text:
Lizabeth Scott

Lizabeth Virginia Scott (born Emma Matzo; September 29, 1922 – January 31, 2015) was an American actress, singer and model for the Walter Thornton Model Agency, known for her "smoky voice" and being "the most beautiful face of film noir during the 1940s and 1950s". After understudying the role of Sabina in the original Broadway and Boston stage productions of The Skin of Our Teeth, she emerged in such films as The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946), Dead Reckoning (1947), Desert Fury (1947), and Too Late for Tears (1949). Of her 22 films, she was the leading lady in all but three. In addition to stage and radio, she appeared on television from the late 1940s to early 1970s.

Early life
Emma Matzo (Ema Macová in Slovak) was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the oldest of six children born to Mary Penyak and John Matzo (Ján Maco in Slovak). Several conflicting accounts have been given as to her parents' ethnic origins,  with most mentioning English, Rusyn,    Russian, and Ukrainian. The family lived in the Pine Brook section of Scranton, where her father owned Matzo Market. Scott characterized her father as a "lifelong Republican", which influenced her capitalistic views. The love of music influenced Scott's voice.

Scott attended Marywood Seminary, a local Catholic girls' school. She transferred to Scranton's Central High School, where she performed in several plays. After graduating, she spent the summer working with the Mae Desmond Players at a stock theater in the nearby community of Newfoundland. She then worked at the Barter Theatre in Abingdon, Virginia. That autumn, she attended Marywood College, but quit after six months.

In 1939, with her father's help, the 17-year-old Scott moved to New York City, where she stayed at the Ferguson Residence for Women. In New York she was a model for the Walter Thornton agency. Scott read Maxwell Anderson's Mary of Scotland, a play about Mary, Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I, from which she derived the stage name "Elizabeth Scott." She later dropped the "E".

Debut
In late 1940, an 18-year-old Scott auditioned for the national tour of Hellzapoppin. From several hundred women, she was chosen by John "Ole" Olsen and Harold "Chic" Johnson, stars of the original Broadway production. She was assigned to one of three road companies, Scott's being led by Billy House and Eddie Garr. Landing her first professional job, she was billed as "Elizabeth Scott". The tour opened November 3, 1940, at the Shubert Theatre in New Haven, Connecticut. She did blackouts and other types of sketch comedy during her 18-month tour of 63 cities across the US.

Scott then returned to New York in 1942, where she starred as Sadie Thompson in John Colton's play Rain, which ran on the then equivalent of off-Broadway. It was her first starring role, but no drama critic reviewed the play. But the producer of a Broadway play, Michael Myerberg, did see the show.

Myerberg had just moved an experimental production of Thornton Wilder's new play The Skin of Our Teeth starring Tallulah Bankhead from New Haven to the Plymouth Theatre. Impressed by Scott's Sadie Thompson, he hired her as the understudy for Bankhead, despite Bankhead's protests. Bankhead had signed a contract forbidding an understudy for the Sabina role, which Myerberg breached by hiring Scott. Previously, Bankhead had controlled the production by not showing up for rehearsal. Now, Myerberg could simply put Scott in Bankhead's place. Scott has acknowledged that Myerberg used her to keep Bankhead under control and that Bankhead was furious about the situation. Describing her own experience with Bankhead, Scott recalled, "She never spoke to me, except to bark out commands. Finally, one day, I'd had enough. I told her to say 'please,' and after that she did." During her eight months as the understudy, Scott never had an opportunity to substitute for Bankhead, as Scott's presence guaranteed Bankhead's. During her time with the production, Scott played the role of "Girl/Drum Majorette." The play ran from November 18, 1942, to September 25, 1943.

The rivalry between the two actresses is cited as an alternative to the Martina Lawrence-Elisabeth Bergner origin of Mary Orr's short story, The Wisdom of Eve (1946), the basis of the 1950 film All About Eve. Broadway legend had it that Bankhead was being victimized by Scott, who supposedly was the basis for the fictional Eve Harrington.

Rumors of an affair between the married Myerberg and the new understudy were rife. Scott has said that her fondest memory was of Myerberg telling her, "I love you," but the two eventually parted.

The continuing feud between Myerberg and Bankhead worsened Bankhead's ulcer, leading her to not renew her contract. Anticipating Bankhead's move, Myerberg suddenly signed 39-year-old Miriam Hopkins in March, catching Scott off-guard. Bankhead's final zinger to Scott was "You be as good as she (Hopkins) is." For a brief period, Scott understudied for Hopkins. While Scott liked Hopkins much more than Bankhead, she was still disappointed about being passed over for the Sabina role.

Scott eventually quit in disappointment. Before quitting, Scott replaced Hopkins for one night. When Scott finally went on stage as Sabina, she was surprised by both the approval and fascination of the audience. Her replacement as understudy was another future femme fatale, 19-year-old Gloria Hallward, soon to be known as Gloria Grahame. When Michael Myerberg pulled Grahame from the play for another experimental production in Philadelphia —Star Dust — no understudy was available when Gladys George took over for Hopkins.

On August 30, 1943, Scott once again played Sabina when George was ill. Joe Russell was in the Plymouth Theatre audience that night. Afterward, when a friend from California came to New York on one of his biannual visits to Broadway, Russell told him about Scott's performance. Russell's friend was an up-and-coming film producer for Warner Bros., Hal B. Wallis.

Hal B. Wallis
Irving Hoffman, a New York press agent and columnist for The Hollywood Reporter, had befriended Scott and tried to introduce her to people who could help her. On September 29, 1943, Hoffman held a birthday party at the Stork Club—Scott had turned 21. By happenstance or design, Wallis was also at the club that night. Hoffman introduced Scott to Wallis, who arranged for an interview the following day. When Scott returned home, she found a telegram offering her the lead for the Boston run of The Skin of Our Teeth. Miriam Hopkins was ill. Scott sent Wallis her apologies, cancelling the interview. Scott recalled "On the train up to Boston, to replace Miss Hopkins, I decided I needed to make the name more of an attention-grabber. And that's when I decided to drop the 'E' from Elizabeth." In 1945, The New Republic claimed that Scott had dropped the "E" as a patriotic wartime gesture "to conserve newsprint."

California

Scott appeared in a Harper's photographic spread, which was allegedly admired by film agent Charles Feldman of Famous Artists Corporation. In a telegram to Scott, he asked her to take a screen test. He invited her to come to Los Angeles and stay at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

Her first screen test was at Universal, then at William Goetz's International Pictures. She was rejected by both studios. Then she tested at Warner Bros., but this time around, Wallis' sister Minna Wallis arranged for film director Fritz Lang to coach Scott.

Hal Wallis saw Scott's test and recognized her potential. At the age of 22, Scott's film debut was the comedy-drama You Came Along (1945).

During the shooting of You Came Along, Hal Wallis showed Scott's screen test to Hollywood columnist Bob Thomas. Wallis told Thomas, "Notice how her eyes are alive and sparkling... Once in a while she reads a line too fast, but direction will cure that. That voice makes her intriguing."

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers

Later in 1946, 37-year-old Barbara Stanwyck, in a letter, objected to Scott's top billing in The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946): "I will not be co-starred with any other person other than a recognized male or female star." Lawyers for Wallis and Stanwyck got to work, and eventually, the final billing ran Stanwyck, Van Heflin, and Scott at the top, with newcomer Kirk Douglas in second place, but Wallis' interest in promoting Scott was obsessive. The AFI page on Martha Ivers comments:

"Director Lewis Milestone is quoted in an article in the Los Angeles Sun Mirror on 8 December 1946 as having said that he would never make another picture with producer Hal Wallis because Wallis wanted to reshoot scenes in this film for more close-ups of Lizabeth Scott; Milestone reportedly told Wallis to shoot them himself—which he did."

Wallis ended up adding extra footage of Scott at the expense of Stanwyck's screen time, which later led to a contretemps between Stanwyck and Wallis. Concerning her first film noir, Scott recalled how strange it was to be in a film with Stanwyck and have only one brief scene together. The screenplay by Robert Rossen depicts two separate story lines running in parallel—one dominated by Martha Ivers (Stanwyck) and the other by Antonia "Toni" Marachek (Scott). The Heflin character, Sam, is the connection between the story lines, which overlap only in the one scene where femmes fatales Martha and Toni meet.

In June 1946, Scott gained the distinction of being the first Hollywood star to visit Britain since the end of World War II. She was there to attend the London premiere of Martha Ivers and do a promotional tour through the country. While Scott was still in Britain, shooting began on a new noir that Scott joined after she returned: Dead Reckoning.

Dead Reckoning
Columbia originally intended Rita Hayworth for the role, but she was busy with The Lady from Shanghai (1947). As a result, Scott was borrowed from Hal B. Wallis.

At the age of 24, Scott's billing and portrait were equal to Humphrey Bogart's on the film's lobby posters and in advertisements. Most often portrayed in publicity stills was the Jean Louis gown-and-glove outfit she wore in the nightclub scene. In September 1946, a Motion Picture Herald poll voted her the seventh-most promising "star of tomorrow." Production ran 10 June–4 September 1946. It premiered in New York the week of 23 January 1947. Despite the initial positive publicity, the long-term effect of Dead Reckoning was to typecast the former comedian for her entire career.

