text:
User talk:Guettarda/Archive4

Intelligent Design
I appreciate your suggestion, but when I see verbiage that is obviously POV, I will remove it. --Goethean 17:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contrib
That's OK. I felt that I was rambling a bit, trying desperately not to give offence. It seems to have worked in that sense, at least...

By the way, where exactly are you from (expecting the answer Port-of-Spain)? One of my closest friends while I was doing my first graduate degree was Trinidadian (David Myers; I don't suppose that you know him or his family. His father was a pilot (ships, that is), I think), and I spent a lot of my time around Trinidadians. I can still surprise people by identifying their Trinidadian accents. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Oops, sorry; every Trinidadian I've met (of whatever racial origin) has been from Port-of-Spain, so I'd just assumed that it was the major population centre. David married an East Indian woman (I don't know if that's a polite term; if not, please blame it on ignorance rather than malice), and proved yet again that for children with beauty, brains, and character, you should mix the races.

 * On the accent: I taught a student once who was white and called John Morgan — and I'll never forget the look on his face when I asked if he was from Trinidad. He'd spent the whole of his time in England explaining to people that he wasn't Welsh but Trinidadian. Mind you, I can recognise it, but I can't reproduce it to save my life, though I'm usually quite good at accents.  There's a subtlety to it that I can discern but not master.  Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Because I was often the only non-West Indian in large groups, I was occasionally (actually quite often) asked whether I though the Jamaican or the Trinidadian accent was the more attractive — an impossible question to answer, even if hadn't been surrounded by people with both . I usually got out of it by wittering on about how the Trinidadian sounded more Welsh, while the Jamaican sounded more Yorkshire. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Global Warming
Sorry for the delay in response, I've been busy. I want to re-emphasize that I do not consider calling someone biased at all the same as calling someone unethical. One of the central premises of Wikipedia, as layed out in NPOV, is that everyone has a bias, and the start to writing neutrally is to recognize our own bias. This is not the same as saying everyone is unethical. The problem is simply that bias each scientist has reflects in the work of that scientist. The scientific process contains no automatic immunity to bias, since intelligent people can do a spectacular job of convincing themselves that their preconceived notions are correct. This is not an unethical process, but simply a human imperfection process. — Cortonin | Talk 10:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lets start with a simple example, the urban heat island effect. If you read here, you can see the progression of thought. First, data is mentioned that since 1979, warming has shown up 4 or 5 times more strongly for surface measurements than for satellite measurements. Observations such as this are often used to indicate that the observed warming is potentially due to the clustering of temperature systems around growing populated areas (since they definitely are clustered in such a way). But then the referenced paragraph proceeds to explain this away by examining the subset of Northern Hemisphere temperatures, saying, and I quote, "the Northern Hemisphere land areas where urban heat islands are most apparent". Note the transition. First, they are dealing with urban heat island change, and then they select the region with the most pronounced existing urban heat island effect. In other words, they specifically pick the non-developing world, which already experiences the urban heat island effect, rather than the portion of the world which is experiencing rapid growth of urban areas. What this actually says, is that the urban heat island effect's contribution to the observed change in the developing world is even stronger than the 4 or 5 times value, but they don't notice or don't include this in their analysis. — Cortonin | Talk 10:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The other method of dismissing the urban heat island effect is the statistical analysis done by Peterson in 2003. He analyzes the temperatures, and concludes that once parameters like difference in setting (such as on rooftops or the ground), elevation above ground, and instrumentation, there is no urban heat island effect. From this, he concludes that the urban heat island effect does not affect temperature observations. Now there are some serious flaws in this. First, the most basic statistical error he makes is that he concludes that there is no urban heat island effect by removing variables which strongly correlate with whether the instrument is located in a rural or an urban area. If you subtract out enough of the confounding variables, you will certainly remove all trace of the effect you are trying to examine. So he continues to subtract these confounding variables until he has erased the urban heat island effect. Just a few days ago, it was a calm day, and it was 12 degrees warmer in the small city I live in than at the airport 2-3 miles from the edge of the city. An analysis which removes the presence of the heat island effect must be bogus, since it contradicts measurements on the short time scale, during which none of the factors considered by Peterson change. — Cortonin | Talk 10:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the most important aspect of global warming research, is that experimental observation can NOT demonstrate any significant projected or expected change in our temperature levels over the next 100 years. So since experimental observation is too sparse to make that prediction, climatologists have had to rely on climate simulations. The data available to test the climate simulations is a bit sparse, consisting of essentially only a century, and with the best efforts of the simulations to date, the best fit, found here at the bottom, is only a fourth degree fit. This means that almost any random simulation with at least four parameters could be made to fit that data. This also means, that the reliable predictive power of the climate models is zero if four or more parameters or parameter-like model choices were chosen in those simulations. A fourth degree polynomial could fit that just as well. So whenever someone takes that simulation, and says it is "evidence" that a warming will occur, they are making a mathematical error. Statistically speaking, a simulation with that many parameters and such a low degree fit to the data does not have any predictive power. In all the other fields of science, simulations like that are simply used as indicators about what types of things are worth investigating or measuring, and are not considered significant evidence. Climatology is unique in its adherence to simulations of that degree as "evidence", and it seems to have stepped outside of the standards of conventional scientific methods to do so. — Cortonin | Talk 10:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So I'm not sure which evidence you have been examining, but a field which rests on temperature measurements shown to be measuring another effect, which is then removed by faulty statistical procedures, combined with models which have no statistical prediction power, seems to me to be a bit "lacking" by the standards of science that I was trained to follow. — Cortonin | Talk 10:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great pictures, Guettarda. Question - why do you ask for substance from my arguments then tell me that the ones I give are biased and "don't matter." This is very offensive to a practicing scientist. :-| Salva 01:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Missed sig
Thanks, I've fixed it. Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Civility
Guettarda, could you please be a little more civil. I read your comment on Graft's user page. I don't see the need for such comments.

On an entirely different point I noticed your political compass reading was almost identical to mine. Barnaby dawson 20:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mathematics. But I went to part of a course on cellular biology which I found fascinating. Barnaby dawson 21:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reading comprehension
Ha.. I figured as much. It's okay, people have been getting my name wrong since I first showed up here four years ago. Ah well. Graft 21:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jooler's talk page
Hi Guettarda: Your intervention into the conversation about editing other people's user pages raised a smile here. Thank you. --Theo (Talk) 22:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Guettarda
For your supportive vote in my RfA! Much appreciated! Yours, El_C 01:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Re:
I have replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade, Cheers,

Sam Spade 16:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Zapatero
Thanks for ther vandal revert. I do seem to have a talent for attracting trouble here at wikipedia, --SqueakBox 20:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Re:
I have replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade. Cheers, Sam Spade 20:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I must say, your quite the pleasent person, an excellent spokesman for oklahoma if there ever was one (I suppose there is also the musical ;) My reply is @ User_talk:Sam_Spade. Cheers,

 * Sam Spade 00:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Spiritweed
Please feel free to use any name you think is most appropriate. I am actually not that familiar with it and just took the first English name I saw (only because this is English Wiki). Use any name you think is best and move the article there. Thank you for the comment. --DanielCD 18:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

If you think Chandon benit is better, let me know and I'll move it back. --DanielCD 18:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I actually think there are places for each. If people will recognize a common name, like Blackberry, better than the scientific binomial, I don't see a problem with it. However, when there are a lot of common names, the binomial might be better. If this plant is one of those with a lot of names, perhaps the scientific name would be better, and the common names can just be noted in the article. LMK what you think and I will see to the change. --DanielCD 18:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. We can use redirects for any common names that might get used. --DanielCD 18:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Stanley Temple
I changed the Amazon links in Stanley Temple because there's no reason to give free advertising to just Amazon—using ISBNs allows a variety of bookstores to be linked to. —tregoweth 02:24, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. That would be a mistake on my part, because I didn't know about the capitalization convention. Sorry about that. —tregoweth 23:14, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment on my talk page. I've done no such thing. Kind regards, jguk 17:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's crystal clear that my comments were directed at Slrubenstein's argument rather than yourself. Kind regards, jguk 21:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Cricket portal
It's happily sitting on Portal:Cricket waiting for the formal creation of Portalspace. I understand the Dutch, and possibly also the German and Polish Wikipedias also want a Portalspace - though some, like the Dutch, already have an informal Portalspace. Kind regards, jguk 21:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Trinidadian music
Category:Trinidadian styles of music should be part of Category:Music of Trinidad and Tobago. Or am I misunderstanding your question? Tuf-Kat 08:10, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus
Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions,. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. I really trust your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Uploading images
Hi. Long time. Thanks for your link to Wiki Commons. I decided I'd follow it and see what happened. Well, I finally successfully got an image up. As it turns out, it was actually easy -- but I couldn't downsize it, so I decided to save that battle for another day. See for yourself: Golliwogg. (I'll take small victories.) :D Peace. deeceevoice 17:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey.

I knew about changing the number of pixels, but not about removing "frame" first. Thanks. :) I went back to Golliwogg and toyed with different image sizes, and decided not to downsize it as much as I originally intended --but I did reduce it slightly.  Perhaps it's the subject matter -- it being a children's illustration 'n' all -- but I rather like a relatively large image.  Now that I know how to downsize it, maybe I'll switch the image with the one I put in Blackface, since this is the one where Golly's minstrel attire is more visible.  Thanks again for your assistance.  Regards, deeceevoice 22:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Please check out Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein  |  Talk  00:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Manning
I accept the point about the image and copyright. An error on my part.

