text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanavsos

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Deathphoenix 01:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

vanavsos
This article is problematic in many superficial ways and in one deep way.

The superficial failings of this article could be corrected. The very name of the article, "vanavsos", is incorrect -- the Greek term has a standard English equivalent, "banausic" (see OED). The meaning given for the term is incorrect -- in fact, inconsistent with the quotes the article itself gives. The transliterations and etymology aren't quite right. The discussion of the sense-development in Greek isn't quite right. There are anachronistic references to modern fields, which could be removed. There is a connection to the constitutions of the Doric states which is not justified in the article, which could be removed. Etc. etc.

If those were the only problems, the solution would be to either edit the article, or to list it in Pages_needing_attention.

But there is a more basic problem: it is not about an important, recognized concept. It is taking a common Ancient Greek word which Aristotle uses in its ordinary meaning and elevating it into some sort of technical term in political philosophy. At best, this constitutes original research, an essay on the relationship of the Greek concepts of virtue (arete) and how it is incompatible with banausic occupation.--Macrakis 05:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed resolution: Rename to Artisan Class in Ancient Greece
In the spirit of WikiLove, I'm ignoring some of the provocative things that have been said, and will try for a constructive, positive, egoless resolution, taking advantage of everyone's contributions.

The core of this article as it currently stands seems to be the political role of the artisan class in ancient greece (the βάναυσοι ). That is an encyclopedic subject, there is accepted non-original research on the topic (which it would be nice to cite at some point), and in fact it's not a bad name for it.

That seems like an awfully specialized subject, though, and I'd hope that we could come up with a more general article on the Artisan Class in Ancient Greece, with more content on its economic role, its relations with other parts of the population (citizens, metics, slaves, etc.), well-known members (Phidias?, Socrates?), patron gods/demigods (Daedalus?), and all that.

As for the name of the article: In the academic literature on this class, it is referred to either using the English term 'artisan', or with the Greek name in Greek letters, or the Greek name transliterated as 'banausoi' (the plural of 'banausos'). Liddell & Scott (the standard dictionary of Ancient Greek) translates it as 'artisan' (noun); as an adjective, it started out as the adjective 'of the class of handicraftsmen or artisans' and later developed into 'vulgar' etc. (in Modern Greek, it means something like 'uncouth', but that is not really relevant here). Of course, it doesn't have precisely the same denotation or connotations as the English word 'artisan', but there doesn't seem to be any danger of confusion by using that term. The printed index of the 1911 Britannica doesn't use the term banausos/banausic, and, to the extent one can trust the scanned version at 1911encyclopedia.org, they don't appear in its text, either (even though it does use the term 'metic'). Hence the recommendation to use the term 'artisan class'. --Macrakis 23:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A truly inspired suggestion, Macrakis. I do hope that this takes some of the heat out of this debate. --Theo (Talk) 01:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is the importance of the term: '''This ancient Greek term delineates the ethos of the commercial class from the ethos of the warrior class. It shows the bias of the warrior ethos and established, in the Greek republics, a "psycological distance" between the citizens and the traders.''' "Artisans" in the Greek language is "texnitai". This word "vanavsos" is to show that they created a term to describe their "bias" against the trader classes and to seperate the warrior ethos from the commercial ethos. This article is very necessary for understanding ancient Greek republicansim!WHEELER 15:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Aristotle is pretty clear on this in Politics 1277a/b: ὧν ἓν μέρος κατέχουσιν οἱ χερνῆτες: οὗτοι δ' εἰσίν, ὥσπερ σημαίνει καὶ τοὔνομ' αὐτούς, οἱ ζῶντες ἀπὸ τῶν χειρῶν, ἐν οἷς ὁ βάναυσος τεχνίτης ἐστίν. διὸ παρ' ἐνίοις οὐ μετεῖχον οἱ δημιουργοὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀρχῶν, πρὶν δῆμον γενέσθαι τὸν ἔσχατον. That is: “One department [of slave/bondsman] belongs to the handicraftsmen (χερνῆτες ), who as their name implies are the persons that live by their hands (χειρῶν ), a class that includes the mechanic (βάναυσος ) artisan (τεχνίτης ).  Hence in some states manual laborers (δημιουργοὶ ) were not admitted to office in old times, before the development of extreme democracy.”
 * I think it's pretty clear from this passage that "banausos" is not the term of art in political philosophy that you're making it out to be, at least in Aristotle—in fact, he uses the word δημιουργοὶ to refer to the manual workers who were not admitted to office, not βαναυσοι . Your own quotes demonstrate that banausic does not refer to the commercial or agricultural sector, and your quotes about the love of money don't refer to banausoi at all.  So where does that leave this article?  Is a common Ancient Greek word for a kind of artisan worth a Wikipedia article?  That said, as I suggested above, I do think it is worthwhile to have an serious article on the social/economic/cultural position of artisans in Greek society in the Wikipedia. --Macrakis 18:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * As Nixon said, "Let me make this perfectly clear"---This is not about the "artisan class" it is about the ancient Greek warrior clan using a word to seperate their "*culture*" from the commercial culture. First, It is a word that describes the "prejudice" of the warrior class for the "values" of the commercial class.  Moreover, it was a psycological device to train their people to turn away from the commercial fields of endeavor.  To label this as the "Artisan class" is to destroy the fundamental meaning that this article is trying to portray.WHEELER 15:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no understanding Classical Greek republicanism without understanding this term! This term is very very very important to Classical Greek republicanism, i.e.  Wikinfo:Classical republicanism which was removed from Wikipedia. Which SimonP gets all wrong in Classical republicanism.WHEELER 15:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I know this is a hard concept to grasp. Not only am I a Doric Greek, but I have been trained as a soldier all my life and did six years in the USMC.  This is my ethos.  Most of you have been brought up in democracy, liberalism, modernism which colors and influences your thought.  I have done nothing but read about the Greeks all my life.  I have read Werner Jaeger, Kitto, Hamilton, Muller and others.  I know ancient Greek culture, though I am not a Greek linguist whatsoever, but I do know Ancient Greek culture and because I have the same lifestyle and was trained as they were, I know from whence they speak.  Please don't transport modern ideas and prejudices back into the classical world.WHEELER 16:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have changed the introductory paragraph to dispel confusion. Please REREAD the article.WHEELER 17:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the title, the title needs to capture the essence of the material in question. I am all up for a better title, but "Artisan Class in Ancient Greece" is not one of them. This title is misleading because it is not about the "Artisan Class". It deals with virtue and how money is destructive of virtue and the warrior ethos.WHEELER 14:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * My point on presenting my culture and my ethos is that I see what they see. The Spartans are a strange people, Rousseau commented on this, Paul Cartledge commented on this and many others.  Why?  Because they are namby-pambies.  They are academics, soft and effeminate.  How can soft and effeminate, lovers of themselves and lovers of money, understand a warrior culture.  They can not.  The Spartans are a "strange people". They don't understand and so they can not "correctly" speak of them.  What they conjecture is misleading because they miss to catch salient points.   Culture is very important.  If cultural determinism is important to understanding people's actions And that culture impacts politics, Then Culture also impacts knowledge! What do the proverbs say, "It takes one to know one";  "Unless you have walked in a mile in the moccasins of the other, then you can't understand".  Understanding is the key to knowledge. How can academics that have spent their whole life in a classroom have any understanding and/or sympathy (therefore "knowledge") for a warrior culture and ethos in which they despise. Its commonsense.WHEELER 15:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Macrakis you are turning this into something which is not intended in the article. you state that "this is an essay on the relationship of the Greek concepts of virtue and how it in incompatible with banausic occupation".  This article only presents the concept current in Greek philosophy, and the language of the aristocratic classes.  This article JUST presents the concept.  In the minds of the Spartans, Kretans, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, there was already a concept of incompatiblity.  It was a given.  Why do you think that in Republic (Plato) that Plato doesn't give any room for the vanavsos.  In order to understand Platonic and Aristotelian political philosophy and the actions of Thebes  and of the Doric Greeks in this regard, this concept is necessary.  Your attempt to slight and construe this into original research is an attempt at censorship.  I agree that 30% of the [classical definition of republic] was original.  But the vanavsos article is not original research at all. You are sliding the facts to get this deleted.WHEELER 17:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Votes

