text:
Yūzō Yamamoto

Yūzō Yamamoto (山本 有三) was a Japanese novelist and playwright. His real name was written as "山本 勇造" but pronounced the same as his pen name.

Biography
Yamamoto was born to a family of kimono makers in Tochigi City, Tochigi Prefecture. After finishing high school, he started an apprenticeship and later worked in the family business, before eventually entering the German literature department at Tokyo Imperial University. While still a student, he contributed to the literary magazine Shinshicho. He debuted as a playwright with The Crown of Life (1920) and gained a reputation for his solidly crafted plays, notably Sakazaki, Lord Dewa (1920) and Dōshi no hitobito (lit. "Comrades", 1923). A recurring theme were social injustices, suffered by women in particular, while the contemporary settings of his early plays later gave way to historical ones. In 1926 he turned to novels, known for their clarity of expression and dramatic composition, and also wrote children's books. Together with Kan Kikuchi and Ryūnosuke Akutagawa, he helped establish the Japanese Writers Association (Nihon Bungeika Kyōkai). In addition to his own writings, Yamamoto translated the works of European dramatists into Japanese, including August Strindberg and Arthur Schnitzler.

Yamamoto opposed the use of enigmatic expressions in written Japanese and advocated the limited use of furigana. During World War II, he openly criticized Japan's wartime military government for its censorship policies (which had stopped the serialisation of his novel Robō no ishi, lit. "A stone by the wayside"). On the other hand, Yamamoto was involved in establishing a guide issued by the government which gave instructions on how to write children's stories, and later joined the Patriotic Association for Japanese Literature (1942–1945).

Between 1947 and 1953, Yamamoto served in the National Diet as a member of the House of Councillors. In 1965, he was awarded the prestigious Order of Culture. He died in Yugawara, Kanagawa Prefecture, in 1974, leaving his last serialised work Dakuryū (lit. "Muddy stream") unfinished.

Legacy
Yamamoto's works have been translated into English, French, German and other languages. His play The Sad Tale of a Woman, the Story of Chink Okichi served as the basis for the 1940 play Die Judith von Shimoda by Bertolt Brecht and Hella Wuolijoki. His works have also repeatedly been adapted for film and television.

In 1996, Yamamoto's house in Mitaka, Tokyo, which had been expropriated during the occupation period following World War II, was converted into the Mitaka City Yūzō Yamamoto Memorial Museum. A museum dedicated to his memory was also opened in his hometown Tochigi.

Works (selected)

 * 1920: Crown of Life (生命の冠, Inochi no kanmuri) stage play
 * 1920: Infanticide (嬰児殺し, Eijigoroshi) stage play
 * 1921: Sakazaki, Lord Dewa (坂崎出羽守, Sakazaki Dewa no Kami) stage play
 * 1923: Dōshi no hitobito (同志の人々) stage play
 * 1926: Nami (波) novel
 * 1929: The Sad Tale of a Woman, the Story of Chink Okichi (Nyonin Aishi, Tojin Okichi monogatari) stage play
 * 1933: Onna no isshō (女の一生) novel
 * 1935: Shinjitsu ichiro (真実一路) novel
 * 1937: Robō no ishi (路傍の石) novel
 * 1938: Sensō to futari no fujin (戦争と二人の夫人)

Film and television adaptations (selected)

 * 1936: Seimei no kanmuri (dir. Tomu Uchida)
 * 1937: Shinjitsu ichiro: Chichi no maki/Haha no maki (dir. Tomotaka Tasaka)
 * 1938: Robō no ishi (dir. Tomotaka Tasaka)
 * 1952: Nami (dir. Noboru Nakamura)
 * 1955: Onna no isshō (dir. Noboru Nakamura)
 * 1955: Robō no ishi (dir. Kenkichi Hara)
 * 1962: Nami (dir. Tadashi Imai)
 * 1964: A Pebble by the Wayside a.k.a. Wayside Pebble (Robō no ishi, dir. Miyoji Ieki)
 * 1993: Shinjitsu ichiro (dir. Kon Ichikawa)

title: Yūzō Yamamoto


text:
Frank Russell

Frank Russell may refer to:

 * Frank Russell, Baron Russell of Killowen (1867–1946), British Lord of Appeal in Ordinary
 * Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell (1865–1931), British politician and brother of Bertrand Russell
 * Ted Malone (1908–1989), ne Frank Russell, American radio broadcaster
 * Frank Henry Russell (1878–1947), American aviation pioneer
 * Frank Russell (anthropologist) (1868–1903)
 * Frank Russell (baseball) (1921–1984), American Negro leagues baseball player
 * Frank Russell (bassist), American jazz bassist
 * Frank Russell (basketball) (1949–2021), American basketball player
 * Frank Ford Russell (1904–1969), American wrestler

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

title: Frank Russell


text: User talk:203.153.233.209

title: User talk:203.153.233.209


text:
Proclamation of Indonesian Independence

The Proclamation of Indonesian Independence (Proklamasi Kemerdekaan Indonesia, or simply Proklamasi) was read at 10:00 Tokyo Standard Time on Friday, 17 August 1945 in Jakarta. The declaration marked the start of the diplomatic and armed resistance of the Indonesian National Revolution, fighting against the forces of the Netherlands and pro-Dutch civilians, until the latter officially acknowledged Indonesia's independence in 1949. The document was signed by Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, who were appointed president and vice-president respectively the following day.

The date of the Proclamation of Indonesian Independence was made a public holiday by a government decree issued on 18 June 1946.

The beginnings of the independence movement
In 1918, the Dutch authorities in the Dutch East Indies established a partly-elected People's Council, the Volksraad, which for the first time gave Indonesian nationalists a voice. Meanwhile, Indonesian students studying in the Netherlands formed the Perhimpoenan Indonesia, or Indonesian Association. Among its leaders were future Indonesian vice-president Mohammad Hatta and future prime minister Sutan Sjahrir. In September 1927, Hatta and other members were arrested for inciting resistance to Dutch authority in the East Indies, but thanks to a rousing defense speech by Hatta, they were acquitted. Back in the East Indies, in 1927, nationalist and future Indonesian president Sukarno turned his study club into the Indonesian Nationalist Association, which in May 1928 became the Indonesian National Party (PNI). The party aimed to achieve Indonesian independence through mass-based non-cooperation with the authorities. In October 1928, the representatives at a Youth Congress held in Batavia, the capital, adopted the ideals of one motherland, Indonesia; one nation, the nation of Indonesia; and one language, the Indonesian language. This expression of national unity was a reaction to the older generation, which tended to identify with their region or ethnicity, and subsequently became known as the Youth Pledge.

The pre-war period
The PNI grew rapidly, causing concern for the authorities, who arrested Sukarno and seven party leaders in December 1929. They were put on trial for being a threat to public order and in September 1930 received sentences of one to four years – Sukarno received the longest sentence. The PNI dissolved itself in 1931, and in the same year, Sjahrir returned from the Netherlands and established a party called the New PNI which rather than focussing on mass action and being dependent on one leader, aimed to create a group of leaders who could ensure continuity if any were arrested. In 1931, Sukarno was released and joined the small Indonesia Party (Partindo), while in August 1932, Hatta returned from the Netherlands and assumed the leadership of the rival New PNI, which had a more Marxist and revolutionary platform than Partindo. Sukarno was arrested again in August 1933, and was exiled first to Flores, then to Bencoolen, while Hatta and Sjahrir were arrested and exiled to the Boven Digul detention camp in western New Guinea.

The detention of these nationalist figures effectively ended the non-cooperation movement, and in December 1935 the moderate Indonesian National Union and Budi Utomo merged to form the Great Indonesia Party (Parindra), which aimed to work with the Dutch to achieve Indonesian independence. When in 1936, Volksraad member Soetardjo submitted a petition asking for a conference to be held that would lead to Indonesian self-government as part of a Dutch-Indonesian union over a decade, Parindra was lukewarm, resenting the possibility of Soetardjo succeeding where the other nationalist organizations had failed. The petition was passed by a majority of the Volksraad, but rejected by the Dutch in November 1938. In May 1937, Parindra, the Indonesian People's Movement (Gerindo), was established by younger Marxists including Amir Sjarifuddin, another future prime minister, to campaign for the formation of an Indonesian parliament in cooperation with the Dutch, which was the same aim of the Indonesian Political Federation (GAPI), formed two years later from a merger of almost all the nationalist organizations. However, the outbreak of the Second World War resulted in the occupation of the Netherlands, and the Dutch government in exile was in no position to respond to GAPI's request for a Dutch-Indonesian union and an elected legislature, although Dutch Queen Wilhelmina made a speech in London in May 1941 promising unspecified changes to the relationship with the East Indies after the war.

