text:
Talk:Windsor, Ontario

File:Detroit, USA Taken From Windsor, Canada.jpg
As the title says, this is a picture of Detroit taken from Windsor. I've challenged it by removing it, and asked the IP to discuss the image, but the IP keeps restoring it. I don't think that we need to include a picture showing what can be seen from Windsor. Since this edit has been challenged it should stay out unless consensus is reached on this talk page to include it. I'm removing it again pending the outcome of this discussion. Meters (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Meters - a picture of Detroit's skyline doesn't belong in the article about Windsor.  PK  T (alk)  13:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree all you want, PKT. Meters, it belongs here because Detroit is the biggest city in Michigan and the one of the biggest in North America. It also connected to Windsor by the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. Furthermore, if you go to, say, Victoria Peak, you will not only find photos of this mountain, but views FROM the mountain. And if you go to Windy Point or Mount Lofty, you will also find views FROM these places. In my opinion, it belongs here and I am going to reinsert it into the article ( along with a photo of the Ambassador bridge or the Detriot-Windsor tunnel ). Thank you.101.178.163.19 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly suggest you not do that, IP. Content on Wikipedia us decided by consensus which you lack. If you want to write a webpage on Windsor where you alone get to decide content, feel free to do so. Wikipedia is not, however, a webhost, and if you want to edit here, you must conform your edits to policy. I don't have any idea what the Canadian version of the 1st amendment is, but you do not have freedom of speech here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1st ammendment? And yes, there is freedom of speech on Wikipedia per say. There is no censorship on Wikipedia. Or, Wikipedia is uncensored. 101.178.163.19 (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I know where Detroit is and how to get there from Windsor, 101 - I was born and raised in Windsor. A photo solely of the Detroit skyline makes no sense in this article.   PK  T (alk)  13:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm... the IP editor who contributed to this discussion got blocked for edit-warring, and a different IP location has started re-inserting the photo of Detroit. I have requested page protection to stop it.  PK T (alk)  14:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, I agree with and Meters. A photo of the Detroit skyline is off topic here. Somewhere the original poster of the picture stated he was going to add a picture of the Ambassador Bridge (however, didn't they change the name to honor Gordie Howe?). That, I don't think, would be off topic. PKT, if the new IP is stable, you can contact the administrator that blocked the original IP and request a block evasion block. John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I said that I would add either a photo of that, or the Windor-Detroit Tunnel. I've added the later. I could also add the Ambassador bridge if you like. And no, that other IP was not me. Please do not make accusations or unsubstantiated statements. Thank you.101.178.163.19 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PKT didn't said that the other IP was you. In fact, User:PKT made a point of stating that the IP geolocated to a different place than your IP. John likely didn't catch that.. Meters (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

declare, not "issue," a state of emergency
The verb required here is declare, not issue: issue a state of emergencyS. Valkemirer (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Next time just WP:SOFIXIT yourself, or at least tell us where the problem is. I fixed one spot I found. Meters (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

weather
windsor rarely gets winter weather anymore; it rarely even snows. somebody should update the write-up, so it is more reflective of contemporary weather realities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.229.201 (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Fourth most culturally diverse
@WindsorResident1987, sending you a ping as I start this discussion.

The sources you listed, the Univeristy of Windsor, the City of Windsor, and the statement by a member of the Windsor Police, all state that Windsor is the 4th most culturally diverse town in Canada. Unfortunately none of them provide any data to back this up, which is problematic.

While Googling to see if I could find sources for this myself, I found someone who's attempting to dispel this rumour. I understand this link has some bias to it, but theirs is the only analysis of the numbers that I've found so far. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi @Hey man im josh:
 * I can understand and appreciate your interest in finding data. That being said, I don't see the need in finding this data to use this fact on the Wikipedia page. It appears to be a rather well-established fact. In fact, the Government of Ontario recognizes this as fact too. See here. Windsor's public school board, too: see here. The Ontario Universities site, too, see here.
 * If the Government of Ontario is claiming this as fact, then the data you seek is almost certainly garnered by comparing census data.
 * You're right that the source dispelling this seems to be biased. As far as I can tell, he seems to want to use a different metric for diversity than others, which is why he's getting different results. I could be wrong, but I get the impression from his page that that was done purposefully. WindsorResident1987 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Government of Ontario does not acknowledge it in your link, though the mention of being the fourth most culturally diverse is mentioned, the source of the mention seems to come from the University itself in that agreement. That agreement looks largely crafted by the University based on the tone, wording, and use of "we" several times when referring to the university. At one point they point towards [www.ontarioimmigration.ca ontarioimmigration.ca] as the source for that statistic.
 * That goes back to a good point that the biased source mentioned. What do you consider to be the proper metric for diversity? Is it strictly first-generation immigrants? I'm starting to think that immigration statistics is where this idea of Windsor being the fourth most culturally diverse comes from. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Any mention of "most culturally diverse" is open to subjective interpretation. Without a definition of the criteria used to measure this, it's just more puffery. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. The mention should be left out altogether in my opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Gordie Howe Bridge to link Hwy 401 & I-75
an important new project is worth mentioning 108.51.209.180 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Windsor, Ontario


text:
Talk:Fortification

German Wikipedia
Any German speakers looking to work on our fortification articles might like to look at some of the pretty good German Wikipedia articles on fortification linked from Fachbegriffe Festungsbau and category de:Kategorie:Befestigungsanlage. Securiger 13:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

October 2005
The following lines are confusing and since I'm not clear what they are trying to say I can't edit them. I'm flagging this as needing cleanup in the hopes that someone more knowledgable can take a look at it.

"Star forts of the cannon era did not fare well against the effects of high explosive, and the intricate arrangements of bastions, flanking batteries and the carefully constructed lines of fire for the defending cannon could be rapidly disrupted by explosive shells."

- Why were they disrupted any more easily by explosive shells than non-explosive shells?

 * Prior to the development of high explosives, the majority of damage was done by the momentum of solid cannon balls. The point of the star forts "bastion trace" layout was to prevent the enemy firing directly at the walls, by sinking them into ditches fronted by earth banks, which were swept by defensive cannon fire. Shooting up into the air and having the shot simply fall onto the fortifications was a lot less damaging, especially as the upper surface of the fortification was simply large piles of relativly loose earth specifically to absorb the energy of falling cannon balls. With the development of high explosives, the falling shells embed themselves into this earth and explode, delivering much much more damaging amounts of energy against the fortification.--Shoka 22:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"Worse the large open ditches surrounding forts of this type were an integral part of the defensive scheme, as was the covered way at the edge of the counter scarp. The ditch was extremily vulnerable to bombardment with explosive shells."

- Did troops hide in the ditch? If the ditch is just an empty ditch why do the defenders care if it's being bombarded?

 * The ditch was very much a part of the defensive operations of the fort. Around the edge of the outer face of the ditch was a defensive walkway known as the "covered way", or "covert way". The attackers objective was to get their guns into a position where they could batter at the forts walls, mostely forming the inner face of the ditch, to break it down and leave it vulnerable to infantry assault. The prime means of achieving this in the face of the defending guns of the fort, was to cut trenches and mines in the glasis, the earth ramp that slopes away from the covered way. The objective of the troops manning the covered way was to create counter trenches and counter mines, to keep control of the glasis. Without the active defence of the covered way, the attackers would trench their way across the glasis, mount guns bearing directly on the walls and swiftly reduce the walls. While cannon balls falling into one's defensive trench are inconvenient, high explosive shells falling in the same way make the ditch and covered way a deathtrap.--Shoka 22:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"Wide enough to be an impassable barrier for attacking troops, but narrow enough to be a difficult target for enemy shellfire, the ditch was swept by fire from defensive blockhouses set in the ditch, and firing positions cut into the outer face of the ditch itself."

- how do you cut firing positions into the outer face of a ditch? The outer face points one of two directions, back into the ditch, or out into solid ground. Neither of which is a logical place to put firing positions.

