text:
History of Bucharest

The history of Bucharest covers the time from the early settlements on the locality's territory (and that of the surrounding area in Ilfov County) until its modern existence as a city, capital of Wallachia, and present-day capital of Romania.

Prehistory
The territory of present-day Bucharest has been inhabited since the Palaeolithic age. The earliest evidence of human life in this region dates from this period and includes flint tools found in the area of the Colentina Lake shore, or around the Fundeni Lake. At that time, all this area where Bucharest is now located was covered by forests.

Settlements appeared as well later during the Neolithic period along the Dâmbovița and Colentina rivers. The oldest Neolithic dwellings on the territory of the capital have been discovered in the Dudești neighbourhood, at Fundeni, and at Roșu. Later archaeological research also revealed later Neolithic settlements, situated at Pantelimon, Cățelu, Bucureștii Noi or at Giulești, or around Bucharest, at Jilava or Vidra. During the Neolithic, Bucharest saw the presence of the Glina culture, and, before the 19th century BC, was included in areas of the Gumelnița culture. During the Bronze Age, a third phase of the Glina culture (centered on pastoralism, partly superimposed on the Gumelnița culture) and, later, on the Tei culture, evolved on Bucharest's soil.

Antiquity
During the Iron Age, the area was inhabited by a population identified with the Getae and the Dacians, who spoke an Indo-European language. The view that the two groups were the same is disputed, while the culture's latter phase can be attributed to the Dacians; small Dacian settlements—such as Herăstrău, Radu Vodă, Dămăroaia, Lacul Tei, Pantelimon, and Popești-Leordeni—were found around Bucharest. These populations had commercial links with the Greek cities and the Romans – ancient-Greek coins were found at Lacul Tei and Herăstrău (together with a large amount of local counterfeit ones), and jewels and coins of Roman origin in Giulești and Lacul Tei.

Bucharest was never under Roman rule, with an exception during Muntenia's brief conquest by the troops of Constantine I in the 330s; coins from the times of Constantine, Valens, and Valentinian I etc. were uncovered at various sites in and around Bucharest. It is assumed that the local population was Romanized after the initial retreat of Roman troops from the region, during the Age of Migrations (see Origin of the Romanians, Romania in the Early Middle Ages).

Beginnings
Slavs founded several settlements in the Bucharest region, as pointed out by the Slavic names of Ilfov (from elha – "alder"), Colentina, Snagov, Glina, Chiajna, etc. According to some researches, the Slavic population was already assimilated before the end of the Dark Ages. While maintaining commercial links with the Byzantine Empire (as attested by the excavations of 9th–12th century Byzantine coins at various locations), the area was subject to the successive invasions of Pechenegs and Cumans and conquered by the Mongols during the 1241 invasion of Europe. It was probably later disputed between the Magyars and Second Bulgarian Empire.

According to a legend first attested in the 19th century, the city was founded by a shepherd named Bucur (or, alternatively, a boyar of that same name). Like most of the older cities in Muntenia, its foundation has also been ascribed to the legendary Wallachian prince Radu Negru (in stories first recorded in the 16th century). The theory identifying Bucharest with a "Dâmbovița citadel" and pârcălab mentioned in connection with Vladislav I of Wallachia (in the 1370s) is contradicted by archaeology, which has shown that the area was virtually uninhabited during the 14th century.

Early development
Bucharest was first mentioned on September 20, 1459, as one of the residences of Prince Vlad III Dracula. It soon became the preferred summer residence of the princely court – together with Târgoviște, one of the two capitals of Wallachia – and was viewed by contemporaries as the strongest citadel in its country. In 1476, it was sacked by the Moldavian Prince Stephen the Great, but was nonetheless favoured as a residence by most rulers in the immediately following period and was subject to important changes in landscape under Mircea Ciobanul, who built the palace and church in Curtea Veche (the court's area), equipped the town with a stockade, and took measures to provide Bucharest with fresh water and produce (early 1550s).

When Mircea Ciobanul was deposed by the Ottoman Empire (Wallachia's overlord) in the spring of 1554, Bucharest was ravaged by Janissary troops; violence again occurred after Mircea returned to the throne and attacked those who had been loyal to Pătrașcu the Good (February 1558), during the 1574 conflict between Vintilă and Alexandru II Mircea, and under the rule of Alexandru cel Rău (early 1590s).

Growth and decline
In tune with the increasing demands of the Ottomans and the growing in importance of trade with the Balkans, the political and commercial center of Wallachia began gravitating towards the south; before the end of the 17th century, Bucharest became Wallachia's most populous city, and one of the largest ones in the region, while its landscape became cosmopolitan. This was, however, accompanied by a drastic decrease in princely authority, and a decline of state resources.

On November 13, 1594, the city witnessed widespread violence, upon the start of Michael the Brave's uprising against the Ottomans, and the massacre of Ottoman creditors, who held control over Wallachia's resources, followed by a clash between Wallachians and the Ottoman troops stationed in Bucharest. In retaliation, Bucharest was attacked and almost completely destroyed by Sinan Pasha's forces. It was slowly rebuilt over the following two decades, and again surfaced as a successful competitor to Târgoviște under Radu Mihnea in the early 1620s. Matei Basarab, who divided his rule between Târgoviște and Bucharest, restored the decaying court buildings (1640).

Bucharest was again ravaged, after only 15 years, by the 1655 rebellion of seimeni mercenaries against the rule of Constantin Șerban – the rebel troops arrested and executed a number of high-ranking boyars, before being crushed by Transylvanian troops in June 1655. Constantin Șerban added important buildings to the landscape, but he was also responsible for a destructive fire which was meant to prevent Mihnea III and his Ottoman allies from taking hold of an intact citadel. According to the traveler Evliya Çelebi, the city was rebuilt as rapidly as it was destroyed: "houses of stone or brick [...] are few and unfortunate, given that their gavur masters rebel once every seven-eight years, and the Turks and [their allies] the Tatars consequently set fire to the city; but the inhabitants, in the space of the same year, restore their small one-storeyed, but sturdy, houses". Bucharest was touched by famine and the bubonic plague in the early 1660s (the plague returned in 1675).

Late 1600s
Between Gheorghe Ghica's rule (1659–1660) and the end of Ștefan Cantacuzino's (1715/1716), Bucharest saw a period of relative peace and prosperity (despite the prolonged rivalry between the Cantacuzino and the Băleni families, followed by worsened relations between the former and the Craiovești).

The climactic moment was reached under Șerban Cantacuzino and Constantin Brâncoveanu, when the city embraced the Renaissance under the original form known as the Brâncovenesc style and was expanded (growing to include the area of Cotroceni), furnished with inns maintained by princes, and given its first educational facilities (the princely Saint Sava College, 1694). Brâncoveanu developed Curtea Veche (which probably accommodated the boyar council in its new version), and added two other palaces, including the Mogoșoaia Palace, built in Venetian style and noted for its loggia; this was also the time when the future Calea Victoriei was carved out through Codrii Vlăsiei.

Early Phanariotes
In 1716, following the anti-Ottoman rebellion of Ștefan Cantacuzino in the context of the Great Turkish War, Wallachia was placed under the more compliant rules of Phanariotes, inaugurated by Nicholas Mavrocordatos (who had previously reigned over Moldavia). These decisively marked Bucharest's development in several ways– the city was the unrivalled capital, being favoured by the decrease in importance of manorialism and rural centers, cumulated with the progress witnessed by the monetary economy (during the period, boyar status began revolving around appointment to administrative offices, and most of the latter were centered on the princely residence, including, after 1761, the banat of Oltenia).

Prince Nicholas' rule coincided with a series of calamities– a major fire, the first Habsburg occupation (in 1716) during the Austro-Turkish War of 1716–1718, and another plague epidemic– but witnessed major cultural achievements inspired by The Enlightenment, such as the creation of a short-lived princely library (maintained by Stephan Bergler). Grigore II Ghica and Constantine Mavrocordatos maintained the commercial infrastructure, and the city became the site of a large market (probably in the Lipscani area) and customs. In 1737, during the Austro-Turkish War of 1737–39, the city was again attacked by Habsburg troops and ransacked by the Nogais, before suffering another major plague outbreak (followed by new outbursts in the 1750s), accompanied by a relative economic decline brought about by the competition between Greek, Levantine and locals for official appointments.

Russo-Turkish Wars
Bucharest was twice occupied by Imperial Russian troops during the War of 1768–74 (initially aided by Pârvu Cantacuzino's anti-Ottoman boyar rebellion, and then stormed by the troops of Nicholas Repnin); the subsequent Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca was partly negotiated in the city.

Under Alexander Ypsilantis, large-scale works to provide the city with fresh water were carried out, and Curtea Veche, destroyed by the previous conflicts, was replaced by a new residence in Dealul Spirii (Curtea Nouă, 1776); his legacy was carried out by Nicholas Mavrogenes. The Russo-Turkish–Austrian War erupted in 1787, and Mavrogenes retreated in front of a new Habsburg invasion, led by Prince Josias of Coburg (1789). Despite other epidemics, coupled with the immense taxes imposed by Constantine Hangerli, and the major earthquake of October 14, 1802 (followed by ones in 1804 and 1812), the city's population continued to increase. During the Russo-Turkish War of 1806–12, Russian troops under Mikhail Andreyevich Miloradovich entered the city to reinstate Constantine Ypsilantis in late December 1806; it was under the latter's rule that Manuc's Inn had been built by Emanuel Mârzaian.