On 23 January 1942, three years before the 1945 proclamation, an independence activist Nani Wartabone declared "Indonesian independence" after he and his people won in a revolt in Gorontalo against the Dutch who were afraid of Japanese invasion of Celebes. He was later imprisoned by the Japanese after they had invaded the area.

Early years
With the outbreak of the war in the Far East, and the initial successes of Japan, in early 1942, the Dutch authorities gave Amir Sjarifuddin money to establish an underground resistance movement and sent Hatta and Sjahrir back to Java. In January 1942, the Japanese invaded the Dutch East Indies, and rapidly overran the archipelago. The Dutch surrendered on 8 March. The Japanese banned the use of the Dutch language as well as the Indonesian flag and anthem, and the Japanese calendar was imposed. The archipelago was administered as three separate regions: Sumatra by the Twenty-Fifth Army, Java and Madura by the Sixteenth Army and Kalimantan and the resource-rich eastern islands by the Imperial Japanese Navy. As the area controlled by the Navy was the source of essential supplies, including food, to the other areas, rear-admiral Tadashi Maeda was appointed to the liaison office of the naval attaché in Batavia to expedite deliveries and to ensure the maintenance of good relations with the Army.

In April 1943, the Japanese established the Triple-A mass movement. Its name was taken from the Japanese propaganda slogan portraying Japan as the leader, protector and light of Asia. However it failed to gain support as no significant Indonesian nationalists were involved, and the propaganda was too heavy-handed. The Japanese then decided that it would be more effective to use pre-war nationalists to mobilize the population in support of their war aims. In July, the 25th Army freed Sukarno from exile in Sumatra, and he joined Hatta and Sjahrir in Jakarta, as Batavia had been renamed. They agreed that Sjahrir would work underground, while Sukarno and Hatta would cooperate with the Japanese, still with the ultimate goal of Indonesian independence. The two men urged the Japanese to establish a popular political organization that they would lead, and this came about in March 1943 with the formation of Putera, the Centre of People's Power. Although it was controlled by the Japanese, it was led by Sukarno, Hatta, Hajar Dewantara and pre-war Islamic figure Mas Mansoer. Like the Triple A, it achieved very little.

Japanese support for Indonesian nationalism
As the tide turned against Japan and its territorial expansion halted, Japan started to talk of greater Indonesian involvement in the governance of Java, where the 16th Army was much more in favor of such participation than the 25th Army or the Navy in other parts of the archipelago. A Central Advisory Council was established, again headed by Sukarno, and more Indonesians were appointed as advisors to the Japanese. In October 1943, the Japanese formed the Defenders of the Homeland (PETA) volunteer army intended to help fight off an allied invasion of the East Indies, and also established the Council of Indonesian Muslim Associations (Masjumi) as an umbrella group for Muslims. In 1944, Putera was dissolved and replaced by the Java Service Association (Jawa Hokokai), with Sukarno and Hatta given key positions in it, albeit answering to the military governor. Although intended to mobilise the masses for Japanese interests, Sukarno in particular took advantage of his role to tour the archipelago making speeches.

On 7 September 1944, Japanese Prime Minister Kuniaki Koiso promised independence for the 'East Indies' "later on" (di kemudian hari). The authorities in Java then allowed the flying of the Indonesian flag at Jawa Hokokai buildings. Rear-admiral Maeda provided official funds for tours around the archipelago by Sukarno and Hatta, and in October 1944, established a Free Indonesia Dormitory to prepare youth leaders for an independent Indonesia. With the war situation becoming increasingly dire, in March 1945 the Japanese announced the formation of an Investigating Committee for Preparatory Work for Independence (BPUPK), comprising members of the older political generation, including Sukarno and Hatta. Chaired by Rajiman Wediodiningrat, in two sessions in May and June, it decided on the basis for an independent nation and produced a draft constitution. Meanwhile, the younger activists, known as the pemuda, wanted much more overt moves towards independence than the older generation were willing to risk, resulting in a split between the generations.

Japanese plan for independence
Following the call from the allies for Japan to surrender, the Japanese decided to grant Indonesian independence to create problems for the Dutch when they reoccupied their colony. At a meeting in Singapore at the end of July, it was decided that Java would become independent at the end of September, followed by other areas. On 6 and 9 August, atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On 7 August, the Japanese announced the formation of a Preparatory Committee for Indonesian Independence (PPKI) to accelerate preparations for establishing an Indonesian government for the whole of the East Indies, not just Java. Two days later, Sukarno, Hatta and Rajiman Wediodiningrat were flown by the Japanese to Dalat, near Saigon, to meet with Field Marshall Hisaichi Terauchi, the Japanese commander of the Southern Expeditionary Army Group, who promised independence for the territory of the former Dutch East Indies and formally appointed Sukarno and Hatta as chairman and vice-chairman of the PPKI. On 15 August, Japan surrendered, and the Japanese authorities in the East Indies were ordered to maintain the status quo pending the arrival of allied forces. However there was no official confirmation from the Japanese of the surrender. Again there was disagreement between the older generation, including Sukarno and Hatta, who were uncertain how to proceed, and the pemuda, including Sjahrir, who urged Sukarno to declare independence without the involvement of the PPKI to avoid accusations from the Allies that independence was sponsored by Japan. In the afternoon of 15 August, Sukarno, Hatta and BPUPK member and future foreign minister Achmad Soebardjo called on Maeda to ask about the surrender rumours, and received unofficial confirmation that they were true. Hatta then asked Soebardjo to arrange a meeting of the PPKI for the following day and went home to draft a proclamation.

Meanwhile, various pemuda groups had heard the surrender rumors and held a meeting. Those present included D. N. Aidit, Chairul Saleh and Wikana. They decided to send a deputation led by Wikana to meet Sukarno at his home and demand an immediate proclamation of independence in person, rather than through the PPKI, which they saw as having no credibility, and which in any case had no pemuda members. In an angry exchange, Sukarno refused to do so as besides the need to discuss matters with the PPKI, he did not want to provoke the Japanese. Hatta subsequently arrived and took the same stance as Sukarno, and pointed out that there was still no official confirmation of the Japanese surrender. He then invited the pemuda to go ahead with a proclamation themselves. Wikana in turn demanded a declaration the following day, 16 August, and the delegation left.

Wikana felt humiliated by the challenge from Hatta as he knew that only Sukarno and Hatta had the authority to make a credible declaration of independence. Spurred on by this humiliation and the desire to demonstrate the commitment of the pemuda, a decision was taken by a group including Chairul Saleh and Wikana to take action. In the early hours of the morning of 16 August, they took Sukarno and Hatta to the town of Rengasdengklok (today in Karawang Regency, West Java), ostensibly to protect them from an uprising by Peta troops, but in fact to force them to declare independence. However, the two men still refused to make such a proclamation without assurances from the Japanese. Later that morning, Maeda learned that Sukarno and Hatta had disappeared. An Army investigation led to Wikana, who was pressured to return the two men to Jakarta. Following a guarantee of safety and cooperation from Maeda, as well as the use of his house for discussions, Subardjo went to Rengasdengklok and brought Sukarno and Hatta back to Jakarta. They obtained an assurance from the Japanese military that there would be no interference in a declaration of independence as long as it was not associated with the Japanese, as this would be a breach of the surrender terms. Sukarno and Hatta then went to Maeda's house, now the Formulation of Proclamation Text Museum, where members of the PPKI were waiting, having been told to go there by Subardjo.

The writing of the proclamation

Earlier that day, the pemuda led by Sjahrir had produced a declaration worded as follows: "The Indonesian people hereby declares its independence. All existing governmental organs shall be seized by the people from the foreigners who still control them."

Sukarno and Hatta rejected this wording, believing that it had the potential to spark violence and would cause problems for the Japanese as it implied a transfer of sovereignty in violation of the terms of the surrender. Sukarno drafted the final version, which read as follows:

"We the people of Indonesia hereby declare the independence of Indonesia. Matters concerning the transfer of power and other matters will be executed in an orderly manner and in the shortest possible time."