Late 1940s
Historian Kevin Starr wrote of a new type of Hollywood actress who began to appear on screen during the 1940s:

"The stars emerging in 1940, by contrast—Rita Hayworth, Ann Sheridan, Ida Lupino, Lupe Vélez, Marie Windsor, Lana Turner, Lizabeth Scott—each possessed a certain hardness, an invisible shield of attitude and defense, that suggested that times were getting serious and that comedy would not be able to handle all the issues... Just a few years earlier, Hollywood had been presenting the wisecracking platinum blonde, frank, sexy, self-actualizing. Now with the war, that insouciance had become hard-boiled."

This "hard-boiled" quality appeared in Scott's two previous films and was repeated in Desert Fury (1947), starring with Burt Lancaster in the second noir filmed in color and a Western as well. Scott again starred with Lancaster, Corey, and Douglas, in Wallis's I Walk Alone (1948), a noirish story of betrayal and vengeance.

More drama occurred behind the scenes of the film, originally titled Deadlock. The Kay Lawrence role was originally intended to be Kristine Miller's breakout role, but Scott, ever competitive with all other actresses, grabbed the role for herself. Miller later recalled, "(Wallis) planned to star me in I Walk Alone. He tested me with Burt; it was a wonderful test, but then Lizabeth Scott decided she wanted the role, and Lizabeth got whatever she wanted—from Hal Wallis! (Laughs) So, I got the second part instead." Douglas, while working with Lancaster on the film, commented:

"Lizabeth Scott played the girl we were involved with in the movie. In real life, she was involved with Hal Wallis. This was a problem. Very often, she'd be in his office for a long time, emerge teary-eyed, and be difficult to work with for the rest of the day."

Though relations between Lancaster and Scott had previously been romantic, a falling out happened. Lancaster's behavior toward Scott was chilly, especially during one kissing scene, leaving Scott looking exasperated. By April 9, 1947, Lancaster tried to break his seven-year contract with Paramount. He claimed it violated a previous freelance deal, but added that he did not want to work with Scott anymore. Despite all the issues among the cast and past critics, I Walk Alone is usually now judged to be a film noir classic.

Scott played her third and last ingénue in the second favorite among her own films —Pitfall (1948) with Dick Powell and Jane Wyatt as a middle-aged couple growing apart. Director André de Toth explained his reasons for casting Scott: "I wanted Lizabeth Scott. I didn't want some blonde with big tits. You had to believe that this girl was real. Even if I took one of these over-sexed types who could not act, it would change how the Powell character is drawn into the affair. Remember the point of the script was that he's just a middle-level insurance investigator. He's tired of his job, spending time in his little office with a drab secretary. So I could have made a different picture, with a prettier girl than Lizabeth Scott, and told the story of that girl, her problems, but that wasn't this movie. That would make it phony, if you cast it with Marilyn Monroe, a type like that. I needed somebody real."

In May 1948, it was announced that Jane Greer and Robert Mitchum would star in a football-themed story by Irwin Shaw, originally titled Interference. Afterward, Lucille Ball replaced Greer and Victor Mature replaced Mitchum. Scott was slated to play the club secretary. Then, she replaced Ball as leading lady. The reason for the role switch is unknown, though Ball never forgave Mature for his rudeness when they made Seven Days' Leave (1942). The 37-year-old Ball was in career slump at the time and had to take the secondary role meant for Scott. The final film, titled Easy Living (1949), received a generally negative response when it was released. The New York Times review was uncommonly positive, though dismissive of Scott's performance.

Scott played the ultimate femme fatale in Too Late for Tears (1948), with Don DeFore, Dan Duryea, Arthur Kennedy, and Kristine Miller. This Hitchcock-like, black-and-white noir is widely considered Scott's best film and performance. But, the film was a box-office failure when it was released, and the producer Hunt Stromberg was forced into bankruptcy. Decades later, one film historian reported the film's staying power: "Too Late for Tears is a relatively 'unknown and unseen' noir and deserves this recognition, especially for its storyline, acting, and the incredible performance of Lizabeth Scott in the femme fatale role." At the end of 1948, Scott shifted dramatic gears in Paid in Full which was released in 1950. On Tuesday, January 25, 1949, Scott collapsed and went into hysterics on the RKO set of The Big Steal (1949). She immediately quit after three days of production. According to Scott's replacement, Jane Greer, Scott quit because she was concerned about being associated with the leading man Robert Mitchum, who at the time was jailed at the local honor farm for a marijuana conviction —Mitchum was convicted January 10, 1949. It later was alleged that Hal Wallis was responsible for Scott's bowing out. Yet, Scott starred with Mitchum in a RKO film two years later. During this same period, the press reported rumors of Scott's stage fright. Scott later admitted to stage fright, explaining her absence during premieres of her films.

During Scott's recovery period, Walter Winchell, in his "On Broadway" column for June 9, 1949, repeated a rumor of Scott's impending marriage to Mortimer Hall, CEO and president of radio station KLAC. Scott and Hall later broke up. (Hall eventually married actress Ruth Roman; pursued Rosemarie Bowe, who looked similar to Scott; divorced Roman; and then married Diana Lynn, Scott's co-star in Paid in Full.)

By June 22, 1949, Scott reportedly recovered from her January episode and was to be lent by Hal Wallis to the Princeton Drama Festival. In July 1949, Scott returned to the stage in the title role of Philip Yordan's play Anna Lucasta at the McCarter Theatre, on the campus of Princeton University, New Jersey. The press reported: "Folks who expected fireworks when Liz Scott and Tallulah Bankhead crossed paths at the Princeton Drama Festival were vastly disappointed. It was all sweetness and light."

Finally, Scott decided to legalize her stage name. Having been known professionally as "Lizabeth Scott" for almost seven years, she legally changed her name from Emma Matzo on September 14, 1949.

1950s
Scott acted in four films in 1950. In a continuing effort to escape her femme fatale typecasting, Scott played another self-sacrificing June Allyson-like character before reverting to her usual torch singer/socialite roles. In The Company She Keeps (1951), she played Joan Willburn, a probation officer who sacrifices her fiancé to a scheming convict, Diane Stuart (Jane Greer). While Greer's beauty was toned down for the film, Scott's was not. As a result, critics were generally unconvinced that the leading man would choose the dowdy Diane over Joan. Most critics thought that Scott and Greer were miscast, and should have switched roles. Columnist Erskine Johnson wrote "Lizabeth Scott is on her second reach-for-the-handkerchief-Mabel picture for RKO."

Scott played her third torch-singer role in Dark City (1950), a traditional film noir. Her boyfriend, Danny Haley (Charlton Heston in his film debut) is a bookie who is the apparent target of a vengeful brother of a dead man whom Haley swindled. Originally, Burt Lancaster was cast as the leading man, but he refused to work with Scott again.

In a May interview, Scott said she was reading the entire oeuvre of Aldous Huxley. In another interview, she admitted almost joining a "cult" endorsed by Huxley, but did not due to the vow of poverty required. Huxley explored reincarnation and destiny, beliefs which Scott also professed in interviews. During Scott's spiritual search, she eventually met the Dalai Lama at a private reception at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Yet, conversely, Scott was a friend and reader of Ayn Rand, an Aristotelian atheist. Later in 1950, Scott was cast to do the summer-stock version of Tennessee Williams' Summer and Smoke (1948). Instead, she quit the production and audited two morning courses—philosophy and political science—for six weeks at the University of Southern California.

In Two of a Kind (1951), Scott portrayed Brandy Kirby, a socialite who seduces a gambler, Michael "Lefty" Farrell (Edmond O'Brien), into joining a caper. Red Mountain (1952) is set in the 1860s, starring Scott as Chris, the only member of her family to survive the American Civil War. Red Mountain was the second of Scott's three Westerns, though the only traditional non-noir one.

Scott played her fourth and last torch-singer role in The Racket (1951), another conventional noir. Irene Hayes (Scott) is caught up in a struggle between a big-city police captain (Robert Mitchum) and a local crime boss (Robert Ryan), who resembles the real-life Bugsy Siegel. The film was released two months after the Kefauver hearings, in which Virginia Hill, and mistress of Siegel's, denied having any knowledge of organized crime. While Irene Hayes was thought to be modeled on the smoky-voiced Hill, Scott denied the rumor.

Scott returned to Britain in October 1951 to film Stolen Face (1952), a noir that presages Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958) by several years.

Later that spring, Scott returned to her beginnings as a comedian when she began work on her first comedy noir, Scared Stiff, with Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. Scott played an heiress who inherits a haunted castle on Lost Island off the coast of Cuba. Though Scott had fond memories of working on the set in the years ahead, at the time of filming, she found it trying. Scott found Lewis' impersonations of her offensive, while a jealous Hal Wallis instructed director George Marshall not to let the romantic scenes between Scott and Martin get too steamy. Despite Scott's best efforts, including making excuses for Lewis' behavior to the press, most of her scenes were cut. The film premiered the week of 28 May 1953 in Los Angeles. Despite the negative experience and reviews, Scared Stiff remains Scott's third favorite film.

In April 1953, the 30-year-old Scott made her last film under contract to Paramount. In Bad for Each Other (1953), Scott played a decadent heiress who tries to dominate a poor but idealistic physician (Charlton Heston). The source material for the screenplay, Horace McCoy's novel Scalpel, was more nuanced than the linear morality play of Bad For Each Other. This film was Hal Wallis' last attempt to pair Burt Lancaster and Scott. Patricia Neal was originally cast as Helen, but when Scott replaced Neal, Lancaster had to be replaced by Heston. Though Heston and Scott had previously worked together in Dark City, feuding was reported between the two on the set. The film was a box-office failure. Eight months later in February 1954, Wallis and Scott parted ways. Scott was now a freelancer.

