text:
Ego the Living Planet

Ego the Living Planet is a fictional character appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. The character first appeared in Thor #132 (September 1966) and was created by writer Stan Lee and artist Jack Kirby.

The character has made limited appearances in animation and video games, while Kurt Russell portrayed the character in the live-action Marvel Cinematic Universe film Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017), in which Ego claims to be a Celestial and father of Peter Quill and Mantis. Russell also voiced alternate timeline versions of Ego in the Disney+ animated series What If...? (2021).

Publication history
Ego the Living Planet was initially introduced in The Mighty Thor #132 (September 1966), and was created by Jack Kirby.

Kirby created Ego as a way of exploring his fascination with the expanse of the universe. Ego, the alien Kree, and The Colonizers immediately followed the creation of Galactus, thus establishing Marvel Comics' own "space age mythology". As Kirby recalled in 1969, shortly after the character's debut, Ego's genesis came when: "I began to experiment ...and that's how Ego came about. ... A planet that was alive; a planet that was intelligent. That was nothing new either because there had been other stories [about] live planets but that's not acceptable. ... [Y]ou would say, 'Yeah, that's wild,' but how do you relate to it? Why is it alive? So I felt somewhere out in the universe, the universe ... becomes denser and turns liquid—and that in this liquid, there was a giant multiple virus, and if [it] remained isolated for millions and millions of years, it would ... begin to evolve by itself and it would begin to think. By the time we reached it, it might be quite superior to us—and that was Ego."

The reader's first glimpse of Ego on the last page of Thor #132 is a full-page splash panel photo collage with Ego's human features superimposed on a bulbous, chaotic planetoid. Kirby had been using photo collages for several years; this image has been called "his most effective and freakish to date."

Ego returned as a protagonist in Thor #160–161 (Jan.–Feb. 1969) and made a guest appearance in #201. His origin is explored in Thor #228.

Following appearances in Fantastic Four #234–235 (Sept.–Oct. 1981) and Rom #69 (Aug. 1985), Ego had a recurring role in Silver Surfer vol. 3 #4–22 (1987–1989). The character returned in the 1991 Thor annual and issues #448–450 (June–Aug 1992).

Ego played a prominent role in the company-wide crossover storyline "Maximum Security", appearing in Avengers #35 (Dec. 2000); Maximum Security: Dangerous Planet (Oct. 2000); Iron Man #34–35 (Nov.–Dec. 2000); X-Men Unlimited #29 (Dec. 2000); Gambit #23 (Dec. 2000), and Maximum Security #1–3 (Dec. 2000 – Jan. 2001).

The character returned in Nova vol. 4 #20–30 and Astonishing Thor #1–5 (Nov 2010 – July 2011).

Ego the Living Planet also appeared in the Oni Press Color Special.

1960s
Ego once told Thor that his existence was the result of a scientist merging with a planet when that planet's sun went nova.

Inside the Black Galaxy, Ego's ambitions turn towards conquest. He starts absorbing space vessels and other planets to survive and has plans to create armies of Anti-bodies to conquer worlds. This behavior attracted the attention of the Rigellian Colonizers, who feared that the nearby Ego would consume their homeworld. They asked the help of the Thunder God, Thor, to defeat Ego. Accompanied by a Rigellian Recorder, Thor encountered Ego, who forced him into his body. He fought his Anti-bodies and stunned him with a powerful storm. Feeling humiliated by his defeat, Ego vowed never to leave the Black Galaxy. Several months later, a weakened Galactus invaded Ego's space and sought to replenish his energy by consuming Ego. Thor aided Ego in battling Galactus and drove Galactus off. In gratitude, Ego allowed its surface to become the new home of the Wanderers; a group of various alien races whose planets had been the very first to be devoured by Galactus billions of years ago.

1970s
The Rigellian Tana Nile took a sample of Ego's form, in the hope that this could be used to fertilize sterile worlds being considered for habitation. However, this act drives Ego insane, and it soon gives in to its primordial urges and absorbs the Wanderers, which causes Thor to side with a returning Galactus. Assisted by ally, Hercules and Galactus's herald, Firelord, Thor holds Ego off until Galactus attaches a massive starship engine to Ego's south pole, which drives the planet constantly through space and thereby prevents it from being a threat to other planets and populated sections of the universe.

1980s
Years later, Ego gains control of the engine and tracks Galactus to Earth, seeking vengeance. Unable to locate him, Ego attacks Earth. He causes massive destruction, which is later undone by a reality-altering mutant. The Fantastic Four attempted to defeat Ego by removing the power cell from one of the attached propulsion engines, which the Thing attempts to throw into Ego's "brain". In response, an angered Ego attempts to counter with his remaining engines but, with one engine now deactivated, the other propels the now-out-of-control planet into the Sun, its gravitational pull breaking apart Ego's substance.

Ego, however, slowly reforms from a few surviving particles and repairs the propulsion unit. Ego then digests a number of Dire Wraiths to replenish its energy reserves, and battles the Space Knight Rom.

Ego later joins the Elders of the Universe in a plan to destroy Galactus. Ego is sidelined before the confrontation when he is defeated by the Silver Surfer. Ego subsequently captures the Silver Surfer and attempts to consume his energies.

1990s
Ego attacks a Korbinite fleet and fights the hero Beta Ray Bill. Ego reveals to Bill that Galactus's propulsion unit is driving Ego mad, and the fleet subsequently destroys the propulsion unit. A sentient bio-verse, initially described as "Super-Ego", then begins to consume Ego, but Ego eventually escapes.

2000s
Driven mad by the Supreme Intelligence, Ego lashes out at other planets, destroying them while trying to 'awaken' others like itself, until it is defeated in a battle with Professor X, the Silver Surfer and Cadre K. Ego is subsequently captured and sent to Earth as an "infant" in spore form. As Ego grows, it begins to consume the Earth, with the Supreme Intelligence intending to allow it to grow so that the Kree can take control of Ego and use it as a weapon against the rest of the universe. Quasar absorbs it to prevent this.

When Quasar dies during the Annihilation war, Ego was released back into the Universe, only to be approached by the Worldmind to join the new Nova Corps. Ego supplants Worldmind and brainwashes the Corps. Nova manages to defeat Ego and free Worldmind by lobotomizing the Living Planet. When Ego resurfaces his personality on his body, Nova stargates Mindless Ones into Ego's brain, causing pain to the Living Planet and forcing him to stargate away.

2010s
Ego learns he was one of two sentient bodies created by the Stranger for a science experiment, and that his brother Alter-Ego has been held in captivity by the Collector since birth. While Ego seeks a similar entity to itself, the Stranger has arranged for Alter-Ego to hate Ego, intending to learn through their battle if freedom or captivity breeds a stronger will. Alter-Ego is wounded and loses mass when Ego is forced to attack it in self-defense, but Thor intervenes before Ego can strike a killing blow. The remaining fragments of Alter-Ego become a moon of Ego, and the two begin to travel together as a family.

When Ego is infested by large insect-like creatures he hires Rocket Raccoon to eradicate them.

Galactus, changed into the Life-Bringer by the Ultimates, encounters Ego after regaining his strength after a battle with the new universal construct Lagos. Ego attacks Galactus as he journeys to his inner brain at the center of the planet, however loses control of his constructs, which realize that Galactus is not a threat. Ego then reveals that before his creation by the Stranger, his consciousness was that of a man named Egros, similar to Galactus' former self Galan. After formally meeting one another and putting aside their past animosities, Galactus uses his Life-Bringer abilities to form a body for the rest of Ego, who now calls himself Ego-Prime. Ego-Prime then joins Eternity Watch, a group Galactus has put together to deal with the First Firmament, the first iteration of all that is, who had chained Eternity. Ego-Prime participated in the final battle against the First Firmament's forces. Following the First Firmament's defeat, Ego returned to his normal antics, detaching his new body and returning to his planetoid form.

2020s
Ego later allowed a Skrullian cult named the Brethren of the Forgotten Flame to take shelter in its surface and displaced itself to a specific location in the Galactic Rim so they could follow a prophetic ritual that required them to observe a constellation comprising the brightest stars in three separate Skrullian constellations. The sudden appearance of Ego in the Galactic Rim prompted an investigation by a survey team which was killed by the Skrulls which in turn prompted the Guardians of the Galaxy to investigate and thereby stumble into the cult.

The team quickly found out the cult was committing a mass sacrifice, which encased the Living Planet in a dark shell. Once Ego finally hatched from the shell it was possessed by the ruler of the Dark Dimension and the cult's object of worship, the dreaded Dormammu.

Powers and abilities
The living planet named Ego has been called a "bioverse". Every part of its substance, including the atmosphere itself, is alive as much as it is controlled by the consciousness of Ego. It often transforms its surface to appear as a giant face to address powerful beings and can shape its terrain to suit the circumstances, displaying plant-like growth, manipulating weather, generating earthquakes, volcanoes, geysers, and canyons. It can transform its surface into a dead world or a beautiful paradise to lure unwitting space travelers to its surface and has various internal features similar to a biological lifeform, like large tunnels that have been compared to arteries and its consciousness is inside a giant, brain-like organ deep below its surface. To defend itself, it extrudes tentacles that reach out into space and produce vast numbers of Antibodies: non-sentient humanoid warriors that it mentally commands. Ego can also create a protective shield of solid clouds to defend from space attacks, raise its internal temperature to burn life forms inside, has digestive organs to absorb living beings, and an immune system that lets him release the previously mentioned Antibodies to attack intruders. It can also control its own radiation and magnetic fields to fool scanners or attract ships.

