page comments
I don't think removal of third party comments on an article's Talk: page is required for mediation, or even suggested by its guidelines. Moreover, I am philosophically opposed to removal of Talk: page comments, except for purposes of archiving stale discussions. Jayjg 16:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I understand and respect you philosophy regarding removing comments from talk: pages. However, since I feel it could unnecessarily risk the mediation Slrubenstein has requested and since I feel it could unnecessarily risk the potential compromise which is being developed regarding the locked article I am constrained from responding to the content of your responses. That you have now been informed of this, I would consider it baiting and uncivil of you to add personal challenges in that talk page. - Amgine 17:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the mediation when I posted the comments, so they were not baiting. I understand why you do not wish to respond at this point.  Regardless, the comments are there, they are not part of the mediation, and you are under no obligation to respond now or ever. Jayjg 17:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jesus
I have no opinion as to whether deleting some of the "see alsos" was justifiable or unjustifiable. Nor do I care whether you restored them. But I never deleted them, and for you to characterize an action of mine as unjustifiable, when I never did it, is unfair. Slrubenstein

 * I'm sorry, you may have misunderstood the edit summary. I reverted to Slrubenstein's, that is, to your previous version, as is fairly common usage in revert summaries I have seen. My apologies for not being more clear in my summary, and for any misunderstanding caused. - Amgine 20:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology but see now that it is unnecessary. Thank you for your explanation. I see how I misread your comment -- I am sorry for the misunderstanding but am glad that we could sort it out so quickly, Slrubenstein

Cultural and historical background of Jesus
In regards to Cultural and historical background of Jesus, you asked "Would you be so kind as to explain to me why this article has been unprotected?" Certainly. Our protection policy states that protection "is only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful." It also states that "temporarily protected pages should not be left protected for very long," and that page had been protected for over two weeks.

I share your hope that a revert war does not erupt on the page. Please remember that it takes two to edit-war, and so long as either side chooses to be patient and use the talk page instead of continuous reversion, a revert-war can't occur. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia! – Quadell (talk) (help)  14:08, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Dude. That's a mess. Some people are clearly not behaving well. Still, it's not a revert-war, exactly. . . and it's so chaotic at the moment that I can't tell if it's getting better or worse. I think I'll leave it be for a couple days and see what happens.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   23:02, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

worries
I am a little confused -- did you or Pedant ask me to look at the proposed draft? In any case, I commented on it, see the talk page. Sometimes I know I am blunt, but all my comments are on good faith and I hope they are clear to you, Slrubenstein

Nordisk familjebok?
Well, the best would be to read the article Nordisk Familjebok. Since it was published a long time ago the copyright has expired and it's now in the public domain. You can even read the entire text (with pictures) online at http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/nf/ // Liftarn

yikes
Sorry to hear the bad news. It has happened to me and I know it feels awful, and is a big hassle. Good luck, Slrubenstein

Okay. Please do NOT edit the current version, except for small errors. I have included the most neutral versions of everything that people have done, and tried to do an honest job. I think its good and I think its broadly neutral but yet pays tribute to both secular and christians, and allows both to find what they need. Comments (brief and summary!!) on the talk page for now. hen see where we are at. FT2 03:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks *smiles* Might cite you on my page if you keep on that way. Seriously, it has been hard work, I only hope they like it. Please read the article and help by commenting or such. If some kind of consensus emerges maybe we can get a grudging draw if both sides feel respected and heard, and can agree it is a fairer presentation? What do you think? I'd like to move on from mass edit wars to some form of consensus on the core article, if it has in fact done anything like a fair neutral job. FT2 17:39, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Please see the article. I have left my comments on the talk page. accordingly. FT2 19:39, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Vote on which is more appropriate for neutrality? Or no point? FT2 23:33, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

joshua
Do you mean the edit that adds the etymology of Jesus' name, that it means YHVH (we could just call it "the Lord") is salvation? If so, yes, to my knowledge this is accurate. It was also a common Jewish name -- do you think that needs to be added? Or is there another anonymous edit I missed? Slrubenstein
 * No problem! Do you think it is important to mention that it was a common name (my fear is that some will see this somehow as "proof" that Jesus was a savior -- but maybe I am being unreasonably sensitive/paranoid.  I defer to your judgement here). Slrubenstein
 * Your suggestion is fine by me and I don't object if you want to put it in but you may want to ask other contributors what they think. Personally, I like it. Slrubenstein