In April 1954, Scott attended the Cannes Film Festival. Though she left for London immediately after the festival, her visit to France had unforeseen consequences. Later that month, it was announced that she would be the host of High Adventure, a travelogue television series for CBS, but she never appeared in it. As Scott put it: "out of the clear blue sky one morning, I woke and decided that I never wanted to make another film again. It was just a spark, I can't explain it."

Regardless, she made three more films: The Weapon (1957), Loving You (1957) and Pulp (1972).

Critical reception
Though the public response to Scott was generally favorable during the Paramount years, the film critics were less so, repeatedly making unfavorable comparisons to Lauren Bacall and Tallulah Bankhead,  beginning with Bob Thomas' March 1945 comment about her screen test: "Her throaty voice may well make Lauren Bacall sound like a mezzo soprano." When the most prominent critic of the era, Bosley Crowther of The New York Times, gave a bad review of You Came Along (1945), Scott's film debut, she recalled: "Being very young and naïve at the time, I didn't know you weren't supposed to do such things, so I called him up and complained. I told him how hard everyone worked to make such a beautiful movie, and I couldn't understand how he could be so cruel. I must say he took it awfully well, and was very kind to me." Nonetheless, in his review of I Walk Alone (1948), he stated: "As the torch singer ... Lizabeth Scott has no more personality than a model in the window of a department store." He also wrote of "a frighteningly grotesque Lizabeth Scott, who is supposed to represent a cabaret singer" in Dark City (1950).

Scott's style of acting, characteristic of other film actors of the 1940s—a cool, naturalistic underplay derived from multiple sources —was often deprecated by critics who preferred the more emphatic stage styles of the pre-film era or the later method styles. Typical of the 1940s was Dick McCrone: "Miss Scott, who is an excellent clothes horse, rounds out the principals as Lancaster's moll. Otherwise, she's still the same frozen-face actress she was in Desert Fury and a couple of pictures before that." Current film historians critical of Scott either repeat Bob Thomas' image of an ersatz Bacall, Bosley Crowther in describing Scott's acting as wooden,  or a pastiche of actresses of the period, as did Pauline Kael.

Others, though, see Scott's acting in a different light. With the revival of interest in film noir and its corresponding acting style, beginning in the 1980s, Scott's reputation has risen among critics and film historians. In Movieland, his personal history of Hollywood, Jerome Charyn described this style as "dreamwalking": "And then, among the Dolly Sisters and Errol Flynn, Bing Crosby and Dotty Lamour, the Brazilian Bombshell, Scheherazade, Ali Baba, and the elephant boy—all the fluff and exotic pastry that Hollywood could produce—appeared a very odd animal, the dreamwalker, like Turhan Bey, Sonny Tufts, Paul Henreid, Alan Ladd, Veronica Lake, Lizabeth Scott, and Dana Andrews, whose face had a frozen quality and always looked half-asleep ... The dreamwalker seemed to mirror all our own fears. His (and her) numbness was the crazed underside of that cinematic energy in the wake of the (Second World) war."

Radio
During the Golden Age of Radio, Scott reprised her film roles in abridged radio versions. Typical were her appearances on Lux Radio Theatre: You Came Along with Van Johnson in the Robert Cummings role and I Walk Alone. Scott was also a guest host/narrator on Family Theater.

Confidential
Howard Rushmore, editor of scandal and gossip magazine Confidential, developed an exposé on Scott in late 1954. Despite the lack of evidence, Confidential sent a copy of the story to Scott. What Scott read was that a police raid occurred on a Hollywood Hills bungalow at 8142 Laurel View Drive the previous autumn. Two female adults, one male adult, and a 17-year-old female were arrested on prostitution charges. The police found an address book with the names and telephone numbers of people active in the film industry, including two numbers allegedly belonging to Scott. "HO 2-0064" had a Hollywood prefix and was the residential number of an elderly couple, Henry A. and Mamie R. Finke, of 4465 West 2nd Street, Los Angeles, while "BR 2-6111" belonged to the 20th Century Fox switchboard at 10201 West Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles. Scott did not work for 20th Century until 1956, when she took part in an episode of The 20th Century Fox Hour.

The Rushmore article further stated that Scott spent her off-work hours with "Hollywood's weird society of baritone babes" (a euphemism for lesbians). He also wrote, of Scott's trip to Cannes: "In one jaunt to Europe, (Scott) headed straight for Paris and the left bank where she took up with Frede, the city's most notorious Lesbian queen and the operator of a night club devoted exclusively to entertaining deviates like herself." Frede Baulé managed "Carroll's", an upper-class, cabaret-type nightclub at 36 Rue de Ponthieu, Paris, France. It featured mainstream entertainers of the day such as Eartha Kitt and was devoted exclusively to entertaining café society. One of the owners was Marlene Dietrich, who happened to be the subject of "The Untold Story of Marlene Dietrich" in the then current issue of Confidential.

Instead of paying the magazine not to publish the article, Scott sued. On July 25, 1955, two months before the issue's printed publication date, and while the Marlene Dietrich issue was still on the newsstands, Jerry Giesler, Scott's lawyer, initiated a $2.5 million libel suit.

1957 mistrial
In retaliation, Confidential published the Scott story in the next issue. Under the byline of "Matt Williams", it was titled "Lizabeth Scott in the Call Girls' Call Book". In November 1955, at the age of 33, Scott again went to Britain to film The Weapon (1956).

The next spring, despite Giesler's reassurances to the press, the legal efforts against Confidential went nowhere. Since the magazine was domiciled in New York state, and Scott was a California resident who had initiated the suit in her own state, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Leon T. David quashed Scott's suit on March 7, 1956, on the grounds that the magazine was not published in California. Despite this setback, Giesler said that he would refile in New York. Lawsuits from other actors against the magazine were piling up. Meanwhile, Rushmore tried to get Confidential publisher Robert Harrison to run a story about former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt allegedly having an affair with her African-American chauffeur. When Harrison refused, Rushmore quit and flew to Los Angeles to meet with Scott's attorney, Jerry Giesler. Rushmore offered to testify against Confidential in exchange for a job in Hollywood. Giesler rejected the offer. Then, Rushmore became a witness for California Attorney General Edmund "Pat" Brown. Since New York refused to let Brown extradite Harrison to California, Brown instead put Harrison's niece, Marjorie Meade, director of the Hollywood Research investigative arm of Confidential on trial. On August 7, 1957, the trial of The People of the State of California v. Robert Harrison, et al. began. It eventually involved over 200 actors, most of whom fled California to avoid defense subpoenas. Rushmore, now the state's star witness, testified that the magazine knowingly published unverified allegations, despite its reputation for double-checking facts: "Some of the stories are true and some have nothing to back them up at all. Harrison many times overruled his libel attorneys and went ahead on something."

According to Rushmore, Harrison told the attorneys, "I'd go out of business if I printed the kind of stuff you guys want." Ronnie Quillan herself testified at the same trial that she had never verified the Scott story, thus not making the story "suit proof", but that Rushmore agreed to publish it anyway. However, a mistrial was declared on October 1, 1957, when the jury could not agree on a verdict.

In the wake of the sensational 1957 trial, Scott was forgotten by the media. Despite later claims that Scott's film career was ruined by the Confidential scandal, by the time the September 1955 issue of Confidential appeared, her career was already dormant. Scott had begun her career at a time when many established actors were away at war, giving then unknowns like Scott a chance at stardom. When the older stars returned, many of the newer stars faded away. In addition, the rise of television and the breakup of the studio system further curtailed film production. Film historians generally agree that Scott's career essentially peaked between 1947 and 1949. By February 1953, her stage fright was such that she even hid from friends. Scott did not renew her Paramount contract in February 1954, 18 months before "Lizabeth Scott in the Call Girls' Call Book" was published. Between the end of her contract and Rushmore's article, she had turned down numerous scripts, including a part in Wallis' The Rose Tattoo (1955). Instead of reinventing herself as Bacall did, returning to Broadway, Scott chose another path.

Music
Erskine Johnson reported in January 1954 that Scott was being trained by Hollywood voice teacher Harriet Lee, and later by Lillian Rosedale Goodman—the final result was that Scott "has a vocal range of two octaves, A below C to High C," making Scott a mezzo-soprano. In July 1956, Johnson reported that Scott was under the management of Earl Mills, who also managed the singing career of Dorothy Dandridge. Scott was planning to debut as a torch singer on the nightclub circuit.

Scott re-emerged from retirement in Loving You (1957), Elvis Presley's second musical. During the shooting of Loving You, Scott was reported to have been infatuated with Presley. During a kissing scene, she playfully bit him on the cheek, leaving a red mark, which she called "just a little love nibble." The scene had to be reshot with the other side of his face to the camera. Scott's musical debut came to naught, however. Though Hal Wallis tried to get Scott's singing voice undubbed for the production, he was overruled by the studio heads, despite all of Scott's previous voice training. Production ran from late January 1957 to mid-March 1957.

Undaunted by Paramount's refusal to let her singing be heard, Scott signed a recording contract with Vik Records (a subsidiary of RCA Victor). Scott recorded her album with Henri René and his orchestra in Hollywood on October 28, 29, and 30, 1957. Simply titled Lizabeth, the 12 tracks are a mixture of torch songs and playful romantic ballads. Finally on April 23, 1958, Scott made her public singing debut on CBS' The Big Record.