Ego can generate vast psionic energies that rival a hungered Galactus at their peak. It can project energy blasts to obliterate starships or planets, read minds and scan their biological structure, and communicate to sentient beings using telepathy. If its energy reserves are greatly reduced, Ego can restore them by devouring planets, tapping into stars, or digesting large numbers of living beings. Its psionic abilities are also how it controls its biosphere.

Additionally, Ego is exceptionally intelligent, although as its name suggests, it harbors an extreme superiority complex and can be emotional if thwarted. For a while, Ego was propelled through space via the engine Galactus implanted on its south pole, but eventually gained control of it through its vast mental powers, allowing it to travel through hyperspace at enormous speeds. However, the device was later removed, and Ego later mastered how to travel at warp speeds without it.

Amalgam Comics
In the Amalgam Comics published jointly by Marvel Comics and DC Comics, Oa the Living Planet, an amalgamation version of Ego and DC's Planet Oa, was featured under the Amalgam Comics imprint in Iron Lantern #1, where he is the source of power for the Green Lantern Corps. Another version of Ego in the Amalgam universe appeared in Thorion of the New Asgods as Ego-Mass, an amalgamation of Ego and the Source Wall.

Exiles
Ego appears in Exiles #53 (December 2004). Set in the universe of Earth-4162, Ego implants the Seeds of Awareness in the Earth in an attempt to create another living planet. The Fantastic Four of this universe, along with the Exiles, are able to convince the now sentient Earth to oppose Ego. Blink kills Ego by teleporting a mining drill into the Living Planet's brain.

King Thor
When Galactus the World Butcher was bonded to All-Black the Necrosword, Ego arrived and suddenly the Necrosword left Galactus and bonded to Ego, becoming Ego the Necroplanet. With its power, he ate Galactus whole. And while eating Cosmic Sharks, he was approached by an Asgardian worm who challenged Ego to fight, but Ego quickly laughed out loud of the fact that a worm thought that it could defeat him, but then Ego got completely destroyed by the worm after the worm (King Loki in disguise) whispered word of madness for the ensuing millennia.

Marvel 2099
In the unified Marvel 2099 reality of Earth-2099, Ego the Living Planet had appeared around the Sun. Space explorer Ross Romero was dispatched with his crew by Alchemax to explore it. Ego's defenses killed most of the crew and one crewman left Ross on the planet. Ego later bloomed a red plant that transformed Ross into the 2099 version of Red Hulk as his last act. When Terrax the Planet Hunter attacked Ego after killing the crew member that abandoned Ross, he is defended by Red Hulk. After Terrax the Planet Hunter's defeat and Red Hulk accessing Hyperspace to go into the unknown. Ego finally dies.

Marvel Adventures
Ego appears in Marvel Adventures: The Avengers #12 (June 2007), a series created for younger readers. In this story, Ego causes natural disasters on Earth when he arrives to woo Giant Girl.

Marvel Zombies 2
In Marvel Zombies 2, Ego is one of the last few survivors of a reality-spanning zombie rampage. However, he is found and eaten.

Television

 * Ego the Living Planet appears in the Fantastic Four episode "To Battle the Living Planet", voiced by Kay E. Kuter.
 * Ego the Living Planet appears in Silver Surfer, voiced by Roy Lewis.
 * Ego the Living Planet makes a cameo appearance in The Super Hero Squad Show episode "World War Witch!".
 * Ego the Living Planet appears in Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H., voiced by Kevin Michael Richardson. This version is controlled by Little Ego, a smaller version of his outer self that requires a connection to him to survive. If anyone else takes control of the host planet, it will assume the controller's head's appearance.

Marvel Cinematic Universe
Ego appears in media set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, portrayed by Kurt Russell. This version is the biological father of Peter Quill and Mantis and claims to be a Celestial. Additionally, he came into existence millions of years ago and learned to use his cosmic powers to manipulate matter and form an entire planet around himself as well as utilize many resources and a humanoid avatar to interact with other sentient beings. However, he became bored of immortality and disappointed with a universe full of inferior life and sets out to remake the universe in his image via seedlings planted on various worlds.
 * In the live-action film Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Ego finds his son, explains his plan, and reveals he requires the power of another Celestial to activate the seedlings. To achieve this, Ego mated with various species until a suitable offspring was conceived to facilitate his plan, with Quill being the only offspring to have inherited his power. However, Quill rebels against Ego after learning that the latter had killed his mother and joins the Guardians of the Galaxy in killing Ego and foiling his plan.
 * Alternate timeline variants of Ego appear in the Disney+ animated series What If...?.

Video games

 * Ego the Living Planet appears in Lego Marvel Super Heroes.
 * Ego the Living Planet appears in Lego Marvel Super Heroes 2. Additionally, the MCU incaration appears as a playable character via the Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 DLC.

Music
American stoner metal band Monster Magnet recorded a song dedicated to a self-titled song to Ego the Living Planet on the album Dopes to Infinity.

Reception
In his 1972 book Outlaws of America, author Roger Lewis argues that Ego the Living Planet reflected risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth that people were contemplating in the 1960s, when he was initially conceived.

The 2007 storyline "Ego the Loving Planet", which ran in Marvel Adventures: The Avengers #12, featuring Ego in a main capacity, and was praised by Ray Tate of ComicsBulletin for its simultaneous inventiveness and logical sense.

In August 2009, Time listed Ego as one of the "Top 10 Oddest Marvel Characters".

In the 2015 book Marvel Comics in the 1960s, Pierre Comtois stated that, "With the creation of Ego [Lee and Kirby], unbelievably, managed to equal if not top their introduction of Galactus only a few months before. Not just a living planet, but a living "bio-verse", Ego presents the reader with a menace so gigantic, so incalculable that it dwarfed even a character with the power of a god."

title: Ego the Living Planet


text:
Fast Kalman filter

The fast Kalman filter (FKF), devised by Antti Lange (born 1941), is an extension of the Helmert–Wolf blocking (HWB) method from geodesy to safety-critical real-time applications of Kalman filtering (KF) such as GNSS navigation up to the centimeter-level of accuracy and satellite imaging of the Earth including atmospheric tomography.

Motivation
Kalman filters are an important filtering technique for building fault-tolerance into a wide range of systems, including real-time imaging. The ordinary Kalman filter is an optimal filtering algorithm for linear systems. However, an optimal Kalman filter is not stable (i.e. reliable) if Kalman's observability and controllability conditions are not continuously satisfied. These conditions are very challenging to maintain for any larger system. This means that even optimal Kalman filters may start diverging towards false solutions. Fortunately, the stability of an optimal Kalman filter can be controlled by monitoring its error variances if only these can be reliably estimated (e.g. by MINQUE). Their precise computation is, however, much more demanding than the optimal Kalman filtering itself. The FKF computing method often provides the required speed-up also in this respect.

Optimum calibration
Calibration parameters are a typical example of those state parameters that may create serious observability problems if a narrow window of data (i.e. too few measurements) is continuously used by a Kalman filter. Observing instruments onboard orbiting satellites gives an example of optimal Kalman filtering where their calibration is done indirectly on ground. There may also exist other state parameters that are hardly or not at all observable if too small samples of data are processed at a time by any sort of a Kalman filter.

Inverse problem
The computing load of the inverse problem of an ordinary Kalman recursion is roughly proportional to the cube of the number of the measurements processed simultaneously. This number can always be set to 1 by processing each scalar measurement independently and (if necessary) performing a simple pre-filtering algorithm to de-correlate these measurements. However, for any large and complex system this pre-filtering may need the HWB computing. Any continued use of a too narrow window of input data weakens observability of the calibration parameters and, in the long run, this may lead to serious controllability problems totally unacceptable in safety-critical applications.

Even when many measurements are processed simultaneously, it is not unusual that the linearized equation system becomes sparse, because some measurements turn out to be independent of some state or calibration parameters. In problems of Satellite Geodesy, the computing load of the HWB (and FKF) method is roughly proportional to the square of the total number of the state and calibration parameters only and not of the measurements that are billions.

Reliable solution
Reliable operational Kalman filtering requires continuous fusion of data in real-time. Its optimality depends essentially on the use of exact variances and covariances between all measurements and the estimated state and calibration parameters. This large error covariance matrix is obtained by matrix inversion from the respective system of Normal Equations. Its coefficient matrix is usually sparse and the exact solution of all the estimated parameters can be computed by using the HWB (and FKF) method. The optimal solution may also be obtained by Gauss elimination using other sparse-matrix techniques or some iterative methods based e.g. on Variational Calculus. However, these latter methods may solve the large matrix of all the error variances and covariances only approximately and the data fusion would not be performed in a strictly optimal fashion. Consequently, the long-term stability of Kalman filtering becomes uncertain even if Kalman's observability and controllability conditions were permanently satisfied.

Description
The Fast Kalman filter applies only to systems with sparse matrices, since HWB is an inversion method to solve sparse linear equations (Wolf, 1978).