This final version contained the phrase "transfer of power", which was acceptable to the Japanese as the Japanese language translation of the phrase implied transfer of administrative control, rather than of sovereignty, which could have been seen as a violation by the Japanese of the ceasefire commitment to preserve the status quo. It was also acceptable to the Indonesians, who could interpret this transfer in a wider sense. Meanwhile, the phrase "in an orderly manner" reassured the older nationalists as it implied no action by the pemuda, and "in the shortest possible time" was taken by the Indonesians to mean before the Allied forces arrived. Chairul Saleh and other pemuda figures protested ineffectually about the changes, but the majority of the PPKI agreed with the wording. After some debate as to who would sign the proclamation, it was agreed that in order to disassociate the document from the Japanese-formed PPKI, only Sukarno and Hatta would sign it. The meeting broke up at 5am.

The latin typewriter used to type the proclamation test was borrowed from Korvettenkapitän Dr.jur. Hermann Kandeler, the leader of a Nazi German military stützpunkt in Pasar Senen, Jakarta. This was because only Japanese typewriters were available in Maeda's house.

The ceremony
The original plan was for the proclamation to be read in public before a crowd at the square in the center of Jakarta, now Merdeka Square. However, the Japanese authorities, fearing disorder, deployed soldiers to the area, and as a result, the proclamation was made at Sukarno's house at 56 Jalan Pegangsaan Timur at 10 AM Japan Standard Time, which was in use during the occupation.

The ceremony was very simple. Firstly, the preamble to the draft constitution, which had been written by the BPUPKI, was read, then Sukarno, with Hatta by his side, read the proclamation:

P R O K L A M A S I

Kami, bangsa Indonesia, dengan ini menjatakan kemerdekaan Indonesia.

Hal-hal jang mengenai pemindahan kekoeasaan d.l.l., diselenggarakan dengan tjara saksama dan dalam tempo jang sesingkat-singkatnja.

Djakarta, hari 17 boelan 8 tahoen 05

Atas nama bangsa Indonesia,

Soekarno/Hatta.

PETA officer Latief Hendraningat raised the red and white flag of Indonesia and the attendees sung the Indonesian national anthem, Indonesia Raya.

English translation
An English translation published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as of October 1948 included the entire speech as read by Sukarno. It incorporated remarks made immediately prior to and after the actual proclamation. George McTurnan Kahin, a historian on Indonesia, believed that they were omitted from publication in Indonesia either due to Japanese control of media outlets or fear of provoking a harsh Japanese response.

Proclamation We the people of Indonesia do hereby declare the independence of Indonesia. Matters concerning the transfer of power and other matters will be executed in an orderly manner and in the shortest possible time.

Djakarta, 17 August 05

In the name of the people of Indonesia

Soekarno/Hatta

The date of the declaration, "05" refers to "Japanese imperial year (皇紀) 2605".

Aftermath
Indonesian youths spread news of the proclamation across Java almost immediately using Japanese news and telegraph facilities, and in Bandung the news was broadcast by radio. However many ordinary Indonesians either did not believe the reports or saw them as a Japanese deception. In Sumatra, only the republican elite in major cities knew about the proclamation by the middle of September.

The day after the proclamation, the Preparatory Committee for Indonesian Independence met and elected Sukarno as president and Hatta as vice-president. It also ratified the Constitution of Indonesia. The Dutch, as the former colonial power, viewed the republicans as collaborators with the Japanese, and desired to restore their colonial rule, as they still had political and economic interests in the former Dutch East Indies. The result was a four-year war for Indonesian independence. Indonesian youths had played an important role in the proclamation, and they played a central role in the Indonesian National Revolution. One of the other changes that had also taken place during the Japanese occupation included the population in Indonesia undertaking military training. Conflict occurred not only with the Dutch, but also when the Japanese tried to re-establish control in October 1945 in Bandung, and furthermore when the British tried to establish control. After a long struggle for independence, the freedom of Indonesia from the Dutch was gained in 1949 as a part of a period of decolonization in Asia.

title: Proclamation of Indonesian Independence


text:
User talk:Secretlondon/Archive 4

I don't edit here any more. 22:02, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thats sad, why? I always liked you, finding you to be "fair and balanced" (and thats coming from an american ;) Sam [Spade] 23:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, you've done a great deal of great work here. I'll be sorry to see you go. I hope your absence is temporary. Either way, best wishes. -- Infrogmation 00:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Come on, you don't mean it. You won't be able to resist coming back.  You know you want to!  Come on, I'll cry if you don't.  Just one edit a day — pretty please?    — Chameleon My page/My talk 00:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What happened? I noticed you as a nice and helpful editor (as in your encouragement of Patricknoddy). If it's a dispute on the wiki, surely something can be done. But if you leave for personal reasons, I want to add my best wishes. Gzornenplatz 04:19, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Please don't go. You're a great contributer. Take a vacation if you must, but please don't go. Wikipedia needs you... --Neutrality 21:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I just found out. What all the others have said - you'll be one hell of a loss. I hope you'll reconsider in time, but if you must, best wishes. Ambivalenthysteria 10:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * As always when that happens, I'm late. But it is a pity. Lupo 13:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I feared this day would come, given the stress you've had here. As always, if there is anything I can do to help fight the biases you see here, I will gladly aid you as well as I can.  I hope someday you can return here -- if not as the active speaker on policy and fairness issues (though I hope you will), then at least as an editor who has many useful things to contribute.  Take care, Jwrosenzweig 23:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Come on, you're a Wikipediholic. I bet you are not gone but just editing as a sockpuppet!  :)  Anyway, come back!  I promise I'll fight with you when dickheads attack you!  BTW, I've got that article we worked on together (Mains power plug) made a featured article.    — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 23:30, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Secretlondon, I've just popped in (for the first time in quite a while) and found your resignation notice. You may be surprised to hear it, but I am disappointed.  Yes, you probably know that I am your political opposite and disagree with you about a lot of other matters as well, but I've always liked you as a person and am truly sorry to see you go.  I do hope that "Once a wikiholic, always a wikiholic" will ultimately bring you back here.  In the meantime, I, for one, will miss you greatly. David Cannon 12:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Secret (if I may call you that), you'll be definitely missed. --Palapala 13:35, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the mailing list
I am sending the following message to multiple users I'd strongly appreciate it if fair-minded users responded to the latest string of baseless personal attacks on the mailing list. Stan Shebs, Fred Bauder, and RickK started attacking me ferociously since it came up on the mailing list that one of the articles I'd written was featured, Russian constitutional crisis of 1993.

I know that I have made mistakes on Wikipedia; but those mistakes were not motivated by anything other than a passion to make Wikipedia into a serious, professional, quality encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for ungrammatical POV rubbish and fiction. This is making it harder and harder for me to be as efficacious as a user as I want to be. (The distorted impression of my work that these attacks engender are at the root of quite a large number of conflicts on Wikipedia.) That's why I feel that they should finally be thoroughly discredited. 172 05:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article in need of category...
Since you seem to share a passion for all that is odd about London's geography... would you care to suggest a category for this page? The writing 'aint all that', however I think the picture is quite nice: The Parkland Walk.

Article Licensing
If you ever come back.... I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the   template (or even    for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 50. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Multi-licensing), you could replace   with    -- Ram-Man 21:40, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Proposals for AMA Membership Meeting
As AMA Coordinator I am requesting that suggestions be placed on AMA Membership Meeting plans for our first membership meeting, to be held in the near future, (hopefully before any election occurs.) Since we have never had any kind of "official" meeting we need to discuss how this will occur (i.e. Wiki pages or IRC channel), how it will be structured (i.e. meeting agenda) and if there will be any "chair" to supervise the meeting and meeting "secretary" to write up minutes or keep some kind of official record of what transpires. Thanks in advance for your input and your continued work as an advocate. — ©   Alex756   20:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE
The first AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 23, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA (Miami/Montreal) Time, 11 AM Pacific NA (Los Angeles/Vancover)Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend. — ©   Alex756

Logs of first AMA Membership meeting
You may view the log of the first meeting on the following two pages: AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) (first hour) and AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) Pt II (remainder of meeting). If you are interested in commenting on the agenda of the meeting please do so here:AMA Meeting (suggested topics).

OFFICIAL SECOND MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

 * "The second AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 30 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA Time, 11 AM Pacific NA Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend."