With regard to the POV:

The President appointed Mr Manning as PM in 2001 in accordance with the powers given to him by the Constitution. Your point about it being a break from parliamentary procedure appears to be incorrect as the appointment of a PM is dictated by the Constitution and not the Parliament. In fact, at that point their was no Parliament as such. The matter was unprecedented and there was no convention for His Excellency to follow, as such he acted 'in his opinion' -- one of the very few times that the President can act indepentently. Stating or suggesting otherwise appears to be more POV.

Mrs Manning was appointed a Senator and Minister of Education by the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. Fact -- otherwise, POV.

--Emrolgould 12:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE proposal
Gene Nygaard replied to you,
 * Did you notice that when Slrubenstein talks about years like 5765, he never identifies the calendar with "A.M." or in any other way? Perhaps he figures that since he is using the "real" calendar, it doesn't need to be identified; but I think that mostly he is hoping that people will not notice that this calendar also expresses one of those evil, culture-centric points of view.

I am at a disadvantage whenever Nygaard disses me because I announced I would not participate in discussion. But I thought it was obvious that when I said I think the year is 5765 because I am Jewish and this is my point of view, and repeatedly said it is my "POV" that everyone would understand that it is a POV. It pisses me off that he says "evil" since I do not think my people's calendar is "evil" and I certainly never said that the Christian calendar is "evil." Or, do you think he believes that to call something POV is to call it "evil?" I am pretty confused by his comment. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  15:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for responding. Also, I really appreciate all your attempts to raise the discourse on my proposal page. As with your work on evolution, you've shown that you are one of our must valuable editors. Perhaps one day someone else will find a more effective way to get a serious NPOV discussion going ... Slrubenstein  |  Talk  19:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs
I was just browsing around and found a comment that seemed to indicate that you believe the above list to be an inherently offensive article. I was just wondering why that was and if you wanted to discuss it (myself being the original author of the article). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:32, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I see. Certainly there have been (over the course of the list) many incarnations... some more "infected" with nonsense than others. I am glad you see, conceptually at least, the academic interest in studying language... even language designed to malign. I disagree that it could never be encyclopedic. Some of the entries are certainly better than others, but I originally envisaged a comprehensive listing of words, origin, usage, and (most importantly) social/historical context for the words. I agree that it is of limited use (although still valuable as a lexicon) to simply list a slur. The ability to understand how the words are used and to explore their origins is very important to the study of the phenomenon.

 * I grant you that there is inherently a bias towards English-speaking cultures... but this is true of the entire English Wikipedia. In fairness, the list does contain MANY terms for whites as well as terms for non-whites used by other non-whites. I understand your concerns and hope that your worst fears for the article never get realized. If you don't mind, I'd like to add the terms you left on my talk page to the List. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

E-mail
Yes, I did get it, thank you, and responded. If it hasn't arrived, let me know, and I'll resend. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Politicians of Caribbean nations
I did this in a hurry with a note to myself to come back later and insert the category in the various bios. In the meantime, please feel free to change anything you like, with thanks. Ted Wilkes 15:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD
I'd like to explore your argument that BC/AD is POV here in user space where there's not as much noise. I disagree with your claim, but I'm interested in a rational debate about it, and maybe you can convince me (or I can convince you). At the very least, we can come up with things for you and/or me to muse over. Let me know if you're not interested in discussing this here, but if you are, feel free to respond either here or on my talk page, whichever suits you best.

You continue to state unequivocally that BC/AD asserts the deity of Jesus, yet faced with the parallel problem in Thursday, you say that Thursday is not a problem because few, if any, people worship Thor. It seems to me that you're effectively suggesting that BC/AD would be sufficiently NPOV if very few people believed in Jesus. Is that a reasonable conclusion to draw from your argument? Alanyst 06:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think the dilution argument is precisely where I'm coming from. I don't think anyone seriously argues that "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" express no POV, but since the initialisms "BC" and "AD" have been used so extensively in so many contexts without reference to their expansions, they no longer mean what they originally stood for. In essence, they have become new words: "beesee" and "ehdee". Their modern meaning is nothing more than "before the start of the current era" and "after the start of the current era"—not what the letters stand for, to be sure, but what they now mean.

It is difficult to provide evidence for (or against!) my argument that the meaning of BC/AD has changed enough to dilute the original POV such that BC/AD is acceptable for Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I guess I would cite as evidence the fact that BC/AD is so widely used that, statistically speaking, among those who comfortably use the term are probably millions of people who do not espouse a Christian POV. So your conclusion as a child that "non-Christians can't use that term" was naïve (no offense intended) because you did not recognize that the original meaning, which you had just learned, could be diluted by time and by the diversity of those who use it—in other words, you thought the original meaning was necessarily the current meaning, which is a very forgivable yet mistaken conclusion for a ten-year-old to draw. Since many non-Christians comfortably use the term in an identical manner to how Christians use the term, one cannot tell whether a particular usage of BC/AD is, by itself, expressing a Christian POV or not; the context in which it is used must be known to gauge whether it lends to a POV or not. (On the other hand, if I saw someone write "500 years before Christ" or "Anno Domini 300" then I could more readily conclude that a Christian POV is being expressed, since non-Christians are much less likely to express dates in this manner, and the trouble taken to go beyond the common abbreviations is indicative that the author is trying to make a rhetorical point beyond the mere expression of the date.) So, writing "500 BC" in Wikipedia cannot reasonably convey an endorsement of the Christian POV by itself or in an otherwise neutral context. But in contexts where use of BC/AD would be unusual, its appearance would in fact be indicative of POV. Does this make sense, or do you see problems with this argument? Alanyst 15:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You said: ''As I see it, POV or NPOV is not a function of the intention of the writer, but in the possible interpretations of the readers...What the writer meant to say is irrelevant. What the writer said is all that matters...Majoritarian POV (like BC/AD) would only work if we circumscribe our audience.''

I'm somewhat persuaded by this reasoning, although I'm not entirely satisfied. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the author's intentions don't matter; only the readers' interpretations are of concern. Under that assumption, consider the problem of "Thursday". (I don't mean to keep harping on this example but I haven't really been satisfied with past attempts at refuting it.) Almost nobody considers that "Thursday" is POV—but, if the Thursday article is to be believed, some Quakers do in fact eschew the term because they feel it communicates a pagan POV. Let's compare the possible interpretations of BC/AD and Thursday: Now, under what principle do we allow "Thursday" in Wikipedia, despite knowing that a Quaker might find an unacceptable POV in that term, but ban "BC" and "AD" from Wikipedia because some people find an unacceptable POV in those terms? In other words, what are the criteria for establishing that a particular term carries an unacceptable POV? Because the mere fact that someone can find an offensive POV in a particular term doesn't seem to be sufficient. Does it matter how many people may or may not subscribe to a particular interpretation? Alanyst 15:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * BC/AD interpretations
 * Original meaning unknown; "BC" and "AD" are simply letters that tell us the era.
 * Original meaning known but most modern uses of "BC" and "AD" do not convey that meaning.
 * Original meaning known and most modern uses of "BC" and "AD" convey that meaning.
 * Thursday interpretations
 * Original meaning unknown; "Thursday" is simply the name of a day of the week.
 * Original meaning known but most modern uses of "Thursday" do not convey that meaning.
 * Original meaning known and most modern uses of "Thursday" convey that meaning.

ID
Why does everyone have such a hard time accepting that I'm a legitimate convert? I've quit my grad program, shaved my head and joined a monastic order devoted to debunking that materialist trash. Also, I can earn way more on the lecture circuit this way. Who do you think makes more money, Jerry Coyne or Jonathan Wells? Graft 18:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have come clean, as you suggest. Graft 19:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Full-wit
Oh, I'll promote you all the way up to a full-wit, if it makes you feel better! ;-) Thank you for your confidence, but I'm happy with not being "official". People who have admin status seem to think that requires some sort of special mode of conduct, and I think we should all be able to call one another jerks or cranks every once in awhile without fear of having tongues wagging at us. --Fastfission 17:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cross-naming
You'd have to ask me on a case by case basis. Hamburg, for instance, was captured by Polish forces in WWII and houses a large Polish diaspora. Halibutt 15:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yup, perhaps there are other ways to deal with it, but unless you want to start yet another voting, we'd have to stick with it. Also, whether my interpretation is broad or not has no meaning here. This specific rule was used by various wikipedians (admins included) to add German names to, for instance, articles on sports clubs in Poland. When I tried to call for common sense I was told that the current ruling of the voting is final and there is little that can be done about it. So, in other words, dura lex sed lex. Halibutt 16:29, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have mentioned the problem on the Administrators noticeboard. See and

also several times on the 3rr noticeboard. (today)

However the problem was not solved and the user "group" around User:Chris 73 added again German names in articles like Lechia Gdansk (football club) or Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc (political party), or suburbs of Szczecin like Szczecin-Grabowo, even for the city of Bialystok (east Poland) - they provoked edit-wars and exempt themselves from the 3RR (if needed).--Witkacy 18:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I dont know where the right place is to solve such issues - However, Chris is an administrator so.. :)--Witkacy 19:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Unc.jpg
No worries. If there are previous versions of an image, they show up in the image page, and you can revert to previous revisions by clicking on the "rev" link. Since there is only one revision on Image:Unc.jpg, it seems you are the only person to upload an image with that title. It doesn't seem there ever was an image on the Irish Uncial alphabet page. It probably just had a "missing image" notice.