Television
In the 1960s, Scott continued to guest-star on television, including an episode of Adventures in Paradise, "The Amazon" (1960), with Gardner McKay. Scott played the titular character, derived from a boyfriend's dialog: "She is a sleek, well-groomed tigress, a man-eating shark—an Amazon! She chews men up and spits them out." In a Burke's Law episode, "Who Killed Cable Roberts?" (1963), she camped it up as the ungrieving widow of a celebrity big-game hunter. Much of her private time, though, was dedicated to classes at the University of Southern California.

Personal life
In May 1969, the wedding of Scott to oil executive William Dugger of San Antonio, Texas, was announced after a two-year engagement. Months later, musician Rexino Mondo was helping Scott decorate her fiance's mansion on Mulholland Drive. According to Mondo, Scott "introduced me to her fiance, Texas oil baron William Lafayette Dugger, Jr. He was in his late forties, of medium build, good-looking, with dark hair, a warm personality, and a strong handshake." Dugger described Scott as "A misunderstood soul searching for love. Her outward appearance is just a shell."

Dugger planned to make a film in Rome starring Scott, but he suddenly died on August 8, 1969. A handwritten codicil to his will leaving half his estate to his fiancée was contested by Dugger's sister, Sarah Dugger Schwartz. The will was judged invalid in 1971.

Several books have claimed that prior to her relationship with Dugger, Scott was a mistress of renowned film producer Hal B. Wallis, who at that time was married to actress Louise Fazenda. Wallis had a falling out with Scott around the time of Bad for Each Other, with recriminations on Wallis' part. After a few years, Wallis made an effort to revive the relationship with Scott by making her the leading lady opposite Elvis Presley in Loving You (1957). Wallis thought it might be his last chance to offer Scott a starring role in anything.

After shooting was completed, Scott walked away from film acting to try her hand at singing. The 14-year-relationship that began at the Stork Club in 1943 came to an end. With regard Wallis, Scott knew the relationship was over—only Wallis remained in denial. After the death of his wife in 1962, Wallis went into a depression and became a recluse before marrying Martha Hyer in 1966.

In later life, Wallis was reticent to talk on the subject of Scott, despite an unjealous Hyer urging him to include Scott and his other mistresses in his autobiography. Though Casablanca was the film of which Wallis was most proud, the films he watched repeatedly were those starring Lizabeth Scott. Even during his second marriage, Wallis continued to screen Scott's films at home, night after night.

Scott tended toward secrecy about her personal relationships and publicly disparaged former dates who told all to the press. Once their date appears in the press, "the man goes off [my] date list... I think," said Scott, "that gentlemen don't tell."

In 1948, Burt Lancaster said of Scott: "Becoming her close friend... is a long stretch at hard labor." In the period between 1945 and the 1970s, the press reported Scott dating Van Johnson, James Mason, Helmut Dantine, plastic surgeon Gregory Pollock, Richard Quine, William Dozier, Philip Cochran, Herb Caen, Peter Lawford, Anson Bond of the clothing store chain family, Seymour Bayer of the pharmaceutical family, David Mountbatten, Marquess of Milford Haven, race-track owner Gerald "Jerry" Herzfeld, and Eddie Sutherland, among others. Burt Bacharach dated Scott during his breakup with Angie Dickinson. According to Bacharach: "She personified what I love about a woman, which is not too feminine but a little bit masculine. Just the strength and the coolness and the separation from the frilly woman who is always touching you and wanting something... I think Diane Keaton had that kind of quality." In 1953, Scott was briefly engaged to architect John C. Lindsey.

Despite the Confidential gossip article, Scott remained active on the Hollywood dating circuit, but the allegations continued to haunt her. A friend, David Patrick Columbia, commented: "One night driving her home from a party we'd been to, she remarked apropos of nothing we'd been talking about, 'and you know David, I am not a lesbian.'"

Later years
Scott made her final film appearance in her second comedy noir, Pulp (1972), alongside Michael Caine and Mickey Rooney in a nostalgic pastiche of noir cliches. The director and screenwriter, Mike Hodges, spent a long time coaxing Scott out of retirement to fly to Malta for the shooting. Scott said that while she enjoyed Malta, she was not pleased that most of her footage was cut out—eight scenes in all. Hodges for his part reported that Scott was challenging to work with while shooting and struggled with nerves. Despite disagreements among the cast, crew, and past critics, Pulp, as with the 1949 Too Late for Tears, is considered an artistic success by film historians.

After that, Scott kept away from public view and declined most interview requests. From the 1970s on, she was engaged in real estate development and volunteer work for various charities, such as Project HOPE and the Ancient Arts Council of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, where she was a major donor.

Unlike her favorite colleague, Greta Garbo, Scott's seclusion was not total. She continued to date within a close circle of old Hollywood insiders. "One of her best friends was the singer Michael Jackson, and on very rare occasions, she could be spotted on his arm." Nor did she forget Hal Wallis. She appeared on stage at an American Film Institute tribute to Wallis in 1987 and fondly recalled her time with him. In 2003, film historian Bernard F. Dick interviewed Scott for his biography of Wallis. The result was an entire chapter titled "Morning Star", in which the author observed Scott was still able to recite her opening monologue from The Skin of Our Teeth, which she had learned six decades earlier.

Scott died of congestive heart failure at the age of 93 on January 31, 2015. Until her death she had managed to make herself a year younger than she actually was.

Lizabeth Scott has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 1624 Vine Street in Hollywood.

title: Lizabeth Scott


text: Category:Education in West Yorkshire

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

title: Category:Education in West Yorkshire


text:
User talk:Hhh111

Image:Chelsea_charms_pics03.jpg
Thanks, Alphax τεχ 10:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hhh111


text:
Category:Tourist attractions in West Yorkshire

See also Category:Tourist attractions in Leeds


text:
George James Symons

George James Symons FRS (6 August 1838 – 10 March 1900) was a British meteorologist who founded and managed the British Rainfall Organisation, an unusually dense and widely distributed network of rainfall data collection sites throughout the British Isles.

Life
He was the only child of Joseph Symons by his wife, Georgina Moon. He was born at Queen's Row, Pimlico, on 6 August 1838. His education, begun at St. Peter's collegiate school, Eaton Square, was completed under private tuition at Thornton rectory, Leicestershire. He subsequently passed with distinction through the course at the school of mines, Jermyn Street.

From boyhood, he made observations on the weather with instruments of his own construction, and at the age of seventeen became a member of the Royal Meteorological Society. From 1863, he sat on the council, acted as secretary 1873-9 and 1882–99, and was elected president in 1880 and again in 1900. In 1857, he undertook, and continued to discharge until his death, the duties of meteorological reporter to the registrar-general, and was appointed by Robert FitzRoy in 1860 to a post in the meteorological department of the board of trade, which he held for three years. He resigned it owing to the growing exigencies of his rainfall observations. The first of a series of thirty-nine annual volumes containing statistics on the subject was published by him in 1860; it included records from 168 stations in England and Wales. In 1898, the number of stations had grown to 3,404, of which 436 were in Scotland and 186 in Ireland, and they were manned by an army of over three thousand volunteer observers. This unique organisation was kept by Symons under close personal supervision, and the upshot was the accumulation of a mass of data of standard value, unmatched in any other country. The sanitary importance of water-supply was a determining motive for its collection. Symons began, in 1863, the issue of a monthly rain-circular, which developed in 1866 into the Monthly Meteorological Magazine,. He was a prominent member of various committees appointed by the British Association, and as secretary to the conference on lightning rods in 1878 shared largely in the four years' task of compiling its report. Elected in 1878 a fellow of the Royal Society, he acted as chairman of the committee on the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, and edited the voluminous report published in 1888.

He sat on the council of the Social Science Association in 1878, and on the jury of the Health Exhibition in 1884; was registrar to the Sanitary Institute from 1880 to 1895, and drew up a report on the 1884 Colchester earthquake for the Mansion House committee. In 1876, he received the Telford premium of the Institution of Civil Engineers for a paper on Floods and Water Economy, and in 1897 the Albert medal of the Society of Arts for the 'services rendered to the United Kingdom' by his rainfall observations. He was a member of the Scottish and Australasian Meteorological Societies, of the Royal Botanic Society, and of many foreign learned associations. Twice elected to the council of the Societe Météorologique de France, he frequently attended its meetings at Paris, and was made, in 1891, a chevalier of the legion of honour. Struck with paralysis on 14 February, he died on 10 March 1900, and was buried in Kensal Green cemetery.

Family
He married in 1866 Elizabeth Luke, who shared his labours until her death in 1884. Their only child died in infancy.

Legacy
An obituary was included in Symons British Rainfall 1899. His work on rainfall was continued by H. Sowerby Wallis, his coadjutor during thirty years. Retitled from British Rainfall 1900, annual editions were published until 1968.

A paper on The Wiltshire Whirlwind of October 1, 1889, prepared by Symons a few days before his last illness, was read to the Royal Meteorological Society on 16 May 1900. A gold medal (Symons Gold Medal) in his memory was founded by the same body, to be awarded for services to meteorological science. The record of weather kept by Symons at his house in Camden Square was maintained unbroken for forty-two years.