The coordinator is requesting that members submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:

 * How many individuals did you help as an advocate
 * What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
 * Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
 * How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here: AMA Coordinator/January 2005 Survey

 * — ©   Alex756   23:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (The Coordinator)

OFFICIAL THIRD MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
The second AMA IRC Membership meetingwas held on Sunday January 30, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode.net IRC channel #AMA. Attending were Wally, Metasquares, Anthere, Sam Spade, and alex756 (coordinator). The log of the second meeting can be found here: AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).

"The third AMA Membership meeting will be held on Saturday February 12, 2005 at 17:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 12:00 Noon Eastern NA Time, 9 AM Pacific NA Time, and 6 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend.

Suggested Topics and Specific Proposals

 * MEMBERS PLEASE REVIEW

 * Suggestions for topics/proposals and agenda to be discussed at the next meeting are to be found at: AMA Meeting (suggested topics). All members are requested to make proposals there and respond to proposals on the talk page there before the beginning of the next meeting so discussion can be held forthwith concerning such proposals. Thank you, your Coordinator.

The coordinator is requesting that members who have not done so already submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:

 * How many individuals did you help as an advocate
 * What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
 * Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
 * How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here. — ©   Alex756   23:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Republics
Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".

With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dom von helsinki.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Dom von helsinki.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Secretlondon/Archive 4


text:
Journey into Fear (novel)

Journey into Fear is a 1940 spy thriller novel by Eric Ambler. Film adaptations were released in 1943 and 1975.

Plot summary
The novel is set at the beginning of the Second World War. Graham is a British armaments engineer, due to travel back from Turkey, where he has completed technical preparations for a project to improve the Turkish navy. His company's representative in Turkey, Kopeikin, takes him to an Istanbul nightclub, where he meets Josette, a Hungarian dancer. He sees a man in a crumpled suit, watching him.

Returning to his hotel room, Graham is shot at, but only his hand is grazed. Graham doesn't see the shooter's face. A doctor dresses Graham's hand, and Kopeikin takes him to see Colonel Haki, the head of the secret police. Haki features in The Mask of Dimitrios and returns in later Ambler stories as a general.

Haki informs Graham that German spies seek to assassinate him, because of the secrets in Graham's head which he hasn't put to paper. A weaker Turkish navy would help Germany's position in the war. Haki has already prevented an earlier attempt on Graham's life. Graham identifies the man in the crumpled suit from a photograph, and Haki reveals this is Banat, a Romanian hired killer. Haki insists that Graham travel home by a ship, on which he has vetted all the passengers.

Kopeikin gives Graham a revolver. On board the ship, Graham is surprised to meet Josette, and her Spanish partner/pimp José. Also on board is an elderly German archaeologist Haller and his wife; a Turkish tobacco dealer Kuvetli; a French couple the Mathises; and an Italian lady with her son.

The ship docks in Athens and Graham goes ashore for sightseeing. When he returns, he is horrified to find the ship has taken aboard another passenger, who he recognises as Banat. Banat is pretending to be a Greek. The ship's purser refuses to put Graham ashore, thinking him mad. Returning to his cabin, he finds his revolver has been stolen.

Graham searches Banat's room for his weapon, but doesn't find it. Haller reveals himself to be Moeller, a German spymaster. He proposes to spare Graham's life if Graham agrees to be held under armed guard for six weeks. Kuvetli reveals himself to be a Turkish agent. Kuvetli intends to leave the ship by pilot boat before the ship docks, to arrange for Graham to be escorted off the boat away from the German killers. However, Graham later finds Kuvetli murdered. Graham finds out that Mathis has a revolver, which he borrows.

When the ship docks, Graham is escorted by Moeller and Banat to their car. They drive along a country road and reveal their intention to murder Graham there. Graham uses Mathis' revolver to shoot Banat dead, then jumps out of the car and shoots its fuel tank, causing an explosion which kills its remaining occupants.

The Turkish consul puts Graham on a train across the border. He is reunited with Josette, José, and the Mathises. He returns the revolver to Mathis.

Analysis
As common in Ambler's books, the protagonist is not a professional spy, and is clearly out of his depth. Indeed, the chief Nazi treats him with open contempt, which for much of the book seems amply justified. Yet ultimately the German professional pays dearly for underestimating this amateur — another plot element which was to be repeated in later Ambler books. The book came to be regarded as a classic among spy thrillers, setting out what became some of the genre's basic conventions and immensely influencing later works including the James Bond series.

In fact, Ian Fleming's From Russia With Love shares many plot elements with "Journey into Fear". In both books, the protagonist sets out on several days of a journey westwards from Istanbul, during which his life would be in dire danger at every moment; in both there is a Turkish ally who was supposed to guard the protagonist's back but who gets murdered, leaving the protagonist completely exposed; and in both the protagonist is captured by his foes, comes very close to being summarily killed, and is only able to survive and turn the tables by a desperate last-minute improvisation. Though James Bond, unlike Ambler's Graham, is an experienced professional spy, he walks into the trap just as naively as the amateur Graham.

Part of the book's lasting charm is its capturing the atmosphere and mindset of the "Phony War" phase during which it was written: France is standing strong and nobody predicts the fall of France within a few months; the Italians are strictly neutral and there is no suggestion that they are about to ally with Germany against Britain; and so on. From the book it seems that Ambler—like many Britons at the time of writing—expected the war to be more or less a replay of the First World War.

Turkey, neutral for most of the Second World War, was a potential important participant. Both Britain and Germany spent considerable effort in trying to get Turkey to join the war on their side - or, failing that, at least ensure it does not join the other side. Thus, though the plot of Ambler's book is fictional, it is set against a very concrete and real background - and at the time of writing, no one could have known for certain what Turkey's part in the war would be.

According to Norman Stone, Amber's early novels are "halfway between Buchan and Bond, and the difference is the cinema." Thrillers had to be fast-paced to compete with films. Ambler himself had worked on many films. Stone praised Amber's research on Turkey and Istanbul, and suggested the Orson Welles film adaptation was made as part of a propaganda campaign to encourage Turkey to give up its neutrality in World War 2.

Adaptations
A 1943 film adaptation starred Joseph Cotten, with Orson Welles acting and producing.

A television adaptation was produced in 1966, starring Jeffrey Hunter as Graham.

Another film adaptation was made in 1975, Journey Into Fear, directed by Daniel Mann and starring Sam Waterston and Vincent Price. The film was the first major Hollywood production to be filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. In 2001, a Vancouver-based artist, Stan Douglas, remade the movie as a film installation with a recombinant soundtrack.

title: Journey into Fear (novel)


text:
User:Bebesundrop

Hi :)

title: User:Bebesundrop


text:
Talk:Filipino psychology

Wikipedia vs WikiPilipinas
Dudes, this article is better suited for WikiPilipinas. TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Filipino traits

 * Bahalana
 * Filipino time
 * Hospitality
 * Penitencia
 * Matriarichal

 * Unfortunately, this article is not a mere listing of Filipino traits. The traits that you saw here are part of a psychometric study by Virgilio Enriquez, Annadaisy Carlota, and Angeles Guanzon that determined their influence on Filipino daily living. -- User:Matthewprc

Filipino superstitions
I would like to move Philippine psychology to Filipino superstitions--Jondel 02:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

filipino values
characteristics 1.palabra de honor-a person with one word 2.hospitality-warm acceptance to our visitors 3.crab mentality-pushing each other way down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.172.170 (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"actually" => "etymologically"?
5 or 6 words are explained as "actually" meaning something different from their simple translation. Would it be more precise to say in such cases that "the word A, usually translated as B, is etymologically related to the concept C"? Otherwise you open a philosophical can of worms about meaning, translation, etc. Wegesrand (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Conformity and religion

 *  Filipinos value conformity because unlike non-Asian countries, its culture is predominantly Christian

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Should it be deleted? Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Evaluation of this article
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

When examining the article, there was an abundant amount of information present; however, in terms of citing every fact directly throughout the sections, there wasn't a reference superscripted within the text. There was however a list of references as a footnote, as needed.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is constructed in a neutral setting. It states facts and contains no bias. There was no sign of any kind of opinion throughout the article. The article basically gives straightforward definitions and explanations of certain Filipino psychological constructs and the history behind them. Miaelmore (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, many details in the article are irrelevant (and even misleading) to Filipino Psychology. There are some sections that are even just plain wrong. Psycho-medical section, for example, states that: "Filipino psychomedicine, or sikomedikal na sikolohiya in Filipino, is the application of basic psychology to native healing practices loosely considered as 'medicine'.". Psychomedicine is by no means an application of psychology. Currently trying to overhaul the article. I already edited the entire history section since it was just a list of dates, many of which are irrelevant to the actual movement that is Filipino Psychology. (User:UninnocentBystander) 09:07, 25 October 2018