The sparse coefficient matrix to be inverted may often have either a bordered block- or band-diagonal (BBD) structure. If it is band-diagonal it can be transformed into a block-diagonal form e.g. by means of a generalized Canonical Correlation Analysis (gCCA).

Such a large matrix can thus be most effectively inverted in a blockwise manner by using the following analytic inversion formula:
 * $$\begin{bmatrix} A & B \\ C & D \end{bmatrix}^{-1} = \begin{bmatrix} A^{-1}+A^{-1}B(D-CA^{-1}B)^{-1}CA^{-1} & -A^{-1}B(D-CA^{-1}B)^{-1} \\ -(D-CA^{-1}B)^{-1}CA^{-1} & (D-CA^{-1}B)^{-1} \end{bmatrix}$$

of Frobenius where
 * $$ A = $$ a large block- or band-diagonal (BD) matrix to be easily inverted, and,
 * $$ (D-CA^{-1}B) = $$ a much smaller matrix called the Schur complement of $$A$$.

This is the FKF method that may make it computationally possible to estimate a much larger number of state and calibration parameters than an ordinary Kalman recursion can do. Their operational accuracies may also be reliably estimated from the theory of Minimum-Norm Quadratic Unbiased Estimation (MINQUE) of C. R. Rao and used for controlling the stability of this optimal fast Kalman filtering.

Applications
The FKF method extends the very high accuracies of Satellite Geodesy to Virtual Reference Station (VRS) Real Time Kinematic (RTK) surveying, mobile positioning and ultra-reliable navigation. First important applications will be real-time optimum calibration of global observing systems in Meteorology, Geophysics, Astronomy etc.

For example, a Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) system can now forecast observations with confidence intervals and their operational quality control can thus be improved. A sudden increase of uncertainty in predicting observations would indicate that important observations are missing (observability problem) or an unpredictable change of weather is taking place (controllability problem). Remote sensing and imaging from satellites are partly based on forecasted information. Controlling stability of the feedback between these forecasts and the satellite images requires a sensor fusion technique that is both fast and robust, which the FKF fulfills.

The computational advantage of FKF is marginal for applications using only small amounts of data in real-time. Therefore, improved built-in calibration and data communication infrastructures need to be developed first and introduced to public use before personal gadgets and machine-to-machine devices can make the best out of FKF.

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

title: Fast Kalman filter


text:
Talk:Dover Beach

Sea of Faith
Wetman, do you have a reference for the Oceanus note? (While I think the analogy may be relevant, I have not seen it made in the criticism, -- but I may have overlooked it.) Mddietz (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I should think that when anyone reads that the Sea of Faith "round earth's shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd", in a poem where Sophocles is being invoked, Arnold's reference to "ocean-stream", Okeanos, is too obvious to be much lingered over or stressed. I'm surprised that the reference has always escaped Mddietz until now. --Wetman (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Wetman, sorry I missed your reply, I've pulled these comments under their own heading so we can discuss this a little more easily. A few points to make here:
 * 1) No, I had not noted this as an allusion to Okeanos before you pointed to it. And I appreciate your pointing it out because it is an interesting conception of the poem (although I am not sure how to read it in the context of the poem as I have never seen Okeanos offered up as a Sea of Faith before).
 * 2) I have not seen this allusion noted in any of the commentaries I have read. (And our job is, of course, to cite from accepted authorities only.  If they have not called attention to this, I am loathe to say it is quite as obviously present as you suggest it is.)
 * 3) As you seem to be asking my opinion, for what it's worth, I will share with you my thoughts. I don't think this is an allusion to Okeanos.  These lines are usually taken as a reference to the beliefs of the medieval period, not the classical period.  Arnold's writings on religion would bear this out.  Moroever the Sea of Faith is a common metaphor for Arnold, whether Sophocles is mentioned or not, and again, usually refers to the medieval (catholic) notions of faith (catholic here meaning universal as much as the Roman church).  The reference to the Sea of Faith is in a stanza that is carefully separated from the stanza referring to Sophocles.  Not only is this stanza physically separated with the blank line that normally occurs between stanzas, it is also temporally separated,-- "Was once, too," suggests a difference in time from the preceding stanza.  I am not sure that reading the Sea of Faith as an allusion to Okeanos does much to explain the refernce to Sophocles (who is described as looking out on a very specific body of water, the Aegean, not a metaphorical body of water.  Although the sound that the Aegean makes is taken metaphorically).  Nor does it quite explain the poet's discomfort at the retreat of the Sea of Faith.  At best the allusion, if it is present, is very distant, and I am not seeing that it really enables a more effective reading of the poem.
 * Nonetheles, the allusion is interesting, but if we cannot find it in the writing of an accepted authority (which I would really hope we coudl as I would love to see what has been made of the allusion) I am inclined to say it ought not to be included in the article. I will take another look in Allott and see if it shows up there. Mddietz (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Knowledgeable users of Wikipedia read the related Talkpages. The Wikipedia reader who has penetrated this far may sense that Mddietz's equation "Okeanos ≠ Sea of Faith" is a less than complete summary of the seas in this poem, in which the comparison between the first two seas evokes the third. That is to say that Sophocles' Aegean is contrasted with "this distant northern sea", which— though there is no footnote to this effect— is the English Channel. The contrast, which is a contrast of cultures, introduces the image of the Sea of Faith, which is not specifically identified as the "Sea of Christian Faith", though doubtless that would be the only reading permitted by Mddietz. Arnold's deeply cultured Hellenism surfaces in many of his poems and essays. My set of Arnold contains only Arnold's own, very spare notes. Mddietz is apparently using a fully annotated edition of "Dover Beach". May we ask that Mddietz enter "any of the commentaries I have read" in the References section, as an aid to the reader? Sounds as if there are quite a few..

 * Wikipedia is merely a readers' guide. The point is to transmit information. The offending footnote merely pointed the reader to Oceanus. Why is Mddietz' response to this poem authoritative? --Wetman (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Dear Wetman, if what I have written came across as at all disrespectful to you personally, please accept my apology. It was not meant that way.  As I pointed out, I think your suggestion that the poem contains an allusion to Oceanus is an interesting one.  But as with all readings of this sort, there is room for discussion.  I gave you my opinion only because I thought you had asked for it and I did nto want to be rude by not providing it.  But I clearly labelled it as my opinion.  And I also made it clear that that opinion was NOT relevant to a decision on what is to be included in the article.

 * As far as our work for Wikipedia is concerned, however, my personal opinion is, as I stated above, quite irrelevant. I am not here as an authority, and, of course, you are not either.  I know you know that, so let us please set aside the non-collegial tone and focus on the issue at hand which is a very simple one, as I understand it.  It is NOT whether the reading is a justifiable reading, neither of us is here to make that judgement.  It is whether or not the reading you have offered is supported by the secondary literature.  I have not seen it in any of the secondary literature.  If I am understanding you correctly, you have not seen it either?  For it to be included in the tertiary literature (Wikipedia) it must first be present in the secondary literature.

 * Finally, yes I have access to an annotated version of the poems. This is Allott's The Poems of Matthew Arnold, which is widely regarded as the authoritative text for Arnold's poems.  Unfortunately, this book is out of print. (I just took a look on Abebooks and there is a heavily used copy available for $10 which is not a bad price for the Longman Poets series.  By the way, most of the books on Arnold are OP, because he's become something of a whipping boy for post modernism and that has resulted in an unfortunate slow-down in the "Arnold scholarly industry" which makes our job here much more difficult.)  I have already used Allott's notes in several places in this article.  I glanced in Allott's book last night, and it did not contain a reference to Oceanus, but I forgot to bring it in with me today.  I'll try to remember to bring it in tomorrow.  I am happy to share what it contains; I'm not the gate keeper type.  What Allott or any of the others say is our data for writing this article, not my data.  (Frankly, I tried very, very hard in what I have written here NOT to include any of my own analysis of the poem.  I sought a source for every comment I have made and included relevant comments on the poem whether I agree with them or not!)

 * You know, I'd also like to take a look into Tinker and Lowery (see references), but I think I have already mined that for all it's worth. One book I have not looked into yet is focused on Arnold and Classicism (can't remember the title or the author, but I have it at home and I'll see what it says.)  I have NOT by any means looked at all the literature on Arnold nor on this poem, so we may yet find something on Oceanus.  As I said above, I'm hoping we do.

 * Here is my listing for the Allott book from the Matthew Arnold article. (By the way if you go to the Matthew Arnold article you will see a very rich, but by no means complete, selection of books on Arnold, his prose and his poetry.)
 * Kenneth Allott (editor), The Poems of Matthew Arnold (London and New York: Longman Norton, 1965) ISBN 0393043770 Part of the "Annotated English Poets Series," Allott includes 145 poems (with fragments and juvenilia) all fully annotated.

