text:
Proto-Norse language

Proto-Norse (also called Ancient Nordic, Ancient Scandinavian, Ancient Norse, Primitive Norse, Proto-Nordic, Proto-Scandinavian and Proto-North Germanic) was an Indo-European language spoken in Scandinavia that is thought to have evolved as a northern dialect of Proto-Germanic in the first centuries CE. It is the earliest stage of a characteristically North Germanic language, and the language attested in the oldest Scandinavian Elder Futhark inscriptions, spoken from around the 2nd to the 8th centuries CE (corresponding to the late Roman Iron Age and the Germanic Iron Age). It evolved into the dialects of Old Norse at the beginning of the Viking Age around 800 CE, which later themselves evolved into the modern North Germanic languages (Faroese, Icelandic, the Continental Scandinavian languages, and their dialects).

Phonology
Proto-Norse phonology probably did not differ substantially from that of Proto-Germanic. Although the phonetic realisation of several phonemes had probably changed over time, the overall system of phonemes and their distribution remained largely unchanged.

Consonants

 * 1)  assimilated to a following velar consonant. It was  before a plain velar, and probably  before a labial-velar consonant.
 * 2) Unlike its Proto-Germanic ancestor, the phoneme  probably no longer had a velar place of articulation. It eventually disappeared except word-initially.
 * , and  were allophones of,  and , and occurred in most word-medial positions. Plosives appeared when the consonants were lengthened (geminated), and also after a nasal consonant. Word-finally, ,  and  were devoiced and merged with , ,.
 * 1) The exact realisation of the phoneme, traditionally written as ʀ in transcriptions of runic Norse (not to be confused with the phonetic symbol  used in other languages), is unclear. While it was a simple alveolar sibilant in Proto-Germanic (as in Gothic), it eventually underwent rhotacization and merged with  towards the end of the runic period. It may have been pronounced as  or , tending towards a trill in the later period. The sound was still written with its own letter in runic Old East Norse around the end of the first millennium.

Vowels
The system of vowels differed somewhat more from that of Proto-Germanic than the consonants. Earlier had been lowered to, and unstressed  and  had developed into  and. Shortening of word-final vowels had eliminated the Proto-Germanic overlong vowels.

 * 1)  had developed from  through a-mutation. It also occurred word-finally as a result of the shortening of Proto-Germanic.
 * 2) The long nasal vowels,  and  occurred only before . Their presence was noted in the 12th-century First Grammatical Treatise, and they survive in modern Elfdalian.
 * 3) All other nasal vowels occurred only word-finally, although it is unclear whether they had retained their nasality in Proto-Norse or had already merged with the oral vowels. The vowels  and  were contrastive, however, as the former eventually developed into  (triggering u-mutation) while the latter was lowered to.
 * 4) The back vowels probably had central or front allophones when  or  followed, as a result of i-mutation:
 * 5) * >,  >  (later , )
 * 6) * >  (later  or )
 * 7) * did not originally occur before  or, but it was later introduced by analogy (as can be seen on the Gallehus horns). Its allophone was probably , later.
 * 8) Towards the end of the Proto-Norse period, stressed  underwent breaking, becoming a rising diphthong.
 * 9) Also towards the end of the Proto-Norse period, u-mutation began to take effect, which created rounded allophones of unrounded vowels.
 * 1) Also towards the end of the Proto-Norse period, u-mutation began to take effect, which created rounded allophones of unrounded vowels.

Accent
Old Norse had a stress accent which fell on the first syllable, like its ancestor, Proto-Germanic. Several scholars have proposed that Proto-Norse also had a separate pitch accent, which was inherited from Proto-Indo-European and has evolved into the tonal accents of modern Swedish and Norwegian, which in turn have evolved into the stød of modern Danish. Another recently advanced theory is that each Proto-Norse long syllable and every other short syllable received stress, marked by pitch, eventually leading to the development of the Swedish and Norwegian tonal accent distinction. Finally, quite a number of linguists have assumed that even the first phonetic rudiments of the distinction did not appear until the Old Norse period.

Attestations
All attestations of Proto-Norse are Elder Futhark inscriptions. There are about 260 of these inscriptions in Proto-Norse, the earliest dating to the 2nd century.

Examples

 * Øvre Stabu spearhead, Oppland, Norway. Second century raunijaz, ON raun "tester", cf. Norwegian røyne "try, test". Swedish rön "finding" and utröna "find out". The word formation with a suffix ija is evidence of Sievers' law.
 * Golden Horn of Gallehus 2, South Jutland, Denmark 400 CE, ek hlewagastiz holtijaz horna tawido, "I, Hlewagastis of Holt, made the horn." Note again the ija suffix
 * Tune stone, Østfold, Norway, 400 CE. ek wiwaz after woduride witadahalaiban worahto. [me]z woduride staina þrijoz dohtriz dalidun arbija sijostez arbijano, I, Wiwaz, after Woduridaz bread-warden wrought. For me Woduridaz, the stone, three daughters prepared, the most noble of heirs.
 * The Einang stone, near Fagernes, Norway, is dated to the 4th century. It contains the message [ek go]dagastiz runo faihido ([I, Go]dguest drew the secret), in O–N ek goðgestr rún fáða. The first four letters of the inscription have not survived and are conjectured, and the personal name could well have been Gudagasti or something similar.
 * Kragehul spear, Denmark, c. 500 CE. ek erilaz asugisalas muha haite, gagaga ginuga, he...lija... hagala wijubi... possibly, "I, Eril of Asgisl, was named Muha, ga-ga-ga mighty-ga (ga being most likely an abbreviation of indeterminable reference), (incomplete) hail I consecrate."
 * The Björketorp Runestone, Blekinge, Sweden, is one of three menhirs, but is the only one of them where, in the 6th century, someone wrote a curse: haidʀ runo runu falh'k hedra ginnarunaʀ argiu hermalausʀ ... weladauþe saz þat brytʀ uþarba spa (Here, I have hidden the secret of powerful runes, strong runes. The one who breaks this memorial will be eternally tormented by anger. Treacherous death will hit him. I foresee perdition.)
 * The Rö runestone, in Bohuslän, Sweden, was raised in the early 5th century and is the longest early inscription: Ek Hrazaz/Hraþaz satido [s]tain[a] ... Swabaharjaz s[a]irawidaz. ... Stainawarijaz fahido. "I, Hrazaz/Hraþaz raised the stone ... Swabaharjaz with wide wounds. ... Stainawarijaz (Stoneguardian's) carved."

