text:
Nikola Moravčević

Nikola Moravčević (Никола Моравчевић, also rendered as Nicholas Moravcevich, born December 10, 1935) is a Serbian-American literary historian, literary critic, academic and novelist. Born and educated in Yugoslavia, he moved to the United States in 1955, and made an academic career, chiefly at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in the field of Slavic Studies and literary history. Since 1990s, he published several historical novels in Serbian and English. He lives in Chicago.

Biography
Moravčević was born in Zagreb, (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) in a family of Serbian officer of Yugoslav Royal Army on December 10, 1935. During the World War II, his father was captured and held prisoner by the Germans but refused to return to the communist Yugoslavia after the war ended.

After he completed undergraduate studies at the Faculty of Dramatic Arts at the University of Belgrade in 1955, Moravčević moved to the United States. After three years of service in the U.S. Army, he obtained in 1961 a magisterial degree in Theatrical Directing from the School of Theatre Arts at the Art Institute of Chicago, and in 1964 a doctoral degree in Comparative Literature from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

He subsequently taught at Stevens College in Missouri as an assistant professor (1964–66) and at the University of Illinois at Chicago as an assistant professor (1966–68), an associate professor (1968–71) and full professor (1971–2002). At UIC he also held several administrative positions. In 1968, he founded the Slavic Department and served as its head for thirteen years (until 1981). From 1981 to 1988, he served as the University's vice-chancellor and director of campus development.

His scholarly work includes over two hundred essays and critical reviews in the spheres of Russian, French and Serbian literature, published in various collections of essays, several leading encyclopedias and a wide array of scholarly journals in the United States and Canada. The periodicals which have most of his scholarly contributions are: Comparative Literature, Slavic and East European Journal, Drama Critique, Canadian Slavonic Papers, Drama Survey, Comparative Drama, Russian Literature, L'Europe du Sud-Est, Comparative Literature Studies, Russian Language Journal, Bucknell Review, The New Review, Journal of Baltic Studies, Books Abroad-World Literature Today, The South Slav Journal, Serbian Studies and Slavic Review.

His first notable creative literary endeavor is a historical novel Albion, Albion, published in Belgrade, Serbia, in the fall of 1994. This work was chosen as one of the ten best novels written in Serbian language during that year, and remained on the list of national best-sellers throughout 1995. Moravčević also received, in the summer of 1998, the Rastko Petrović Literary Award for the best Serbian novel written in the diaspora. The novel was reprinted in 1998 by the publishing house Slobodan Mašić, and in 2006 by Stubovi kulture. In 2009 publishing house "Arhipelag" from Belgrade published the English version of this novel.

Dr. Moravčević is a member of several American and international scholarly associations and an honorary Doctor of Letters at the Wrocław University in Poland (1980). From 1980 to 1994, he served as the chief editor of Serbian Studies, the only scholarly journal in America dedicated to the Serbian culture. Since 1990, professor Moravčević has been a member of the Crown Council of the Serbian Crown Prince Aleksandar Karađorđević and is a bearer of the Serbian decoration of White Eagle with the great cross (first degree), the Lithuanian decoration of Diplomatic Star and Serbian decoration of Karadjordje star (third degree).

He is married to Dr. Jelena Banković and they live in Chicago.

Historical novels

 * Albion, Albion (1994), Slobodan Mašić, Belgrade. Second edition: (2006) Stubovi kulture, Belgrade. Third edition: (2009) Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * ’’Albion, Albion’’ (2009), Archipelag, Belgrade [in English].
 * Svetlost zapada – Lux Occidentalis(Light of The West – Lux Occidentalis), (2003) Prosveta, Belgrade. Second edition: (2008) Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Vitez u doba zla (Knight in the Time of Evil) (2007), Arhipelag, Belgrade. Second edition: (2010) Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * A Brandenburg Concerto, (2008), Arhipelag, Belgrade [in English].
 * Brandenburški končerto, (Serbian translation) (2009), Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Vreme vaskrsa (A Time of Resurrection) (2009), Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Beču na veru (Trusting Vienna) (2010), Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Poslednji despot (The Last Despot), (2011), Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Radičevo zaveštanje (The Legacy of Radič) (2012), Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Zapisi o srpskom carstvu (The Notes about the Serbian Empire), (2014), Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Grof Sava Vladislavić (Count Sava Vladislavić), (2015), Arhipelag, Belgrade. This novel received in 2016. literary award Janko Veselinović from the Serbian Writers Association for the best historical novel in 2015. (Russian translation) (2017) Aleteja, Sankt Peterburg.
 * Marko Mrnjavčević - Nepriznati srpski kralj (Marko Mrnjavčević - Unrecognised Serbian king) (2016), Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Braća Anđelovići (Brothers Andjelović) (2017), Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Ilona strašna (Ilona the terrible) (2018), Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Aleksandar II Karađorđević - Prilozi za biografiju(Aleksandar II Karađorđević - Contribution to a biography)(2018), Čigoja, Belgrade.
 * Nesrećni Kralj: Strana sužanjstva kralja Stefana Uroša III Dečanskog (Unfortunate King: Foreign captivities of king Stefan Uroš III Dečanski), (2019), Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Knez Lazar Hrebeljanović kao istorijska ličnost (Prince Lazar Hrebeljanović as a historical figure), (2021), Arhipelag, Belgrade.
 * Nikola Pasic (Nikola Pasic), (2022), Arhipelag, Belgrade.

Essays

 * Selected Essays on Serbian and Russian Literatures and History (2005) [In English], Stubovi kulture, Belgrade

Historical study

 * "Srpske vlastelinke, drzavnice i diplomatkinje krajem XIV i prvom polovinom XV veka" (2016), Arhipelag, Belgrade.

title: Nikola Moravčević


text:
DrMaster

DrMaster Publications Inc. was an American distributor of manga and manhua with offices in the United States, Republic of China and Japan. It was headquartered in Fremont, California.

It began strictly as a printer of manga, and entered the publishing business after taking over most of ComicsOne's manga and manhua titles.

DrMaster's Publications Inc. went out of business around 2009 and its offices in Fremont are gone. The building was later occupied by Sunesys Telecommunications.

Manga

 * 888
 * Freaks
 * Cosplay Koromo-chan
 * Dark Edge
 * High School Girls
 * Hinadori Girl
 * Imperfect Hero
 * Indian Summer
 * Infinite Ryvius
 * Iron Wok Jan
 * Maniac Road
 * Pretty Maniacs
 * Premature Priest
 * Red Prowling Devil
 * Junk Force
 * Junk: Record of the Last Hero
 * Onegai Twins
 * Tori Koro
 * Stellvia
 * Stray Little Devil
 * Tsukihime: Lunar Legend

Manhua

 * Chronicles of the Vampire Hunter: Claws of Darkness
 * Four Constables, The
 * King of Fighters
 * Real Fake Princess
 * SNK vs Capcom
 * Chinese Hero: Tales of the Blood Sword
 * Divine Melody
 * Feng Shui Academy

Novels

 * Junk Force
 * Onegai Twins
 * RahXephon

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

title: DrMaster


text:
Joseph F. Farley

Joseph Francis Farley (22 June 1889 – 25 November 1974) served as the ninth Commandant of the United States Coast Guard from 1946 to 1949. He was also the first Coast Guard officer to be issued a service number and held #1000 on the Coast Guard officer rolls.

Early life and education
Farley was born in Oxford, Ohio in 1889 and was the son of Joseph Francis and Sarah Foot Farley. After attending high schools in Trumansburg, New York and Ithaca, New York, he accepted an appointment to the Revenue Cutter Service School of Instruction on 10 May 1909. Farley's serious demeanor and habit of smoking a pipe as a cadet earned him the nickname of "Uncle Joe" at the school and he was known by that name for the rest of his career. He graduated and was commissioned as a third lieutenant on 10 June 1912.

Career
Farley's initial assignment following graduation from the School of Instruction was aboard USRC Mohawk (1904) where he served until June 1913. His next assignment was USRC Seminole which patrolled the Caribbean enforcing neutrality laws prior to the United States involvement in World War I. In July 1916 he was transferred to USCGC Onondaga for a short tour before reporting aboard USCGC Yamacraw in October. With the declaration of war by Congress on 6 April 1917, the control of Coast Guard assets and personnel was transferred to the United States Navy but most cutters including Yamacraw remained manned by Coast Guardsmen. Farley was promoted 31 May 1917 to second lieutenant. Yamacraw sailed for Europe in August 1917 and assumed convoy escort duties in the Mediterranean Sea as well as between Gibraltar and Great Britain. After the end of World War I Yamacraw returned to normal patrol duties homeported out of Savannah, Georgia and Farley transferred in March 1919 to accounting officer responsibilities in New York City. He was assigned in January 1920 to the USCGC Scally and was transferred yet again in September, this time to USCGC Seneca where he stayed until December 1921. Farley was assigned a short tour aboard USCGC Gresham (WPG-85), leaving in June 1922 to serve on USCGC Morrill. Farley was promoted to lieutenant 12 January 1923 and assigned to USCGC Mojave (WPG-47) homeported at Honolulu, Hawaii where he remained until February 1925. Farley's next assignment took him to Coast Guard Headquarters where he was ordnance officer for three years. After being assigned to the Destroyer Force in March 1928 during the Rum Patrol era, he reported aboard USCGD McCall as commanding officer but was reassigned immediately the assume command of USCGD Wilkes. During his command of Wilkes, the ship attained the highest score during annual target practice in the Destroyer Force for 1928-29. Starting in September 1930 he was assigned additional duty as ordnance officer for the Destroyer Force and later assumed additional duties as athletic officer and service store officer for the Destroyer Force. During this tour of duty, Farley was promoted to commander. In January 1933, Farley was placed in command of USCGC Pontchartrain homeported at Norfolk, Virginia. In July 1934 he assumed command of USCGC Modoc stationed out of Wilmington, North Carolina. Modoc also served with the International Ice Patrol during part of each year where she and another cutter alternated on 15-day patrols off the Grand Banks, using Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Boston, Massachusetts as their patrol bases. Farley returned to Coast Guard Headquarters in March 1937 and was assigned duties as chief communications officer. He made several trips to conferences and meetings during this period including one in Cairo, Egypt during February and March 1938, one at Montreux, Switzerland in March 1939 and another in Kraków, Poland in May 1939. He also served as a member of the coordinating committee of the Defense Communications Board. On 1 December 1941 Farley was promoted to the rank of captain. From June 1942 to December 1943 he served as District Coast Guard Officer of the Eighth Coast Guard District based at New Orleans, Louisiana. He was awarded the Legion of Merit for his service as District Officer and on 1 June 1943 he was promoted to commodore. Farley was reassigned to Coast Guard Headquarters in December 1943 as Assistant Chief Operations Officer until December 1944 when he assumed the assignment of Chief Personnel Officer. He was nominated by President Harry S. Truman and confirmed by the Senate to be Commandant of the Coast Guard succeeding Admiral Russell R. Waesche. Farley assumed the duties of the office 1 January 1946, the same day he was promoted to admiral.

Staffing problems and demobilization
Because Farley had been assigned to Coast Guard Headquarters in a senior position in both operations and personnel, Admiral Waesche suggested him as a candidate to succeed him as Commandant. Farley's first nomination was rejected by President Harry S. Truman and Waesche concerned that the Coast Guard would be left without leadership, petitioned Secretary of the Treasury Fred Vinson and Comptroller General Lindsay Warren to speak to the President about the importance of Farley's nomination. Waesche realized that the Coast Guard would have many problems associated with personnel and missions in the post-war period. President Truman announced Farley's nomination 20 December 1945. After the war many of the top leadership retired because of age, leaving Farley to appoint an almost entirely new headquarters staff.

One of the first problems confronting Farley was that of personnel. Most of the officers and men who had joined the service during the war wished to leave as soon as possible after the war's end. Since much of the build-up of personnel numbers during the war were reservists, they were released from active duty quickly. This problem was helped somewhat by Waesche's plan to keep most permanent ranks one grade below the temporary wartime promotion ranks; this left the service with enough officers and petty officers but few men in the lower enlisted grades. Efforts to enlist new men into the lower ranks had to be made. With increased the responsibilities acquired during the war and a reduced number of personnel available, some missions had to be cut back severely or almost eliminated. Lifeboat stations were operated at bare minimum staffing levels, several cutters had to be put into the reserve fleet, and the Bering Sea Patrol was not operated in 1946 and 1947.

Marine Inspection and Navigation Bureau
The Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation had been put under temporary control of the Coast Guard during the war. Despite some maritime labor unions and Congressional opposition to the plan to permanently transfer the Bureau to Coast Guard control, Farley, with a terminally ill Waesche helping, successfully petitioned President Truman to approve permanent transfer of the bureau. Congress passed the required legislation effective 16 July 1946.

Budget problems and the Ebasco Study
By the time that the 1948 Federal budget was being reviewed by Congress, the public was calling for economy measures to be adopted. This led to Congress looking at the Coast Guard budget and questioning why the amount requested was five times more than the 1940 appropriation. They also noted that the Coast Guard had only three rear admirals before the war and now wished for eighteen to hold that rank and a proportional expansion in the numbers in the lower ranks. It was also pointed out by some members of Congress that the Coast Guard had assumed many responsibilities during the war without the statutory authority to do so. Congress ordered an investigation of the situation and the Coast Guard was required to cooperate. The report mandated by Congress was known as the "Ebasco Report" and was a study conducted by private contractor Ebasco Services, Inc. that began an investigation into Coast Guard operating practices in September 1947 and presented the finished report to Congress 21 January 1948. The report listed 193 recommendations for improving operations, some of which could be handled internally within the Coast Guard or the Treasury Department. Some of the recommendations required changes in laws that only Congress had the authority to modify. This resulted in Congress recognizing the need for the Coast Guard to have statutory authority for the many missions it had accumulated during the war years. The laws were enacted in a re-codified organic act in 1949

Cutters and Aircraft
With the end of the war, many of the oldest vessels that the Coast Guard operated were decommissioned in 1946 or 1947 and others were laid up in the reserve moorings the Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay, Maryland or at Kennydale, Washington. The Army and the Navy provided some newer replacement ships which were being decommissioned and they became patrol cutters and buoy tenders. In 1946 the International Ice Patrol was re-instituted after being suspended during the war years and additional cutters and aircraft had to be reserved for this mission. Congressional concerns about the Coast Guard's lack of interest in aviation led to sub-committee hearings on whether the Coast Guard should turn over the search and rescue mission aircraft assets to the Navy. Farley and Treasury Secretary Snyder pointed out that the Coast Guard was interested in aviation used for search and rescue but didn't have the funds to expand the service. The situation was not completely resolved until after Farley left office.

Expansion of LORAN and ocean station duties
As a result of increased air traffic after the war and heavier commercial shipping traffic the Ebasco Study recommended that the Coast Guard retain the responsibilities for LORAN stations and ocean stations that had been assumed during the war. The chains of LORAN stations maintained by the Coast Guard were modernized and utilized by both aircraft and ships for navigation purposes. The ocean station program provided up-to-date weather information and search and rescue for both aircraft and ships in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The initial attempt by the Coast Guard to operate enough stations to satisfy the demands of the airlines and shipping industry failed because of manpower limitations required in the Coast Guard budgets. The situation changed with the USCGC Bibb (WPG-31) rescue of the Bermuda Sky Queen, in September 1947. The Queen was a flying boat that was caught in gale-force winds that caused her to increase fuel consumption and as a result she could not reach her destination. The captain of the aircraft turned around and flew to the Bibb and successfully landed near the cutter. After a rescue lasting for several hours, all aboard the Queen were rescued without injury and Bibb was received in Boston to a hero's welcome. This demonstrated to Congress that the ocean station program was valuable to the fledgling trans-oceanic airline industry and funds were added to the Coast Guard budget to acquire the cutters and manpower needed to operate the program. At Farley's request, the Navy loaned a total of eighteen moth-balled 311 ft Casco–class seaplane tenders that would serve as ocean station cutters as well as two 339 ft cargo ships for supply of LORAN stations. The Army supplied three FS-class cargo ships for the same purpose. Farley was instrumental in establishing and maintaining both post-war plans for LORAN and ocean stations. Development of helicopters as a rescue vehicle continued during Farley's term as Commandant with the establishment of the Rotary Wing Development Unit at Coast Guard Air Station Elizabeth City, North Carolina.

Later life and death
After serving a total of 42 years in the Coast Guard, Admiral Farley was relieved by Vice Admiral Merlin O'Neill at change of command ceremonies on 31 December 1949. Farley retired officially on 1 January 1950. Farley died 25 November 1974 after a lengthy battle with esophageal cancer and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Legacy
Farley's term as the USCG's commandant saw the orderly demobilization from war, the assumption of new missions and responsibilities and the statutory definition of the Coast Guard's missions in both peacetime and during war. He was not completely successful in solving all of the service's personnel problems, but his leadership helped the Coast Guard to complete most of its manning requirements with the funds it had available.

title: Joseph F. Farley


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polliadynia

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Polliadynia
Description of a medical problem. The term 'polliadynia' appears to have been coined by a Nigerian doctor, and Google says he's the only one who uses it. Android79 05:24, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, this needs to make it into a peer-reviewed medical journal before it can appear in an encyclopedia. HyperZonktalk 18:13, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with Hyperzonk. Radiant! 10:49, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Caesarism

In political science, the term Caesarism identifies and describes an authoritarian and autocratic ideology inspired by Julius Caesar, the dictator of Rome, from 49 BC to 44 BC.

History
The German historian Johann Friedrich Böhmer first used the term Caesarism in 1846, to describe the state's political subordination of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1850, Auguste Romieu defined Caesarism as the military rule and régime of a warlord. The sociologist Peter Baehr said that "following Romieu's polemic, "Caesarism". . . [Caesarism] gained vogue [-word] status". In 1857, the religious writer Orestes Brownson used the term Caesarism to mean rule and régime of absolute monarchy. In 1858, the mainstream usage of the term occurs in a Westminster Review article of political criticism about the "clumsy eulogies of Caesarism as [being] incarnate in the dynasty of Bonaparte".

As an admirer of Julius Caesar, Napoléon Bonaparte espoused Caesarism as a justification of his rule and régime of France. Napoleon III's policy under the Second French Empire, which combined an authoritarian regime and a proactive social policy, notably with the Ollivier law of 1864, can be described as a form of "social Caesarism". According to historian Louis Girard (historian), this policy aims in particular to rally the workers to the regime in the face of hostile liberal bosses.

Benjamin Disraeli was accused of Caesarism in March 1878 when, in anticipation of war with Russia, he mobilised British reserves and called Indian troops to Malta. G. K. Chesterton made one of the most ringing denunciations of Caesarism in his work Heretics, calling it "the worst form of slavery".

Sociologist Max Weber believed that every mass democracy went in a Caesarist direction. Professor of law Gerhard Casper writes, "Weber employed the term to stress, inter alia, the plebiscitary character of elections, disdain for parliament, the non-toleration of autonomous powers within the government and a failure to attract or suffer independent political minds."

20th century
A so-called "democratic" form of Caesarism has been advocated by theorists like Venezuela's Laureano Vallenilla Lanz in Cesarismo Democrático (1919). Italian Duce Benito Mussolini and the ideology of Italian fascism espoused Caesarism.

Antonio Gramsci stated that the roots of Caesarism lie at the level of a "crisis of authority," which is also a crisis of representation that occurs when social groups no longer identify with political parties. These then become anachronistic, allowing a Caesarist solution to emerge. In the Italian case, Gramsci locates the causes of this socio-political disintegration in the destabilizing experience of the First World War, where the large peasant masses were forced to fight. At the same time, they had been passive during the Risorgimento. Caesarism is a macro-social phenomenon and cannot be driven by the emergence of an individual; this phenomenon, therefore, fulfills a political function. Furthermore, Gramsci evokes the possibility of a "Caesarism without Caesar" but implemented by a group like the British National Government bringing together the Conservatives and Labour.

Oswald Spengler described Caeserism as a final phase of modernity that would succeed democracy.

21st century
According to French historian Christian-Georges Schwentzel in the 21st century, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan partly took over this Caesarean model by adapting it, responding at the same time to a desire for authority and grandeur emanating from their peoples. In the 2020s, parts of the American right-wing, especially those associated with the Claremont Institute think tank, have advocated for Caesarism as an authoritarian solution to problems facing the US.

title: Caesarism


text:
Darboux's theorem

In differential geometry, a field in mathematics, Darboux's theorem is a theorem providing a normal form for special classes of differential 1-forms, partially generalizing the Frobenius integration theorem. It is named after Jean Gaston Darboux who established it as the solution of the Pfaff problem.

It is a foundational result in several fields, the chief among them being symplectic geometry. Indeed, one of its many consequences is that any two symplectic manifolds of the same dimension are locally symplectomorphic to one another. That is, every $$2n $$-dimensional symplectic manifold can be made to look locally like the linear symplectic space $$\mathbb{C}^n $$ with its canonical symplectic form.

There is also an analogous consequence of the theorem applied to contact geometry.

Statement
Suppose that $$\theta $$ is a differential 1-form on an $$n $$-dimensional manifold, such that $$\mathrm{d} \theta $$ has constant rank $$p $$. Then

 * if $$ \theta \wedge \left(\mathrm{d}\theta\right)^p = 0 $$ everywhere, then there is a local system of coordinates $$ (x_1,\ldots,x_{n-p},y_1,\ldots, y_p) $$ in which $$ \theta=x_1\,\mathrm{d}y_1+\ldots + x_p\,\mathrm{d}y_p; $$
 * if $$ \theta \wedge \left( \mathrm{d} \theta \right)^p \ne 0 $$ everywhere, then there is a local system of coordinates $$ (x_1,\ldots,x_{n-p},y_1,\ldots, y_p) $$ in which$$ \theta=x_1\,\mathrm{d}y_1+\ldots + x_p\,\mathrm{d}y_p + \mathrm{d}x_{p+1}.$$

Darboux's original proof used induction on $$p $$ and it can be equivalently presented in terms of distributions or of differential ideals.

Frobenius' theorem
Darboux's theorem for $$p=0 $$ ensures that any 1-form $$\theta \neq 0 $$ such that $$\theta \wedge d\theta = 0 $$ can be written as $$\theta = dx_1 $$ in some coordinate system $$ (x_1,\ldots,x_n) $$.

This recovers one of the formulation of Frobenius theorem in terms of differential forms: if $$ \mathcal{I} \subset \Omega^*(M) $$ is the differential ideal generated by $$ \theta $$, then $$\theta \wedge d\theta = 0 $$ implies the existence of a coordinate system $$ (x_1,\ldots,x_n) $$ where $$ \mathcal{I} \subset \Omega^*(M) $$ is actually generated by $$ d x_1 $$.

Darboux's theorem for symplectic manifolds
Suppose that $$\omega $$ is a symplectic 2-form on an $$n=2m $$-dimensional manifold $$M $$. In a neighborhood of each point $$p $$ of $$M $$, by the Poincaré lemma, there is a 1-form $$\theta $$ with $$\mathrm{d} \theta = \omega$$. Moreover, $$\theta $$ satisfies the first set of hypotheses in Darboux's theorem, and so locally there is a coordinate chart $$U $$ near $$p $$ in which$$ \theta=x_1\,\mathrm{d}y_1+\ldots + x_m\,\mathrm{d}y_m. $$

Taking an exterior derivative now shows
 * $$ \omega = \mathrm{d} \theta = \mathrm{d}x_1 \wedge \mathrm{d}y_1 + \ldots + \mathrm{d}x_m \wedge \mathrm{d}y_m.$$

The chart $$U $$ is said to be a Darboux chart around $$p $$. The manifold $$M $$ can be covered by such charts.

To state this differently, identify $$\mathbb{R}^{2m}$$ with $$\mathbb{C}^{m}$$ by letting $$z_j=x_j+\textit{i}\,y_j$$. If $$\varphi: U \to \mathbb{C}^n$$is a Darboux chart, then $$ \omega $$ can be written as the pullback of the standard symplectic form $$\omega_0$$ on $$\mathbb{C}^{n}$$:
 * $$\omega = \varphi^{*}\omega_0.\,$$

A modern proof of this result, without employing Darboux's general statement on 1-forms, is done using Moser's trick.

Comparison with Riemannian geometry
Darboux's theorem for symplectic manifolds implies that there are no local invariants in symplectic geometry: a Darboux basis can always be taken, valid near any given point. This is in marked contrast to the situation in Riemannian geometry where the curvature is a local invariant, an obstruction to the metric being locally a sum of squares of coordinate differentials.

The difference is that Darboux's theorem states that $$ \omega $$ can be made to take the standard form in an entire neighborhood around $$p $$. In Riemannian geometry, the metric can always be made to take the standard form at any given point, but not always in a neighborhood around that point.

Darboux's theorem for contact manifolds
Another particular case is recovered when $$ n=2p+1 $$; if $$ \theta \wedge \left( \mathrm{d} \theta \right)^p \ne 0 $$ everywhere, then $$ \theta $$ is a contact form. A simpler proof can be given, as in the case of symplectic structures, by using Moser's trick.

The Darboux-Weinstein theorem
Alan Weinstein showed that the Darboux's theorem for sympletic manifolds can be strengthened to hold on a neighborhood of a submanifold: "_N $, then there is a neighborhood $ U $ of $N$ in $M$ and a diffeomorphism $f : U \to U$ such that $f^*\omega_2 = \omega_1$.''"

The standard Darboux theorem is recovered when $$N$$ is a point and $$\omega_2$$ is the standard symplectic structure on a coordinate chart.

This theorem also holds for infinite-dimensional Banach manifolds.

title: Darboux's theorem


text:
Talk:Mesha Stele

House of David
This article leaves me still asking: is the reading "House of David" generally accepted in respectable academic circles, or is it not? PiCo 04:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Under the heading Content, the current last paragraph, which I added on Feb. 23, attempts to answer this question. In this paragraph, I had to open up a really squirmy can of worms, so I tried open it as little as possible: the matter of the biblical maximalist-minimalist controversy that has occasioned searching discussion, ungentlemanly exchanges, and not a few books.  It probably merits an eventual article of its own.  Lawrencemykytiuk 23:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, PiCo, because of the Tel Dan stele, even scholars who are not fond of the idea of a real, historical David will reluctantly accept that a certain David actually did rule somewhere in the southern kingdom of Judah, during the tenth century B.C.E. Typically, they quickly go on to claim that the David of the Tel Dan stele was at the level of a chieftain and that his kingdom was a very small "cow town" named Jerusalem, with its nearby environs.  Relatively few scholars reject the reading "House of David."  On another note, I really need to apologize for the lengthy delay in replying, PiCo.  Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does "House of David" have to refer to an actual person, instead of, as in the case of Rome with Remus and Romulus, could it not refer to a mythic founder or even a local god? Even if the inscription is accurate why jump to the conclusion that this person actually existed? WjtWeston (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Where does it say "David" or this other things. Why has no one circled the named of Yahweh? And how is it possible when the language is not Hebrew? 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The language is closely related to Hebrew, it also uses a variant of early Hebrew scripts. 2601:140:8900:61D0:2511:ADB4:C001:50E4 (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

4WMS: Moabite actually basically IS Hebrew, or rather they are both very closely related dialects. See the wiki on Moabite language. Johundhar (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Confused
I'm confused as to why the Tel Dan Stele article has two transliterations and a modern translation, while this much more extensive and arguably more important text only has a very old and not very accurate translation and no transliteration. Johundhar (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

So I found a translation from a very respectable source, ANET ed. by Pritchard--a standard reference work in the field, transl. by William F. Albright, a giant in the field. There is also a pdf available online for free, but wiki didn't seem to like it. This in no way undermines the absolute legitimacy of the source. Please do not delete the translation, or at least give a clear reason why you don't find it acceptable. Frankly, I can't see why a translation that is 144 years out of date has been considered even remotely acceptable here!Johundhar (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Nobody is questioning the quality of the new translation. The difficulty is that Wikipedia has to obey copyright law and you can't arbitrarily insert material from a copyrighted source. There are possibilities that include fair-use, limited quotation, and paraphrase but the details are complex. I suggest you converse with administrator about how to best present your source within the rules. Zerotalk 02:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Since Wikipedia is freely licensed content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, it's not appropriate to copypaste large amounts of non-free text into Wikipedia. A more appropriate way to do it is to offer a link to the translation in the external links section of the article.— Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. What constitutes 'large amounts'? And is there a rule of thumb for when something becomes 'free-text' (I tried looking it up, but couldn't find anything clear about material before 1978). Thanks ahead of time for any pointers. Sorry to take up your time, Johundhar (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that presenting a full transliteration would be a vital thing to have here. I was ready to undergo the laborious task of copying, letter by letter, the transliteration (and translation) from the Niccacci article, but I will not continue with that, given the above admonishments. (It is not easily available online without registering with JSTOR). I also don't understand why very useful information that was in free sources, like line breaks, have been deleted from the one (very bad) translation we are allowed to present here.Johundhar (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Translation
I reorganized the translation to correspond with line numbers of the source.

Also fixed some inacurracies. The meaning of "לפני" is "before" or "in front off", it litteraly means "at the face of". It can be translated to "before", or if one wants be litteral "at the face of", but not "before the face of". Same with "מפני", which means "away from", and litteraly "from the face of".

Itaj Sherman (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "קרב" means "inside", "inner side", "innermost part", "very near". In this case when reffering to the city, it means "inside the city" or "in the city", and not just the innermost part of it. Itaj Sherman (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a translation from an article by a historical scholar, Joan Ledering, a translation also used in other pretty legit sources such as World History Encyclopedia https://www.worldhistory.org/Moabite_Stone_[Mesha_Stele]/. I hope it stays within the rules. But I see a major dictum those rules is that 'Age Matters,' and the earlier translation presented is getting long in the tooth, indeed!Johundhar (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I note in E.W. Bullingers translation of the Mobite Stone he asserts in the 12th line of the inscription it states "I captured from thence the Arel of Dodah and tore him before chemosh in Kerioth : (Arel; 2 Lions) see 2nd Samual 23:20 Line 17 of transcription states; and I took from it the Arels of Yahveh and tore them before chemosh. The Jews kept scrolls of the 10 commandments in containers flanked by 2 Lions. Is it possible this is what Mesha was referring to ? LJH333 (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Lacking important information
There is only one sentence describing possibly one of the most important aspects of the stone: "The Stele is also significant in that it mentions the Hebrew name of God - YHWH. It is thought to be the earliest known reference to the sacred name in any artefact." Also, this section should stand on its own and the Contents section should be broken in to subsections. Just an observation: Researcher123456789 (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No source is given for the transcription of the text into modern letters. That's crucial for all the discussions of the contents, which (appropriately) make up most of the article. Is it original research, which shouldn't appear in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.73.8 (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I've reverted to a much earlier versionj of the page, one last edited by User:Lawrencemykytiuk. Mykytiuk is an important scholar of ancient Levantine languages and inscriptions, and we were very fortunate that he took time to edit our article. I feel that edits since then have actually tended to make the article worse, not better, although of course that wasn't anyone's intention. I've given Mykytiuk's version a very light edit, largely from the point of style - too many words, which is a failing common to academic writing. Plus of course the editors in this thread are quite right about the need to find references for the transcription and translation - I'll try to do this. But please, don't change the actual article too much unless you're very sure it leads to an improvement. [User:PiCo|PiCo]] (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * As I said in the previous section, I organized the translation to fit the line in the source, and then more accurate words. Others including you, fixed the translation even further. Your revert put it back to the state it was before, without the fitting lines, and some inaccurate translation. It seems that Mykytiuk, in all his edits in 2006, did not change the translation except one link, I don't know that gave it any attention. I think it was in best state right before your revert. I think we should put that version back in, and ask Mykitiuk to give it a look. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been 2 days and still no word. I just went ahead and re-reverted the translation to the revision as it was just before your revert. And also I put back the right allignment for the hebrew text, which is the right allignment, instead of the wrong one which is left, or the left one which is wrong (depends how you interpret the beginning of this sentence). --Itaj Sherman (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, PiCo, for the revert during September 2009, and thank you, Itaj Sherman, for handling the translation. I was a bit discouraged by what seemed to be erosion of the article, so the reversion was a morale boost.  As you have correctly observed, I did not check the translation, figuring that someone else concerned for its accuracy would handle that part.  I have no problem with anyone's editing in the direction of conciseness, as long as it is careful, as PiCo's edits are, thank goodness.  With one book to my name, I care enough to edit certain aspects when I can.  Sorry for the seven-month delay due to an academic year full of crunch times followed by recuperations and new pressures.  Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Lawrence, I've taken the liberty of extending the paragraph about Rainey's reconstruction of line 12 to take in what I found in the DDD - I felt this was needed for balance. I've tried not to support or denigrate either possible reading (how could I?), but feel free to amend or revert me if you disagree. How I wish Wikipedia were always so civilised. PiCo (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Another
Another version is that the Arab villagers smashed the stele when they saw Europeans taking an interest in it because the Arabs thought that it contained treasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.202.217 (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Very nice little comment there. Subtly suggesting, based on "another version", that the Arabs could not care about the stele so they broke it out of greed. Your "observation" is humorous and it reeks of orientalism worse than garlic breath. If you make comments, make sure they have a point, that they're well documented and not carrying a certain load. Sufitul (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The "J*wish Encyclpedia", under "Moabite Stone", says the villagers, "dreading the loss of such a talisman, broke the stone into pieces". Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar, on page 9, in
 * section 2 d, in note 2, says that the stone was "broken into pieces by the Arabs",
 * but does not give their reasons. Jensen, in "Sign, symbol and script", 1970,
 * seems to mention the idea that the stone was full of treasure.

 * I have started a section on the modern history of the Stone which I hope will expand to include all the myths around how it was destroyed. In doing so I have come across a letter from Rev Klein saying that the reconstruction is the wrong shape. The Palestine Exploration Fund Magazine (1876 - Page 181) reproduces a letter from Klein printed in the Athenaeum 12 August 1876:

"I have seen it repeated again and again . . . that the Moabite Stone was square at the lower end, and not oblong, though I have plainly stated that it was not so." He goes on to "positively declare" that the Moabite Stone was rounded off at the lower end in exactly the same manner as at the upper end" and that he had sketches, made on the spot, to prove it. These sketches, and dimensions taken at the time, were published in the Illustrated London News. As far as I can tell Klein was the only European to see the complete inscription and, as he comments, the true shape "may in some manner affect the inscription (at least the two or three lower lines) itself."

Padres Hana (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sayce's reference to the mayor of Nablus is strange.Padres Hana (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Text
Moved to talk since not in English RJFJR (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many words still in the article that are not in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.192.176 (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The text in Moabite, transcribed into modern Hebrew letters:

1. אנכ. משע. בנ. כמש.. . מלכ. מאב. הד 2. יבני | אבי. מלכ. על. מאב. שלשנ. שת. ואנכ. מלכ 3. תי. אחר. אבי | ואעש. הבמת. זאת. לכמש. בקרחה | ב[נס. י] 4. שע. כי. השעני. מכל. המלכנ. וכי. הראני. בכל. שנאי | עמר 5. י. מלכ. ישראל. ויענו. את. מאב. ימנ. רבן. כי. יאנפ. כמש. באר 6. צה | ויחלפה. בנה. ויאמר. גמ. הא. אענו. את. מאב | בימי. אמר. כ[...] 7. וארא. בה. ובבתה | וישראל. אבד. אבד. עלמ. וירש. עמרי. את א[ר] 8. צ. מהדבא | וישב. בה. ימה. וחצי. ימי. בנה. ארבענ. שת. ויש 9. בה. כמש. בימי | ואבנ. את. בעלמענ. ואעש. בה. האשוח. ואבנ 10. את. קריתנ | ואש. גד. ישב. בארצ. עטרת. מעלמ. ויבנ. לה. מלכ. י 11. שראל. את. עטרת | ואלתחמ. בקר. ואחזה | ואהרג. את. כל. העמ. [מ] 12. הקר. רית. לכמש. ולמאב | ואשב. משמ. את. אראל. דודה. ואס 13. חבה. לפני. כמש. בקרית | ואשב. בה. את. אש. שרנ. ואת. אש 14. מחרת | ויאמר. לי. כמש. לכ. אחז. את. נבה. על. ישראל | וא 15. הלכ. הללה. ואלתחמ. בה. מבקע. השחרת. עד. הצהרמ | ואח 16. זה. ואהרג. כלה. שבעת. אלפנ. גברנ. ו[גר]נ | וגברת. וגר 17. ת. ורחמת | כי. לעשתר. כמש. החרמתה | ואקח. משמ. א[ת. כ] 18. לי. יהוה. ואסחב. המ. לפני. כמש | ומלכ. ישראל. בנה. את 19. יהצ. וישב. בה. בהלתחמה. בי | ויגרשה. כמש. מפני | ו 20. אקח. ממאב. מאתנ. אש. כל. רשה | ואשאה. ביהצ. ואחזה. 21. לספת. על. דיבנ | אנכ. בנתי. קרחה. חמת. היערנ. וחמת 22. העפל | ואנכ. בנתי. שעריה. ואנכ. בנתי. מגדלתה | וא 23. נכ. בנתי. בת. מלכ. ואנכ. עשתי. כלאי. האש[וח למי]נ. בקרב 24. הקר | ובר. אנ. בקרב. הקר. בקרחה. ואמר. לכל. העמ. עשו. ל 25. כמ. אש. בר. בביתה | ואנכ. כרתי. המכרתת. לקרחה. באסר 26. [י]. ישראל | אנכ. בנתי. ערער. ואנכ. עשתי. המסלת. בארננ. 27. אנכ. בנתי. בת. במת. כי. הרס. הא | אנכ. בנתי. בצר. כי. עינ 28. - ש. דיבנ. חמשנ. כי. כל. דיבנ. משמעת | ואנכ. מלכ 29. ת[י] - מאת. בקרנ. אשר. יספתי. על. הארצ | ואנכ. בנת 30. [י. את. מה]דבא. ובת. דבלתנ | ובת. בעלמענ. ואשא. שמ. את. [...] 31. - צאנ. הארצ | וחורננ. ישב. בה. בת[ד]וד 32. - אמר. לי. כמש. רד. הלתחמ. בחורננ | וארד 33. -[ויש]בה. כמש. בימי. ועל[...]. משמ. עש 34. -- שת. שדק | וא
 * Thank you! Did you transcribe this one-to-one from the Phoenician letters? Ligata (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That was posted here by either someone using multiple ID addresses or a sockpuppet, copied from elsewhere on the web. Even if they are still around they probably won't respond. Doug Weller  talk 12:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Better photo of Mesha Stele
There is a better photo [IMO] of the Mesha Stele at the wiki "Tetragrammaton" article. Maybe someone may wish to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Proof
So the original is missing, and the paper mache caste has never been shown?

And we're supposed to just assume that this is genuine? Do they think we're idiots?

216.54.22.188 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 * No, the original is not missing, but it is damaged. The pieces were reassembled and are on display in the Louvre Museum. -- Lindert (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A Critical Examination
Does anyone have a copy of the following book: It questions the authenticity of the Mesha Stele. Would be interesting to see the basis on which it is questioned. Presumably part of the scepticism is based on the fact that in 1868 archaeological science was still relatively undeveloped and the expected confirmation bias of the Church Mission Society. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Albert / Abraham Löwy, A Critical Examination of the So-Called Moabite Inscription in the Louvre, 3d ed., London: Printed for private circulation, 1903.

 * I don't have access to that book, but the fact that archaeological science was undeveloped at the time of discovery is actually a strong argument for the authenticity of the stele. The reason is that a forger in the 19th century could not have known the details of the Moabite script. At the time almost nothing from that location and period had been excavated. Subsequently scientists have found many new (fragementary) inscriptions which match the Mesha Stele. -- Lindert (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi, FYI I just added a quote from William F. Albright using your exact argument above. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 * I should note though that Albright's argument is not wholly convincing, given that pages 19-46 of Gesenius's 1837 work include all of the variations of each of the characters in the Mesha Stele: . Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite, I believe. Many letters are very similar, but it's about the details. Look for instance at the vav and the qoph: both are symmetrical in the Mesha Stele, but Gesenius has no symmetrical variants of either letter. - Lindert (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis. Worth noting that Schroder had 331 Phoenician inscriptions at the time of the Mesha Stele versus only 70 available to Gesenius (p.241). Oncenawhile (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , out of interest, are you aware of any similar inscriptions with a symmetrical qoph? Lidzbarski's 1898 table suggests that the Mesha stele was still unusual from that perspective based on the corpus at the end of the 19th century. A few years later the Stele of Zakkur and Kilamuwa Stela were found, and both were mentioned by Albright as being similar to the Mesha script - I can't see symmetrical qophs in either of those but it may be the photos are not high res enough. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at Lidzbarski's Aramaic table (now added on right), the qoph matches that much better. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just about to post that the Melqart Stele has a very similar qoph (see p. 120 of this article. I am not currently aware of any examples in Hebrew or Phoenician inscriptions, but I haven't really looked into it much. - Lindert (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As do the Nerab and Zincirli inscriptions (see Monsieur C-G on his publication of the Nerab steles). It seems strange that the only known scripts which match were discovered 400-500km away... Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And the Assyrian Lion Weights were discovered by Layard in the late 1840s, with a very similar script. This seems to me to undermine Albright's argument that this Mesha form of the script was unknown at the time. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio
We have a translation of the entire text, 566 words, in our articles. That much text is copyvio, and I'm asking for advice on trimming. What would be best of course is to find a PD translation. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a PD translation from 1888 here by Archibald Sayce (1846-1933). We could use that, but we should not ignore subsequent research and insights. Maybe we could use footnotes in places where modern translations differ significantly. - Lindert (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I knew Sayce had made one but the only version I found was interspersed with commentary, this is much easier to copy. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all happy with a translation that's getting on for a century old - things have moved on. I'd like to find something more recent. PiCo (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disrespectful language
I'm contending the neutrality of the following sentence:

"In any case, neither the Mesha inscription nor the Books of Kings were written as objective history, both were intended as propaganda for their respective gods, Kings to glorify Yahweh the God of Israel, and the stele to glorify Mesha and Kemosh the god of Moab."

I'm not so sure Christians and Jews would appreciate having their Scripture referred to as 'propaganda'. There must be a different way to phrase this sentence so it is respectful to people of faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.4.42 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 * While being unnecesarily offensive is something to be avoided, whether some people would appreciate something is not really a criterion for inclusion/exclusion. The word propaganda has obviously very negative connotations, but taken at face value, it only means that it strongly propagates a message. It says nothing about whether that message is true or false. I personally believe that the books of Kings contain reliable history, but that does not mean that the only or even primary purpose of the author(s) was to record history.
 * There is however nothing against rephrasing the sentence, as long as it reflects the cited reference accurately. How about simply shortening the sentence to
 * "In any case, neither the Mesha inscription nor the Books of Kings are objective historical accounts; the Mesha stele was written to glorify king Mesha and Kemosh the god of Moab, and the Book of Kings to glorify Yahweh the God of Israel."
 * This has the added benefit that it removes the reference to 'their respective gods', because the Mesha stele glorifies king Mesha at least as much as Kemosh. - Lindert (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks better to me. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing important information
I have decided to undo the following changes ''08:46, 7 April 2013 Dougweller (talk | contribs). . (17,437 bytes) (-44). . (Jehovah is not the same as Yahweh) (undo) ''

My reasons are here in more detail. The appearance of the Biblical God on the Moabite Stone is very significant in that it provides another non-biblical reference to the divine name יהוה (YHWH). In Hebrew יהוה is generally pronounced Yahweh. Later Yahweh was translated into Latin as Iehova, and finally it was translated into Jehovah in English. There is nothing controversial about noting this stone containing the divine name. In fact it is very important to note this because King Mesha was not part of the nation of Israel. That Mesha knew the God of the Hebrews by name enough to inscribe this name on his stone tablet is very important. Gorba (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 * The stele does not describe the name, so that's wrong. Except for the translation the article uses Yahweh. The old translation we had used YHWH, but that had to be replaced with a free much older one. The name on the stone is clearly not Jehovah but Yahweh/YHWH, and a Google books search shows that Yahweh or YHWH is the preferred use. More than that, Yahweh is neutral it may refer to either a god of the Israelites or the god of the Israelites, thus it is not identical with Jehovah. Jehovah is generally thought of as the monotheistic god of Israel, and we don't know exactly what was meant by the word Yahweh on the stone - other than it referred to a god of Israel (read the article). So Jehovah is a violation of WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 * This is like saying 4 + 4 is the ONLY way to get 8. I have already provided evidence that Jehovah and Yahweh are the same name. Scholars the world over would agree with this conclusion. Jehovah is simply the Latin-English version of the divine name. In fact the name Jehovah actually appears in the translation within the article -- "I devoted them to Ashtar-Chemosh; and I took from it the vessels of Jehovah, and offered them before Chemosh." -- I am simply highlighting it as an item worth noting. To deny this edit on some sort of bizarre technicality is not only is wrong but also goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. I would appreciate it if - as a long time visitor and contributor - you would discontinue undoing my edits. Gorba (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Folks, there are several distinct issues here. First, Gorba is correct that "יהוה" is the same as Yahweh, though not correct that "in Hebrew יהוה is generally pronounced Yahweh".  Actually it is not usually pronounced at all, since halacha forbids it; however Yahweh is considered by scholars a fair guess at how it would be pronounced.  Gorba is also correct that Jehovah is the same as יהוה too: it is an erroneous transliteration of יהוה that somehow came into the English language.  However, I don't think Gorba's sentence is good.  For a start, the stele mentions יהוה but doesn't describe it.  Second, the interpretation of the word יהוה in the passage as the Israelite god is one for scholars to argue about.  This interpretation is not plainly provided by the text itself and so we shouldn't make a claim about it as a fact. Zerotalk 07:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks, probably better explained than I could. The other point is that Yahweh as a name didn't always refer to the monotheistic Israelite god, or at least that scholars make a case that it wasn't. If you read the article it took a while after the first appearance of the name for that to occur. As Zero0000 says, we shouldn't make a claim about this as fact. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Credibility of Both Authorship & Translation in Question
I moved the Following HERE: The stele, whose story parallels, with some differences, an episode in the bible's Books of Kings (2 Kings 3:4-8), provides invaluable information on the Moabite language and the political relationship between Moab and Israel at one moment in the 9th century BCE. It is the most extensive inscription ever recovered that refers to the kingdom of Israel (the "House of Omri"), it bears the earliest certain extra-biblical reference to the Israelite god Yahweh, and — if French scholar André Lemaire's reconstruction of a portion of line 31 is correct — the earliest mention of the "House of David" (i.e., the kingdom of Judah).

I went to the source. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0ya0XskpSC4J:www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf+House+of+David%27+restored+in+Moabite+Inscription&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiDgJM9zOiYPXCyWcqqc5_FEDVsiHG059P8W_kK3QSp4AXJ4KTH2-QEE5MPDMExqhAr2iwuWDgU24IRNyhr-bhpNTkL4_qIoCrW5QJsh59s-KMulVh33vq0eo2F65Yd_82ZTlk4&sig=AHIEtbTxYcTg1Ubc4ZP-iYlaiKYXmLZImg ~ The image is not in any language I can recognize. Moabite what? Needs some cross source verification that these letter refer to what is being claimed. In Greek, the name Jesus is written as "Joshua". Check the Chalcedon and Niacene Scrolls for yourself as I have done online. This habit of, "Hey this name is just another name for that person", without any phonetic basis is killing the Religious Archaeology profession. {The reason for the jesus error, is that J did not exist until after 1,000AD. His phonetic name was "iisoun" in greek, and "yay'soun" in old latin, the "yay'suse" in middle latin. And again with they added "J" to the alphabet they tried to unite Jew with Jesus by using the same letter to name both faith and people.}

The highest concern, is that the parts being sighted were all added back into the tablet from the plaster imprint? How do we know this isn't a silly putty trick? Seriously, they could have printed this on clay, they transferred it to the broken parts of the tablet. What they quote and refer to, can not be located on the parts that are original, and they seem to have discarded the broken piece, rather than keep them? No Hebrew would ever throw away the original pieces!!! 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Your personal problems with the sources don't count here. You need to argue that the text is not supported by the source.  Can you? Zerotalk 09:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, I can. There is no proof the source relates to what is claimed. There is not proof the text was not invented in plaster. ~ Lack of proof, makes their claims invalid. No honest archaeologist throws away the original pieces. / This is like the fake T Rex Dinosaur bones they found up north in the USA while I was a kid. You make a plaster skeleton, that is not proof of a real skeleton or creature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4WhatMakesSense (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the source is Lemaire's paper. Not the stele.  You are not entitled to argue against Lemaire, nor to interpret the stele yourself.  This is what the rules say.  If you want to make your own arguments, you need to do it somewhere else. Zerotalk 13:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a Professional and a Hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man You can't believe people who, throw away the original Stone Evidence. 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 * However, the reason that Wikipedia reports Piltdown Man as a hoax is because scholarly sources agree that it is a hoax. You and I cannot judge these things for ourselves according to Wikipedia's rules. We need reliable published sources. If most scholars would still be fooled by the Piltdown hoax, we as editors would be required to report it as genuine. Remember Wikipedia does NOT publish Original Research. - Lindert (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Where do you get that "they" threw away original pieces? (I read some but not all of the article.) The article says some bedouins destroyed it due to some controversy over ownership (and maybe for other reasons). Misty MH (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 * As to listing "Jesus" and "Joshua" here, and the letter "J", how is all that relevant to the article at hand? Misty MH (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 * And, further, the way you've stated it about "Jesus" and "Joshua" (if I may continue what seems like a tangent in Talk) doesn't seem entirely accurate. Yes, there was no "J", perhaps, but the question would seem to be about IDENTITY not to some English rendering of a word. The Greek word for Joshua was apparently the SAME for Jesus, or at least several major translators of the Bible thought so. SEE Hebrews 4:8 in the NASB, ESV, NIV, YLT, RSV, or ASV. http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=%22Joshua%22&t=NASB#s=s_primary_58_1 AND http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&c=4&v=8&t=NASB#s=t_conc_1137008 (The Web site only supported use of the Concordance when using either the NASB or KJV. I picked the NASB for this topic, tangential to the topic of the Mesha Stele.) Some older versions in English, such as the KJV, "translate" 4:8 as "Jesus", which, if it's in reference to Joshua, would have been confusing to readers of those versions. Misty MH (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Photos of the SQUEEZE
I find the idea that there was an image of the original existing in a "squeeze" as fascinating, but in a quick Google search of images, I do not find a photo of the squeeze anywhere, though it is listed as existing at the same location as the Stele itself. Can some savvy editors or readers of this locate good photos of the squeeze itself? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete references
All the references that have just the author's last name need to be expanded to include the name of the work and other identifying information so other readers can take advantage of the rest of the material in them. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC) What work by Nadav Na'aman refers to Daodah? The author should have read this work to make sure it hasn't been quoted out of context and that it points to other evidence about Daodah. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Full specification of the references appears in the bibliography section. Are any missing?  There seem to be a few errors; for example "Green 2004" is apparently the same as "Green 2010".  This page (fn. 84) of Green's book gives a cite to Ne'eman.  It would be fine to check Ne'eman's original and put in a direct citation if it is called for, but citing Green citing Ne'eman like we do now is allowed within our rules. Btw, the Ne'eman article seems to be IEJ 47(1997)83–92. Zerotalk 14:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

New Translation in Alphabetic Akkadian
I believe I need to make everyone aware that a new translation proposal has appeared for this Stele and others as well based upon an alphabetic form of Akkadian. You can see it at this website. Thoughts?

SalamisDragon (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 * See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. We can't use self-published sources unless there has been significant discussion in sources meeting WP:RS, which in this case would be academic sources. 12:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Translation
While the presented translation might be somewhat useful for readers interested in the inscription from a Biblical (or story telling) POV, it is not the most useful from a Linguist's POV.

While a linguistical analysis - would be to put it mildly not the most relevant for a story-oriented reader. Should there be a subpage with 'linguistic analysis of the inscription'? it makes certain sence, since for most readers the even actual text (in Moabit) probably seems like line-noise.

What's the current 'standart' in such articles of historic documents? The translation of the sentence: "and I killed in all seven thousand men, but I did not kill the women and maidens, for I devoted them to Ashtar-Chemosh" - is just wrong. It says exactly the opposite of what the original text says.

The original text says:

16.    זה. "ואהרג. כלה. שבעת. אלפנ. גברנ. ו[גר]נ | וגברת. וגר

17.    ת. ורחמת | כי. לעשתר. כמש. החרמתה" | ואקח. משמ. א[ת.

That means, in English: "And I killed it (i.e, the city) all. Seven thousand men and boys, women and girls, and pregnant women (or "embryos")*, because I sacrificed it (i.e, the city)** to Ashtar-Chemosh".

The words "but I did not kill" simply don't appear in that text (or anything else like them). The translator only imagined them (maybe out of the kindness of his own heart).

 * The word "רחמת" comes from "womb", but it is not clear if it means "pregnant women" or perhaps "embryos".

 * The word "החרמתה", which I translated as "sacrificed", is the same word as "חרם" which is used in the Hebrew Bible to indicate that the entire population of a city was killed, as a special kind of sacrifice or gesture to god, and no prisoners or booty were taken. For example see in the Bible: "..and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys" (Joshua 6: 20-21). The single Hebrew word used here that was translated here as "They devoted the city to the Lord" is "וַיַּחֲרִימוּ". The verb "חרם" actually means "to sacrifice by killing and/or burning", and that's exactly what Mesha king of Moab did - according to his own description. He killed everybody, for his god Chemosh... Pleas fix the translation, it's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.74.209.206 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 * We can only change the translation on the basis of a translation published in a reliable source. This is according to the rules. Zerotalk 08:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Doug Weller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, how about this source - it looks reliable enough to me (although it translates "רחמות" to "maidens" [but the Hebrew Wikipedia page does the same])? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.74.208.159 (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 'unsigned' here. There are lots of more recent and more accurate translations. I just started looking at this inscription a few days ago, and even I can see obvious problems in the translation ('took' instead of 'built' before "Beth Bamoth" even though the original has the exact same verb in the very next clause which here they rightly--according to every other translation I've seen--translate 'built'). Here's another recent translation by a scholar in the field Of course, all translations will have some passage that some will quibble with, but presenting one with such flagrant and obvious errors would seem to be a disservice to your readers, imho. Johundhar (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see that it has to be an actual published source, not something just online, even if penned by a legit scholar. So here is a published source, over 100 years old, but it seems to be more accurate than the translation we have now (and at least 30 years more recent than it): I would be willing to type it in, if that is what it takes. Johundhar (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

One more point (for now :) ): I am fairly new to this text and to early Semitic generally, and I know we aren't supposed to do original research here, but I do have some experience (especially with Hittite) in restoring texts. I am struck that in line 33 there is some fairly legible text that doesn't seem to get translated (in the translations I've consulted so far, anyway), but that seems to be closely parallel to text in line 28. The sequence in 33 I transliterate , while in 28 it is  where it is translated "was loyal" here and by Compston (Smelik has 'was subjugated') referring to the town/city of Dibon.

Now there is no sentence break visible between this bit and the preceding statement (agreed by all translations I have seen) "Chemosh restored [Horonaim] in my days...", so we would expect the following clause to be closely related to this fact. The only part translated after that passage seems to mean 'thence' (Compton) or 'from there' (Smelik) or 'wherefore' here. It would be quite expected that this clause would follow up the temporal reference and affirm the lastingness of Chemosh's victory, besides being a close parallel of the 33 language, if it said something like "Chemosh restored [Horonaim] in my day, and from there (=from then on; i.e. up to this day; or King's 'wherefore') it has been loyal/has (remained) subjugated."

It would be great if someone with more experience than I in this field could comment on this possibility, or if someone more familiar with recent scholarship could say if some scholar in the field has proposed such a translation/reconstruction. I'll try to explore my local university library this week and see what I can find myself, as what I have found of online published sources on the text has been quite limited. Thanks ahead of time. Johundhar (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Only
you are right there is nothing here - the discussion is at Talk:Tel Dan Stele. It seems to me if we are to have a binding decision across the four articles, we need to invite views from all four talk pages...

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mesha Stele. 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/20120331134523/http://www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf to http://www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

New text available on Wikisource
The English Wikisource now has Compston's 1919 article on The Inscription on the Stele of Méšaʿ, with the Moabite text in Phoenician script, the same text in Hebrew square script, and an English translation of the text.

This article is not yet referenced in the Bibliography of the Wikipedia article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, EP. Compston's more accurate translation should replace the poor one we currently have, unless someone finds a more recent published version that is usable. Johundhar (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mesha Squeeze.png

Harry Rimmer wasn’t an archaeologist
He was a creationist evangelist. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitely Fake idk how you could possibly say the consensus is legitimate
Just read this article. It’s 7 pages. Ventura appears to be institutionally unaffiliated but his research is found and points to sources that say the same thing. We have every reason to conclude it’s fake. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Davide-Ventura-2/publication/352292181_The_Mesha_Stele_a_Reappraisal_of_a_Forgery/links/60c225e44585157774c7a51b/The-Mesha-Stele-a-Reappraisal-of-a-Forgery.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ The-fbi-killed-julius-caesar (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mesha Stele


text:
Iyrcae

The Iyrcae (Ἱύρκαι) or Turcae were an ancient nation on the north-east trade route described by Herodotus beyond the Thyssagetae.

They were distinguished by their mode of hunting, climbing a tree to survey their game, and then pursuing it with trained horses and dogs. The reading Τυρκαι (Turcae) may be an anachronism, and when Pliny the Elder and Pomponius Mela speak of "Tyrcae" it is possibly due to a false correction.

Ellis Hovell Minns viewed them as "almost certainly the ancestors of the modern Magyars" and located them "somewhere about the upper basins of the Tobol and the Irtysh". Later researchers (such as Boris Rybakov) identified the Iyrcae with the Dyakovo culture of Central Russia.

title: Iyrcae


text:
Memorial Hermann Health System

Memorial Hermann Health System is the largest not-for-profit health system in southeast Texas and consists of 17 hospitals, 8 Cancer Centers, 3 Heart & Vascular Institutes, and 27 sports medicine and rehabilitation centers, in addition to other outpatient and rehabilitation centers. It was formed in the late 1990s when the Memorial and Hermann systems joined. Both the Memorial and Hermann health care systems started in the early 1900s. The administration is housed in the new Memorial Hermann Tower, along with the existing System Services Tower (formerly called the North Tower), of the Memorial Hermann Memorial City Medical Center.

Memorial Hermann–Texas Medical Center (formerly known as Hermann Hospital before the 1997 merger with Memorial Health Care System) was opened in 1925. It was the first of two hospitals with a Level I trauma center rating to be located in Houston, inside the Texas Medical Center. It (with Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital) is the flagship of a large system of hospitals and clinics located in and around the greater Houston area, in various neighborhoods as well as some suburbs. The different hospitals are distinguished by further designation indicating their location. (Texas Medical Center, Northwest, Southwest, Woodlands, etc.) The hospital system has been headed by some of the most influential leaders in healthcare including Dan Wolterman, Dr. Benjamin K. Chu as well as the current President & CEO David L. Callender, MD

History

The Memorial Hospital System was started in 1907 by The Rev. Dennis Pevoto who purchased an 18-bed sanitarium in downtown Houston, calling it the Baptist Sanatorium. By the time he retired, it had become Memorial Hospital System, a 200-bed facility. Prominent local businessman George H. Hermann died in 1914, leaving a large portion of his $2.6 million estate for building and maintaining a hospital for the poor and sick of Houston. The City of Houston annexed the site of Hermann Hospital in 1922, adding about 1000 acre of land to the city limits. Hermann Hospital opened its doors in 1925, it also started a school of nursing that same year.

Hermann Hospital was the first to operate in the neighborhood which later became the Texas Medical Center. In 1943 this hospital was the first in Texas to receive a shipment of the new wonder drug, penicillin. In 1946 it was also the first hospital to perform a cardiac catheterization. It remains the only hospital in the Houston area to have a burn-treatment center.

The flagship Texas Medical Center hospital is home to Memorial Hermann Life Flight, an emergency and critical-care-transport aeromedical service. Founded in 1976, LifeFlight was the first aeromedical service in Texas, and second in the United States. It transports around 3,000 patients annually. In 1985 the first successful liver transplant occurred here as well. In 1992 it was also the first hospital in the nation to perform a living-donor transplant on a neonatal patient.

In 1993 Memorial Hermann - Texas Medical Center acquired the region's first Gamma Knife. The first four-organ transplant in Houston also was performed here in 2006, along with it being the first hospital in the world to perform robotic re-constructive aortic surgery.

Hermann Hospital and the Memorial Healthcare System, which at the time had five hospitals, merged in 1997. The "Memorial Hermann" name was first used on November 4, 1997 after the Hermann Healthcare System and Memorial Healthcare System completed their merger, becoming the largest not-for-profit health care system in the nation. In August 2009 Memorial Hermann Hospital announced that it planned to sell its Southwest Hospital in Greater Sharpstown to the Harris County Hospital District, with plans to make the hospital its third general hospital. However, the county withdrew its bid in September 2009. Memorial Hermann has since made efforts to rebuild the Southwest Hospital.

Healthgrades America's 50 Best Hospitals
Memorial Hermann Northwest Hospital, Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital, Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital, and Memorial Hermann The Woodlands Hospital were collectively named an America's 50 Best Hospital in 2010 and 2011 by HealthGrades.

Thomson Reuters 100 Top Hospitals
Six Memorial Hermann hospitals were named among the nation's 100 Top Hospitals by Thomson Reuters in 2011. Memorial Hermann's hospitals were the only ones in the Houston-area to earn the recognition.

Collectively, Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital, Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital, Memorial Hermann Northwest Hospital and Memorial Hermann The Woodlands Hospital were awarded in the teaching hospitals category. Memorial Hermann Katy Hospital was recognized in the medium community hospitals category in 2010 and 2011. Memorial Hermann Sugar Land Hospital was awarded in the small community hospitals category for the first time in 2011.

The management Services program of Memorial Hermann Healthcare System won the 2011 Franklin Award of Distinction.

Headquarters
The administrative headquarters of the health care system are located in the 915000 sqft Memorial Hermann Tower in the Memorial Hermann Memorial City Medical Center, at the corner of Interstate 10 and Gessner Road. The headquarters were scheduled to move there in mid-2010. The new Memorial Hermann Tower building and the renovated North Tower in the Memorial City hospital have a total of 375000 sqft of space. In 2006 Marshall Heins, the system's vice president of construction, real estate and support services, said that the Memorial City location was chosen as the system headquarters because "The Memorial City area happens to be the geographic hub of Houston as well as the Memorial Hermann Healthcare System. All our facilities are easy to get to on Beltway 8, so we wanted a location that was close to it."

Previously the headquarters were in a facility on Interstate 69/U.S. Highway 59 (Southwest Freeway) at Bissonnet, in Greater Sharpstown. Memorial Hermann leased office space in two office buildings, 9301 Southwest Freeway and 9401 Southwest Freeway. The two buildings had a combined space of 300000 sqft. As of 2006 the headquarters had 1,300 employees. The 9401 Southwest Freeway building, also known as the Williamstown Office Tower, previously housed TexCon Petroleum Co. and became vacant several years prior to 1997 when TexCon vacated the space. 9401 Southwest Freeway has 214000 sqft of space and, as of 2009, was owned by the Los Altos, California company Investment Grade Loans. Moody Rambin Interests is the leasing agent of the building as of 2009. 9301 Southwest Freeway has 111000 sqft of space. As of 2009 BGK of Texas owns 9301 Southwest Freeway, and that year Moody Rambin Interests became the leasing company.

On July 9, 2010 the hospital system entered into a lease for over 800000 sqft of office space with MetroNational Corp., involving the former North Tower and the Medical Office Buildings 1–4 on the Memorial City campus. The hospital system continued to use Transwestern to handle the leasing and management.

Hospitals
The locations of the hospital system include:
 * Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, (Houston)
 * Children's Memorial Hermann, (Houston)
 * Memorial Hermann Katy Hospital, (unincorporated Harris County) - Located east of the city of Katy
 * Memorial Hermann Memorial City Medical Center, (Houston)
 * Memorial Hermann Northeast Hospital, (Humble)
 * Memorial Hermann Northwest also known as Greater Heights Hospital, (Houston)
 * Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital, (Houston)
 * Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital, (Houston)
 * Memorial Hermann Sugar Land Hospital, (unincorporated Fort Bend County) - Located southwest of the city of Sugar Land
 * Memorial Hermann The Woodlands Medical Center, (The Woodlands community, Shenandoah )
 * TIRR Memorial Hermann Rehabilitation Hospital, (Houston)
 * Memorial Hermann Orthopedic and Spine Hospital, (Bellaire)
 * Memorial Hermann Prevention and Recovery Center (PaRC) Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center (Houston)
 * Memorial Hermann Pearland Hospital, (Pearland)
 * Memorial Hermann Cypress Hospital, (Cypress)
 * Memorial Hermann Urgent Care (Houston, Spring, Sugar Land, Friendswood)

title: Memorial Hermann Health System


text: Category:Libertarianism

title: Category:Libertarianism


text: Category:Scholars

title: Category:Scholars


text:
Russell R. Waesche

Russell Randolph Waesche, Sr. (6 January 1886 – 17 October 1946) served as the eighth Commandant of the United States Coast Guard from 1936 to 1946, overseeing the service during World War II. He was the U.S. Coast Guard's longest serving commandant, having served ten years in that post. In addition, he was the first officer to hold the ranks of vice admiral and admiral within the Coast Guard.

Early life and education
Waesche was born and raised in Thurmont, Maryland. He was fifth of the eight children of Leonard Randolph Waesche and Mary Martha Foreman. Waesche's grandfather George Henry Waesche was a German immigrant who had become a prominent figure in Carroll County, Maryland. Following graduation from high school, Waesche attended Purdue University for a year before transferring to the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service School of Instruction and accepting an appointment as a cadet in 1904. He graduated from the Revenue Cutter School of Instruction in 1906.

Career
After graduating with the rank of ensign (or third lieutenant as the rank was then known in the Revenue Cutter Service), Waesche served in the North Atlantic, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific Northwest. In 1911, Waesche commanded USRC Arcata (1903) and USRC Pamlico (1907). In 1915, Waesche was assigned to headquarters in Washington, D.C. While stationed in Washington in 1915, he took an active part in creating the Coast Guard with the merger of the Revenue Cutter Service and the U.S. Life-Saving Service. Waesche remained in Washington and in 1916, became the head of the communications division. During World War I, Waesche remained in Washington.

In 1919, the 18th Amendment was passed, and Waesche was assigned to enforce prohibition at sea. He commanded various destroyers in preventing "rum runners" from entering port. He commanded USCGC Beale. After he served on Beale, he went to the Philadelphia Navy Yard and was the Coast Guard representative at the U.S. Sesquicentennial International Exposition. He later commanded USCGC Tucker. Waesche also commanded USCGC Bothwell (ex-Eagle 21) (1919) and USCGC Snohomish. At Coast Guard Headquarters, Waesche started the Coast Guard Institute and Correspondence School for warrant officers and enlisted personnel as well as the reorganization of Coast Guard field forces in 1932.

In February 1932, he became liaison officer in the War Plans Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department. After completion of this duty he served as aide to Commandant Harry G. Hamlet, then he was Chief of the Finance Division, and Assistant Commandant. He was appointed Commandant as rear admiral on 14 June 1936, and was largely responsible for the merger of the U.S. Lighthouse Service with the Coast Guard in 1939. He was also instrumental in organizing a strong Coast Guard Reserve which underwent its greatest expansion in history. During World War II, Waesche served as commandant of the Coast Guard and received honors for his service.

Waesche was promoted to vice admiral in 1942 and admiral in 1945 and was the first Coast Guard officer to achieve those ranks.

Later life and death
Waesche retired from the Coast Guard on 31 December 1945 after serving the longest tenure as commandant in Coast Guard history.

In March 1946, President Harry S. Truman nominated the ten top wartime generals and admirals of the United States Armed Forces including Waesche who were to retain permanently their wartime rank.

Waesche died on 17 October 1946, nine months after retiring as Commandant, at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland due to complications of leukemia. He is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Personal life
Waesche was married to Agnes R. (Cronin) Waesche (1894–1947) and had four sons. His eldest son, Russell Randolph Waesche Jr. (1913–1998), was a U.S. Coast Guard rear admiral who served as the commanding officer of USCGC Northwind from 1960 to 1962, with the rank of captain. Another son, Harry Lee Waesche (1915–2000), was a U.S. Air Force colonel who served during World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

Awards and decorations

 * Navy Distinguished Service Medal
 * Navy Commendation Ribbon
 * World War I Victory Medal
 * American Defense Service Medal
 * American Campaign Medal
 * World War II Victory Medal

Legacy

 * Waesche Hall at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy is named in honor of Admiral Waesche (who graduated from the Academy when it was known as the Revenue Cutter School of Instruction). The building houses the Academy library and admissions department and is the current location of the Coast Guard Museum.
 * The U.S. Coast Guard cutter, USCGC Waesche (WMSL-751), is named in his honor.

title: Russell R. Waesche


text:
Ohr Somayach

Ohr Somayach may refer to:

 * Ohr Somayach (book), commentary by Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk
 * Ohr Somayach, common reference to Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk
 * Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem, a network of yeshivas based in Israel
 * Ohr Somayach, Monsey, a yeshiva in the United States
 * Ohr Somayach, South Africa, South African affiliate of Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem

title: Ohr Somayach


text:
Category:Whaling

For articles about whales see Category:Cetaceans.

title: Category:Whaling


text:
Terminal 2–Humphrey station

Terminal 2–Humphrey station is a light rail station is on the Metro Blue Line. It is the fifteenth stop southbound.

This is an island platform station and is typically accessed via a partially covered walkway from Terminal 2 of the Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport, also known as the Humphrey Terminal. Service began at this station when the second phase of the Blue Line opened on December 4, 2004.

The southern portal to the tunnels underneath the airport is located just to the north of this station. Service between this station and Terminal 1–Lindbergh station is free to passengers and operates 24 hours a day. The Blue Line is the main mode of transportation to transfer between terminals.

Many employees who work at the airport park at the smaller Terminal 2 and take the Blue Line to the larger Terminal 1. When COVID-19 reduced travel demand, many employees were able to park directly at Terminal 1. Travel demand rebounded by 2022 which led to concerns about parking capacity at Terminal 1. Some airport workers were directed to resume parking at Terminal 2 but some workers expressed apprehension due to behavior and crime on the trains and at stations. In early 2023, Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Airport Commission came to an agreement for airport police and Metro Transit police officers to patrol the stations and trains between the airport terminals. The mutual aid agreement was extended until February 2024 when Metro Transit determined that the agreements were no longer needed. Private security guards hired by Metro Transit began patrolling the stations and trains between stations for 21 hours out of the day.

Notable places nearby

 * Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport
 * Fort Snelling National Cemetery

title: Terminal 2–Humphrey station


text:
Fareless Square

Fareless Square was an area within central Portland, Oregon, where all rides on TriMet buses and light rail and the Portland Streetcar were free. It primarily consisted of the downtown area and, after 2001, the Lloyd District. It existed from January 1975 through August 2012, but was briefly renamed the Free Rail Zone in January 2010 after its coverage became limited to light rail and streetcar service, with bus rides no longer being free. The TriMet board decided in June 2012 to discontinue the Free Rail Zone primarily to help fill a large shortfall in the agency's budget, and the action was one component of a package of extensive budget cuts which also included service reductions and fare increases. The Free Rail Zone ended on August 31, 2012.

Boundaries
The boundary of the westside portion of Fareless Square (and later the Free Rail Zone) started at the west foot of the Marquam Bridge, ran northwest along Interstate 405 to Northwest Irving Street, east to the Steel Bridge, then southward along the western shore of the Willamette River. The boundary of the eastside section, added in 2001, started at the east foot of the Steel Bridge, ran northwest to North Interstate Avenue to Multnomah Street, then east to the 1400 block of Northeast Multnomah Street, south to Northeast Holladay Street, and west to the Steel Bridge. By implication the entirety of the Steel Bridge was within the fare-free zone.

According to the TriMet code, the free-ride zone was "within Zone 1" and did not constitute a separate fare zone. TriMet discontinued all fare zones effective September 1, 2012, and no longer uses a zonal, or distance-based, fare system.

History
Adopted in 1975 to combat limited parking and air pollution, Fareless Square initially encompassed the area of downtown Portland between Hoyt Street and Market Street, and from the Willamette River west to I-405. On April 3, 1977, it was expanded southward from Market Street to the point where I-405 meets the river at the Marquam Bridge. A minor adjustment of Fareless Square occurred during the 1990s in order to include the stops for Union Station (Amtrak), by extending the northern limits of the area by one block to Northwest Irving Street.

In 2001, Fareless Square was extended again, this time across the river to the Lloyd District. Included were MAX stations along Holladay Street and bus stops on NE Multnomah Street from the Rose Quarter, past the Oregon Convention Center to the Lloyd Center shopping mall. This was a panhandle-shaped addition to the original free-fare zone, and consequently Fareless Square was, strictly speaking, no longer square-shaped, but it retained its name. In 2007, a pair of stops directly in front of Union Station, added with Portland Mall construction and north of Irving Street, were added to the zone. In its last years, the free-service area covered 1.35 mi2.

"Free Rail Zone"
In January 2009, TriMet again raised the idea of reducing the validity of Fareless Square or possibly imposing a discounted fare, of $1, in the area concerned, this time in conjunction with a need to trim its budget in response to a regional economic downturn.

The proposals were refined into one that would eliminate fareless service on buses but keep rail service free. Proponents of this change argued that, with MAX light rail being added along the Portland Transit Mall in 2009, most transit users riding solely within the fareless area would be served by MAX and the Portland Streetcar, and therefore still travel for free. TriMet stated that 93% of all trips made within the fareless zone could be made via the rail system, following the 2009 expansion of MAX coverage within downtown. In addition, bus drivers complained about passengers boarding buses for rides lasting only a few stops within the fareless area, slowing down longer distance riders. In addition, to alleviate concerns about seniors and the disabled in the downtown losing access to free service, a photo ID card would be provided to residents living within the fareless boundaries to ride transit within the current boundary for $10 for two years.

The Portland Business Alliance and tourism bureau supported the move. At that time, the estimated loss of revenue attributed to free rides on buses in the fareless zone was $800,000. In August 2009, the TriMet board approved an ordinance to discontinue the fareless zone on buses but retain it for MAX and the Portland Streetcar. The change took effect in January 2010, with the zone renamed the Free Rail Zone.

TriMet's fiscal year 2013 budget proposed the elimination of the Free Rail Zone effective September 1, 2012, as part of a package of service cuts and other changes intended to deal with a $12 million budget shortfall, and the proposal was approved in June. The fareless zone was discontinued at the end of service on August 31, 2012.

Controversy
From time to time during Fareless Square's history, some in the Portland area called for it to be abolished, for various reasons.

As bus drivers could only request, but not require, payment of fares on bus boardings within Fareless Square, critics of TriMet alleged that the existence of Fareless Square facilitated fare evasion, and thus lost revenue, which must be made up by other means, such as taxation. In particular, riders who boarded in Fareless Square without paying a fare and then knowingly traveled beyond the zone's boundaries would be evading fare payment. Transfers were given to all passengers who paid fares within the fareless zone, which were subject to inspection by fare inspectors or drivers at the first stop outside of the fareless boundary. However, in practice, drivers did not systematically enforce fare collection on bus trips taken from points inside the fare-free zone to points outside it. (In other cities with fareless zones, pay-on-exit is used on trips leaving the fareless area, and that practice was also used by TriMet from 1975 until 1982.)

On the MAX Light Rail and Portland Streetcar lines, a proof-of-payment fare system (or "honor" fare system) is used, so the application of the Fareless Square (or Free Rail Zone) meant that fare inspectors did not check passengers' fares within the free-fare zone.

In late 2007, a series of attacks against TriMet passengers, particularly on the MAX Blue Line in Gresham, led to increased public scrutiny of the security of the Portland transit system as a whole. Fareless Square was called into question as part of this inquiry, as it was alleged that the perpetrators of such offenses were often fare evaders who boarded TriMet in Fareless Square, and who then traveled to other areas (such as Gresham) without paying any fare, and that more stringent fare collection would keep such "undesirables" off the trains. TriMet's general manager proposed limiting the hours of Fareless Square to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. However, others questioned the logic of linking incidents of crime in Gresham with the existence of a free transit zone located several miles away, in downtown Portland, and TriMet's own statistics showed that in 2007 the agency received very few complaints about activities such as drug dealing and panhandling in Fareless Square. TriMet held two public hearings on January 16, 2008 to help determine the future of Fareless Square but, after receiving a large volume of comment from the public, decided to not make any immediate changes.

title: Fareless Square


text:
Earnest payment

An earnest payment or earnest money is a specific form of security deposit made in some major transactions such as real estate dealings or required by some official procurement processes to demonstrate that the applicant is serious and willing to demonstrate an earnest of good faith about wanting to complete the transaction.

In the Middle Ages, the earnest payment was called variously an earnest penny, Arles penny, or God's silver (in Latin Argentum Dei). It was either money or a valuable coin or token given to bind a bargain, notably for the purchase or hiring of a servant. According to Black's Law Dictionary (sixth ed.), Et cepit de praedicto Henrico tres denarios de Argento Dei prae manibus ("And he took it from the aforesaid Henry [sealed by a] silver three pence [piece] handed over [in the sight of] God").

A potential buyer of property of high value such as residential real estate generally signs a contract and pays a sum acceptable to the seller by way of earnest money. The amount varies enormously, depending upon local custom and the state of the local market at the time of contract negotiations.

If the seller accepts the offer, the earnest money is held in trust or escrow.

These funds may be held directly by the seller's attorney, the real estate broker (as in the State of New York) or by a settlement or title company (as in states like California, Florida, and Texas).

When the transaction is settled then the deposit is applied to the buyer's portion of the remaining costs. If the offer is rejected, the earnest money is usually returned, since no binding contract has been entered into.

title: Earnest payment


text:
Stopping thought

Stopping thought is a term in Zen referring to the achievement of the mental state of samādhi, where the normal mental chatter slows and then stops for brief or longer periods, allowing the practitioner to experience the peace of liberation. This is normally first done during zazen meditation, but should ideally be mastered, so that it can be done regularly.
 * The terms "Stopping Thought" and "samadhi" were not found on the Austin Zen Center's website in their glossary (https://austinzencenter.org/glossary-of-zen-terms/). In an article (https://www.zen-tools.net/how-to-stop-thinking.html) the author discusses the process of stopping thinking via mindfulness and meditation.

Paradoxically, Zen teaches that the attainment of this state is not through the normal method of intent and application of skill or technique. As stated in the Zen poem Hsin Hsin Ming:

 * "When you try to stop activity to achieve passivity your very effort fills you with activity. As long as you remain in one extreme or the other you will never know oneness." - Hsin Hsin Ming

In other words, the process is a combination of acceptance and returning to or focusing on a familiar state, rather than a state achieved through pure force of will.

title: Stopping thought