 * Keep. It is for Classical studies.  It is a word used in Aristotelian, Platonic texts and any student needs to know the meaning of the word.  I cite sources and it is a good article and not orignal research.WHEELER 19:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment - whilst I agree with Macrakis, WHEELER raises a good point. The actual article should be on Wikipedia, but there are many flaws with it in its current state. It is original research - see the original research definition, in particular: an article is original research if it "provides new definitions of old terms". In the article, you state (as an example) "Plato and Aristotle teach that the highest thing in man is reason and therefore, the purpose of human perfection lies with the activity of reason; i.e. the 'theoretic' or contemplative life. Trade, industry and mechanical labour prevent this idea.". Well, you may think trade, industry and mechanical labour prevent activity of reason, but playing the devil's advocate, I'd be perfectly prepared to refute that claim (I am, of course, assuming that the "therefore" is your own thoughts and ideas, and not Plato's or Aritotle's. If I've misread the passage I apologise, but my point remains - much of the article is original research). Nick04 19:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is precisely my point in this whole debate on the deletion process here at wikipedia. NickO4 is the perfect example.  The article states the thought of Aristotle and Plato.  nick04 wants to argue with them and place "modern" ideas back into the classical world. " Well, you may think trade, industry and mechanical labour prevent activity of reason, but playing the devil's advocate, .  This article is not about MODERN people agreeing with the thought of Aristotle or Plato, it is about presenting their thought AS IS.  Only by Understanding HOW they thought can you understand the WHY they said the things they said.  This response by this Wikipedian shows the falacy and the damage being done to the Classical world and its studies.  This man wants to "reinterpret" Classical thought in the light of Modern Thought!!!  This is not right!!!.WHEELER 19:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete original research. - SimonP 19:55, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Portions would be appropriate for an ancient-Greek dictionary, and I'd vote to delete them as dictionary definitions; the balance of the article's text is idiosyncratic inference, POV, and original research.  The conclusion that "Plato and Aristotle teach" anything at all about "modern fields such as lawyering and journalism" is inappropriate on Wikipedia, and removing all such conclusions would leave only a patchwork of quotations holding the article together; as Macrakis says, this is not a widely accepted synthesis, term, or concept.  (The main author has in the past made collaborative editing of his submissions next to impossible, so improvements to the lesser problems Macrakis identifies are unlikely in any case.)  -- Rbellin|Talk 20:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your comment, "The conclusion that "Plato and Aristotle teach" anything at all about "modern fields such as lawyering and journalism" is inappropriate on Wikipedia" is very impertinent. You may not take any teaching from the Classics, but all of Roman Catholic philosophy, theology and ethics comes from Plato and Aristotle.  You and your people may not like this information and refuse to read anything classical because they are "DWEM" and you despise classical learning and philosophy doesn't mean that you can delete information based on these grounds and your prejudices.  What about the rest of us that have a love of the classical world?  What about the Roman Catholic philosophers and students who love to have this information?  There are "*other*" people out here that do love this information.WHEELER 17:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Please re-read, and please try to understand, No original research, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and No personal attacks, and refrain from making ad hominem arguments based on your (erroneous) suppositions about other contributors' personal beliefs. This is flamebait, not constructive discussion about the article's merits or lack thereof. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you look below, I answer all the charges of it being 'original" research. And I ask you, How can it be "original research" when, the word was taken into the English language as early as 1845?  And what do you mean by 'modern'?  1935 is not "modern" enough for you?  When does "modernity" start, anew every 20 years.  So books in the l960's is ancient and no good?WHEELER 16:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Stone me with a blood-red crow, but I can't see what the problem is. I have removed the "modern fields" phrase (which was a bit dodgy), but the remainder of the article looks like a perfectly valid discussion of an ancient Greek word/concept and its context, amply supported by relevant references. It needs some cleanup, but what article doesn't? Keep. GeorgeStepanek\talk  02:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Original research, and if the original author won't allow others to edit it, it's not likely to change. SlimVirgin 22:53, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep, because the basic topic is valid. The content needs a lot of work to strip out novel interpretations, but if poor content (or difficult contributors) were a basis for deletion, WP would just now be getting up to its 1,000th article. :-) Stan 16:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm torn on this one. Everything that Macrakis says about it is surely true, yet GeorgeStepanek also has a point.  It seems that, if it were moved to the correct title, and the inaccuracies (what's wrong with the tranliteration, though?) and personal research removed, it could be a useful article.  And yet, and yet... the only genuine English word that corresponds to the Greek is an adjective — and it seems odd to have an encyclopædia article with an adjective as a title (banausic what?); we do seem to be dealing more with a dictionary article.  It's also true that WHEELER has a tendency to fight tooth and nail to prevent changes to what he sees as his articles (though the Arete (excellence) article has seen a softening of that position, so there's hope).  In the end, though, I don't see that I can vote otherwise than: Delete. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * WHEELER has asked me to look at the article again, and there's no doubt that he's put a lot of work into it. I disagree with some of the claims (such as that writers like Aristotle disn't distinguish between artisans and slaves), but that's not the point.  Discussion of the concept doubtless has a place somewhere (in a discussion of Aristotle, in a discussion of ancient Greek class-consciousness, etc.), but there's just no reason to think that the Greeks (who, aside from Aristotle, seem not even to have used the noun to refer to people, according to my Liddle & Scott) recognised the concept concerned.  I've contacted friends who are Classical scholars, but haven't yet heard back.  As soon as I do, I'll report here. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * KEEP, adjectives, ancient and otherwise, are encyclopedic, and I urge the deciding admin to ignore votes such as the above, which are not based in VfD standards. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * ???? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep, even though it needs work. The subject seems valid to me; unusual but not insignificant.  The intransigence (or otherwise) of the article's originator has no bearing on the validity of the article. Mel Etitis raises an interesting point about adjectives as topics and, although I cannot think of the deadjectival noun form of 'banausic', the solution to that issue is to use the deadjective as the title (what can that be?).--Theo  (Talk) 17:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If by 'deadjective' you mean 'noun', then the answer is that there isn't one in English; the word exists only as an adjective. That was rather my point. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I was being slack and using deadjective as a contraction for deadjectival noun. Your suggestion that there is no such construct does invalidate my titling proposal.  In my opinion, it does not make the topic invalid, however. --Theo  (Talk) 18:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar with 'deadjectival noun'; how do they differ from ordinary nouns? As for having an adjective as the title of an article, I'm not making a grammatical point; rather, I think that encyclopædia articles should be about things, people, places, concepts — in a word, subjects rather than properties. I'd find it equally odd to have an article entitled, say 'Philosophical' rather than 'Philosophy', or 'Humorous' rather than 'Humour'. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * A deadjectival noun is one derived from an adjective. "Usefulness" is an example. What price banausicness? banausicity? No, I thought not. --Theo (Talk) 19:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, what I'd call a back-formation. How about 'banausickle'? Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I reserve 'back-formation' for neologisms; long-established back-formations get the spurious gravitas of being 'deadjectival nouns'. [How long before we indent this conversation off the page?] --Theo (Talk) 21:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To Theo, we just start a new line. Look, the word in Greek is a noun not an adjective. It may be an adjective in English, but it is a noun in Greek. One just says "vanavsos" and one means the working class. One can say of the perioci of Lacedæmonia, that they are vanavsos. The vanavsoi don't have political rights. The vanavsoi are in rebellion. The vanavsoi are not literate enough to do politics. It is a noun in Greek texts. WHEELER 21:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no, it's a noun in modern Greek, we're agreed — it's just that there's no noun in English that's derived from it, only an adjective. I'm a little surprised that you say that it means the working class, though; isn't that a figurative, not a literal use?  In modern Greek, I thought that vanavsos meant literally 'crude', 'coarse', 'rough', 'vulgar', even 'obscene'.  In ancient Greek, though, it was an adjective, surely; I can't find a mention of it as  a noun except in Aristotle, and he seems to be creating a noun for his own purposes.  Do you have any other references for it as a noun? Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. As far as my greek knowledge says me, the transliteration would be banavsos not **vanavsos. --Neigel von Teighen 21:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the transliteration is fine for modern Greek (and modern Greeks pronounce ancient Greek as if it were modern). The standard English transliteration is 'banausos'. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The "b" in Greek is pronounced as a "v" sound. If the "B" is used then English speakers would say the term with a "b" sound.  I don't think that would sound right. And i would like to add that in understanding freedom and liberty, the Greeks did not consider the vanavsos as participants in a city's political life.  Aristotle, and Plato did not include the vanavsoi in the political franchise.  This word and concept are important to understanding the Greek mentality.WHEELER 21:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither Plato nor Aristotle were democrats, so I'm not clear what you mean by 'franchise' here — and they were surely included in the franchise in the Athenian democracy at the time (given that the term itself was only used as a noun describing a class of person by Aristotle, so far as I can tell). But that's a discussion that should really take place elsewhere. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, β in Modern Greek is certainly pronounced like English 'v', and it would be completely appropriate to transcribe a Modern Greek word that way. However, the term in question is being cited from classical sources (as I mentioned in the Talk:Vanavsos page).  The conventional transliteration of β in the Latin alphabet is 'b' -- we don't even need to worry about what the actual pronunciation was in classical times, just know that this is the standard convention.  Surely it doesn't make sense to re-write all Greek words borrowed into English following the Modern Greek pronunciation?: 'violoyia' (not biology), 'taftoloyia' (not tautology), etc.  Moreover, there is an existing, established English version of this term: banausic.  And what's wrong with saying 'the franchise was not extended to banausics'; anyway, the WikiPedia is not about introducing new terms like 'vanavsos'. --Macrakis 23:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * You're confusing two things here: English words with Greek roots, and transliterations of Greek words. 'Biology' is no more a transliteration of the Greek than would be 'viologhia' or 'violoyia'; it's an English word whose etymology is Greek.
 * What's wrong with the sentence you suggest is that 'banausics' isn't an English word.
 * In so far as Wikipedia delas with concepts that have only non-English names in non-Roman alphabets or other symbol-systems, then transliteration is necessary, and doesn't constitute the introduction of new words. For example, neither qi nor arete is an English word, but there's no problem with having articles on them. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, after having read all the arguments above. Jonathunder 00:44, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