Loanwords
Numerous early Germanic words have survived with relatively little change as borrowings in Finnic languages. Some of these may be of Proto-Germanic origin or older still, but others reflect developments specific to Norse. Some examples (with the reconstructed Proto-Norse form):
 * Estonian juust, Finnish juusto "cheese" < *justaz (Old Norse ostr)
 * Estonian/Finnish kuningas < *kuningaz "king" (Old Norse kunungr, konungr)
 * Estonian/Finnish lammas "sheep" < *lambaz "lamb" (Old Norse lamb)
 * Finnish hurskas "pious" < *hurskaz "prudent, wise, quick-minded" (Old Norse horskr)
 * Finnish ruhtinas "prince" < *druhtinaz "lord" (Old Norse dróttinn)
 * Finnish runo "poem, rune" < *rūno "secret, mystery, rune" (Old Norse rún)
 * Finnish sairas "sick" < *sairaz "sore" (Old Norse sárr)
 * Finnish vaate "garment" < *wādiz (Old Norse váð)
 * Finnish viisas "wise" < *wīsaz (Old Norse víss)

A very extensive Proto-Norse loanword layer also exists in the Sámi languages.

Other
Some Proto-Norse names are found in Latin works, like tribal names like Suiones (*Sweoniz, "Swedes"). Others can be conjectured from manuscripts such as Beowulf.

Proto-Germanic to Proto-Norse
The differences between attested Proto-Norse and unattested Proto-Germanic are rather small. Separating Proto-Norse from Northwest Germanic can be said to be a matter of convention, as sufficient evidence from the remaining parts of the Germanic-speaking area (Northern Germany and the Netherlands) is lacking in a degree to provide sufficient comparison. Inscriptions found in Scandinavia are considered to be in Proto-Norse. Several scholars argue about this subject matter. Wolfgang von Krause sees the language of the runic inscriptions of the Proto-Norse period as an immediate precursor to Old Norse, but Elmer Antonsen views them as Northwest Germanic.

One early difference shared by the West Germanic dialects is the monophthongization of unstressed diphthongs. Unstressed ai became ē, as in haitē (Kragehul I) from Proto-Germanic haitai, and unstressed au likewise became ō. Characteristic is also the Proto-Norse lowering of Proto-Germanic stressed ē to ā, which is demonstrated by the pair Gothic mēna and Old Norse máni (English moon). Proto-Norse thus differs from the early West Germanic dialects, as West Germanic ē was lowered to ā regardless of stress; in Old Norse, earlier unstressed ē surfaces as i. For example, the weak third-person singular past tense ending -dē appears in Old High German as -ta, with a low vowel, but in Old Norse as -ði, with a high vowel.

The time that z, a voiced apical alveolar fricative, represented in runic writing by the algiz rune, changed to ʀ, an apical post-alveolar approximant, is debated. If the general Proto-Norse principle of devoicing of consonants in final position is taken into account, z, if retained, would have been devoiced to and would be spelled as such in runes. There is, however, no trace of that in the Elder Futhark runic inscriptions, so it can be safely assumed that the quality of this consonant must have changed before the devoicing, or the phoneme would not have been marked with a rune different from the sowilō rune used for s. The quality of the consonant can be conjectured, and the general opinion is that it was something between and, the Old Norse reflex of the sound. In Old Swedish, the phonemic distinction between r and ʀ was retained into the 11th century, as shown by the numerous runestones from Sweden from then.

Proto-Norse to Old Norse
From 500 to 800, two great changes occurred within Proto-Norse. Umlauts appeared, which means that a vowel was influenced by the succeeding vowel or semivowel: Old Norse gestr (guest) came from PN gastiz (guest). Another sound change is known as vowel breaking in which the vowel changed into a diphthong: hjarta from *hertō or fjǫrðr from *ferþuz.

Umlauts resulted in the appearance of the new vowels y (like fylla from *fullijaną) and œ (like dœma from *dōmijaną). The umlauts are divided into three categories: a-umlaut, i-umlaut and u-umlaut; the last was still productive in Old Norse. The first, however, appeared very early, and its effect can be seen already around 500, on the Golden Horns of Gallehus. The variation caused by the umlauts was itself no great disruption in the language. It merely introduced new allophones of back vowels if certain vowels were in following syllables. However, the changes brought forth by syncope made the umlaut-vowels a distinctive non-transparent feature of the morphology and phonology, phonemicising what were previously allophones.

Syncope shortened the long vowels of unstressed syllables; many shortened vowels were lost. Also, most short unstressed vowels were lost. As in PN, the stress accent lay on the first syllable words as PN *katilōz became ON katlar (cauldrons), PN horną was changed into Old Norse horn (horn) and PN gastiz resulted in ON gestr (guest). Some words underwent even more drastic changes, like *habukaz which changed into ON haukr (hawk).

title: Proto-Norse language


text:
Cognitive architecture

A cognitive architecture refers to both a theory about the structure of the human mind and to a computational instantiation of such a theory used in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and computational cognitive science. These formalized models can be used to further refine comprehensive theories of cognition and serve as the frameworks for useful artificial intelligence programs. Successful cognitive architectures include ACT-R (Adaptive Control of Thought – Rational) and SOAR. The research on cognitive architectures as software instantiation of cognitive theories was initiated by Allen Newell in 1990.

The Institute for Creative Technologies defines a cognitive architecture as a "''hypothesis about the fixed structures that provide a mind, whether in natural or artificial systems, and how they work together — in conjunction with knowledge and skills embodied within the architecture — to yield intelligent behavior in a diversity of complex environments."

History
Herbert A. Simon, one of the founders of the field of artificial intelligence, stated that the 1960 thesis by his student Ed Feigenbaum, EPAM provided a possible "architecture for cognition" because it included some commitments for how more than one fundamental aspect of the human mind worked (in EPAM's case, human memory and human learning).

John R. Anderson started research on human memory in the early 1970s and his 1973 thesis with Gordon H. Bower provided a theory of human associative memory. He included more aspects of his research on long-term memory and thinking processes into this research and eventually designed a cognitive architecture he eventually called ACT. He and his students were influenced by Allen Newell's use of the term "cognitive architecture". Anderson's lab used the term to refer to the ACT theory as embodied in a collection of papers and designs (there was not a complete implementation of ACT at the time).

In 1983 John R. Anderson published the seminal work in this area, entitled The Architecture of Cognition. One can distinguish between the theory of cognition and the implementation of the theory. The theory of cognition outlined the structure of the various parts of the mind and made commitments to the use of rules, associative networks, and other aspects. The cognitive architecture implements the theory on computers. The software used to implement the cognitive architectures were also "cognitive architectures". Thus, a cognitive architecture can also refer to a blueprint for intelligent agents. It proposes (artificial) computational processes that act like certain cognitive systems. Most often, these processes are based on human cognition, but other intelligent systems may also be suitable. Cognitive architectures form a subset of general agent architectures. The term 'architecture' implies an approach that attempts to model not only behavior, but also structural properties of the modelled system.