 * The fort is polygonal, with narrow ditches running in straight lines. The main part of the fort is underground. Tunnels are cut under the ditch, and firing points dug into the outer corners of the ditch, with firing loopholes looking down the length of the ditch. Yes the counterscarp batteries are outside the ditch, at the corners so that they can fire along the lenght of the ditch. The point of the firing positions is to make the ditch an impassible killing ground, to prevent mass infantry assault overwhelming the fort. See Fort Delimara for a picture looking down the ditch towards a counterscarp battery.--Shoka 22:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"The entrypoint became a sunken gatehouse in the inner face of the ditch, reached by a curving ramp that gave access to the gate via a rolling bridge that could be withdrawn into the gatehouse."

 * The rolling bridge was standard equipment on British forts. Seen a reference to the patent somewhere. Seem to have been mostely replaced by solid bridges when vehicular traffic into the forts became common. See St Lucian Tower for a nice example of the style of gatehouse. See also the external webpages referenced on Fort Rinella for further confirmation. I have some nice views of the gatehouses and ditchs of Fort Madelana and Fort Tas-Silg on Malta, am preparing articles on them at present.

- can anyone give a source for this? I've never heard of it and although I don't doubt that it was used in some places, I doubt it was widespread enough for such a blanket statement. Jerdwyer

I've linked to the more extensive article on polygonal forts (with pictures), which may help reduce some confusion.--Shoka 22:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive
Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you like link about Petrovaradin fortress one of the greates and most preserved XVIII cenrury in Europe.

Excessive boldness
The excessive use of bold text in the opening is a bit distracting, and I personally think it detracts from the article. Anyone mind if I remove these and replace them with links where necessary? Montag 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No objection, feel free--Shoka 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What does a modern fort look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.76.176 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate sections
How about separate sections for permanent fortifications and field fortifications, and examples of the later with some explanation of their use throught he ages, construction, and tactical context?--Mrg3105 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

History
The history section currently begins in the 14th century. Anyone able to add anything from older times?--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Field fortifications:
George Ripley writing just before the American Civil War had several interesting points to make about field fortifications.

Source: George Ripley, Charles Anderson Dana, The New American Cyclopaedia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge,D. Appleton and Company, 1859, p. 622

I think his comment "The parapet is made as high as in permanent fortification (7 to 8 feet), but not so thick, having to resist field artillery only" is as pertinent now as it was in 1848, so I think that this article needs to be restructured into sections covering "permanent fortification" and "field fortification" and possible a section on "semipermanent fortification" as with the lines of Weissenburg and the Siegfried Line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) 9 September 2008

Machine gun nest
Are machine gun nests considered fortifications?--Commander v99 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Children's Forts.
Children's Forts.

I found the section that discussed building forts, particularly materials used. At an appropriate point, I inserted something along the lines of "Many children enjoy building forts out of pillows or boxes." However, someone reverted the change. (User Hello71 if I'm reading the change log correctly.)

If this is not the correct place for this, then where is?

Children building forts using pillows, blankets, boxes, drying racks and so on is a part of this world and deserves it's place on Wikipedia just like anything else.

Please discuss, elaborate, whatever. Where do children's forts go if not in the forts article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.64.86 (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have entirely missed the point of the article, which is about the military science and engineering and history of defensive fortifications. That does not include "children's forts", as you call them.  Piles of pillows, blankets or cardboard have never been used to defend any location against military siege craft. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Jangtae
. Apparently during the Donghak Peasant Revolution, Korean traditional chicken coops were used as a moveable bullet-proof fortification tool. Komitsuki (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Goguryeo and Sassanid
Goguryeo-Persian Fortifications Similar . There is a debated theory about Goguryeo fortifications (mostly in NE China) resembling Sassanid fortifications because of the co-incidentally similar construction methods. I also have some Korean blood in my background but I think we are very similar to Iranian nomads in the past. Komitsuki (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexsander the great of europe, records within india taken by his people
Seems he detailed the indian Fort of Kangra, not sure if that could maybe be placed into the Indian section as it is the oldest of its kind miltray wise within india. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangra_Fort92.236.96.38 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Caplock

History: India
«India has more forts than any other country in the world». «India currently has over 180 forts». I think the first sentence should be changed. In Spain there are around 2500 castles. --Jfbu (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just removed it from the sentence. Considering the varying types of fortifications which exist and are covered in this article (castles, fortress, forts, city walls, blockhouses, martellos, etc.), its a pretty bold claim to make without a significant source to back to it up. Leventio (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Palma nova .jpg

Nothing on Islamic world
I fixed the wrong headings, but this laid bare that we have nothing on fortifications in the Islamic world. They only start AFTER Muhammad, he lived in Arabia among a still pre-Islamic civilisation, so that's what we have. Worse even, pre-Islamic Arabia had fortifications long before his time, so even this section is very punctual (just around 600 CE).

I have added a "see also" tag with a long row of Muslim terms re. fortifications, but that's all we have for now. Arminden (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Fort, the word, and "fortifications" the "words"
The word "fort" is primary, meaning it is highly useful and must not be tampered with, such as to not define it well, and such as to transform it always to "fortifications," to corrupt or "hack" the way the word "fortify" as in "make stronger," is used. -Zonkeideist (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Do you think there's a part of the article which needs editing? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Fortification


text:
Talk:National Bureau for Students with Disabilities

from Vfd
On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Votes for deletion/National Bureau for Students With Disabilities for a record of the discussion.


text:
E. H. Warmington

Eric Herbert (E. H.) Warmington, MA, FRHistS (15 March 1898 – 8 June 1987) was a professor of classics, internationally known for his Latin translations.

Education
Herbert attended The Perse School, Cambridge and won a scholarship to Peterhouse, Cambridge. He graduated with a Double First in Classics, as well as winning the Le Bas English Prize.

Life and career
He became a Reader in Ancient History at King's College London in 1925, and was appointed Professor of Classics at Birkbeck, University of London in 1936. He served as Vice-Master of Birkbeck from 1954. He was also acting Master of Birkbeck in 1950–1951 and 1965–1966.

He produced numerous works, often with other scholars, over many decades of the twentieth century. He also edited other translations, including the Greek–English translation of Aelian's On the Characteristics of Animals. His most famous work is the series Remains of Old Latin, a four-volume edition of early Latin texts for the Loeb Classical Library, with a facing English translation.

 * 1) Remains of Old Latin I: Ennius and Caecilius (1935, revised 1956; ISBN 0-674-99324-1)
 * 2) Remains of Old Latin II: Livius Andronicus, Naevius, Pacuvius and Accius (1936; ISBN 0-674-99347-0)
 * 3) Remains of Old Latin III: Lucilius and The Twelve Tables (1938, revised 1967; ISBN 0-674-99363-2)
 * 4) Remains of Old Latin IV: Archaic inscriptions (1940; ISBN 0-674-99396-9)

Professor Warmington also acquired a reputation as an ornithologist. He spent much of his free time studying the birds of Mill Hill (where he lived in Flower Lane) and the nearby Brent Reservoir. In 1989 his contribution to the local study of natural history was recognised in a display panel placed in Scratchwood Country Park by the Mill Hill Historical Society.

He was the father of ancient historian Brian Herbert Warmington.

Other publications
As well as Remains of Old Latin (see above), Warmington published:
 * The Commerce between the Roman Empire and India. (1928)
 * Greek Geography. (1934)
 * Africa in Ancient and Medieval Times. (1936)
 * A history of Birkbeck College, University of London, during the Second World War, 1939-1945. (1954)
 * The Ancient Explorers (with Prof. Max Cary: 1963)

title: E. H. Warmington


text:
Wellness (alternative medicine)

Wellness is a state beyond absence of illness but rather aims to optimize well-being.

The notions behind the term share the same roots as the alternative medicine movement, in 19th-century movements in the US and Europe that sought to optimize health and to consider the whole person, like New Thought, Christian Science, and Lebensreform. Ayurveda mentions the concept and also has dedicated a whole speciality for the concept of wellness and maintenance of health.

The term wellness has also been misused for pseudoscientific health interventions.