Wikipedia should have more editors as thoughtful as you. Nohat 01:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Guettarda/Archive4


text: Talk:Durable good

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

title: Talk:Durable good


text:
Leigh Park

Leigh Park is a large suburb (population 27,500) of Havant, in Hampshire, England. It currently forms the bulk or whole of four electoral wards: Battins, Bondfields, Barncroft and Warren Park (generally referred to as 'The Warren').

Staunton Country Park lies on the northern edge of Leigh Park, also within the Havant boundary.

History
Leigh Park existed before becoming a post Second world war housing estate,

Early history
As early as 1750 mention was made of a farm on the site in a will of that year and local historians consider it likely that a farm existed there around 100 years earlier.

Leigh Park Estate
The stables, walled garden and coach house of the house survived as part of Staunton Country Park. The estate encompassed decorative planting, lakes and follies and was described as "one of the most beautiful spots in the county" in 1826.

In 'The Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales' Leigh is described as a tything of Havant parish two miles to the north west of Havant with a population of 547.

Second world war
Leigh Park was re-developed as a new suburb for those made homeless in Portsmouth by bomb damage which occurred during World War II and to enable the new roads and parks of Portsmouth to be built.

Post war
The land for the estate was purchased by Portsmouth City council from the Fitzwygram family in 1944; work started on building in 1947 and the first residents moved in during 1949. The first shops opened in 1952 (in Stone Square) and the main shopping centre of Park Parade / Greywell Shopping opened in 1955.

The majority of homes in Leigh Park were built by Portsmouth City Council, not Havant Borough Council through a financially underwritten cooperation with the former Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council. Most Leigh Park tenants of social housing pay rent to the properties' owners Guinness Partnership (formerly Hermitage Housing) or Portsmouth City Council which has an office near Park Parade. Residents are liable in council tax to Havant Borough Council who provide local services and collect the Hampshire County Council proportion.

Construction of the estate was not fully completed until the early 1970s, although most of the houses in the area were built by 1960.

Barratt Homes is currently building on the former Procter & Gamble site in the centre of Leigh Park. Leigh Park was one of the largest wholly council estates in Europe however following the ongoing right to buy many of the properties are privately owned.

In 2004, Leigh Park made the news when a gang stole more than £100,000 from the Nationwide Building Society and a man sleeping on a bench was set on fire, in a separate incident.

Governance
The suburb of Leigh Park comes under the remit of the local government district and borough of Havant and within the boundary of Hampshire County Council. the area is broadly covered by the electoral wards of Barncroft, Battins and Warren Park while some northern section of Bedhampton ward might be considered within what might be commonly thought of Leigh Park.

Leigh Park is part of the parliamentary constituency of Havant. it is served by MP Alan Mak, a Conservative.

Geography
The modern estate is bordered to the east by the Havant to Petersfield railway line excluding perhaps some industrial units by the railway which would not be considered part of the estate. The Northern extent is approximately defined in line with the A3M and B2150 junction. Staunton Country Park and Leigh Park Gardens may or may not be considered part of the estate, as might the Southleigh House area which lies to the east of the Railway. The western edge is bounded but excluding houses around B2150 road from Old Bedhampton to Waterlooville. To the south, the boundary lies broadly just to the north of the B2149 road.

Leigh Park is broadly flat gradually rising to the North with some sharper rises at fringes around the northern parts.

The Hermitage Stream and tributaries run through parts of Leigh Park while the Lavant stream runs down the left side of the settlement. Both run into Langstone Harbour which is approximately 1 mi to the south at the nearest point.

Culture and community
There was a Bowling alley beside park parade that was converted to a bingo hall and opened by Diana Dors in 1984.

Transport
The main shopping precinct is served by Stagecoach South bus routes 20, 21, 23, 37 and 39, which provide links with central Havant (with some services continuing to Portsmouth and the main area hospital). First Hampshire & Dorset operates the 27 service through the estate between Rowlands Castle, Havant and Emsworth.

Havant railway station is the nearest major train station, smaller stations Bedhampton and Rowlands Castle are near parts of Leigh Park. The A3(M) motorway and A27 Havant bypass are the areas' major links to the rest of the country.

Education
Leigh Park contains several primary schools: Front Lawn, Trosnant, Riders, Sharps Copse, Park House, Warren Park, Barncroft School and St Albans C of E.

Leigh Park is currently served by three secondary schools: Havant Academy (known as Wakefords Secondary School when it opened in 1970 and latterly Staunton Community Sports College until 2009), Park Community School (known previously as Broomfield Secondary School, when it opened in 1958, and Broomfield Comprehensive School until 1988) and Prospect School, built in 2008, an education centre for children with learning and social disabilities.

The West Leigh area was also served by Oak Park Secondary School on Leigh Road (close to the junction with Crosland Drive - now demolished), from its opening in 1957 to its closure in the late 1980s. Pupils from that area then attended Warblington Comprehensive School situated some distance from the area on Southleigh Road, Denvilles.

Between 1958 and 1960 Havant Grammar School had shared the Broomfield Secondary School site on Middle Park Way until it moved to its own, new buildings on the corner of Barncroft Way and New Road. The title Havant Grammar School disappeared with the arrival of the comprehensive school system and it became Havant College a sixth-form college in 1974.

Sport
The suburb's main non-league football side is Havant & Waterlooville who currently play in the Conference South, two divisions below the Football League. The team's main claim to fame is reaching the FA Cup fourth round in the 2007-08 season when they twice took the lead against Liverpool at Anfield before finally losing 5-2.

Havant Hockey Club play at Havant College on Barncroft Way (just on the outskirts of Leigh Park). The team were National and European Champions in the 1990s. The street High Lawn Way just beyond the Crown Bingo Hall also offshoots onto a bowls club, two tennis courts and a common playing fields and children's play area.

Leigh Park boxing club is based at the community centre.

title: Leigh Park


text:
James Nares (composer)

James Nares (19 April 1715 – 10 February 1783) was an English composer of mostly sacred vocal works, though he also composed for the harpsichord and organ.

Life
Nares was born in Stanwell, although soon after his family moved to Oxfordshire. His brother was a justice, Sir George Nares.

He began his career as Deputy Organist of St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle, and was later appointed Organist of York Minster in 1735. He married soon after that. Nares was a pupil of Bernard Gates (Master of the King's Choristers), Johann Christoph Pepusch and William Croft. His patron and friend was John Fountayne, the Dean of York.

He replaced his tutor, Gates, as chorister at the Chapel Royal in 1756. At this time the University of Cambridge bestowed the degree Doctor of Music upon him.

He was assistant organist at St George's Chapel in Windsor, then succeeded Salisbury at York Minster, before returning to the Chapel Royal in 1756 to become organist and composer to George III, succeeding Maurice Greene. It is believed that Nares was the first person to systematically publish a series of keyboard lessons for students of the piano.

Nares resigned his duties in July 1781 due to declining health and died 10 February 1783.

Nares is buried in St. Margaret's, Westminster. His service in F and many of his anthems are still used in cathedrals.

He was the father of Revd Robert Nares (1753–1829), the philologist and author.

Compositions

 * The Souls of the Righteous, 1734
 * Set of eight Harpsichord Lessons, 1747
 * Five Harpsichord lessons, Op. 2, 1759
 * Elegy on Mr. Handel, 1759
 * Il Principio or a Regular Introduction to playing on the Harpsichord or Organ, 1760, reissued in facsimile by Oxford University Press in 1981.
 * Six Fugues for Organ, 1772
 * Three Easy Harpsichord Lessons, 1778
 * A Treatise on Singing, 1778
 * The Royal Pastoral, 1778
 * Collection of Catches, Canons and Glees, 1778
 * Six Organ Fugues, 1778
 * Second Treatise on Singing, with a set of English duets, 1778
 * Twenty Anthems, 1778
 * A Morning and Evening Service and Six Anthems, 1788

title: James Nares (composer)


text:
Urban decay

Urban decay (also known as urban rot, urban death or urban blight) is the sociological process by which a previously functioning city, or part of a city, falls into disrepair and decrepitude. There is no single process that leads to urban decay.

Aspects and causes
Urban decay can include the following aspects:

 * Industrialization
 * Deindustrialization
 * Gentrification
 * Population decline or overpopulation
 * Counterurbanization
 * Economic restructuring
 * Abandoned buildings or infrastructure
 * High local unemployment
 * Increased poverty
 * Fragmented families
 * Low overall living standards or quality of life
 * Political disenfranchisement
 * Crime (e.g., gang activity, corruption, and drug-related crime)
 * Large and/or less regulated populations of urban wildlife (e.g., abandoned pets, feral animals, and semi-feral animals)
 * Elevated levels of pollution (e.g., air pollution, noise pollution, water pollution, and light pollution)
 * Desolate cityscape known as greyfield land or urban prairie

Since the 1970s and 1980s, urban decay has been a phenomenon associated with some Western cities, especially in North America and parts of Europe. Cities have experienced population flights to the suburbs and exurb commuter towns; often in the form of white flight. Another characteristic of urban decay is blight – the visual, psychological, and physical effects of living among empty lots, buildings, and condemned houses.