After the peace signed in Bucharest, the rule of John Caradja brought a series of important cultural and social events (the reformist Caragea law, the first hot air balloon ride in the country, the first theater play, the first cloth manufacture, and the first private printing press, Gheorghe Lazăr's educational activities), but also witnessed the devastating Caragea's plague in 1813–1814 – which made between 25,000 and 40,000 casualties. Sources of the time indicate that the city alternated dense agglomerations with large privately owned gardens and orchards, a pattern which made impossible the task of calculating its actual area.

The Greek War of Independence and the contemporary Wallachian uprising brought Bucharest under the brief rule of the pandur leader Tudor Vladimirescu (March 21, 1821), and was then occupied by the Filiki Eteria forces of Major General Alexander Ypsilantis – before seeing the violent Ottoman reprisals (ending in a massacre during August, one which made over 800 victims).

Kiselyov and Alexandru II Ghica
The following non-Phanariote reign of Grigore IV Ghica, acclaimed by the Bucharesters upon its establishment, saw the building of a Neoclassical princely residence in Colentina, the expulsion of foreign clergymen who had competed with Wallachians for religious offices, and the restoration of bridges over the Dâmbovița River, but also high taxes and a number of fires.

Ghica was removed from his position by the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–1829 and the Russian occupation of May 16, 1828; subsequently, the peace of Adrianople placed the whole of the Danubian Principalities' territory under military governorate (still under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire), pending the payment of war reparations by the Ottomans.

After the short governorship of Pyotr Zheltukhin came the prolonged and profoundly influential term of Pavel Kiselyov (November 24, 1829 – 1843), under whom the two Principalities were given their first document resembling a constitution, the Regulamentul Organic (negotiated in Wallachia's capital). Residing in Bucharest, Kiselyov took particular care of the city: he acted against the plague and cholera epidemics of 1829 and 1831, instituted a "city beautifying commission" comprising physicians and architects, paved many central streets with cobblestone (instead of wooden planks), drained the swamps formed around the Dâmboviţa and built public fountains, settled the previously fluctuating borders of the city (it now measured ca.19 km in perimeter and was guarded by patrols and barriers), carved out Calea Dorobanților and Șoseaua Kiseleff (major north–south routes), mapped the city and counted its population, gave Bucharest a garrison for the newly created Wallachian Army and improved its fire fighting service; the changing city was described as unusually cosmopolitan and home to extreme contrasts by French visitor Marc Girardin.

The granting of commercial rights to the Principalities and the retaking of Brăila by Wallachia ensured an economic rebirth under the rule of Prince Alexandru II Ghica, who expanded the number of paved streets and added the new Princely Palace (later replaced by the much larger Royal Palace).

This was also the time the first opposition to Russian rule made itself felt, as the standoff in the Bucharest Assembly between Prince Ghica and the radical Ion Câmpineanu. The city was affected by a minor earthquake in January 1838, and a major flood in March 1839.

1840s and 1850s
The new prince Gheorghe Bibescu completed a water supply network and works on public gardens, began constructing the National Theater of Romania building (1846; finished in 1852) and improved the chaussées linking Bucharest with other Wallachian centers. On March 23, 1847, the Great Fire of Bucharest consumed around 2,000 buildings (about a third of the city).

Pressured by the revolutionary liberals who had issued the Islaz Proclamation attacking the conservative and increasingly abusive system of the Organic Statute, attacked in the street by a group of young men, and faced with the opposition of the Army, Prince Bibescu accepted cohabitation with a Provisional Government taking inspiration from the European Revolutions on June 12, 1848, and, just a day later, renounced the throne. The new executive, backed by popular shows of support on Filaret field which reunited the Bucharest middle class with peasants from the surrounding area (June 27, August 25), passed a series of radical reformist laws that drew the animosity of Tsar Nicholas I, who pressured the Porte to crush the Wallachian movement; the proposed land reform also led a group of boyars, headed by Ioan Solomon, to attack and arrest the government on July 1 – the effects of this gesture were cancelled on the same day by the inhabitants' reaction and the Ana Ipătescu-led attack on the building occupied by conspirators.

Sultan Abdülmecid I, sympathetic to the anti-Russian scope of the revolt, pressured the revolutionaries to accept a relatively minor change in the executive structure – the Provisional Government ceded position to a more moderate regency (Locotenența Domnească), which was, nevertheless, not recognized by Russia.

The potential threat of a war between the two powers led Abdülmecid to revise his position and send Fuat Pasha as his observer in Bucharest; at the same time, the city witnessed panic over the threat of a Russian invasion, and the briefly successful coup d'état carried out by Metropolitan Neofit II against the Revolution. On September 18, revolutionary crowds swept into the Interior Ministry, destroyed the lists of assigned boyar ranks and privileges, and forced Neofit to cast an anathema over the Organic Statute: such measures made Fuat Pasha lead Ottoman troops into Bucharest, a move which only met resistance from a group of firemen stationed on Dealul Spirii (who engaged in a shootout after an incident which they perceived as provocation).

Bucharest remained under foreign occupation until late April 1851, and was again held by the Russian troops of Mikhail Dmitrievich Gorchakov during the Crimean War (between July 15, 1853 and July 31, 1854), being ceded to an interim Austrian administration which lasted until the 1856 Treaty of Paris. The three successive foreign administrations brought several improvements to the city (the Bellu cemetery and the Cișmigiu gardens, the telegraph and oil lamp lighting, the creation of new schools and academies, the of Prince Barbu Dimitrie Știrbei, and the comprehensive city map drawn by Rudolf Artur Borroczyn).

Capital of the United Principalities
The Paris treaty called for the creation of ad hoc Divans in Moldavia and Wallachia, the first venue for the advocacy of a union between the two countries. Bucharest returned only delegates from the unionist Partida Naţionala to the new forums, but the overall majority in Wallachia was constituted of anti-unionists conservatives; on January 22, 1859, Partida Națională members decided to vote for the Moldavian candidate for Prince, colonel Alexandru Ioan Cuza, who had already been elected in Iași – their vote was carried on January 24, after street pressure forced the other delegates to change their vote, leading to the eventual creation of the United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, a state with Bucharest as its capital and seat of its Parliament. Cuza, who ruled as Domnitor, paved the Bucharest streets with a better class of cobblestone, established gymnasia and several academic societies (including the University of Bucharest), and ordered the building of a railway between the capital and the Danube port of Giurgiu together with several metallurgical plants in the Ilfov County area; during his day, brick and stone lodgings became the norm.

On February 22, 1866, the city witnessed the coup against Domnitor Cuza, carried out by a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives disenchanted with the attempted land reform and the increasingly authoritarian regime – they occupied the ruler's residence and arrested Cuza and his mistress Marija Obrenović, instating a Regency.

The largely Francophile population of Bucharest came close to causing the fall of Carol I, Cuza's successor, during the Franco-Prussian War, after a clash with the German residents of Bucharest in March 1871 – it was averted by the nomination of the Conservative Lascăr Catargiu as Prime Minister. The welcoming of Russian intervention by Bucharesters at the start of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 contributed to the Ottoman decision to bombard the left bank of the Danube, as Romania's independence was being proclaimed by Parliament.

Belle Époque (1877–1916)
During the early years of Carol's rule, Bucharest was equipped with gas lighting, the Filaret Station (1869) and Gara de Nord (1872), a horsecar tram system, a telephone system, several factories, boulevards, administrative buildings, as well as large private lodgings (including the Crețulescu Palace). The National Bank of Romania was opened in April 1880, as the first and most important in a series of new banking institutions

Beginning in 1871 the Academy Boulevard was integrated into a large east to west axis which included north-south Victory Road. The construction of this cross-axis in the last three decades of the nineteenth century and was a major task undertaken by Mayor Emanuel Protopopescu. His successor Filipescu continued in the construction of boulevards, one connected the new summer palace built by Carol I to the east–west axis. The second is Lascăr Catargiu Boulevard.

After the proclamation of the Kingdom of Romania in 1881, building works in the city accelerated. In 1883, floodings of the Dâmbovița such as the 1865 flooding of Bucharest, endemic under Cuza, were stopped through the channelling of the river (the change in course modified the neighbourhoods adjacent to the banks). New buildings were added, including the Romanian Athenaeum, and the skyline increased in height – the Athénée Palace, the first one in the city to use reinforced concrete, had five stories. In 1885–1887, after Romania denounced its economic ties with Austria-Hungary, Bucharest's commercial and industrial development went unhindered: over 760 new enterprises were established in the city before 1912, and hundreds more by the 1940s. Limited use of electricity was introduced in 1882.

At the climax of the World War I Romanian Campaign on December 6, 1916, Bucharest was placed under the military occupation of the Central Powers (while the government retreated to Iași). Of the 215 million lei demanded by the new administration in order to cover its expenses, 86 were owed by the capital. After the Compiègne Armistice, German troops evacuated Bucharest, and a Romanian administration was reinstated in late November 1918. As the country was embarking on the course that led to the creation of a Greater Romania (confirmed by the treaties of Saint-Germain, Neuilly and Trianon), its capital witnessed a relatively expanded social crisis – on December 26, 1918, troops fired on compositors engaged in a strike, who had been agitated by the newly created Socialist Party of Romania.