Distinctions
Cognitive architectures can be symbolic, connectionist, or hybrid. Some cognitive architectures or models are based on a set of generic rules, as, e.g., the Information Processing Language (e.g., Soar based on the unified theory of cognition, or similarly ACT-R). Many of these architectures are based on principle that cognition is computational (see computationalism). In contrast, subsymbolic processing specifies no such a priori assumptions, relying only on emergent properties of processing units (e.g., nodes ). Hybrid architectures such as CLARION combine both types of processing. A further distinction is whether the architecture is centralized, with a neural correlate of a processor at its core, or decentralized (distributed). Decentralization has become popular under the name of parallel distributed processing in mid-1980s and connectionism, a prime example being the neural network. A further design issue is additionally a decision between holistic and atomistic, or (more concretely) modular structure.

In traditional AI, intelligence is programmed in a top-down fashion. Although such a system may be designed to learn, the programmer ultimately must imbue it with their own intelligence. Biologically-inspired computing, on the other hand, takes a more bottom-up, decentralized approach; bio-inspired techniques often involve the method of specifying a set of simple generic rules or a set of simple nodes, from the interaction of which emerges the overall behavior. It is hoped to build up complexity until the end result is something markedly complex (see complex systems). However, it is also arguable that systems designed top-down on the basis of observations of what humans and other animals can do, rather than on observations of brain mechanisms, are also biologically inspired, though in a different way.

Notable examples
Some well-known cognitive architectures, in alphabetical order:

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

title: Cognitive architecture


text:
Talk:Gelou

Political affiliation and power over the territory
From the time of Krum to the time of Samuel of Bulgaria, this territory which Gelou protected was politically dependent on Preslav and Ohrid in the end. So, I do not see any reason to remove the Category:Transdanubian Bulgaria. Moreover, Hungarian statehood up to 1000 years cannot be said, let alone Romanian statehood.

Here is a source. Unfortunately, the book has not been translated into English: [http://macedonia.kroraina.com/tb2/tb_predg.htm Transylvanian (Siebenbürgen) Bulgarians. Ethnicity. Language. Ethnonymy. Onomastics. Prosopography] Angel Angel 2 (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If Gelou existed at all, he was not subject to Bulgarian authority either according to the Gesta Hungarorum or according to modern scholars who think he existed. Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
, why do you think we need to mention the continuity theory in an article about a legendary Vlach duke? Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The is no mention of the continuity theory but of the author's opinon about the only work which describes Gelou. The particular paragraph is "Gesta Hungarorum's reliability" which is exactly what Deletant talks about, so it's relevant. Why do you think the direct quote from Gesta Hungarorum concerning Gelou is not relevant to the page? TheGoldAge (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the article's consent, Deletant's view of the historicity of Gelou is relevant. His view about the presence of Romanians in Transyvania is out of the scope of the article. Borsoka (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But is Deletant's view of Gesta Hungarorum relevant? As his view is slightly different from that of the other historians mentioned: István Bóna, Pál Engel, Gyula Kristó. He doesn't argue that "Anonymus had no real knowledge of the Carpathian Basin (including Transylvania) at the time of the Hungarian conquest and invented all the opponents of the Hungarians because he needed characters to be defeated by the conquerors" as currently present in the article. TheGoldAge (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the article's context, Deletant's view does not differ from other scholars: Gelou was invented like the Hungarians' all other enemies in the Gesta.  Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does, Deletant says that the cases for and against the existance of Gelou simply cannot be proven. Which is different from István Bóna, Pál Engel and Gyula Kristó's views that he is incorrectly put together with. And István Bóna, Pál Engel, Gyula Kristó views on Anonymus' knowledge of Transylvania that he is again incorrectly associated with. Deletant says that a number of Anonymus' characters are clearly created and lists them, Gelou is not part of that list. TheGoldAge (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten that part and removed Deletant's view of Gesta Hungarorum as a whole, including his view about the presence of Romanians in Transyvania, only mentioning the part related to Gelou in particular. Do you agree with this new edit? TheGoldAge (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a possible approach, but you verbatim cited him without using apostrophes. I fixed the problem. Borsoka (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