Urban decay is often the result of inter-related socio-economic issues, including urban planning decisions, economic deprivation of the local populace, the construction of freeways and railroad lines that bypass or run through the area, depopulation by suburbanization of peripheral lands, real estate neighborhood redlining, and immigration restrictions.

History
During the Industrial Revolution, many people moved from rural areas to cities for employment in the manufacturing industry, thus causing urban populations to boom. Subsequent economic change left many cities economically vulnerable. Studies such as the Urban Task Force (DETR 1999), the Urban White Paper (DETR 2000), and a study of Scottish cities (2003) hypothesize areas suffering from industrial decline, high unemployment, poverty, and a decaying physical environment (sometimes including contaminated land and obsolete infrastructure)—prove "highly resistant to improvement".

Changes in transportation from public to private, (specifically the private motor car) eliminated some of the cities' public transport service advantages, e.g., fixed-route buses and trains. In particular, at the end of World War II, many political decisions favored suburban development and encouraged suburbanization through financial incentives like government supported FHA loans and VA mortgage aid. This allowed many veterans of World War II and their families to afford comfortable single family housing in suburbs.

The manufacturing industry has historically been a base for the prosperity of major cities. When these industries relocate to larger, less urban environments, some cities have experienced population loss with associated urban decay, and even riots. Cutbacks on police and fire services may result, while lobbying for government funded housing may increase. Increased city taxes encourage residents to move out. Libertarian economists argue that rent control contributes to urban blight by reducing new construction and investment in housing and discouraging maintenance.

United States

Historically in the United States, the white middle class gradually left the cities for suburban areas due to African-American migration north toward cities after World War I.

Some historians differentiate between the first Great Migration (1910–1930), numbering about 1.6 million African-American migrants who left mostly Southern rural areas to migrate to northern and Midwestern industrial cities, and, after a lull during the Great Depression, a Second Great Migration (1940–1970), in which 5 million or more African-Americans moved, including many to California and various western cities.

Between 1910 and 1970, African-Americans moved from southern States, especially Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas to other regions of the United States, many of them townspeople with urban skills. By the end of the Second Great Migration, African-Americans had become an urbanized population, with more than 80% of Black Americans living in cities. A majority of 53 percent remained in the South, while 40 percent lived in the Northeast and Midwest and 7 percent in the West.

From the 1930s until 1977, African-Americans seeking borrowed capital for housing and businesses were discriminated against via the federal-government–legislated discriminatory lending practices for the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) via redlining. In 1977, the US Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

Later urban centers were drained further through the advent of mass car ownership, the marketing of suburbia as a location to move to, and the building of the Interstate Highway System. In North America, this shift manifested itself in strip malls, suburban retail and employment centers, and low-density housing estates. Large areas of many northern cities in the United States experienced population decreases and a degradation of urban areas.

Inner-city property values declined, and economically disadvantaged populations moved in. In the U.S., the new inner-city poor were often African-Americans that migrated from the South in the 1920s and 1930s. As they moved into traditional white neighborhoods, ethnic frictions served to accelerate flight to the suburbs.

United Kingdom
Like many industrial nations before the Second World War, the United Kingdom carried out extensive slum clearances. These efforts continued after the war, however in many of these slums, depopulation became common, producing compounding decay. The UK is unlike much of Europe in having high overall population density, but low urban population density outside of London. In London, many former slum neighbourhoods like in Islington became "highly prized", however this was the exception to the rule, and much of the north of England remains deprived. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation in the 1980s and 1990s undertook extensive studies culminating with a 1991 report which analyzed the 20 most difficult council estates. Many of the most unpopular estates were in East London, Newcastle upon Tyne, Greater Manchester, Glasgow, the South Wales valleys, and Liverpool, their unpopularity driven by a variety of causes from the loss of key industries, population decline, and counterurbanization.

Population decline in particular was noted to be faster in inner city areas than in outer ones, however a decline was noted throughout the 1970s, through the 1990s in both inner and outer city areas. Jobs declined between 1984 and 1991 (a decline observed particularly among men), while outer areas saw job growth (particularly among women). The UK also saw urban areas become more ethnically diverse, however urban decline was not limited to areas which saw population changes. Manchester in 1991 had a non-white population 7.5% higher than the national average, but Newcastle had a 1% smaller non-white population.

Features of British urban decay analyzed by the Foundation included empty houses; widespread demolitions; declining property values; and low demand for all property types, neighborhoods, and tenures.

Urban decay has been found by the Foundation to be "more extreme and therefore more visible" in the north of the United Kingdom. This trend of northern decline has been observed not just in the United Kingdom but also in much of Europe. Some seaside resort towns have also experienced urban decay towards the end of the 20th century. The UK's period of urban decay was exemplified by popular songs, such as The Specials' 1981 single "Ghost Town" and The Jam's 1979 single "Down in the Tube Station at Midnight".

France
Large French cities are often surrounded by areas of urban decay. While city centers tend to be occupied mainly by upper-class residents, cities are often surrounded by public housing developments, with many tenants being of North African origin (from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia), and recent immigrants.

From the 1950s to the 1970s, publicly funded housing projects resulted in large areas of mid- to high-rise buildings. These modern "grands ensembles" were welcomed at the time, as they replaced shanty towns and raised living standards, but these areas were heavily affected by economic depression in the 1980s.

The banlieues of large cities like Lyon, especially the northern Parisian banlieues, are criticized by the country's territorial spatial planning administration. They have been ostracized since the French Commune government of 1871, considered as "lawless" or "outside the law", even "outside the Republic", as opposed to "deep France" or "authentic France", which is associated with the countryside.

In November 2005, the French suburbs were the scene of riots sparked by the accidental electrocution of two teenagers in the northern suburbs of Paris, and fueled in part by the substandard living conditions in these areas. Many deprived suburbs of French cities were the scenes of clashes between youth and the police, with violence and numerous car burnings resulting in media coverage.

Today the situation remains generally unchanged; however, there is a level of disparity. Some areas are experiencing increased drug trafficking, while some northern suburbs of Paris and areas like Vaulx-en-Velin are undergoing refurbishment and re-development.

Some previously mono-industrial towns in France are experiencing increasing crime, decay, and decreasing population. The issue remains a divisive issue in French public politics.

Italy
In Italy, a well-known case of urban decay is represented by the Vele di Scampia, a large public housing estate built between 1962 and 1975 in the Scampia neighborhood of Naples. The idea behind the project was to provide an urban housing project, where hundreds of families could socialize and create a community. The design included a public transportation rail station, and a park area between the two buildings. The planners wanted to create a small city model with parks, playing fields, and other facilities.

However, various events, starting with the 1980 earthquake in Irpinia, led to urban decay inside this project and in the surrounding areas. Many families left homeless by the earthquake squatted inside the Vele. The lack of police presence, led to a rise in Camorra drug trade, as well as other gang and illicit activity.

South Africa
In South Africa, the most prominent urban decay case is Hillbrow, an inner-city neighborhood of Johannesburg which was formerly affluent. At the end of apartheid in 1994, many middle-class white residents moved out and were replaced by mainly low-income workers and unemployed people, including many refugees and undocumented immigrants from neighboring countries. Many businesses that operated in the area followed their customers to the suburbs, and some apartment buildings were "hi-jacked" by gangs who collected rentals from residents but failed to pay the utility bills, leading to termination of municipal services and a refusal by the legal owners to invest in maintenance or cleaning. Occupied today by low-income residents and immigrants and being over-crowded; the proliferation of crime, drugs, illegal businesses, and decay of properties have become prevalent.

Germany
Many east German towns such as Hoyerswerda face or are facing population loss and urban shrinkage since the reunification of Germany in 1990. Hoyerswerda's population has dropped about 40% since its peak and there is a significant lack of teenagers and twenty- forty-some year olds due to the declining birthrates during the uncertainty of reunification. Part of the blight in east Germany is due to the construction and preservation practices of the socialist government under the German Democratic Republic (GDR). To fill the housing needs, the GDR quickly built many prefabricated apartment buildings. In addition, historic preservation of pre-war buildings varied; in some cases, the rubble of buildings destroyed by the war were simply left there while in other cases the debris was removed, and an empty lot remained. Other standing historical structures were left to decay in the early GDR as they did not represent the socialist ideals of the country.

Policy responses to urban decay

The main responses to urban decay have been through positive public intervention and policy, through a plethora of initiatives, funding streams, and agencies, using the principles of New Urbanism (or through Urban Renaissance, its UK/European equivalent). Gentrification has also had a significant effect, and remains the primary means of a natural remedy.

United States
In the United States, early government policies included "urban renewal" and building of large-scale housing projects for the poor. Urban renewal demolished entire neighborhoods in many inner cities and it was as much a cause of urban decay as a remedy. These government efforts are now thought by many to have been misguided.

For multiple reasons including increased demand for urban amenities, some cities have rebounded from these policy mistakes. Meanwhile, some of the inner suburbs built in the 1950s and 1960s are beginning the process of decay, as those who are living in the inner city are pushed out due to gentrification.

Europe
In Western Europe, where undeveloped land is scarce and urban areas are generally recognized as the drivers of the new information and service economies, urban renewal has become an industry in itself, with hundreds of agencies and charities set up to tackle the issue. European cities have the benefit of historical organic development patterns already concurrent to the New Urbanist model, and although derelict, most cities have attractive historical quarters and buildings ripe for redevelopment.