 * Delete for all the reasons given. Or redirect to artisan.  If it is kept then the title should be banausoi (for a class), banausos (if people do not like plurals) or banausic as a real English word. --Henrygb 10:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for the time being. Needs much work, though.  Could become encyclopedic.  Smoddy (t) (e) 19:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an encyclopedic subject, and the article is not original research (at least not by my understanding of the policy). The concept is an ancient one, I think the main problem is that WHEELER has covered it in a more academic way than is usual on Wikipedia. The article might need a better introduction, to more clearly place it in its proper context, but other than that I see no real problem that can't be sorted out by a spell on "Pages needing attention". Rje 20:24, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * (changed from keep to Delete, see below WhiteC 05:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)). Many of these arguments seem to be about transliteration, and I don't see those as valid arguments to delete.  There is some similarity to artisan, but I don't think the concepts are interchangable (from what I've read in this article).  I agree with Rje--the article could probably use work, but remains valid content nonetheless. WhiteC 21:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This is why I tried to divert the stuff about transliteration to a separate section below (but too late). That's a side issue.  The central point is in Macrakis's initial comments: “But there is a more basic problem: it is not about an important, recognized concept. It is taking a common Ancient Greek word which Aristotle uses in its ordinary meaning and elevating it into some sort of technical term in political philosophy.” All the research that I've done supports this; the ancient Greeks simply didn't use the term in a way that warrants an article.  Aristotle himself didn't use it in the way that the article states.  Some of the quotations offered below could be taken to support WHEELER's contentions, but are more naturally read otherwise (references to 'the corrupting influence of the marketplace' just don't naturally refer to the supposed concept of 'vanavsos'). I do agree that some of the material would probably fit somewhere, so WHEELER's undoubted hard work needn't be completely wasted. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Mel. This is not a concept of Aristotle.  It was common throughout the ancient Greek cities.  Aristotle just gave it a philosophical underpinnings.  Sparta and Thebes organized their societies around this concept without ever reading Aristotle or Plato.  Plato uses this extensively in The Laws.  I have added much content and bibliography of the stuff. Please read.WHEELER 21:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Points taken, Mel. Wheeler, since you asked for my input, I have to say that I am unqualified regarding fine details of ancient history/philosophy (along with the other people you list).  I probably wouldn't have looked at this article myself, unless there are links to it from some other philosophical article I was reading.  Is there a list of ancient philosophical concepts somewhere in Philosophy:Ancient Greece or something--I guess if the concept were mentioned somewhere like that (before I posted this), I'd want to keep it, but otherwise not.  So, I'm changing my vote above. WhiteC 05:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't believe what I am hearing! We are in the midst of building an encyclopaedia.  Either I am charged with original research because i put the bare bones out and other Wikipedians charge me alone with having to write a complete and thorough article at the onset or now, they want to delete because, I WHEELER, haven't had the time and the knowhow to put other articles on the encyclopaedia to mesh with vanavsos which is now the supposition and reasoning of WhiteC.  This is absolutely outrageous!  I am benumbed with consternation at all these floating reasons that have no bearing on the essence of the question!  These people don't charge others with "these crimes" only myself and create "rules" that I must abide by but noone else. By WhiteC's argument, "The article must be deleted because it is not linked to any other article's".  To WhiteC, this illogicity is glaring, " How are we to build an encyclopaedia when others are going to delete articles because they are not connected to something else? "  I am floored by the "reasonings" imagined in order to get this article deleted.WHEELER 18:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, see No original research. Rhobite 18:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, moved to Artisan Class in Ancient Greece, with some re-edited material under a subsection "Elite views of the artisan class." No one who has read anything about the failure of Hellenistic science is likely to mistake the gist of this as "original research," no matter how "difficult" a couple of administrators find this particular editor. A discussion that is highly revealing and not Wikipedia at its normal self. --Wetman 16:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but under a name or phrase which captures the concept in english, since the current title does not seem to be an english word, just a transliteration into english.--Silverback 17:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The essence of the article is a concept which many people would want ro research on. HOWEVER, it should not be left as it currently is, especially the article's name should be a recongised English word. The word vanavsos does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, therefore in the eyes of most English speakers it is not an English word and shouldn't be in an English language encyclopaedia. REX 19:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, under whatever title is agreed to on the article's talk page. Paul August ☎ 17:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. According to WHEELER, "The question is 'Should people be voting on something they have not a clue on?'."  On Wikipedia, the answer is "Yes, that's our policy."  You've been around long enough to know this.  You talk about the commercial ethos and the warrior ethos.  Well, the Wiki ethos is that of open source.  The theory is that, if we let a bunch of people without professional qualifications write and edit and delete pretty much as they please, a good encyclopedia will somehow emerge.  I know you disagree with the theory and with the policy.  That's certainly your privilege, and you have good company, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica pooh-bahs.  As long as you stay here, though, you have to recognize that that's the way it works here.  The MediaWiki software is available under the GFDL for anyone who wants to start a similar project but with stricter quality controls.  By the way, to save you the trouble of clicking through to my user page, I'll admit right now that I'm not qualified as a classicist. JamesMLane 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I see your point. And it is very clear to me.  This is in a sense "stricter quality control".  Yes.  But the "quality control" on wikipedia is Marxist and Fabian, Humanist and Modern.  You have laid out very clearly to me that "who is in control here". The standards being that people who are ignorant of any subject but with a bias to protect can delete stuff off of Wikipedia.  And that is not professional, academic, righteous (justice) or truthful.   I understand perfectly what you are saying.  I will not start another page nor work for Wikipedia (though I will transfer stuff here).  I see clearly where this is going.  I can do better and stop wasting my time here because surely I am.  Thanks Mr. James MLane.  You have certainly opened my eyes to the fundamental core of Wikipedia. And that yes, then Wikipedia is run by a cabal.WHEELER 14:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you have exposed the "hypocrisy" here. All evil is hypocritical as Cicero has pointed out. "Coherence" and "Consistency" are hallmarks of truth which is missing here at Wikipedia.  If this is "Free and Open content" and "Open Source" then why is there a deletion notice on vanavsos and why did the Classical definition of republic get deleted?  There is a major flaw in the system.  Quite prescient of those who practise "dissimulation".  You say one thing but do another and this is the sign of it.WHEELER 15:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem arguments. What is the major flaw in the system (as opposed to the people who run it), apart from the fact that some articles which you like are being deleted?  I understand your desire to defend them tooth and nail, but you need to pick your fights and decide which things to compromise on (easy for me to say I know), rather than to make enemies with anyone who disagrees with you.  Personally, I think that your articles (the ones I have looked at) are good writing about things which deserve to be included in Wikipedia and do not constitute 'original research', but probably should be parts of a larger article on Ancient Greek society as it impacted philosophy, rather than separate articles.  If you are looking for something similar to Wikipedia, which has centralized editing, try h2g2 at   Thanks for your contributions.  WhiteC 23:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep But not in its present form. Contains some relavent info for Classical studies. Wikipedia has many articles on individual words, like it, so why not this ancient word? Possible changes: one brief article on the word, and then some of the info can be transfered to another article focussing on social structures of the ancient Hellenistic world. Paradiso 07:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep If this article is deleted i'm going to be really pissed off. Actually, I probably won't notice, but I'll still be pissed in principle. No good reason to delete this excellent content. --Alterego 07:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

More Information

 * "Many communities took steps to exclude those engaged in trade and industry from participation in politics; even where the marketplace was allowed to intrude upon political life, the merchant and the craftsmen were generally objects of contempt, ridiculed on the stage, if not banished from respectable society." Republic, Ancient and Modern, Rahe, 1992. pg 44.
 * "Cicero was by no means the first man to reach this conclusion. Centuries before, Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle had addressed the corrupting influence of the marketplace...". ibid, pg 46.
 * "The ancients feared commerce not simply because it encourages economic specialization and contributed to a differentiation of interests. They worried that trade would erode the fragile moral consensus of the community...." pg 59.
 * "The fact that there had to be a law at Athens against heaping insults on those practicing a profession in the agora indicates just how difficult it was to overcome this prejudice." ibid, pg 251.WHEELER 19:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Qualified to Vote
SimonP is an anonymous user. What's his qualifications for voting? Anything? There is nothing on his page! JonathanThunder, another practically anonymous user. Macrakis, a software engineer. I don't go to the software section and edit there do I? Von Teighon shows no expertise in either philosophy, Greek philosophy, or classics. Nick04, what's his expertise? I can't find none on his user page either. Rbellion is a Marxist and an advocate of the Frankfurt school. Of course, he will vote against this material. Slimvirgin edits articles like these [Bernard Williams], [Rat Park], [Rihab Rashid Taha], [Jeremiah Duggan], [Steven Emerson], [John Cooley], [Kenneth Bigley] etc. What's his expertise to vote on something classical?

Other than Mel Etits and Stan Shebs who has done extensive editing in the Classical field. I find noone qualified to judge anything in the classical world.WHEELER 19:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sir R. W. Livingstone was the President of Corpus Christi College in Oxford. These people claim to be bigger than this scholarly gentleman?WHEELER 19:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sir Livingstone writes: In some states these theories were actually applied. Sparta excluded the industrial, commercial and farming class from citizenship. In Thebes no retail trader of artisan was eligible for office till ten years after he had retired from business." This is footnoted as follows: "See the admirable discussions in Newman's edition of the Politics, vol. i, p. 98f., which I have used in what follows."

He continues on pg 113: "The aim of a journalist may either be to enlarge the circulation of a paper or to give his readers a true and intelligent picture of the world; of a lawyer either to extend his practice or to help justice be done; of a business man either to grow rich or to play his part as a 'nurse' of the community. These alternatives are not exclusive.  But where the former predominates, the amount of arete generated will be small, and journalists, lawyers and industrialists will be banausoi rather than men." WHEELER 19:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I ask that all read User:Mirv.WHEELER 20:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Qualifying votes like what you're doing is not part of the VfD process, except for the determination of sock puppets and the like. Besides, as I read in this discussion, one can glean many errors/problems in this article without having the same purported depth of knowledge on this topic as yourself.  Your display of hyper-elitism really won't help your cause.  If you can't win on your arguments, then that's that.  Move on.  It's not the end of the world if the Wikipedia doesn't accept a particular article. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk 04:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The question is "Should people be voting on something they have not a clue on?". Do Software engineers run the philosophy departments on College Universities?  Do Software engineers decide who gets degrees within the philosophy department?  No.  People in the academic system are judged by their peers.  All I am saying, is that the "Vanavsos" Article be judged by people who are classicists!  Why should people ignorant of the subject matter be voting about something they have no clue on what they are saying?  And what is happening here, is that these people are damaging, through their ignorance, classical studies and knowledge!  That's the essence of the problem here!  This is commonsense. WHEELER 14:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Not allowing a particular article in doesn't damage a subject. It's possibly an omission, and if so, people can look elsewhere for info.  And I think contributors should be able to vote on any VfD's they want to vote on.  Wikipedia isn't a credentialing service.  Hey, that sounds like something to add right after "Wikipedia isn't a link farm" in the FAQs.  LOL —  Stevie is the man!  Talk 21:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You sound like a true professional. What is really going on is censorship.  Wikipedia touts itself as "Free and open Content".  And by gathering a group of "Fabian Socialists" and other fellow travellers, we can delete information through the power of democracy and "sanitize" Wikipedia for only articles that fit modernity and marxist views.WHEELER 14:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Who ever suggested this was a professional encyclopedia? — Stevie is the man!  Talk 21:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As for your "marxist" claptrap, there's plenty of articles that would satisfy "the right" in here. Plenty.  But it's not as if we can leave out "the left" as well.  All viewpoints belong, as long as they have encyclopedic relevance.  I really don't understand why you're using up so much time wailing about such minor issues.  The Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the people, and if you can't get the people to recognize a few obtuse concepts, then boo-hoo-hoo. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk 21:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mr Stevie the man please see my response above to Mr. James MLane. Vox populi, vox dei, which you have now turned around to vox populi, vox veritas.  Everything revolves around the people which I like to call the "Herd".  You are right.  Thanks Mr. Stevie the man and Mr. MLane.WHEELER 15:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Qualifiers for "No Original Research
A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:

However all of the above may be acceptable content once they have become,  a permanent feature of the public landscape. A few examples of this include:
 * It introduces a theory or method of solution, or
 * "Vanavsos" is the thought of the aristocratic people and philosophers of ancient Greece. It is an established fact.
 * It introduces original ideas, or
 * This article establishes nothing new or original.
 * It defines new terms, or
 * It keeps to the orignal meaning of the word.
 * It provides new definitions of old terms, or
 * No new meanings are advanced.
 * It purports to refute another idea, or
 * does not do this.
 * It introduces neologisms.
 * not applicable.

 * The ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal; or
 * The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

 What the real problem is  The real problem is this: " a permanent feature of the public landscape". Because of the loss of classical learning, reading and schooling in the classics, many are ignorant of this fact. This information is strange to the 21st century man but in Victorian England, 1920's America and England, this was a common knowledge. The word entered the English language and was understood to be such. It is in the OED. This meets none of the criterial of No original research.WHEELER 20:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep, moved to Artisan Class in Ancient Greece, with some re-edited material under a subsection "Elite views of the artisan class." No one who has read anything about the failure of Hellenistic science is likely to mistake the gist of this as "original research," no matter how "difficult" a couple of administrators find this particular editor. A discussion that is highly revealing and not Wikipedia at its normal self. --Wetman 16:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep but under a name or phrase which captures the concept in english, since the current title does not seem to be an english word, just a transliteration into english.--Silverback 17:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Undecided Am awaiting my orders from the cabal to see what our collective opinion is.AndyL 18:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please add votes above the "More information" mark so that they can be counted

Transliteration
I've started this in order to avoid cluttering up the voting any further. I'm not arguing for the retention of this article (my vote, above, stands), but a number of people have raised and argued about an issue that's of more general importance.

An article on, for example, graves should start with the origins of the term and associated concept (in fact the Wikipedia article is a stub, but the principle holds); nevertheless, the article is given the modern English spelling, not 'græf', and the modern spelling is used when talking about ancient grave mounds, etc. Why then, when we're talking about a word that exists and is used in modern Greek should we use a transliteration alien to the modern pronunciation? It's not even as if such transliterations are accurate representations of how Aristotle or Euripedes, for example, would have pronounced the language. Is it, at least in part, that non-Greek Westerners feel that they own the ancient language and culture, and that modern Greeks are merely its degraded descendants who can be ignored? I'm sure that such an approach is usually unconscious, but I suspect that it's widely prevalent. (There's a G. K. Chesterton essay on this sort of topic, but I don't have the reference to hand.)

If there's an English word derived from the Greek, then of course it should be used in an English-language encyclopædia, but where the word is solely Greek, then surely good practice (not to mention good manners) dictates that the Greek pronunciation be used to transliterate it — not a transliteration of the conjectural (at best) pronunciation of people dead for 2,500 years, but of the pronunciation of the living, breathing users of the language. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem is, Modern English has borrowed this word from Ancient Greek, not from Modern Greek. Using a transliteration reflecting Modern Greek pronunciation would be like borrowing a word from Latin and using modern Italian pronunciation for it, or borrowing a word from Sanskrit and using modern Hindi pronunciation and transliteration for it. --Angr 14:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * But, first, this word doesn't exist in modern English — that's the point (as has been pointed out a number of times above); English has the adjective 'banausic', but no noun, so it hasn't borrowed it from anywahere. Secondly (and less importantly), the relationship between Latin and Italian is very different from that between Ancient and modern Greek, nor is transliteration an issue in the former case (besides, Latin is pronounced in many ways; being brought up a Catholic, I was taught to speak Latin in a much more Italian way than my current colleagues in Classics in Oxford — and you should hear the Latin grace as spoken in Pembroke College, Oxford; I'm told that it's the northern European style, very Italian, much more so than my early training). Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Let's get this right: we're transliterating an ancient Greek word into English, right? That word currently does not exist in English.  Modern Greek ࣔ Ancient Greek.  We do not know exectly how people spoke in Ancient Greece.  We should use the system used by the greatest number of people, particularly scholars.  While some scholars would pronounce Ancient Greek with a level of the modern style coming in, they would not read the one as the other.  The normal way of transliterating β into English is as "b".  The way to obtain a "v" would be to use the pre-Classical digamma (Ϝ).  If we were expecting the French Wikipedia to transliterate a modern English word, we would like them to use a modern system, not Chaucer's pronounciation.  Mel's point about his pronounciation (and Pembroke College's) is about a modern dialect of Latin, not of the original language.  It would also make most sense to someone who is not au fait with Greek tradition or pronounciation to comprehend.  Smoddy (t) (e) 15:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * No, we're transliterating a Greek word into English; it existed in Ancient Greek, it still exists in modern Greek — it's just Greek
 * The normal way of transliterating 'β' varies according to context; when dealing with modern Greek, the normal way is to use a 'v'. Modern scholars, especially when writing in more popular contexts, often use old-style transliterations (such as 'Euripedes' rather than 'Evripidis' or even 'Evripithis') when dealing with familiar names and words, and more accurate modern transliterations otherwise.
 * Transliterating isn't an issue from English to French.
 * You seem to have missed my point about Latin — and no, it has nothing to do with dialects, modern or otherwise.
 * Someone who isn't au fait with Greek will hardly be affected by the difference; they'll only have the English transliteration. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * But the article is about the ancient word.
 * I am currently studying classical Greek. I have recently been to Greece.  I do know quite a bit about transliteration.  If I could pick you up on one thing: writing in more popular contexts.  Are we not trying to make an encyclopedia understandable to the average man-on-the-street?  I would also say that the concept is classical, ergo the transliteration should be by normal standards for classical work.  If someone said to me, "Who wrote Iphigenia in Aulis" (for example), I would say Euripides, not something along the other lines.  I realise that is, to an extent, your point.  However, it is highly inconsistent.  This encyclopeda should be clearly understandable to someone approaching the concepts for the first time.  This inconsistency isn't.
 * Point conceded. It was the nearest comparison I could draw.
 * Then, pray, what was your point?
 * See point 2 re consistency. Modern Greek ࣔ Ancient Greek! Smoddy (t) (e) 17:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no expertise in naming, or in Latin and Greek etymology to English etymology. So I leave this argument up to experts. My only thought is to make the word understandable to illiterate and unclassically trained high school students.WHEELER 17:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) My point is that there isn't an ancient word and a modern word; there's a Greek word. Besides, I'm not talking about this article (which I think, on balance, should be deleted as non-encyclopædic).
 * 2) The point about popular writing is precisely that; as we're involved in popular writing, we might think of following the lead that I cite. (Also, however it's transliterated, I'd say Evripidis (the 'd' being more of a 'th'), as would most Greeks.)
 * 3) My Latin comment was a response to yours; you then treated it as a separate point in itself.
 * 4) The consistency can be found if one treats well-known names to be English borrowings (as in the 'biology' example used at one point above); then borrowed words, being English, are spelt as the English spell them, but transliterations conform to the Greek pronunciation.
 * Where are you studying Classics, by the way? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Where are you studying Classics, by the way? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * To be entirely fair, I'm not. I'm studying for my GCSE, but I do read an awful lot (far too much) and consider myself to have something of a flair for understanding languages.
 * I'm now rather confused as to the points I was making. However, I think: a) article should be deleted, but not enough to vote; b) use the transliteration that makes the most simple sense.  I think I shall leave this discussion now.  Sorry to have had a bit of a dispute...  Oh, and I think Wikipedia should respond to trends, not try to set them. Smoddy (t) (e) 18:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * “I'm studying for my GCSE” — that's good to hear; there's still someone out there doing it. The Classics faculty here has slowly been forced to admit people who have neither Greek nor Latin, because of the shortage of qualified candidates. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * After considerable thinking... for the Greek word Barbarian we use the English word "b". I am all for changing the title of the article to "banausic" or something similar.  WHEELER 18:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But that's for an English word with a Greek root; it's not relevant to the question of transliteration. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have sitting in front of me the OED and the word is used in English language as an idea from the Greek classical world. So the "idea" was transported to English culture.  The word may be dead now but in Victorian England it was real.  As for transliteration, we can keep that in the body of the article but for the title of it, maybe we go with banavsos, banausos as with like "Euripedes". The word was used as late as 1957.WHEELER 19:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: File:Movieposterposv.jpg

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

title: File:Movieposterposv.jpg


text:
John A. McClernand

John Alexander McClernand (May 30, 1812 – September 20, 1900) was an American lawyer, politician, and a Union Army general in the American Civil War. He was a prominent Democratic politician in Illinois and a member of the United States House of Representatives before the war. McClernand was firmly dedicated to the principles of Jacksonian democracy and supported the Compromise of 1850.