History
The term was partly inspired by the preamble to the World Health Organization's 1948 constitution which said: "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." It was initially brought to use in the US by Halbert L. Dunn, M.D. in the 1950s; Dunn was the chief of the National Office of Vital Statistics and discussed “high-level wellness,” which he defined as “an integrated method of functioning, which is oriented toward maximizing the potential of which the individual is capable.”  The term "wellness" was then adopted by John Travis who opened a "Wellness Resource Center" in Mill Valley, California in the mid-1970s, which was seen by mainstream culture as part of the hedonistic culture of Northern California at that time and typical of the Me generation. Travis marketed the center as alternative medicine, opposed to what he said was the disease-oriented approach of medicine. The concept was further popularized by Robert Rodale through Prevention magazine, Bill Hetler, a doctor at University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, who set up an annual academic conference on wellness, and Tom Dickey, who established the Berkeley Wellness Letter in the 1980s. The term had become accepted as standard usage in the 1990s.

In recent decades, it was noted that mainstream news sources had begun to devote more page space to "health and wellness themes".

Dimensions of wellness
In the 1970s, Bill Hettler, a doctor at the University of Wisconsin, developed a six-factor model of wellness, now commonly known as the dimensions of wellness. The original dimensions included intellectual, emotional, physical, social, occupational, and spiritual wellnesses. Since then, a number of organisations and researchers have adapted the dimensions of wellness into their health programs, including the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which includes two more dimensions of wellness—environmental and financial—along with the original six. Many universities have also incorporated the dimensions of wellness into their student care programmes.

Corporate wellness programs
By the late 2000s, the concept had become widely used in employee assistance programs in workplaces, and funding for development of such programs in small business was included in the Affordable Care Act. The use of corporate wellness programs has been criticized as being discriminatory to people with disabilities. Additionally, while there is some evidence to suggest that wellness programs can save money for employers, such evidence is generally based on observational studies that are prone to selection bias. Randomized trials provide less positive results and often suffer from methodological flaws.

The discrimination against disabled people in corporate wellness programs was one of the many reasons that prompted the creation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Under the newly proposed Americans with Disabilities Act rule, an employee-wellness program consists of programs that relates to health promotion or disease prevention that includes disability-related inquiries or medical examinations. There are two types of wellness programs that are under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Participatory and Health-contingent. This newly proposed rule no longer contains the requirement that such programs be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease.

Promotion of pseudoscience
Wellness is a particularly broad term, but it is often used by promoters of unproven medical therapies, such as the Food Babe or Goop. Jennifer Gunter has criticized what she views as a promotion of over-diagnoses by the wellness community. Goop's stance is that it is "skeptical of the status quo" and "offer[s] open-minded alternatives." Michael D. Gordin writes that pseudoscience is a bad category for analysis because it exists entirely as a negative attribution that scientists and non-scientists hurl at others but never apply themselves. Pseudoscience is typically used to describe something that looks like science, but is somehow false, misleading, or unproven. Things that fall under the pseudoscience umbrella consists of: astrology, phrenology, UFOlogy, creationism, and eugenics.

Healthism
Wellness has also been criticized for its focus on lifestyle changes over a more general focus on harm prevention that would include more establishment-driven approaches to health improvement such as accident prevention. Petr Skrabanek has also criticized the wellness movement for creating an environment of social pressure to follow its lifestyle changes without having the evidence to support such changes. Some critics also draw an analogy to Lebensreform, and suggest that an ideological consequence of the wellness movement is the belief that "outward appearance" is "an indication of physical, spiritual, and mental health."

Conspirituality
Wellness has been criticized as a gateway to extreme conspiracy beliefs and practices. The Society for the Scientific Investigation of Parasciences has found that alternative medicine communities and conspiracy ideologies share a lot of similarities in that they have a “a strongly dualistic worldview of “good” versus “evil”; a desire for a simple answer to complicated questions; and an anti-scientific tendency”. During the covid lockdown there has been an increase of far-right wellness influencers linking themselves with the political beliefs of QAnon conspiracies, causing an increase of misinformation and adding numbers to the group. Both groups connect on similar beliefs including: anti-vaccination, Covid-19 misinformation and the idea that there is a secret organization of government officials running a child trafficking sex ring.

The wellness trend has been criticized as a form of conspicuous consumption.

title: Wellness (alternative medicine)


text:
Polish Orthodox Church

The Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Polski Autokefaliczny Kościół Prawosławny), commonly known as the Polish Orthodox Church, or Orthodox Church of Poland, is one of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches in full communion. The church was established in 1924, to accommodate Orthodox Christians of Polish descent in the eastern part of the country, when Poland regained its independence after the First World War.

In total, it has approximately 500,000 adherents (2016). In the Polish census of 2011, 156,000 citizens declared themselves as members.

Early period of Russian Orthodoxy: 1793-1905
Following partitions of Poland and annexation of Polish territory by the Imperial Russia, the administration of Eastern Orthodox communities was carried out by the vicar bishop of Pereyaslav and Boryspil of the Kyiv Eparchy with residence in Slutsk. The Eastern Orthodox population on territory of modern Poland was very scarce at that time. In 1825 the administration was switched to the bishop of Minsk and in 1827 - the bishop of Volhynia.

In 1834 there was established a post of the vicar bishop of Warsaw of the Volhynian eparchy. Establishment of the post was partially due to the 1830-31 Polish uprising (so called November Uprising). The idea to create the post of the vicar bishop of Warsaw belonged to the Namiestnik of Poland and Serence Prince of Warsaw Ivan Paskevich. By 1834 in Vistula Land existed at least 6 parochial Orthodox temples and the Saint Onuphrius Monastery in Jabłeczna. The first bishop became Antoni (Rafalski) who was an archimandrite of the Pochaiv Lavra. The new vicar bishop was not only subordinated to the Volhynian eparchy, but also directly to the ober-procurator of the Holy Synod.

Starting since 1783, on territories that were annexed in 1793, there were established Minsk Eparchy, Bratslav Eparchy, and Izyaslav Eparchy. In 1939 there was established the eparchy of Wilno and Lithuania following the 1939 Polotsk Assembly which liquidated Uniate Church on territory of the Imperial Russia. In 1840, the former Warsaw vicariate was transformed into a separate eparchy of Warsaw covering the whole Congress of Poland.

Following the 1875 conversion of Chełm Eparchy (Eparchy of Chełm–Belz) of the Ruthenian Uniate Church, the Eparchy of Warsaw was renamed as Eparchy of Warsaw and Chełm, while Marcel Popiel who played a key role in the process was ordained as a vicar bishop of the merged diocese.

Transitional period: 1905-1924
Following the 1905 revolution in the Imperial Russia, Tsar issued the manifest “On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance” which gave start to revival of Catholicism. Several parishes en masse were switching back to the Uniate Church.

With start of the World War I, in 1915 the Russian Church in Poland was evacuated along with the Russian administration. On territory of what it was "Warsaw Eparchy" remained about 10 priests. The last archbishop of Warsaw Nicholas (Ziorov) died soon after evacuation and during the remaining time of World War I, the diocese was vacant.

Following the 1917–18 Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow finally appointed a new bishop to the eparchy of Warsaw whom was Seraphim (Chichagov). Seraphim (Chichagov) was never able to actually arrive to his appointed diocese due to unstable situation. To fix that in September of 1921, the Archbishop of Minsk George (Yaroshevsky) was appointed as Patriarchal Exarch in Poland.