Works
His library contained ten thousand volumes and pamphlets. Besides essays and reports, he wrote:
 * Rain: how, when, where, why it is measured, London, 1867.
 * Pocket Altitude Tables, London, 1876, &c., three editions.
 * The Floating Island in Derwentwater, London, 1889.
 * Merle's MS. Consideraciones Temperiei pro 7 Annis 1337-1344, reproduced under his supervision, London, 1891.
 * Theophrastus on Winds and Weather Signs, edited from John George Wood's translation, London, 1894. Mr. Benjamin Daydon Jackson's 'Vegetable Technology,' London, 1882, was based upon a catalogue of works on applied botany published by Symons in the Colonies and India for 13 September 1879. A report drawn up by him in 1861 on the anemometry of Bermuda appeared in the eighth number of the meteorological papers issued by the board of trade.

title: George James Symons


text:
Talk:Electromagnetic four-potential

Untitled
Article expanded. To keep both camps happy, I've used both SI and gaussian units. Mpatel

Might be nice to add the formal solution for the 'retarded potentials' in terms of [j] [phi], (eg Bleaney & Bleaney E&M p283) - not sure my ability with the formula generator is up to that.:-) Linuxlad 16:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

use of the term four-vector
I got rid of this because four-vectors have to transform like A → ΛA under a Lorentz transform, the EM potential comes up with a derivative term here. This is related to the fact that it's a gauge field, so you can define it however you like. You'd need to fix the gauge completely in one particular way for A to be a four vector. 91.106.44.228 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you stick to the Lorenz gauge, it's a four-vector, right? Can we say that?
 * My understanding was that "A → ΛA" is a valid way to Lorentz-transform, but not the only valid way. You can also do "A → ΛA" followed by a gauge transformation. Is that correct? If so, it seems to me that the term "four-vector" is OK even in general (not just in the Lorenz gauge). Certainly there should be some discussion of this. I agree, we do not want to give the impression "the four-potential in the Coulomb gauge is a four-vector" for example. That would certainly be wrong.
 * On another topic, I think the idea "The electromagnetic four-potential is built from the magnetic vector potential and the electric potential" is very very important, one of the first things a reader needs to know, in order to relate the electromagnetic four-potential to stuff they are already familiar with. You deleted this from the lead, but I suggest putting it back in some form or another. :-) --Steve (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, my original thought was that it would only be a four-vector in the Lorenz gauge, which seems easy enough to prove. However I'm not 100% sure that even that is correct anymore, I came across some interesting discussions here:
 * http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=206391
 * http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=232693
 * There are quotes from some textbooks that seem to say that you can't add a gauge transformation into the Lorentz transform, but a lot of people disagree. Sorry that I can't say who's correct, so can't help much.
 * I also think you're right that the relation to the magnetic and electric potential should be put back in. I wanted to emphasize that, really, the four potential is what you define to *be* the electric and magnetic potentials, it's not how you construct the four-potential. But I couldn't think of a way to word it at the time.
 * Thanks! 91.106.33.90 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a footnote to support the claim that it is a four-vector in the Lorentz gauge. I skimmed the physicsforums links, it seems that the informed participants are in general agreement about this. :-) --Steve (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never actually edited anything on here before but this page caused me a great deal of grief when I was briefly convinced that the four-vector was not actually a tensor. It is. The problem people seem to be having (I think) is that most gauge conditions aren't Lorentz invariant. That is; by saying I want to use the Coulomb gauge for example, I am choosing this with respect to a coordinate system. So by performing a Lorentz transformation I will no longer have the Coulomb gauge condition satisfied. This is however not a problem. The Lorenz gauge is however specified in a gauge invariant manner so under Lorentz transformations the Lorenz gauge is preserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.163.203 (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 * If you can think of a clearer/better way to describe it, go ahead and edit the page. Don't be nervous about editing the article: If you mess anything up, we can clean it up. :-) --Steve (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've signed up now in case I want to fix anything in the future and I gave my best efforts at fixing it up. Though my grammar isn't always the best and I don't actually have any references to cite so I don't mind if it gets edited beyond recognition. Just that it needs to say it IS a four-vector and transforms as one. Cheers Steve86au (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1723974&postcount=13 ? 137.73.5.79 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't generally trust posts on physicsforums.com however I will sit down with a copy of Weinberg soon and have a look at what he is talking about. I've always been under the impression that it's the gauge conditions that aren't defined covariantly because they usually make things nicer in a particular frame but not all. I also would agree it's not actually a 4-vector but technically a pseudo-vector, in that switching from a right-handed to left-handed coordinate system will introduce a negative sign but I felt that was over-complicating things as it's not usually considered. This is just because the cross product is defined in terms of the handedness of the coordinate system. In summary, I'm still sure that if you have picked a well defined gauge then it will transform as a 4-vector. It just won't be gauge covariant. Ok, I decided to check out Weinberg on Google books and the quote on physics forums comes from a quantum discussion so I'm really no use there. The four-potential in question appears to be from a quantum particle and the extra terms that appear are creation and annihilation operators. I'm not sure exactly what's going on there when you're talking about quantum particles, but definitely for classical fields it is. Hopefully this link works, this book uses the 4-potential as an example of a "4-vector" which transforms via Lorentz transformations. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ku2o4alas0gC&pg=PA11&dq=electromagnetic+four+potential+transforms+as&hl=en&ei=3QHeTeaxJYemugO9iv3QBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=electromagnetic%20four%20potential%20transforms%20as&f=false Sorry for such a long rant I just kind of kept typing as I was thinking. Steve86au (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

notation for the four-potential
Found it better to use $$\Phi^a$$ rather than $$A^a$$ for the four-pot.; $$A^a$$ is better reserved for the four-acceleration (cos it's better than $$a^a$$). These notations are becoming more standard, see for example, Rindler (1991). --- Mpatel 15:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to be honest and say that never in my life have I seen $$\Phi^a$$ used for the electromagnetic four-potential, only for other vector fields. I have also never encountered a problem where there is a possibility of confusing the four-potential and four-acceleration.  I'd really like to switch them back.  --Laura Scudder | Talk 19:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While editing the GR pages, some of us preferred to use $$A^a$$ rather than $$a^a$$ for the four-acceleration - previously, I used $$\tilde{A}^a$$ for the four-potential, but found it unnecessarily complicated (typographically and verbally). In any case, Rindler is an authority on relativity and the reference I gave to his book should be consulted. ---Mpatel 07:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to agree with Laura here. $$A^a$$ is more standard for the electromagnetic potential.  Check out either Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics or Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics for example Salsb 18:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Griffiths and Jackson are superseded by Rindler. $$A^a$$ used to be standard for 4-potential - no more. If you're only doing e/m, then you can use what you like, but with relativity nowadays, $$\phi^a$$ is more common. ---Mpatel (talk) 15:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

vector?
a Therm noted as $$A^a = (\phi, \vec A c)$$ isn't a 4-vector - its a quaternionic term. If it would be a vector it would need to get noted as $$\vec{A^a} = \dots$$. Anyway, the four-potential is afaik quaternionic. -- MovGP0 10:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

E & B fields from 4-potential
The equations for the electric and magnetic fields that result from a 4-potential are needed on this page. I may take a shot at doing the edits myself, if nobody beats me to it.

Pervect 20:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

SI problems?
There appear to be problems with the SI formulation on this and other pages:

See for instance: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0401067 Also, Griffiths "Introduction to Electrdynamics"

We should have in SI units:
 * $$A^a = (\frac{\Phi}{c},\vec{A})$$
 * $$A_a = (-\frac{\Phi}{c},\vec{A})$$

 * This gives $$A^a A_a = |A|^2 - \Phi^2$$ in SI units
 * And, in Gaussian units $$A^a A_a = |A|^2 - c^2 \Phi^2$$

This is the same as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor in the "derivations" section except for choice of sign conventions. (It's incompatible with earlier statements on the page).

I will let this stand for comment before making any edits on this and/or other affected pages.

Having received no negative comments, I've fixed up this page & will do the others as time permits.

Pervect 06:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of the superscript alpha?
Forgive my ignorance, but could someone define the superscript α? Also, since α does not explicitly appear in the right side of the equation, a discussion of how the equation varies with α might also be helpful. Wikimedes (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Alpha isn't a quantity as such, but a index that can represent the spacetime dimensions 0,1,2,3. It's standard to use greek letters to imply this, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_notation. :) 91.106.44.228 (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 * The alpha is implied on the right hand side of the equation where it is equal to zero for the scalar potential and equal to 1,2,3 for the vector potential. Dauto (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Necessity
I think it would be very helpful to know why is necessary its introduction. Paranoidhuman (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? It's an essential part of electromagnetic theory. If you want to understand electromagnetism, than you must introduce the potential. Dauto (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's not why. That's just shifting the question to a different part of the sentence : it must be introduced because its necessary for an understanding; but why is it necessary? What is it about an understanding that requires it? That's the question.

Or to put it another way, the article should say
 * (a) that it is used to define the EM Field Strength tensor
 * (b) that maxwell's equations can be compactly written in terms of that tensor
 * (c) creating a lagrangian that involves that tensor, some electron fields, and a co-variant derivative of the four-potential, creates
 * (i) The conservation of charge, by Noether's theorem
 * (ii) Euler-lagrange equations in the electron fields, that produce the dirac equation, and hence the quantum description of electrons
 * (iii) Euler-lagrange equations in the four-potential, that produces half of maxwell's equations
 * (d) the other half of maxwell's equations turn up from guage fixing the four-potential
 * (e) photons, from quantisation of the EM field strength tensor part of the lagrangian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.243.2 (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Or in other words, it should mention that however much of a mathematical fiction it might be, the fundamental details of electromagnetism can be written very very simply by using the 4-potential, and that, in a vague mathematical sense, it represents photons themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.243.2 (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

SI units
$$\phi$$ is not a unit, its a variable. What units does it have? What units does A have? And why don't you say that in the article in a section about definition in SI units?