 * P.S. Can we drop the third person bit? To be honest with you, I find it a bit offensive.  My desire is to work with you in a collegial way.  I hope you are interested in the same. Mddietz (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wetman, I am sorry to tell you that Warren Anderson's Matthew Arnold and the Classical Tradition does not conatin any reference to Oceanus. Anderson's intention was to understand both Arnold's use of classical allusion and his realtionship to the classical tradition.  He addresses Dover Beach at great length.  Anderson suggests that for Arnold Sophocles was quite nearly a secular figure.  He does not allow room for Arnold to have drawn mythic (religious) allusions in connection with Sophocles.  I'm really shorthanding Anderson's argument here.  It is much more nuanced than I can make it in a sentence or two.  However, I see no way to find any viability for the allusion in what Anderson has written.  But he is only one critic.  We may yet find this allusion.  Have you been able to come across anything in your research? Mddietz (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wetman, I have searched a couple of bibliographies for a reference to Oceanus in the literature on "Dover Beach" but have still not been able to turn anything up. If you have not yourself come up with anything yet, I think we may have no choice but to set aside the note the note, at least until we can establish something more substantial on the issue.  Do you agree?  If so (and I suppose I may need to take a non-response to this question as agreement as I suspect you may have become so skeptical of a positive answer that you have given up the search and gone on to other things -- how else to account for your silence for so long upon this important issue?), then we should remove the note let us say within the next four days.  Thank you, Mddietz (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Allott produced two different editions of Arnold's poetry. The Everyman one is not annotated (although it has a substantial introduction).-- Poetlister 12:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And Kenneth Allott's wife, Miriam Allott, produced a selection of Arnold's poetry (and I think it had some notes) for Oxford Authors. The second half of that book contains select prose pieces edited by R. H. Super who had previously edited the eleven volume edition of Arnold's prose work.  Miriam had silently helped her husband edit the Longman book (and one suspects he had done the same for her Longman edition of Keats).  Another good selection of both the poetry and prose is Dwight Culler's Poetry and Criticism of Matthew Arnold.  But all of these are currently out of print.  Is the Everyman still in print?  I thought the current Everyman was a new, very short, selection. Mddietz (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's still in print. It was published in 1965 and I have the 1966 reprint, far older than I am!-- Poetlister  11:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch! Hate to tell you this but I am seven years older than your book. I have just visited Amazon to take a quick census of available Arnoldiana.  I was delighted to see that two long out of print books have returned.  Trillings "intellectual biography" of Arnold which is essential for studying Arnold.  And Collini's exquisite and graceful short essay that has my vote for the most effective one volume introduction to Arnold. For poetry he is still very poorly served although a reprint of an early edition seem to have recently come out from Eibron.  The current Everyman is not edited by Allott and is very short and very feeble.  It does not contain Empedocles on Etna, nor, oddly enough, Thyrsis. This current series of Everyman are so short that they often really do a great disservice to the poets they feature. Bit of a shame. Mddietz (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Feedback
I sought (from the English lecturers at the very college Arnold himself was a Fellow of) advice about whether the sources chosen represented the corpus of thought or not. Whilst the work of Profs Tinker and Lowry are now considered somewhat "elderly", they are still respected and accepted. Allott is the most respected work, and Honan's being considered an essential supplement. I also asked if there were any works that were omitted for a novice to the subject and it was thought not, the current sources would be comprehensive enough for any 'new reader'. I am still awaiting a response from another lecturer, but doubt it will vary from the first opinion. Thanks for the work that has been put into this article.--Alf melmac 12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alf, thanks for taking the time to do this extra leg work. I had hoped I was on target with this. Thanks, Mddietz 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving article's discussion page
Might I suggest that now (Or soon) would be a good time to maybe archive some of this pages' contents? Anything that is now considered archaeic (old/closed discussion's etc.) could be archived in order free up space... the notice at the top of the edit box advises this also. Thoughts? Scar ian Talk  21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Scarian, I think that might be a very wise idea. But I have no idea how to do that. Mddietz 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Top of page The stuff at the very top of the page is a couple of years old and can certainly be archived.
 * Caveat seems yet to be a wild roaring slug fest, although increasingly it does seem that the caveat writer is arguing with himself.
 * Alternatives to caveat can go; they do not seem to be needed now.
 * Response to the criticism in caveat seems to have been generally ignored, which probably it should have been.
 * Interpretations and Reference My comments on the nature of the changes I made in the page (all of which I think are under the heads Interpretations and Reference) are probably archivable, although I do not know if it is too soon after the changes discussed in them to do so. Do they not need to be left up awhile in case some of the original contributors or other editors want to review the work.
 * Criticism and Moved from article My dialogues with the caveat writer, at least my side of them... well in some cases I have simply deleted my own portion as they really added no value to the page. The caveat writers comments I refuse to touch in anyway.  He might accuse me of censorship, and I wouldn't want that.
 * Problems with article your call...
 * Feedback can we leave that in. It may have some relevance to the future status of the page.  Or am I being a little egotistical?