King Peter and Gelou
why do you think there is a connection between King Peter Orseolo (died in 1046) and the late 9th-century Gelou. The subject of Curta's article is the history of Transylvania around 1000 AD. He only tangentially mentions Gelou in connection with the possible occupation of the site at Doboka in the late 9th century. He argues that two pendants may date the site to this period. Madgearu rejects Curta's argumentation. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Florin Curta thinks that. He writes in his work that the coins of King Peter Orseolo found during excavations helped them accurately determine the date of the second encampment at Dăbâca. The connection is that without King Peter Orseolo's coin they couldn't have dated the 2nd encampment. The relevance is that this implies that the 2nd or 1st encampments at Dăbâca could have indeed been Gelou's seat of power, the key word being could. Actually, he has a whole chapter dedicated to this. I do not know where you found this: "that were found at the site may prove that an earthwork existed at the site before the Magyars' arrival", because from what I read in the source, an earthwork at the site was already proven to exist. This is a direct quote from the book: "the excavators were overwhelmed by the complexity of the site and embarrassed that no substantial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right ... there are four enclosures at Dăbâca". They expected to find little but found an overwhelmingly amount of things at Dăbâca. In spite of the rich history they found at Dăbâca, they were embarrassed they couldn't find anything to link Dăbâca to Gelou. Some archeologists argued that merely the existance of an earthwork at Dăbâca proves Gesta right, but Curta argues that "while the most critical approach to the literally evidence would still have to accept the existance around 1000 A.D. of some form of political authority in Transylvania and the neighbouring regions, so far archegologists have been unable to identify any focal points of social and political interaciton. Even if we were to admit that Dăbâca existed as a fort before the Hungarian conquest, it remains to be explained what was the role of the fortification within the local network of settlements, why was it erected in the first place, or what its function was. Merely assigning Dăbâca to Gelou does not explain anything." In other words, he argues that they know that Dăbâca existed as a fort before the Hungarian conquest, but they don't know its role or broader context in relation with the rest of Transylvania, and merely assigning it to Gelou does not prove anything. In the end the result is inconclusive, the archeological findings don't rule out the possilibty of Dăbâca being Gelou's seat of power, but also don't prove Dăbâca as Gelou's seat of power. I think all of this is relevant within to the article and "in modern histography" subsection because it's about Gelou. 1968 may be a little outdated, but Florin Curta's work is from 2001. TheGoldAge (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Curta raises the possibility that the two pendants (and nothing else) can be dated to the late 9th century. Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, he does, I have the source and gave you exact quotes from it. TheGoldAge (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have the source. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then read pages 141-152. TheGoldAge (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have read several times. The pendants are the sole artifacts that make a possible connection between an earthwork built before the time King Peter and Gelou, according to Curta. However, this connection is only a possibility, and the dating of the pendants is sharply refused by Madgearu. He says that the same earthwork must have been built between 970 and 1050. Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "the second enclosure is the only defense work to have produced clearly datable artifacts, namely a silver penny of King Peter (1038 - 1041 and 1044 - 1046)", page 148. TheGoldAge (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, consequently the previous defense work must have been built before that time. It is dated to the late 9th century by Curta and to late 10th century by Madgearu based on the same pendants. Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I didn't alter or changed that part from the article. TheGoldAge (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And? Why should we mention Peter? His only role in this play that the earthwork tentatively connected with Gelou was built before the 1040s AD. So it may have been built in 2000 BC or in the 4th century AD. The pendants are the only objects that possibly connect the structure with Gelou's age. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is relevant because Peter helps us identify the date of the 2nd encampment about 50 years after Gelou's alleged rule, which means that either the 2nd or 1st encampments at Dăbâca could have indeed been Gelou's seat of power. Otherwise we wouldn't have any reference points for any of the 4 encampments. I consider him relevant for this, and I believe it's safe to say that the author Florin Curta also considers it relevant otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it when discussing whether the 1968 archaeological discoveries prove Gesta right or wrong. TheGoldAge (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not here to summarize all details of an essay, but to give a relevant summary. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is relevant summary of 11 pages in 8 rows. If you wish I can make it shorter. TheGoldAge (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I requested a third opinion .Please read WP:Edit warring before continuing your reverts. Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was about to reedit it in a way we could both agree with and see how we could have worked from there, before the pop-up showed me that you undoed it. It would have been much shorter but would have included Florin Curta's conclusions, Peter's coin and the two pendants. I don't understand what you disagree with anymore, is it Peter's coin's relevance or the length of the summary? Peter's coin's relevance is in helping us identify the 2nd encampment shortly after Gelou's rule (as opposed to 2000 BC or in the 4th century AD), which doesn't infirm the theory that either the 1st or 2nd encampments at Dăbâca could have been Gelou's seat of power (this wasn't the case if the 2nd encampment was dated to 2000 BC or in the 4th century AD, which would have made it impossible for that to be Gelou's seat of power). If its the length of the summary, I managed to make it shorter, the edit was lost when a pop-up appeared that the page was already modified. TheGoldAge (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You were about reverting the text for the third times in two days. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been 12 days and nobody came with a 3rd opinion, would you allow me to edit the article in a way that hopefully satisfied both of us: I'll make it shorter (what you want) and include the two pendants (what you want) and Peter's coin's (what I want). You'll see the result and can give me feedback on what you don't like about the new edit, hopefully that way we can reach an edit with consensus. TheGoldAge (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again: Peter's coins has nothing to do with Gelou who is the article's subject. What is relevant (the possible dating to the late 9th century of the fortress based on two pendants) is already mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Gelou who is the article's subject, the excavations at Dăbâca are relevant to the article, Peter's coins are relevant to the Dăbâca as they helped them date 1 of the 4 encampments. The discovery of the 4 encampments at Dăbâca is also relevant. If you are so insistent on the Peter's coins, would you agree ot make an edit but remove Peter's coins from them? TheGoldAge (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not mention buildings built in Dăbâca in the 21th century either. What is important in the article's context is that a fortress may have or may have not existed at Dăbâca. This piece of information is mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Florin Curta, the author, did not mention buildings built in Dăbâca in the 21th century either, but he did mention the 4 encampments at Dăbâca and Peter's coins in a work about the existance of Gelou.
 * Additionally, that piece of information is not present.
 * In the current form of the article - "According to Florin Curta, Romanian archaeologists "made every possible effort ... to prove that the Gesta was a reliable source for the medieval history of (Romanian) Transylvania" during the excavations at Dăbâca (Gelou's assumed seat) between the late 1960s and 1980s, but they were "embarrassed that no substantial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right". He argues that based on two pairs of silver pendants, similar to 9th-century Moravian jewellery, that were found at the site may prove that an earthwork existed at the site before the Magyars' arrival.[86] In contrast, Madgearu states that the pendants can only dated between around 970 and 1050" - This implies that: (a) The archaeologists didn't find anything (false), (b) does not even mention the fortress found at Dăbâca, which you consider relevant.
 * In my edit - while "the evidence published so far, albeit poorly, does contain evidence of a 9th century occupation on the site ... the impression the attentive reader will get from the 1968 archeological report is that, far from cunningly distorting or destroying the evidence, the excavators were overwhelmed by the complexity of the site and embarrassed that no substantial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right ... there are four enclosures at Dăbâca ... the second enclosure is the only defense work to have produced clearly datable artifacts, namely a silver penny of King Peter (1038 - 1041 and 1044 - 1046)" - This (a) mentions what the archaeologists found, I verbatim cited the author to avoid any misinterpretation (b) mentions the fortress found at Dăbâca, which the author finds relevant. (c) mentions Peter's coins which the author found relevant in a chapter dedicated to whether Dăbâca could have indeed been Gelou's seat of power or not.