Sign error?
In the section titled The Lorentz Gauge, the second box (the table following the definition of the D'Alembertian) The SI column has minus signs for the sources, while the Gaussian column has them positive. I don't think that can be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.16.79 (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of the section on Gauge freedom
Someone has put [clarification needed] tags in the Gauge Freedom section, which is a fair move in my opinion as that section is currently quite obscure. Some thoughts on this below:

- I've added a brief explanation of 'flattening' (aka index lowering) from the point of view of someone who has used tensor algebra for theoretical physics.

- I don't know anything about cohomology, and only a very limited understanding of gauge invariance, so I don't understand the rest of the section. Hopefully someone else can help out here: it sounds like an interesting topic and could do with some clarification.

- Maybe there are more Wikipedia pages that aren't currently linked here (or some good references) which can clarify the notation / theory further.

- Is "Gauge Invariance" a better name than "Gauge freedom"? DigitalHamster (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Electromagnetic four-potential


text:
Murdoch Park 'n' Ride

Murdoch Park 'n' Ride was a Transperth bus station located in Murdoch, Western Australia. It opened on 14 December 1994 with parking for 583 cars.

On 31 January 2007 it closed to facilitate the construction of Murdoch railway station, which incorporated a bus facility on a bridge structure extending over the Kwinana Freeway carriageways and train station. The Park & Ride no longer exists as a bus station, but now operates as a fully integrated bus/train interchange. The buses now leave from the purpose-built bus way bridge that runs parallel to the South Street overpass.

title: Murdoch Park 'n' Ride


text:
Shishiori-Karakuwa Station

Shishiori-Karakuwa Station (鹿折唐桑駅) was a JR East railway station located in Kesennuma, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. The station was destroyed by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and has now been replaced by a provisional bus rapid transit line.

Lines
Shishiori-Karakuwa Station was served by the Ōfunato Line, and is located 64.2 rail kilometers from the terminus of the line at Ichinoseki Station.

Station layout
Shishiori-Karakuwa Station had a single side platform serving a single bi-directional track. The station was unattended.

History
Shishiori-Karakuwa Station opened on 19 March 1932 as Shishiori Station (鹿折駅). It was renamed to its present name on 1 November 1986. The station was absorbed into the JR East network upon the privatization of the Japan National Railways (JNR) on April 1, 1987. The station was completely destroyed by the 11 March 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.

Surrounding area

 * Kesennuma Shishiori Elementary School
 * Kesennuma Shishiori Middle School
 * Kesennuma Shishiori Post Office

title: Shishiori-Karakuwa Station


text: Category:Sport in Leeds

title: Category:Sport in Leeds


text: Category:Sport in West Yorkshire

title: Category:Sport in West Yorkshire


text:
Messiah Marcolin

Messiah Marcolin (born Bror Jan Alfredo Marcolin; 10 December 1967), also known as Eddie Marcolin, is a Swedish singer best known for his work with the epic doom metal band Candlemass. He is well known for his operatic voice and for his signature "Doom Dance", an exaggerated stomping motion.

1984–1985
Marcolin's first releases were with the heavy metal band Mercy. After recording an EP, Mercy were looking for a singer to record with and Messiah was asked to join just two weeks before recording. He sang on two Mercy albums, the first a self-titled debut in 1984, and Witchburner a year later. The albums were influenced by Black Sabbath while the falsetto shrieks were influenced by Mercyful Fate singer King Diamond. Looking for a heavier direction, Messiah decided to leave the band.

1987–1991: Early career with Candlemass
Marcolin initially joined Candlemass to replace session vocalist Johan Längqvist, who could not be convinced to remain as singer for the band after Epicus Doomicus Metallicus. His debut with Candlemass is the band's second album, Nightfall. He sang on two subsequent albums, Ancient Dreams and Tales of Creation and performed on a live album. Due to personal differences with some of the other members during the Tales of Creation tour in 1991, Marcolin left Candlemass.

1991–2001
Messiah worked on several projects after departing Candlemass. In 1993, he co-founded Memento Mori with Mike Wead and sang on two of their albums in 1993 and 1994 before leaving as he was not being credited for writing melodies. Messiah then worked with members of Stillborn on a project named "Colossus" and released a demo and contributed a cover of "Sad But True" to a Metallica tribute album titled Metal Militia: A Tribute to Metallica II in 1996. The band was inactive after this recording and Messiah returned to Memento Mori to record and release Songs for the Apocalypse, Vol. 4 in 1997. He also performed guest vocals for the melodic death metal/blackened death metal band Satariel.

2002–2006
The "Nightfall era" lineup of Candlemass reformed in 2002 and did various festivals and gigs. Candlemass released recordings from its live activity during this period as Doomed For Live and released a compilation, Essential Doom, which included a demo version of "Witches", a song that would later be included on Candlemass' self-titled 2005 album. After releasing Candlemass, Messiah appeared on two DVD releases: Documents of Doom and The Curse of Candlemass. Candlemass announced in October 2006 that Messiah had departed from the band once again.

Additionally, in 2003, Messiah co-founded Requiem and released a three-song demo, although the band dissolved due to Candlemass' reunion and musical differences within the band.

2007–present
Messiah was a guest vocalist with Therion for a string of live performances in 2007. In 2011, Messiah appeared live with Swedish heavy metal band Portrait, covering the Mercyful Fate song "Black Funeral". In 2013, he sang on "Hel", a song on Amon Amarth's Deceiver of the Gods.

title: Messiah Marcolin


text:
Symeon the Metaphrast

Symeon or Simeon (died c. 1000), distinguished as Symeon Metaphrastes (Latin) or Symeon the Metaphrast (Συμεών ὁ Μεταφραστής, Symeṓn ho Metaphrastḗs), was a Byzantine writer and official regarded as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. His feast day is celebrated on 9 or 28 November. He is best known for his 10-volume Greek menologion, a collection of saints' lives.

Life
About Symeon's life few details are known. He lived in the second half of the 10th century. Ephrem Mtsire puts him at the peak of his career in the sixth year of Basil II (982). Yahya of Antioch also makes him a contemporary of Basil II and Patriarch Nicholas II of Constantinople (984–991). In the 15th century, Mark Eugenikos wrongly called Symeon a megas logothetes. The hagiographer actually lived a generation later than the historian Symeon Logothete.

Works
Symeon wrote mainly hymnody and hagiography. He composed kanones, stichera and a hymn to the Trinity. He also compiled excerpts of the church fathers, particularly Basil the Great. His most important work by far, however, is the menologion, which Albert Ehrhard labelled "a revolution in the field of hagiography". According to tradition, it was commissioned by Basil II.

Symeon's menologion is a product of the encyclopedism characteristic of the Macedonian Renaissance. He did not merely collect and arrange pre-existing saint's lives, but also reworked them, standardizing their language and embellishing their rhetorical style to bring them in line with the Atticism of the day. His nickname comes from this act of metaphrasis. The content of the lives was not altered, however, and historical errors were left intact. Symeon arranged them according to their feast days in the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar. There are about 150 distinct lives.

For his menologion, Symeon received praise from Nikephoros Ouranos and Michael Psellos addressed to him an encomium. It was widely read in monasteries. The standard edition came in ten volumes. Numerous illuminated copies were produced in the 11th century. Working independently, Father Delehaye and Albert Ehrhard compiled works attributed to Symeon. They were at a loss for the provenance of some of his materials and their relation to other standard hagiographies. In particular, Delehaye found that Symeon or his immediate sources sparsely added materials of their own drawn from other places.

Some orthodox prayers of preparation before Holy Communion and prayers of thanksgiving after Holy Communion were composed by him.

Veneration
Venerable Symeon the Metaphrast is venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Michael Psellos compiled Symeon's biography (c. 1050) and he composed a liturgical office for him.

title: Symeon the Metaphrast


text:
Local variable

In computer science, a local variable is a variable that is given local scope. A local variable reference in the function or block in which it is declared overrides the same variable name in the larger scope. In programming languages with only two levels of visibility, local variables are contrasted with global variables. On the other hand, many ALGOL-derived languages allow any number of nested levels of visibility, with private variables, functions, constants and types hidden within them, either by nested blocks or nested functions. Local variables are fundamental to procedural programming, and more generally modular programming: variables of local scope are used to avoid issues with side-effects that can occur with global variables.

Scope
Local variables may have a lexical or dynamic scope, though lexical (static) scoping is far more common. In lexical scoping (or lexical scope; also called static scoping or static scope), if a variable name's scope is a certain block, then its scope is the program text of the block definition: within that block's text, the variable name exists, and is bound to the variable's value, but outside that block's text, the variable name does not exist. By contrast, in dynamic scoping (or dynamic scope), if a variable name's scope is a certain block, then its scope is that block and all functions transitively called by that block (except when overridden again by another declaration); after the block ends, the variable name does not exist. Some languages, like Perl and Common Lisp, allow the programmer to choose static or dynamic scoping when defining or redefining a variable. Examples of languages that use dynamic scoping include Logo, Emacs lisp, and the shell languages bash, dash, and the MirBSD Korn shell (mksh)'s "local" declaration. Most other languages provide lexically scoped local variables.