 * Hooah, I will archive these on your recommendations. It is better to move on now - there is so much junk from the 'caveat' writer, I don't know which of his personalities are in charge of writing... Hmmph... Keep an eye on me whilst I archive just in case I screw up and remove something you want/need on here. Scar ian  Talk  22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I removed a fair bit... The archive link is at the top of the page. Someone tell me, is it me or is the page still slow to load? (I have a download going on so that could be it, but it's bandwidth usage isn't that high) Also, the article archival link doesn't look too pretty at the moment. If I have made a mistake in archiving don't hesitate to tell me off for it and correct it. Also, I may have archived some material that could've been kept such as Alf's mediation (I don't know if it was resolved or not... that's why I was a little bit worried about archiving it) - but fortunatly we have Wikipedia history pages so nothing is lost forever. Hooah. Scar ian  Talk  22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks, it looks fine to me but let us see what anon says. I'm not having any trouble loading, but I'm at work and we have a pretty high-speed connect. Mddietz 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Archived (into Archive1) the last of the caveat related discussion material. What is left now should be only the material relevant to editing the page.  Mddietz 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Two questions
First, why is the full text in the article itself? All it serves to do is make the Analysis section longer than it already is (and it's pretty long). Besides, that's what Wikisource is for. Secondly, are people really getting agitated over a little ol' article on a little ol' poem? Spread some WikiPeace! :) --Midnightdreary 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * There was just some aggravation... I think WP:OWN played a part... But, as Alf has pointed out, it's an important little ol' poem ;-) Scar ian  Talk  00:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * So short poems don't get the text in wiki-articles? (well you learn something every day...), does that apply to nursery rhymes like This Little Piggy, I've never read any style guidance on poetry, never having edited any of those articles before.--Alf melmac 00:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think "This Little Piggy" is a tad shorter than "Dover Beach," so I think four lines is a bit more excusable (what would really cause a discussion though is which of the two has more importance? :) I'll stop!). Other than that, check out WP:NOT. I would suggest that the placement of the Wikisource box is perfect for people that are just looking for the text. Really, it just breaks apart a great analysis section (I'm assuming; I merely skimmed!). --Midnightdreary 01:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * After some further research, I found WP:L&P which suggests that for short copyright-free poems, full text inclusion is acceptable. There are no guidelines as far as what they mean by "short." In that case, I'd suggest it's up to the interested editors. As the unofficial personal caretaker of Edgar Allan Poe's poems, I never include full text within the article but leave a visible Wikisource box (as you folks already have here). If you choose to include it, though, I would at least recommend a separate header for it so that it doesn't cut into anything and it's easy to find. So, yeah, hope that helps. :) --Midnightdreary 01:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very many thanks for a comprehensive answer. Somehow, I'm not tempted to discuss the relevant importance between This Little Piggy and Dover Beach :D I'm guessing that both Mddientz and the anon would prefer to have the text in so your idea about giving it its own section should be considered. Thanks again.--Alf melmac 10:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I frankly wondered about this when I included the text of the poem. Guess I should have done a bit of research on that.  I rather like having the poem in and would vote to keep it in.  Quoting extensive passages from a poem as part of the analysis of that poem has been a common practice since the about the mid-nineteenth century when Arnold was writing; he actually makes a comment on that somewhere.  The New Critics in dismissing summary statements tended continue this practice as the poem itself was foremost and by quoting from it, they could avoid having to summarize it.  Printing the entire poem is, however, not a standard of the analytical process.  I originally had the analysis interspersed within the poem, but moved it out of the poem as an act of appeasement.  The way it is now it is more like an annotated poem. The earlier version, even though the poem was quoted in whole, had, to my mind, much more the feel of an article than a mere reprinting of the poem. Perhaps anon might have some constructive thoughts on this issue. But if I do not hear differently I think I'll change it back to the way it was. Mddietz 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not having heard anything to the contrary, I have gone ahead and returned the interelaving of the comments with the poem. I added a few words to make the connection with the Sophocles section a little more clear, & provided dates for Sophocles to help clarify the historical relationship.  I separated the caveat into its own section as it really is not continuous in matter with the analysis. I have not heard from anon, so I assume he is now pleased as punch with the results we have achieved.  For now I plan to do nothing more of any significance with this page, but hope to revisit it in a month or two (after I have finished another major project I have started and which really should take priority. Mddietz 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hooah, a bit more could be done (by anyone who know's about this poem), e.g. Arnold's thoughts on the analysis of poetry could be cut down... it's a bit lengthy to read. And References to Dover Beach (Or whatever the section's title is) could, also, be cut down. We don't need that many references, just the most notable will do. Agree or disagree? Scar ian Talk  18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think the comments provided by anon really belong more appropriately in the Matthew Arnold article, but... I fully agree on the References to Dover Beach: some of these are interesting, others are rather so-so. The catch-22 reference is nicely written because it makes the connection more explicite and because Heller was clearly in tune with the source poem. Lumping the vast majority of these into a single paragraph would probably be the best way to handle them. Right now they look too much like a laundry list with an "oh I got one, too" feel to them. I still want to make a more thorough search of the critical materials and add in comments like the one I mention from Riede somewhere above. But in due time, I have to go work on other things right now. Then I will come back to this and the Matthew Arnold page. Thanks for all your help. Mddietz 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This article's "essay style" issues
User:Mddietz has asked me to point out specifically what I see as some of the problems this article currently has. To address Mddietz's request, I'll extract quotes from the article (or from the Analysis portion of the article that I excised wholesale) and say why these passages could be improved. Foremost, remember, we're trying to write an encyclopedia article here, not an essay, critique, or analytical work. Our mission therefore is one of organization. We must present the information to the reader in a way that works from general to specific and maintains an encyclopedic tone. Argumentation/rhetoric are to be avoided. If a statement cannot be presented with indisputable factual clarity, there should be attribution. I could say a lot more on this, but I think I've said enough for this article's principal authors to get my drift. The authors of the article could improve it by taking a step back from the subject and approaching it from the perspective of someone who has never heard of the poem before (which probably describes 99% of readers searching Wikipedia for "Dover Beach"). The reader should be "gently eased" into the subject, and within a few paragraphs after the lead, if not therein, the "who-what-where-when-why" questions must be answered. (I don't think they are, in the article's present version.) Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "says Park Honan" ... "Tinker and Lowry suggest passages" ... "According to Tinker and Lowry"...
 * Who are these people and why should we care what they have to say about the poem? Apparently, they are critics who have written analyses.  We do no favor to the article by importing their thought wholesale through unfettered quotation.  And certainly, we should not be name-dropping them, sans any prefatory introduction to them, as though the reader is expected to already be familiar with them.  That is the practice of an academic article, not an encyclopedia article.
 * "Allott also detects an echo of Senancour's Obermann"...
 * Comparative literature-y statements like these come way too early in the article, before the reader has even been introduced to the poem's text and significance. (Florid, metphorical wording is also inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.  A poem does not literally echo.)
 * Way too much text is dedicated to "The Dover Bitch". A passing mention of this poem, and its significance, suffices.  Certainly it should not be so extensively quoted, and this may even be a case of a copyvio.
 * Phrasing like "Even in the U. S. Supreme Court the poem has had its influence" strays far from encyclopedic tone. The writer is arguing something to the reader.  Presentation of the relevant information can be more effectively couched in a plainspoken, factual tone:  "'Dover Beach' was referenced by Justice William Rehnquist in his concurring opinion in Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co...."
 * Thank you, Robert. I appreciate the comments.  In general, I quite agree with much of what you have to say.  But deleting the majority of the article with no comment in the discussion section is absolutely bad Wikipedian citizenship, and I hereby (metaphorically and floridly) slap your hand for doing so and say "shame on you," you appear to be someone who should know better than that.  Now we have that out of the way, lets go about fixing this article as good friends and collaborators.  (I have reinstated the last version of the article.  Lets start from that and work at this as respectful co-collaborators, shall we?)
 * I wrote this rather quickly because I was caught up in a little battle with someone who was vandalizing the site (all of which you can read in the archives if you have any interest--I no longer do). As I say, I wrote it much too quickly, and in truth, I'm not that happy with it.  Your description of how an encyclopedia article should build, moving from general to specific, is wonderfully stated and very appropo.  It certainly agrees with my conception of an encyclopedia article.  I have a feeling that together we may be able to get this article into such a state and I should be very happy to see that.
 * I have spent a lot of the last year studying Arnold and his poetry. I have read a fair amount of the source material,-- which if presssed in the opposite direction I suspect you would say is more important than you appear to regard it in your statement above.  I am sure you just got carried away with the rhetoric of your argument (an arugment which was, nonethless, wonderfully put together--take that as a complement from someone who is, himself, more than a novice in rhetoric--but calling "echo" a florid metaphor, your rhetoric got the better of you there, didn't it?).  What I will tell you is that most of the major issues associated with the poem are included in the Analysis section.  We should find a way to introduce them to the reader using the approach that you recommend.
 * Your comment on the weasel wording in the intro I fully agree with, although I probably reverted it when I put back the analysis.
 * I tend to include comments like "Honan said," or "Lowery said" perhaps because my background is scholarly. In scholarship one does that because things are never quite so settled as an encyclopedia will make them appear.  (I prefer the term "scholar" to "academic," the latter being essentially a pejorative term.)  Your argument for not doing the "name-dropping" is a good one; I am quite willing to follow it.  As to the names that I have dropped, just slide up the discussion page a chat or two and you will find out that they are relevant authorities.  (Wikipedia as a tertiary document is entirely dependent upon authority, although I can see why we might not want to overstate that, it should, of course, remain true of all statements made in wikipedia that they capture an authority other than the immediate editor's authority.  Your sentence, "If a statement cannot be presented with indisputable factual clarity, there should be attribution," is, as I am sure you know, easier to say than to achieve, and full of much complexity--the hermeneutics of which, we surely do not want to get into.)
 * "Dover Bitch" -- "copyvio"? Give me a break!  I'd be very surprised if it was.  Seems fair usage to me.  Lets stick to the argument of whether it is too much or not.  You may be right, but it is a pretty important response to "Dover Beach."  I'm inclined to leave it in, but I'm open to discussing alternatives.
 * The final three paragraphs in the Influence section are really quite horrible. At one point the article consisted almost entirely of these rather irrelevant trivia items (all bulletized).  I paragraphed them, but felt uncomfortable taking them out.  But if you want to take a knife to them, I will be happy to cheer you on.  I am utterly astonished that you would leave in the influence section and take out the anlysis.  I cannot imagine what you were thinking.  Surely, you are not telling me that these little bits of trivia are more important than the discussion in the Analysis section?
 * I saw your comment on "The Raven" but is that really a fair comaprison? The Raven is arguably more important in pop culture than it is in literature.  What there is to write about "Dover Beach," what makes it important, are things like its relationship to Sophocles, its peculiar exegesis of history, its compelling use of imagery, its position in Arnold's life and thought, its concern for the nature of love in the modern world.  Now I would agree with you that the article could be better constructed to get these points across.  But I cannot imagine wanting to turn it into something like "The Raven" article; this is not the same type of poem.  (I don't mean to suggest that one poem is more important than the other.  Both are successful poems, but neither is the most important of its type.  Frankly, both are of relatively moderate importance as poetry.  "The Raven" on the other hand is of great signficiance as a cultural artifact (at least today, in America), while "Dover Beach" is of only moderate importance as a cultural artifact, although it does have some cultural resonance.)
 * "Mark" Mddietz (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of hermeneutics, let's get in to some, limiting ourselves to the lead for now. The questions I can answer from the material that appears in the article, I will answer.  You'll have to fill in the blanks as the resident expert.
 * What is "Dover Beach"?
 * It's a poem. And a fairly short one at that (thus its title should not be italicized in the lead—titles of short works properly go in quotation marks).
 * Okay. What kind of poem?  In other words, what poetic form does it take?
 * Not sure. (It would be nice if the article said as much in the first sentence of the lead.)
 * Who wrote "Dover Beach"?
 * Matthew Arnold.
 * Who?
 * Oh, you haven't heard of him? Let's call him "English poet Matthew Arnold".  (I don't know, would "Victorian poet Matthew Arnold" be better?)
 * When was it written?
 * We don't know, exactly. It was published in 1867 in a collection called New Poems.  As to when it was written, surviving notes indicate it may have been started as early as 1849.
 * So where is this "Dover Beach" supposed to be?
 * The English ferry port of Dover, facing France at the narrowest part of the English Channel, where Arnold honeymooned in 1851. Where, exactly, Arnold stayed on his honeymoon is unknown.
 * Why did Arnold write the poem? What is the poem's meaning, and what influence has the poem had?
 * I can't really tell. There is no summarization of the answers to these questions, either in the lead or in any of the various sections.  "Its relationship to Sophocles, its peculiar exegesis of history, its compelling use of imagery, its position in Arnold's life and thought, its concern for the nature of love in the modern world"... we may have something to start with here.
 * I brought up "The Raven" not because I believed its subject was a similar type of poem to that of this article—the poem itself is irrelevant—but because that article's organization has been finely honed; this is particularly true of the lead, which answers the who-what-when-where-why questions succinctly. The lead for that article usefully serves as a model for our work on this one. Robert K S (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like this. I think it is a very good way to introduce the article.  Clearly the handling of the your last question is the real difficulty (and after all "what did he mean?" -- that is the real hermeneutic question, isn't it?)  Of course, there is no real answer to your question: why did Arnold write this poem?  Arnold does not tell us directly.  But we have the conjectures of the learned that we can turn to.  Perhaps it is the scholar in me, but I am loathe to put this in my own words for fear that it will no longer be a statement in tertiary scholarship.  In this article (and the Mathew Arnold article) the comments that tended to be given on this poem were -- well, I don't want to be uncivil -- let me just say they were not particularly insightful.
 * Let me give it a go, nonetheless.
 * "In "Dover Beach," Mathew Arnold attempts to understand the impact of that modern condition in which "the sea of faith," of religious certainty, has receded, leaving only "the vast edges drear/And naked shingles of the world." (ref Honan) While such a condition may be modern (that is to say, relevant to Arnold and the nineteenth century) it, nonetheless, was heard by "Sophocles long ago" who "Heard it on the Aegean, and it brought/Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow/Of human misery."  Sophocles was a 5th century BC Greek playwright who wrote tragedies of Fate and the will of the Gods. (ref Tinker and Lowery)  But for Arnold, the Greek vision of..."
 * Okay, here I have to break. I'm going to need more time to figure out how to say this.  The last sentence was leading me into my own interpretation (one supported to some extent by Collini and others) that Arnold saw the Greeks as moderns and the reference to Sophocles is usually misread because it is regarded as an appeal to something ancient, when it is probably rather an appeal to something that Arnold regarded as modern. The problem I am having here is keeping my own thoughts out of this.
 * And this is a complex poem. It is not, like "The Raven", a poem where we can with some reasonable veracity say -- this is what it means.  I'm out of time right now.  Let me think this over and get back with you later.  I do appreciate what you have done so far, and I am not at all trying to be difficult.  Thanks for getting this going... Mddietz (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One more comment: poetic form -- it has been called the first major modern free verse poem. (I can't remember who said that -- I think it may have been Collini.)  This depends upon a very loose definition of free verse.  Otherwise it may best be called a short lyric.  Arnold seems not to have intended it to have any specific form.  At best, one might say it follows the in and out flow of the tide described in the opening stanza (but that of course is my own observation and does not belong in the article). Mddietz (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and I like what you've written. Looking forward to more.  As for being able to say "what the poem means", the best we can do is give one or more of the existing interpretations and attribute them.  But I think you're off to an excellent start.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of Meaning Discussion
Thought I'd give us a new head for this as we work it out. Other head was getting too long. Here is a new go at this that I think may flow a little better.