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Filipino psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621002336/http://journaloffilipinostudies.csueastbay.edu/html/washington.html to http://journaloffilipinostudies.csueastbay.edu/html/washington.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Filipino psychology


text:
Talk:ExoMars

Launch vehicle
Latest ESA info suggest launch in 2013 by Ariane 5. I am looking for a clear reference on this.
 * The latest info I know, was on space.com couple of weeks ago and claimed ExoMars to fly in 2011 on a Soyuz-2b rocket from Kourou. Do you have a source for the 2013 launch info? --Bricktop 08:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Should be clearer either at IAC congress in Fukuoka or at the ESA Ministerial Conference in November in Berlin.Hektor 11:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * At IAC in Fukuoka they said 2011 with a considerably smaller rover than originally intended. But there will be a fixed station as well. They switch from twice as big as MER to somewhat smaller than MER. And launcher is Soyuz.Hektor 12:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * A Russian vehicle from Guayana? Has this been done before?MadMaxDog 03:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 * As of October 2009, there are 2 conflicting reports on the launch vehicle to be used: Russia's 'Proton' rocket and NASA's Atlas V rocket. Lets include both and let the dust settle till the ESA makes an official anouncement. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

 * The deal was signed today for 2 Atlas rockets:--BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Roscosmos accepted invitation to join the project. Proton will be given in exchange of full right membership. Final decision will be given by two inspection groups on 19 december 2011 in Moscow on meeting of NASA, ESA and FCA. One group should answer the question whatever Proton can be technically used for the project. Second is thinking on Russian participation in scientific part of the project. Elk Salmon (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I am glad it will become a more international project. It sounds like there is an understanding to colaborate, I suggest to wait until a collaboration is signed. Alternatively, update the article stating that negociations with Roscosmos are ongoing. Cheers,  BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 * According to news decision postponed till February. But it said there are also talks about joint Lunar, Venus and Ganymede missions. Elk Salmon (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 * The info via ESA and NASA is not existing even people who should know do not talk, so before February we will have nothing. The vibration levels (directly depending on the launcher) have been changed and changed and will be changed again. --Stone (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 * There will be another significant change. What I hear we have to rewrite the article once again.--Stone (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Yep. The Russians are comming and NASA is steping down. . BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 * TAS-I is back to a 300kg rover design and we have to deal with the decrease in science payload.--Stone (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Self-reminder to include this report when we re-write this article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 * And this? --Stone (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Single rover proposal
In 7 April 2011 it was anounced that ESA and NASA are now considering to build only one rover for the 2018 launch. They would omit the MAX-C rover and the new ExoMars rover would be larger than the original plans. I added this update in the "history" section but am not sure if to modify the article now in a more comprehensive manner, or if we should wait for more info to be released. What are your thoughts on this? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard a talk by Albert Haldemann about the future of ExoMars and Max-C. --Stone (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC) The only possibility to avoid a MSL landing system re design is a one rover concept. So to save money this is the only way they found they can go.--21:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I placed the 'outdated' tag as the MAX-C rover proposal was cancelled and the ExoMars construction has been halted. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 * My experience is exactly what is written in the news. TAS-I has stopped the work until a decision in May. The only positive thing is that NASA has no chance to cancel Mars Sample Return mission package. The Decadal Survey makes it clear that sample return is the most important goal of NASA planetary missions. Let's wait for a decision in May.--Stone (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 * ESA Cleared To Restart Work on 2016 Mars Mission (May 28, 2011) Still looks like a single-rover mission. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

 * They work on it. The meeting 26 May went OK and they now study for a concept. First drafts may be shown at the next MEPAG meeting in Lisbon mid of this month. A decision might have to wait till the next ESA NASA meeting in late September. So lets wait another two weeks.--19:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Update from Aviation Week. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the article
As per my comments over on the Trace Gas Orbiter talk page, the format of this article began just describing the Exomars lander/rover as it was first proposed. Since then the Exomars program has been expanded to two pre-MSR missions designed to characterise possible exobiology/habitats. This article has tried to keep up with that by extending coverage to the whole programme but this means that focus on the rover is now diminished and as I said it seems a bit schizophrenic. Given that each mission, TGO and the rover, are both likely to warrant a full article in their own right it would make sense to split this one into an "Exomars pragramme" and "Exomars rover". ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I am in favor. Go for it and I will assist you. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...OK I'll do it and you guys mop up ;-)  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice....I spent all mornig creating the Exomars lander article and it was immediately deleted. I'm out. Good luck. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Russia's partnership?
Even if NASA has fallen out from ExoMars, there's a slight possibility that Russia doesn't bother participating, or simply reject. It may be possible that the talks between Russian and ESA might go on for some time, but if not forever. However, there is a big chance that Russia may take up. Is it right or not? 115.133.216.94 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

ESA-Roscosmos update
I just updated the article on the new proposed partnership, and deleted/moved some outdated information. I am sure I may have done some mistakes so please feel free to review and correct my edits - and grammar. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thursday ESA Program board granted money for 2016 and the Russians want to sign an agreement for a launcher and all the American instruments. Страховка от «Фобос-грунта» полетит на Марс--Stone (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Looks like ESA formally invited the Russians, and the Russians are stating their conditions for partnership. I'll make the update; thx! BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Working groups have approved membership in the project. An agreement should be signed till end of the year. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Power
This page states that Roscosmos may provide "radioactive heat generators" for both the EDM and the rover. This may dramatically increase the duration -and scientific return- of the mission. However, I'd like to wait for more sources to confirm this before its inclusion in the article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Radioisotope heater unit showed up in some of the first drawings of the rover before 2007. This was never dropped and the place close to the RHU was always a horror for the engineers trying to participate the heat of the electronics. Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM)was planed with a life time of days to reduce costs. This was clearly stated on a meeting in Frascati Italy. Most of the scientists argued against it but the simple statement that we have to find the money for that by cutting back major parts of science. If the instruments and the ground control is done by the Russians this does not cost ESA anything they are likely to drop the requirement of an early death of the EDM. A RHU in the lander and some solar arrays might give a few years of meteorologic data.--Stone (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proton rocket type?
As of this moment, we don't know what Proton rocket is going to launch both ExoMars missions, since Roscosmos reached an agreement with ESA for their collaboration. I think Proton-M is the best, given that Proton-K made its last flight last March. From the NASASpaceFlight.com forums: Roscosmos' part in the ExoMars program. I felt that editors may add Proton-M into the article, these must be cited using verifiable, reliable third party sources. See Identifying reliable sources and Verifiability. Starkiller88 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Your block was lifted 5 seconds ago and you are back at it?! For the nth time: in Wikipedia it matters NOTHING what you speculate (WP:SPECULATION). When Roscosmos anounces the specific Proton rocket model to be used, then it will be included and sourced here. And please respect the fact that the talk pages are WP:NOTFORUMS at your disposal to publish your own thoughts and analyses.  You know this, anything else is a continuation of your trolling. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 * No. I'm not back at it, given that you praised me at the talk page of the Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment article for adding "something coherent". I am not introducing speculations as I know this talk page is not a forum, and I am not continuing my trolling further. I have to leave this information about the specific Proton rocket out to be used until the time Roscosmos announces it. –Starkiller88 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Actually, despite his track record, he is right this time. As things stand if it is definitely going on a Proton, it will be a Proton-M because that is the only Proton configuration flying. There are also a couple of references to it being on a Proton-M, and some ESA sources say "Ariane 5 or Proton-M" (so coupled with a source confirming that the downselect to Proton has been made, I don't think that would be too far a leap to make without entering the realm of synthesis). -- W.  D.   Graham  16:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

RTG removal from the 2016 static lander
Just a heads-up that Jonathan Amos, one of the BBC Science Correspondents, has just tweeted that the 2016 lander won't now have a Russian-supplied RTG. I suspect that given it was planned as part of a barter then there'll likely be other changes elsewhere. We'll need a citable source on this which will probably come soon. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * RHU or RTG? --Stone (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The lander was planned to have both RTGs and RHUs, see here, the plan being for it to power the lander for at least a year. Jonathan specifically states the RTG, but I suspect that means the RHUs are unnecessary too with the short mission scenario. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The exact payload and structure is still not fixed, this will take some more months. --Stone (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

news

 * ExoMars' Prospects Improve with Italian Pledge Wed, 11 July, 2012
 * NASA envisions lending technical advisors to ExoMars July 10, 2012