Your apology
Thanks for the apology, Amgine. Although I continue to strenuously disagree with your views on the article, I would hope that all of us can maintain a basic level of civility and avoid nastiness as much as possible as we continue to argue. I think that, generally, you have remained relatively polite over the course of the discussion (although, as I've said, I continue to not think much of your substantive arguments), so I shall assume that this was a momentary lapse due to irritation, which I would certainly not claim to be immune to. That said, we seem to be further from agreement than ever on the article itself. I'll just say that I really am quite confused about the nature of your substantive problems with Slr's version [pausing to revert article back to that version - no reason to unilaterally disarm], and why you feel that FT2's version is superior, especially given the rather glaring ignorance of pretty basic facts on FT's part which I think that some of the recent exchanges on the talk page have revealed (for instance, his claim that Roman emperors of the time of Christ were shorter-lived than non-existent Roman emperors who supposedly lived a century before the beginning of the Roman Empire; or his apparent ignorance of the fact that John/Yohanan and Jonathan are completely different Hebrew names.) Perhaps you could try to explain yourself more fully on my talk page. john k 07:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey Amgine, thanks for your explanation. It makes the issues somewhat clearer, although I still disagree with you. I think the process-based argument is rather deeply unfair. Slr has continuously engaged in lengthy discussion on the talk page of his version, and has welcomed constructive criticism. I find it hard to see why the fact that you and others refuse to work to improve his version, and instead work on (or simply revert to, as CheeseDreams does) FT2's version, indicates that there is something wrong with his version, any more than the fact that Slr and I have been reverting back to his version indicates on its own that there is anything wrong with that version. Edit warring is edit warring, and I don't see how all the blame can be put on one side. I will try to bring on some constructive criticisms of Slr's version, and improve, so that it's not simply an edit war, although I suspect this will not help. As to the substantive question, I really am not sure why you find Slr's version to be unreadable. I think that it's really quite good - clearly written and well-researched, although it is obviously not perfect. FT2's version, on the other hand, seems poorly organized and oddly written, and contains howling factual errors. Best, john k 07:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Amgine, I have started making various changes to Slr's version, and I have made some constructive comments about it on the talk page. I'm planning on doing the same for FT2's version (not making changes, but making comments). I will say that I tend not to try to make changes in the midst of an edit war, because I fear that the other version will get approved and all my work will have been for nothing. As soon as it settles down, I'd certainly like to try to contribute. I also do not see how it is Slr's fault that I reverted three times. On the one hand, I have the right to revert up to three times if I think it's appropriate, and I would heavily dispute that this is somehow "unethical." On the other hand, Slr did not force me to revert, and, furthermore, you have reverted a similar number of times. As to the substantive questions, while I do agree with you that Slr has probably been listing an excessive number of sources, although I would disagree that he qualifies every statement with a citation. As to the other issue, that the article is not tied closely enough to the cultural and historical context of Jesus, I would agree with this guardedly. I do not think, however, that the answer is to separate out history from culture - I agree with Slr that this would make little sense. On the matter of Slr's behavior, I would like to see some citations. From what I've seen, however, I'd note that you and CheeseDreams have pretty much consistently failed to ever cite a scholarly source for your claims when challenged on them. At any rate, let me get on to critiquing FT2's version of the article. john k 17:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request
Could you comment on the alleged (by me) abuse of adminship in protecting a POV (Slrubenstein's) version of Cultural and historical background of Jesus rather than a pre-edit war version at Requests for comment