In the inner-city estates and suburban cities, the solution is often more drastic, with 1960s and 1970s state housing projects being demolished and rebuilt in a more traditional European urban style, with a mix of housing types, sizes, prices, and tenures, as well as a mix of other uses such as retail or commercial. One of the best examples of this is in Hulme, Manchester, which was cleared of 19th-century housing in the 1950s to make way for a large estate of high-rise flats. During the 1990s, it was cleared again to make way for new development built along new urbanist lines.

title: Urban decay


text: User talk:63.160.16.206

title: User talk:63.160.16.206


text: Category:Counter-Strike

title: Category:Counter-Strike


text:
Cytherean

Cytherean is an adjective literally meaning of Cythera (Latin Cytherēa, from the Greek adjective Κυθέρεια Kythereia, from Κύθηρα Kythēra 'Cythera'). Cythera is a small Greek island, southeast of the Peloponnesus, and a legendary birthplace of the goddess Aphrodite (Venus). The word Cytherean was first applied to the goddess and later, due to word taboo, to the planet Venus that had been named after the goddess.

When planetary scientists began to have a need to discuss Venus in detail, an adjective was needed. Based on the principles of Latin names in English, the regular adjectival form of the name is Venerean (or Venerian, either pronounced ). However, these forms have an unfortunate similarity to the related word venereal, as in venereal disease (related to "Venerean" as martial is to "Martian"), and is not generally used by astronomers. The term "Venusian" is etymologically messy (similar to saying "Earthian" or "Jupiterian"), and a "cleaner" version was desired.

Since Venus has a Greek name, as well as a Roman one, this could be used; however, the adjectival form of Aphrodite, "Aphrodisian", was felt to be unfortunately similar to "aphrodisiac", again evoking sex rather than astronomy.

A compromise was reached. In Greek mythology, the goddess Aphrodite was said to have been born from the sea, from which she emerged on a seashell at the island of Cythera; thus she was sometimes referred to as Cytherēa. The adjective Cytherean was taken from this name and remained popular in scientific literature for some time. Its perhaps forgotten usage in 18th century erotica did not interfere with this choice.

The term has since fallen out of common use. Venusian is the form most frequently used, with others, including "Venerean," appearing from time to time; the term "Cytherean" is now mostly found in older scientific papers, but some scientists still stick to the "tasteful" naming. In addition, the word "Cytherean" as an adjective referring to Venus is often found in science fiction of the early and mid-20th century.

title: Cytherean


text:
Category talk:Counter-Strike

Counter-Strike itself has more players than all other mods of Half-Life combined, and even more than most other online FPS combined. I think it's only reasonable to give it its own category. Dabljuh 14:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Counter-Strike


text:
Talk:Relative clause/Archive 1

Hey Marksweep, thanks for the useful copyedit. I accept most of it. But not all. First of all, the examples are variations of a famous nursery rhmye "This is the house that Jack built". The rhyme says "that", not "which", so I won't let you off with changing that. I will accept you making the point that SOME syntacticians don't accept "that" as a relative pronoun, but they are a minority, so you can't on that basis go removing "that" throughout the whole article.

 * I would disagree that they are a minority. At any rate, there is agreement about the wh- series in English, but there is no agreement about the status of "that". So we shouldn't say in the first example that "that" is a relative pronoun when this is the one contentious item. Rather start with something uncontentious that everyone can agree on, then get to the issue of "that" later. (See more below.)

Next point. I think you are wrong about "who" after a preposition. "Whom" is not much used in colloquial English, but colloquial English seldom puts the perposition before the pronoun. Hand on heart: would you really say "Jack is the boy with who Jenny fell in love"? I think you've been misled by what you would do when the preposition is at the end. I've expanded this into a separate paragraph, because it IS interesting.

 * I don't know what the basis for that judgement is. Searching for "in who" on Google gives about as many hits as a search for "in whom" does, though this is of course unreliable because the first search also returns hits for "WHO". (This has to be done properly; see below.)

In particular, I've just done a corpus search: "of who" is not frequently enough used to rate a mention in the table. I'm not trying to be prescriptive in this table - the point is not that nothing else can be heard or should be allowed, but that these are what are usually observed. (I take it that is what you meant by POV - you thought I was trying to be prescriptive; but everything I wrote was descriptive of normal English use, and based on descriptive grammar books, not just my own observations.)

I take it it was a slip that you added "none" to the table in the subject row. I challenge you to produce a contact clause with the subject pronoun suppressed.

 * No slip. The issue is not "subject" vs. "object". Here's a simple example: "This is the man (who) Jack believes will be king." The relative pronoun must be in subjective/nominative case, because it refers to the subject of "will". Omitting "who" is fine, but omitting "Jack" is not. So there you have an example where a relative pronoun referring to a missing subject was omitted; it's just that you can't do this when "who" is the subject of the main verb inside the relative clause.

If you disagree with anything I write, by the way, please say why here and seek a consensus; simply changing substantive content without comment is not kosher. --Doric Loon 10:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm operating on the general principle of being bold. I don't think that any and all changes have to be discussed first before they can be implemented, and I usually pay no attention to who wrote what. This is not about you personally; it's about this article, which could have easily been misread as being prescriptivist. I realize that it was not your intention to be prescriptive, so I think we're already in agreement regarding what the article should be about. Since there remain a few things to be discussed, let's talk about them here. I've tried to organize the following discussion around your specific objections. Please add or reorganize if you think I've left out some of your points. --MarkSweep 22:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Never occurred to me that this was personal. I'm cool!  --Doric Loon 22:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Status of that
The status of "that" as a relative pronoun is contentious. (Agreed?) Traditional grammars treat "that" as a relative pronoun, but not all contemporary grammars do: e.g. the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language pp. 1056–7 makes a good case for treating "that" as a subordinator instead of a relative pronoun; and the British National Corpus treats "that" as a subordinating conjunction even when it introduces relative clauses. This is not an empty terminological debate: there are important differences between "that" and "which" (e.g. you can say "in which" but not "in that", etc.). It is precisely those differences that have led some to say that "that" behaves unlike the other relative pronouns and should therefore not be grouped with them. --MarkSweep 22:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * "That" certainly behaves slightly differently from the other relative pronouns, but it behaves far more differently from anything else it can be compared with. To me, the principle that language abhors a vacuum is enough to explain why, given two near synonyms we have evolved patterns of preferring one or other in particular circumstances.  But whether I agree with the latest theory is neither here nor there.  Traditional grammar certainly makes it a relative, and so do most of the books being published today.  To me, this IS a fairly empty terminological debate.  I am interested in theory and don't mind you writing it up, but I doubt if this distinction is actually helpful to anyone trying to use the language. My proposal: put a heading "Controversial status of that" at the bottom just above the overview table and discuss this there, but it would be important to name the linguist who proposed the theory and note that it is new and not universally accepted.  Then, having dealt with that there, write the rest of the article on the assumption that the traditional terminology is good enough.--Doric Loon 22:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course I meant "language abhors a synonym" - a rather corny catch-phrase, but it has a grain of truth. --Doric Loon 10:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Subjects vs. nominative case and bare relative clauses
The conditions under which a relative pronoun can be omitted need to be discussed. I'm not sure if this article is the right place or if relative clause would be more appropriate. Anyway, we all agree that "who" can appear as the subject or object of verbs (leaving aside arguments of prepositions for now), whereas "whom" can only appear as the object. However, a complex relative clause can have several subject (of several nested clauses), in which case "who" can be omitted if it refers to an internal subject (just not the main subject):

 * This is the man who Jack believes will be king.
 * This is the man Jack believes will be king.

I would suggest that "(none)" simply be omitted from the summary table. This is because the conditions on bare relative clauses are more complex and are independent of case. For example, the Cambridge Grammar also points out the following kind of contrast (my example, based on a Google search):

 * There are traps that/which the player can be released from.
 * There are traps the player can be released from.
 * There are traps that/which only under special circumstances the player can be released from.
 * But arguably not: There are traps only under special circumstances the player can be released from.

In other words, "that" can only be omitted when it's immediately adjacent to the main subject of the relative clause.