Inter-war
The elaborate architecture and the city's status as cosmopolitan cultural center won Bucharest the nickname of "Paris of the East" (or Micul Paris – "Little Paris"). Development continued during the 1930s – one of the most prosperous times in Romanian history: after 1928, the population increased by 30,000 inhabitants per year, the area reached 78 km2 in 1939, and many new peripheral boroughs were added (Apărătorii Patriei, Băneasa, Dămăroaia, Floreasca, Giulești, the Militari village, and the first streets in the Balta Albă area). In 1929, the old tram system was replaced by a trolley-based one.

A workers' riot erupted during the Grivița Strike of 1933, ending in a violent clampdown.

Under King Carol II, the city skyline began changing, and numerous art deco- and Neo-Romanian-style buildings and monuments were added, including the new Royal Palace, the Military Academy, Arcul de Triumf, the University of Bucharest Faculty of Law, the new main wing of Gara de Nord, the ANEF Stadium, the Victoria Palace, Palatul Telefoanelor, Dimitrie Gusti's Village Museum, and the present-day Museum of the Romanian Peasant; deep pits were dug to provide Bucharest with safer water, alongside the deviation of the southern course of the Argeș River and the sanitation of the northern lakes (Colentina, Floreasca, Herăstrău, Tei), eventually leading to the creation of the present-day "necklace" of embanked ponds and surrounding parks.

1940s
Bucharest witnessed the birth of three consecutive fascist regimes: after the one established by Carol II and his National Renaissance Front, the outbreak of World War II brought the National Legionary State and, after the bloody Iron Guard Rebellion of January 21–23 (which was accompanied by a major pogrom in the capital), the Ion Antonescu government. In the spring of 1944, it was the target of heavy RAF and USAF bombings (see Bombing of Bucharest in World War II). The city was also the center of King Michael I's August 23 coup, which took the country out of the Axis and into the ranks of the Allies; consequently, it became the target of German reprisals – on August 23–24, a large-scale bombing by the Luftwaffe destroyed the National Theater and damaged other buildings, while the Wehrmacht engaged in street-fighting with the Romanian Army. On August 31, the Soviet Red Army entered Bucharest.

In February 1945, the Romanian Communist Party organized a protest in front of the Royal Palace, which witnessed violence and ended in the fall of the Nicolae Rădescu cabinet and the coming to power of the Communist-backed Petru Groza. On November 8, the King's Day, the new administration suppressed pro-Monarchy rallies – the onset of political repression throughout the country.

Communist era
The Communist regime was firmly established after the proclamation of a People's Republic on December 30, 1947. One of the major landscape interventions by early Communist leaders was the addition of Socialist realist buildings, including the large Casa Scînteii (1956) and the National Opera. As a tendency for the entire period of Communist rule, the city underwent massive geographical and populational expansion: it began extending, westwards, eastwards and southwards, with new, tower block-dominated districts such as Titan, Militari, Pantelimon, Dristor, and Drumul Taberei.

During Nicolae Ceaușescu's leadership, a part of the historical part of the city, including old churches, was destroyed, to be replaced with the immense buildings of Centrul Civic – notably, the Palace of the Parliament, which replaced about 1.8 km2 of old buildings (see Ceaușima). Alongside buildings characterised by a continuation of Socialist realism, Bucharest was home to several large-scale ones of a more generic modernist style (Sala Palatului, the Globus Circus, and the Intercontinental Hotel). By the time it was toppled, the regime had begun constructing a series of huge identical markets, commonly known as "hunger circuses", and started digging the never-finished Danube–Bucharest Canal. The Dâmbovița River was channeled for a second time, and the Bucharest Metro, noted for its compliance with official aesthetics, was opened in 1979.

In 1977, the 7.2 Vrancea earthquake claimed 1,500 lives and destroyed many old lodgings and offices. On August 21, 1968, Ceaușescu's Bucharest speech condemning the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia led many inhabitants to briefly join the paramilitary Patriotic Guards – created on the spot as defense against a possible Soviet military reaction to Romania's new stance.

1989 to present-day
During the Romanian Revolution of 1989, which began in Timișoara, Bucharest was the site of a rapid succession of major events between December 20 and December 22, leading to the overthrow of Ceaușescu's communist regime. Unhappy with some results of the revolution, students' leagues and other organizations, including the Civic Alliance, organized mass protests against the National Salvation Front government in 1990 (in what became known as Golaniad); these were violently suppressed by the miners of Valea Jiului – the Mineriad of June 14–15. Several other Mineriads followed – only one of them (the September 1991 Mineriad) succeeded in reaching Bucharest, being responsible for the fall of the Petre Roman government.

After the year 2000, due to the advent of Romania's economic boom, the city has modernized and several historical areas have been restored. In 1992, the first connection to the Internet took place at the Polytechnic University of Bucharest.

The Colectiv nightclub fire killed 64 individuals, in a fast-spreading fire and resulting stampede, in October 2015. It was the country's deadliest-ever nightclub fire, the city's (and one of Romania's) worst accidental losses of life since the end of the civil war in 1989, and one of the deadliest incidents of any kind since that time. Many victims who were not trampled to death were killed through smoke inhalation and/or extensive burns. Three days of national mourning were observed, and blood drives were held.

Administrative history
A local administration was first attested under Petru cel Tânăr (in 1563), when a group of pârgari countersigned a property purchase; the city's borders, established by Mircea Ciobanul, were confirmed by Matei Basarab in the 1640s, but the inner borders between properties remained rather chaotic, and were usually confirmed periodically by the Jude and his pârgari. Self-administration privileges were denied to Bucharesters and taken over by the Princes during the rule of Constantin Brâncoveanu and the Regulamentul Organic period – in 1831, the population was allowed to elect a local council and was awarded a local budget; the council was expanded under Alexandru Ioan Cuza, under whom the first Mayor of Bucharest, Barbu Vlădoianu, was elected.

The guilds (bresle or isnafuri), covering a large range of employments and defined either by trade or ethnicity, formed self-administrating units from the 17th century until the late 19th century. Several isnafuri in the Lipscani area gave their names to streets which still exist. Although they lacked clear defense duties, given that Bucharest was not fortified, they became the basis for military recruitment in the small city garrison. Trading guilds became predominant over those of artisans during the 19th century, and all autochthonous ones collapsed under competition from the sudiți wholesale traders (protected by foreign diplomats), and disappeared altogether after 1875, when mass-produced imports from Austria-Hungary flooded the market.

Religious and communal history
Bucharest is home to the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchy and the Wallachian Metropolitan seat, of the Roman Catholic Archbishopric (established in 1883) and Apostolic Nunciature, of the Archbishopric and Eparchy Council of the local Armenian Apostolic Church, of the leadership of the Federation of the Jewish Communities of Romania as well as an important site for other religions and churches.

In Nicolae Ceaușescu's times, a large number of religious locations were demolished to make room for tower blocks and other landmarks; the former included Văcărești Monastery, which was torn down during works to enlarge the Văcărești Lake.

Romanian Orthodoxy
For much of Bucharest's history, its neighbourhoods were designated by the names of the more important Orthodox churches in the respective areas. The first major religious monument in the city was the Curtea Veche church, built by Mircea Ciobanul in the 1550s, followed by Plumbuita (consecrated by Peter the Younger).

Constantin Șerban erected the Metropolitan Church (today's Patriarchal Cathedral) in 1658, moving the bishopric from Târgoviște in 1668. In 1678, under Șerban Cantacuzino, the Bishopric was equipped with a printing press, which published the first Romanian-language edition of the Bible (the Cantacuzino Bible) during the following year.

The large-scale urban development under Prince Șerban and Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu saw the building of numerous religious facilities, including Anthim the Iberian's Antim Monastery; in 1722, boyar Iordache Crețulescu added Kretzulescu Church to the city's landscape, during a period when most new places of worship were being dedicated by trader guilds.

Phanariote rulers consecrated several major places of worship, including, among others, the Văcărești Monastery (1720), a monumental late-Byzantine site, the Stavropoleos Church (1724) – both built under Nicholas Mavrocordatos -, Popa Nan (1719), Domnița Bălașa (1751), the one in Pantelimon (1752), Schitu Măgureanu (1756), Icoanei (1786), and Amzei (ca.1808). Another period of growth in the building of Orthodox religious sites was the inter-war one: 23 new churches were added before 1944.

Jewish history of Bucharest

The Jewish community of Bucharest was, at least initially, overwhelmingly Sephardi (until Ashkenazim began arriving from Moldavia in the early 19th century). Jews were first attested as shop owners under Mircea Ciobanul (ca.1550), and despite frequent persecutions and pogroms, formed a large part of the professional elites for most of Bucharest's history, and the largest percentage of the total population after Romanians (around 11%). The main Jewish-inhabited areas were centered on the present-day Unirii Square, Dudești and Văcărești neighbourhoods.

In World War II, Jews were the target of widespread violence during the National Legionary State regime and, many were attacked and had their property looted, while others were eventually killed. During the Iron Guard Rebellion in January 1941 some 130 Jews were brutally tortured and murdered. A certain number of local Jews were deported to Transnistria by the Ion Antonescu regime, but most of them remained on the spot, being forcefully assigned to labor duties like cleaning out snow, sorting out the debris resulting from Allied bombings etc. As a result of the WWII holocaust and emigration both to Israel and other countries the Jewish population was drastically reduced. Notable institutions of the community nowadays include the Bucharest Synagogue and the State Jewish Theater.