First period of the autocephalous church: 1924-1939
The church was established in 1924 after Poland regained independence, as the Second Polish Republic, following World War I in 1918. After the Polish–Soviet War and the Treaty of Riga of 1921, Poland secured control of a sizeable portion of its former eastern territories previously lost in the late-18th-century Partitions of Poland to the Russian Empire. Eastern Orthodoxy was widespread in the eastern provinces of interwar Poland. The loss of an ecclesiastical link, due to the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union, left the regional clergy in a crisis, and in 1924 the Ecumenical Patriarchate took over, establishing several autonomous churches on territories of the new states that were formerly wholly or partially part of the Russian Empire: Finland, the Baltic states, and Poland. In 1922 a conflict ensued due intervention of the Russian Orthodox Church that approved appointment of bishops in Poland without agreement from Metropolitan of Warsaw George (Yaroshevsky). The conflict was led by the Bishop of Wilno and Lida Eleftherios. Several diocesan bishops along with Eleftherios of Wilno including Panteleimon (Rozhnovsky), Vladimir (Tikhonitsky) and others took stance against seeking autocephalous status for the Orthodox Church in Poland. Most of them were expelled from Poland. Bishops Eleftherios and Vladimir were also against ordination of Alexander (Inozemtsev) who was ordained as a vicar bishop of Lublin by George (Yaroshevsky) and Dionizy (Waledyński) on 4 June 1922.

Earlier, in January 1922, the Polish government had issued an order recognizing the Orthodox church and placing it under the authority of the state. At that time a Ukrainian, George (Yaroshevsky), was appointed Metropolitan and exarch by the patriarch of Moscow. When Yaroshevsky began to reject the authority of Moscow Patriarchate, he was assassinated by a Russian monk. Nonetheless, his successor, Dionizy (Waledyński), continued to work for the autocephaly of the Polish Orthodox church, which was finally granted by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in his Tomos of 13 November 1924. Most of the parishioners were Ukrainians and Belarusians living in the eastern areas of the newly independent Polish Second Republic. The Patriarch of Constantinople has the only canonical basis to grant the Tomos to new autocephalous churches. Moscow Patriarchate interpretes this otherwise though and considers itself being a successor of the Kyiv Metropolia, the former territory of Kyivan Rus' which Constantinople continued to see as its canonical territory (having agreed to allow Moscow to be its caretaker in 1686). The Russian Orthodox Church at the time did not recognise Constantinople's granting of Polish autocephaly. See History of Christianity in Ukraine.

During the interwar period, however, the Polish authorities imposed severe restrictions on the church and its clergy. In the most famous example, the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Warsaw was destroyed in the mid-1920s. In Volhynia a total of 190 Eastern Orthodox churches were destroyed and a further 150 converted to Catholicism. Several court hearings against the Pochaiv Lavra also took place.

World War II: 1939-1944
Following the start of the World War II on 1 September 1939 and the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September 1939, Poland was divided between the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. For support of resistance against the Nazi Germany, the Metropolitan Dionisius was arrested, while the Church territories (dioceses) were mostly taken over by the Moscow Patriarchate and the rest were transferred under temporary administration by the Metropolitan of Berlin Seraphim (Lade) of the ROCOR, who also was assisted by Vasily (Pavlovsky). At the end of 1940, Metropolitan Dionisius signed a loyalty declaration for the General Governor of Poland Hans Frank and was released from his arrest. On 30 September 1940 the Bishop Council of the Polish Orthodox Church led by Metropolitan Dionisius reformed the Church considering the new realities and constituted new dioceses which were 3: Diocese of Warschau and Radom, Diocese of Cholm and Podlachia, Diocese of Krakau and Lemkos. On territories that became part of the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, there was established separate "Orthodox Autocephalous Church on liberated territory of Ukraine" under auspices of the Polish Orthodox Church led by Polycarp (Sikorsky), a vicar bishop of Lutsk. Along with Alexander (Inozemtsev), Polycarp (Sikorsky) started to develop what later would be known as the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

Another member of the Polish Orthodox Church clergy, Archbishop Alexiy (Hromadsky) in Pochaiv Lavra created in August of 1941 an opposition organization, loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate, known as Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church.

Since 1945
After the Second World War, the pre-war eastern territories of Poland were annexed by the Soviet Union and included within the Lithuanian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian SSRs. The annexed territories contained up to 80% of the PAOC's parishes and congregation, which were united with the recently re-instated Moscow Patriarchate. The remaining parishes that were now on the territory of the Polish People's Republic were kept by the PAOC, including most of the mixed easternmost territories such as around Chełm and Białystok. In 1948, after the Soviet Union established political control over Poland, the Russian Orthodox Church recognised the autocephalous status of the Polish Orthodox Church.

Although most of the congregation is historically centered in the Eastern borderland regions with considerable Belarusian and Ukrainian minorities, there are now many parishes across the country, as a result of Operation Vistula and other diaspora movements. There are also some adherents in Brazil, resulting from the 1989 canonical union between the hierarchy headed by Metropolitan Gabriel of Lisbon, formerly under the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, and the Polish Orthodox Church. The European bishops, however, have left the jurisdiction in 2000, which eventually resulted in senior Bishop Chrysostom being raised to archepiscopal dignity. There are now parishes in the states of Rio de Janeiro, Pernambuco and Paraíba, plus a mission in Ceará and a monastery in João Pessoa.

In 2003, following the decision of the Holy Sobor of Bishops of the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church, the New Martyrs of Chelm and Podlasie suffering persecution during the 1940s were canonized.

Primates of the Church
The Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church was established in 1924. Traditionally the primate of the church has the title Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland.
 * Metropolitan George (Grzegorz Jaroszewski) – Metropolitan of Warsaw (1921–1923), Russian Patriarchal Exarch in Poland (Predecessor for establishment of the structure of Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church)
 * Metropolitan Dionysius (Konstanty Waledyński) – Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland (1923–1948)
 * locum tenens Timothy (Szretter) (1948–1951)
 * Metropolitan Macarius (Michał Oksijuk) – Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland (1951–1959)
 * Metropolitan Timotheus (Jerzy Szretter) – Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland (1961–1962)
 * locum tenens George (Korenistov) (1962–1965)
 * Metropolitan Stefan – Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland (1965–1969)
 * locum tenens George (Korenistov) (1969–1970)
 * (Włodzimierz Doroszkiewicz) – Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland (1970–1998)
 * Metropolitan Sabbas (Michał Hrycuniak) – Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland (1998–present)

Administration
The church is headed by the Archbishop of Warsaw and Metropolitan of All Poland: Sawa (Michał) Hrycuniak (1998–). It is divided into the following dioceses:

Archdioceses and archbishops

 * Archdiocese of Warsaw and Bielsk: Sawa (Hrycuniak)
 * Archdiocese of Białystok and Gdańsk: Jakub (Kostiuczuk) (2008–)
 * Archdiocese of Łódź and Poznań: Atanazy (Nos) (2017–)
 * Archdiocese of Wrocław and Szczecin: George (Pańkowski) (2017–)
 * Archdiocese of Lublin and Chełm: Abel (Popławski) (2001–)
 * Archdiocese of Przemyśl and Gorlice: Paisius (Martyniuk) (2016–)
 * Archdiocese of Rio de Janeiro and Olinda-Recife: Chrysostom (Freire) (1992–)
 * Diocese of Recife: Ambrose (Cubas) (1996–)

Titular dioceses and bishops

 * Titular Diocese of Supraśl: Gregory (Charkiewicz) (2008–), Vicar Bishop for Białystok and Gdańsk
 * Titular Diocese of Siemiatycze: George (Mariusz) Pańkowski (2007–), Ordinary for the Polish Orthodox Military Ordinariate and Vicar Bishop for Warsaw and Bielsk

Other entities

 * Polish Orthodox Military Ordinariate

Original dioceses
Dioceses and bishops upon the issue of the tomos in 1924
 * Diocese of Warsaw and Chełm (ruling): Dionizy (Waledyński)
 * vicar of Lublin: Alexander (Inozemtsev)
 * Diocese of Wołyń: Dionizy (Waledyński)
 * Diocese of Grodno and Nowogródek: Aleksiy (Hromadsky)
 * Diocese of Pinsk and Polesie
 * Diocese of Wilna and Lida: Theodosius (Feodosiev)
 * Following the Soviet invasion of Poland, most of dioceses except for Warsaw were annexed by the Moscow Patriarchate as so called Western Exarchate centered in Lutsk. Dionizy (Waledyński) was arrested by the Nazi authorities and was placed under arrest. The rest of territories were given to administration of Seraphim (Lade) of the ROCOR, who also was assisted by Vasily (Pavlovsky).