 * "Dover Beach" is a difficult poem to analyze; some of its passages and metaphors have become so well-known that they are hard to see with "fresh eyes" [ref Collini, 1988, pg. 39-40]. Arnold begins with a naturalistic and detailed nightscape of the beach at Dover in which auditory imagery plays a significant role [ref Culler, 1966, p. 39; Honan, 1981, pg. 234; Pratt, 2000, pg. 80-81] ("Listen! you hear the grating roar").    The beach, however, is bare, with only a hint of humanity in a light that "gleams and is gone"[ref. Collini, 1988, p. 39.]
 * [first stanza]
 * Arnold takes two aspects of this naturalistic image in turn and examines them. Arnold hears the sound of the sea as "the eternal note of sadness."  Sophocles, a 5th century BC Greek playwright who wrote tragedies of fate and the will of the Gods, also heard this same sound as he stood upon the shore of the Ægean.  [ref. Tinker and Lowry, 1965, pg. 176-178. Tinker and Lowery attempt to discover a specific reference to Sophocles and conclude "no passage in the plays [of Sophocles] is strictly applicable" to the passage in "Dover Beach".]  Critics differ widely on how to interpret this image of the Greek Classical age.  One critic sees a difference between Sophocles in the classical age of Greece interpreting the "note of sadness" humanistically, while Arnold in the industrial nineteenth century hears in this sound the retreat of religion and faith.[ref Culler, 1966, p. 40]  A more recent critic connects the two as artists, Sophocles the tragedian, Arnold the lyric poet, each attempting through words to transform this note of sadness into "a higher order of experience."[ref. Pratt, 2000, pg. 81. Pratt goes on to equate this passage to Wallace Stevens' "The Idea of Order at Key West" – "Blessed rage for order.../The maker's rage to order words of the sea."]
 * [second stanza]
 * Having examined "the eternal note of sadness" Arnold turns to the action of the tide itself and sees in its retreat a metaphor for the loss of faith in the modern age [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 39. Collini calls the "Sea of Faith" "a favoured Arnoldian metaphor."] once again expressed in an auditory image ("But now I only hear/Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar").  This third stanza begins with an image not of sadness, but of "joyous fulness" similar in beauty to the image with which the poem opens.[ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40. Culler describes this as a "lovely, feminine, protective image of the Sea."  But another critic sees not the beauty of the metaphor, but its awkwardness and obscurity. [Pratt pg. 82]
 * [third stanza]

I'm going to break here just to be sure I don't lose what I've written so far. Mddietz (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The final stanza begins with an appeal to love, then moves on to the famous ending metaphor. Critics have varied on their interpretation of the first two lines of this stanza; one calls them a "perfunctory gesture...swallowed up by the poem's powerfully dark picture" [ref. Collini, 1988, pg. 40.], while another sees in them "a stand against a world of broken faith." [Pratt, 2000, pg. 82]  Midway between these is the interpretation of one of Arnold's biographers who describes being "true/To one another" as "a precarious notion" in a world that has become "a maze of confusion" [ref: Honan, 1981, pg. 235. "That lovers may be 'true/To one another' is a precarious notion: love in the modern city momentarily gives peace, but nothing else in a post-medieval society reflects or confirms the faithfulness of lovers. Devoid of love and light the world is a maze of confusion left by 'retreating' faith."]
 * The simile with which the poem ends is most likely an allusion to a passage in Thucydides' account of the battle of Epipolae. [ref. Tinker and Lowry, 1965, pg. 175. "Here are to be found the details used by Arnold: a night-attack, fought upon a plain at the top of a cliff, in the moonlight, so that the soldiers could not distinguish clearly between friend and foe, with the resulting flight of certain Athenian troops, and various 'alarms,' watchwords, and battle-cries shouted aloud to the increasing confusion of all."] This final image has, also, been variously interpreted by the critics.  The "darkling plain" of the final line has been described as Arnold's "central statement" of the human condition [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 41.]  But a more recent critic has seen the final line as "only metaphor" and, thus, suspetible to the "uncertainty" of poetic language [ref. Pratt, 2000, pg. 82 (emphasis in the original) Pratt points to the phrase "as on" in the final line, the language of simile.]
 * [fourth stanza]
 * Readers have questioned the unity of the poem. The sea of the opening stanza does not appear in the final stanza, while the "darkling plain" of the final line is not apparent in the opening. [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40; Pratt, 2000, pg. 79-80]  Various solutions to this problem have been proffered.  One critic saw the "darkling plain" with which the poem ends as comparable to the "naked shingles of the world."  [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40.]  While another found the poem "emotionally convincing" even if its logic may be questionable. [Pratt, 2000, pg. 79-80]  The same cirtic notes that "the poem upends our expectations of metaphor" and sees in this the central power of the poem.[Pratt, 2000, pg. 80]  The form of the poem itself provides some clues to its unity.  The careful dictition in the opening description, [Allott, 1965, pg. 240.] and the overall, spell-binding rhythm and cadence of the poem [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 40.] prove a source of the poem's appeal.  One commentator sees the strophe-antistrophe of the ode at work in the poem, ending in the "cata-strophe" of tragedy. [Pratt, 2000, pg. 81]  Finally, another critic sees the complexity of the poem's structure resulting in "the first major 'free-verse' poem in the language." [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 41.]

Mddietz (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left the notes in the section above set off by brackets so that they can be seen in context. In several I have included some longer quotations which I think provide clarity but would bog down the primary text if written out in full there. For example, I think the long passage from Tinker and Lowery on the passage from Thucydides really gives a wonderful feel for that passage and how it relates to Arnold's treatment of it. I should love to inlcude Sainsbury to get an early impression, but I don't have his text at hand just now. I have avoided the "name-dropping" by using "a critic," "another critic," etc. I have greatly expanded the sources with Dwight Culler (widely regarded as quite an imprtant commentator) and Pratt (one of the most recent reflecting some of the post-modern critique). Collini is generally better known on Arnold's prose but does a fine job with "Dover Beach". Only the more detailed discussion of Thucydides and its relation to Arnold and his set seems a real loss from the current Analysis section. Could this be moved to the Compostion section? How do you link Aegean to its Wikipedia article when it is printed with the ligature? Same question with hyphenated 'free-verse' [Collini's spelling]? Mddietz (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