Given that these conditions are fairly complex, the case of an omitted relative pronoun is best not mentioned in the summary table. --MarkSweep 22:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * You are right that this is complex. Is that a reason to omit it from the table?  BTW, the table is based on one in a Van Dale dictionary - these are not my ideas, and yes, the dictionary distributs "none" the same way I did.  I think you are wrong about your example, though it is a very complex and interesting sentence.  Think about this again:
 * This is the man who Jack believes will be king.
 * Try this test. Can you substitute "whom"?  Yes you can:
 * This is the man whom Jack believes will be king.
 * Therefore "who(m)" in this sentence is an object pronoun. It is in fact the object of "believes".  That it also has a subjective relationship to "will be" is a very interesting problem, but that doesn't make it an exception to the rule that a contact clause is only possible when the relative pronoun being suppressed is objective.--Doric Loon 22:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * So do you accept this then?
 * Jack believes him will be king.
 * How about the following?
 * This is the man whom Jack thinks will be king.
 * This is the man whom Jack said will be king.
 * Just curious. Do you have a source for the rule that you state? I've cited the Cambridge Grammar, which says that what we've called contact clauses here are possible even though the missing constitutent inside the relative clause is in the nominative case. The main criterion is that the top-most subject cannot be omitted. Note that we don't necessarily need to resolve this debate here: if you add the Van Dale dictionary to the list of references and put a note near the overview table stating that it is based on a certain page or passage from your source, that would be almost all we need. --MarkSweep 03:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * As I am away from my books at the moment I can't cite you an authoritative source, but popular one is easily found with a google search. For example [] ("who ist Subjekt und darf nicht weggelassen werden") or [] ("the relative whom or that may be omitted").
 * I certainly wouldn't say *"Jack believes him will be king." But yes, I personally would say "the man whom Jack thinks/says ..."  It feels to me a bit like an a.c.i., though of course it is not one.  That's why said it was such an interesting and complicated example, which took me by surprise.  Thanks for bringing it up.  If you want to put this into the article then go ahead.  It is certainly interesting enough.  But you will have to do quite a bit of (non-original) research to see who is saying what.  But I wouldn't put special cases into the overview table, which is complicated enough already.
 * BTW, that Google search turned up another fact which surprised me. The term "contact clause" seems mainly to be used in German EFL contextst, though not exclusively - one of those links I just gave you was an American university.  Possibly you would prefer to give prominence to a different term if you have one?  --Doric Loon 10:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I TAKE IT ALL BACK. Having discussed this with several colleagues I now see that saying This is the man whom Jack said will be king is just an illogical quirk of mine - it is not standard, and in prescriptive grammar it is not correct. So you are right, who in those sentences is subject.  --Doric Loon 14:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * While it is illogical, I suppose, and violates the usual prescriptive grammar of English, it's rather natural-sounding, and I'm sure I remember seeing once a Web page that gave examples from important writers (such as Shakespeare) of sentences like it. (The point being, as I recall, that the distinction between who and whom has never quite been so simple as subjective vs. objective.) Ruakh 16:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who vs. whom as objects of prepositions
I personally see nothing wrong with using "who" after a preposition, but my personal opinions don't count. We should either find and cite a reliable source that pertains to this issue, or we should investigate this phenomenon ourselves (though this is bordering on Original Research). --MarkSweep 22:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * There is certainly nothing WRONG with it. I just don't think I have seen or heard it often, and my own explanation for that is that anyone informal enough to drop the old accusative -m will certainly not be so pedantic as to want the preposition before the relative pronoun.  But now that you challenge me, I can think of an exception, namely when there is a numeral:  Jack has four friends, three of whom are builders.  Here the "of" MUST go before the relative, so people who never use "whom" are forced to say "of who".  OK, in this case you are right, though I think it is a special case.  --Doric Loon 22:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I never hear "three of who" in a relative clause. Where I am, people almost never use the word "whom," but would never say "three of who"; it just sounds silly. (Now, you might hear that in a question:

 * "Three of them are coming."

 * "Three of who?"

 * but never in a relative clause.) That could be a regional thing, though; maybe you come from a grammatically deficient region. :-P Ruakh 19:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Fit's that ye'r sayin aboot the Doric? Grammatically deficient! Awa an bile yer hied! Coming back to prep + whom, Thomson and Martinet (§74C) give the following options:
 * The man to whom I spoke
 * The man whom I spoke to
 * The man who I spoke to
 * The man that I spoke to
 * The man I spoke to
 * So as far as they are concerned, everything is OK if the preposition is at the end, but only whom follows a preposition. --Doric Loon 15:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with their list exactly. Ruakh 16:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for adding the Thomson and Martinet reference. I'll have to check later what, if anything, the Cambridge Grammar has to say about "to who". As Doric pointed out before, "to who" may just be stylistically odd. --MarkSweep 19:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Preposition in canonical position?
I've heard of the missionary position, but what is the canonical one? Sorry to be flippant, but I really didn't understand that phase. More to the point, is the preposition MOVED to the end of the sentence or LEFT there? Since this is not worth arguing over, I've rephrased it to avoid the issue. But Old English placed the preposition where German does, before the relative. So putting it to the end is a move. You will notice I think diachronically. (If we were to discuss the indefinate article I would say "an" is the basic form, shortened to "a" under certain circumstances. It may be you would put that the other way around.  Both valid!)  --Doric Loon 22:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Good point regarding "moved" vs. "stranded/left". I'm all in favor of being agnostic about whether movement takes place and in which direction it goes. The claim from transformational grammar is that the relative pronoun moves and that the preposition is stranded or left behind in the position in which it would occur in a canonical clause (hence the term "preposition stranding"). I'm only objecting to the statement that the preposition is "at the end" of the relative clause, which is an oversimplification, because there may be other things after it. Compare:
 * Jill fell in love with this boy during a weekend of heavy drinking. (canonical clause)
 * This is the boy who(m) Jill fell in love with during a weekend of heavy drinking. (relative clause)
 * In the second case the preposition "with" occurs after the phrase "fell in love", just as it does in the first clause. The Cambridge Grammar calls "regular" sentences "canonical clauses" (i.e. they are neither indicative subordinate clauses, nor relative clauses, nor interrogative main clauses, nor interrogative subordinate clauses, etc.). "Canonical position" just means the preposition is where you'd expect it to be in a canonical clause, even though the argument of the preposition (in this case the relative pronoun) is not. --MarkSweep 03:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Aha, I didn't know that. As I said, I'm rooted in historical/comparative linguistics and come to all this with a different terminology from you.  I had deleted "canonical" because I understood something rather different by it, but in that case I would be happy for you to put it back.  In that case it needs to be explained, though.  Perhaps cross-reference it to a different Wiki-article?  --Doric Loon 11:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Commas in German
In the German section, what did you mean by "sentence internal"? Can you give me an example of a German relative clause not marked off by a comma? --Doric Loon 11:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The previous version said something like "all relative clauses are preceded by commas", which does not account for sentence-initial free relatives. For example:
 * Was Jack macht, ist erfolgreich.
 * I'm not sure if the comma after the free relative clause is required, but certainly there is no comma before the relative clause, because it occurs at the beginning of the sentence. --MarkSweep 12:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Aha! Fair enough.  Yes, the comma is still required.  But point taken. --Doric Loon 18:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anti-traditional-grammar POV?
When it comes to that, this article seems to have an anti-traditional-grammar POV. Statements like "That as a relative pronoun may of course be either personal or impersonal" (emphasis mine) seem inappropriate to an NPOV article.

Also, this paragraph:

 * A further complexity is that it is often claimed that that may only be used to introduce a defining clause. By analogy, it is sometimes claimed that who or which should only be used in non-defining clauses. However, this does not reflect common usage and is problematic after a preposition.

seems wrong on several counts. I have never heard it claimed that "who" should only be used in non-defining clauses, and a quick Google search didn't pull up any pages making that claim.

According to the traditional rules, the pronouns are used as follows:

 * Personal pronouns:
 * Nominative/subjective: who
 * Accusative/objective: whom
 * Genitive/possessive: whose
 * Non-personal pronouns:
 * As a subject or direct object:
 * Restrictive: that
 * Non-restrictive: which
 * As the object of a preposition: which
 * As a possessive pronoun: whose, or recast as of which

I'm not saying that this article should be prescriptive in nature, but seeing as many people do follow the traditional rules (whether consciously or not), and seeing as many style guides still hold them up as the norm, I don't think the article should be as blatantly dismissive of them as it is. Ruakh 19:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The words "of course" in that sentence were mine - I tend to use this phrase meaning "on the other hand" - no POV intended, but feel free to rephrase. The paragraph you refer to is a hybrid of different people's contributions, and possibly needs to be tidied up - go ahead and do it.
 * I think this article has to describe the traditional rules, since they in themselves are a part of our culture which should be noted, and after all they have a long history and are very well attested. It also has to allow for change and variety in English.  For example, having whom as the only possibility for "personal, objective" doesn't cover it.  However, I think the overview table mostly co-incides with what you have just written, so I would have thought you would not be too unhappy with it.
 * As an EFL teacher I would insist that prescriptive rules have their place in certain language operations, such as learning a foreign language. But modern linguistics is and should be overwhelmingly descriptive.
 * Something else - Ruakh as in "ruakh elohim al pene ha-mayim"? Why don't you add a sentence or so about relative clauses in Hebrew?  So far this article is very Indo-european dominated!--Doric Loon 14:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I've tidied, and tried to make the page NPOV. (I didn't change the table at all, BTW; my reason for giving the prescriptive rule above is that various paragraphs of the article's text gave misleading information about them, with statements that some people claim things I've never heard of anyone claiming.)

 * I've also added sections on French and Hebrew. (I'm not familiar with your quote, BTW, but yes, I assume it's the same word "ruakh.") I would add Spanish, but my Spanish is not very good, and relative pronouns are very complex in Spanish; for example, I believe that after some prepositions, any of que, quien, el que, or el cual would be correct - depending on dialect and register - if the antecedent is a person. So I don't feel comfortable attempting an overview of Spanish relative pronouns; it would be interesting to include, though, if someone is up for it. Ruakh 16:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Using the terms personal and non-personal is not good, because personal means first-, second-, and third-person pronouns, as distinguished from other pronouns such as demonstrative pronouns and interrogative pronouns. We should use human and nonhuman instead. - TAKASUGI Shinji

 * Good point. - Ruakh

 * In addition, I think relative words should be classified like interrogative words. For instance:
 * relative determiner
 * which (when placed before a noun)
 * whose
 * relative pro-form
 * relative pronoun
 * who, whom (human)
 * which (nonhuman)
 * relative pro-adverb
 * where (location)
 * when (time)
 * why (as in reason why)
 * relativizer (not found in English)

 * - TAKASUGI Shinji 08:42, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

 * That makes sense, though you should note that relative determiners would still be pro-forms (they would be pro-determiners, as it were, replacing this and his and the like).