Other communities
Majority-Eastern Orthodox groups other than Romanians included sizeable communities of Greeks (a highly influential and omnipresent one for much of the city's history, it was mentioned in Bucharest as early as 1561 and, after reaching its peak in the 18th century, entered a process of regression), Aromanians (first attested in 1623, but probably counted among the Greeks by previous testimonials), Serbs and Bulgarians, alongside other South Slavs (Bulgarians and Serbs were confounded in common reference until the 19th century; at the same time, sources more readily distinguished between groups of traders from Gabrovo, Chiprovtsi, or Razgrad; an important group of Bulgarians retreated with the Russians at the close of the war of 1828–1829, and settled in Bucharest as gardeners and milkmen), as well as Arab parishioners of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, Russians (see also Bucharest Russian Church), and most of the Albanians present. Protected by the Church more than actually being considered its parishioners, the Roma were, until 1855, slaves of boyars and of the Church itself; in 1860, 9,000 Bucharesters were thought to have been Roma.

Presently, there are 18 Roman Catholic places of worship in Bucharest, including Bărăţia (built in 1741, rebuilt 1861), the Saint Joseph Cathedral (1884) and the Italian Church (1916). The Romanian Catholic community (which includes adherents to the Eastern Rite Church) has traditionally been accompanied by the presence of majority-Catholic ethnic groups: Ragusan traders were first mentioned in the 16th century; Italians, recorded ca.1630, were traditionally employed as stonemasons; a Polish minority became notable after the 1863 January Uprising forced many to take refuge in Romania; the French, highly influential during the late 18th century and early 19th century, grouped 700 ethnics by the 1890s; between the two World Wars, Bucharest became home to a large Székely community (probably some tens of thousands).

Mostly Gregorian Armenians, who originally came from Kamianets-Podilskyi and Rousse, were first mentioned in the 17th century, and left their mark on the entire city with the activities of Manuc-bei and Krikor Zambaccian (see also: Armenians in Romania). They built their first church ca.1638, and their first Armenian-language school in 1817; a new church, built on the model of the one in Echmiadzin, was consecrated in 1911.

Most Protestants in Bucharest have traditionally been Calvinist Magyars and German Lutherans, who accounted for several thousands of the city's inhabitants; mentioned as early as 1574, Lutherans have a church just north of Sala Palatului, on Strada Luterană (the Lutheran Street).

Islam was initially present through the means of the relatively minor Turkish community and small groups of Muslim Romas and Muslim Arabs; it is now represented by a growing, largely Middle Eastern immigrant community. In 1923, a mosque was constructed in Carol Park.

title: History of Bucharest


text:
Mobility 2030

Mobility 2030 is the name of two different transport plans:

 * Mobility 2030 (Atlanta)
 * Mobility 2030 (WBCSD), of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development

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

title: Mobility 2030


text:
Eye dialect

Eye dialect is a writer's use of deliberately nonstandard spelling either because they do not consider the standard spelling a good reflection of the pronunciation or because they are intending to portray informal or low-status language usage. The term was coined by George Philip Krapp to refer to a literary technique that implies the standard pronunciation of a given word that is not well-reflected by its standard spelling, such as wimmin to represent more accurately the typical English pronunciation of women. However, eye dialect is also commonly used to indicate that a character's speech is vernacular (nonstandard), foreign, or uneducated, often to be humorous. This form of nonstandard spelling differs from others in that a difference in spelling does not indicate a difference in pronunciation of a word. That is, it is dialect to the eye, rather than to the ear.

Use
Most authors are likely to use eye dialect with restraint, sprinkling nonstandard misspelling here and there to serve as a cue to the reader about all of a character's speech, rather than as an accurate phonetic representation.

While mostly used in dialogue, eye dialect may appear in the narrative depiction of altered spelling made by a character (such as in a letter or diary entry), generally used to more overtly depict characters who are poorly educated or semi-literate.

The term eye dialect was first used by George Philip Krapp in 1925. "The convention violated", he wrote, "is one of the eyes, not of the ear." According to Krapp, it was not used to indicate a real difference in pronunciation but "the spelling is merely a friendly nudge to the reader, a knowing look which establishes a sympathetic sense of superiority between the author and reader as contrasted with the humble speaker of dialect."

- George P. Krapp

The term is less commonly used to refer to pronunciation spellings, that is, spellings of words that indicate that they are pronounced in a nonstandard way. For example, an author might write dat as an attempt at accurate transcription of a nonstandard pronunciation of that.

In an article on written representations of speech in a non-literary context, such as transcription by sociolinguists, Denis R. Preston argued that such spellings serve mainly to "denigrate the speaker so represented by making him or her appear boorish, uneducated, rustic, gangsterish, and so on".

Jane Raymond Walpole points out that there are other ways to indicate speech variation such as altered syntax, punctuation, and colloquial or regional word choices. She observes that a reader must be prompted to access their memory of a given speech pattern and that non-orthographic signals that accomplish this may be more effective than eye dialect. Frank Nuessel points out that use of eye dialect closely interacts with stereotypes about various groups, both relying on and reinforcing them in an attempt to efficiently characterize speech.

In The Lie That Tells a Truth: A Guide to Writing Fiction, John Dufresne cites The Columbia Guide to Standard American English in suggesting that writers avoid eye dialect; he argues that it is frequently pejorative, making a character seem stupid rather than regional, and is more distracting than helpful. Like Walpole, Dufresne suggests that dialect should be rendered by "rhythm of the prose, by the syntax, the diction, idioms and figures of speech, by the vocabulary indigenous to the locale". Other writers have noted that eye dialect has sometimes been used in derisive fashion toward ethnic or regional pronunciation, in particular by contrasting standard spelling with non-standard spelling to emphasize differences.

Eye dialect, when consistently applied, may render a character's speech indecipherable. An attempt to accurately render nonstandard speech may also prove difficult to readers unfamiliar with a particular accent.

Prose fiction
Some authors who use eye dialect include Maya Angelou, Charles Dickens, William Faulkner, Greer Gilman, Alex Haley, Joel Chandler Harris, Russell Hoban, Terry Pratchett, James Whitcomb Riley, J. K. Rowling, Robert Ruark, ref name="Malin 1965 230"> John Steinbeck, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Mark Twain, David Foster Wallace, Maxine Beneba Clarke, Paul Howard, Finley Peter Dunne and Irvine Welsh.

Charles Dickens combined eye dialect with pronunciation spelling and nonstandard grammar in the speech of his uneducated characters. An example in Bleak House is the following dialogue spoken by Jo, the miserable boy who sweeps a path across a street:

"...there wos other genlmen come down Tom-all-Alone's a-prayin, but they all mostly sed as the t'other wuns prayed wrong, and all mostly sounded as to be a-talking to theirselves, or a-passing blame on the t'others, and not a-talkin to us."

In the above, wos, sed, and wuns indicate standard pronunciations.

In his Discworld series of books, Terry Pratchett makes extensive use of eye dialect to extend the caricature of his characters, besides other visual devices such as changing the font used for certain dialogue. Death, for example, speaks in small capitals, while the dialogue of a golem, who can communicate only by writing, resembles Hebrew script in reference to the origins of the golem legend. Eye dialect is also used to establish a medieval setting, wherein many characters' grasp of spelling is heavily based on phonetics.

Poetry
In his 1937 poem "The Arrest of Oscar Wilde at the Cadogan Hotel", John Betjeman deploys eye dialect on a handful of words for satirical effect; in this case the folly of the arresting police officers, who are made to seem like comic caricatures of themselves:

Mr. Woilde, we 'ave come for tew take yew

Where felons and criminals dwell:

We must ask yew tew leave with us quoietly

For this is the Cadogan Hotel.

An extreme example of a poem written entirely in (visually barely decipherable) eye dialect is "YgUDuh" by E. E. Cummings, which, as several commentators have noted, makes sense only when read aloud. In this case, Cummings's target was the attitudes of certain Americans to Japanese people following World War II.

In comics
American cartoonist Al Capp frequently combined eye dialect with pronunciation spelling in his comic strip Li'l Abner. Examples include lissen, aristocratick, mountin [mountain], correkt, feends, hed, introduckshun, leppard, and perhaps the most common, enuff. Only his rustic characters are given these spellings; for instance, the "overcivilized" Bounder J. Roundheels's dialogue contains gourmets, while Li'l Abner's contains goormays.

Cartoonist Walt Kelly made extensive use of eye dialect in Pogo. Like Pratchett, he used unique fonts for many of his supporting characters.

Some cartoonists and comic book creators eschew phonetic eye dialects in favor of font changes or distinctive speech balloons. Swamp Thing, for example, has traditionally been depicted using "crusty" yellow speech balloons and dialogue heavily laced with ellipses, suggesting a gravelly voice that only speaks with great effort. Robotic and computer characters often use square speech balloons and angular fonts reminiscent of OCR-A, suggesting a stilted, emotionless cadence. Thor's dialogue has routinely been written in an elegant font, implying his archaic vocabulary and pronunciation as a millennia-old god. After Thor passed the mantle to Jane Foster, her dialogue was written in the same font whenever she transformed into Thor, before reverting to normal when she did as well.

Other uses
American film director Quentin Tarantino used eye dialect for the title of his movie Inglourious Basterds.