 * At the end of the chapter, the author offers his conclusion: "while the most critical approach to the literally evidence would still have to accept the existance around 1000 A.D. of some form of political authority in Transylvania and the neighbouring regions, so far archegologists have been unable to identify any focal points of social and political interaciton. Even if we were to admit that Dăbâca existed as a fort before the Hungarian conquest, it remains to be explained what was the role of the fortification within the local network of settlements, why was it erected in the first place, or what its function was. Merely assigning Dăbâca to Gelou does not explain anything." - (a) he makes it clear that Dăbâca existed as a fort before the Hungarian conquest, where as the current article says "may prove that an earthwork existed at the site before the Magyars' arrival" (false). TheGoldAge (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Curta thinks that the fort existed around 900 based on pendants. Madgearu says that the pendants does not prove the existence of the same fort before the 970s. Both scholarly PoVs are mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing up the pendants despite me not talking about the pendants. I agree with the pendants being mentioned in the article, but that's not what I am talking about. TheGoldAge (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the pendants are the only objects based on which Curta thinks that the fort existed before the Hungarian conquests. Madgearu does not accept this argumentation. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. He does not say that in the source. TheGoldAge (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "There are four enclosures at Dăbâca, each one associated with earthwork fortifications and, at least in the case of the second enclosure, with a palisade partially erected on top of the earthen rampart of the first enclosure. The latter seems to have been restored at least once, at an unknown date. Two hearths found behind the rampart were associated with two pairs of silver, bell-shaped pendants with filigree ornament most typical for ninth-century Moravian artwork." "Under these circumstances, the most certain chronological indication is provided by the objects found just under the burned level that appeared after the destruction of the palisades. On the watch way of phase 2 from precinct I several fireplaces were discovered... The fireplaces are contemporary with the end of phase 2. In these fireplaces archeologists found potsherds, some fragments of forks and pails, and four bell-shaped pendants made of gilded silver with filigree. The investigators proposed a date in the 9th century for these pendants, but this is impossible, because such pieces were found only in sites dated between the last third of the 10th century, and the first half of the 11th century..."  Could you refer to statement from scholarly works indicating that the fort was dated based on other objects? Borsoka (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "the second enclosure is the only defense work to have produced clearly datable artifacts, namely a silver penny of King Peter (1038 - 1041 and 1044 - 1046)" TheGoldAge (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And what is the relevance of a silver penny issued in the 1040s in an article about a legendary ruler who lived around 900? Borsoka (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The silver penny issued in the 1040 helps us identify the date of the 2nd encampment shortly after Gelou's alleged rule, which means that either the 2nd or 1st encampments at Dăbâca could have indeed been Gelou's seat of power. TheGoldAge (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody states that the silver penny from the 1040s helps us to identify Gelou's seat of power. It helps us to date a fort which was built in a place where a previous fort had been erected at an uncertain date. The uncertain date is associated with the late 9th century (and possibly Gelou) by Curta, and with the late 10th century by Madgearu - based on the same two pairs of pendants. Borsoka (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why would Florin Curta mention the silver penny in a chapter dedicated to identifying Gelou's seat of power? Why would he not mention the pyramids or the buildings built in Dăbâca in the 21th century but he would mention the silver penny? It helps us asses that the fort was still functional in 1040 meaning that either this fort or the previous one from the 1st encampment had the potential to have been Gelou's seat of power. TheGoldAge (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because his chapter in the book is not dedicated to Gelou (a legendary Vlach ruler living around 900), but to power centers in Transylvania around 1000. Borsoka (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since page 147 he beings to talk exclusively about archeological excavation at Dăbâca and whether or not that was indeed Gelou's seat of power, the mention of the silver penny is on page 148. TheGoldAge (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In a chapter about Transylvania around 1000. Sorry, our discussion became circular. It is time to stop it. I guess the principal problem that you think that the fortress existing under KIng Peter's rule and Gelou's alleged seat are one and the same fortresses. However, they existed in different times on the same place. Gelou's alleged fort is dated by pendants, the later fort by coins. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In a book about Europe in year 1000. You can zoom out as much as you want, the fact remains that he began discussing about Dăbâca and whether or not that was indeed Gelou's seat of power on page 147, and the silver penny is mentioned on page 148 during that discussion, the context is clear. Your zooming out is the equvalent of having an author talk about the Normandy landings in a chapter about the Western Front, but you don't consider the 101 Airborne Division relevant when he talks about it during the Normandy landings because the chapter is called Western Front and the whole book is called World War II. That's weak.
 * I don't think that the think that the fortress existing under KIng Peter's rule and Gelou's alleged seat are one and the same fortresses, I think is a possiblity, and so does the author if you read his conclusion on page 152. We don't know whether that was Gelou's seat of power or not. All we could prove was that there was a fort around Gelou's lifespan that might have been his seat of power, but also might not. We don't have certainities, the best we have is possibilities, and Florin Curta with Peter's coin offers us a possibiliy. That's the best we got.
 * Since you have the source, please point out where in the source says that "However, they existed in different times on the same place. Gelou's alleged fort is dated by pendants, the later fort by coins" because it doesn't mention such a difference in the source. Nowhere does he says that the pendants are the only objects based on which he thinks that the fort existed before the Hungarian conquests. TheGoldAge (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Madgearu makes it clear that the fortress at Dăbâca "had four building stages" and it was used until the 15th century. The first stage - Gelou's alleged seat dated by the four pendants - "ended with the burning of the entire fortress" after 970 (likely around 1003). The second stage - the one dated by King Peter's coins - began after the destruction of the earlier fortress. Consequently, we are talking about two fortresses. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, Madgearu does mention that it's impossible for the 2nd encampment to be Gelou's seat of power since it was built after the 1st encampment was burned in 1002 or 1003. I will remove the mention of Peter's coin from the edit, but what is your objection to the rest of the edit?
 * There are some inconsistencies with the article that I found while reading Madgearu's work:
 * First, right after saying "The investigators proposed a date in the 9th century for these pendants, but this is impossible, because such pieces were found only in sites dated between the last third of the 1Oth century and the first half of the llth century" the very next sentence is "Therefore, these pendants show that the first stage lasted until a moment that could be placed between the last third of the l0th century and the first half of the 11th century".
 * Madgearu is not making the claim that the 1st encampment was built in the late 10th or 11th century, but that the 1st encampment lasted until the late 10th or 11th century. Being built at a previous date.
 * Second, Madgearu also mentioned King Peter's coin. "a coin was found, issued by the Hungarian King Peter I (1038-1041, 1044-1046)", that makes 2 historians that considers the coin relvant. But the fact that the 1st encampment was burned in 1002 or 1003 is more relevant and makes it clear it's imposible for the 2nd encampment to be Gelou's seat of power.
 * However, Madgearu also argues that: "The destruction of stage I had no relation with the conflict in which Gelou was involved. No earlier destruction was observed. This fact does not rule out a dating of stage I during the time of Gelou, because the fortress could have remained untouched, since, according to GH, the men of Gelou surrendered to the Hungarians after his death.
 * His conclusion is that "The contemporaneity of stage I with the period of Gelou is not excluded" later saying that "Therefore, the existence of the Dăbâca fortress since the 9"' century is not yet proven by the archaeological evidence, but it is still possible, since some excavations results were not published. On the other hand, if the events related by GH occurred, mast probably, in the 930s, a date during the rime of Gelou remains possible. Taking into account that stage I had two phases and that the settlement from phase 2 had two or three levels, it could be supposed that stage I lasted for about a century, which means that its beginning could be placed before the Hungarian conquest. However, there are no certain archaeological arguments for this idea." in the end saying that "The building of the Dăbâca fortress during the 9'h century is not yet demonstrated, but remains possible.43 Even if this fortified settlement actually existed before the Hungarian attack, the identification with the residence located on the Someş is contradicted by its location, too far from the warzone described in GH."
 * Madgearu's counter-argument to Florin Curta is insightful. I will make another edit with the updated information, that will not include king peter's coin. TheGoldAge (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not proved, but of course it may have existed and it may have not been destroyed. Anything that is not proved may be true. Do you really think we should expand this article with unproven possibilities? Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because everything about Gelou is unproven possibilities. If we go only based on what is proven, we would not have a Gelou article at all. Historians don't know whether Gelou was real or not. We don't have certainities, the best we have is possibilities. I made a new different edit based on Madgearu's work, please review it. TheGoldAge (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP is an encyclopedia. WP articles are not destined to repeat scholarly studies. Borsoka (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Gelau as a Bulaq
Why was my post deleted? I had marked everything with a source, and this is a theory accepted by several historians and referred to by several written sources. I have specifically stated that it is a theory, just as this whole page is about a probably fictional person. Zsombor wiki (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As per DUE: the vast majority of mainstream historians do not accept this theory. Furthermore, the theory could be desribed as a fringe theory. It was quite obviously fabricated by historians who wanted to accept Anonymus' tales about the Magyars' heroic deeds during the Conquest without accepting a Vlach presence in Transylvania before the Conquest. Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even so, two contemporary sources, mentioning the Bulaq Turks as newcomers who came with the Bulgars, and the Nord sagas, also mention a people called "Blokumenn" who were horse nomads, and not Christians, which are not appropriate adjectives for the Vlachs. (Eymund's Saga, Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla) I think it would be fair to include the opinions of other historians, especially if it is cited as a "theory", and is corroborated by contemporary sources, as well as place names and archaeological finds that attest to a Turkic population in the area. I think it's not that they want to accept the fictional fabulous conquest of the Hungarians, but that archaeology, place names and written sources refer to a population whose leader was "Gelou", which is also an earlier name for this people.There is reason to believe that the "Blasis" are not Romanians and are a Turkic people, especially since old maps and old sources distinguish them. CriticKende (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * According to WP:DUE, we can hardly mention a theory that contradicts all relevant scholarly theories. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite this, there are still a lot of theories on a lot of historical topics, such as the origin of the Albanians, there is a special section on the Caucasian origin of the Albanians, although everyone has been rejecting that for 30 years. Or the theories about the origin of various ancient peoples. Why not here, then, as many historians say, and there is archaeological, linguistic and historical evidence. But fine, then don't mention their opinion. CriticKende (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gelou