--Stone (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I hope they publish the out come of the payload re-arrangement last week in Paris by PB-HME soon. --Stone (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I have the feeling that IF ExoMars doesn't get cancelled, the final word on the payload will be in November after the ESA determines if it could cough up the cash. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * There was a final (as final as ExoMars decisions are) word on the payload, but I am not allowed to disclose it. So let's wait.--Stone (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 * ExoMars: ESA and Roscosmos set for Mars missions They signed it! It took them 4 months, but now they signed it! --Stone (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 * NASA will also deliver important contributions to ExoMars, including the Electra UHF radio package for TGO, and Mars Proximity Link telecom and engineering support to EDM.
 * It will be interesting to see landing concept NASA is advicing. Airbags? retrorockets? skycrane-like system? I reckon it depends on mass of the rover; has it been settled at 300kg? Seems heavy for an airbag system.  -BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The EDM is the Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module, to be delivered to Mars by TGO, not the rover landing system. The EDM will use powered descent ("retrorockets").  Russia will be responsible for the rover landing, so it's doubtful the US will provide much assistance for that. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I thought that was advice for the rover's landing system. To be retrorockets too? CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 * The EDM will be small and ESA will be able to produce something, but the presented concepts for the rover looked very early stage. Retrorockets looking like what Phoenix looked like was what is in the presentations at the ESWT5. Best was that there is absolutely no parachute available for the mass of the rover plus landing platform.--Stone (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

After meeting Don McCoy and the funding agencies for the Analytical Instruments the situation looks strange.--Stone (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Please tell us they don't plan to only use retrorockets all the way down. Any links to the latest plans? BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

 * The latest Plans are all in the ESWT5 document package, but they look like there should be a large parachute and in the end retrorockets. The only point is that there is no parachute of the size we need. The funding of the instruments is of more concern for me. The whole story needs a top-level decision soon. After years not having a top-level decision this looks complicated to me.--Stone (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Help needed on current plans for Mars sample return missions
The current situation of future plans for Mars sample return missions (such as Mars sample return mission, Mars Exploration Joint Initiative, Aurora programme, Mars-Grunt and ExoMars) needs to be updated, especially what current plans on contributions and time-tables are from NASA, ESA and Roskomos. If anybody can contribute with references, it would be most welcome. Tony Mach (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Exomars Science Working Team Meeting 6 is over
ESWT6 was held in Moscow Feb 2014 and I hope somebody will publish more info on the Russian instruments. --Stone (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bias in the article
I can't help but notice that this article contains bias and subjective political agenda against Russia/Roscosmos, namely:

Critics have stated that while Russian expertise may be sufficient to provide a launch vehicle, it does not currently extend to the critical requirement of a landing system for Mars".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.14.42 (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Russian Landing piece: Country in place of the company. Only 1 party of many project participants has criticism in the article. Criticism comes from mass media outlets, not from scientific sources, 2 out of 3 references are from the same newspaper which less than 2 months between publications. The edit wall rolled back multiple time, once with the following reason - "it is not politics, but technology and statistics failures/successes". What kind of statistics on failures are we talking about here for the mars landing modules? In my opinion the whole sentence is a pure bias with little information: "
 * Current status piece: "After experiencing a series of mishaps in the last few years,[37][38] there are rising concerns about the Proton's reliability to fly the two-part ExoMars mission, as it now has a failure launch rate of 10%, or four failures out of 34 launches.[39][40] The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) launched on 14 March 2016 (Livestream began at 08:30 GMT [03:30 AM EDT]).[1][41][42]". The sentence has connotations like "rising", "it now has" which stipulates increasing rate of failures. Also, Proton's reliability article which is referenced in the block mentions 10 failures, over 100 launches, not 4 out of 34 which implies less successful launches. The fact that the first phase of the project was launched successfully goes after the critical text and is conveyed in an unclear/generic sentence: "The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) launched on 14 March 2016".
 * It's not a political bias. In fact both ESA and Roscosmos are lack of experience of Mars EDL. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From the 8 Soviet landers (including Phobos-Grunt), one succeeded. That is an 87.5% failure rate. Just facts, not an opinion. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Italy
There is an IP user that repeatedly entered that this is an Italian mission partnered with ESA and Roscosmos. Although for this project (ExoMars), Italy is the main investor/builder within ESA, it is not an "Italian" project, not an Italian lander and not an Italian rover. Perhaps we can clarify in the article that Italy has provided a large percentage of the funding. Comments? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The Schiaparelli lander crashed.
Several space agencies confirmed that the Schiaparelli lander crashed, yet the article's authors can only bring themselves to say "most likely crashed", and "what appears to be the lander crash site." What fragile egos Euros and Russians have. It crashed. Get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.21.210 (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Parachute upgrades for 2022 launch
Parachute upgrades for 2022 launch UK-built rover landing on Martian surface moves one giant fall closer Packed in toriodal case. - UK's Vorticity Ltd involved in parachute testing. - Rod57 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:ExoMars


text:
ID3 algorithm

In decision tree learning, ID3 (Iterative Dichotomiser 3) is an algorithm invented by Ross Quinlan used to generate a decision tree from a dataset. ID3 is the precursor to the C4.5 algorithm, and is typically used in the machine learning and natural language processing domains.

Algorithm
The ID3 algorithm begins with the original set $$S$$ as the root node. On each iteration of the algorithm, it iterates through every unused attribute of the set $$S$$ and calculates the entropy $$\Eta{(S)}$$ or the information gain $$IG(S)$$ of that attribute. It then selects the attribute which has the smallest entropy (or largest information gain) value. The set $$S$$ is then split or partitioned by the selected attribute to produce subsets of the data. (For example, a node can be split into child nodes based upon the subsets of the population whose ages are less than 50, between 50 and 100, and greater than 100.) The algorithm continues to recurse on each subset, considering only attributes never selected before.

Recursion on a subset may stop in one of these cases:

 * every element in the subset belongs to the same class; in which case the node is turned into a leaf node and labelled with the class of the examples.
 * there are no more attributes to be selected, but the examples still do not belong to the same class. In this case, the node is made a leaf node and labelled with the most common class of the examples in the subset.
 * there are no examples in the subset, which happens when no example in the parent set was found to match a specific value of the selected attribute. An example could be the absence of a person among the population with age over 100 years. Then a leaf node is created and labelled with the most common class of the examples in the parent node's set.

Throughout the algorithm, the decision tree is constructed with each non-terminal node (internal node) representing the selected attribute on which the data was split, and terminal nodes (leaf nodes) representing the class label of the final subset of this branch.

Summary

 * 1) Calculate the entropy of every attribute $$a$$ of the data set $$S$$.
 * 2) Partition ("split") the set $$S$$ into subsets using the attribute for which the resulting entropy after splitting is minimized; or, equivalently, information gain is maximum.
 * 3) Make a decision tree node containing that attribute.
 * 4) Recurse on subsets using the remaining attributes.

Properties
ID3 does not guarantee an optimal solution. It can converge upon local optima. It uses a greedy strategy by selecting the locally best attribute to split the dataset on each iteration. The algorithm's optimality can be improved by using backtracking during the search for the optimal decision tree at the cost of possibly taking longer.

ID3 can overfit the training data. To avoid overfitting, smaller decision trees should be preferred over larger ones. This algorithm usually produces small trees, but it does not always produce the smallest possible decision tree.

ID3 is harder to use on continuous data than on factored data (factored data has a discrete number of possible values, thus reducing the possible branch points). If the values of any given attribute are continuous, then there are many more places to split the data on this attribute, and searching for the best value to split by can be time-consuming.

Usage
The ID3 algorithm is used by training on a data set $$S$$ to produce a decision tree which is stored in memory. At runtime, this decision tree is used to classify new test cases (feature vectors) by traversing the decision tree using the features of the datum to arrive at a leaf node.

Entropy
Entropy $$\Eta{(S)}$$ is a measure of the amount of uncertainty in the (data) set $$S$$ (i.e. entropy characterizes the (data) set $$S$$).