 * Incidentally, I suppose this is unrelated, but the article should also note the standard use of as as a relative pronoun (as can be seen in this parenthetical note, where as is the subject of can be seen) as well as the non-standard uses of both as and what: "There's a woman as/what wants to see you." I'm not sure where that could be added, though; any thoughts? Ruakh 10:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hold on now. This is not the traditional or usual terminology. Is it a recognised innovative terminology from some theorist you can name? If so, you can certainly add a section discussing it. But it is not going to be helpful to readers if you go throwing out the familiar terminology throughout the article and replace it with something trendy. I thought, Ruach, that was the whole point of your "anti-traditional-grammar POV" complaint. The thing to remember is that everyone who is working with language, not just experts in linguistics, have a say in the terminology they prefer, and the majority of people are conservative in such things. This is not like an obscure point of scholarship where a few experts can move the field forward by themselves. YES discuss new ideas, but use traditional categories for the bulk of the article unless there is something very wrong with them. --Doric Loon 12:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, certainly. I didn't mean that we should exclusively, or even principally, use these classifications; I simply meant that this was a useful classification scheme that bears mention. I guess I can't speak to what TAKASUGI Shinji meant by his comment, but I assumed he didn't mean something so radical as to replace the current explantions with these. (I suppose I shouldn't have assumed without clarifying, though.) Ruakh 20:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Traditionally, relative determiners (such as whose) have been called relative adjectives. Since modern linguists distinguish determiners and adjectives, it is increasingly common to refer to them as relative determiners.

 * The following site is useful:
 * Glossary of grammatical terms used in English Grammar: Theory and Use
 * Read the "relative clause" and "determiner" sections.

 * SIL's Glossary of linguistic terms lists only relative pronouns, relative adverbs (relative pro-adverbs), and relativizer, not including relative determiners in any of the three.

 * They are explained in the following book, but I don't have a copy.
 * QUIRK, Randolph, GREENBAUM, Sidney, LEECH, Geoffrey, & SVARTNIK, Jan. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

 * I know this terminology is not shared by everyone. - TAKASUGI Shinji 01:02, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Move to relative clause?
How do people feel about moving this page to relative clause? It's very difficult to discuss relative pronouns in isolation and the current version already touches on many of the larger phenomena related to relative clauses. Then "relative pronoun" could simply be left as a redirect to "relative clause", or could consist of a brief overview and a boldface link to "relative clause". Issues like preposition stranding and defining vs. non-defining relative clauses in English do interact with relative pronouns, but are perhaps more appropriate in an article about relative clauses in general. Any thoughts? --MarkSweep 19:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd support that 100%. I was actually just thinking earlier today that relative clause should redirect here, but your way makes more sense. Ruakh 19:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Go for it!--Doric Loon 21:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No language with a distinct relative pronoun?
So thinking about it, I don't think that this:

 * There appears to be no language in the world with a distinct word used only as a relative pronoun. This suggests that relative pronouns are a fairly late development in the history of language.

(added in this revision) is correct. Hebrew is a very old language, and I can't think of any uses of asher other than as a relative pronoun. Further, while nowadays it is mostly replaced by she-, which admittedly does have other meanings (much like English that), asher and she- were completely distinct in Biblical Hebrew: as far as I can think, the former was exclusively a relative pronoun, the latter never one.

Unless some source can be given to support it, I think it should be removed, or perhaps made more narrow; maybe relative clauses were a late development in Indo-European languages, even if other languages had them as an essential part of the language? Ruakh 04:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * My source for that was the article Relativpronomen in the German wiki - not really authoritative enough. I did wonder myself if it would be safer not to make a claim as absolute as "there is no language in the world". (Which is why I added the cop-out "appears to be" - but that's not good enough, is it?)  But I think the point is still worth making that these are seldom words with unique useages.  The French que goes back to a conjunction in Latin, for example.  --Doric Loon 11:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * que is also a conjunction in French, used in much the same way as the English conjunction that. But the mere fact of English, French, and German doing something one way is not justification for the claim that languages "seldom" do it differently; after all, these languages are closely related, and the fact that they do something similarly could reflect this shared ancestry, rather than a nearly-universal truth of human language. Ruakh 15:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Relative clause/Archive 1


text:
Union Stock Yards

The Union Stock Yard & Transit Co., or The Yards, was the meatpacking district in Chicago for more than a century, starting in 1865. The district was operated by a group of railroad companies that acquired marshland and turned it into a centralized processing area. By the 1890s, the railroad capital behind the Union Stockyards was Vanderbilt money. The Union Stockyards operated in the New City community area for 106 years, helping Chicago become known as the "hog butcher for the world," the center of the American meatpacking industry for decades. The yards became inspiration for literature and social reform.

The stockyards became the focal point of the rise of some of the earliest international companies. These refined industrial innovations and influenced financial markets. Both the rise and fall of the district reflect the evolution of transportation services and technology in America. The stockyards have become an integral part of the popular culture of Chicago's history. They are considered one of the chief drivers that empowered the animal–industrial complex into its modern form.

From the Civil War until the 1920s and peaking in 1924, more meat was processed in Chicago than in any other place in the world. Construction began in June 1865 with an opening on Christmas Day in 1865. The Yards closed at midnight on Friday, July 30, 1971, after several decades of decline during the decentralization of the meatpacking industry. The Union Stock Yard Gate was designated a Chicago Landmark on February 24, 1972, and a National Historic Landmark on May 29, 1981.

History
Before construction of the various private stockyards, tavern owners provided pastures and care for cattle herds waiting to be sold. With the spreading service of railroads, several small stockyards were created in and around the city of Chicago. In 1848, a stockyard called the Bulls Head Market was opened to the public. The Bulls Head Stock Yards were located at Madison Street and Ogden Avenue. In the years that followed, several small stockyards were scattered throughout the city. Between 1852 and 1865, five railroads were constructed to Chicago. The stockyards that sprang up were usually built along various rail lines of these new railroad companies. Some railroads built their own stockyards in Chicago. The Illinois Central and the Michigan Central railroads combined to build the largest set of pens on the lake shore east of Cottage Grove Avenue from 29th Street to 35th Street. In 1878, the New York Central Railroad managed to buy a controlling interest in the Michigan Central Railroad. In this way, Cornelius Vanderbilt, owner of the New York Central Railroad, got his start in the stockyard business in Chicago.

Several factors contributed to consolidation of the Chicago stockyards: westward expansion of railroads between 1850 and 1870, which drove great commercial growth in Chicago as a major railroad center, and the Mississippi River blockade during the Civil War that closed all north–south river trade. The United States government purchased a great deal of beef and pork to feed the Union troops fighting the Civil War. As a consequence, hog receipts at the Chicago stockyards rose from 392,000 hogs in 1860 to 1,410,000 hogs over the winter butchering season of 1864–1865; over the same time period, beef receipts in Chicago rose from 117,000 head to 338,000 head. With an influx of butchers and small meat packing concerns, the number of businesses greatly increased to process the flood of livestock being shipped to the Chicago stockyards. The goal was to butcher and process the livestock locally rather than transferring it to other northern cities for butchering and processing. Keeping up with the huge number of animals arriving each day proved impossible until a new wave of consolidation and modernization altered the meatpacking business in the post-Civil War era.

The Union Stock Yards, designed to consolidate operations, was built in 1864 on marshland south of the city. It was south and west of the earlier stock yards in an area bounded by Halsted Street on the east, South Racine Avenue on the west, with 39th Street as the northern boundary and 47th Street as the southern boundary. Led by the Alton, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad and the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway, a consortium of nine railroad companies (hence the "Union" name) acquired the 320 acre marshland area in southwest Chicago for US$100,000 in 1864. The stockyards were connected to the city's main rail lines by 15 mi of track. In 1864, the Union Stock Yards were located just outside the southern boundary of the city of Chicago. Within five years, the area was incorporated into the city.

Eventually, the 375 acre site had 2300 separate livestock pens, room to accommodate 75,000 hogs, 21,000 cattle and 22,000 sheep at any one time. Additionally, hotels, saloons, restaurants, and offices for merchants and brokers sprang up in the growing community around the stockyards. Led by Timothy Blackstone, a founder and the first president of the Union Stock Yards and Transit Company, "The Yards" experienced tremendous growth. Processing two million animals yearly by 1870, in two decades the number rose to nine million by 1890. Between 1865 and 1900, approximately 400 million livestock were butchered within the confines of the Yards.

By the start of the 20th century, the stockyards employed 25,000 people and produced 82 percent of the domestic meat consumed nationally. In 1921, the stockyards employed 40,000 people. Two thousand men worked directly for the Union Stock Yard & Transit Co., and the rest worked for companies such as meatpackers, which had plants in the stockyards. By 1900, the 475 acre stockyard contained 50 mi of road, and had 130 mi of track along its perimeter. At its largest area, The Yards covered nearly 1 sqmi of land, from Halsted Street to Ashland Avenue and from 39th (now Pershing Rd.) to 47th Streets.

At one time, 500000 USgal a day of Chicago River water were pumped into the stockyards. So much stockyard waste drained into the South Fork of the river that it was called Bubbly Creek due to the gaseous products of decomposition. The creek bubbles to this day. When the city permanently reversed the flow of the Chicago River in 1900, the intent was to prevent the Stock Yards' waste products, along with other sewage, from flowing into Lake Michigan and contaminating the city's drinking water.