text:
Maybole Juniors F.C.

Maybole Juniors Football Club are a Scottish football club based in the town of Maybole, Ayrshire. Formed in 1946, they are based at Ladywell Stadium, and currently compete in the.

Current squad
(Vice-Captain)

Honours

 * Ayrshire District League winners: 2003–04, 2011–12
 * Kyle & Carrick Cup: 1991–92, 1993–94
 * South Ayrshire Cup: 1995–96, 2001–02
 * Vernon Trophy - 1962–63
 * South Ayrshire Cup - 1995–96, 2001–02

title: Maybole Juniors F.C.


text:
Ripon Grammar School

Ripon Grammar School is a co-educational, boarding and day, selective grammar school in Ripon, North Yorkshire, England. It has been named top-performing state school in the north for ten years running by The Sunday Times. It is one of the best-performing schools in the North of England; in 2011, 91% of pupils gained the equivalent of 5 or more GCSEs at grade C or above, including English and maths; the figure has been over 84% consistently since at least 2006. As a state school, it does not charge fees for pupils to attend, but they must pass an entrance test at 11+ or 13+. There is no selection test for entry into sixth form as pupils are admitted on the basis of their GCSE grades.

Admission
It is a selective school, one of the very few in the North of England (Penrith, Cumbria has the most northern grammar schools).

History
The school is believed to have been founded in Saxon times, but the first documentary proof of a school in the town is dated 1348 when Ricardum le Chamberlayn, who is described as 'the former master of the Schoolhouse' was one of 138 people who failed to appear before the Court of the King's Bench. It is suggested that he was involved in a mass disturbance, perhaps a riot. The medieval school, which was connected to a collegiate church in Ripon, was given land by benefactors but, in order to protect the school from the seizing of land by Henry VIII, priests told the king's commissioners the land had nothing to do with the church and the school was saved. However, in 1550, when the authorities discovered the chicanery that had occurred, the Duchy of Lancaster seized the lands and the future of the school was in doubt. Queen Mary, the only child of Henry VIII and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, looked kindly on the school and signed a royal charter which established the Free Grammar School of Queen Mary at Ripon, granted the school's ten governors the disputed land. The re-founding in 1555 during the reign of Queen Mary is regarded as the foundation of the modern Ripon Grammar School. Originally a boys' school, the school merged with Ripon Girls' High School to become coeducational in 1962. Although most pupils are day pupils from the surrounding area and Ripon itself, there are boys' and girls' boarding houses, School House and Johnson House, which accommodate 100 pupils.

Motto
The school motto is the Old English phrase Giorne ymb lare ymb diowotdomas ("Eager to learn and seek after righteousness").

Traditions
In December, RGS holds its annual Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols in Ripon Cathedral, where student choirs and orchestras perform. In July, students, staff, governors and local dignitaries gather for the annual Commemoration Service at Ripon Cathedral to commemorate the school's founders and give thanks at the end of the school year.

The son of the first Marquis of Ripon, Earl de Grey, founded the exhibitions to universities, which are still presented to the school in the form of major and minor De Grey Awards at Speech Day every year.

There is an Old Riponians' Association Winter Reunion every year, when past pupils return to the school to challenge current students in a series of sports fixtures including rugby, hockey, football and netball.

Sixth form students organise a series of Charity Week events every year, including concerts, pantomimes, quizzes and dance competitions, raising around £15,000 for chosen charities annually. Recent charities which have benefited include St Michael's Hospice in Harrogate, Surfers Against Sewage and the Yorkshire Air Ambulance.

Sport
The school offers sporting activities including swimming, tennis, rugby, cricket, climbing, netball, hockey and football. The U18 rugby team have won the Yorkshire championships three times running, most recently in 2020. The U-13 cricket team won the Yorkshire Cup in 2019. The U-18s girls' hockey team were State Boarding National Champions in 2019. The U-18s girls' netball team were awarded the National State Boarding Schools Championship trophy in 2019. RGS swimmers have made it to the national finals of the English Secondary Schools championships both in 2019 and 2020. A number of riders from the school's Equestrian Society have reached the national finals of the NSEA equestrian championships at Hickstead Arena.

British Lions player Sir Ian McGeechan opened the school's new rugby pitch in February 2020, an event also attended by past pupil Peter Squires, British Lion & England Rugby Union International/Yorkshire County Cricketer.

Olympic diver and gold medalist Jack Laugher attended RGS from Year 7 to the end of his sixth form in 2014. Team GB and World Championships cyclist Abi Smith joined sixth form in 2018 as a boarding student.

In 2012, pupil and Olympic diver Jack Laugher, then aged 17, backed the campaign to save the school's swimming pool from council cuts.

Boarding
It is the only state-maintained boarding school in Yorkshire. After the Duchy of Lancaster seized its land in 1550, Queen Mary intervened to save the school, signing a royal charter in 1555 establishing the Free Grammar School of Queen Mary in Ripon. The founding charter stated the school was to be free of charge to local pupils. Due to the size and scale of rural North Yorkshire, and to overcome the lack of money, boarding was introduced for children in outlying villages and farms, but the school soon came to rely on the income and in the 1880s was plunged into financial uncertainty when wealthy families removed their boys from the school because of a rumour involving the headmaster and a local woman. There are two boarding houses, School House for boys and Johnson House for girls as well as the new School House annexe for girls, which house 100 students. Whereas opting to board may once have been a way to secure a place, that is no longer the case. Parents now commit for five years from Y7 and two years from Y12.