McClernand was commissioned a brigadier general of volunteers in 1861. His was a classic case of the politician-in-uniform coming into conflict with career Army officers, graduates of the United States Military Academy. He served as a subordinate commander under Ulysses S. Grant in the Western Theater, fighting in the campaigns of Belmont, Operations on the Tennessee & Cumberland, Shiloh in 1861–62 and later briefly as a commander of the Army of the Mississippi in late 1862 to early 1863, afterwards serving as a corps commander under Grant again during the campaign against Vicksburg.

A friend and political ally of Abraham Lincoln, McClernand was given permission to muster a large force to conduct offensive operations against the confederate stronghold at Vicksburg, Mississippi, a campaign that would rival the effort of General Grant, his department commander. Grant and Halleck machinated against McClernand, and most of the troops he raised in Illinois for his expedition were instead diverted to Grant's army without McClernand's knowledge. Later on, McClernand's own expeditionary force departed southwards before his arrival, by design, commanded by General William T. Sherman, an ally of Grant. McClernand chased after his expedition southwards and assumed command, designating this expeditionary force as the Army of the Mississippi. Grant was later able to neutralize McClernand's independent effort after it conducted an expedition to capture the vital Fort Hindman on the Arkansas river, this unassuming victory had secured an important milestone in the future of the operations around the Mississippi river for months to come, and McClernand became the senior corps commander in Grant's army for the Vicksburg Campaign in 1863. During the Siege of Vicksburg, Grant relieved McClernand of his command by citing his intemperate and unauthorized communication with the press, finally putting an end to a rivalry that had caused Grant discomfort since the beginning of the war. McClernand left the Army in 1864 and served as a judge and a politician in the postbellum era.

Early life and political career
McClernand was born in Breckinridge County, Kentucky, near Hardinsburg, on May 30, 1812, but in 1816, his family moved to Shawneetown, Illinois. His early life and career were similar to that of another Illinois lawyer of the time, Abraham Lincoln, with whom he was a friend. Largely self-educated, he was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1832. In that same year he served as a volunteer private in the Blackhawk War (Lincoln briefly served as a captain.)

In 1835 McClernand founded the Shawneetown Democrat newspaper, which he edited. As a Democrat he served in 1836 and from 1840 to 1843 in the Illinois House of Representatives. He served in the United States House of Representatives from March 4, 1843, until March 3, 1851. A bombastic orator, his political philosophy was based on Jacksonian principles. McClernand vigorously opposed the Wilmot Proviso when it was introduced in 1846, 1847 and 1848. He disliked abolitionists which generated favor among his constituents, many of whom were originally natives of slaveholding states. Nonetheless, historian Allan Nevins described him as a general favorite in Congress in 1850 as being a man of courtesy and urbanity. On the other hand, John Hay later described him as "a vain, irritable, overbearing, exacting man." Nevins himself described McClernand in 1861 as an independent brigadier with "a headlong, testy, irascible manner." He was an important ally to Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas played a crucial role in formulating the Compromise of 1850, and McClernand served as a liaison for him in the House of Representatives during the debate over the proposed compromise. McClernand also served as Chairman of the Committee on Public Lands from 1845 to 1847 and on the Committee on Foreign Affairs from 1849 to 1851. In 1850, McClernand declined to be a candidate for renomination, and his term expired in 1851. In the eight years he was out of Congress, he developed a large law practice and engaged in land speculation.

In 1859, McClernand was again elected to the House to fill a vacancy caused by the death of Thomas L. Harris. His term began on November 8. He was a strong Unionist and introduced the resolution of July 15, 1861, pledging money and men to the national government. In 1860 he was defeated in a bid for the speakership of the House of Representatives. The small coalition of Democratic representatives from Alabama and South Carolina opposing him objected to his moderate views on slavery and the importance of retaining the Union.

McClernand supported the campaign of his friend, Stephen Douglas, in the 1860 presidential election. He served as one of his campaign managers during the divisive Democratic presidential nomination convention held in Charleston, South Carolina in 1860.

In November 1842, McClernand married Sarah Dunlap of Jacksonville, Illinois, a close friend of Mary Todd Lincoln. Sarah was a daughter of James Dunlap, who served as a quartermaster in the Union Army during the Civil War, resigning as lieutenant colonel and quartermaster of the XIII Corps of the Army of the Tennessee on June 11, 1864. John and Sarah's son, Edward John McClernand, was notable as a West Point graduate in 1870 U.S. Army brigadier general in the Indian Wars, Medal of Honor recipient and later fought in the Philippines. After Sarah's death on May 8, 1861, McClernand married her sister, Minerva Dunlap on December 23, 1862.

McClernand's brigade at Cairo
Upon the outbreak of the American Civil War, McClernand raised the "McClernand Brigade" in Illinois, and was appointed brigadier general of volunteers on August 7, 1861, to rank from May 17, 1861. His commission as a general was based on Lincoln's desire to retain political connections with the Democrats of Southern Illinois, not on his brief service as a private in the Black Hawk War. McClernand eventually resigned his Congressional seat effective October 28, 1861. He was an effective recruiter of volunteers for the Union Army. He raised the McClernand Brigade from southern Illinois, an area of mixed sentiments with respect to preservation of the Union. The brigade was placed in the Western Department which was under the command of Major General John C. Fremont on August 21, 1861. At the same time, the brigade was placed in the District of Southeast Missouri commanded by Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant, a subordinate of Fremont. In the summer of 1861, McClernand commanded and trained his brigade at Springfield, Illinois and Jacksonville, Illinois, moving them to Cairo, Illinois at the beginning of September. The brigade soon began to cut off shipments of arms and supplies to the Confederacy.

Battle of Belmont
McClernand was second in command under Ulysses S. Grant at the Battle of Belmont in Missouri on November 7, 1861. In response to orders from Fremont on November 2 and 3, 1861, Grant sent regiments from his district in seven columns to demonstrate against Confederate forces on both sides of the Mississippi River. The objective was to prevent Confederate reinforcement of other Confederate units in Missouri and Arkansas. On the afternoon of November 6, two brigades under Grant's direct command moved down the river. One was commanded by McClernand; the other by Colonel Henry Dougherty. Grant picked up two regiments before stopping overnight, bringing his force to 3,119 men. His plan was to launch a surprise attack on the Confederate camp at Belmont, Missouri with part of his force while other regiments from his command were moving to attack the Confederates under Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson, then at Bloomfield, Missouri and to reinforce Union Colonel Richard Oglesby operating in southeastern Missouri.

Near 8:00 a.m. on November 7, Grant's force began to disembark from transports about three and one-half miles (5.6 km) north of Belmont, out of range of Confederate artillery batteries across the river at Columbus, Kentucky. Union gunboats made futile attempts to attack Confederate artillery batteries during the landings. The Confederate camp at Belmont, named Camp Johnston, had been established by Confederate Major General Leonidas Polk as an observation post. When Polk learned of Grant's movement early on November 7, he sent four regiments under Brigadier General Gideon Pillow from Columbus to Belmont as reinforcements to intercept Grant's force.

After his troops had disembarked from the gunboats, McClernand led his brigade toward the Confederate line formed in part by the recently arrived regiments of Gideon Pillow, about 3,000 men in total. By 10:00 a.m., McClernand's skirmishers began to encounter the Confederate skirmishers. McClernand extended his battle line to outflank the Confederate line. A gap in the Union line was covered by two regiments shifting to the right. When McClernand saw that one of his regiments under Colonel Napoleon Buford had outflanked the Confederate line, McClernand ordered a general attack. Some Confederate battalions began to run out of ammunition. By 2:00 p.m. the Union battle line broke the Confederate battle line about one mile (1.6 km) from the Confederate camp.

After the Confederate soldiers fled in panic beyond the camp, the Union soldiers took the camp and as their discipline began to break down, they began a disorderly celebration and plundering. McClernand walked to the center of the camp and called for three cheers adding to the disorder at the scene. Grant had to order the camp burned to stop the plundering and restore order to the troops. At Columbus, Polk got word of the battle and first sent reinforcements, then crossed the river himself with more reinforcements. After about one-half hour of unopposed disorder at the camp, the Confederate reinforcements along with reformed elements of Pillow's regiments routed the Union force, sending them retreating toward their gunboats, which provided covering fire. McClernand had directed artillery placement which also facilitated the Union force's retreat. During the withdrawal McClernand suffered a grazing head wound. When reaching the shore, McClernand acted promptly to cover the boarding of the gunboats and to rescue a Union regiment which had been left behind. The Union troops, including Grant as the last to board a boat, narrowly escaped.

Battle of Fort Donelson
McClernand commanded the 1st Division of Grant's army at Fort Donelson. On the night of February 14, 1862, Confederate commanders decided to break out of the Union Army encirclement of the fort achieved the previous day. McClernand's division, whose flank was not sufficiently covered, was struck by a surprise attack in the early morning on February 15, 1862, the third day of the battle, in bitterly cold weather. By 7:00 a.m., the Confederates in line of battle and covered by artillery attacked McClernand's position, which McClernand thought he would still have time to adjust without Confederate movement in the frigid weather. Within an hour of the Confederate attack, the Confederates had cleared Union cavalry from their front and outflanked Colonel John McArthur's poorly placed brigade. Low on ammunition and with the negative effect on the men of Colonel Michael Lawler's wounding, McArthur's men began to run from the field. A friendly fire incident contributed to further Union withdrawal and opened two roads for Confederate escape. Yet the Confederate close order tactics in moving forward, an effort to reduce a salient at a road junction and straggling slowed the Confederate advance. By 1:00 p.m. McClernand's division had been thoroughly routed. Without orders from Grant, Brigadier General Lew Wallace sent his brigades to a new position to block the Confederate exit. Grant then ordered Brigadier General Charles Ferguson Smith ("C.F. Smith") to take the fort after surmising it would now be lightly defended and the Confederates could be encircled. With such men from McClernand's brigade who could be rallied, Wallace moved to retake the lost ground. As night was falling, he had to stop the movement until morning which allowed McClernand's men to gradually return to their campsites. Overnight, the Confederate generals decided to surrender, although Colonel Nathan Bedford Forrest escaped with most of his cavalrymen and Generals Gideon Pillow and John B. Floyd fled by boat. On March 21, 1862, McClernand, who had boasted about and exaggerated the achievements of his division was promoted to major general of volunteers for his service at Fort Donelson.