 * $$ \Eta{(S)} = \sum_{x \in X}{-p(x) \log_{2}p(x)} $$

Where,
 * $$S$$ – The current dataset for which entropy is being calculated
 * This changes at each step of the ID3 algorithm, either to a subset of the previous set in the case of splitting on an attribute or to a "sibling" partition of the parent in case the recursion terminated previously.
 * $$X$$ – The set of classes in $$S$$
 * $$p(x)$$ – The proportion of the number of elements in class $$x$$ to the number of elements in set $$S$$

When $$\Eta{(S)} = 0$$, the set $$S$$ is perfectly classified (i.e. all elements in $$S$$ are of the same class).

In ID3, entropy is calculated for each remaining attribute. The attribute with the smallest entropy is used to split the set $$S$$ on this iteration. Entropy in information theory measures how much information is expected to be gained upon measuring a random variable; as such, it can also be used to quantify the amount to which the distribution of the quantity's values is unknown. A constant quantity has zero entropy, as its distribution is perfectly known. In contrast, a uniformly distributed random variable (discretely or continuously uniform) maximizes entropy. Therefore, the greater the entropy at a node, the less information is known about the classification of data at this stage of the tree; and therefore, the greater the potential to improve the classification here.

As such, ID3 is a greedy heuristic performing a best-first search for locally optimal entropy values. Its accuracy can be improved by preprocessing the data.

Information gain
Information gain $$IG(A)$$ is the measure of the difference in entropy from before to after the set $$S$$ is split on an attribute $$A$$. In other words, how much uncertainty in $$S$$ was reduced after splitting set $$S$$ on attribute $$A$$.

 * $$ IG(S, A) = \Eta{(S)} - \sum_{t \in T} p(t)\Eta{(t)}

= \Eta{(S)} - \Eta{(S|A)}. $$

Where,
 * $$\Eta(S)$$ – Entropy of set $$S$$
 * $$T$$ – The subsets created from splitting set $$S$$ by attribute $$A$$ such that $$S = \bigcup_{t \in T} t$$
 * $$p(t)$$ – The proportion of the number of elements in $$t$$ to the number of elements in set $$S$$
 * $$\Eta(t)$$ – Entropy of subset $$t$$

In ID3, information gain can be calculated (instead of entropy) for each remaining attribute. The attribute with the largest information gain is used to split the set $$S$$ on this iteration.

title: ID3 algorithm


text:
Permanent Settlement

The Permanent Settlement, also known as the Permanent Settlement of Bengal, was an agreement between the East India Company and landlords of Bengal to fix revenues to be raised from land that had far-reaching consequences for both agricultural methods and productivity in the entire British Empire and the political realities of the Indian countryside. It was concluded in 1793 by the Company administration headed by Charles, Earl Cornwallis. It formed one part of a larger body of legislation, known as the Cornwallis Code. The Cornwallis Code of 1793 divided the East India Company's service personnel into three branches: revenue, judicial, and commercial. Revenues were collected by zamindars, native Indians who were treated as landowners. This division created an Indian landed class that supported British authority.

The Permanent Settlement was introduced first in Bengal and Bihar and later in Varanasi and also the south district of Madras. The system eventually spread all over northern India by a series of regulations dated 1 May 1793. These regulations remained in place until the Charter Act of 1833. The other two systems prevalent in India were the Ryotwari System and the Mahalwari System.

Many argue that the settlement and its outcome had several shortcomings when compared with its initial goals of increasing tax revenue, creating a Western-European style land market in Bengal, and encouraging investment in land and agriculture, thereby creating the conditions for long-term economic growth for both the company and region's inhabitants. Firstly, the policy of fixing the rate of expected tax revenue for the foreseeable future meant that the income of the company from taxation actually decreased in the long-term because revenues remained fixed while expenses increased over time. Meanwhile, the condition of the Bengali peasantry became increasingly pitiable, with famines becoming a regular occurrence as landlords (who risked immediate loss of their land if they failed to deliver the expected amount from taxation) sought to guarantee revenue by coercing the local agriculturalists to cultivate cash crops such as cotton, indigo, and jute, while long-term private investment by the zamindars in agricultural infrastructure failed to materialise.

Background
Earlier zamindars in Bengal, Bihar and Odisha had been functionaries who held the right to collect revenue on behalf of the Mughal emperor and his representative, the diwan, in Bengal. The diwan supervised the zamindars to ensure they were neither lax nor overly stringent. When the East India Company was awarded the diwani or overlordship of Bengal by the empire following the Battle of Buxar in 1764, it found itself short of trained administrators, especially those familiar with local custom and law. As a result, landholders were unsupervised or reported to corrupt and indolent officials. The result was that revenues were extracted without regard for future income or local welfare.

Following the devastating famine of 1770, which was partially caused by this shortsightedness, Company officials in Calcutta better understood the importance of oversight of revenue officials. Warren Hastings, then governor-general, introduced a system of five-yearly inspections and temporary tax farmers. They did not want to take direct control of local administration in villages for several reasons, one being that the Company did not want to upset those who had traditionally enjoyed power and prestige in rural Bengal.

The Company failed to consider the question of incentivisation. Many appointed tax farmers absconded with as much revenue as they could during the time period between inspections. The British Parliament took note of the disastrous consequences of the system, and in 1784, British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger directed the Calcutta administration to alter it immediately. In 1786 Charles Cornwallis was sent out to India to reform the company's practices.

In 1786, the East India Company Court of Directors first proposed a permanent settlement for Bengal, changing the policy then being followed by Calcutta, which was attempting to increase taxation of zamindars. Between 1786 and 1790, the new Governor-General Lord Cornwallis and Sir John Shore (later Governor-General) entered a heated debate over whether or not to introduce a permanent settlement with the zamindars. Shore argued that the native zamindars would not trust the permanent settlement to be permanent and that it would take time before they realised it was genuine.

The main aim of the Permanent Settlement was to resolve the problem of agrarian crisis and distress that had resulted in lower agricultural output. The British officials thought that investment in agriculture, trade, and the resources of the revenue of the state could be increased by agriculture. To permanently fix the revenue and secure property rights, the system which came to be known as the 'Permanent Settlement' was adopted. The British thought that once the revenue demands of the state were permanently set, there would be a regular flow of tax income. Furthermore, landholders would invest in their agricultural land as the producer can keep surpluses in excess of the fixed tax. The British officials thought that such a process would lead to the emergence of yeomen class of farmers and rich landowners who would invest their capital to generate further surpluses. This new emergent class would be loyal to the British. The policy failed to identify individuals who were willing to contract to pay fixed revenue perpetually and to invest in the improvement of agriculture. After much discussion and disagreement between the officials, the Permanent Settlement was made with the existing rajas and taluqdars of Bengal who were now classified as zamindars. They had to pay fixed revenue in perpetuity. Thus, zamindars were not the landowners but rather revenue collector agents of the state. Cornwallis believed that they would immediately accept it and so begin investing in improving their land. In 1790, the Court of Directors issued a ten-year (decennial) settlement to the zamindars, which was made permanent in 1793.

By the Permanent Settlement Act of 1793, their right to keep armed forces was removed. They remained just the tax collectors of the land. There were considerably weakened as they were now banned from holding any court, as it was brought under the supervision of a collector appointed by the company. British officials believed that investing in the land would improve the economy. People also killed some British officials.

In 1819, the Governor-general of India, Francis Rawdon-Hastings, observed that "[the Permanent Settlement,] fashioned with great care and deliberation has....subjected almost the whole of the lower classes throughout these provinces to most grievous oppression." In 1829, Lord Bentinck, however, noted that the scheme did succeed in one important respect, saying, "If, however, security was wanting against extensive popular tumult or revolution, I should say that the Permanent Settlement....has this great advantage at least, of having created a vast body of rich landed proprietors deeply interested in the continuance of the British Dominion and having complete command over the mass of the people."

Overview
The question of incentivisation now being understood to be central, the security of tenure of landlords was guaranteed. In short, the former landholders and revenue intermediaries were granted proprietorial rights (effective ownership) to the land they held. Smallholders were no longer permitted to sell their land, but they could not be expropriated by their new landlords.

Incentivisation of zamindars was intended to encourage improvements of the land, such as drainage, irrigation and the construction of roads and bridges; such infrastructure had been insufficient through much of Bengal. With a fixed land tax, zamindars could securely invest in increasing their income without any fear of having the increase taxed away by the company. Cornwallis made the motivation quite clear by declaring that "when the demand of government is fixed, an opportunity is afforded to the landholder of increasing his profits, by the improvement of his lands". The British had in mind "improving landlords" in their own country, such as Coke of Norfolk.