Academic
The school is consistently among the top performing schools both regionally and nationally. In 2019 Schools minister Nick Gibb wrote to the headmaster to congratulate the school for being in the top two per cent of state-funded mainstream schools for progress to GCSEs. He congratulated staff and students on their latest results and said: "Thank you for your work in continuing the drive towards higher academic standards."

In 2019, more than 76% of all A-level grades achieved were at A*-B, with 14 students achieving a clean sweep of A*s. Nearly half of all grades awarded were at A*-A. At GCSE in the same year, 92% of grades were 9–5 and 62% 9-7s.

In 2018 and 2017, 76% and 79.1% of A-level grades were at A*-B and 64% of GCSE grades were 9-7/A*-A.

The school was listed in the top 5% of schools nationally for the progress students make in sixth form, based on outcomes over three years to 2019.

In 2018, the school's exam results placed it among the top 15 schools in the country.

In 2019 and 2020, the leading school comparison website School Guide awarded the school a five-star certificate for excellence, placing it among the top 20% of 34,000 state and independent schools in England.

Sixth form
Ripon Grammar School has been placed in the top 5% of schools nationally for the progress students make in sixth form. The majority of students from lower years progress to the sixth form but the school also admits around 50 students every year from other local schools and further afield, with admission based on GCSE results. While academic outcomes are outstanding, the school encourages sixth formers to take on leadership roles and develop wider skills through enrichment activities encompassing everything from charity work and volunteering to sport, music, drama and business enterprise. There are also a wide range of student-led sixth form societies. Alongside A-levels, students can undertake an extended project qualification (EPQ).

Houses
Every student is a member of one of four houses. In 1906, Porteus and Hutton houses – each named after a famous ex-pupil – and De Grey – named after a family of benefactors – were founded. School House, for boarders, was added in 1928. Every year, students take part in a series of points-based inter-house competitions, which include sport, debating and singing, traditionally a source of pride for pupils of respective houses. Hutton House is named after former Archbishop of Canterbury Matthew Hutton, who joined Ripon Grammar School in 1701. Porteus House is named after writer, preacher and Bishop of London Beilby Porteus, a keen supporter of the movement to abolish slavery, who joined Ripon Grammar School in 1744. De Grey House is named after Earl de Grey, the son of the first marquis of Ripon, and a generous benefactor of the school. School House was added in 1928 for boarding students but the membership has broadened to accommodate day pupils as well as boarders.

Clubs and societies
RGS is home to a wide range of clubs and societies, including a Computer Coding Club, Equestrian Society, Wordsmiths Writing Club, Eco-committee, Debating Society, Quiz Club, Science and Engineering Club, Biology Club, Feminism Society, Astronomy Club, Medicine Club and Politics Society. Most clubs are student-led, although some, such as computer coding, are led by experts in their field.

Music and drama
The school has a purpose-built music block which includes a bespoke recording studio and Apple Mac computer suite. The school's wide range of ensembles include the chamber orchestra, chamber choir and big band. Recent musical productions include Anything Goes, Les Misérables, Billy Elliott and Little Shop of Horrors.

In 2018, 100 singers from the school's five choirs recorded a Christmas album in Ripon Cathedral, where they regularly perform.

In 2022, string players in the Chamber Orchestra played the backing track for local band The Dunwells latest album.

The annual school production is the highlight of the year. Productions in recent years include Murder on the Nile and An Inspector Calls. The junior drama club meets weekly for workshop activities and improvisations and puts on a major production in the summer term. Productions have included Peter Pan, The Jungle Book and Scrooge.

There is a House drama competition every year, with each House putting on a short play, directed and produced by senior students, with students of all ages taking part.

Parents' ballot
Ripon was the first and only school catchment area in England in which parents voted to keep a selective school in March 2000 by 1,493 to 747. Even the head of the neighbouring secondary modern school, Ripon College, Paul Lowery was in favour of keeping the selection system as it was, which contributed to the proposal's defeat. The campaign against the school was co-ordinated by Debbie Atkins, who like other local parents chose to send her children to school in Harrogate.

To force a ballot, petitions had to be successfully raised. These were allowed from December 1998, and Ripon was the only one out of 39 resulting in a ballot. The cost of administration of these petitions and the one ballot was £437,000. The huge cost of administration came from education officials having to write individually to registered parents at feeder primary schools. In the year of the ballot – 1999/2000 – £216,283 was spent on the petition procedure's administration. The vote was allowed by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

Headmasters

 * pre 1348 Richard Chamberlain,
 * pre 1371 – post 1380 Master Thomas,
 * in 1421 – John Chambre
 * pre 1545 – post 1477 Henry Singleton,
 * 1545 – 1553 Edmund Brown
 * 1571 John Nettleton
 * 1608 Christopher Lyndall
 * 1622 John Ashmore
 * 1623–1650 Richard Palmes
 * 1650–1661 Roger Holmes
 * 1661–1676 Charles Oxley
 * 1676–1681 George Loup
 * 1681–1685 Ralph Cottingham
 * 1685–1704 Thomas Thomson
 * 1704–1721 Thomas Lloyd
 * 1721–1730 John Barber
 * 1731–1737 Thomas Stevens
 * 1737 William Scott
 * 1738 James Topham
 * 1738–1771 George Hyde
 * 1772–1798 Solomon Robinson
 * 1798–1809 Isaac Cook
 * 1809–1811 William Ewbank
 * 1812–1851 William Plues
 * 1851–1872 J. F. MacMichael
 * 1872–1879 F. A. Hooper
 * 1879–1890 A. B. Haslam
 * 1890–1895 W. Yorke Fausset
 * 1895–1919 C. C. S. Bland
 * 1919–1935 James Dyson
 * 1935–1957 W. J. Strachan
 * 1957–1974 Robert Atkinson
 * 1974–1991 Brian Stanley
 * 1992–2004 Alan Jones
 * 2004–2017 Martin Pearman
 * 2017–present Jonathan Webb

Former teachers

 * Thomas Ashworth, headteacher of Ermysted's Grammar School in Skipton from 1998 to 2008 (head of maths from 1983 to 1988)

Old Riponians
Former pupils are known as Old Riponians. The contact details for the alumni association are available on the school's website.