Battle of Shiloh
At the Battle of Shiloh on April 6–7, 1862, McClernand commanded the First Division of the Army of the Tennessee. On April 5, 1862, McClernand responded to rumors and reports that the Confederates were preparing a surprise attack by sending out a cavalry party to scout but they did not go in the right direction or far enough in any event. In the early morning of April 6, 1862, the regiment of Brigadier General William T. Sherman's Fifth Division on the left flank, stationed about a quarter-mile south and east of Shiloh Church, began to give way under Confederate attack and the colonel's panic. McClernand had already begun to send troops forward to prevent Sherman's division from being outflanked. By 9:30 a.m., Sherman's division was being attacked by six Confederate brigades. After two hours of heavy fighting, Sherman's division fell back, despite some reinforcements from Brigadier General W. H. L. Wallace's Second Division. About 10:00 a.m., Sherman's and McClernand's divisions linked up in a new position. McClernand's division was organized but Sherman's men reached the new line only a few minutes before the Confederates. Sherman's and McClernand's divisions were pushed back through the "Hornet's Nest", but held a firm line at Pittsburgh Landing as night fell. With the help of reinforcements Grant routed the Confederates with a devastating counterattack on April 7.

Political maneuvering

McClernand's service as a major general was tainted by political maneuvering, which was resented by his colleagues. He communicated directly with his commander-in-chief, President Lincoln, offering his criticisms of the strategies of other generals, including Major General George B. McClellan's in the Eastern Theater and Grant's in the West.

In October 1862, McClernand used his political influence with Illinois Governor Richard Yates to obtain a leave of absence to visit Washington, D.C. and President Lincoln, hoping to receive an important independent command. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton agreed to order him north to raise troops for the expedition against Vicksburg which he would lead. With permission to attack Vicksburg granted, McClernand set for the west to raise troops, mostly from Illinois. As soon as his troops finished mustering and training, they were continuously dispatched for either Cairo or Memphis. Grant was anxious at this turn of events, fearing that McClernand might supersede him, so he wired Halleck. Halleck reassured Grant that this will not occur. Halleck and Grant then maneuvered McClernand into a disadvantageous position by drawing a large amount of the troops he had raised for his expedition into Grant's army. In December, McClernand wired Lincoln for clearance to go south and assume command of his force, now that he had raised a substantial force for the effort. The order did not come, but he soon received news of what was happening in Memphis. McClernand was outraged and quickly wired Lincoln and Stanton of what was happening, Stanton attempted to reassure him, and told him that Grant had received orders to reform the troops of the department into four army Corps, and that McClernand was going to command one of them. This was a setback and a downgrade from the earlier promised independent command. Orders were simultaneously dispatched from the war department to Grant ordering him to assign McClernand as Corps commander. Grant obliged and wired McClernand in December 18 that preparations were finished and his corps was ready to proceed and "form part of the expedition against Vicksburg". This wire was, by intention, delayed for several days, so that McClernand had received the communique when the expedition, under command of general Sherman, had already departed southwards and did not wait for McClernand. McClernand then proceeded to pursue the expeditionary force in order to assume his promised command; the force had contained the two army Corps, most of which he had raised by his effort, included his own corps and another corps that would fall under his command due to his seniority. McClernand's force under Sherman continued up the Mississippi river, racing to attack Vicksburg - under the assumption that the complete silence from Grant's force meant that he had plunged deeply into Mississippi. Sherman attempted to attack Vicksburg by attempting to storm nearly invincible Confederate positions at the Chickasaw Bayou & Bluffs, a short distance north of Vicksburg near the mouth of the Yazoo river. This attack was made in December 29 and was swiftly defeated, with Sherman's army suffering severe losses. The angry McClernand subsequently arrived and took command, issuing a proclamation that he would command all the troops in the expedition, and the force would be renamed to Army of the Mississippi.

Battle of Milliken's Bend; Battle of Arkansas Post
Early in January 1863, at Milliken's Bend, McClernand caught up with the expedition and assumed command from Sherman as the leader of the Union force that was to move down the Mississippi as part of the Vicksburg campaign. McClernand renamed this force to the Army of the Mississippi, with the XIII and XV Corps being redesignated to the I and II Corps of the Army, respectively. At Sherman's suggestion, McClernand led an expedition up the Arkansas River to capture the Confederates' Fort Hindman at Arkansas Post, Arkansas The Battle of Fort Hindman, was fought from January 9 to 11, 1863, near the mouth of the Arkansas River. On January 11, 1863, and the fort was captured. Sherman and acting Rear Admiral David D. Porter later convinced a disapproving Grant that leaving the Confederate garrison at Arkansas Post in place could have been an obstacle to the capture of Vicksburg. Grant initially disapproved of this operation, and wired Halleck denouncing it as 'senseless'; but after news of victory came and learning that it was Sherman's idea, Grant quickly reversed his opinion, praising the operation in his telegraph to Halleck and calling it an 'essential step in the campaign against Vicksburg'.

Reduced to corps command; friction and intrigue
On January 17, Grant, after receiving the opinion of Admiral David Dixon Porter and General Sherman that McClernand was incompetent to lead further operations, united a part of his own troops with those of McClernand and assumed command in person and reduced McClernand to corps command. Three days later he ordered McClernand back to Milliken's Bend. During the rest of the Vicksburg Campaign there was much friction between McClernand and his colleagues. He intrigued for the removal of Grant, spreading rumors to the press of Grant drinking on the campaign.

Attempts to approach Vicksburg
McClernand landed his men on the Mississippi River levee at Young's Point, where they "suffered from the heavy winter rains and lack of shelter. Tents were not issued to the troops because they were within range of the [Confederate] guns at Vicksburg; so the more enterprising men dug holes in the levee and covered them with their black rubber blankets. Floundering in knee-deep black mud and still exhausted from recent expeditions, numerous soldiers fell sick. Many cases of smallpox were reported. Hospital tents lined the back side of the levee and were crowded with thousands of sick men. Many died, and soon the levee was lined with new graves."

Battle of Champion Hill; attack on Vicksburg; relief from command
It was Grant's opinion that at Champion Hill (May 16, 1863) McClernand was dilatory, but Grant bided his time, waiting for insubordination that was blatant enough to justify removing his politically powerful rival. After a bloody and unsuccessful assault against the Vicksburg entrenchments (ordered by Grant), McClernand wrote a congratulatory order to his corps, which also disparaged the efforts of the other corps. This was published in the press, contrary to an order of the department and another of Grant that official papers were not to be published. McClernand was relieved of his command on June 19, 1863, two weeks before the fall of Vicksburg, and was replaced by Major General Edward O. C. Ord. The duty of notifying him of his dismissal fell to Lieutenant Colonel James H. Wilson, who'd held a grudge against him for an earlier chastising. Once McClernand read the order, he exclaimed in shock "I am relieved!" Then seeing the look on Wilson's face, he made a joke out if it by saying "By God sir, we are both relieved!". Grant's order relieving him ordered him to go to any place in Illinois and contact the War Department for new orders.

Field command in Gulf; illness and resignation; Lincoln's funeral
President Lincoln, who saw the importance of conciliating a leader of the Illinois War Democrats, restored McClernand to a field command in 1864. On February 20, 1864, McClernand returned to his old XIII Corps, now part of the Department of the Gulf. Illness (malaria) limited his role. By the time the Red River Campaign commenced, McClernand had been replaced in command by Thomas E. G. Ransom. From April 27, 1864, through May 1, 1864, McClernand returned to the field to command the detachment of two divisions from the XIII Corps participating in the Red River Campaign. He resigned from the Army on November 30, 1864. McClernand rode on the funeral train of President Lincoln from Washington to Springfield Illinois, which departed from Washington on April 23, 1865, and arrived in Springfield on May 3, 1865. There were eight divisions in Lincoln's funeral procession on May 4, 1865. McClernand was at the front of the second division which preceded the hearse.

Postbellum life
McClernand served as district judge of the Sangamon (Illinois) District from 1870 to 1873, and was chairman of the 1876 Democratic National Convention, which nominated Samuel J. Tilden for President of the United States. In 1871, at the 17th Annual Illinois State Fair, McClernand's colt, Zenith, won first place in the "Best Stallion Colt, 2 Years Old" category. The prize was $25.

McClernand's last public service was on a federal advisory commission overseeing the Utah Territory, beginning in 1886. The commissioners met in Utah about 170 days per year and McClernand returned home to Springfield when the commission was not in session. In 1887, the commission recommended that Utah not be admitted as a state until the Mormons had "abandoned polygamy in good faith." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a proclamation renouncing polygamy in 1890, which McClernand stated he thought was sincere in an 1891 report but in 1892 the majority of the commission issued a report expressing doubt that the polygamy situation had changed. In April 1894, as a non-resident of Utah, McClernand was required by an 1893 law to resign from the Utah Commission. Utah was admitted to the Union on January 4, 1896, only after polygamy had been outlawed by the state constitution.

Despite his resignation from the Army in 1864, McClernand, no longer a wealthy man, was granted an Army pension in 1896, increased in 1900 to $100.00 per month, under acts of Congress.

Having been in ill health for several years, John McClernand died in Springfield, Illinois on September 20, 1900. He is interred there at Oak Ridge Cemetery.