Hip-hop group N.W.A is short for "Niggaz Wit Attitudes", which uses eye dialect.

Examples in other languages
In the Chilean comic Mampato, the character Ogú replaces hard ⟨c⟩ with ⟨k⟩ (e.g. ⟨komida⟩ instead of ⟨comida⟩), to show that his accent is strange.

In contemporary Russian literature, eye spelling is not uncommon. For example, in the Vasiliy Shukshin's story "Мой зять украл машину дров" (My son-in-law stole a carful of firewood) the word for what is spelled "што" (as it is pronounced in contemporary Russian, so ), rather than the expected "что". The character is a delivery driver in Siberia and the eye dialect emphasizes his uneducated nature.

The novel Zazie dans le Métro is written in French that disregards almost all French spelling conventions, as the main viewpoint character is a young child.

Italian dialectal literature tends to spell ⟨zz⟩ instead of ⟨z⟩ (eg: posizzione in place of standard posizione) and syntactic gemination (eg: ho ffatto in place of standard ho fatto), actually reflecting the standard pronunciation.

Norwegian author Hans Jæger's trilogy, The Erotic Confessions of the Bohemians (1893–1903), is written in a Norwegian form of eye dialect.

title: Eye dialect


text:
Colliers Wood tube station

Colliers Wood is a London Underground station in South London. The station is on the Northern line, between and  stations. It is located at the corner of Merton High Street (A24) and Christchurch Road. The station is in Travelcard Zone 3.

History
The station was opened on 13 September 1926 as part of the Morden extension of the City & South London Railway south from Clapham Common.

Along with the other stations on the Morden extension, the building was designed by architect Charles Holden. They were Holden's first major project for the Underground. He was selected by Frank Pick, general manager of the Underground Electric Railways Company of London (UERL), to design the stations after he was dissatisfied with designs produced by the UERL's own architect, Stanley Heaps. Built with a shop to each side, the modernist design takes the form of a double-height three-sided box clad in white Portland stone with a three-part glazed screen on the front façade divided by columns of which the capitals are three-dimensional versions of the Underground roundel. The central panel of the screen contains a large version of the roundel. The station is a Grade II listed building.

The station is close to Merton Bus garage which opened in 1913. The public house across the road is named "The Charles Holden" in honour of the station's architect.

Connections
London Buses routes 57, 131, 152, 200, 219, 470 and night route N155 serve the station.

title: Colliers Wood tube station


text:
Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–2011)/Archive discussion of move

moved there from WP:RM ObsidianOrder 22:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency
Results: Could any admin please take care of this? This has been up for discussion for 5 days, and another couple of days on the article's talk page. The votes are Support: 19, Weak Support: 2, Strongly Oppose: 1, Oppose 8, Weak Oppose: 1. I think there's sufficient consensus for this move. The destination is now a redirect to History of Iraqi insurgency but it used to have some content so the history may need to be merged. Alternately, just swap the source and destination. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 07:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Results P.S. After this was moved to the holding pen, one more person voted "Support", and two people changed their votes from "Oppose" to "Strongly Oppose". My take: If we are taking late votes, I would prefer that we do so in a way the gives everyone an equal chance to add votes or change their vote, such as a formal extension of a specified duration. I don't think such an extension is needed since there have been very few votes in the last couple of days. I don't think the "Strongly Oppose" vote changes are fair: it is clear from the comments that many people would have voted "Strongly Support" had it been understood that was an option at the time. Should we give them a chance to change their votes now? Everyone voted and made clear how they feel already, let's move on. ObsidianOrder 09:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No there was only one change. I'm not happy with this vote, I see it as systemic bias, but there's little that can be done about that. There was also no adequate response to the fact that it conflicts with Naming conventions (identity)—Christiaan 19:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason: One, the proposed name is the most frequently used by far and so should be chosen under the Naming conventions (common names). Google News shows the following number of news articles using each name: "iraqi insurgents" 3,220, "iraqi insurgency" 1,050, "iraqi resistance" 420. Two, "resistance" is POV. From a careful reading of dictionary definitions, "resistance" strongly implies a legitimate struggle against illegitimate authority, while "insurgency" weakly implies a struggle against a legitimate (or at least well-established) authority. While there is no truly neutral term, "insurgency" is the more neutral term. Some additional discussion is on the talk page. ObsidianOrder 07:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal: This cannot be seen as a matter of preference over which term should be used. Both "resistance" and "insurgency" are value-neutral terms, and have nothing to do with the issue of legitimacy. The reason there is one article on the "insurgency" and another on the "resistance" in fact has nothing to do with legitimacy. Iraqi resistance and Iraqi insurgency are separate articles dealing with separate topics. On one hand, "Iraqi resistance," labelled as such in order to comply with the rule on self-identification (see Naming conventions (identity)), should deal with the specific resistance groups, their compositions, their interests, their goals, their strategies, and their tactics. In other words, the resistance groups themselves should be the subject of the article. Iraqi resistance accomplishes this task relatively well, hence the featured article status. On the other hand, Iraqi insurgency should deal with the conflict(s) over time as the center of analysis, be organized chronologically, and act as the sequel to the article on the 2003 Iraq War. In other words, the war/guerrilla conflict/whatever you want to call it should be the subject of the insurgency article. Unfortuantley, the article on the insurgency fails to accomplish this at the moment (perhaps I will nominate it for Collaboration of the Week); and it will never develop if you crudely move the resistance in its place simply because you and some other users think that "resistance" sounds better than "insurgency" because of your POV. 172 19:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Weak oppose - why switch one POV term for another? "Resistance" implies they are doing good to oppose the 'government' and "insugence" implies they are doing bad or doing nothing (it is therefore obvious why one term sees preference in Western media).  Can't a truly NPOV title be found? --Boco XLVII 07:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would support something more along the lines of Government opposition in Iraq as an NPOV solution. --Boco XLVII 13:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, because although "insurgency" implies a weak POV, it's certainly not nearly as strong as "resistance," which is why media organizations eschew the latter in favor of the former. A.D.H. (t&m) 08:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support First of all, "resistance" is a POV term; "insurgency" is not. Secondly, the news media consistently uses "insurgency", so this is the more common term and the article could be moved on that grounds alone. -- Curps 08:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, after some reflection I agree that "resistance" is too POV. — Ливай | ☺ 08:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, Michael Moore lost the election, so we don't have to call his Minutemen the Iraqi "resistance" ;) --Daniel11 12:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I resent the unfounded insult. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * lol - and just what insult might that be? Are you Michael Moore? Did I even insult him? --Daniel11 15:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support It is clear by now that the insurgency is not a resistance group, it is an anti-democratic fundamentalist sectarian force opposing the internationally recognized Iraqi government. With al Qaeda led forces claiming credit for the great majority of the bombings and attacks, there is serious doubt whether the insurgents and suicide bombers are even Iraqis. "Insurgency" is perhaps too NPOV, suggesting little more than unconventional conflict.--Silverback 13:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course many here will disagree with your analysis. If this becomes a pro-war vs. anti-war vote, we'll never get a consensus. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I wholeheartedly disagree with the reasoning given by some above users voting support, but I agree that "insurgency" is a little less POV than "resistance", and I agree that it is the more common term in the English language. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:49, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not a question of legitimacy of armed groups, that's not a judgement for Wikipedia to make. It is not an insurgency, because they are not targetting an established authority. Instead they are resisting the establishment of a new authority. They are Iraqi armed groups whose main targets are (1) foreign occupying troops, (2) the new forces being trained by the foreign occupying troops. These groups form therefore a resistance movement (whatever their aims beyond resisting the establishment of a new authority may or may not be), and the word insurgency is inadequate. Please note that groups targetting civilians, such as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad, and whose aim is to further sectarian violence and bring about civil war, cannot be classified as being part of the Iraqi resistance. - pir 14:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a number of armed groups which attack a variety of targets, including military, governmental and purely civilian. Do you have any evidence that the groups which attack civilian targets operate independently of the groups which attack legitimate targets?  Do you have any evidence that groups which only attack legitimate targets even exist?  I think they all work together to attack all types of targets in a very fluid way; there is no operational distinction, except that each group may have different reasons.  Any distinction based on excluding civilian-targetting groups such as JTJ is purely artificial.  Moreover, JTJ and similar groups which you admit are not part of the "resistance" are a major topic of this article.  I will write a longer reply at  Talk:Iraqi_resistance, let's continue there. ObsidianOrder 14:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Properly speaking it's probably a resistance, or a collection of resistance efforts, to an ongoing occupation.  However it has become known as the insurgency through common usage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that if various Canadians, Mexicans and Americans got pissed off at George W. Bush and started bombing American churches, that would be resistance? Or even insurgency? Is there an option other than support/oppose, to suggest renaming instead something like "Terrorism in Iraq"? --Daniel11 15:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: No Daniel11, we usually call that an unprovoked act of war by a sovereign power. And the Mexicans did that once, under Pancho Villa, burning a border town to the ground and killing like a dozen or two of the inhabitants.  The American response, while not a war (since we weren't fighting Mexico, just invading Northern Mexico to follow the perpetrator), was called the Punitive Expedition.  As to the Canadians...check out the Aroostook War...even though people say it was bloodless, the Lumberjacks did fight a few quasi-battles and burnt down settlements in Northern Maine.  If Americans did it, it would be domestic terrorism and probably investigated by the FBI (like the racist church bombings in the South during the 1950s and 1960s). —ExplorerCDT 16:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That was my point -- I was only asking the question rhetorically. Of course we wouldn't call the bombing of American churches by a bunch of terrorists, whether foreign or domestic, any kind of a resistance or insurgency. We'd call it what it is, terrorism. Hence, why should we call al Qaeda and the rest of the terrorists in Iraq a resistance or an insurgency, when they're doing the same? We shouldn't, we should call it terrorism. --Daniel11 16:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Questions, whether asked rhetorically or not, will most likely be answered because text is such a poor communications medium. But it is not the same, and it isn't cut-and-dry terrorism. But it's not "terrorism" per se... When the insurgents striking civilian Iraqi targets to force the Iraqi government to capitulate, it is often called "domestic terrorism" just like when the Earth Liberation Front torches car dealerships or Timothy McVeigh blew up an Oklahoma City federal building.  BUT when the insurgents turn their anger toward a foreign military occupation force (I don't intend to be POV by that phrase) it is a partisan resistance or an insurgency.  Terrorism is never really as organized as the Iraqi insurgency is organized, simply because you have a loose alliance of groups working collaboratively (at many steps) to get a foreign infidel military occupation to pull up its stakes, leave Iraq, and be embarassed at the loss.  But in this case, as the Iraqi government is seen by the insurgents as a tool of the occupying force, and by attacking them they are by a corollary attacking the occupying force in an effort to force the hand (esp. to compel a withdrawl) of the occupying force.  Just like the partisan insurgency in Italy in 1943-45, and in Germany from 1944-1945. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Iraq is not governed by a foreign infidel military occupation, no matter how the terrorists view it. 2) Terrorism isn't a matter of how organized it is, and even if it were, the terrorists in Iraq are about as organized as numerous other terrorist groups, in fact to some extent they are the same groups. The loose alliances of terrorists operating in Iraq is really no more organized than, say, Hezbollah, or Yasser Arafat's bunch, or Osama's bunch, which all performed carefully planned operations in a variety of countries. Anyway, as I say, that's all moot because terrorism's not a function of the degree of a group's organization. --Daniel11 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I was speaking rhetorically about "foreign infidels" etc. just because that's the lingo the insurgents use to justify their insurgency. Terrorism is organized, I'll grant you that. But structurally, this is not terrorism...while terroristic by its tactics, it is structured and justified like the French Resistance, or the Sandinistas were structured and justified, and their tactics carried out against what they perceive as an occupying force...a formidable backlash by groups of people (some coordinated, some randomly amateur) who don't like American tanks rolling through their streets.  If the Russians took over the West Coast (as seen in the movie Red Dawn), Patrick Swayze's little band of resistance fighters would be called "terrorists" by the occupying Russians, but they considered themselves a patriotic resistance.  What was their organized actions agaisnt the occupiers...an insurgency (see definition ).  But if we take your route and frankly call them "terrorists" where the seemingly neutral media (they don't call them "patriots") call it an "insurgency" is just blatantly POV and jingoistic, and not in the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia.  One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.  Maybe the next contributor here would be some extremist anti-American Arab would like to call the insurgents "Iraqi Patriots" and the American troops as "infidel consumer whores".  And that is just as POV.  Terrorism is a function of its definition, not someone's desire to call bad guys even worse names just to satisfy a personal rage or vendetta, as is the vibe I am getting from the tone of your responses.  Your desired type of rhetorical word-picking is best suited for politicized webfora like FreeRepublic.com...history is written by those who know how to step outside of personal prejudices and petty nationalism and analyze a situation equitably to all sides involved.  In that case, "insurgency" is as close to neutrality and accuracy as we are going to get. —ExplorerCDT 21:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "while terroristic by its tactics," you say, before arguing that it's not terrorism. But terrorism is a tactic, and it's what the Iraqi terrorists are using -- that's why they're terrorists. As I explain on the article's talk page, I'm fine with calling the enyclopedia article Insurgency or Terrorism or any number of other things, but it's foolish to deny that it's terrorism. And as for your weird speculation about my motivation and intent, I'm not sure how to answer. I'm not trying to satisfy any kind of rage or vendetta, and I don't see where you get that vibe from what I've written. If memory serves, FreeRepublic.com is a conservative website, and I'm not conservative. And as for "personal prejudices and petty nationalism," well, I don't have any personal contact with the terrorists about which to be prejudiced, and the flavor of petty nationalism where I am -- Canada -- is nothing at all like what you're thinking of. So, perhaps there's some element of projection or other psychological voodoo involved? --Daniel11 22:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The insurgency is terroristic, not terrorism...there is a difference. Similarly, the Czech Resistance's assassination of Heydrich in 1942 was "terroristic" though it is not considered "terrorism."  And that difference is precisely why "Iraqi terrorism" is not an appropriate title for the article, nor the descriptor "Iraqi terrorist" appropriate for the "insurgents."  It's foolish of you to not see the semantic and rhetorical rationale behind such a position (or you simply have a limited conceptualization of reality because of a small vocabulary)  As to your motives, that was the vibe I was getting...the tenor of your comments here and in earlier threads resonate like the rantings of the stereotypical myopic, jingoistic red state voter. —ExplorerCDT 00:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * oh, and by the way, those weren't Canadians at Aroostook, they were Britons. :) --Daniel11 17:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, actually for the most part they were Canadiens at Aroostook since they never really accepted the Treaty of Paris (1763) or the Quebec Act, but I won't bicker. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: I don't see either resistance or insurgency as a POV word, however, "insurgency" and "insurgents" appear in more headlines (print and online) and tv news segments than "resistance." I don't think I've heard "resistance" used at all during this war.  After all, it isn't organized like the French, Dutch and Czechs were against the Nazis.  But that brings up another idea...how does Wikipedia (that is, if we do) treat the non-military largely civilian and partisans who resisted the allies with grassroots guerilla warfare in Germany in 1944-1945?  Perhaps we could look at other insurgencies and see if there is a consistent terminology.  In the meantime, though, I support. —ExplorerCDT 16:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Insurgencies are not all the same, and they should not be treated the same. I don't suppose you can point to an occasion when the French resistance for example blew up a church full of Corsican civilians?  The choice of terms is a matter of the legitimacy of the insurgents (which is affected by the choice of targets), and the legitimacy of the occupying force and/or government they are fighting against (which is affected by the intentions of said occupying force).  Insurgency is the closest to a neutral term.  ObsidianOrder 21:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In the theoretics of interional law, war itself isn't legitimate... therefore insurgents or resistence fighters can't be anymore legitimate or illegitimate. Fruits of the same spoiled tree.  Also, it's a case of preferred semantics...the one-man's-terrorist-is-another-man's-freedom-fighter argument.  I do agree though, "insurgency" is where it is at, mostly because "resistence" hasn't been used by the media nor by the architects of the war to describe the acts.  Semantics wins. —ExplorerCDT 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I was trying for a compromise proposal ;) I am happy that there seems to be a sort of "bipartisan" agreement on this so far. ObsidianOrder 21:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of legitimacy (and to counter another point, the French Resistance wasn't fighting against Corsicans, so why would they blow up Corsicans in a church?) Insurgency is the most accurate and most neutral description, in addition to being the most common terminology used to reference this situation.  That's why I support the change to Iraqi insurgency, a position which obviously agrees with yours.  Where I disagree is that I don't think "resistance" is POV, but it is not the right word to describe this action. —ExplorerCDT 21:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose: This would go against Naming_conventions (identity) and would no doubt be yet another example of systemic bias. —Christiaan 21:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this is bias. "Insurgency" does not take a POV on the legitimacy of the fight.  "Resistance" definitely does take a POV.  Is it biassed to not take sides?  ObsidianOrder 21:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's bias in that you have mostly a bunch of Americans and other Westerners trying to tell the world that the Iraqi resistance should not bear the title of resistance when that is what they refer to themselves as. This is systemic bias. Iraqi resistance is far more accurate and follows Naming_conventions (identity). —Christiaan 22:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You also have mostly a bunch of Americans and other Westerners trying to tell the world that Saddam Hussein is not the President of Iraq, when that's what he refers to himself as. I guess we should keep calling Saddam the "President of Iraq" ... lololololol --Daniel11 23:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Insurgency" is inherently biased. I quote from the insurgency article: When used by an authority under threat, "insurgency" implies an illegitimacy of cause upon those rising up.  Of course, resistance is also POV.  Again, what's wrong with something more along the lines of Government opposition in Iraq? --Boco XLVII 22:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Insurgency article, especially the paragraph the passage you quoted was located, is well written. Consult a dictionary ...they don't make value judgments as to legitimacy. —ExplorerCDT 00:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree that there's little or nothing to choose between the two terms as regards PoV, so why move?  If someone could think of a genuinely neutral term, then fine.  Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Arguably there is a difference as regards POV, and dictionary definitions reflect this. Insurgency is just an armed revolt against a government; "resistance" implies that those opposed to the "resisting" forces are "collaborators" (eg, the candidates backed by Shiite clerics who ran for election).  "Resistance" is inherently POV. -- Curps 01:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. By my reading, both names are POV, depending on whose shoes you are standing in. So no mileage in moving. I would support someone coming up with a reasonable NPOV alternative. -- Chris j wood 23:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: To both Chris j wood and Mel Etitis...how is insurgency, defined as "an instance of rebellion; an insurgence" or "a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency" or "an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict" POV?  It is rather matter-of-fact. Even if, by some contrived denotation, the word "insurgency" is remotely POV, it is the lesser of two evils and the more accurate term. —ExplorerCDT 00:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * REPLY TO COMMENT: Because of the words 'recognized' and 'constituted' in your quote above, which simply raise the questions 'recognized by whom' and 'constituted by whom'. To repeat my objection, both terms are POV. Whatever our personal opinions, WP seeks an NPOV viewpoint and neither term fits that bill. -- Chris j wood 00:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: To Chris j wood and Mel Etitis: if both terms are equally POV, should we not go with the more common one? ObsidianOrder 01:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Rather, we should seek an NPOV alternative to both. --Boco XLVII 01:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And why do you think it is so POV (other than merely stating that it is)? None of the dictionary definitions remotely hint that the term is POV...and as you seem to have some higher level of understanding please enlighten us. (sarcasm)  Further, it would be nice if you had a concise "NPOV alternative to both" that you two so desirously demand.  Along that vein, don't give me some crap like Government opposition in Iraq because that provides an opportunity to list anyone critical of what is going on in Iraq (which probably consists of 100% of the Iraqis and the lefists in Europe and the US) and doesn't even begin to make you think of the "insurgency."  Given the irrational labelling of "Insurgency" as inherently POV without offering any substance, I bet you two would like to see Nazism renamed to ""Ideology of mostly-lower class right-wing activists in Post-World War I Germany" because Nazism has bad connotations and sounds like pre-judging.  But then again, you'd say that "Ideology" was a POV word.  The candid world calls it an insurgency, it IS the most common term in use, get over it.  Now you'll object because you'd want a definition of what "is" is. —ExplorerCDT 02:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ignore my opinion, especially as my viewpoint is clearly the minority here, but if you do seek my voice in the final consensus, I suggest you start listing other names that you would agree with. --Boco XLVII 04:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Boco XLVII, I don't think you're in the minority - few people think "insurgency" is perfect. It seems like the best available compromise and it is an improvement over what is there now, plus it has the benefit of being the commonly accepted name for this.  Try any of these terms: rebellion, revolution, uprising, revolt, mutiny, insurrection, insurgency, resistance, beligenrents, guerillas, terrorists, militants, combatants, saboteurs, fighters, anti-government forces, anti-US forces ... none fits perfectly.  Then there are the really cumbersome alternatives such as "groups involved in the conflict in Iraq" or "militant opposition to the Coalition and Coalition-formed government".  I humbly request your support behind the compromise choice. ObsidianOrder 05:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * To: Boco XLVII, I'm fine with insurgency, as evidence by my support vote for the move and my fervent argumentation in support of that vote. Further, I'll ignore an opinion if it is substantiated with wrong information (as no dictionary definition referenced "implies" POV).  If you think that the term "insurgency" is POV and that you persist disagree with it, IT IS YOU who should "start listing other names that you would agree with."  And so far, your one contribution to that list is fatally flawed for being far too ambiguous and as such lacks the necessary conciseness and accuracy needed for a title. Insurgency, accurate, concise, and as stated by several, sufficently NPOV. —ExplorerCDT 05:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I missed most of this as it was raging, but I'll just respond to a central point. Dictionaries can't give a term's full connotation; they normally restrict themselves to denotations.  Two terms can have exactly the same dictionary definition, but a careful writer who's a native speaker would use them very differently.  In this case, whatever the dictionary definition, 'insurgence' has a slightly negative connotation, 'resistance' has a slightly positive connotation.  I thus see nothing to choose between them as regards PoV or accuracy.  I don't think that either of them is so PoV as to make them unacceptable on WP, but the sum of their NPoV distances from neutrality is large enough that the change ''would' be NPoV. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right that dictionaries are not the final word. However, many people (including me) seem to think that the connotation of "resistance" is strongly positive, not slightly positive, therefore it is the less neutral term.  If you believe the two terms are equally neutral, we should go with the more common one.  You're also right that the change would be large enough to not be NPOV.  However the initial decision to use "resistance" was not NPOV itself, considering there is essentially zero use of that term outside the Middle East. I don't suppose I can persuade you to switch your vote to "Neutral"? ObsidianOrder 13:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. The term "Iraqi resistence" implies legitimacy and heroism, particularly because of the connotation with the "French resistence" to Nazi occupation in WWII.  While others here claim that "insurgency" implies illegitimacy, I believe that it is the more commonly used term for any type of guerilla movement, whether left-wing or right-wing, against a recognized government.  I don't believe that "insurgency" makes any sort of judgment about the legitimacy either of the "insurgents" or of the government they are in opposition to, and is therefore the less biased of the two phrases.  Jhamby 00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, They seem to fit the accademic consensus of terrorist rather well but lets compromise on the neutral insurgent. Dejvid 00:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. — Davenbelle 01:38, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see the argument being made here that 'insurgency' is the more NPOV term; I feel this is erroneous. 'Iraqi Insurgency' is the term used by those who want to avoid the damning-sting that 'Iraqi Resistance' has; a common association many people have for the word 'resistance' is the French Resistance — the unjustly dominated valiantly resisting their oppressors. 'Resistance' is the appropriate term, because it is the most accurate term; 'insurgent' is a spin-word. — Davenbelle 11:02, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * By what you wrote, you just make an excellent argument for the move. resistance, or in your words "the unjustly dominated valiantly resisting their oppressors", is a POV.  insurgency, or in other words "people fighting against the government", is a simple statement of fact. of course none of this explains how "the unjustly dominated" come from a tiny minority which had been lording it over the majority for thirty years, or how their "valiant resistance" consists of blowing up churches of the majority religion. something to think about.  ObsidianOrder 11:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not cut & paste my words. I referred to people's view of the French Resistance as valiant, and I said that 'resistance' is the accurate term for what many Iraqis are doing; resisting an army. I count 14 comments of yours on this page; who's got a POV here?— Davenbelle 15:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Early on, the press started calling them "insurgents," but there was little to no established government or control at the time, so it would go against the definition. Resistance against an invading force is more logical terminology.    —User:Mulad (talk) 05:14, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * When do they become "insurgents" then? After a government is elected?  Or...? Also, how are attacks on Shia mosques part of "resistance against an invading force"?   ObsidianOrder 05:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * After a government is elected? Sure.  I'd be open to the point when a constitution was created as well, but would prefer a greater level of self-destiny.  Before then, no (not in this case at least, as the U.S. has maintained that they are not there to rule the country—other conditions would/could be relevant for a definite empire-building endeavor).  I suppose you could use some government-neutral measure, like the point in time when electricity was restored to the amount of the country it was in prior to the war.  As for other attacks, perhaps attacks on civilians in Iraq?    —User:Mulad (talk) 02:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, insurgency is NPOV. Grue 12:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I prefer the more NPOV "insurgency". Carrp | Talk 21:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Resistance is more accurate. - XED . talk  11:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Both are value-neutral terms, both NPOV. However, there is no reason to move a long-established featured article because some new user comes along with a POV crusade. 172 12:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 172, are you saying that you do not have an objection to the proposed new name, simply to the move itself? What is the downside?  If you think both are value-neutral, then why not go with the more common one?  Okay, I am a new user (more accurately "newly involved in Wikipedia politics" - I've done low-key contributions for a while).  It's not just me though, so far around 2/3 of everybody who voted prefers the new name.  Also this is not a new topic, and it was far from settled.  In fact I believe the objections to the title predate the featured article status.
 * I do not object to the usage of either term in specific contexts, but Iraqi resistance and Iraqi insurgency ought to be separate articles dealing with separate topics. On one hand, "Iraqi resistance," labelled as such in order to comply with the rule on self-identification, should deal with the specific resistance groups, their compositions, their interests, their goals, their strategies, and their tactics. In other words, the resistance groups themselves should be the subject of the article. Iraqi resistance accomplishes this task relatively well, hence the featured article status. On the other hand, Iraqi insurgency should deal with the conflict(s) over time as the center of analysis, be organized chronologically, and act as the sequel to the article on the 2003 Iraq War. In other words, the war/guerrilla conflict/whatever you want to call it should be the subject of the insurgency article. Unfortuantley, the article on the insurgency fails to accomplish this at the moment (perhaps I will nominate it for Collaboration of the Week); and it will never develop if you crudely move the resistance in its place simply because you and some other users think that "resistance" sounds better than "insurgency" because of your POV. 172 13:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you're getting at. How about "Iraqi insurgency" and  "Iraqi insurgency timeline"?  The second of those can be a section under Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005 or a separate article.  I am unpersuaded by the self-identification argument, you can as well call them by any of the florid terms used by Zarqawi   or maybe "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (sign at the HQ in Fallujah).  I am not even sure "resistance" is the self-identification they use - it has certainly appeared often in sympathetic sources aimed at a western audience, but I think much more common terms for one insurgent talking to another are "the nation" [of Islam] or "brothers".  Can you give some quotes to support self-identification?  Also: self-identification is not used when it is misleading or plain wrong.  Even people opposed to the move agree that some groups (such as Zarqawi's) cannot be reasonably described as "resistance". ObsidianOrder 23:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Insurgency seems more widely used, and marginally more NPOV. Jayjg (talk)  14:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Insurgency" is clearly POV (mainly because of the way its used in media and its connotations). Resistance is POV also, but not as bad to use. zoney ♣ talk 14:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, primarily because insurgency is far more commonly used.-- Etaonish 17:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, insurgency seems somewhat more NPOV. - SimonP 18:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Insurgency is the most commonly used term, and more in line with NPOV than resistance. Redxiv 04:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Personally I would call them "gangs of Islamo-fascist murderers," but I will settle for "insurgents." To call them a "resistance" implies a comparison with such heroic figures as the French Resistance, which is a gross insult. Adam 12:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with Adam - to call them a resistance is a gross insult - i really wish more Wikipedians would be less tolerant of such POV. PMA 12:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Insurgency is the most commonly used term.  Especially after the election turnout, it is hard to call the continuing violence a "resistance", which implies a level of national support.  The attacks are sectarian and shared by a minority of the population.  Thus insurgency is much closer to the situation as it stands. —thames 15:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. At this time, Insurgency is far more commonly used, and slightly less POV. It should also be noted that the Iraqi Resistance article also covers non violent groups; such groups do not qualify as insurgents and IMHO should be in a separate article. --Bletch 18:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, those should probably be in a separate article. Suggestions for name? ObsidianOrder 05:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The section on non violent groups seems to be almost an afterthought. I'm not sure that the info in question belongs in a single article.  The tidbit on the 'National Foundation Congress' seems more appropriate under a 'Political Parties in Iraq' article, or even its own stub article.  Not sure about the following tidbit on Trade Unions though.  The third paragraph with Wamidh Nadhmi says so little that it could still be under an article on the insurgency, or occupation or pretty much everything else.  That might change if someone were to clarify it further. --Bletch 12:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support obviously, since I suggested the move ObsidianOrder 07:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Insurgency is NPOV. - --Noung 16:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Friedrich Simon Archenhold

Is there anyone who knows more about the time F. S. Archenhold spent in Bansin?

title: Talk:Friedrich Simon Archenhold


text:
Alfredo Bryce

Alfredo Bryce Echenique (born February 19, 1939) is a Peruvian writer born in Lima. He has written numerous books and short stories.

Early days
Bryce was born to a Peruvian family of upper class, related to the Scottish-Peruvian businessman John Weddle Bryce (1817 in Edinburgh – 9 March 1888), ancestor of the Marquesses of Milford-Haven and of the Duchesses of Abercon and Westminster. He was the third son and the fourth of the five children of the banker Francisco Bryce Arróspide and his wife, Elena Echenique Basombrío, granddaughter of the former President José Rufino Echenique.

Bryce studied elementary education at Inmaculado Corazón school, and high school at Santa María school and Saint Paul's College, a British boarding school for boys in Lima. Upon the wish of his family, Bryce Echenique studied law at the National University of San Marcos, where he obtained his degree in 1964. His literary interest nevertheless prevailed and so, shortly afterwards, he completed a parallel Bachelor of Arts in literature with a thesis on Ernest Hemingway in 1963. In 1988 he adopted Spanish nationality without losing his Peruvian one.

Literary career
He received a grant from the French government which, like many other Latin American authors of the boom period, led him to Paris in 1964. At the Sorbonne he studied classic and contemporary French literature for one academic year. Between 1965 and 1966 he subsequently lived in Peruggia, Mykonos and Germany, where he moved to study German thanks to a grant from the Goethe-Institut.

Bryce returned to France and taught Spanish in a school at Le Maurais from 1967 to 1968. This year, he published his first book Huerto Cerrado and the next year became a lecturer of Latin American literature at Paris Nanterre University and since 1971 at the Sorbonne. In 1970 he had been published A World for Julius.

In 1972 he was awarded the Peruvian National Prize for Literature and in 1973 he entered as an assistant lecturer to the University of Vincennes (Paris VIII). A few years later in 1975, Bryce received a Guggenheim grant and obtained a master's degree in comparative literature from Vincennes. In 1977, he returned to Peru and received his doctoral degree from San Marcos University with a thesis on Henri de Montherlant.

In 1980 he moved to Montpellier, where he entered the Paul Valéry University as a professor. In 1984, Bryce settled down in Spain living first in Barcelona and since 1989 in Madrid. In 1997, he returned to Peru, where he currently lives.

His first book Huerto Cerrado published in 1968, was a finalist for the Casa de las Américas literary prize awarded in Cuba and is a collection of short stories written in different styles and points of view about a young protagonist, Manolo, a member of Lima's upper class, as he comes of age in 1950s Lima. This was followed by his first novel, Un Mundo para Julius, published in 1970 that became a big success and counts today as one of the classics of Latin American literature. The novel, which has since been translated into ten languages, tells the story of a young boy who grows up as the youngest of four children of a rich, Peruvian upper-class family. Although Julius actually belongs to the ruling classes he feels a stronger bond with the servants which surround him and this brings him into conflict with his family. With biting irony the author exposes, through the eyes of a child, the great social differences in Peruvian society.

Recent successes
Un mundo para Julius marks for Bryce Echenique the start of an extremely productive literary career, in which he has until today written nearly twenty novels and story volumes.

"I am an author of the second half of the 20th century." Despite this declaration and his spatial and temporal closeness to other Latin American authors of the boom generation, Bryce Echenique keeps a conscious distance from his colleagues who he sometimes refers to as "nouveau riche". That his style, as one critic once said, corresponds more to an ironic than a magic realism, is also shown by the author in one of his latest novels: La amigdalitis de Tarzán from 1999. Largely in the form of letters, the novel relates the story of the hindered romantic relationship between a poor Peruvian troubadour and the daughter of an influential Salvadoran family.

Similar to his heroes, Alfredo Bryce Echenique also lived for decades far from his home city of Lima to which he only returned in 1999. Also that year he was granted an honorary degree by the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

Claims of plagiarism
In March, 2007, Peruvian Diplomat Oswaldo de Rivero wrote an article for the newspaper El Comercio of Lima, Peru accusing Bryce of writing an article "Potencias sin poder" that was an almost exact copy of one written by de Rivero in the magazine "Quehacer" in March, 2005. Bryce responded saying the article had been submitted in error by his secretary.

Juan Carlos Bondy subsequently found evidence that Bryce had earlier plagiarized the article "Amistad, bendito tesoro" by Ángel Esteban that had appeared in La Nación of Argentina in December, 1996. Bryce has also been accused of plagiarizing articles by Graham E. Fuller and Herbert Morote.

Journalism professor María Soledad de la Cerda found sixteen other instances of plagiarism which were found as a result of research for her course in investigative journalism.

Novels

 * Un mundo para Julius (English version: A world for Julius), 1970
 * Tantas veces Pedro, 1977
 * La vida exagerada de Martín Romaña, 1981
 * El hombre que hablaba de Octavia Cádiz, 1985 (Along with the last forms a diptych called: Cuaderno de navegación en un sillón voltaire)
 * La última mudanza de Felipe Carrillo, 1988
 * Dos señoras conversan (thee novelettes), 1990
 * No me esperen en Abril, 1995
 * Reo de Nocturnidad, 1997
 * La Amigdalitis de Tarzán (English version: Tarzan's Tonsillitis, an epistolary novel), 1998
 * El huerto de mi amada, 2002 (Winner in 2002 of the Planet Award)

Story books

 * Huerto Cerrado, 1968
 * La felicidad, ja ja, 1974
 * Magdalena peruana y otros cuentos, 1988
 * Guía triste de París (English version: A sad tour of Paris), 1999

Chronicles

 * A vuelo de buen cubero, 1977
 * Crónicas personales, 1998
 * A trancas y barrancas, 1996
 * Crónicas perdidas, 2001
 * Doce cartas a dos amigos, 2003

Memoirs

 * Permiso para vivir - Antimemorias I, 1993
 * Permiso para Sentir - Antimemorias II, 2005

Essays

 * Entre la soledad y el amor, 2005

Awards

 * Casa de las Américas Prize for Huerto cerrado (accessit), 1968
 * Peruvian National Prize for Literature for A World for Julius, 1972
 * Prix du Meilleur Livre Étranger (finalist), 1974
 * Prix Passion, 1984
 * Chevalier and later ascended to Official of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, 1984 and 1995
 * Commander of the Order of Isabella the Catholic, 1993
 * Order of the Sun (rejected)
 * Dag Hammarskjöld Peace Prize, 1997
 * National Literature Prize for Narrative of Spain for Reo de Nocturnidad, 1998
 * Doctor Honoris Causa from San Marcos University, 1999
 * Commander of the Order of Alfonso XII of Spain, 2000
 * Grinzane Cavour Prize for Tarzan's Tonsillitis, 2002
 * Premio Planeta de Novela for El huerto de mi amada, 2002
 * FIL Literary Award in Romance Languages, 2012

title: Alfredo Bryce


text:
Duvalier

Duvalier is a French and Haitian surname, and may refer to:
 * François Duvalier (1907–1971), nicknamed "Papa Doc", President of Haiti 1957–71
 * Jean-Claude Duvalier (1951–2014), nicknamed "Baby Doc", son of François Duvalier and President of Haiti 1971–86
 * Simone Ovid Duvalier (1913–1997), nicknamed "Mama Doc", widow of François Duvalier and mother of Jean-Claude Duvalier
 * Michèle Bennett Duvalier (b. 1950), former wife of Jean-Claude Duvalier 1980–90

title: Duvalier