Notable old Riponians include:
 * William Hague, former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
 * Katharine Viner, editor-in-chief of The Guardian from summer 2015
 * Richard Hammond, television presenter – Top Gear/Total Wipeout/Richard Hammond's Blast Lab/The Grand Tour
 * David Curry, former Member of Parliament for Skipton & Ripon (head boy in 1962)
 * Bruce Oldfield, fashion designer
 * Matthew Hutton (Archbishop of Canterbury)
 * David George Kendall, statistician, Professor of Mathematical Statistics from 1962 to 1985 at the University of Cambridge
 * Peter Squires, British Lion & England Rugby Union International/Yorkshire County Cricketer
 * Peter Toyne, CBE, 1st Vice-Chancellor from 1992 to 2000 of Liverpool John Moores University, and Rector from 1986 to 1992 of Liverpool Polytechnic
 * Paul Hullah, writer
 * Jack Laugher, British Olympic Diver (Gold Medallist at Rio 2016) & Travian expert
 * Peter Marshall, Ambassador to Algeria from 1995 to 1996
 * Maurice Edwards, Chaplain-in-Chief of the RAF from 1940 to 1944
 * Francis Pigou, Dean of Bristol from 1891 to 1916
 * Beilby Porteus, Georgian Bishop of Chester and London
 * William Stubbs, the Victorian Bishop of Oxford from 1889 to 1901, and Regius Professor of Modern History (Oxford) from 1866 to 1884

title: Ripon Grammar School


text:
Pundit (explorer)

The term pundit was used in the second half of the 19th century to denote native Indian surveyors used by the British to secretly explore regions north of British India. The Pundit was the code-name for one of the first native explorers, Nain Singh, who was originally a schoolteacher (or pundit). His accomplishments were so remarkable that the whole group of around twenty native explorers became known as the Pundits.

Two of the most famous pundits included the cousins Nain Singh and Kishen Singh (code-named A.K.)

Great Trigonometric Survey of India
One of the greatest projects of 19th century geography was the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India. The British also wanted geographical information on the lands further north. This was not just out of scientific curiosity: the Russians were attempting to expand their empire into Central Asia, and the British feared that they might have set their eyes on gaining the riches of India, which was at that time a British colony. Thus, the Russians and the British both tried to extend their influence in Asia. Knowledge of geography of the region was of utmost importance in this Great Game.

However, in some regions these surveys seemed impossible. Some of the Indian border countries, in particular Tibet, would not allow westerners to enter their country, let alone a British surveying team. In the 1860s, Thomas George Montgomerie, a captain in the survey, realised that the solution to this problem would be to train natives from Indian border states such as Sikkim to be surveyors, and have them explore the region. These would raise less suspicion than Europeans, and might be able to make observations disguised as a trader or a lama (holy man). These native surveyors are called pundits. One such pundit, Kinthup, was the first person to discover that the Tsangpo River was a tributary of the Brahmaputra – until that time it was not known whether it flowed to the Pacific or Indian Oceans.

Methods
A number of tricks were developed to enable the pundits to make their observations without being found out. They were "trained to walk at precisely two thousand paces to the mile." To count them, they used a modified loop of prayer beads used in Buddhism, called a mala, but instead of the usual 108 beads it had 100, every tenth being slightly larger. Every 100 paces a bead was dropped. A prayer wheel did not hold the common Buddhist mantra Om mani padme hum, instead, "the scroll hidden within (...) was replaced by a blank roll of paper upon which data could be surreptitiously recorded." Pundit Nain Singh Rawat also found that these could be used to ward off curious co-travelers: each time someone came too near, he would start whirling the wheel around and pretend to be in religious contemplation. Usually this would be enough to stop others from addressing him. Another way of keeping their observations was to turn them into a poem, and recite that during their travels.

The pundits were given extensive training in basic surveying: they learned to use the sextant, determine height by measuring the temperature of boiling water, and make astronomical observations. They also received some medical training. Through their exploration efforts, they managed to bring back vital data that allowed the mapping of areas lying north of India (which were forbidden to Europeans, such as Tibet) with remarkable precision.

Notable pundits
An extensive list of the pundits (and their forerunners) has been detailed chronologically by Michael Ward in the Alpine Journal Volume 103, 1998. (His entry for 1858 is incorrect – Bir and Deb Singh were with William Moorcroft in 1812.) Some notable pundits include:

 * Abdul Hamid
 * Hari Ram
 * Hyder Shah
 * Kinthup
 * Kishen Singh
 * Mirza Shuja
 * Nain Singh
 * Sarat Chandra Das

In literature
The use of pundits by the British during the Great Game is fictionalized in the 1901 novel Kim by Rudyard Kipling.

title: Pundit (explorer)


text:
Pundit

A pundit is a learned person who offers opinion in an authoritative manner on a particular subject area (typically politics, the social sciences, technology or sport), usually through the mass media.

Origins
The term originates from the Sanskrit term pandit (wikt:पण्डित पण्डित), meaning "knowledge owner" or "learned man". It refers to someone who is erudite in various subjects and who conducts religious ceremonies and offers counsel to the king and usually referred to a person from the Hindu Brahmin but may also refer to the siddhas, Siddhars, Naths, ascetics, sadhus, or yogis (rishi).

From at least the early 19th century, a Pundit of the Supreme court in Colonial India was an officer of the judiciary who advised British judges on questions of Hindu law. In Anglo-Indian use, pundit also referred to a native of India who was trained and employed by the British to survey inaccessible regions beyond the British frontier.

Current use
Josef Joffe's book chapter The Decline of the Public Intellectual and the Rise of the Pundit describes a change in the role of public experts and relates to developments in the audience and the media itself. In the second half of the 20th century, foreigners like Hannah Arendt or Jürgen Habermas and others gained a certain position in the US as public intellectuals due to the (over)specialization of US academics.

A pundit now combines the roles of a public intellectual and has a certain expertise as a media practitioner. They play an increasing role in disseminating ideas and views in an accessible way to the public. From Joffe's view, Karl Marx in Europe and e.g. in the US, Mark Twain were early and relentless pundits ante festum. In addition, the growing role of think tanks and research institutions like the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute provided a place for those dealing with 'big issues' in public language.

The term talking head (in existence since 1964 ) has derogatory overtones. For example, the judge in the David Westerfield trial in San Diego in 2002 said "The talking heads are doing nothing but speculating about what the jury may or may not be thinking".

Punditry has become a more popular vehicle in nightly newscasts on American cable news networks. A rise of partisanship among popular pundits began with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel. His opinion-oriented format led him to ratings success and has led others, including Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, and Nancy Grace to express their opinions on matters on their own programs.

In sports commentating, a "pundit" or color commentator may be partnered with a play-by-play announcer who will describe the action while asking the pundit for analysis.

Examples
Popular in the United States during 2007 according to a Forbes top 10 list:

 * Politics and current events
 * Al Franken
 * Bill Maher
 * Bill O'Reilly
 * Geraldo Rivera
 * Greta Van Susteren
 * Lou Dobbs
 * Rosie O'Donnell
 * Rush Limbaugh
 * Film
 * Roger Ebert
 * Leonard Maltin

title: Pundit


text: Template:Infobox color

title: Template:Infobox color