In popular culture
McClernand is the villain of MacKinlay Kantor’s alternate history book If the South Had Won the Civil War. In the alternate history presented, General Grant was killed accidentally at the start of the Vicksburg Campaign. McClernand then insisted upon assuming command and by thoroughly bad generalship managed to lose the campaign, get the Army of the Tennessee almost completely destroyed, and contribute significantly to the Union losing the entire war and the Confederacy gaining independence.

title: John A. McClernand


text:
Talk:Rob Glaser

Untitled
I have a problem with this statement: His products have recently lost a great deal of market share to Microsoft's Windows Media Player.

...for the following reasons:
 * It's vague. Did RealRhapsody lose market share to WMP?  Did Microsoft Word lose marketshare to WMP (Rob managed that product many moons ago)?  How much is "a great deal"?
 * It's not relevant. Why put this in Rob Glaser's bio?  Why not put it in the article about RealNetworks, since I'm presuming its RealNetworks' products that are the question?
 * It's not NPOV. "Great deal" is subjective.

I'm a longtime RealNetworks employee, so I'm not going to say much more than this on the subject. However, it would be nice if this went away. -- RobLa 05:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rob Glaser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080207133013/http://www.time.com:80/time/digital/digital50/41.html to http://www.time.com/time/digital/digital50/41.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

the old net worth figure seemed way too high
from recode 2014: "Glaser still owns 37 percent of RealNetworks, which was worth $10 billion at its peak in early 2000, just before the Web 1.0 crash. It now has a $282 million market valuation." So, 37% of $282m is $104m at the time of that article but now in 2016 RNWK's market cap is $155m so 37% of that is $57m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.54.119 (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rob Glaser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/digital/digital50/41.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312060557/http://www.glaserfoundation.org/program_areas/global_hiv.asp to http://www.glaserfoundation.org/program_areas/global_hiv.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Glaser is not a billionaire
the citation (shown currently) from Forbes magazine 20 years ago in the height of the .com boom is not evidence of Glaser being a billionaire in 2018. Glaser was removed from the Forbes list of the wealthiest when the RNWK stock price collapsed in the .com crash more than 15 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.192.88 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rob Glaser


text:
Hamid Raja Shalah

Hamid Raja Shalah (حامد رجا شلاح), also known as Hamid Raja-Shalah Hassan al-Tikriti or Hamid Raja-Shalah Hassum al-Tikriti (born 1950) is a former commander of the Iraqi Air Force under Saddam Hussein.

Career
During Shalah's air force career, he served as a pilot. In the 1980s, during the Iran–Iraq War, Shalah commanded several air bases, including the Kirkuk air base. He rose to three-star rank and was appointed commander-in-chief of the Iraqi Air Force in the mid-1990s.

He was reported by the United States Central Command to be in coalition custody on June 14, 2003. Prior to his capture, Shalah was number 17 (ten of spades) on the in the U.S. deck of most-wanted Iraqi playing cards. He was held as a prisoner of war until his release in 2007.

title: Hamid Raja Shalah


text:
Optical medium

In optics, an optical medium is material through which light and other electromagnetic waves propagate. It is a form of transmission medium. The permittivity and permeability of the medium define how electromagnetic waves propagate in it.

Properties
The optical medium has an intrinsic impedance, given by
 * $$\eta = {E_x \over H_y}$$

where $$E_x$$ and $$H_y$$ are the electric field and magnetic field, respectively. In a region with no electrical conductivity, the expression simplifies to:

 * $$\eta = \sqrt{\mu \over \varepsilon}\ .$$

For example, in free space the intrinsic impedance is called the characteristic impedance of vacuum, denoted Z0, and

 * $$Z_0 = \sqrt{\mu_0 \over \varepsilon_0}\ .$$

Waves propagate through a medium with velocity $$c_w = \nu \lambda $$, where $$\nu$$ is the frequency and $$\lambda$$ is the wavelength of the electromagnetic waves. This equation also may be put in the form
 * $$ c_w = {\omega \over k}\ ,$$

where $$\omega$$ is the angular frequency of the wave and $$k$$ is the wavenumber of the wave. In electrical engineering, the symbol $$\beta$$, called the phase constant, is often used instead of $$k$$.

The propagation velocity of electromagnetic waves in free space, an idealized standard reference state (like absolute zero for temperature), is conventionally denoted by c0:
 * $$c_0 = {1 \over \sqrt{\varepsilon_0 \mu_0}}\ ,$$
 * where $$\varepsilon_0$$ is the electric constant and $$~ \mu_0 \ $$ is the magnetic constant.

For a general introduction, see Serway For a discussion of synthetic media, see Joannopoulus.

Types

 * 1) Homogeneous medium vs. heterogeneous medium
 * 2) Transparent medium vs. opaque body
 * Translucent medium

title: Optical medium


text:
Mordecai Mokiach

Mordecai Mokiach (Eisenstadt, also Mordechai Ben Hayyim of Eisenstadt) (c. 1650 in Alsace – May 18, 1729 in Pressburg) was a Jewish Sabbatean prophet and Messiah claimant.

The death of Sabbatai Zevi (1676) seems to have encouraged his followers, who claimed that he had returned to his heavenly abode and would come back in three years to finish his "Messianic" task. This doctrine was preached by Mordecai, who, through his ascetic life, his eloquence, and his commanding appearance, won many followers. Italian kabbalists, among them Behr Perlhefter, the first Maggid in the study hall of Abraham Rovigo, and Benjamin ben Eliezer ha-Kohen, rabbi of Reggio, called him to Italy about 1678, where he was very popular for a time. Something, perhaps fear of the Inquisition, forced him to leave Italy, where he had begun to announce himself as the Messiah. He traveled as a preacher through Austria, Germany, and Poland, and finally returned to Hungary, where he seems to have lived a quiet life, as nothing further is known of him. His son, Judah Löb Mokiach, an eminent Talmudist, died in Pressburg on December 7, 1742; the latter's sons were David Berlin (Mokiach) and Isaiah Berlin (Mokiach), known also as Isaiah Pick.

title: Mordecai Mokiach


text: User talk:68.51.143.146

title: User talk:68.51.143.146


text:
Cattle raiding

Cattle raiding is the act of stealing live cattle, often several or many at once. In Australia, such stealing is often referred to as duffing, and the perpetrator as a duffer. In other areas, especially in Queensland, the practice is known as poddy-dodging with the perpetrator known as a poddy-dodger. In North America, especially in the Wild West cowboy culture, cattle theft is dubbed rustling, while an individual who engages in it is a rustler.

Historical cattle raiding
The act of cattle-raiding is quite ancient, first attested over seven thousand years ago, and is one of the oldest-known aspects of Proto-Indo-European culture, being seen in inscriptions on artifacts such as the Norse Golden Horns of Gallehus and in works such as the Old Irish Táin Bó Cúailnge ("Cattle Raid of Cooley"), the paṇis of the Rigveda, the Mahabharata cattle raids and cattle rescues; and the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, who steals the cattle of Apollo.

Central Asia
In his childhood, the Turco-Mongol conqueror Timur and a small band of followers raided travelers for goods, especially animals such as sheep, horses, and cattle. Around 1363, it is believed that Timur tried to steal a sheep from a shepherd but was shot by two arrows, one in his right leg and another in his right hand, where he lost two fingers. Both injuries disabled him for life. Timur's injuries have given him the names of Timur the Lame and Tamerlane by Europeans.

Ireland & Britain
In Gaelic Ireland, cattle raiding, whether in retaliation for an insult under the code of conduct or to keep the whole clan fed during a difficult winter, was a common part of warfare between Irish clans, as is often depicted in stories from Irish mythology, such as the Táin Bó Cúailnge and the Táin Bó Flidhais. Cattle raiding and selling protection against theft continued by Irish clan chiefs and rapparees, particularly against the estates of Anglo-Irish landlords, well into the 18th century in Ireland.

Warfare between Scottish clans was often for very similar reasons and, during the 17th and 18th centuries, many Scottish clan chiefs would similarly operate an extralegal Watch over the cattle herds of the Lowland gentry in return for protection money, which Highland Chiefs similarly used to feed their tenants and clansmen. Any cattle that were stolen from herds under the Chiefs' Watch were either retrieved, or he paid for them in full.

Cattle-raiding by the Border reivers was a serious problem for many centuries on both sides of the Anglo-Scottish border.

American Old West
In the American frontier, rustling was considered a serious offense and in some cases resulted in vigilantes hanging or shooting the thieves.

One cause of tensions between Mexico and the United States in the years leading up to the Mexican–American War (of 1846–1848) was the frequent raiding of cattle by Native Americans from north of the border. Mexico's military and diplomatic capabilities had declined after it attained independence which left the northern half of the country vulnerable to the Apache, Comanche, and Navajo. These tribes, especially the Comanche, took advantage of Mexico's weakness by undertaking large-scale raids hundreds of miles deep into the country to steal livestock for their own use and to supply an expanding market in Texas and the United States. These raids left thousands of people dead and devastated northern Mexico. When American troops entered northern Mexico in 1846 they found a demoralized people and little resistance from the civilian population.

Mexican rustlers were a major issue during the American Civil War (1861–1865); the Mexican government was accused of supporting the habit. American rustlers also stole Mexican cattle from across the border. Failure to brand new calves facilitated theft.

Conflict over alleged rustling was a major issue in the Johnson County War of 1892 in Wyoming.

The transition from open range to fenced grazing gradually reduced the practice of rustling in North America. In the 20th century, so called "suburban rustling" became more common, with rustlers anesthetizing cattle and taking them directly to auction. This often takes place at night, posing problems for law enforcement, because on very large ranches it can take several days for the loss of cattle to be noticed and reported. Convictions are rare to nonexistent.