The meatpacking district was served between 1908 and 1957 by a short Chicago 'L' line with several stops, devoted primarily to the daily transport of thousands of workers and even tourists to the site. The line was constructed when the city of Chicago forced the removal of surface trackage on 40th Street.

Evolving methods of transportation and distribution led to declining business and the closing of the Union Stock Yards in 1971. National Wrecking Company negotiated a contract whereby National Wrecking cleared a 102-acre site and removed some 50 acres of animal pens, auxiliary buildings and the eight-story Exchange Building. It took approximately eight months to complete the job and ready the site for the building of an industrial park.

Effect on industry
The area and scale of the stockyards, along with technological advancements in rail transport and refrigeration, allowed for the creation of some of America's first truly global companies led by entrepreneurs such as Gustavus Franklin Swift and Philip Danforth Armour. Philip Armour was the first person to build a modern large-scale meatpacking plant in Chicago in 1867. The Armour plant was built at 45th Street and Elizabeth Avenue immediately to the west of the Union Stockyards. This new plant employed the modern "assembly line" (or rather dis-assembly line) method of work. The mechanized process with its killing wheel and conveyors helped inspire the automobile assembly line that Henry Ford popularized in 1913. For a time the Armour plant, located on a 12-acre site, was renowned as the largest factory in the world.

In addition, hedging transactions by the stockyard companies were pivotal in the establishment and growth of the Chicago-based commodity exchanges and futures markets. Selling on the futures market allowed the seller to have a guaranteed price at a set time in the future. This was extremely helpful to those sellers who expected their cattle or hogs to come to market with a glut of other cattle or hogs when prices might necessarily be substantially lower than the guaranteed futures price.

Following the arrival of Armour in 1867, Gustav Swift's company arrived in Chicago in 1875 and built another modern large-scale meatpacking plant at 42nd Street and South Justine Street. The Morris Company built a meatpacking plant at 42nd Street and Elizabeth Street. The Hammond Company and the Wilson Company also built meatpacking plants in the area west of the Chicago stockyards. Eventually, meatpacking byproduct manufacturing of leather, soap, fertilizer, glue (such as the large glue factory located at 44th Street and Loomis Street ), pharmaceuticals, imitation ivory, gelatin, shoe polish, buttons, perfume, and violin strings prospered in the neighborhood. Additionally, there was a "Hair Factory", located at 44th Street and Ashland Avenue, which processed hair from butchered animals into saleable items.

Next to the Union Stock Yards, the International Amphitheatre building was built on the west side of Halsted Street at 42nd Street in the 1930s, originally to hold the annual International Live Stock Exposition which began in 1900. It became a venue for many national conventions.

Historian William Cronon concludes:
 * Because of the Chicago packers, ranchers in Wyoming and feedlot farmers in Iowa regularly found a reliable market for their animals, and on average received better prices for the animals they sold there. At the same time and for the same reason, Americans of all classes found a greater variety of more and better meats on their tables, purchased on average at lower prices than ever before. Seen in this light, the packers' "rigid system of economy" seemed a very good thing indeed.

Fires
The first Chicago Union Stock Yards fire started on December 22, 1910, destroying $400,000 of property and killing twenty-one firemen, including the Fire Marshal James J. Horan. Fifty engine companies and seven hook and ladder companies fought the fire until it was declared extinguished by Chief Seyferlich on December 23. In 2004, a memorial to all Chicago firefighters who have died in the line of duty was erected just behind the Union Stock Yards Gate at the intersection of Exchange Avenue and Peoria Street.

A larger fire occurred on Saturday, May 19, 1934, which burned almost 90 percent of the stockyards, including the Exchange Building, the Stock Yard Inn, and the International Livestock Exposition building. The 1934 Stock Yards fire was seen as far away as Indiana, and caused approximately $6 million worth of damages. One employee and 8,000 head of cattle died. The yards were in business the following Sunday evening.

Workers and unions
Following the opening of the new Union Stockyards on December 25, 1865, a community of workers began living in the area just west of the packing plants between Ashland Avenue and South Robey Street and bounded on the north by 43rd Street and on the south by 47th Street. At first, the residents were overwhelmingly Irish and German—60% Irish and 30% German. Officially designated the "Town of Lake" until its incorporation into the City of Chicago in about 1870, the neighborhood was known locally as "Packingtown." However, much later in the 1930s, the community would become known as the "Back of the Yards."

The overwhelming sensation about the neighborhood was the smell of the community caused not just by the packing plants located immediately to the east, but also by the 345-acre Chicago Union Stock Yards containing 2,300 pens of livestock, located further east from the packing plants.

Back of the Yards Community
Settlement in the area that was to become known as the "Back of the Yards" began in the 1850s before there were any meat packers or stockyards in the area. At this time the area was known as the "Town of Lake." Indeed, the area would continue to be called Town of Lake until 1939. Witness that the newspaper of the area was called the Town of Lake Journal. Only with the founding of the community organization called the "Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council" in 1939 did the neighborhood west and south of the meat packinghouses start being called the "Back of the Yards." It was a name that the residents proudly claimed as their own. In 1939, the Town of Lake Journal officially changed its name to Back of the Yards Journal.

Pioneers to the area first called "Town of Lake" were S. S. Crocker and John Caffrey. Indeed, Crocker earned the nickname "Father of the Town of Lake." By February 1865 the area was incorporated officially as "Town of Lake" the area still consisted of fewer than 700 persons. In the early 1860s the meat packing industry of the United States was still located in Cincinnati, Ohio, the original "Porkopolis" of the pre-Civil War era. However, with the end of the American Civil War, the meat packing industry had started to move westward along with the westward migration of the population of the United States. For the meat packing industry moving west meant coming to Chicago. As early as 1827, Archibauld Clybourn had established himself as a butcher in a log slaughter house on the north branch of the Chicago River and supplied most to the garrison of Fort Dearborn. Other small butchers came later. In 1848, the Bull's Head Stockyard began operations at Madison Street and Ogden Avenue on the West Side of Chicago. Operations for this early stockyard, however, still meant holding and feeding cattle and hogs in transit to meat packing plants further east—Indianapolis and, of course, Cincinnati.

Decline and current use
The prosperity of the stockyards was due to both the concentration of railroads and the evolution of refrigerated railroad cars. Its decline was due to further advances in post–World War II transportation and distribution. Direct sales of livestock from breeders to packers, facilitated by advancement in interstate trucking, made it cheaper to slaughter animals where they were raised and excluded the intermediary stockyards. At first, the major meatpacking companies resisted change, but Swift and Armour both surrendered and vacated their plants in the Yards in the 1950s.

In 1971, the area bounded by Pershing Road, Ashland, Halsted, and 47th Street became The Stockyards Industrial Park. The neighborhood to the west and south of the industrial park is still known as Back of the Yards, and is still home to a thriving immigrant population.

Gate
A remnant of the Union Stock Yard Gate still arches over Exchange Avenue, next to the firefighters' memorial, and can be seen by those driving along Halsted Street. This limestone gate, marking the entrance to the stockyards, survives as one of the few relics of Chicago's heritage of livestock and meatpacking. The bovine head decoration over the central arch is thought to represent "Sherman", a prize-winning bull named after John B. Sherman, a founder of the Union Stock Yard and Transit Company. The gate is a designated U.S. National Historic Landmark.

Impact
The stockyards are considered one of the chief forces that molded the animal–industrial complex into its present form under contemporary capitalism. According to Kim Stallwood, Chicago and its stockyards from 1865 are one of the two milestones that mark the shift in human attitudes toward animals that empowered the animal–industrial complex, the other being the post–World War II developments such as intensive factory farms, industrial fishing, and xenotransplantation. According to sociologist David Nibert, the Chicago slaughterhouses were significant economic powers of the early 20th century and were "famous for the cruel, rapid-paced killing and disassembly of enormous numbers of animals."

In popular culture

 * In 1906 Upton Sinclair published The Jungle, uncovering the horrid conditions in the stockyards around the beginning of the 20th century.
 * The stockyards are referred to in Carl Sandburg's poem Chicago: "proud to be Hog Butcher, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with Railroads and Freight Handler to the Nation."
 * Frank Sinatra mentioned the yards in his 1964 song "My Kind of Town", and the stockyards receive a mention in the opening chapter of Thomas Pynchon's novel Against the Day.
 * The Skip James song "Hard Times Killing Floor Blues" refers to the nickname of the slaughter part of the stockyards during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
 * The Yards were a major tourist stop, with visitors such as Rudyard Kipling, Paul Bourget and Sarah Bernhardt.
 * The play Saint Joan of the Stockyards, a version of the story of Joan of Arc by Bertolt Brecht, takes place in the stockyards.
 * The 1950 film Union Station with William Holden has the final scene at the Union Stockyards.
 * In "Rose Fights Back", a 1989 episode of The Golden Girls, Rose Nylund reveals that she and her husband Charlie splurged on a trip to the Chicago Stock Yards as a romantic trip for their 20th anniversary.
 * In J. M. Coetzee's novel Elizabeth Costello, the protagonist says, "Chicago showed us the way; it was from the Chicago stockyards that the Nazis learned how to process bodies."
 * In the 2021 novel The City Beautiful by Aden Polydoros, the characters investigate the owner of a factory in the stockyards for the suspected murder of several Jewish boys in 1893.

title: Union Stock Yards