 * "Dover Beach" is a difficult poem to analyze; some of its passages and metaphors have become so well-known—this is a POV push and it's not encyclopedic. Who believes that it's a difficult poem to analyze?  It's not a hard fact.  If you insist on keeping something like this—and you should insist upon it iff it represents consensus—then the proper way to do so is to preface the statement with something to the effect of "Critics including so-and-so, what's-his-name and that-guy have argued that 'Dover Beach' is a difficult poem to analyze..."  But ask of this sentence: what knowledge does it impart to the reader?  It's wishy-washy and vague.  Skip it and get down to brass tacks.  Don't bother saying "It's tough to know what the poem means."  Just get to the part where you start giving best guesses.  "X believes it means this, whereas Y has this differing interpretation..."
 * that they are hard to see with "fresh eyes" [ref Collini, 1988, pg. 39-40].—we should be generally opposed to this kind of verbiage-borrowing in an encyclopedia article. It's in the style of academic articles, yes, but wanton quoting only gives the sense that we're not in control of our own writing.  It's as if the article is a dummy to an unseen ventriloquist.  To convey the thought of others, rephrase into original language and then, if necessary, include a quoted passage in the citation (the various cite templates allow for this).
 * Arnold begins with a naturalistic and detailed nightscape of the beach at Dover in which auditory imagery plays a significant role [ref Culler, 1966, p. 39; Honan, 1981, pg. 234; Pratt, 2000, pg. 80-81] ("Listen! you hear the grating roar"). The beach, however, is bare, with only a hint of humanity in a light that "gleams and is gone"[ref. Collini, 1988, p. 39.]—Good stuff.  IMO, drop everything that comes before and start with this sentence.  We're finally telling the reader news he can use.
 * Just minor markup on the rest—Arnold takes two aspects of this naturalistic image in turn and examines them. Arnold He hears the sound of the sea as "the eternal note of sadness."  According to the poem, Sophocles, a 5th century BC Greek playwright who wrote tragedies of fate and the will of the g ods, also heard this same sound as he stood upon the shore of the Ægean.  [ref. Tinker and Lowry, 1965, pg. 176-178. Tinker and Lowery attempt to discover a specific reference to Sophocles and conclude "no passage in the plays [of Sophocles] is strictly applicable" to the passage in "Dover Beach".]  Critics differ widely on how to interpret this image of the Greek Classical age.  One critic sees a difference between Sophocles in the classical age of Greece interpreting the "note of sadness" humanistically, while Arnold in the industrial nineteenth century hears in this sound the retreat of religion and faith.[ref Culler, 1966, p. 40]  A more recent critic connects the two as artists, Sophocles the tragedian, Arnold the lyric poet, each attempting through words to transform this note of sadness into "a higher order of experience."[ref. Pratt, 2000, pg. 81. Pratt goes on to equate this passage to Wallace Stevens' "The Idea of Order at Key West" – "Blessed rage for order.../The maker's rage to order words of the sea."]
 * Having examined "the eternal note of sadness" Arnold turns to the action of the tide itself and sees in its retreat a metaphor for the loss of faith in the modern age [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 39. Collini calls the "Sea of Faith" "a favoured Arnoldian metaphor."] once again expressed in an auditory image ("But now I only hear/Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar").  This third stanza begins with an image not of sadness, but of "joyous fulness" similar in beauty to the image with which the poem opens.[ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40. Culler describes this as a "lovely, feminine, protective image of the Sea." ]  But another critic sees not the beauty of the metaphor, but its awkwardness and obscurity. [Pratt pg. 82]
 * The final stanza begins with an appeal to love, then moves on to the famous ending metaphor. Critics have varied on their interpretation of the first two lines of this stanza; one calls them a "perfunctory gesture...swallowed up by the poem's powerfully dark picture" [ref. Collini, 1988, pg. 40.], while another sees in them "a stand against a world of broken faith." [Pratt, 2000, pg. 82]  Midway between these is the interpretation of one of Arnold's biographers who describes being "true/To one another" as "a precarious notion" in a world that has become "a maze of confusion" [ref: Honan, 1981, pg. 235. "That lovers may be 'true/To one another' is a precarious notion: love in the modern city momentarily gives peace, but nothing else in a post-medieval society reflects or confirms the faithfulness of lovers. Devoid of love and light the world is a maze of confusion left by 'retreating' faith."]
 * The simile with which the poem ends is most likely an allusion to a passage in Thucydides' account of the battle of Epipolae. [ref. Tinker and Lowry, 1965, pg. 175. "Here are to be found the details used by Arnold: a night-attack, fought upon a plain at the top of a cliff, in the moonlight, so that the soldiers could not distinguish clearly between friend and foe, with the resulting flight of certain Athenian troops, and various 'alarms,' watchwords, and battle-cries shouted aloud to the increasing confusion of all."] This final image has, also, been variously interpreted by the critics.  The "darkling plain" of the final line has been described as Arnold's "central statement" of the human condition [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 41.]  But a more recent critic has seen the final line as "only metaphor" and, thus, suspetible susceptible to the "uncertainty" of poetic language [ref. Pratt, 2000, pg. 82 (emphasis in the original) Pratt points to the phrase "as on" in the final line, the language of simile.]
 * Readers have questioned the unity of the poem.  The sea of the opening stanza does not appear in the final stanza, while the "darkling plain" of the final line is not apparent in the opening. [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40; Pratt, 2000, pg. 79-80]  Various solutions to this problem have been proffered.  One critic saw the "darkling plain" with which the poem ends as comparable to the "naked shingles of the world."  [ref. Culler, 1966, pg. 40.]  While another found the poem "emotionally convincing" even if its logic may be questionable. [Pratt, 2000, pg. 79-80]  The same cirtic notes that "the poem upends our expectations of metaphor" and sees in this the central power of the poem.[Pratt, 2000, pg. 80]  The form of the poem itself provides some clues to its unity.  The careful dictition in the opening description, [Allott, 1965, pg. 240.] and the overall, spell-binding rhythm and cadence of the poem [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 40.] prove a source of the poem's appeal.  One commentator sees the strophe-antistrophe of the ode at work in the poem, ending in the "cata-strophe" of tragedy. [Pratt, 2000, pg. 81]  Finally, another critic sees the complexity of the poem's structure resulting in "the first major 'free-verse' poem in the language." [ref. Collini, 1988, p. 41.]
 * How do you link Aegean to its Wikipedia article when it is printed with the ligature?—just pipe it. Ægean. Robert K S (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Robert, I completely overlooked your response here. I've been diving in at infrequent moments and Wetman's comments may have gotten me completely side-tracked.  Let me give some thoughts to these and come back at this afresh.  It may be a while before I can do this because I will be out of town for a few days.  But please don't think that is because I am ignoring you or do not value your comments.  Thanks, Mddietz (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I may be able to get to this more quickly now that I've read it all the way through and given it some thought. I'll follow your suggestion and drop the intro wording.  I'm not real keen on the last paragraph myself; the opening sentence is, as you point out, very poor; it's a real grab bag of issues.  I think it needs more thought.  This paragraph I'll have to get back to later. Mddietz (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Robert, thanks for doing the clean up on the article. I wonder if the last paragraph might best be used as the starting point for a section on Critical response.  I have just read through an annotated bibliography on Arnold (searching for the unfindable Oceanus) and have developed something of a sense of the primary critcial issues assocdiated with the poem.  I do not have time now, but later I shall come back here adn write out a list of what i think are the primary issues that critics have addressed over time.  I think these could be easily summarized in short section that might bring the aricle nearer to some kind of relative completion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddietz (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Many readers may not be familiar with the actual beach at Dover, Kent. It is composed of gravel and pebbles, so that when the sea and weather conditions are right the water throws the beach stones about, making very loud noises, a mixture of scrapeing, banging, roaring, rumbling, and clanking sounds. Not to be missed! 6 September 2010.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.109.97 (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Text of the Poem
Poetlister, I don't have my copy of Honan ready to hand. Allot does not show the elided "e"s, but does say that he has silently modernized the text relative to such silent "e"s. He notes taht the ellisions were an Arnold tendency (sounds like he was not happy that the convention of the series (Longman/Norton Annotated Enlgish Poets) was to modernize). I don't remember now, but I think I typed this out from Allott (either that or I pulled it from somewhere off the web, probably the latter or I would have used the AE ligature). The version closer to Arnold's original is probably the better alternative. Should your comment on the Honan book read "text of the poem" not just "text"? Thanks, Mark Mddietz (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just realized I had to have copied this from somewhere on line because Allott does not inlcude the em dash after the semi-colon in line 3. Should there be a space after the semicolon when there is no space after the em dash?  This punctuation followed by an em dash is very Arnoldian; usually it is comma em dash. Mddietz (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Deleting the full text of the poem as it once existed in a box did not serve the Wikipedia reader. That the full text is necessary for understanding the commentary upon it, which provides the gist of this article, is demonstrated by the fact that the full text, though broken into sections, is inserted in the present copy. Why not restore the box with the full text? --Wetman (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I won't argue one way or another, but I'll point out that the full text is a click away at Wikisource, and that such is clearly noted at the top of this article. Robert K S (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I've always liked the idea of having the text in the article. I separated the comments from the text of the poem at one point, but that got a lot of attention from the "no pems in a Wikipedia article police."  Given the role of the article, it seems to me to make most sense to have the commentary interspersed with the full text of the poem. Mddietz (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Wetman, do you have a reference for the Oceanus note? (While I think the analogy may be relevant, I have not seen it made in the criticism, -- but I amy have overlooked it.) Mddietz (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Robert, are you comfortable with the revised version of the anlayis above? Should I replace the version currently in the article with this new version?  Won't be able to get to it until this weekend, but would like to know what you recommend. Mddietz (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I should think that when anyone reads that the Sea of Faith "round earth's shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd", in a poem where Sophocles is being invoked, Arnold's reference to "ocean-stream", Okeanos, is too obvious to be much lingered over or stressed. I'm surprised that the reference has always escaped Mddietz until now. --Wetman (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Replying to Mddietz: I used the Everyman Poets edition, which scrupulously follows the author's wishes. I assumed that the one referenced in the article was an American reprint of this; if not, I'll add a reference. Obviously, we should reproduce what Arnold wanted. -- Poetlister 13:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Poetlister, I'm a little confused. The note you added was to Honan's biography (which I did not think had the full text of the poem).  Was this an error?  I have not checked, but I think I took the text from wikisource, so the changes in the orthography probably are in that version.  I juat checked in Dwight Culler's selection of the poetry and prose (which is a good, popular edition form a very well respected Arnold scholar) and all the changes you have made are in that edition.  I would suggest that we make a note that our text has been compared to and updated from authoritative editions and list Culler and Everyman.  I do not have an early edition of any of the poetry (all my early editions of Arnold are from his prose work).  [Poetry and Criticism of Matthew Arnold, edited by Dwight Culler, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961; ISBN 0395051525] Mddietz (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what happened there. I'll fix the references.