In most languages, local variables are automatic variables stored on the call stack directly. This means that when a recursive function calls itself, local variables in each instance of the function are given distinct addresses. Hence variables of this scope can be declared, written to, and read, without any risk of side-effects to functions outside of the block in which they are declared.

Programming languages that employ call by value semantics provide a called subroutine with its own local copy of the arguments passed to it. In most languages, these local parameters are treated the same as other local variables within the subroutine. In contrast, call by reference and call by name semantics allow the parameters to act as aliases of the values passed as arguments, allowing the subroutine to modify variables outside its own scope.

Static local variables
A special type of local variable, called a static local, is available in many mainstream languages (including C/C++, Visual Basic, VB.NET and PHP) which allows a value to be retained from one call of the function to another – it is a static variable with local scope. In this case, recursive calls to the function also have access to the (single, statically allocated) variable. In all of the above languages, static variables are declared as such with a special storage class keyword (e.g., ).

Static locals in global functions have the same lifetime as static global variables, because their value remains in memory for the life of the program, but have function scope (not global scope), as with automatic local variables.

This is distinct from other usages of the  keyword, which has several different meanings in various languages.

Local variables in Perl
Perl supports both dynamic and lexically-scoped local variables. The keyword  is used to define local dynamically-scoped variables, while   is used for local lexically-scoped variables. Since dynamic scoping is less common today, the Perl documentation warns that " isn't what most people think of as “local”.". Instead, the  keyword gives a temporary, dynamically-scoped value to a global (package) variable, which lasts until the end of the enclosing block. However, the variable is visible to any function called from within the block. To create lexically-scoped local variables, use the  operator instead.

To understand how it works consider the following code:

this will output: 1 2 1

This happens since the global variable $a is modified to a new temporary (local) meaning inside f, but the global value is restored upon leaving the scope of f.

Using  in this case instead of   would have printed 1 three times since in that case the   variable would be limited to the static scope of the function f and not seen by g. Randal L. Schwartz and Tom Phoenix argue that the operator   should have had a different name like.

Local variables in Ruby
Ruby as a language was inspired also by Perl, but in this case, the notation was made simpler: a global variable name must be preceded by a $ sign, like, while a local variable has simply no $ sign in front of its name, like   (while in perl all scalar values have a $ in front). Note that Ruby only provides built-in support for statically-scoped local variables like Perl's, not dynamically-scoped local variables like Perl's. There is at least one library for Ruby that provides dynamically-scoped variables.

title: Local variable


text: Category:Tourist attractions in Leeds

title: Category:Tourist attractions in Leeds


text:
Talk:Four Year Plan

Lede sentence
An editor is attempting to replace the encyclopedically-written current lede sentence:
 * "The Four Year Plan was a series of economic measures initiated by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany in 1936."

with this tabloidish sentence:
 * "The Four Year Plan was a sweeping range of radically ambitious planned economic measures, initiated by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, starting 1936–1940.

I don't think this is an improvement, but the editor is edit-warring to force their changes into the article without discussion here.

Comments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 *  Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree that the tone of the alternative lead sentence is a bit too much, with too many adjectives. However, what I miss in the current lead sentence is an expression of the importance of the economic measures. This wasn’t about increasing the interest rate, was it? Maybe just adding “drastic” would do, since the most important aspects (arms production, autarky) are already treated in the second paragraph of the lead. Markussep Talk 07:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Markussep has it right IMO. I am not actually sure which I prefer. The original does seem to understate the plan's importance, which I assume is what the revision was quite reasonably trying to add. But the revision seems a little OTT for a first sentence. Possibly "The Four Year Plan was an ambitious range of planned economic measures initiated by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, starting in 1936."? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 * 1). The "an editor" is I, GeeTeeBee. I am Dutch, and in the Dutch language (as the other editor, Beyond_My_Ken, is bringing up language), we have a saying that translates as: "Where two quarrel, two are to blame." I think, whenever a collaborative back and forth (💡) is labeled as "edit-warring", both editors should own up toit. Applying Bold/Revert/Discuss is a good process, but optional, not mandatory. When editors begin by positing on my talk page, that I should open an item on the talk page of an article, I always wonder why they didn't just do that themselves in the first place ? The editor who chooses to just hit [Undo] (all!) – the bluntest possible measure – instead of just: editing (to fix something), and/or tagging for better sourcing or wording — by the way, which one is it, really ? – or doing a partial delete, so as to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, might just as well go straight to the article's talk page, to express what it is exactly, that they disagree with. The bright red square over my Alerts bell icon will certainly draw my attention. What's keeping them ?
 * 2). It is a falsehood, to claim that I'm trying to "force" my edit without discussion. I'm promptly joining in the discussion here, after having slept some hours, and having taken several hours working on this one edit (!) I'm a guy who loves Wikipedia, who loves knowledge/content, and I will happily engage, as long as people are genuine. And some of the greatest discussions are ones that I "lose", because I then learn something (a win) ! – But fully undoing someone's good faith contribution, substantiated by nothing more than "Unsourced" (concerning the lead no less; see next), did not persuade me to go here at first.
 * 3). My choice to reinstate, after revert #1, was because of the minimal motivation in the first instance. A simple "Unsourced" might have been a good enough explanation for a debatable edit in any other article section than the lead (WP preferred spelling). However, the lead should not introduce new information, and thus not require any actual sourcing, aside from throwing in some source-links as repetitions of sourcings used below the TOC, from a user-friendliness perspective. The lead must primarily provide a good introduction, predominantly by properly summarizing the article — the article itself therefore being the leading source of information for whatever the lead says.
 * 4). Moreover, an article must also summarize important points from relevant parent articles, like about Adolf Hitler, the economy of Nazi Germany, and of course planned economy. The very name of the article and its central topic, plus the opening sentence calling it a 'series of economic measures', of course means you also have to tie it into the topic of planned economy, whether you believe the 4-yr Plan was that or not.
 * 5). On the second revert, the argument shifted to a combination of lack of sourcing, and what exactly is the proper encyclopedic description in the opening sentence. And on revert #3, the editor supplied nothing else of relevance to the article/section's content — instead only providing ad hominem comments ... But to his credit, he opened this talk page section, and we are now finally discussing his objections to my alterations — although he still remains puzzlingly inexplicit, stating no more than: "I don't think this is an improvement .." (above; Why ?), and: "Until a source is given that describes it in this manner, this is the encyclopedic description." (paraphrasing from his 2nd revert summary). the latter not even giving a hint of what his objections are, while at the same time robbing me of any freedom to use language, essentially (wrongfully) imposing on me to find a source that uses this exact wording to summarize what Hitler's 1936–1940 4-year plan really was ? – And who exactly determines what "the (one and only ?) encyclopedic description" is ? — Is there one best way ?
 * Of course I understand, and agree, that we must avoid sensationalism and puffery, but the breadth, depth, ambitions and and profoundness of Hitler's "Four Year Plan" can scarcely be overstated. Just calling it a(ny old) series of economic measures is, I think, near criminally understating how transformative the effects on Germany – and on Europe and big parts of the rest of the world of this plan were going to be.
 * Although I appreciate it, I choose to make a major objection to the argument, that the opening sentence can be kept simple, because important aspects (arms production, autarky) are already treated in the second paragraph of the lead – because everybody only using a web search engine, and just scanning the top search results, are only going to read the preview of roughly the first two sentences.

 * That's Why I'm making such a Full Meal out of this !

 * And Please remember WP's Fifth Pillar: WP has No Firm Rules – I strongly argue that for Adolf Hitler's 1936–1940 Four Year Plan, the content must outweigh common WP notions of how to normally word and phrase the opening sentence. Once you dive into it, my wording has not a shred of exaggeration ..
 * Or do you think I'm really judging Adolf too harshly ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with : a "drastic" could be added to the current sentence. Otherwise I like the curent lead sentence's tone and think that using too many sensationalist adjectives is uncalled for, especially here. , please remember that the Nazi government were heavy hitters in propaganda and self-aggrandisement. Heavy dramatising and sensationalist use of adjectives was exactly their way of communication. Wikipedia should strive for a more neutral tone, I think.

Additionally, you expect too much from a lead sentence content-wise. Conciseness and readability is a virtue here, in my opinion.