?CheeseDreams 22:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Avot
I am trying to figure this out myself. You might have noticed that on the background talk page I have apologized to FT2 (just to show you that I know when I am complaining, here is a complaint: just as I admit when I am wrong, I wish he would admit when he is wronge e.g. when translating John as "Yonatan") -- he quoted the tractate accurately (although I still think the larger point he was making is wrong). ben Tama really was a tana'itic scholar of the second century. But the quote is funny because he refers to the Talmud which just didn't exist then. So was this verse of the Mishnay screwqed around with? I really do not know. I am going to ask my friends who really are Talmud scholars. All I can tell you now is that it is a unique tractate. I will let you know if I find out more, Slrubenstein PS the Mishnah is not 200 BCE it is 200 CE

Refactoring
In cleaning up the discussion that had been incorrectly placed on the main Requests for comment page, I moved around some of your statements, which are now located either on Requests for comment/Theresa knott or Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Theresa knott. This was done to comply with the standard format for listing user conduct disputes on Requests for comment. None of the text you wrote has been altered in any way. --Michael Snow 00:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation
Amgine, I sent you a reply to your email when I saw it last night. Did you not receive it? -- llywrch 23:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alleged tomb of Jesus
An anonymous user created this article (at the location Tomb of Jesus - I moved it). You may wish to NPOV it. CheeseDreams 19:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

e-mail
Thank-you for the offer, but I would prefer not to have e-mail.

I have already been contacted by one fundamentalist editor trying to get an e-mail address so they can send unspecified things to me (which I suspect is viral) - see my talk page.

In addition to such paranoia, I prefer to keep my own discussions open, though I have no objection to you or other parties discussing things between yourselves by e-mail. CheeseDreams 23:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alphabetical index
The Alphabetical Index, along with its cousin Topical index, are entirely manually maintained, although when I created them I used the larger List of pages in the Wikipedia namespace as a source, and its content is based on running a script on the database. --Michael Snow 05:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Putting a link here
Putting this link here will undoubtably attract Slrubenstein and Sam Spade and company to the link destination. Nethertheless, would you like to comment?

Requests for comment/CheeseDreams

Oh, you might also like to see the nuclear option CheeseDreams 00:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein
I don't see where Slrubenstein disagrees with me on Cultural....background. Could you be more specific? Tigermoon 10:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jesus stuff
I see a moderate difference. The "Jesus in" article would perhaps be focused more tightly around Jesus. But it's essentially the same idea. john k 21:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV and historians
I have a question about one of your recent comments:
 * Slrubenstein views the article as primarily a historian's state of the science, and therefore privileging (probably correctly) academic texts and sources. While a reasonable heuristic, there is certainly a bias in this approach, not least of which is the preponderence of western and christian POV in the available literature.

I am all for including as many POVs as possible -- and I appreciate your generally supportive tone. But I have two questions. First, what other POVs are you suggesting? There are already separate articles on Jewish and Muslim points of view; I think we need a separate article on non-religious POVs. But were you suggesting adding other POVs? Which? Jewish and Muslim? Or am I missing something? Second, the POV of the article (in the current protected form, which was last edited by me) the POV is that Jesus was not the son of God, not divine, not resurrected, will not return. These are certainly the views of the historians cited (Jesus was not divine, the miracles did not occur, he doesn't redeem people from sin). So please, in what way is any of this a "Christian" POV? Am I missing something? It seems downright anti-Christian to me! What do you see that I don't? Slrubenstein

 * I must say, I am a little concerned that after writing "there is certainly a bias in this approach, not least of which is the preponderence of western and christian POV in the available literature," you write "I have not examined your essay as to its specific Christian bias or lack thereof." Be that as it may, if I understand you correctly, perhaps your criticism is not of Christian POV but rather "Eurocentrism."  However, I am very very concerned about the way you talk about "Christian" versus "Jewish" scholars.  Now, in order to avoid a conflict I am having with CheeseDreams, I do not think you are racist and am not accusing you of racism.  But I do think there is a danger in thinking that Christian and Jewish historians will have such different methods and conclusions.  Surely you wouldn't say that there is a difference between Jewish and Christian physics?  Now, I know there has in fact been much bias in history.  I recognize that there have been historians who were ideologues for Christianity or White Europe, and that there have been historians who were ideologues for Judaism or Zionism.  But these historians do not have much credibility these days in history departments.  I think modern historians have really tried to overcome such biases ver self-consciously in the past fifty years.  I think most historians see themselves as advocates for people who lived long ago, often far away -- scholars who are trying to understand and make understandable the words and deeds of people who otherwise seem very strange to us ... scholars who turn to history because they are skeptical of what they have been taught about their own place and times.  In any event, my sources (in my version of the article) include historians who happen to be Jewish.  Also, the historians who happen to be Christian, whom I cite, themselves use Jewish historians as sources (and there are Jewish historians who use Christian historians as sources, with respect for their work as historians, regardless of their religion or race).  Do you really want to essentialize Jewish and Christian historians?  Do you really have a basis to do this?  When you read Fredricksen and Sanders, can you really tell from how and what they write whether they are Jewish or Christian? Slrubenstein