title: Polish Orthodox Church


text:
Talk:Candide

Slave Outside Surinam
I think an incident outside Surinam in the book should be added. I've already tried twice but it was rejected as "unconstruc-tive", whatever that means. Basically, Candide and Cacamba are walking along when they find a slave by the side of the road who's lost a hand and leg, apparently in labor. He's been left there to die, it seems, and complains the Church teaches that everyone descends from Adam, and "you must admit no one could treat their relative more horribly." They held him to Surinam before splitting up. This is a very important part of the book, as it shows a view on slavery and racism practically unheard of at the time. Does someone want to add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M carteron (talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the synopsis of this article is probably not going to get any longer. See the discussions between Awadewit and me in the above peer review. -- rmrfstar (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction section is too long
The introduction (i.e. the first three paragraphs of the article) is a bit long. This section should be a very short and basic synopsis. Most of the material here can be moved into the body. I can do it myself unless someone else wants to.Ekwos (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Certainly, I don't think that "most of the material here can be moved into the body". The lede section is already a summary of the body. Indeed, a lede section is supposed to summarise more than the synopsis. And this lede's length is perfectly normal for a Wikipedia article of Candide's length and quality. Also, the reader is supposed to be able to read only the lede and get the gist of the subject. I can't imagine a shorter lede satisfying this criterion. See WP:LEDE:

 * See the bottom of that page for a general guideline on how long these sections are supposed to be. If you have any thoughts as to specific parts (e.g. a sentence or two) that are unnecessary, we can look those... but in general, I think it's fine. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of this particular intro, I think everything after the first sentence looks like body. A good intro should read like a really boring newspaper piece with just the basic facts (i.e. Candide is a novel written in such a language in such a year by such an author) with no intepretation and nothing else.  The top blurb really exists so that a person looking for something can determine if the article itself is relevant.  There can be an introductory section in the body but this should be different from the intro blurb in the article which exists solely as a referencing tool for someone looking for something.Ekwos (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article's lede section is the one section that everyone reads, and for many people the only section they read, so I doubt very much that the argument that our ledes "should read like a really boring newspaper piece" is going to carry a awful lot of weight. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The main purpose of the lead is to help a reader be sure they have found the correct article for what they are looking for. So, the quicker one can make such a determination, the better.Ekwos (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the consensus across Wikipedia. See above. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rmrfstar. The lead's length is ideal. This length allows the lead to provide necessary background information and makes it a good stand-alone summary of the article, which is the convention per the style guideline at WP:LEAD. Emw2012 (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Picky Points
I have two points of contention with the article.

1)At the end of the "Style" section, the following sentence: "Some view the portrayal of the Jewish merchant in Lisbon as anti-semitic; however, in Constantinople at the end, Jewish bankers alone will deal honestly with the foreign characters," does not appear to be supported by the text. In a translation of Candide by Lowell Bair, there is no reference whatsoever to Candide having been dealt honestly with by Jews, and in fact, the following passage appears on page 117 out of 120, in explanation of why Candide cannot live well despite his once great wealth: "But he had been so cheated by the Jews that he had nothing left but his little farm." If anything, Candide may not be considered antisemitic because Voltaire does not pick on Jews any more than any other ethnicity or nationality or creed throughout the book. If he must be considered antisemitic, it is only fair to consider him anti-everything else that he lampoons. But the text does not specifically support the statement given in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.122.94 (talk • contribs)
 * That sentence you mention, indeed that whole unreferenced portion, was added without any references and by an anonymous editor who seems to have gone willy-nilly and added a bunch of bad material (see the diff. I agree that the statement you highlight is not supported by the text. I have deleted all of the baseless additions of this editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmrfstar (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for catching that.--68.80.122.94 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2) In the Conclusion, and echoed in the Introduction, is the notion that the garden statement at the end of the book is enigmatic. It wasn't enigmatic to me or to Voltaire scholar Andre Maurois when he implies that the statement, "We must cultivate our garden" is a direct analogy to looking after those things in our life that are in our domain. What are the other views on this statement? The article isn't clear, except to source the fact that some scholars consider it a contentious conclusion, which would could simply be inferred if instead the alternative interpretations were given.--68.80.122.94 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are many readers who do not find the conclusion enigmatic. However, these readers all disagree. For views other than your own, see the sections entitled "Conclusion" and "inside/outside controversy". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose if I could get my wish for this article, the conclusion section would include some form of list describing the various interpretations of the ending, which could then be explained in detail below. It's difficult to read which interpretations are important and which stand in direct opposition, as opposed to when the editors are simply out to convince me that the ending is difficult to interpret. It's also difficult to believe there could be no common interpretation which would contrast with many more minor interpretations (some interpretation supported by 65% of scholars say, while other interpretations may be supported by far fewer scholars). There's a difference between saying, "No conclusion exists, but here are some guesses," and "Here are the common interpretations, but here are the notable disagreements."--68.80.122.94 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not out to convince you simply that the conclusion is enigmatic. I think that the variety of interpretations, and the multi-dimentional spectrum on which they lie, are very difficult to treat both completely and from a NPOV. The theories highlighted in the article are only the most popular or significant ones. I'm sorry but I don't think that any quantatative data exist that break down their relative popularities. Also, considering the conviction with which so many literary critics describe their interpretations, and taking into account the magnitude of the holy war that has been waged over the novella's conclusion, I think it's important to make clear to the reader that there is *almost* a complete lack of agreement over which basic tenets should be assumed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't agree that the conclusion doesn't take good space to convince me the conclusion is enigmatic (though I agree that's not all it does). I also can't agree that there isn't an NPOV way to approach the debates and I contend that there is POV expressed here by the notion that the conclusion to Candide is enigmatic in the first place. Saying so directly is tantamount to someone else saying the conclusion was obvious. The only fact that could change that is a list of disagreements important enough to warrant the enigmatic conclusion statements. The conclusion takes the first three sentences to make a point it shouldn't be making:
 * "The conclusion of the novella, in which Candide finally dismisses his tutor's optimism, leaves unresolved what philosophy the protagonist is to accept in its stead. This element of Candide has been written about voluminously, perhaps above all others. The conclusion is enigmatic and its analysis is contentious.[74]"
 * There is only one source for this. If the author of that source is saying that the conclusion is enigmatic, it's his opinion. Unless I see a list of other sources that agree, it cannot be taken as fact. It should be worded, "One critic finds the conclusion enigmatic," or so changed to accommodate the amount of viewpoints expressed. It is the fifth sentence into the conclusion before a viewpoint is described specifically, and even then it is clouded in a sentence that claims controversy. Here are another few troubling sentences:
 * "Critics argue that the group's reclusion on the farm signifies Candide and his companions' loss of hope for the rest of the human race."
 * What critics?
 * "This view is to be compared to a reading that presents Voltaire as advocating a melioristic philosophy and a precept committing the travellers to improving the world through metaphorical gardening. This debate, and others, focuses on the question of whether or not Voltaire was prescribing passive retreat from society, or active industrious contribution to it.[77]"
 * Again, explanations couched in an explanation of the debate instead of the point. This time it's sourced, but it turns out it's the same author and book as the source for [74]! How many critics think the conclusion is enigmatic? I'm just discussing the conclusion section, the inside/outside controversy section is a bit different. I know something about literature, and I know that the conclusion to a work is important because it is often contentious. Critics/scholars will never find agreement with one another on any literary work of prominence because of the nature of literature, but more importantly because of the nature of academia. Critics/scholars make a name for themselves by disagreeing and arriving at contentious conclusions! But there are often more basic interpretations. If this section wants to take the NPOV stance that the conclusion is enigmatic, it must clearly state a number of positions and some credible adherents, or it should not take the readers time telling them the conclusion is enigmatic, as I pointed out above. If done so properly, the lack of agreement can be inferred (as indeed it should for any prominent work of literature). I can't do this because I don't have the data. The Candide article is a great one, but this is an area for improvement, as I see it.--68.80.122.94 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your points are very well taken, especially that some critics should be named. However, Candide's conclusion is particularly contentious, even in the realm of literary criticism, and there are simply too many interpretations to mention more than a couple. Indeed, a couple are mentioned: the pessimistic and the melioristic. These two, if any two can, must serve as the simplist way of dichotomising the analysis of the conclusion. Indeed, they are practically opposites. Anyway, I shall look for some names and references to fill out the section. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

John Byng
While there is no doubt the incident was inspired by the execution of Admiral Byng, does Voltaire actually use the name? And I don't believe Byng was actually shot in the skull-- Voltaire takes some license here. Kablammo (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All fixed. Thanks for the criticisms. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Amazing article
I am so astounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.152.10 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

a question, and a fairly major omission
One question, one suggestion.