Chile and Argentina
Cattle raiding became a major issue at the end of the 19th century in Argentina, where cattle stolen during malones were taken through Camino de los chilenos across the Andes to Chile, where they were exchanged for alcoholic beverages and firearms. Several indigenous groups and outlaws, such as the Boroano and Ranquel peoples, and the Pincheira brothers, ravaged the southern frontier of Argentina in search of cattle. To prevent the cattle raiding, the Argentine government built a system of trenches called Zanja de Alsina in the 1870s. Most cattle raids ended after the military campaigns of the Conquest of the Desert in the 1870s, and the following partition of Patagonia established by the Boundary Treaty of 1881 between Chile and Argentina.

In a letter to Chilean President Manuel Montt Mapuche chief Mañil denounced the plunder of graves in search of Mapuche silver, arson of Mapuche houses and other abuses against Mapuches that were happening in the newly created province. Mañil further accused intendant Villalón con Salbo of becoming rich by cattle theft.

The return of Chilean veterans from the War of the Pacific coincided with the Chilean Army's crushing of Mapuche resistance in the Occupation of Araucanía (1861–1883). This led to opportunities for bandits and veterans-turned-bandits to immigrate to the newly opened Araucanía territory, leading to sudden rise in violence and in a region that was recovering from Chilean-Mapuche warfare. Bandits that immigrated to Araucanía allied with displaced Mapuche and made cattle theft their chief business. Stolen cattle was sold in marketplaces through the region.

East Africa
The Pokot and Samburu Nilotic populations in northwestern Kenya often raid each other for cattle. Violent cattle rustling has caused massive loss of lives such as the Monday 12 March 2001 raid among the Marakwet in Murkutwo Location, Elgeyo Marakwet County, suspected to have been caused by the Pokot.

Sudan
Conflict over pastures and cattle raids has been happening between Dinka and Nuer as they battle for grazing their animals.

Cattle rustling is a major problem in rural areas of South Sudan. In the state of Jonglei, cattle raids in August 2011 left around 600 people dead. Once again in January 2012, ethnic clashes related to cattle theft killed between 2,000 and 3,000 people and displaced as many as 34,500 in the area around Pibor.

West Africa
Cattle rustling is common in Nigeria.

Israel
The theft of sheep, goats and cows along with tractors and irrigation equipment, is one of the most difficult problems confronted by farmers in Israel. About 400 cases are reported annually in the north of the country, and in the south, farmers compare the situation to the Wild West. They suffer millions of shekels in annual losses. Most of the stolen livestock is taken to the West Bank, quickly slaughtered and then smuggled back into Israel, where it is sold by butchers to unsuspecting customers.

title: Cattle raiding


text:
William McCombie

William McCombie	 MP (1805 – 1 February 1880), was a leading Scottish cattle breeder and agriculturist; he was also known as "the grazier king" or the "king of graziers".

Life
Born at Tillyfour Farm near Alford in Aberdeenshire, the home of his father, Charles McCombie, a farming cattle dealer with Highland roots. He was the cousin of William McCombie of Cairnballoch (1809-1870), the founder editor of the radical Aberdeen Free Press. He is said to be descended from Daniel Makomby also known as Makomby-More (big Makomby) who died in July 1714.

After receiving his education at a local school, he attended Marischal College in Aberdeen but despite his father's reservations, he sought to follow him in an agricultural career. Initially, McCombie's employment was within the extensive family farming business, part of which was transporting cattle to the borders of Scotland and into England for fattening. During the 1820s he rented the arable 1200 acre Tillyfour Farm from his father and began the process of building up his own herd of black polled cattle. The herd already on the farm when he leased it were quality animals and influenced by Lord Panmure, McCombie blended two types of polled cattle from the Aberdeen and Angus varieties to form the basis of the black Aberdeen Angus cattle. McCombie referred to the date he founded his herd as 1832, which was the year his cattle gained a first prize in exhibitions. Over five hundred prizes were won by his cattle throughout the UK and at major exhibitions in France. When rinderpest struck northeast cattle herds in 1865, McCombie organised Aberdeenshire farmers to raise a compensation fund that made possible the rigorous slaughter policy that extirpated the disease, thus providing the model for modern disease control measures among farm stock.

In 1867 his book Cattle and Cattlebreeders was published; three further editions were later printed.

He became the first tenant farmer elected to a Scottish constituency in 1868 when he represented the Liberal Party as the western division of Aberdeen Member of Parliament. He was returned with a majority in 1874 but two years later, in 1876, ill health caused him to resign his seat.

He died on 1 February 1880 aged 74 and is memorialised in the churchyard at Kirkton of Tough in Aberdeensahire.

He never married and died a bachelor at Tillyfour on 1 February 1880. The cattle herd was sold at a disposal sale in August 1880.

title: William McCombie


text:
User talk:Sidewalker General

VANDAL
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sidewalker General


text:
User talk:Grafzsm

Just to let you know, it's customary to sign comments on talk pages by concluding like this: -~ (dash tilde tilde tilde tilde) =) -Grick 06:00, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Grafzsm


text:
Jay Adler

Jay Adler (August 4, 1896 – September 24, 1978) was an American actor in theater, television, and film.

Early life
Born in New York City, he was the eldest son of actors Jacob and Sara Adler, and the brother of five actor siblings, including stage actor Luther and drama coach Stella. The Adlers were a Jewish-American acting dynasty in New York City's Yiddish Theater District and they played a significant role in theater from the late 19th century to the 1950s. Stella Adler became the most influential member of their family.

Career
Adler's Broadway credits included Cafe Crown (1942), Blind Alley (1940, 1935), Prelude (1936), and Man Bites Dog'' (1933).

In 1934, Adler joined with Harry Thomashefsky and Boris Bernardi to form the Theater Mart Group, "a cooperative group of players and staff connected with the stage", in New York City. Plans called for production of plays like those done by the city's Group Theatre.

During a long acting career of minor character roles, Jay Adler appeared in more than 40 films and 37 television series between 1938 and 1976, accumulating more than 130 total performing credits.

He appeared in The Big Combo (1955), Stanley Kubrick's The Killing (1956) and Jerry Lewis' The Family Jewels (1965).

In 1961, Adler appeared both in the episode "The Lady and the Lawyer" of the television series The Asphalt Jungle and in The Lawbreakers, a theatrical film version of the episode. In 1962, he appeared in the episode "To Climb Steep Hills" of the adventure drama television series Straightaway.

Politics
A lifelong Democrat, he and his siblings, supported Adlai Stevenson during the 1952 presidential election.

Death
Jay Adler died at age 81 in Woodland Hills, California and was buried in the Mount Carmel Cemetery in Glendale, Queens, New York City, New York near to his parents.

Partial filmography

 * No Time to Marry (1938) - Hess
 * Penrod and His Twin Brother (1938) - Johnson
 * The Saint in New York (1938) - Eddie, a Hood (uncredited)
 * Murder in the Night (1939) - Drunk with Two Girls (uncredited)
 * The Underworld Story (1950) - Munsey's Assistant (uncredited)
 * Three Secrets (1950) - City Editor (uncredited)
 * Cry Danger (1951) - Williams
 * The Mob (1951) - Russell - Hotel Clerk (uncredited)
 * Scandal Sheet (1952) - Bailey (uncredited)
 * My Six Convicts (1952) - Steve Kopac
 * Dreamboat (1952) - Desk Clerk (uncredited)
 * Assignment – Paris! (1952) - Henry (uncredited)
 * My Man and I (1952) - Bartender (uncredited)
 * The Prisoner of Zenda (1952) - Customs Officer (uncredited)
 * The Turning Point (1952) - Sammy Lester (uncredited)
 * My Pal Gus (1952) - Van Every (uncredited)
 * The Bad and the Beautiful (1952) - Mr. Z - Party Guest (uncredited)
 * The Juggler (1953) - Papa Sander - Susy's Father (uncredited)
 * Vice Squad (1953) - Frankie Pierce
 * 99 River Street (1953) - Christopher
 * The Long Wait (1954) - Joe—Bellhop
 * Down Three Dark Streets (1954) - Uncle Max - aka Charles Martell
 * The Big Combo (1955) - Detective Sam Hill
 * Murder Is My Beat (1955) - Bartender Louie
 * Love Me or Leave Me (1955) - Orry (uncredited)
 * Illegal (1955) - Joseph Carter
 * Lucy Gallant (1955) - Sam - Stationmaster (uncredited)
 * Man with the Gun (1955) - Cal (uncredited)
 * The Killing (1956) - Leo the Loanshark
 * The Catered Affair (1956) - Sam Leiter
 * Lust for Life (1956) - Waiter
 * Runaway Daughters (1956) - Mr. Rubeck
 * Crime of Passion (1957) - Nalence
 * Sweet Smell of Success (1957) - Manny Davis (uncredited)
 * Hell on Devil's Island (1957) - Toto
 * The Brothers Karamazov (1958) - Pawnbroker
 * Saddle the Wind (1958) - Hank - Saloon Cleanup Man (uncredited)
 * Seven Guns to Mesa (1958) - Ben Avery
 * Curse of the Undead (1959) - Bartender - Jake
 * The Last Angry Man (1959) - Abelman's Feuding Neighbor (uncredited)
 * The Story on Page One (1959) - Lauber (uncredited)
 * All the Fine Young Cannibals (1960) - Sammy Trist (uncredited)
 * Who's Got the Action? (1962) - Man in Car Accident (uncredited)
 * Dime with a Halo (1963) - Mr. Lewis
 * Who's Been Sleeping in My Bed? (1963) - Patient (uncredited)
 * Where Love Has Gone (1964) - Bartender (uncredited)
 * The Family Jewels (1965) - Mr. Lyman, Attorney
 * The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go (1970) - Dr. Yul
 * Brother, Cry for Me (1970)
 * Grave of the Vampire (1972) - Old Zack
 * Bummer (1973) - Sid Rosen
 * Macon County Line (1974) - Impound Yard Man

title: Jay Adler