Thank you for addressing my concerns on my talk page. I appreciate your sensitivity for bias. Your example concerning readings of the Mishnah is a good one. So I would ask only that you apply your concern for bias with the same attention to specifics, here. That is, I agree that we need to be on the lookout for biases, and make them explicit when we see them -- just as long as we do not dismiss out of hand what someone says just because they could have a bias. Slrubenstein

title: User talk:Amgine/Archive1


text:
Peter A. Allard School of Law

The Peter A. Allard School of Law (abbreviated as Allard Law) is the law school of the University of British Columbia. The faculty offers the Juris Doctor degree. The faculty features courses on business law, tax law, environmental and natural resource law, indigenous law, Pacific Rim issues, and feminist legal theory.

It was renamed from the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law in 2015 to honour a $30M gift from Peter Allard, an alumnus, which followed a 2011 gift from him of about $12M.

History
UBC offered lectures in law from 1920, but the university's faculty of law was established in 1945, and was served by George F. Curtis (1906–2005) as the founding dean, until he retired in 1971. Because it lacked adequate infrastructure, the law school used army huts from World War II, until a permanent structure was built in 1951, which was named after Curtis; it was replaced by Allard Hall in 2009.

In recognition of a donation from UBC law alumnus Peter A. Allard, the law school was renamed the Peter A. Allard School of Law, on 22 January 2015; previously, it had been named University of British Columbia Faculty of Law. Allard is the son of one-time Edmonton Oilers co-owner, Dr. Charles "Chuck" Allard, who also brought the SCTV sketch comedy television series to Edmonton.

Academics
In 2023, both QS World and Times Higher Education ranked Allard the second-best common law school in the Canada, ranking behind only the University of Toronto. Academically, the school is amongst the most selective in the nation, with a median LSAT score of 166, or the 91st percentile, for the entering class of 2022.

In 2024, the Times Higher Education ranked Allard the third-best law school within Canada, and the 37th in the world.

At least five of Allard's current faculty are former Rhodes scholars, with many more serving as former law clerks at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Allard Hall
The school is located at the University of British Columbia's campus in Vancouver, British Columbia. In 2011 it moved out of its former building, a brutalist-style building with malfunctioning heating and cooling and into a new building that had recently been completed. The building cost around $56M; the university used $21M of its own funds and the rest came from donations, including $12M from The Law Foundation of B.C. In 2011 shortly before students and faculty began moving in, Peter Allard, an alumnus, donated about $12 million to the school, with about $10M of it going to complete the capital campaign; the building was named after him.

Allard Prize for International Integrity
The Allard Prize was established in 2012 and was initially funded by part of the 2011 gift from Allard and further funded by a subsequent $30M donation by Allard in 2015. The Allard Prize became independent of the Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia on 21 June 2019.

The first prize was awarded in 2013, and it is given biennially to an individual, movement or organization that has "demonstrated exceptional courage and leadership in combating corruption, especially through promoting transparency, accountability and the Rule of Law". It is one of the world's largest prizes dedicated to the fight against corruption and protecting human rights.

The winner receives CAD$100,000 and an Allard Prize award which is an original work of art; Honourable Mention recipients receive an Allard Prize award and may be awarded a cash amount at the discretion of the Allard Prize Committee.

Many Allard Prize nominees and recipients have been, and continue to be, subjected to threats, violence, imprisonment and other attacks associated with their anti-corruption and human rights activities. One Honourable Mention recipient (Sergei Magnitsky) was nominated posthumously after being tortured and dying in a Russian prison.