TLDR: One more "drastic" is ok, but the rest is too Göring-style for me. (I'm German, btw.) --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Predictably, I'm leaning more towards 's above – unsigned – proposal: "The Four Year Plan was an ambitious range of planned economic measures initiated by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, starting in 1936." The simple reason why my sentence is so OTT, is because Hitler's 4-Yr Plan was grandiosely OTT. And that is just being factual. If neutrality stops us from WP: calling a spade a spade – then neutrality is taking us off the rails !!
 * Two questions for :
 * 1). Would you not agree that giving the reader an honest first impression is better than a level of neutrality that, on this particular article's topic, is so vastly understated and euphemistic, that it is downright obfuscating & misleading ? — Especially when you keep in mind that many readers will not even click on any search result link - precisely because of TLDR !! — Thanks to Gog the Mild for making my point for me !
 * We live in a world of pings, tweets and sound-bytes, and people want the opening sentence(s) to inform them as swiftly and as accurately as imaginable, what they really need to know about it — Quality (what?), Scale, and Intensity. In REAL language.
 * 2). Exactly which part(s) of my proposed opening sentence do you find not factual ? — Which part(s) do you find "aggrandizing / dramatizing / sensationalist — or to be more concise, exaggerated ?
 * Were the measures not sweeping enough for you to be called that ? -- The word "range" is actually more concise than "series". -- Was Hitler not implementing a system of planned economy ? -- Was this plan, cutting straight across the portfolios of ministries including Defense and Economy, not entirely radical, or totally ambitious ?
 * And as to your view, that I expect too much from a lead sentence, content-wise, I obviously completely disagree. What can be accomplished is only limited by the imagination. As to readability – yes, there's room for improvement. How about:
 * "The Four Year Plan was a radical and ambitious set of drastic, planned economic reforms, by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, starting 1936–1940." ?
 * --GeeTeeBee (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or:
 * "Adolf Hitler's Four Year Plan (1936–1940) was a set of drastic reforms, giving Nazi Germany near total economic control, and prepare the country straight for war." ?
 * --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 * A short formal meta-point about this discussion: Indentation in discussions is usually meant to advance one level per different user. It confuses me slightly, if a text by the same author "jumps" in between paragraphs, because I would expect the next author.
 * Having now thoroughly read the article for the first time, I find it underemphasizes two important points (especially the second, with only a single passing mention):

 * National survival > economic freedom => central government control of productionNational survival > economic profitability => huge state debt (mostly hidden, to avoid inflation)

 * Hitler of course stayed mum about this side of rearmament to the general public to avoid eroding trust in the Reichsmark, but those at the top who had to know, knew.

 * Schacht, as a banker, couldn't stomach the ever increasing debt. He eventually refused to issue more Mefo bills and other paper money, and was promptly removed from office as President of the Reichsbank in 1939.

 * I might work on adding more emphasis on these points in the article later.

 * With this in mind, I propose the following lead sentences (also inspired by the current intro of the German article):

 * Only then do we go on about Göring and so on.
 * Only then do we go on about Göring and so on.

 * I'm trying to bring across that it wasn't just another economic program, but rather the subjugation of the whole national economy under the imagined needs of the nation as a whole. (Yes, I agree now that thr program was a bit more dramatic than it appears in the current lead. Although I still think you appear a bit high on adrenalin about this topic. ;) --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You say "..a bit more dramatic.." ? — OK, After the first sentence, the lead is much better. — It's that crucial first sentence, the first thing people see in the search engine results preview, that falls short so terribly ...
 * Are you still the same ΟΥΤΙΣ, who said I expect too much from the introducing sentence ? — Now you're already proposing to go into the motivation and delusional worldview of Hitler in the second sentence ? (Oh, and by the way, how about freeing Germany from the shackles of the Versailles treaty ?)
 * My adrenaline always goes high, whenever truth and honesty, the real scale, depth and profoundness of things are sacrificed on the holy altar of that cursed neutrality – on any topic ! — When I was younger, there was so much more actual journalism, instead of neutral reporting. Real journalism does more than report the news, but also helps you understand the meaning. Not by telling you what to think, but by placing the facts in perspective. "A series of economic measures" is obviously factual, but tells you nothing about how it compares to other series of economic measures...
 * I understand how the use of big adjectives can still evoke a foul taste to you as a German. But the words are not to be blamed. It's their past use, or rather abuse, that is to be blamed. Good people, like all the volunteer knowledge-workers involved in this discussion, should reclaim the words for their rightful purpose ! Every word in the dictionary can be used for good or bad, like a hammer or a pitchfork. If a slightly more colorful opening line can persuade people to click or tap on the WP link, and read further, don't you think that's a win ? — Of course the topic should merit it, but don't you think that is the case here ?
 * I think I should gracefully bow out at this point. I've already bored you with way too many of my words, and this article is way out of my territory too. Thanks, and have a great Sunday ! --GeeTeeBee (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this already is in WP:NOT but it should be in some way: I feel that Wikipedia should not use tabloid style techniques to attract more viewers. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't do journalism here, although writing an encyclopedia may sometimes feel similar.
 * Regarding your comment on my proposal, I feel that this is substantial for the article: The whole program was a way for Hitler to increasingly make all of Germany act according to his paranoid world view. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor who started this discussion resulted to personal attacks. For instance, "Well, it doesn;t seem as if you can read all that well, because you;re edit warring instead of discussing on the talk page." Okay. But the sentence itself is a different story. The first lead sentence may be "encyclopedic" depending on your definition of the word, but it definitely doesn't summarize the article. The article seems to portray the Plan as radical ("Hitler hesitated for the first half of 1936 before siding with the more radical faction in his "Four Year Plan" memo of August."), ambitious ("which necessitated a total effort at rearmament regardless of the economic costs."), and fear-mongering ("The basic premise of the Four Year Plan memo was that 'the showdown with Russia is inevitable'."), or my interpretation of it. If you are going to say the first sentence is right then you're undermining the article. But, if you say the second sentence is right then you are doing too much (yet it is better than the first). A hybrid, like the one proposed by Gog the Mild, works. FredModulars (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 * If the consensus here is to add another well-considered adjective such as "ambitious" to the sentence, I have no objection to that. I simply object to using tabloidish language on Wikipedia.  And I also object to the insinuation made above that my objection has something to do with the suggested change being too hard on Hitler.  Anyone who is in the least familiar with my editing on Wikipedia would know that is a completely ridiculous idea. I am utterly opposed to glorifying or dignifying Hitler and other Nazis and fascists, including the current neo-Nazis and neo-fascists who burden our public discourse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit break (proposal)

 * I like ΟΥΤΙΣ's suggestion above, although I would add "ambitious" and alter the second sentence:

 * The Four Year Plan was an ambitious economic program initiated by Adolf Hitler that aimed to prepare the German economy and military to fight a war within four years. It subordinated laissez-faire capitalism to economic controls in order to insure national survival, which Hitler saw as threatened by "international Jewry" and communism, but stopped short of a fully controlled economy.

 * Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I like your proposal, . It's closer to the reality experienced by the majority of the German population before the war: Apart from the propaganda, the program had little noticable effect on most people's everday lives. You couldn't get that impression from my version. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 * This is good, but I have concerns about "in order to insure national survival" in wiki-voice. No other country was threatening Germany's national survival at that time. How about "autarky" instead? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Hitler claimed that a war with the Soviet Union was unavoidable in the near- to mid-future as part of the non-public memo for top national government circles (see article). The extent to which this danger was real or imagined is another discussion that does not really belong here, does it? In my personal opinion it was quite imaginary in 1936, and Hitler's paranoid militarization policies were the main ingredient to make it real in 1941.

 * It was only in the heads of Hitler and his top ideologues at this point, yet they got to decide for 80 million Germans. "to ensure national survival" is a good paraphrasing of Hitler's documented thoughts on the plan's motivation; it should be in the lead sentence. Another attempt:

--ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Edited my previous post: added signature and changed "brought about" to "intensified". --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you expand a bit on why "fiscal responsibility" is in there? I'm uncertain about exactly what it refers to in this context.  I think that perhaps it is what I was aiming for with "It subordinated laissez-faire capitalism to economic controls".  Would you be amenable to something like: "The Four Year Plan was an ambitious economic program initiated by Adolf Hitler that aimed to prepare the German economy and military to fight a war within four years. It intensified an already existing militarization program, and subordinated laissez-faire capitalism to economic controls in the name of national survival, which the Nazis felt was threatened by the Soviet Union and 'international Jewry'." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Because I consider it important to show the intensity and all-out mindset with which militarization was pursued by the German government. (Please see my above quote from Economy of Nazi Germany.) In simple terms, the Nazi government were pawning decades of future national income to buy arms.

Incurring national debts at such a pace was unprecedented, and could only lead to extended despondency and forced austerity or repayment from expected spoils of war. In the the neo-Darwinist mindset of Hitler and his cronies, history was a succession of armed conflicts between nations and peoples. Fearing the inevitability of armed struggle they helped make it real by arming for it, forcing their violent worldview on all Germans.

Regarding your last proposal, I don't like the wording "an existing program". The general policy of re-armament paid by inflation was pursued by the Nazi government before 1936, alas not as part of a grand 'program', so that would be misleading, there. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What about "It intensified his re-militarization efforts, ..."? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean like in my last proposal? Minus the instensified typo, I still stand by it. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My problem is that "did away with fiscal responsibility" is not a description, it's commentary, which I attempted to address via the "lasissez-faire" language. 14:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a statement of fact, proven by historians in reliable sources, but we can change the wording. I agree that "fiscal responsibility" is a bit abstract and may mean little to the average reader. (The concept got its own article, which would be linked there to explain. What about
 * ? Now your pet "increased government control" part fell overboard for the sake of readability. Nothing personal, please suggest a good phrasing including it, if you got one. I could also imagine the "debt" part inside a note, technically apart from the main sentence. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My only suggestion is to remove "covertly" which, again, is commentary and not description, so would have to be directly sourced. Otherwise I think we have a winner! Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It was important to the regime that this was not discussed publicly. They did not want the German population to worry about the Reichsmark's value. Everyday economical activity was not notably affected, except for falling unemployment numbers.

I may be trying to put too much into two sentences. I feel that the connection of "huge national debt to pay for a strong military", "plan to reimburse creditors with war loot and forced labor" and "co-opting the willing cooperation of a majority of the population while being silent about financing and plans for aggressive expansion" is important to mention to illustrate the reckless and underhanded character of Hitler's planning. But it may be too much and too complex for the lead. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Four Year Plan