Although it's been a long time since I studied Voltaire, I'm wondering whether in French literary history the work of Rabelais shouldn't be considered a precursor. As I said, long time since I studied it. But both Candide and Gargantua and Pantagruel are long episodic prose narratives written in a satiric vein within the same language tradition.

Also, it seems a major omission in the elucidation of the Garden not to at least mention Epicureanism. The meaning of the Garden in Epicurean philosophy is one of the main reasons the sentence is so wonderfully irreducible and produces so many points to ponder when you try to unpack it. The Enlightenment saw a major revival of the Epicurean philosophical tradition (Thomas Jefferson famously took an interest). Just a few examples from a superficial Google Books search: "Voltaire … thought of himself as an Epicurean" (Peter Gay, The Enlightenment); "Voltaire was probably drawn to the word jardin because it would remind readers of both the Garden of Eden and the garden of the ancient philosopher Epicurus" (David Wootton, Candide and Related Texts). It's pretty much a commonplace to view the ending of Candide in light of Epicureanism, as here; Martha Nussbaum also takes it as a given here; John Gray says that Voltaire ultimately failed to be an Epicurean, with the implication that his attempt is necessary to constructing what he ultimately meant to say with the jardin; Simone de Beauvoir alludes to the Epicureanism of Candide's garden in her essay Pyrrhus and Cineas. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Sounds like you know your stuff. What's stopping you? --Milkbreath (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * 'Cause doin' a Google Books search ain't the same as doin' the deed. I can do Epicureanism in antiquity, but it would take me a week to feel comfortable trying to sum up the Enlightenment context and doing a refresher on Voltaire. Was hoping the Voltaire-savvy folks who did this article could find a way to add it gracefully. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary too detailed?
Yeah, sorry. I mentioned this article in a discussion of plot summary length, and he now thinks that, even though the plot summary has extensive discussion of everything, he can carry out his campaign against articles on fiction discussing that fiction here. There's no policy or guideline whatsoever behind his tag, and it may and should be removed on sight. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 01:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That statement is bordering between just merely severely deluded and an outright lie. You know full well that WP:NOTPLOT is a policy, as you tried unsuccessfully for months to get it deleted. If you keep editing like that policy is not there and claiming there is none you're just disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Edits like this and elsewhere are at the level where you should be blocked, because you can't keep pulling stunts like this. DreamGuy (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And you know full well that WP:NOTPLOT only applies to articles where the plot is the only element there, and has nothing whatsoever to do with articles like this with substantial critical commentary. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dreamguy, I agree with SH - this article has oodles of commentary and discussion and the plot takes up less than 50% of the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I can understand a reluctance to encourage junk articles that consist of only a plot summary with a few opinions (one article for every book published?), however for cases such as this I believe that the detailed plot summary is justified and extremely valuable. WP:NOTPLOT does not preclude the summary in this article, and no plot tag should be added. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the plot summary in this article seems excessive. To nitpick just one point, why mention the dervish at all? It seems very important to the article that the entirety of the plot be described. This seems excessive. Should not the article only touch on plot points of relevence to the story, and as such, only include plot points necessary to the broad story arc or that are discussed further in the article? Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The decision at FAC seems to have been that it'd be misleading as to the sheer complexity of the work otherwise. Voltaire rather deliberately made the plot as complex as possible. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 17:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Voltaire made the plot as complex as possible, with multiple vignettes," covers that better than including 3 throw-away plot sentences about each vignette. I bet at least one of the scholarly works on the book mentions that. Secondly, having read the FAC, it seems to me that there was not nearly enough discussion about the plot summary to reach a strong consensus, certainly not one that is not subject to change. If you were to look at the plot summary de-novo, can you see some sections of it that could be cleaned? Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I read the book once quite some time ago, and didn't care for it. Given the amount of scholarly commentary kept within the plot summary, and given this is considered one of the most important works of French literature, I'd be uncomfortable changing what the subject's experts deemed important. In any case, edit-warring to tag a recent FA based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of policy impossible to correlate with the actual words of the policy mentioned is not appropriate. If the subject experts want to reconsider, that's quite another thing, and I make no judgement there. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 17:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a lot of scholarly commentary in the plot summary. Am I missing something? I demonstrated what kind of plot summary I would prefer in the ch1-10 section. Please review, and revert with my blessing per my edit summary if you disagree. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PLOT clearly states "concise". This isn't concise. And the amount of commentary in comparison to the plot summary is frankly, minimal. Black Kite 17:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, the scenes removed in Hippocrite's edit are arguably more important than the ones kept in, if you've read the book. I think we should leave any trimming to subject experts, and they seem against trimming. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 18:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Synopsis section does not take up anywhere near majority of the article (in fact, it takes up only 26%, not including the TOC or references), so I think it falls well within the parameters of WP:NOTPLOT: "Wikipedia articles should not be: 1. Plot-only description of fictional works." With regard to being concise, I think the Synopsis also meets this condition when weighed against the rest of the article's content. Emw (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

on Hippocrite's edit
It may be details can safely be trimmed, but to remove Cunegonde's death followed by her being descovered to have survived (possibly one of the most quoted bits of the book, in my experience), to remove Pangloss' creation of optimistic interpretations, such as the one at Jacques' death, and so on serve to make the plot summary misleading. It's probably possible to do a more concise plot summary, but removing the key scenes that set up Voltaire's themes of suffering and the foolishness of optimism in an unjust, cruel world isn't the way. If anything, I'd add a tiny bit: (translation:

"is it you? Is it Miss Cunegund I behold, and alive? Do I find you again in Portugal? then you have not been ravished? they did not rip open your body, as the philosopher Pangloss informed me?"

"Indeed but they did," replied Miss Cunegund; "but these two accidents do not always prove mortal."

Likewise, Hipocrite's suggestion that the dervish is not mentioned is patently ridiculous to anyone who's read the book - this is the key turning point of the novel.

Many of the instances that could be cut are made uncuttable through discussion of Voltaire's references. For instance, the paragraph

This companion, Martin, discusses Pangloss's philosophy with Candide and reveals that he himself is a Manichean scholar from Amsterdam. The character of Martin is based on the real-life pessimist Pierre Bayle, who is a chief opponent of Leibniz.[54] For the remainder of the voyage, Martin and Candide argue about philosophy, Candide still being an optimist at heart since it is all he knows. Approaching an English port they witness the execution of a British naval officer on the charge of not killing enough of the enemy (Admiral John Byng was shot on such a charge). Horrified, Candide refuses to even set foot on British soil.

Could be cut - if it weren't for the fact that it contains two examples of the fairly constant references made throughout the book. Perhaps it should be anyway, but it shouldn't be without discussion.

In the end, Candide is as much an essay on philosophy as a novel. Cutting out all the philosophy, as is being proposed here, just does not provide an effective summary of the work.