UBC Law Review
The University of British Columbia Law Review is the school's official law review and is published by the UBC Law Review Society. Similar to the Harvard Law Review, the editorial process and business of the Society is run by Juris Doctor students, while manuscripts submitted to the journal are peer-reviewed by professors with specialized knowledge of the subject matter. It was first published in 1949 as a collection of legal essays entitled the UBC Legal Notes. In 1959, it officially became the UBC Law Review. It was incorporated as a non-profit society in 1966. The UBC Law Review is a top ranking scholarly publication in Canada and globally, alongside the University of Toronto Law Journal and McGill Law Journal.

Table of Statutory Limitations
First published in 1955 as a section of the UBC Law Review, the Table of Statutory Limitations has since matured into an annual compendium of legal limitation periods of various statutes. The TSL is published by students at the school.

Annual Review of Insolvency Law
The only Canadian peer-reviewed journal dedicated to insolvency and bankruptcy law. This annual publication offers articles by scholars and practitioners on personal and commercial insolvency law.

Canadian Journal of Family Law
First published in 1978, the Canadian Journal of Family Law is Canada's first family law journal. The journal is a biannual interdisciplinary journal that publishes both English and French academic articles on a broad range of issues related to family law. The journal is peer reviewed by an advisory board consisting of legal professionals and academics. It is produced by an editorial staff of students at the school.

Masks: The Online Journal of Law and Theatre
An interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal based at the school. The journal focuses on the intersections of Law and theatre.

UBC International Law Journal
The UBC International Law Journal is an online open access academic journal published by students at the school. The journal was initially created through the UBC International Law Society. The journal publishes exclusively student work, reviewed by students. The first issue was published in November 2008.

Legal Eye newspaper
The Legal Eye is a newspaper published monthly by students at the school. Started in September 2003, the Legal Eye serves as a forum for reporting on news about the Faculty, broader legal community, case commentary, the occasional recipe, book/restaurant/film reviews, event reviews, and for recognizing student activities and achievements.

Notable faculty

 * Beverley McLachlin, 1974–1981, became Chief Justice of Canada in 2000.
 * Joel Bakan, author of The Corporation.

Notable alumni

 * Donald Brenner, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
 * Kim Brooks, dean of both law and management at Dalhousie University
 * Kim Campbell, first woman prime minister of Canada
 * Joe Clark, former prime minister of Canada withdrew after first-year at Allard School of Law.
 * Ujjal Dosanjh, 33rd premier of British Columbia
 * Ed Fast, former minister of international trade, Member of Parliament for Abbotsford since 2006
 * Lance Finch, former Chief Justice of British Columbia.
 * Thomas Martin Franck, international law scholar and NYU law professor emeritus, former editor-In-chief of the American Journal of International Law.
 * Frank Iacobucci, former Supreme Court of Canada justice and former dean of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law.
 * Ted Lee, former diplomat and historian, former governor of Canada to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
 * Mark Okerstrom, 2004 – president/CEO of Expedia Group
 * Bud Smith, former attorney general of BC
 * Ari Taub (born 1971), Olympic Greco-Roman wrestler
 * Jody Wilson-Raybould, former attorney general of Canada Minister of Justice, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville
 * Zoe Si, Pulitzer Prize-nominated cartoonist

title: Peter A. Allard School of Law


text:
User:Cfrjlr

I would be personally honored to connect with you on Linkedin.

Please go to my profile page and click the Connect button.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/glie581g/

and on Facebook:

http://facebook.com/charles.radley

Sincerely,

Charles F Radley - Associate Fellow AIAA

Charles Radley is a spacecraft systems engineer who has worked on manned and unmanned spacecraft development and operations. Professional background includes B.S. Physics, M.S. Systems Engineering, 20+ years aerospace experience. He is an EIT Engineer in Training registered in the State of California, and an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. In 1981 he started work on communications satellite systems integration, launch campaigns and range safety. Later he was instrumental in developing proposals for lunar space missions for the 1990 Space Exploration Initiative. He was a member of the subcontractor teams for the Galileo and Magellan space probes, the International Space Station, experiments for Spacelab-MSL-1 and several communications satellite projects (e.g. Intelsat-6, Olympus, HS-601, HS-376, Inmarsat-2, Marecs). He worked on the Mobile Transporter, and the power system for NASA Space Station Freedom which became ISS. He is an inter-disciplinary engineer, specializing in systems safety and hazards analysis as well as mission operations. He was principal author of the NASA Guidebook for Safety Critical Software. Was a part time technical consultant for Transorbital Corporation, the first private company licensed by the U.S. government to explore and land on the Moon. He had a key role developing the design and perigee stage for the Trailblazer imaging lunar orbiter for. In 1968 he read about Solar Power Satellites and said ... Yes, this is THE solution. In 1976 he heard about Gerard O'Neill so in 1977 I read the High Frontier, and said, yes, finally a plan which makes sense. For the last 30 years continues to work on the original O'Neill vision with the addition of a lunar elevator. He joined the original L-5 Society in 1979. He was a regional director of the National Space Society (NSS) from 1994-5 and operated an NSS computer bulletin board on fidonet from 1990 through 1992. He has been active in the following NSS Chapters: Ventura County (CA), Cuyahoga Valley Space Society (OH), Oregon-L5; as well as active in the California Space Development Council and Midwest Space Development Corporation. He served a 2- year term as a director of the Moon Society, and later a 2-year term as its Vice President. In 2010 he became Vice President of Leeward Space Foundation, for PR and Programs. He has written extensively on space based solar power, e.g. in the 2009 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science. He was a contributor to the 2007 Department of Defense study on Space Based Solar Power managed by the National Space Security Office. In 2008 he managed a project by the Moon Society to build a one watt desktop microwave power beaming device and obtained the first ever FCC license for operation of a power beaming device in a public place. He pursues concepts for space manufacturing using lunar resources. He is thoroughly grounded in real world practical spacecraft technology and cost issues, as well as appreciating the big picture long term roadmap for lunar development. In recent years he has been engaged mainly as a software quality engineer in commercial and government IT environments. PUBLICATIONS  1996: Principal author of NASA-GB-1740.13-96 NASA, Guidebook for Safety Critical Software  Charles Frank Radley, "Space-beamed solar power," in AccessScience, ©McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009  NASA Contractor Report NASA-CR-198412 - Software Safety Progress in NASA – October 1995  NASA Technical Memorandum 106597 – “Implementing software safety in the NASA environment” – Wetherholt and Radley – June 1994  Radley, Charles, 1980, M.Sc. Thesis, Digital Control of a Small Missile, The City University, London, UK

title: User:Cfrjlr


text:
Psoy Korolenko

Psoy Galaktionovich Korolenko (Псой Галактионович Короленко; born April 26, 1967) is a pseudonym of a Russian songwriter and performer by the name of Pavel Eduardovich Lion (Павел Эдуардович Лион). Pavel Lion is also a slavist with a Ph.D. in Russian literature.

Musical career
His pseudonym comes from Russian writer Vladimir Korolenko (1853–1921), whose works are a subject of Pavel's research. In university, Korolenko studied under Russian literature historian Nikolai Liban, among others.

Psoy performs his own and others' songs, accompanying himself to keyboard instruments, mainly a Casio synthesizer in accordion timbre. Experimenting with quite various song traditions he sings in about six or seven languages, most frequently in Russian, Yiddish, English and French.

For example, one of Psoy's songs, Buratino, is an a capella rhythmic recitation of the same phrase – "Buratino byl tupoy" ("Buratino was dumb") – which after several repetitions starts to morph into other phrases, eventually shifting into Italian through syllable rearrangement. More phrases are then introduced and "mixed" vocally with it. The song is something of a parody of rap and trance music.

Psoy tours extensively beyond Russian borders, particularly in the United States, Europe and Israel. His music is popular both with adults (especially linguists) and teenagers. He rewrites many songs, and also has translated some songs from Russian to Yiddish. He has collaborated with musicians such as Julian Kytasty, Michael Alpert, and Daniel Kahn & The Painted Bird. He has been involved in events celebrating Bundist organisations, such as playing music for the 120th anniversary of the Jewish Labour Bund in Melbourne, Australia.

Discography

 * Yiddish Glory, various artists, Six Degrees Records, 2018, nominated for the Grammy

title: Psoy Korolenko


text:
Numantia

Numantia (Numancia) is an ancient Celtiberian settlement, whose remains are located on a hill known as Cerro de la Muela in the current municipality of Garray (Soria), Spain.

Numantia is famous for its role in the Celtiberian Wars. In 153 BC, Numantia experienced its first serious conflict with Rome. After twenty years of hostilities, in 133 BC the Roman Senate gave Scipio Aemilianus Africanus the task of destroying Numantia.

History

Numantia was an Iron Age hill fort (in Roman terminology an oppidum), which controlled a crossing of the river Duero. Pliny the Elder counts it as a city of the Pellendones, but other authors, like Strabo and Ptolemy place it among the Arevaci people. The Arevaci were a Celtiberian tribe, formed by the mingling of Iberians and migrating Celts in the 6th century BC, who inhabited an area near Numantia and Uxama.

The first serious conflict with Rome occurred in 153 BC when Quintus Fulvius Nobilior was consul. Numantia took in some fugitives from the city of Segeda, who belonged to another Celtiberian tribe called the Belli. The leader of the Belli, Carus of Segeda, managed to defeat a Roman army. The Romans then besieged Numantia, and deployed a small number of war elephants, but were unsuccessful.

In 137 BC, 20,000 Romans surrendered to the Celtiberians of Numantia (population between 4,000 and 8,000). The young Roman officer Tiberius Gracchus, as quaestor, saved the Roman army from destruction by signing a peace treaty with the Numantines, an action generally reserved for a legate.

The final siege of Numantia began in 134 BC. Scipio Aemilianus in command of an army of 30,000 soldiers laid siege to the city, erecting a 9 km barrier supported by towers, moats, impaling rods, and other devices. The Numantians refused to surrender and famine quickly spread through the city. After eight months most of the inhabitants decided to commit suicide rather than become slaves. A few hundred of the inhabitants decided to burn the city before surrendering after 13 months of siege.

Later history
After the destruction in 133 BC, occupation continued in the 1st century BC with a regular street plan but without great public buildings. Its decay started in the 3rd century, but was still settled in the 4th century.

Later remains from the 6th century hint of a Visigoth occupation.

Excavation and conservation of Numantia
Numantia's exact location vanished from memory, and some theories placed it in Zamora, but in 1860 Eduardo Saavedra identified the correct location in Garray, Soria. In 1882, the ruins of Numantia were declared a national monument. In 1905, the German archaeologist Adolf Schulten began a series of excavations which located the Roman camps around the city. In 1999, the Roman camps were included in a zona arqueológica, a category of the Spanish heritage register which did not exist when the hillfort was first protected. Regular excavations are still going on.

Museums

Many objects from the site are on display in the Numantine Museum of Soria (Spanish: Museo Numantino). This museum is also responsible for in situ displays at Numantia.

Other collections which have items from the site include the Romano-Germanic Central Museum, Mainz. (Some objects were taken by Adolf Schulten to Germany).

Symbolism
The Siege of Numantia was recorded by several Roman historians who admired the sense of freedom of the ancient Iberians and acknowledged their fighting skills against the Roman legions.

In Spanish culture
Miguel de Cervantes (author of Don Quijote) wrote a play about the siege, El cerco de Numancia, which stands today as his best-known dramatic work. Antonio Machado references the city in his poetry book Campos de Castilla. The poem is an ode to the countryside and peoples of rural Castile. More recently, Carlos Fuentes wrote a short story about the event, "The Two Numantias", in his collection The Orange Tree.

Several Spanish Navy ships have been named Numancia and a Sorian battalion was named batallón de numantinos. During the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalist Numancia regiment took the town of Azaña in Toledo. To erase the memory of the Republican president Manuel Azaña, they renamed it Numancia de la Sagra.

The Sorian football team is called CD Numancia.

The expression "numantine resistance" is occasionally used to refer to particularly obdurate resistance.

title: Numantia