Perfect Square microcosm
I noticed when reading the poem that if one reads just the lines that are perfect squares, it makes a mini-poem that maintains a rhyme scheme and keeps the same theme of the original poem:

 * 1  The sea is calm to-night.
 * 4  Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand
 * 9  Listen! You hear the grating roar
 * 16 Heard it on the AEgan, and it brought
 * 25 It's melancholy, long, withdrawing roar
 * 36 Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight.

--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The main articlee mention Ian McEwan's references to the poem in Saturday but surprisingly not the reference in the same writer's book title "On Chesil Beach, " That might be worth adding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukovets (talk • contribs) 10:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Presaging Existentialism
This poem sounds like Arnold was an inadvertent early entrant into the crafting of raw existentialism where metaphor seeks to convey impression rather than object. Accordingly, Arnold's use of the word "faith" must be understood as "trust" where an "in" as in "trust in" isn't allowed(no object). For example, "darkling" can't be defined and Arnold makes sure that the reader shouldn't try by preceding its usage with the qualifier "as". What sense or impression is Arnold trying to convey across this poem? Hopelessness. Ahhaha (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting comments. First, I'm not sure "inadvertent" is quite the right term here; Arnold was fairly worldly wise, so he was not much outside of the movement of ideas coming from across the channel.  Second, I think there is little doubt that Arnold's reference to a "sea of faith" is a reference to Christian religion -- he wrote so much on that topic (Christianity) and used the term "sea of Faith" elsewhere in ways that make the reference to religion quite apparent.  Third, I would agree a note of "hopelessness" is certainly here.  Georges Santayana says somewhere that his own reading of poetry was very impacted by Arnold in that, as an undergrad, he would read only poetry that was as pessimistic as Arnold's.  Finally, I would urge at least a touch of historicism -- this is a poem that gets reinterpretted by every age, but few take the time to find Arnold in the poem -- the route of existentialism does not seem to me to be the best route to find Arnold, but a good route to follow if you are a fan of reader response theory and want only to find what you want to find. Mddietz (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Influence section should include Don Cupitt's book
Cupitt wrote 'The Sea of Faith' in 1984. It was followed by a TV series. The title was subsequently used for the Sea of Faith Network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Cupitt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Faith_(TV_series)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Faith Simon Kidd (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dover Beach


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subquantum mind

 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 delete. Joyous 20:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Subquantum mind
Some unverifiable pseudo-science speculation and nonsense. The whole alleged "theory" is explained in "layman" terms with lots of "superfluous" quotation marks. Note that we already have well-written articles like Quantum mind, Quantum brain dynamics and Space-time theories of consciousness that cite their sources. In my opinion, there is nothing worth merging here. jni 13:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is likely original research and it's unverifiable for sure. The article admits that it's not widely accepted and I'd be surprised if anyone accepts it. Carrp | Talk 14:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Kevin Rector 14:11, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Loaded with neologisms Jok2000 15:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Trilobite (Talk) 15:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, almost patent nonsense. Google shows only two hits beyond WP mirrors. BTW, Buddhists are unlikely to report near death experiences in which they see Buddha (with the possible exception of Western Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu believers). HyperZonk 16:50, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research of the codswallop sort. Wyss 18:54, 16 Feb 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:
Philip Jackson (sculptor)

Philip Henry Christopher Jackson CVO DL (born 18 April 1944) is a Scottish sculptor, noted for his modern style and emphasis on form. Acting as Royal Sculptor to Queen Elizabeth II, his sculptures appear in numerous UK cities, as well as Argentina and Switzerland.

His twice life-size (6 metre tall) bronze statue of Bobby Moore was erected outside the main entrance at the new Wembley Stadium in May 2007, to pay tribute to his effect on the game.

Philip Jackson was born in Scotland during the Second World War and now works at the Edward Lawrence Studio in Midhurst, West Sussex and lives nearby. He went to the Farnham School of Art (now the University for the Creative Arts). After leaving school, he was a press photographer for a year and then joined a design company as a sculptor. Half of his time is spent on commissions and the other half on his gallery sculpture. He is well known for his major outdoor pieces, such as the Young Mozart in Chelsea and the Jersey Liberation sculpture. His sources of inspiration have been Jacob Epstein, Auguste Rodin, Henry Moore, Oscar Nemon and Kenneth Armitage. But the most powerful influences in his life are his wife Jean and son Jamie who work with him.

Philip Jackson describes his art in the following words:

"My sculptures are essentially an impressionistic rendering of the figure. Where you see the figure seemingly grow out of the ground, the texture resembles tree bark, rock, or lava flow. As the eye moves up the sculpture, the finish becomes gentler & more delicately worked, culminating in the hands and the mask, both of which are precisely observed & modelled."

Honours
Jackson was appointed Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO) in the 2009 Birthday Honours list.

On 1 April 2008, Jackson was appointed a Deputy Lieutenant of West Sussex.

His work on the RAF Bomber Command Memorial won him the 2013 Marsh Award for Excellence in Public Sculpture.

Commissions

 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart – Belgravia, London
 * Falklands War Sculpture – Portsmouth
 * Liberation Sculpture – Jersey, Channel Islands
 * Sir Matt Busby – Old Trafford, Manchester
 * Empress Elisabeth of Austria – Geneva, Switzerland
 * St Richard – Chichester Cathedral
 * King George VI – Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth
 * The Gurka Memorial – Horse Guards Avenue
 * 1966 World Cup Sculpture – Newham, London
 * Queen Elizabeth II – Windsor Great Park
 * Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother - London
 * Bobby Moore and Sir Alf Ramsey – Wembley Stadium, London
 * United Trinity – Old Trafford, Manchester
 * Sir Alex Ferguson – Old Trafford, Manchester
 * Peter Osgood – Stamford Bridge, Fulham
 * Korean War Memorial – London
 * Statue of Constantine the Great, York
 * RAF Bomber Command Memorial - London

As well as producing commissions, Jackson also creates 'studio' works, mainly theatrical subjects. One of his most celebrated works was the life-size nude, Maggie Reading.

It was announced on 6 September 2019 that Mr Jackson had been commissioned to build the National Emergency Services Memorial which was being backed by the Duke of Cambridge and Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

title: Philip Jackson (sculptor)


text:
Yakovlev Yak-112

The Yakovlev Yak-112 Filin (Owl) is a Russian/Soviet civil utility aircraft that first flew in 1992. It is an all-metal high-wing strut braced monoplane with fixed tricycle landing gear.

title: Yakovlev Yak-112


text:
Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet

Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet ("The Socially Challenged (ones)") is a Finnish webcomic written by Ossi Mäntylahti and Pekka Piira and drawn by Jukka Piira.

The comic is about a fictional software company and IT industry in general. The setting is somewhat similar to Dilbert, but the style differs by concentrating more on actual nerd trivia and less on business stereotypes and zany interaction between characters. The comic was a pioneer of Finnish webcomics. Its site received over 250,000 hits per month in 2007 (in a language with 5.2 million speakers), and has been featured in Ilta-Sanomat, Iltalehti Online and ITviikko. Frequent visiting of the Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet web site is regarded as a sign of a nerd behaviour.

Characters
The more notable characters are:
 * C and Plus are the main characters. They are typical computer nerds who know software developing, games and hardware programming inside and out, but have little or no interest in the 'real' world. Together they are C plus Plus, a pun on C++. Originally, both were single, but recently C has started dating Laura, a female computer game nerd who frequently beats him at games. Plus, on the other hand, is every now and then engaged with Ginger.
 * Iipee (I.P.) is the company's errand girl. She is a fashionable modern woman with little interest for computers or 'nerdy stuff'. Her name originates from the Finnish pronunciation of TCP/IP's IP part and her burden is to always end up with nerds. Her current boyfriend is an avid Star Trekker. Iipee likes to date both men and women, a characteristic that the nerds like to call dual-booting.
 * eLisa is the company's director of marketing. She is an attractive young woman and frequently uses her features as an advantage to get her way in cruel world of IT.
 * Pomo (The Boss) and VTJ (The Vice President) are representatives of the management. They seem to care only about money and treat employees as expendable.
 * Blondisihteeri (The Blonde Secretary) is a typical, very cute and bubble-brained blonde, only male. Despite his utter lack of knowledge about tech, finance, or anything requiring actual thought, he has inexplicably good luck with the other sex.
 * Kynäniska (The Pencilneck) is a completely hopeless nerd with no social life whatsoever. His only interests are computer gaming and leet culture. He often tries to pick up women, but usually fails miserably. Currently he's dating a young, sexy girl called Petra, who is a World of Warcraft addict.
 * Petra is a 20-year-old girl with a great body, who always plays World of Warcraft, and uses macros to do her works, giving her more time to spend playing WoW. Petra is a violent woman with an extreme temper, which is a bad combination with her troll teeth prosthesis.

title: Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet