text:
Jotun Hein

Jotun John Piet Hein (born 19 July 1956) is Professor of Bioinformatics at the Department of Statistics of the University of Oxford and a professorial fellow of University College, Oxford. Hein was previously Director of the Bioinformatics Research Centre at Aarhus University, Denmark.

Hein is the fourth son of Piet Hein, the Danish scientist, mathematician, inventor, designer, author, and poet who wrote the famed Grooks poetry collections and invented the Superegg and the Soma cube. When he was 12 years old, Jotun proved the Soma cube's "Basalt Rock" construction impossible, which was published in the puzzle's instruction manual as "Jotun's Proof."

Hein's research interests are in molecular evolution, molecular population genetics and bioinformatics.

Selected books

 * Hein, J; Schierup, M. H., and Wiuf, C. Gene Genealogies, Variation and Evolution – A Primer in Coalescent Theory. Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-19-852996-1.

title: Jotun Hein


text:
Frank Meyer (political philosopher)

Frank Straus Meyer (May 9, 1909 – April 1, 1972 ) was an American philosopher and political activist best known for his theory of "fusionism" – a political philosophy that unites elements of libertarianism and traditionalism into a philosophical synthesis which is posited as the definition of modern American conservatism. Meyer's philosophy was presented in two books, primarily In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo (1962) and also in a collection of his essays, The Conservative Mainstream (1969). Fusionism has been summed up by E. J. Dionne, Jr. as "utilizing libertarian means in a conservative society for traditionalist ends."

Personal life
Meyer was born to a prominent business family of German Jewish descent in Newark, New Jersey, the son of Helene (Straus) and Jack F. Meyer. He attended Princeton University for one year and then transferred to Balliol College at Oxford University, where he earned his B.A. in 1932 and his M.A. in 1934. He later studied at the London School of Economics and became the student union's president before he was expelled and deported in 1933 for his communist activism.

Like a number of the founding senior editors of National Review magazine, Meyer was first a Communist Party USA apparatchik before he converted to political conservatism. His experiences as a communist are reported in his book The Moulding of Communists: The Training of the Communist Cadre in 1961. He began an "agonizing reappraisal of his communist beliefs" after he had read F. A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom while he served in the US Army during World War II, and he made a complete break in 1945, after 14 years in active leadership service to the Communist Party and its cause. Following the war, he contributed articles to the early free market periodical The Freeman, and he later joined the original staff of National Review in 1955.

After completing his turn to the right, Meyer became a close adviser to and confidant of William F. Buckley, Jr., the founder and editor of National Review, who, in the introduction to Buckley's book Did You Ever See a Dream Walking: American Conservative Thought in the 20th Century (1970), gave Meyer the credit for properly synthesizing the traditionalist and libertarian strains in conservatism, starting at the magazine itself. Meyer wrote a column "Principles and Heresies," which appeared in each issue of the magazine; was its book review editor; and acted as a major spokesman for its principles.

Meyer married the former Elsie Bown. They had two sons, John Cornford Meyer, a lawyer, and then Eugene Bown Meyer, who became a president of the Federalist Society. Both sons hold international titles in chess. John is a FIDE Master, and Eugene holds the rank of International Master, just below Grandmaster.

Meyer converted to Catholicism just before he died of lung cancer in 1972.

Meyer was known in conservative and libertarian circles for his nocturnal lifestyle. Buckley and others has recalled in Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography that Meyer would sleep the day and be on the phone at night on behalf of his journalism and activism. His bright intellect and passionate presentation won him a broad following among conservative intellectuals in the 1960s and 1970s, who promoted it individually and through the organization he cofounded, the American Conservative Union, and through other modern conservative institutions and think tanks influenced by him, including The Heritage Foundation, The Fund for American Studies, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and Young America's Foundation.

Philosophy of history
The most important place to begin placing Meyer in context is his article "Western Civilization: The Problem of Political Freedom," which closed the 1996 edition of In Defense of Freedom and Related Essays. As a thinker in what F. A. Hayek called the "critical rationalist" philosophical school, which is more empirical than the "constructivist rationalism" of a priori deductivism, Meyer's understanding of world history is central to his philosophy. Meyer's essential argument is explicitly based upon the philosopher Eric Voegelin's multivolume Order and History that all world history until more modern times was composed of "cosmological" societies that unified all social activity under one controlling myth subsuming society and the state into one common understanding and power monism. Meyer labeled the societies "tightly unified" in their mores, culture, economies, religion, and government by suppressing all contradictory understandings.

Following Lord Acton's "Liberty in Ancient Times," Meyer found only two historical "stirrings" in which that cosmological unity was even temporarily breached. In Athens, Socrates used his vision of the cave to discover a reality behind its cosmological reality as interpreted by its democratic authorities, which challenged them by viewing ideal forms as the real repository of truth beyond the myths of its culture. The unity was challenged so fundamentally that society turned upon the prophet, killed him, and returned to its previous unity. Abraham likewise rejected the cosmological unity of Ur and claimed a God that was independent of and more powerful than its myth, which Moses reinforced years later by rejecting Egyptian cosmological society to establish a Jerusalem whose prophets would likewise challenge state and society, with Nathan even forcing the monarch to admit evil and to repent. Still, the representatives of state power generally ignored or restricted the challengers, and in any event, a new cosmological state, Rome, ended both stirrings and established an even stronger cosmological unity.

Caesar became the "sanctified symbol of the cosmos," in Meyer's terms, and came to dominate the known world. About the same happened in China, India, Persia, the Americas, and the rest. Modern times did not break the unity until a small voice in Rome's hinterlands cried out, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." The Incarnation, the "flash of eternity into time" as Meyer labeled it, effectively severed the unity by its concrete effects and proved even more empirically enduring in Europe than Caesar. However, it created not a new unity but a "tension" between empirical power and a mystical power sourced from another world but energizing this world. In Europe are "two sets of tensions" of church and state contested and later added other tensions from cities, towns and estates that culminated in a Magna Carta that demanded for no single force to unify the rest, which created the conditions for freedom under agreed upon law, rather than a single state-enforced cosmological way.

The idea of dividing power to allow freedom within its tradition was only partially realized in medieval Europe and was later challenged fundamentally by the rise of national monarchies and parliaments, which claimed a divine or popular right and power to reconstitute itself in new cosmological or utopian forms to retrieve the sense of order and unity promised by monism. Before the tension was tamed in England, it was transferred to America, where it was protected by its colonial isolation, allowing the tension and balance of power between freedom and tradition to reach its zenith in the US Constitution. The utopian temptation to return to the cocoon of cosmological or radical unity, however, survived even in America.

Whether reform was domestic, as from Woodrow Wilson, or more foreign influences, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hobbes, and Niccolò Machiavelli, they saw division of power and the tradition that sustained its tension as the central societal problems of modern times, with the task of reform to remove the impediments to a restored unity. To Meyer, the task of conservatism was to preserve the tension of the Western tradition to protect human freedom, which was inherently pluralist.

Freedom and tradition
In his most influential book, In Defense of Freedom, freedom was defined in what Isaiah Berlin would label "negative" terms as the minimization of the use of coercion by the state in its essential role of preventing one person's freedom from intruding upon another's. While left-utopianism was considered the immediate threat to the survival of this freedom, Meyer aimed at a "New Conservatism" as the principle antagonist against liberty from the right in his day. This new conservatism viewed society as an organism whose agent was the national government rather than the states or private entities. The new conservatives were less statist than the left and even rhetorically supported freedom, but it was a freedom defined as an end rather than a means, with Meyer using Clinton Rossiter's 1955 definition of positive freedom in his Conservatism in America as his major foil.

Meyer argued that virtue could reside only in the individual. The state should protect freedom but otherwise leave virtue to individuals. The right of others to freedom must be respected by the individual even if the state does not respect it. The state has only three legitimate functions: police, military, and legal system, all necessary to control coercion, which is immoral if not restricted. There is an obligation to others but it is individual, for even the "Great Commandment" is expressed in individual form: God, neighbor and oneself are each individual. Virtue is critical for society and freedom must be balanced by responsibility but both are inherently individual in form. Forced values cannot be virtuous. The question of how to preserve moral order is important but would take "another book," which he never wrote. Yet even when the state takes properly limited acts to protect freedom, tradition will necessarily shape every such decision.

Freedom by itself has no goal, no intrinsic end. Freedom is not abstract or utopian as with the utilitarians, who also make freedom an end rather than a means. A utopia of freedom is a contradiction in terms. In a real society, traditional order and freedom can exist together only in tension. To retain the essentiality of both freedom and tradition, the solution to the dilemma is "grasping it by both horns." The solution is a synthesis of both, even in the face of those such as Leo Strauss who argue that no such synthesis is possible or even logical. Donald Devine has argued Meyer's synthesis is a first principle or axiom that is as valid as Strauss's monist first principle and relates this to Hayek's critical rationalism philosophical tradition and those he identifies with it such as Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Montesquieu, John Locke, Adam Smith and Lord Acton.

Traditionalist critics
Meyer's attempt at synthesis was questioned by those representing both constituent parts. Traditionalists were provoked by Meyer's negative statements about two of their favorites, Robert Nisbet and Russell Kirk, which Kirk reciprocated by calling him "an ideologue for liberty". Meyer, however, did refer to both as "serious" thinkers, a Meyer footnote even conceded Kirk "in recent years" had been more supportive of freedom, and he called Kirk's views on freedom itself "excellent". Meyer also conceded that both Nisbet and Kirk primarily desired only local as opposed to national or even state community power "to their credit" but they could be chided even then for not understanding that the rationale for local community is that local government is more based upon freedom.

The traditionalist Rossiter rather than Kirk or Nisbet was Meyer's target. Meyer even granted the New Conservatives were correct that virtue is "the most important of problems". The fundamental problem was that Rossiter insisted upon a "positive freedom" that changed freedom from a means to an end, just as did the utilitarian libertarians. Contrary to the Catholic philosopher Stanley Parry's claim that Meyer did not even recognize the family as a natural community, Meyer called the family and state "necessary associations". The family was different from all other institutions since children were not full individuals and thus required protection and limited rights. He argued that the state actually had been a hindrance to both virtue and the family rather than their champion. As far as educating children, prior to state control schools taught virtue and the truths of Western civilization and now do not.

Fellow National Review editor Brent Bozell criticized Meyer for demanding a "maximum freedom" and for arguing that freedom is necessary in order to act virtuously. Meyer did not make either claim. He actually wrote that total freedom was impossible. He did not say that freedom was necessary for virtue but only that forced virtue is not virtuous. A forced act may be objectively virtuous in some sense but not for the individual who is forced to act. Meyer's concern was that to give the state the power to define virtue is to have no standard for virtue at all. Its definition would change with every change in power distribution. One cannot give the state the definition of virtue or there is no virtue – there is only power. Actually, Bozell at the end recommended a social policy based upon the moral principle of subsidiarity, which is not all that different from Meyer's position.

A Parry article argued that the Meyer libertarian critique was correct about the state and reform did necessitate a revision of tradition once the previous vision had lost its energy. Pure restoration would be reactionary and impossible once broken. Restoration required a new "prophet" who would have to convince people freely to adopt the revision, not to rely upon force, which simply cannot be inspiring enough for substantial change. It is necessary to take what is good from the present tradition, remove what has been abused and proclaim the revision as a renewed tradition, which must specifically convince the "individual members of a multitude" in order for a true synthesis to revitalize society.

In the late 1960s, Meyer engaged in a continuing debate over the status of Abraham Lincoln with Harry V. Jaffa. Jaffa faulted Meyer for blaming Lincoln for the "destruction of the autonomy of the states". Meyer argued that Lincoln's abuses of civil liberties and expansion of government power should make him anathema to conservatives, while Jaffa defended Lincoln as in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. Slavery, segregation and African American civil rights were seen as the defining case against fusionism's relevance to modern times because of the insistence by Meyer and others at the time that states rights be preserved even in the face of these demands.

Harry V. Jaffa argued that neither state nor national sovereignty was clearly established in the Constitution but no American president has in fact operated on the assumption that state power was preeminent, giving the Constitution a nationalist orientation. Once in position to act nationally, all presidents have exercised national power. Some of the cited presidents did act in favor of states rights but mostly as state officials or former presidents than when in power, such as Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Meyer replied that in fact the states had power and even caused a Civil War, which was more accurately labeled as a war between the states.

Meyer argued that limited national power, state autonomy, and decentralism were the essence of the Constitution as far as government was concerned. Lord Acton considered federalism the unique contribution of America to the historical understanding of freedom. Certainly that force has atrophied over time and even Meyer conceded some 14th Amendment limits to state actions. But he maintained with National Review editor James Burnham that the Federal Courts were not supreme. Separation of powers was the essence of the Constitution, very much including the states whose checks and balances were still alive in his day in the effective if partial state nullification of national court cases and laws.

Libertarian critics
Some libertarians vigorously joined in criticizing Meyer's conclusion that both ideological libertarianism and traditionalism were distortions of same Western tradition and that both undermined freedom. Meyer specifically censured libertarian favorites Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill for setting freedom as an end, not unlike the New Conservatives, only the ends were different. Meyer argued that utilitarian libertarians today use court power to force "freedom" ends with such vague phrases as due process and equal protection and manipulating utopian versions of freedom of the press, religion and speech. Pure libertarians assume they know what "freedom" is and that the state should enforce their vision through the courts. Meyer argued that freedom by itself had no end, no purpose other than as a means for people to freely choose their own ends.

Ronald Hamowy argued Meyer's synthesis cannot hold because there was a fundamental difference between a classical liberalism that promoted markets and freedom and a traditionalist conservatism that resisted it. Murray Rothbard was viewed favorably by Meyer for his recognition of the importance of tradition in reasoning, especially his support for St. Thomas Aquinas and his view that Enlightenment "hatred" for the medieval Catholic Church weakened freedom. Rothbard was only criticized as too pessimistic in his view of the courts as the "final power" compared to Meyer's view that separation of powers left no one branch in charge and that each has power against the others, including the Congress and the states against the national courts.

Rothbard, in fact, argued that Meyer's fusionism was actually the natural law-natural rights branch of libertarian thought which Rothbard himself and other true libertarians followed. Libertarian journalist Ryan Sager in 2007's The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party reviewed Meyer's work favorably and called for a principled revival of Meyer's fusionism to save the embattled party following its 2006 electoral defeats.

Meyer's philosophical synthesis
Rothbard's argument that Meyer was simply a libertarian and not a synthesizer, someone who was somewhat confused about the nature of tradition, can be criticized in return for forcing tradition into his philosophy through the back door by calling it "common sense." Rothbard insisted morality was already part of libertarianism as he understood it – the "Aristotelian-Lockean natural rights wing," as he labeled it, as opposed to the "utilitarian-emotivist-hedonistic wing." Yet, is not the proper response to this: who is the manqué? Is not the popular understanding of libertarianism (the Libertarian Party, for example) precisely the precepts of the "hedonistic wing?" With common sense and natural rights (and even St. Thomas Aquinas) as part of his libertarianism, could not Rothbard just as well be labeled as a fusionist manqué, or simply as a fusionist, since his synthesis did not follow the predominant utilitarian/emotivist wing of libertarianism?

Paul Gottfried criticized Meyer's fusionist synthesis from the traditionalist, realist right by charging that it is impossible to say that Meyer's fusionism had worked. It rejected many elements of a comprehensive fusionism that could have created a movement that achieved great things but failed in this by purging powerful voices on the right who did not follow its party line. Meyer rested his view of freedom upon "Christian metaphysics" as did Rothbard, Gottfried argued, making Meyer's philosophy of history too "rough" to attract many of the Old Right who were more realist, secular and pragmatic. Rejected by the fusionist right these tended to see themselves as martyrs to their principles, especially excluded by the neoconservatives who controlled access to intellectual funding and prestige. Gottfried called for a new more comprehensive fusionist alliance based upon "similar" Meyer-like principles that could now include a second generation Old Right that "no longer extols an active government even in principle," a coalition that would only exclude the nationalist, pro big government neoconservatives.

Joseph Bottum "cannot see how to put the cracked egg of conservatism back together. There seems no place in America these days for Frank Meyer fusionism, or even Ronald Reagan's big-tent Republicanism." Gottfried's paleocons reject "True Man" as understood by St. Augustine and most libertarians reject religion, which is the life of the Western state, Bottum argued, and both libertarians and traditionalists elements of the Meyer fusion today tend to dismiss the need for an aggressive foreign policy. Bottum instead offered a new "tension" between religion and the Enlightenment, a new fusionism of religious traditionalists and secular "foreign policy neoconservatives" as they have been gathered at The Weekly Standard magazine, where he was an editor. He was sensitive that this might be viewed as a "fairly cynical bargain" manipulated by the neoconservatives but insisted it resulted from "mutual persuasion" in debate with the social conservatives. The nature of the agreement is unclear except in a presumed joint opposition to abortion. Yet, even Bottom conceded that when the religious faction questioned the legitimacy of the Court in its failure to end abortion, the neoconservatives attacked it ruthlessly for questioning the government's legitimacy. While Bottum argued the coalition survived the controversy, it is unclear whether the two can manage the legitimacy question since it is primary for the neoconservatives and only at best secondary for the religious traditionalists.

It was the classical liberal F. A. Hayek in "Freedom, Reason and Tradition" who most systematically and relentlessly pursued the nature of a libertarian/traditionalist synthesis but was loath to give it a label. He began by distinguishing between two views of human reason, a speculative/rationalistic/utopian and an empirical/evolutionary/institutional one, which was "particularly conspicuous" in their different assumptions about human nature. The former viewed intelligence and goodness as natural to individual man while the latter argued that institutions must be created so that "bad people could do least harm." While not arguing for this on religious grounds, he acknowledged his empirical position was "closer to the Christian tradition of the fallibility and sinfulness of man, while the perfectionism of the rationalist is in irreconcilable conflict with it".

To Hayek, like Meyer, freedom and tradition were fused. "Paradoxical as it may appear, it is probably true that a successful free society will always in large measure be a tradition-bound society," for a free society needs customs, laws and institutions whose observance is a "necessary condition" for freedom. Freedom is the means but the "values into which we are born supplies the ends which our reason must serve". This fusion was believed essential not only to social life but to thought, science and to reason itself. Without that dualism, there would have been no historical freedom. It was not a coincidence that Hayek was the one who first led Meyer to arrive at his mature philosophy.

Influence on Ronald Reagan
As Ronald Reagan assumed the pinnacle of power of the presidency in 1981, in his first speech to an audience of his conservative allies in Washington, he reminded them of their roots. After listing "intellectual leaders like Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, [and] Ludwig von Mises" as the ones who "shaped so much of our thoughts," he discussed only one of these influences at length.

"It's especially hard to believe that it was only a decade ago, on a cold April day on a small hill in upstate New York, that another of these great thinkers, Frank Meyer, was buried. He'd made the awful journey that so many others had: He pulled himself from the clutches of The [communist] God That Failed, and then in his writing fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought – a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism."

As he recalled him, the new president outlined the ideas Meyer synthesized as the principles motivating this new conservative movement.

"It was Frank Meyer who reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture. He pointed out that a respect for law, an appreciation for tradition, and regard for the social consensus that gives stability to our public and private institutions, these civilized ideas must still motivate us even as we seek a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace. Our goals complement each other. We're not cutting the budget simply for the sake of sounder financial management. This is only a first step toward returning power to the states and communities, only a first step toward reordering the relationship between citizen and government."

"We can make government again responsive to the people by cutting its size and scope and thereby ensuring that its legitimate functions are performed efficiently and justly. Because ours is a consistent philosophy of government, we can be very clear: We do not have a separate social agenda, separate economic agenda, and a separate foreign agenda. We have one agenda. Just as surely as we seek to put our financial house in order and rebuild our nation's defenses, so too we seek to protect the unborn, to end the manipulation of schoolchildren by utopian planners, and permit the acknowledgement of a Supreme Being in our classrooms just as we allow such acknowledgements in other public institutions."

The essence of this fusionist synthesis was "cutting the size and scope" of the national government and "returning power to the states and communities" to allow the traditional "social consensus," its "robust individualism," and the free market to restore prosperity and civic vitality. Ronald Reagan took Meyer's idea of this Western synthesis into government and could claim some success in translating it into power, at least for a while. Its future, however, must be viewed as more problematical.

Works

 * The Moulding of Communists: the training of the Communist cadre, New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1961.
 * In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo, Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1962
 * Left, Right and Center: Essays on Liberalism and Conservatism in the United States, ed. by Robert Goldwin, Frank Meyer, et al., Chicago: Rand, McNally, 1965
 * The Conservative Mainstream, New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1969.

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

title: Frank Meyer (political philosopher)


text:
Portal talk:Mathematics

Remove anonymous authority
"Used for calculation, it is considered the most important subject."

Remove "Used for calculation, it is considered the most important subject". This sentence is a subtle attempt to inject subjectivity and goes against Wikipedia's policies against anonymous authority or weasel words.

Rocky-the-revolutionary (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about sources for math proofs
There is a page (here) that contains several statements without a source, I believe the reason is because the supposed proof is found in a dedicated fandom (formerly wikia). Even though it is not a good source, I think it is necessary to add this item as a reference, because as it stands now, it is just a statement without any source, it would not make more sense to add the reference so, in case someone wants to check and point out errors/corrections, than just leaving it there as a statement? JosterFen (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Portal talk:Mathematics


text:
He Has Left Us Alone but Shafts of Light Sometimes Grace the Corner of Our Rooms...

He Has Left Us Alone but Shafts of Light Sometimes Grace the Corner of Our Rooms... is the debut album of Canadian post-rock group A Silver Mt. Zion, who now record under the name Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra. The album was recorded by guitarist Efrim Menuck and bassist Thierry Amar at the Hotel2Tango in 1999, mostly during breaks while touring with Godspeed You! Black Emperor. It was published by the Montreal-based record label Constellation on March 27, 2000.

The album was born out of a desire by Efrim Menuck to record something for his dog Wanda, who died of cancer while Godspeed You! Black Emperor were on tour. Menuck described the recording of the album as a "Jewish experience", due to his immersion within a small, friend-based Jewish community in Montreal. Indeed, Menuck also stated that, as a result of the community, the album title and songs have a sense of Judaism, although the band tried to not make it conspicuous. There is some Jewish imagery in the lyrics to the track "Movie (Never Made)", but their exact meaning remains cryptic.

The album was initially to be named He Has Left Us Alone, but it was decided that this was too weak, and didn't convey the proper mood. Menuck professed that he was confused with the idea that songs or album titles should only be a few words in length and be perfectly clear. Instead, Menuck believes that things of that nature can be described with many words, giving sensibility and a "frame" to the work.

On the original vinyl release, the songs were arranged into two tracks; on CD releases, the songs were indexed into four parts each, resulting in eight tracks. The sleeve artwork lists inaccurate track times, all rounded to even minutes.

The 5th track "13 Angels Standing Guard 'round the Side of Your Bed" was featured in Harmony Korine's movie Mister Lonely. It also features in Series 3 episode 10 of Top Boy. It was also sampled on the Injury Reserve track “What a Year It's Been” from their 2019 self-titled album.

Reception
Reviewing the album for Pitchfork, Matt LeMay called the album "an accomplishment of passion, skill, and above all, an almost supernatural talent".

Personnel

 * A Silver Mt. Zion
 * Thierry Amar – double bass, bass guitar, production
 * Efrim Menuck – piano, guitar, organ, vocals, radio, production
 * Sophie Trudeau – violin, vocals

 * Other musicians
 * Aidan Girt – drums on "Sit in the Middle of Three Galloping Dogs", tapes on "For Wanda"
 * Gordon Krieger – bass clarinet on "Blown-out Joy from Heaven's Mercied Hole"
 * Sam Shalabi – guitar on "Blown-out Joy from Heaven's Mercied Hole"


text:
Bert Parks

Bert Parks (born Bertram Jacobson; December 30, 1914 – February 2, 1992) was an American actor, singer, and radio and television announcer, best known for hosting the annual Miss America telecast from 1955 to 1979.

Early life
Parks was born in Atlanta, Georgia, to Aaron Jacobson, a Jewish merchant who had immigrated to the United States in 1900 from Latvia (then part of the Russian Empire), and his wife Hattie (Spiegel) Jacobson, the daughter of immigrants from Austria-Hungary. He had one older brother, Allen Jacobson.

Parks had his first experience in amateur theatre when he was four years old. He graduated from Marist School, a Catholic preparatory school in Atlanta.

Radio
Parks entered radio broadcasting at age 16, for Atlanta's WGST. Three years later, in 1933, he moved to New York City and was hired as a singer and straight man on The Eddie Cantor Show, then becoming a CBS Radio staff announcer.

Parks was the host of Break the Bank, which premiered on radio in 1945 and was telecast from 1948 to 1957, as well as Stop the Music on radio in 1948 and television from 1949 to 1952. The success of Stop the Music took a toll on the ratings of the popular radio show hosted by satirist Fred Allen, who began spoofing Parks's program with skits mocking the premise of the show, one called Cease The Melody.

With other celebrities, he hosted NBC radio's Monitor during the 1960s.

Television
Parks's first game show was Party Line on NBC (broadcast from New York City NBC flagship station WNBT), which involved viewers calling in to answer questions and win $5 prizes; Party Line ran from June 8 to August 31, 1947, making its one surviving episode the oldest known game show and one of the oldest surviving television shows to have been recorded. Commercial kinescopes did not come out until fall 1947 (co-sponsored by NBC, DuMont, and Kodak), and the only kinescopes known to predate Party Line are a few episodes of Kraft Television Theater from February and June 1947.

Other games that Parks hosted in early television include Stop the Music (1949-52/1954-56), Double or Nothing (1952–54), Balance Your Budget (1952–53), Two in Love (1954), Giant Step (1956–57), Hold That Note (1957), Bid 'n' Buy (1958), County Fair (1958–59), Masquerade Party (1958–60), The Big Payoff (1959), Yours for a Song (1961–63), and the pilot for Hollywood Squares (April 21, 1965). His last game show hosting job was in 1968, on the pilot for a revival of Heatter-Quigley's The Celebrity Game; the show did not sell.

He also helmed a daytime variety show in 1950, The Bert Parks Show. It focused on "nighttime quality" entertainment in contrast to what was usually found on daytime TV at that time.

In addition, he also starred in a syndicated series called Circus! (featuring various circus acts from around the world) in the early 1970s. He appeared in Burkes Law S02E24. Parks also appeared in a 1976 episode of The Bionic Woman as the nefarious host of the "Miss United States" beauty pageant, involved in a plot to sell national security technology.

However, Parks is most famous for hosting the Miss America telecast from 1955 to 1979; each telecast ended with Parks singing "There She Is, Miss America", as the winner was crowned (in the aforementioned Bionic Woman episode, he sings a parody of the song for the episode's fictional pageant). Following the 1979 pageant, he was unceremoniously fired by the organization (he heard a newscast while on vacation) in an attempt to attract a more youthful audience. The Tonight Show host Johnny Carson led an on-air campaign to get Parks rehired, but was unsuccessful.

In 1990, for the 70th anniversary of the Miss America pageant (during which Miss America 1991 was crowned), Parks was brought on by host Gary Collins to sing "There She Is" to the new Miss America, Marjorie Judith Vincent. It was the last time Parks performed the song live.

His last-known television appearance, a Pepsi commercial, first aired in June 1991.

Recordings
A recording of "There She Is, Miss America" as sung by Parks was used each year in the Miss America scholarship pageant until 2012 as the new reigning titleholder takes her walk down the runway in her newly earned crown. On September 13, 2015, the recording was reused for the 95th Anniversary of the Miss America pageant.

Parks did a take-off of his hosting role in The Freshman (1990), starring Marlon Brando, Matthew Broderick and Bruno Kirby. He played the emcee of a Gourmet Club dinner where guests supposedly eat a Komodo dragon, singing a spoof of "There She Is" in a salute to the soon-to-be-deceased dragon. Some of his other film appearances were in That's the Way of the World (1975) and The Great Balloon Race (1977).

Parks appeared on WKRP in Cincinnati in the 1980 episode "Herb's Dad", playing Herb Tarlek Sr. (father of series' regular Herb Tarlek Jr.). In 1988, Parks appeared on an episode of 227 as himself. He also made cameos as himself in a 1990 episode of Saturday Night Live hosted by Dennis Hopper, and a 1991 episode of Night Court.

Death
Parks died of lung cancer at La Jolla, California, on February 2, 1992, at the age of 77.

title: Bert Parks


text:
James Braid

James Braid may refer to:

 * James Braid (golfer) (1870–1950), Scottish golfer
 * James Braid (politician) (1912–1999), Scottish nationalist politician
 * James Braid (surgeon) (1795–1860), Scottish surgeon and "gentleman scientist"

title: James Braid


text:
Talk:The Virgin Suicides

NPOV
The movie section reads like a review rather than an encyclopedia article. NPOV, remember. -Branddobbe 07:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Virgicides.jpg
Image:Virgicides.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusing fictionality
My initial impression from the introduction was that the book is based on actual events, something which is reinforced by the strong in-universe writing of the plot summary. I actually needed to go through the article twice before being certain that this initial impression was faulty. 94.220.255.173 (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC) cumm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.226.2 (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Virgin Suicides


text: User talk:64.231.106.149

title: User talk:64.231.106.149


text:
Nikolai Polikarpov

Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov (Никола́й Никола́евич Полика́рпов; 9 June 1892 – 30 July 1944) was a Soviet aeronautical engineer and aircraft designer, known as the "King of Fighters". He designed the I-15 series of fighters, and the I-16 Ishak (ишак phonetically close to its И-16 or И-шестнадцать designation) "Little Donkey" fighter.

Biography
Polikarpov was born in the village of Georgievskoye near Livny in Oryol Governorate. He was the son of a village priest in the Russian Orthodox Church. He initially also trained for the priesthood and studied at the Oryol Seminary before moving to Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University in 1911, where he became fascinated with the fledgling aviation work being carried out under the shipbuilding department. Polikarpov graduated in 1916 and went to work for Igor Sikorski, the head of production at the Russian Baltic Carriage Factory. While working for Sikorski, Polikarpov helped design the massive Ilya Muromets four-engine bomber for the Imperial Russian Air Force.

Soviet career
Polikarpov stayed in Russia after the Russian Revolution and rose to become head of the technical department Dux Aircraft factory in 1923. Polikarpov was responsible for some of the first indigenous aircraft designs in the Soviet Union during the 1920s, including the I-1 fighter (1923), R-1 reconnaissance plane (1927), U-2 utility biplane (1927–1928), I-3 fighter (1928), R-5 reconnaissance bomber (1928). Notably, the U-2, Russian nickname Kukuruznik, loosely translated: crop-duster, (post 1944 designation Po-2), remained in mainstream production until 1952 and over 30,000 examples were produced.

In 1928, under provisions of the five-year plan for experimental aircraft design, Polikarpov was assigned to develop the primarily wooden I-6 fighter for delivery by mid-1930. The plan was unrealistic and failed. As such, in October 1929, Polikarpov and around other 450 aircraft designers and engineers were arrested on fabricated charges of sabotage and counter-revolutionary activities, after which he was sentenced to death. In December, after two months of waiting for execution, he was transferred to a Special Design Bureau of OGPU set at Butyrka prison and had the sentence changed to 10 years of forced labor. Polikarpov and the others were moved to Central Design Bureau 39 (TsKB-39) to complete the I-5 project. After a successful demonstration of the new design, the sentence was changed to a conditional one, and in July 1931 he was granted amnesty together with a group of other convicts. It was not until de-Stalinization in 1956 that the criminal charges were officially dropped posthumously.

After the release he initially worked with Pavel Sukhoi since 1931, developing the I-16 in 1933 and I-15 in 1934. Then he worked under Ilyushin in 1937. In 1938, he established an independent design bureau. In 1939, he completed work on the I-153. In 1939, he was ordered to make a trip to Nazi Germany. In his absence, his plant director and chief engineer, along with design engineer Mikhail Gurevich put forth a proposal for a new fighter, the I-200, and received approval to create a new Design Bureau under the leadership of Artem Mikoyan, whose brother Anastas Mikoyan was a senior politician under Joseph Stalin. On his return, Polikarpov found that his Bureau no longer existed, with his engineers at the new MiG bureau. Nine years after his death, in 1953, his plant was given over to the Sukhoi bureau.

Polikarpov was subsequently appointed professor at the Moscow Aviation Institute in 1943. He died on 30 July 1944 from stomach cancer. He is buried in Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow.

Polikarpov was a recipient of numerous awards, including the Stalin Prize (1941, 1943) and Hero of Socialist Labor (1940). Polikarpov Peak in the Pamir Mountains was named after him.

title: Nikolai Polikarpov


text:
Talk:Henry Brand, 1st Viscount Hampden

what does Second Creation mean? Kingturtle 07:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Henry was the 1st Viscount Hampden, but the title had been given once before and died out. So the title was "created" a second time for him. It's a pretty standard way of designation peerage titles unambiguously, rather than counting the absolute number of title holders since time immemorial...the numbering tends to get a bit off if you try that. Another (and yet more unambiguous) way of saying the same thing would be (in this case) "1st Viscount Hampden of the 1884 creation". Maybe the box would be better off without "Preceded by". - Nunh-huh 08:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Henry Brand, 1st Viscount Hampden


text:
Talk:British Rail Class 156

Image placement
can someone who knows how make all these images hug the right side of the page? Kingturtle 08:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Broken Link
Fixed the broken link leading to "Metro-Cammel Class 156" page.130.209.74.218 (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

changes
Changed sections to operations by regions.

Article still needs references - and still requires info on past operations - hence the various 'tags' on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Looking at the page history some 4000 bytes were removed from the article, what happened?--Commander Keane (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I did some rewriting that will have compressed it a bit - also removed stuff like " On the former First North Western units the seating is in good condition, although the carpets are in a very poor state. " because.. well.
 * Also the current operators table was removed for the reasons given in the summary - ie that it's not encyclopedic to just cover current events.
 * Don;t know how that adds up to 4000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I actually removed any real notable information - some of the previous writing may have been a bit verbose and repetive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for improving the article :-) --Commander Keane (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing Citations
I can't find any hint of a source for the Class 152, or for the 90mph speed record. If someone knows where these can be found (old issues of railway magazines perrhaps?) could they please add them soon, or the text will be deleted. The wheel lathe stuff in the Scotland section is a bit dodgy too, but should be possible to confirm, while the note on Central Trains units moving to First North Western is clearly wrong, so will be removed. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wales
I found this photo on Commons, which appears to show a 156 at Barmouth in 2001. Can anyone tell me what company ran this service, what company the train was owned by, and whether 156s often visited Wales? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is (almost) a duplicate posting of that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Per WP:MULTI, let's discuss it on one place: the discussion at WT:UKRAIL is already under way. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible change to the title of this article
This article is currently named in accordance the WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways, where your comments would be welcome.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on British Rail Class 156. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131221005408/http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.aspx to http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902104521/http://www.traintesting.com/Utrecht.htm to http://www.traintesting.com/Utrecht.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504043241/http://www.klickthis.com:80/gallery-railways-scotland-leadlocomotiveclass-110-DMU+Class+-+156.html to http://www.klickthis.com/gallery-railways-scotland-leadlocomotiveclass-110-DMU+Class+-+156.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Falls of Cruachan derailment
re your edit, the RAIB report, para 24 definitely says two units were involved, neither of which was '499. Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation Needed
A citation is needed for the statement "A total of 114 sets were built between 1987 and 1989 for British Rail by Metro-Cammell's Washwood Heath works." This fact is given without reveal of the source behind it. They obviously don't own this statistic, so its source needs to be listed. I added a "citation needed" following this, this can be seen in the edit history of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbas6059 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are sources in the Description section; sources are not needed in the lead as well. That aside, which part of the sentence are you objecting to? For instance, it is demonstrably true that a total of 114 sets were built between 1987 and 1989. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed?
Firstly, I've noticed the Twitter citation for the off lease 156s was recently removed. I'm just wondering why as Wikipedia as an exception for Twitter citations if published a "subject-matter expert", "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." As Richard Clinnick is the editor of Rail Express magazine I think he can be considered a "subject-matter expert" so the citation should be put back? The unit numbers for the "stored" section in the table are also strangely formatted and again, I'm just wondering why they aren't just written as normal text as they were previously? Pulsarnix (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Thanks for clearing up the formatting with the text as well. Pulsarnix (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not bothered about the Twitter source (IMO, there's just better sources out there, and the dispute about Clinnick being a "subject-matter expert" can continue forever!). Regarding the table, that's a template called . It basically emphasises that the grey ones only are unsourced. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdaviesfsic (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That helps a lot, thanks. I did look for a better source but haven't found one yet. I'd have thought the Twitter cite should have stayed until a better one was found and then it could be replaced? However as you say it isn't the biggest deal.
 * The general consensus, as far as I understand it, is to require that Tweets cited as reliable self-published sources be sent from verified accounts (specifically, the pre-Elon person-is-really-who-they-claim-to-be style of verification). Clinnick is ruled out by this qualification. Personally I'd be prepared to be flexible on this point for him, as he easily meets the self-published expert rule and I don't believe there's any doubt that it's actually him posting his Tweets. XAM2175  (T) 16:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:British Rail Class 156


text:
Thomas Kennedy (1776–1832)

Thomas Kennedy (1776–1832) was a member of the Maryland House of Delegates and Maryland Senate. He was the leading force behind the passage of the so-called "Jew Bill," which allowed Jews to hold public office in Maryland.

Maryland's constitution had been adopted in 1776, and it required all public officeholders to make "a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion." Kennedy led the fight to remove this discriminatory requirement. His measure was voted down several times between 1818 and 1826, by which time he himself had been elected to the Maryland legislature.

Arguing on behalf of the change, Kennedy said, "There are few Jews in the United States. In Maryland there are very few.  But if there was only one — to that one, we ought to do justice."

In 1918, the Independent Order of B'rith Sholom erected a granite obelisk for Kennedy at Rose Hill Cemetery in Hagerstown, Maryland. In 1992, a plaque was installed at the Maryland State House honoring Kennedy. In 1995, the Maryland House of Delegates created a Thomas Kennedy Award, given annually to a former member of the house for personal courage and dedication to the principles of liberty and freedom. In 2018, Hagerstown broke ground on a Thomas Kennedy Park, with plans for a statue and a permanent Thomas Kennedy Center.

title: Thomas Kennedy (1776–1832)


text:
User:SebastianFeltel~enwiki

Thats the page of Sebastian Feltel, the founder of the german speaking Debian Community Website http://www.debianforum.de

title: User:SebastianFeltel~enwiki


text:
Fabre

Fabre or Fabré is a surname of Occitan French origin, and a given name. Notable people with the name include:

 * André Fabre (born 1945), French thoroughbred horse racing trainer
 * Cándido Fabré, Cuban musician, songwriter and singer
 * Catherine Fabre, French politician
 * Cindy Fabre (born 1985), Miss France for 2005
 * Dominique Fabre (novelist) (1929–2010), Swiss detective novelist and screenwriter
 * Dominique Fabre (b. 1960), French novelist
 * Édouard Fabre (1885–1939), Canadian runner
 * Édouard-Charles Fabre (1827–1896), former archbishop of Montreal
 * Fabre d'Églantine (1750–1794), French dramatist and revolutionary
 * Fabre d'Olivet (1767–1825), French author, poet, and composer
 * François-Xavier Fabre (1766–1837), French painter of historical subjects
 * Georges Fabre (1844–1911), French forestry engineer
 * Giuseppe Fabre (1910–2007), Italian Lieutenant General and skier
 * Hector Fabre (1834–1910), Canadian politician and diplomat
 * Henri Fabre (1882–1984), French aviator and inventor of the first successful seaplane
 * Isidro Fabré (born 1895, date of death unknown), Cuban baseball pitcher
 * Jacques E. Fabre (born 1955), Haitian-American Catholic bishop
 * Jan Fabre (born 1958), Belgian stage director
 * Jean-Henri Fabre (1823–1915), French entomologist
 * Jean-Marc Fabre (born 1964), French cinematographer
 * Laurent Fabre (born 1968), French ski mountaineer
 * Moumouni Fabré (born 1953), Burkinabé politician
 * Pascal Fabre (born 1960), French Formula One driver
 * Pierre Fabre (businessman) (1926–2013), French businessman
 * Robert Fabre (1915-2006), French politician and pharmacist
 * Valentine Fabre (born 1976), French ski mountaineer
 * Luke fon Fabre (ND2000), a fictional character from the video game, Tales of the Abyss

title: Fabre


text:
User:Nparikh

I'm a student in mathematics and computer science at the University of Pennsylvania.

title: User:Nparikh


text:
Modern Benoni

The Modern Benoni is a chess opening that begins with the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6. It is classified under the ECO codes A60–A79. After the initial moves, Black proceeds to capture on d5, creating a majority of black pawns on the queenside. To support their advance, the king's bishop is usually fianchettoed on g7. These two features differentiate Black's setup from the other Benoni defences and the King's Indian Defence, although transpositions between these openings are common.

Frank Marshall invented the Modern Benoni in 1927, but his experiments with the opening went largely ignored for over 20 years. In the 1950s the system was revitalized by players in the Soviet Union, chief among them Mikhail Tal. Its subsequent adoption by players of a similarly aggressive and uncompromising style such as Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov established the opening's reputation as one of Black's most dynamic responses to 1.d4.

The Modern Benoni suffered a serious theoretical crisis in the 1980s and 1990s, when players as Black encountered great difficulties in meeting the Taimanov Attack and the Modern Main Line. Only in the 21st century has the opening's reputation and theoretical standing made a recovery. Notably, it was Vladimir Kramnik's choice when he needed a win with Black in the penultimate game of the 2004 World Championship, though that particular game resulted in a draw.

Initial moves
The standard move order for Black to enter the Modern Benoni is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5. Here it is possible for White to avoid 3.d5: respectable alternatives include 3.Nf3, typically transposing to a line of the English Opening, as well as 3.e3. Taking the pawn with 3.dxc5 is hardly ever seen, because Black easily recovers it after 3...e6 followed by ...Bxc5.

Still, 3.d5 has long been considered White's most challenging move, as it gains space in the centre. While it is possible for Black to avoid ...e7-e6 for the time being and play other moves such as 3...d6 or 3...g6, delaying this move until after White plays e2-e4 gives White the extra option of recapturing on d5 with the e-pawn. While recapturing in this fashion does not give White a central pawn majority, it maintains White's spatial advantage and denies Black the counterplay associated with possession of a queenside pawn majority. Thus players who are seeking the typical imbalance in pawn structure associated with the Modern Benoni tend to prefer the immediate 3...e6 followed by 4...exd5.

Alternative move orders and transpositions
It is possible, indeed common, for Black's second and third moves to be reversed: thus 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 and 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 will both transpose into the Modern Benoni if White allows it with 4.d5. The latter move order has been especially popular since the 1980s, as it allows Black to reach the Modern Benoni while sidestepping the Taimanov Attack. It also gives Black the additional option of meeting 4.d5 with 4...b5, the Blumenfeld Gambit. Players who use this move order will often choose a different defence against 3.Nc3, such as the Nimzo-Indian with 3...Bb4.

Another frequent transposition into the Modern Benoni occurs when White invites a Catalan Opening with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 and Black responds with 3...c5. If White responds with 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5, Black can play 5...d6, which often transposes into the Fianchetto Variation; but a common alternative is 5...b5, which leads to independent positions.

Black can also try to reach the Modern Benoni through a Benoni Defence move order, i.e. 1.d4 c5 2.d5 Nf6, when 3.c4 e6 would complete the transposition. However, White often prefers not to play 3.c4, since it takes away a useful square from a white knight. Several lines of the King's Indian Defence, such as the Four Pawns Attack, the Sämisch Variation and the Fianchetto Variation, can also transpose into variations of the Modern Benoni if Black plays ...c5 followed by ...e6 and ...exd5 and White recaptures with the c-pawn.

History
The Modern Benoni was invented by Frank Marshall at the New York 1927 chess tournament. He played it twice, gaining a draw against José Raúl Capablanca in the Fianchetto Variation, but losing soundly to Aron Nimzowitsch, who played the Knight's Tour. Nimzowitsch received the third special prize of the tournament for this game and labelled Marshall's opening an "unfortunate" "extravagance" in his annotations; as a result, it lay virtually abandoned for decades. However, Karel Hromádka's experiments with the Benoni Defence in the 1930s occasionally featured the moves ...e7-e6 and ...exd5, resulting in a transposition to the Modern Benoni.

Only in the 1950s was interest in the system revived, when the King's Indian Defence gained in popularity among Soviet players and their investigations branched into related opening systems such as the Modern Benoni. The imbalance inherent in its pawn structure and the counter-chances this implied for Black appealed to aggressive players such as Rashid Nezhmetdinov and Alexander Tolush; the Israeli master Moshe Czerniak also employed it frequently. Lev Polugaevsky, Boris Spassky and Alexey Suetin were among the younger generation of Soviet players who used it regularly in the 1950s and 1960s.

But the player primarily responsible for elevating the Modern Benoni to the status of a major opening was Mikhail Tal, who took up the opening in 1953 after seeing one of Nezhmetdinov's games. The tactical positions it led to were a perfect fit for Tal's combinatorial gifts and he crushed many opponents in brilliant style. Famous examples include his game against Bukhuti Gurgenidze at the 1957 USSR championship, excerpted below, and his win against Yuri Averbakh at the same tournament the following year. He also became the first player to use the Modern Benoni in a world championship match, playing it twice against Mikhail Botvinnik in 1960. Former World Champion and opening authority Max Euwe acknowledged Tal's contribution to the opening by naming it the "Tal-System" in his 1965 opening encyclopedia.

These developments did not go unnoticed outside the Soviet Union: the name "Modern Benoni" had appeared in print by 1955. In the 1960s Larry Evans began employing the system frequently, and from 1966 onwards, Bobby Fischer also included it in his repertoire, albeit as a secondary weapon. Even so, Fischer was responsible for one of the most famous games ever played with the opening: down 2–0 in the 1972 World Championship match, he answered Spassky's 1.d4 with the Modern Benoni in Game 3 and scored a momentum-changing victory.

The successes of Tal and Fischer inspired a new generation of players to take up the Modern Benoni in the 1970s and 1980s, including Walter Browne, Ljubomir Ljubojević, John Nunn, Dragoljub Velimirović, Lev Psakhis, Mihai Suba and Nick de Firmian. The young Garry Kasparov also had the defence in his arsenal—his win against Viktor Korchnoi at the 1982 Lucerne Olympiad was considered the highlight of the tournament and remains one of the most famous games ever played in the opening. It became a favoured weapon for players needing to win against 1.d4: for example, Psakhis used it to defeat Yuri Razuvaev in the penultimate round of the 1980 USSR Championship, catching Alexander Beliavsky in the lead and ultimately sharing first place with him.

But in the early 1980s, White scored several crushing victories at high-profile tournaments using the aggressive Taimanov Attack, which caused players to question the fundamental soundness of Black's opening. By the end of the decade, the Modern Main Line had also emerged as a dangerous weapon for White, which only compounded Black's troubles. As a result, the opening declined in popularity and a number of grandmasters gave it up altogether. Those who continued to play it often chose to do so via the move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5, when White's early development of the knight to f3 rules out the Taimanov Attack and gives Black opportunities to avoid the Modern Main Line.

Mired in this theoretical crisis, the Modern Benoni remained unpopular in the 1990s. Veselin Topalov was the only top-level player to play it regularly, and he too generally preferred the 2...e6 3.Nf3 c5 move order. At the beginning of the new millennium, the theoretician John Watson published a well-regarded survey of the opening that may have contributed to the opening's revival. Many of the ideas he recommended, such as 9...Qh4+ versus the Taimanov Attack and 9...Nh5 in the Modern Main Line, grew in popularity after its publication. The opening regained some more of its former respectability when Vladimir Kramnik, needing a win with Black against Peter Leko, played it in the second to last game of the 2004 World Championship. While he did achieve a winning position at one point, the game ended in a draw. Nevertheless, Étienne Bacrot, Boris Gelfand and Vassily Ivanchuk have all since used the Modern Benoni at the highest levels of competition, while Vugar Gashimov became the opening's most notable proponent. He was the strongest player willing to use the original 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 move order and defend Black's cause in both the Taimanov Attack and the Modern Main Line.

Strategy
The Modern Benoni is one of Black's sharpest and most active defences against 1.d4. The exchange of White's c-pawn for Black's e-pawn leaves White with a pawn majority in the centre and Black with one on the queenside. This asymmetry suggests that White will try to play on the kingside and in the centre, while Black will seek counterplay on the queenside. However, this simplistic generalization does not hold in many cases—depending on how the pieces are arranged, either side may be able to fight back on the flank where they are theoretically weaker.

The creation of such a pronounced structural imbalance so early on in the game implies that Black aims to counterattack rather than equalize. Thus the opening has acquired a reputation for being risky: as Psakhis once wrote, the Modern Benoni "is definitely not an opening for cowards." Since White's central superiority typically constitutes a positional advantage, Black must frequently resort to tactical play and material sacrifices in order not to be forced into passivity.

Black's queenside play
The game Donner–Tal, Zurich 1959, was a classic demonstration of the power of Black's queenside pawn advance, backed up by the bishop on g7. After Black's 20...Qb4! White was unable to exchange queens, as 21.Qxb4 cxb4 22.Nd1 Nc5 would fork the pawns on a4 and e4. However, the actual game did not last long after Donner's 21.Qf1: Tal set his pawns in motion with 21...c4 22.Re2 b5 23.axb5 axb5 24.Kh1, created a passed c-pawn with '''24...Bxc3! 25.bxc3 Qxc3 26.Rxb5 Qd3 27.Qe1 c3 28.Rb1, and forced Donner's resignation with 28...Nc5!''' when White could neither save his e-pawn nor stop Black's c-pawn from queening. According to Donner, while he spent over two hours on the game, Tal used only fifteen minutes.

White's kingside play
The central pawn majority is White's main positional trump in the Modern Benoni. By staking out an advantage in space on the kingside, it allows White to develop an initiative on that side of the board. The most important tool in White's arsenal is the e4-e5 pawn advance, which can open up lines and squares for the white pieces, and result in the creation of a passed d-pawn if Black answers with ...dxe5.

A famous example of the e4-e5 break leading to a kingside attack occurred in the game Penrose–Tal from the 1960 Leipzig Olympiad. With '''19.e5! dxe5 20.f5! Bb7 21.Rad1 Ba8 22.Nce4''' White installed a powerful knight on e4, while Black's pieces were hemmed in by the pawn on e5. Penrose soon crashed through on the f-file and scored a stunning upset over the reigning world champion. Other classic examples of this central breakthrough include Ojanen–Keres, Estonia–Finland match, Helsinki 1960 and Korchnoi–Tal, USSR championship, Yerevan 1962.

Black's kingside play
The half-open e-file gives Black a certain degree of influence over the kingside. A rook on e8 puts pressure on White's e-pawn and restrains it from advancing. Tactics involving ...Nxe4 are not uncommon—the games Averbakh–Tal, USSR championship, Riga 1958, and Uhlmann–Fischer, Interzonal, Palma de Mallorca 1970, are well-known examples. Black can initiate further kingside activity by playing ...Nd7-e5 followed by ...g7-g5. The pawn move prevents White from driving away the knight with f2-f4, and sets up the possibility of Black bringing a knight on f4 via g6 or h5. Further space-gaining pawn advances such as ...g5-g4 and ...f7-f5 may even be possible.

En route to winning his first USSR championship, Tal provided a brilliant example of how Black's dark-square control could lead to a kingside attack. Against Gurgenidze at the 1957 championship in Moscow, he unleashed the double sacrifice '''14...Nxf2!! 15.Kxf2 Qh4+ 16.Kf1 (16.g3? Bd4+ 17.Kg2 Qxh3+ 18.Kf3 Bg4+ 19.Kf4 g5+ 20.Kxg5 Be3+ 21.Kf6 Qh6 mate) Bd4 17.Nd1 Qxh3!''' with the point that 18.gxh3 Bxh3 is mate. After '''18.Bf3 Qh2 19.Ne3 f5! 20.Ndc4 fxe4 21.Bxe4 Ba6!''' White was unable to defend against Black's threats of 22...Rxe4 23.Qxe4 Re8 24.Qc2 Nxd5 and 22...Bxc4+ 23.Nxc4 Rf8+ 24. Bf3 Rxf3+, and Gurgenidze resigned after move 27.

White's queenside play
When Black prepares the ...b7-b5 pawn break with ...a6, White usually tries to hinder it by playing a2-a4, even though this advance weakens the b4-square. As a further deterrent to Black's queenside expansion, White often moves the knight on f3 to c4 via d2. With the knight on c4, Black's ...b7-b5 break may be met by axb5 followed by Na5, when the arrival of a white knight on c6 could severely disrupt Black's position. The knight on c4 also attacks Black's backward pawn on d6, and White can often increase the pressure on this pawn by playing Bf4 or Nb5. The strength of White's knight on c4 often induces Black to exchange it off: typical ways of doing so are ...Nb6, ...Ne5, or ...b7-b6 followed by ...Ba6.

Even if Black should succeed in enforcing the ...b7-b5 break, White may halt the b-pawn's further advance by simply playing b2-b4. Even though this would give Black the opportunity to establish a passed c-pawn with ...c5-c4, blockading the queenside in this manner may allow White to pursue play in the centre and on the kingside undisturbed. The ...c5-c4 advance would also relinquish Black's control over the d4-square, which may be occupied to good effect by a white knight or bishop.

A successful demonstration of this last idea occurred in the game Pintér–Brynell at the 1998 Elista Olympiad. White answered Black's 21...b5 with 22.b4!, and Black was unable to keep the queenside open with 22...bxa4? because 23.bxc5 Rxb1 24.Rxb1 dxc5 25.Bxc5 would have left White's central pawns unstoppable. After the game's '''22...c4 23.a5! Qe7 24.Bd4''' Black's queenside play had ground to a halt; Pintér later won with a pawn advance on the kingside.

Variations
After the initial moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6, the moves 4.Nf3 and 4.g3 reach positions discussed previously, while 4.dxe6 fxe6 is also ineffective, since Black gains a half-open f-file and the chance to take over the centre with ...d7-d5. Instead White's most popular move is 4.Nc3, preparing to support the d-pawn with 5.e4. As mentioned above, were Black to delay the capture on d5, White would then gain the option of recapturing with the e-pawn. Thus Black generally plays 4...exd5 immediately.

Following the recapture 5.cxd5, Black has an eccentric option in 5...Bd6, the Snake Benoni. But most players prefer 5...d6, which stops White's d-pawn from advancing to d6. Black's control over the central dark squares d4 and e5 will then be augmented by fianchettoing the bishop on g7. Meanwhile, White must decide whether or not to play 6.e4. Although this move gains space in the centre, it also gives Black a target of attack on the half-open e-file. White can deny Black this target for the time being by playing 6.Nf3 first.

4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6
The most critical lines in the Modern Benoni occur after 6.e4 g6. At this point 7.Nf3 has historically been White's most popular move, intending to complete kingside development and castle. Here theory divides into three major branches:
 * 7...Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0, the Classical Main Line;
 * 7...Bg7 8.h3 0-0 9.Bd3, the Modern Main Line;
 * and 7...a6, an attempt by Black to avoid the Modern Main Line.

Apart from 7.Nf3, White also has several important alternatives, including:
 * 7.f4, which leads to the Taimanov Attack, Four Pawns Attack, or Mikenas Attack;
 * 7.Bd3, which often leads to the Knaak Variation but may also transpose to the Modern Main Line;
 * 7.h3, which is yet another way for White to reach the Modern Main Line after 7...Bg7 8.Nf3 0-0 9.Bd3;
 * 7.f3, the Kapengut Variation;
 * and 7.Nge2, which was recommended for White in 2012 by Lars Schandorff. The idea is to develop with Ng3, Be2 and 0-0.

7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0: Classical Main Line
Before the advent of the Taimanov Attack and the Modern Main Line, the sequence 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0 was the most frequently contested line in the Modern Benoni. Here Black has a choice between three main plans. Two of them begin with 9...Re8, attacking the e-pawn. After 10.Nd2, Black's most dynamic plan is to prepare kingside play with 10...Nbd7 followed by ...Ne5 and ...g6-g5. This plan became popular in the 1970s after Fischer used it, and although it is riskier than the alternatives, it remains Black's best option to complicate the game.

Alternatively, Black can try the older move 10...Na6, intending to bring the knight to c7 to prepare the ...b7-b5 break. White most commonly responds with Gligorić's 11.f3 Nc7 12.a4, which clamps down on b5 and overprotects e4 so that White can follow up with Nc4. Black's position remains solid but offers fewer active possibilities than after 10...Nbd7.

At the 1973 Madrid international tournament Ljubojević demonstrated what is now considered to be Black's most reliable path to equality. Against Silvino García Martínez he played 9...a6 10.a4 Bg4 11.Bf4 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 and now the innovation 12...Qe7! which prepares ...Nbd7 while keeping the pawn on d6 defended. The exchange of Black's bishop for White's knight eases Black's slightly cramped position and weakens the force of White's e4-e5 break.

7.Nf3 Bg7 8.h3 0-0 9.Bd3: Modern Main Line
By the late 1980s Ljubojević's plan of exchanging the light-squared bishop had been proven so reliable it was deterring White from entering the Classical Main Line altogether. The desire to prevent ...Bg4 led to the development of the Modern Main Line, 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.h3 0-0 9.Bd3. If Black continues in the same manner as in the Classical Main Line, e.g. 9...a6 10.a4 Nbd7 11.0-0 Re8, then White appears to maintain an advantage with 12.Bf4.

Originally it was thought that the temporary pawn sacrifice 9...b5 was an easy equalizer: after '''10.Nxb5 Nxe4?! 11.Bxe4 Re8''' Black seemingly regains the sacrificed piece without trouble. But in Alburt–de Firmian, USA ch 1990, White uncorked 12.Ng5! and went on to win: this move was judged the most important theoretical novelty in Volume 50 of Chess Informant. Only later was it discovered that the immediate 10...Re8 is a better way of recovering the pawn, with a complicated game in the offing.

The other capture 10.Bxb5 has been subjected to extensive analysis and testing, which has led to the conclusion that the sequence 10...Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Qa5+ 12.Nfd2 Qxb5 13.Nxd6 Qa6 14.N2c4 Nd7 15.0-0 is more or less forced. In the resulting positions Black has found it difficult to generate any winning chances, and even finding equality has not been a simple task. The fact that one must know a lot of theory just to secure a draw has rendered the entire variation beginning with 9...b5 rather unattractive from Black's point of view, even though it appears to be objectively the best move.

Thus Black has sought other methods of combating the Modern Main Line. The sharp variation 9...Re8 10.0-0 c4 received significant attention in the mid-1990s, but after 11.Bxc4 Nxe4 12.Nxe4 Rxe4 13.Bg5 Black has yet to demonstrate clear equality. In 2001 John Watson published a detailed analysis of 9...Nh5, which stops White from playing Bc1-f4 and allows Black to follow up with ...Nd7-e5. While it is also unclear whether this move ultimately equalizes, at least Black retains significant counterplay.

7.Nf3 a6: Black avoids the Modern Main Line
White's success with the Modern Main Line has spurred Black to search for ways to get in ...Bg4 before White stops it with h2-h3. After 7.Nf3, the immediate 7...Bg4? runs into 8.Qa4+!, when 8...Bd7 9.Qb3 or 8...Nbd7? 9.Nd2! threatening 10.f3 both give White the advantage. So Black first plays 7...a6 threatening 8...b5. Only after 8.a4 does Black play 8...Bg4, when a transposition to the Classical Main Line is likely: 9.Be2 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Bg7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Bf4 Qe7 is Ljubojević's line, for example. Instead White may try to exploit Black's early ...Bg4 with 9.Qb3, but after 9...Bxf3 10.Qxb7 Black can either maintain material and positional equality with 10...Bxg2 or try for more with 10...Nbd7!?. To cut across Black's idea of ...Bg4, White has even resorted to 8.h3 allowing 8...b5, but after 9.Bd3 Bg7 10.0-0 0-0 Black obtains an acceptable position.

If White has entered the Benoni through the standard move order (4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6), White can dodge such sidelines by avoiding the immediate 7.Nf3 and starting with 7.Bd3 or 7.h3 instead: the latter two moves leave Black little choice but to enter the Modern Main Line after 7...Bg7 and 8...0-0.

7.f4: Taimanov Attack and other lines
With 7.f4 White stakes out even more space in the centre and threatens to overrun Black's position with a quick e4-e5. After 7...Bg7 White can transpose to the main line of the Four Pawns Attack in the King's Indian Defence with 8.Nf3 0-0 9.Be2. A rarer option is 8.e5, the Mikenas Attack, against which Black can equalize with either 8...Nfd7 or the rarer 8...dxe5 9.fxe5 Nfd7.

By far the most popular continuation for White is 8.Bb5+, the Taimanov Attack. Analyzed by Mark Taimanov in 1956, the strength of this variation was not fully appreciated until the early 1980s. The point of the check is that both 8...Bd7 and 8...Nbd7 allow 9.e5 with advantage to White, since the knight on f6 can no longer retreat to d7. After the strongest move 8...Nfd7 the most popular move used to be 9.Bd3, preparing to meet 9...a6 with 10.a4. But in two crushing and high-profile victories with White (against Frans Andre Cuijpers at the 1980 World Junior Chess Championship in Dortmund, and against Nunn at the 1982 Olympiad in Lucerne) Kasparov showed that 9.a4 was more dangerous for Black, it having the advantage of not determining the bishop's retreat square for the time being.

White's success with this idea led some to question the soundness of the Modern Benoni, at least in its original move order. In 1982, Nunn concluded his analysis of the Taimanov with the words, "Black badly needs a new idea against 8.Bb5+ and 9.a4 to keep the Benoni in business"; two years later, he had given up the opening altogether. Other players such as Psakhis resorted to using the move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6, only playing 3...c5 in response to 3.Nf3 to avoid the Taimanov, while choosing an entirely different opening against 3.Nc3. The damage this variation did to the opening's reputation led David Norwood to rechristen it the "Flick-Knife Attack."

Not until the 21st century did players and analysts begin to revive Black's chances in this line. First, Watson showed that the disruptive check 9...Qh4+ was playable, the point being that after 10.g3 White is no longer able to bring the bishop on c1 to the squares g3 or h4, where it can assist in White's kingside attack. Later players such as Gashimov showed that the queen check is not mandatory, and that Black also retains good chances in the line 9...0-0 10.Nf3 Na6 11.0-0 Nb4, taking advantage of the outpost on b4.

7.Bd3: Knaak Variation
The move 7.Bd3 is sometimes used by White to enter the Modern Main Line after 7...Bg7 8.h3 without allowing Black's attempts to play an early ...Bg4. It is also the prelude to a variation championed by Rainer Knaak, 7...Bg7 8.Nge2 0-0 9.0-0. White's plan is to play for a kingside attack beginning with the moves Ng3, f2-f4, and then either e4-e5 or f4-f5. A famous demonstration of White's kingside attack was the game Penrose–Tal, Leipzig ol 1960. However, the development of the knight to e2 rules out the Nf3-d2-c4 manoeuvre, so Black is able to get quick counterplay on the queenside with ideas like ...c5-c4 followed by ...Nd7-c5.

7.f3: Kapengut Variation
In 1996 Albert Kapengut published a dense analysis of the move 7.f3, which now bears his name. Kapengut himself gave it the name "Half-Sämisch Variation", because the positions it leads to are often reached via transposition from the Sämisch Variation of the King's Indian Defence. The pawn on f3 overprotects e4 and prevents ...Ng4, so that White can continue 7...Bg7 8.Bg5 and retreat the bishop to e3 after ...h7-h6 without it being further harassed by Black's knight. Notable past practitioners of this line have included Viktor Korchnoi and Murray Chandler.

4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6
This position arises particularly frequently through the transposition 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6. At this point White can still transpose to the Classical or Modern Main Lines after 7.e4. Other common alternatives are:
 * 7.g3, the Fianchetto Variation;
 * 7.Nd2, the Knight's Tour Variation;
 * 7.Bf4;
 * 7.Bg5, the Uhlmann Variation;
 * and 7.h3, which is yet another attempt for White to enter the Modern Main Line without allowing an early ...Bg4. But in this move order Black can also prevent the transposition with 7...a6 (the immediate 7...Qe7? 8.e4 Nxe4?? loses the knight to 9.Qa4+) 8.a4 Qe7, which stops White from playing e2-e4.

7.g3: Fianchetto Variation
The Fianchetto Variation has never been considered particularly dangerous for Black to meet, since White's setup does not put Black's position under immediate pressure. However, it also offers Black no obvious target to attack—the fianchettoed bishop covers e4 and d5 and also protects White's king. Since the same bishop no longer covers the a6-f1 diagonal, White typically plays Nf3-d2-c4 to help defend against Black's queenside expansion. After further preparatory moves such as Bf4 and Re1, White may be able to push forward in the centre with e2-e4-e5. Noted proponents of the Fianchetto Variation have included strong positional players such as Viktor Korchnoi, Gennadi Sosonko and Predrag Nikolić, and after a recommendation by the influential theorist Boris Avrukh in 2010, the line has become more topical.

Play typically proceeds 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 0-0 9.0-0, and now the most common continuation sees Black developing in standard Benoni fashion while White manoeuvres the king's knight to c4, i.e. 9...a6 10.a4 Nbd7 11.Nd2 Re8 12.h3 Rb8 13.Nc4. Here Black can challenge White's knight with either 13...Ne5 or 13...Nb6. White may also try to develop more quickly with 11.Bf4 in order to strengthen the threat of e2-e4-e5. The idea of an early Bf4 is also effective in other variations such as 9...Re8 10.Bf4. Black too can deviate: for example, the idea of playing for ...b7-b5 after 9...Na6 10.Nd2 Nc7 is frequently seen.

The Fianchetto Variation is often reached via transposition from other openings. For instance, the position in the diagram can be reached from the King's Indian via 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 c5 5.d5 d6 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Nf3 e6 8.0-0 exd5 9.cxd5, or from the Catalan via 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6 7.Bg2 Bg7 8.Nf3 0-0 9.0-0.

7.Nd2: Knight's Tour Variation
The Knight's Tour Variation 7.Nd2 immediately sends the knight towards c4, where it attacks the d-pawn; the pressure on it can be increased with moves like Bf4. Black can counter this plan with 7...Nbd7 intending 8.Nc4 Nb6, while 8.e4 Bg7 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 would lead to a major variation of the Classical Main Line after 10...Re8, with White having avoided Ljubojević's plan of ...Bg4.

Black is not obliged to allow this transposition though: 7...Bg7 is also playable. After 8.e4 0-0 9.Be2, Black has alternatives to 9...Re8, such as the 9...Na6 10.0-0 Ne8 Kramnik played against Leko at the 2004 World Championship, where Black intends to attack White's centre with ...f5. Alternatively, if White immediately completes the knight manoeuvre and attacks the pawn on d6 with 8.Nc4 0-0 9.Bf4, Black can either defend it with 9...Ne8 or sacrifice it with 9...Na6 or 9...b6.

7.Bf4
The move 7.Bf4 is similar in spirit to 7.Nd2, in that White hopes to inconvenience Black by a quick attack on d6. After '''7...Bg7 8.Qa4+! Bd7 9.Qb3 White attacks both b7 and d6, and Black must be careful not to drift into a passive position after 9...Qc7 10.e4 0-0'''.

More commonly Black prefers to rule out White's queen check with 7...a6, which incidentally threatens to expand on the queenside. White can ignore this with 8.e4 b5 9.Qe2, aiming to quickly overrun Black in the centre with the e4-e5 advance. However, 8.a4 Bg7 is the most popular continuation, when White can aim for a transposition to the Classical Main Line with 9.e4. Another possibility is 9.h3 0-0 10.e3, which gives the bishop a retreat square in case of ...Nh5 and delays further expansion in the centre until the White's development is complete. Although a number of opening books recommended the 7.Bf4 variation for White in the early 21st century, Black appears to be able to maintain the balance in this line.

7.Bg5: Uhlmann Variation
The variation with 7.Bg5 is named after Wolfgang Uhlmann, who played it a few times in the 1960s. Botvinnik also employed it in his 1960 world championship match against Tal. By pinning the knight, White aims to transpose into favourable lines of the Averbakh Variation of the King's Indian Defence, which may occur after 7...0-0 8.Nd2!. To prevent this, Black can either break the pin immediately with 7...h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Nh5, or after developing with 7...Bg7 8.e4 h6 9.Bh4. At this point 9...g5 10.Bg3 Nh5 runs into the pawn sacrifice 11.Bb5+ Kf8 12.e5! when White has a dangerous attack, and in the late 1970s this line was even thought to have refuted the Modern Benoni. Later it was realized that Black can prevent the bishop check with 9...a6!: the only way White can forestall ...g5 and ...Nh5 is with 10.Nd2, but this allows Black to expand on the queenside with 10...b5 and reach a satisfactory position.

title: Modern Benoni


text: Category:LGBT symbols

title: Category:LGBT symbols


text:
Talk:Conditional sentence

Zero to third conditionals
Where do the terms "Zero conditional" through "Third conditional" come from? I've never heard them. Also, this page's title implies it's about the verb form called "conditional" in many language, e.g. French j'irais 'I would go'. But the content is much more about conditional sentences, which may or may not be formed with conditional verb forms (e.g. French si tu feras la vaisselle, je l ' essuyerai 'if you wash the dishes, I will dry them'). I'll try to remedy this over the next few days and weeks. --Angr 08:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IMO, this classification is extremely superficial, and not even English-centric, as it does not cover the "minus one" conditional, past indefinite general condition, expressing the action that was common and happened in the past when a condition was true (going exactly like I just said: When the condition was true, the action happened). This is the form one would expect in literary prose, and it is invalid a classification that does not incude it.

Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar gives a classification for Latin that is much deeper that that. I cannot say whether it would work for most languages or not (Latin, like English, does not distinguish the Subjunctive and the Desiderative), but it is much more practical. In general (if we join their cases A and B — I do not see why are the present and future cases different), there are, on one axis, General conditions, occuring customarily at indefinite time (our “0-conditional”), Simple conditions, not-yet-fulfilled, uncertan at a time when they are set, and Contrary-to-fact conditions, that were already false by the sentence set time. On the second axis, there is grammatical time: past, present and future. While not all combination are possible in a particular language, all make sense; even “future contrary-to-fact” may potentially exist in some language, to express a condition that is already doomed to fail in near future, breaking the IE idiom “future = uncertainity.”  For instance, if you wake up and realize that, however fast you run, you'll be late to the train (but it has not departed as yet), then in English you would set that in present or even past time (if only I were(or was) not late/if only I had not been late), as if the event is happening now or has already happened, but I cannot say whether that shift is universal accross all natural human languages.

For one more example of the incompleteness of the present classification, while an expression of the idea that in the future, when/if X is true, Y will customarily happen (Future conditional), matches the form of this “1-conditional”, it assumes distinct forms in Latin and Russian.

— Kkmº 14:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So now this topic has its own page, as it deserves. It is still very incomplete in its treatment of the various kinds of condition. The system demonstated here seems to derive from a rather confused ESL teaching method. The standard classification system from Latin and Classical Greek is more rigorous and also makes more intuitive sense in terms of names for the different conditions. I will try to work that system in later. But I suppose we should also leave the "zero condition" etc system too, because it does seem to get used. Lesnail 22:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What if we change the title to "Conditional Structures of English" or "English Conditional Structures"? I think "Conditional sentence" is too broad for this article.--YellowLeftHand 08:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Forms of Verbs in English
I'd like to make a remark concerning the said-to-be-missing conditional forms of verbs in English:

In "If I were ....", what else than a special, conditional, form of "be" do we have? It is resembling the German "Wenn ich ... wäre ..." in comparison to "Ich war ..." -- "I was ...".

It might be a relict, but indicates that once there was a much richer grammar used with the English language than today. The remainings should still be taken for what they are, just like the declination of pronouns ("who"-"whom", "you (thou)" - "thee" and so on).

Uwe

Rewrite
I just overhauled the page, which was previously an attempt to project the Latin classification (which deserves to be mentioned in is own right) onto English. The page is still far from satisfactory (needs more general discussion, and references). I took out the "zero condition" … "third condition" terminology for English, because I am not familiar with it, but someone can reinsert it. CapnPrep 08:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed the article Counterfactual conditional, which covers the same basic information as the section "Irrealis conditions" of this article. I've linked to it as the "Main article" on the topic. —Angr 09:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Counterfactual conditional is more like a logic-oriented article about how to represent the meaning of these constructions (and in principle, not just in English). And so it was already linked to from the (stubby) semantics section of this article. But that's fine, I'm happy to see this page develop in any way (as long as it doesn't turn into another "Here's how you say X in 600 languages" article). CapnPrep 10:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This page should be broadly categorised by language, whilst some languages will share common forms of conditional sentences, there needs to be a uniform format for indicating what conditional forms apply to which language (maybe seperate headings for each language, or a list of languages in which it occurs after the form..using a table?)

There are some clearer rules regarding the conditionals in English that i shall endeavour to put something together on based on some grammar reference texts :)

Charles evesson 15:11, 20 April, 2008 (GMT +10)

Conditional without "If"
What about conditionals like Had I known..., Were I rich..., Need I say..., or Should you have... that use a modal auxiliary and word order inversion like a question? All of the conditionals in this article currently use "if" and it would be useful to add this type of conditional to the article even though it's not as common. 130.101.165.7 (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I had the exact same thought. The examples here are a bit frustrating. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 03:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Classical Greek
someone removed Classical Greek Conditionals because it's a dead link. Apparently one or both of the links on conditionals on http://classics.uchicago.edu/faculty/dik/niftygreek may be the same or similar: http://classics.uchicago.edu/sites/mahimahi.uchicago.edu.drupal.classics/files/conditionals.pdf or http://classics.uchicago.edu/sites/mahimahi.uchicago.edu.drupal.classics/files/apaconditions.pdf --Espoo (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Only English conditional
This page is flawed in two aspects: it tries to describe general conditional tenses in English and other languages, but then it delves exclusively into the English conditional without being sufficiently rigorous in the former or the latter topic. Therefore a clear decision must be made, this page should describe a general conditional sentence in Indo-European languages, or should dedicate solely to the English conditional. Ideally there should be a general Conditional tense article as well as separate articles for Conditional in English, Conditional in French, Conditional in Italian, and so on. 155.69.2.10 (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * With 6,000 languages to deal with, space is a factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.152.78 (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Antecedent/consequent versus protasis/apodosis
I'd like to switch over the terminology used in the article, from protasis to antecedent and from apodosis to consequent. The reason being that these terms are pretty much universally used in the contemporary linguistics and philosophy literature. But I wanted to post here, just in case anybody objects and wants to discuss. Botterweg14 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Review for Wikedu Class Assignment
This article provides a good foundation upon which someone might build a more comprehensive discussion. As it sits, the article would benefit from tightening up on the focus of the topics. By which I mean, some topics introduce tangential information that is not discussed elsewhere. While it is not the objective of this article, I believe there are missed opportunities to link or build articles related to the role conditionals play in jurisprudence, philosophy, and logic. As is noted upstream in the Talk Page, there is some contention as to how this article should address the treatment of conditionals in languages other than English. As it sits, the sections dealing with such languages are underpopulated and are indeed deserving of their own article pages. It is likely worth building their own article pages. Again, as previously mentioned, this article deals solely with if statement conditionals. Such conditionals are not the only ones that exist, e.g., unless you …, providing that …, supposing you …. This must be addressed. Lastly, and somewhat superficially, there are some punctuation errors. At times, the writing seems sophomoric. Ccoonjohn (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Indirect speech conditionals
The article as it stands doesn't mention the kind of conditionals that occur in indirect speech, or which in novels occur in descriptions of the thoughts of the characters, e.g. "if he took the train, he would be there in time", which means "He thought to himself, "If I take the train, I will be there in time"." These look like counterfactual conditionals, but use the past tense because they are indirect, not because they are counterfactual. Kanjuzi (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Conditional sentence


text:
User:ObsidianOrder

Julian: They broke seven of your transverse ribs and fractured your clavicle. Garak: Ah, but I got off several cutting remarks which no doubt did serious damage to their egos.

Now working on:

 * User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion redux beginnings of a new cold fusion article.
 * User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion merged Dec 2005 version of cold fusion article with Edmund Storms draft.

Articles I've created:

 * Bioelectromagnetics
 * Zitterbewegung
 * Stochastic electrodynamics
 * Prudent avoidance principle
 * Synfuel

Articles I've made large edits to to:

 * Bioelectromagnetism
 * Mobile phone radiation and health

Articles I've been involved in major controversy over:

 * Pseudoscience

THIS IS MY USER PAGE. There are many like it, but this one is mine. I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

oo - check out net issue #18 (11102006)

 * I wish you would redress Zitterbewegung and your previous references a few years back; I feel a lot has happened since your first commitment to making entries. Or do you feel that this is addressed in other fields, and just siteing topics is sufficient to cover the concepts your were injecting?

I've been trying independently to develop a working theory for what I've only recently come to discover are areas already addressed in one form or another; This has been both exciting and dismaying but since I was conceptually involved in finding the boundaries of our understanding; it was fruitful in knowing I found those boundaries. Today I landed at Zitterbewegung, which comforted me with its connection to ZPE as that was my original focus (I now have to work back to my original focus 'Bell's Theorem'). It seems that philosophically everything comes down to determinism, local or not at all. I find myself a little frustrated at adhering to QM principles and maintaining a local reality perspective only to find stochastic Hamiltonian processes taking place at the zero point, which although expected, turns out to be, apparently (possibly), the only method to resolve QM and a local reality. (Although I question internally whether the zero point is both local, and non-local simultaneously :-/)

I am hampered by my lack of formal education in Mathematics, though I've reached some quasi state of understanding as it relates to a person learning a new language and find that one can in principle understand much of what is being said, while still unable to speak the language. Still I found your discussions under 'Talk' in Zitterbewegung reasonable, and saw in your nemesis a resolve to block process or adhere to some less controversial perspective. On the other hand, I've head so much that Wikipedia is definitively not a forum for discussion; yet provides avenues for presenting controversial perspective, but only when they gain some credibility. I think we've reached that point, the term Zitterbewegung is a great perspective providing a simple understanding behind mental observation of a wildly unobservable phenomena.

I would appreciate any information you could provide to point me toward greater understanding. After some fashion I was hoping (expecting?) ZPE or what I refer to as 1/2 Planck to take on a simpler mathematical construct, only to discover that it is basically a Fermion type state capable of containing huge symmetrical phase or spin state quantities of what appears to be stochastic energy. A difficult concept once we remove length, and possibly time. While I still think it can be deterministic as least with some non-relativistic Einsteinian locality (or possibly within that restriction), I digress. Thanks ahead of time for any consideration. Cyberchip (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

title: User:ObsidianOrder


text: Category:German film producers

title: Category:German film producers