That said, there are several points where the setup for later scenes is created, but the payoff ever arrives. We shouldn't, for example, bother mentioning the red sheep if the parody of doctors and vets - (roughly: The scientists can't decide how the sheep could have red wool, there's debates, and then, finally, the professors arbitrarily declare that the red colour of their wool could only come from blood staining it, and thus the sheep clearly had scabies, and by all rights should be very sick) - if you're not going to mention that, why bring up the sheep at all? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 18:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 18:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 * If these sections are pivotal or important, they should be examined in the text. It's been 15 years since I read the book (in english), and I am no philosopher. I defer to others as to the importance of various points, but suggest that if points are important, they would be mentioned in more than a plot summary. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the plot summary is trying to include some of the philosophical anaysis and references, which makes it awkward. I'm going to go in and try and tweak it a little. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 18:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made what trims and tucks I felt could be justified, and clarified a few points. It did shorten it a little, but I don't see how much more can be cut without misrepresenting the novel's philosophic dialogue. Not everything I mentioned above proved feasible to implement - for instance, cutting Martin's introduction would make the rest of the summary have an unexplained character, but I did trim excess verbiage related to such introductions, and cut Byng. I wonder if Byng should go back in, though. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 18:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've readded Byng, but rewrote it to mention one of the most famous quotes from the novel, "Pour l'encouragement d'les autres".
 * The trouble with Candide is that you can either have a plot summary of a sentence: "Candide, taught optimism by his professor Pangloss, embarks upon a voyage of discovery in which he learns the world is a horrible place, and you may as well just work hard and try not to think about it." - or you have something of this length. There just isn't a middle ground where one of the philosophical argument, tone, and famous scenes aren't lost. If you cut the opening scenes too much, you don't establish Pangloss' optimism, which misrepresents the novel. If you cut out all the suffering, where's the counterargument? Hell, as it stands, we may not be effectively representing the third part's satire of all civilised progress - science, the British Navy, etc, as foolishness. This is the problem with an episodic novel where the themes come out from the sum total of the episodes, not so much any one scene. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 19:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm monumentally busy but I wanted to say "thanks, great job," with the edits to the plot so far. I think there may be more to do, but I'm certain we can get it worked out. I'm glad this didn't devolve into nastyness. Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's actually significantly shorter, though. One problem was that key scenes and particularly famous scenes were given exactly the same coverage as every other scene. This meant that cutting irrelevant details had to be coupled with adding in missing highly relevant details. Key scenes were getting covered in such a way that what made them key scenes wasn't clear. I think it's at least a bit better written, which is something. I'd appreciate more help from people familiar with the work. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to cut some of the French - do we need to know the French descriptions for the brutish sailor who permanently disappears in the next scene, for instance? Does the fact that the old woman is described in the book by the French word for old woman add anything? And so on. I'll put it into ref tags for now, feel free to delete it outright. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 * (ec) Sounds fine to me. It has been a loooong time since I read it myself too, so I am hazy on plot details meself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cut
I've removed the origins of Candide and Pangloss' names.

I just don't see any good place to put them that doesn't cause them to appear little more than trivia. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Awww, dunno I woulda done that. The discussion of the origin of the name of Pangloss in particulat seems pretty pertinent to the development of the character. I'd be inclined to keep. Will figure out where is a (relatively) good place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 * PS:You're right - danged if'n I know where they should go...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That's the issue. I've also had to cut the long aside about Cunegonde's brother (who is likely based on Frederick the Great, the King of Prussia, with whom Voltaire corresponded. ).

 * Perhaps if we made a list of main characters? I know we don't normlly do that, but it'd help organise information like that. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 23:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the size and structure of the article is such that a list of characters daughter article is warranted, with the character-specific information you mention above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. Oh, I also removed Cacambo's derivation from Caca. Probably should include that too. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 23:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I need to get to bed. Anyone want to make a start? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may add my thoughts to this discussion, I think that Shoemaker's Holiday's intuitions and edits have generally been very good (except a couple of little things). I also agree that the etymologies of the names (and the "la vielle") be reinserted, and that the editors who wish the synopsis be longer look over the archives of this talk page: every time the summary is shortened, someone comes along and complains about the ommision of some point. There really is a lot in the novel, despite its meagre length, and its plot summary is particularly difficult to write. I would also like to recommend strongly that no list of characters article be created. This discussion has been had before, numerous times, and the potential document was concluded to be unencyclopaedic and generally unnecessary. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

References in popular culture
Should there be a list of a few references to Candide in popular culture, as for example in the TV programme "Sharpe's sword"?

 * I'm reluctant to add it myself, since it seems a little less than a scholarly way to treat such a lofty work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.111.18 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that adding such references would add nothing to the article: there have been too many references to the work in the past 250 years. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I also see no reason for a "popular culture" section. If consensus ever did favor such a section, I would want it strictly limited to instances where a secondary source has written on the significance of the reference to Candide in the work of popular culture. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Even beyond "references," I can't believe there's nothing about "Forrest Gump" in the Derivative Works section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.215 (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the similarities are worth mentioning. In fact, the only similarity seems to be the 'simple' protagonist. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Monadology" not long
"A number of historical events inspired Voltaire to write Candide, most notably the publication of Leibniz's "Monadology", a long logical treatise that concludes "Therefore this is the best of all possible worlds", the Seven Years' War, and the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. Both of the latter catastrophes are frequently referred to in Candide and are cited by scholars as reasons for its composition.[10] The 1755 Lisbon earthquake, tsunami, and resulting fires of All Saints' Day, had a strong influence on theologians of the day and on Voltaire, who was himself disillusioned by them. The earthquake had an especially large effect on the contemporary doctrine of optimism, a philosophical system which implies that such events should not occur. Optimism is founded on the theodicy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz that says all is for the best because God is a benevolent deity."

The Monadology is actually very brief, only 90 paragraphs. Many modern editions are long because about 90% of the text is commentary added by others. Also, it is a stretch to say that Leibniz thought God was a "benevolent deity." His God is perfect, so His creations are perfect. Thus, the idea that this is the best of all worlds follows logically, but it has nothing to do with God's kindness or warm feelings for humanity. The old Noslin (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The Lego Movie as a derivative work?
At least I was reminded of Candide when I saw it. Am I alone in perceiving some parallels? knoodelhed (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Edenic paradise"
In the opening paragraph it is stated that Candide lives in an "Edenic paradise". I thought the irony was that, given Candide's shelteredness, what Voltaire considered a dismal part of Germany was considered the "best castle in the best province in the best of all possible worlds". BigGoyForYou (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Candide. 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/20081022101511/http://ub-dok.uni-trier.de/ausstellung/candide/candide_engl.htm to http://ub-dok.uni-trier.de/ausstellung/candide/candide_engl.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080909215737/http://voltaire-candide.wikispaces.com/ to http://voltaire-candide.wikispaces.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013122448/http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/itunes.stanford.edu.1291667329 to http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/itunes.stanford.edu.1291667329

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) 10:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Candide. 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/20060813171035/http://corporate.britannica.com/library/print/greatbooks.pdf to http://corporate.britannica.com/library/print/greatbooks.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) 08:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Candide. 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/20081218122355/https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2006/montyd37691/montyd37691.pdf to https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2006/montyd37691/montyd37691.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) 01:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Novel or novella?
Is it a novel or a novella? Both terms are being used inconsistently throughout the article. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Famous quote
This is taken from chapter 23 of the French wikisource: "mais dans ce pays-ci il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres." PatGallacher (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Moreau Sucre crop.jpg

title: Talk:Candide


text: Category:Irish painters

title: Category:Irish painters


text:
Puisne

Puisne (from Old French puisné, modern puîné, "later born, younger" (and thence, "inferior") from late Latin post-, "after", and natus, "born") is a legal term of art used mainly in British English meaning "inferior in rank".

Judicial usage
The judges and barons of the national common law courts at Westminster, other than those having a distinct title, were called puisne. This was reinforced by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1877 following which a "puisne judge" is officially any of those of the High Court other than the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Master of the Rolls (plus the abolished positions of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer).

Puisne courts existed as lower courts in the early stages in the judiciary in British North America, in particular Upper Canada and Lower Canada. The justices of the Supreme Court of Canada other than the Chief Justice are still referred to as puisne justices.

Puisne mortgages
In England and Wales, a puisne mortgage is a mortgage over an unregistered estate in land where the mortgagee (lender) does not take possession of the title deeds from the mortgagor (borrower) as security. A puisne mortgage may be registered with HM Land Registry as a Class C(i) Land Charge under the Land Charges Act 1972, although even if such a mortgage is registered it will not necessarily be enforceable. Puisne mortgages are generally a second or subsequent mortgage, and in the event of default of the mortgagor generally rank in the order of registration, not in the order in which they were created.

title: Puisne


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wood inlay

 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 N/A. jni 18:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wood inlay
Copyvio. Text even carries the copyright notice. See. Inter\Echo 13:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Copvio gets listed on Copyright problems, not here. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


text:
Political jurisprudence

Political jurisprudence is a legal theory that some judicial decisions are best understood as part of a political process, with judges operating as political actors. That is, judges are sometimes influenced by public opinion, political activists, and government officials, and their work can be understood as a way of legitimizing and institutionalizing the preferences of these political actors.

Description
According to Professor Martin Shapiro of University of California, Berkeley, who first noted the theory in 1964: "The core of political jurisprudence is a vision of courts as political agencies and judges as political actors." Legal decisions are no longer focused on a judge's analytical analysis (as in Analytical jurisprudence), but rather it is the judges themselves that become the focus for determining how the decision was reached. Political jurisprudence advocates that judges are not machines but are influenced and swayed by the political system and by their own personal beliefs of how the law should be decided. That is not to say necessarily that judges arbitrarily make decisions they personally feel should be right without regard to stare decisis. Instead they are making decisions based on their political, legal, and personal beliefs as it relates to the law. Deeply, and with more implication for the society, the decisions of the judges are not only modified from the politics, but modify itself the politics and the process of law making in a so influential way, that we can say that the policy-making is "judicialized".

Political jurisprudence can also be seen as a discipline of law. Unlike natural law which answers the fundamental law question by placing law as inherent in the hierarchy of nature, political jurisprudence present the answer as being deliberate human political process. Political jurisprudence presents law as a revolving concept which changes due to change in political perspectives.

Macro and micro
Shapiro noted political jurisprudence as having two wings, the macro wing and the micro wing. The macro wing looks at courts as players in the political process. In their processes of decision making, they entertain matters from different interest groups hence shape policy through pressure from these. the micro wing looks at individual decisions of judges. The second wing is a manifestation of Charles H. Pritchett who introduced behaviorism into USA judicial studies after studies that showed individual decisions in courts have been increasing since the days of President Roosevelt.

Case studies
The 1953 Pakistani constitutional coup has been presented as an example of political jurisprudence. The Federal Court of Pakistan's 1955 decision in Federation of Pakistan v. Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan gave legitimacy to the coup d’état.

A Turkish judicial decision has also has been presented as an example of political jurisprudence. The Turkish Constitutional Court judged against a constitutional amendment which was procedurally correct.

title: Political jurisprudence


text:
Marc Miller (game designer)

Marc William Miller is a wargame and role-playing game designer and author.

Early career
After serving in the U.S. Army, Miller continued his studies at Illinois State University in 1972 under the G.I. Bill. There he joined the ISU Game Club, created by Rich Banner and Frank Chadwick. Banner obtained a grant that funded the printing of blank hex sheets (suitable for making war-game maps). Adding new members Loren K. Wiseman and John Harshman, the ISU Game Club drafted a variety of designs. Some of these designs were derivatives of existing games, and had generic names like Guerre and Swamp. while others were amalgamations, such as Triplanetary.

In 1973, after being convinced by Miller, Chadwick and Banner, Illinois State University created SimRAD (Simulation Research, Analysis, and Design), a college program where students and teachers designed games. Revenue from these games supported the funding of innovations in education. At the same time, Miller, Chadwick, Banner, and Wiseman decided to publish a massive World War II simulation game and created Game Designers' Workshop as their publishing company.

Game Designers' Workshop
Game Designers' Workshop (GDW) was formed on June 22, 1973, and was initially located in Miller and Chadwick's apartment. In that year, GDW published Drang Nach Osten, the first of its Europa Series on World War II.

In 1974 the company published five new titles, including Coral Sea, based on the World War II naval battle.

In 1975, GDW published Triplanetary by Miller and Harshman. Miller designed The Russo-Japanese War and Chaco, which is based on the 1930s war between Bolivia and Paraguay.

Miller, Chadwick, Harshman, and Wiseman designed Traveller, which was published in 1977 by GDW.

Miller designed the science-fiction board game Double Star for GDW, which was released in 1979.

While at GDW, Miller designed a total of 74 games and products, with an average of one every four months, including Imperium; and, co-designed MegaTraveller and 2300 AD.

Miller wrote a letter to the company Digest Group Publications (DGP), in 1987 asking them to help GDW make the large amount of published material for Traveller more accessible, which resulted in the second edition of the game known as MegaTraveller. DGP produced considerable work that went unused, and since 1996, Miller has forbidden his licensees from referencing the unpublished DGP material because of his concerns over copyright issues.

Miller left GDW in 1991.

After leaving GDW
Miller designed the computer game Challenge of the Five Realms which was published and released by MicroProse in 1992 and the card game Super Deck!. In 1996, Miller purchased the rights to Traveller, Twilight: 2000, and 2300 AD, and he formed a new company named Far Future Enterprises. He served as the head of this company, which held the rights to the games. Miller partnered with Sweetpea Entertainment to license media rights for his science-fiction property in exchange for funding to get Imperium Games running in February 1996, as a new publisher dedicated to producing only Traveller material. While Far Future Enterprises licensed Traveller and other games to several companies, Miller worked on a fifth edition of Traveller for Far Future.

Miller also does consultation work for gaming companies. Miller publishes game designs through Far Future Enterprises at farfuture.net, consulting on various aspects of the game industry through his Heartland Publishing Services, primarily design and production issues. His role-playing games are currently in print through Far Future Enterprises, Mongoose Publishing, and Steve Jackson Games.

Awards and recognition
Miller has received the Origins Award, the prestigious Games 100 Award, and the Game Designers' Guild Award. He was inducted into the Charles S. Roberts (Origins) Hall of Fame in 1981 as a designer. He was featured as the king of spades in Flying Buffalo's 2010 Famous Game Designers Playing Card Deck. His novel Agent of the Imperium was nominated for the Dragon Awards in 2016.

title: Marc Miller (game designer)


text:
Picea martinezii

Picea martinezii, the Martinez spruce, is a medium-sized evergreen tree growing to 25–35 m tall, and with a trunk diameter of up to 1 m. It is native to northeast Mexico, where it occurs at six localities in the Sierra Madre Oriental mountains in Nuevo León. It grows at moderate altitudes from 2150–2600 m, growing along streamsides in mountain valleys, where moisture levels in the soil are greater than the otherwise low rainfall in the area would suggest.

The bark is thin and scaly, flaking off in small circular plates 5–10 cm across. The crown is conic, with widely spaced branches with drooping branchlets. The shoots are stout, pale buff-brown, glabrous, and with prominent pulvini. The leaves are needle-like, 23–35 mm long, stout, moderately flattened in cross-section, bright glossy green with inconspicuous lines of stomata; the tip is viciously sharp.

The cones are pendulous, broad cylindrical, 8–16 cm long and 3 cm broad when closed, opening to 6 cm broad. They have stiff, smoothly rounded scales 2-2.5 cm broad, and are green, maturing pale brown 6–8 months after pollination. The seeds are black, 4 mm long, with a 12–16 mm long pale brown wing.

Martinez spruce was only discovered in 1981, and is critically endangered with just six small populations, comprising about 1,000 trees. Fossil evidence shows it had a wider distribution in the past, south to central Mexico. It is related to Chihuahua spruce from northwest Mexico, but differs in the longer, green leaves, and the larger, broader cones with larger scales. No other related spruces are found in North America, with its next-closest relatives in eastern Asia.

It is a very attractive tree and is starting to be planted as an ornamental tree in botanical gardens, particularly valued in warm areas as it is one of the most heat-tolerant of all spruces. It is named after the Mexican botanist Maximino Martínez.

title: Picea martinezii