The Court of Directors also hoped to guarantee the company's income, which was constantly plagued by defaulting zamindars who fell into arrears, making it impossible for them to budget their spending accurately.

The immediate consequence of the Permanent Settlement was both very sudden and dramatic, one that nobody had apparently foreseen. By ensuring that zamindars' lands were held in perpetuity and with a fixed tax burden, they became desirable commodities. In addition, the government tax demand was inflexible, and the British East India Company's collectors refused to make allowances for times of drought, flood or other natural disaster. The tax demand was higher than that in England at the time. As a result, many zamindars immediately fell into arrears.

The company's policy of auction of any zamindari lands deemed to be in arrears created a market for land that previously did not exist. Many of the new purchasers of this land were Indian officials within the East India Company's government. The bureaucrats were ideally placed to purchase lands which they knew to be underassessed and therefore profitable. In addition, their position as officials gave them opportunity to acquire the wealth necessary to purchase land. They could also manipulate the system to bring to sale land that they specifically wanted.

Historian Bernard S. Cohn and others have argued that the Permanent Settlement led to a commercialisation of land that previously did not exist in Bengal and, as a consequence, it led to a change in the social background of the ruling class from "lineages and local chiefs" to "under civil servants and their descendants, and to merchants and bankers". The new landlords were different in their outlook; "often they were absentee landlords who managed their land through managers and who had little attachment to their land".

Influence
The Company hoped that the Zamindar class would not only be a revenue-generating instrument but also serve as intermediaries for the more political aspects of their rule, preserving local custom and protecting rural life from the possibly rapacious influences of its own representatives. However, it worked both ways, as zamindars became a naturally conservative interest group. Once British policy in the mid-19th century changed to one of reform and intervention in custom, the zamindars were vocal in their opposition. The Permanent Settlement had the features that state demand was fixed at 89% of the rent and 11% was to be retained by the zamindar. The state demand could not be increased but payment should be made on the due date, before sunset, so it was also known as the 'Sunset Law'. Failure to pay led to the sale of land to the highest bidder.

While the worst of the tax-farming excesses were countered by the introduction of the Settlement, the use of land was not part of the agreement. There was a tendency of Company officials and Indian landlords to force their tenants into plantation-style farming of cash crops like indigo and cotton rather than rice and wheat. That was a cause of many of the worst famines of the nineteenth century.

Once the salient features of the Permanent Settlement were reproduced all over India, and indeed elsewhere in the Empire, including Kenya, the political structure was altered forever. The landlord class held much greater power than they had under the Mughals, who subjected them to oversight by a trained bureaucracy with the power to attenuate their tenure. The power of the landlord caste/class over smallholders was not diluted in India until the first efforts towards land reform in the 1950s, still incomplete everywhere except West Bengal.

In Pakistan, where land reform was never carried out, elections in rural areas still suffer from a tendency towards oligarchy, reflecting the concentration of influence in the hands of zamindar families. This is because once Pakistan became separated from India, and the two began to fight over Kashmir, the goal of the government was revenue extraction to fund the military. As a result, the central leadership skewed the relationship between the elected and non-elected institutions of the state.

title: Permanent Settlement


text:
User talk:Garthrooster

New South Wales Waratahs
You might like to have a look at Neutral point of view before making edits like this. --Stormie 08:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Garthrooster


text:
Too Much Johnson (1938 film)

Too Much Johnson is a 1938 American silent comedy film written and directed by Orson Welles. An unfinished film component of a stage production, it was made three years before Welles directed Citizen Kane, but it was never publicly screened. It was shot to be integrated into Welles's Mercury Theatre stage presentation of William Gillette's 1894 comedy, but the film sequences could not be shown due to the absence of projection facilities at the venue, the Stony Creek Theatre in Connecticut. The resulting plot confusion reportedly contributed to the stage production's failure.

The film was believed to be lost, but in 2008 a print was discovered in a warehouse in Pordenone, Italy. The film premiered on October 9, 2013, at the Pordenone Silent Film Festival. In 2014, the work print and a modern edit of the film were made available online by the National Film Preservation Foundation.

Two previous films had been made of this play, a short film in 1900 and a feature-length Paramount film in 1919 starring Lois Wilson and Bryant Washburn. Both of these films are now lost.

Cast

 * Joseph Cotten as Augustus Billings
 * Virginia Nicolson as Lenore Faddish
 * Edgar Barrier as Leon Dathis
 * Arlene Francis as Mrs. Dathis
 * Ruth Ford as Mrs. Billings
 * Howard Smith as Joseph Johnson
 * Mary Wickes as Mrs. Battison
 * Eustace Wyatt as Faddish
 * Guy Kingsley as MacIntosh
 * George Duthie as Purser
 * John Houseman as Keystone Cop and Duelist
 * Herbert Drake as Keystone Cop

Production
The film was not intended to stand by itself, but was designed as the cinematic aspect of Welles's Mercury Theatre stage presentation of William Gillette's 1894 comedy about a New York playboy who flees from the violent husband of his mistress and borrows the identity of a plantation owner in Cuba who is expecting the arrival of a mail-order bride.

Welles planned to mix live action and film for this production. The film was designed to run 40 minutes, with 20 minutes devoted to the play's prologue and two 10-minute introductions for the second and third act. Welles planned to create a silent film in the tradition of the Mack Sennett slapstick comedies, in order to enhance the various chases, duels and comic conflicts of the Gillette play.

"The multi-media concept was a throwback to the early age of cinema when vaudeville shows were punctuated by quick cinematic vignettes," wrote Welles biographer Bret Wood. The alternation format stage-and-screen hybrid—scenes of live performance linked together by film segments—dates back to 1896.

Welles thought highly of Joseph Cotten as a comic actor, and cast him as the lead in the farce. Other Mercury Theatre actors included Ruth Ford, Arlene Francis, Howard Smith, Mary Wickes and Eustace Wyatt. Welles's wife, Virginia Nicolson, appeared in the film under her professional pseudonym Anna Stafford. Bit parts were given to Welles's Mercury Theatre producer John Houseman, assistant director John Berry, composer Marc Blitzstein, and Herbert Drake, the New York Herald Tribune drama reporter who became the Mercury Theatre's publicist and, later, vice president. Although writer Frank Brady reported that Welles gave himself a small role as a Keystone Cop, Welles is not seen in the film. Among the uncredited extras for a crowd sequence was a young Judy Holliday.

Harry Dunham, a newsreel and documentary cameraman who was an old friend of Paul Bowles, was the film's cinematographer. Location photography took place in New York City's Battery Park and Central Park. Additional shooting took place on a Hudson River day-trip excursion boat and at locations in Yonkers, New York, and Haverstraw, New York. Interior shots were set up at a studio in the Bronx, New York. For the Cuban plantation, Welles created a miniature structure next to a papier-mâché volcano, with store-bought tropical plants to suggest the exotic Caribbean flora.

Post-production and exhibition problems
Welles and his crew spent ten days shooting Too Much Johnson, which resulted in approximately 25,000 feet of film. He edited the footage on a Moviola in his suite at the St. Regis Hotel in New York City, and John Houseman later recalled visitors had to "wade knee-deep through a crackling sea of flammable [nitrate] film."

Welles was assisted by John Berry, who had been hired by the Mercury Theatre as an apprentice and extra for Caesar and worked with Welles on subsequent Mercury productions, including Too Much Johnson. Years later he recalled building the sets on a vacant lot in Yonkers, and organizing a crew that literally held them up against in the wind during filming.

"Orson had a wonderful time making the film," Berry said, reporting that Welles was so absorbed in the cutting that he took little note when the film caught fire in the projector. "What I remember, most remarkably, is me running with the projector in my hand, burning, trying to get out of the door into the goddamn hallway, and Houseman racing for the door at the same time … while Orson, with absolutely no concern whatsoever, was back inside, standing and looking at some piece of film in his hand, smoking his pipe.

During post-production, Welles ran into financial problems relating to his cast (who were not originally paid for the film shoot) and the film laboratory, which refused to deliver the processed film until it received payment. Welles also received an attorney's letter from Paramount Pictures informing him that the studio owned the film rights to Too Much Johnson, and that public presentation of his film would require payment to the studio.

Welles initially planned to present the stage-and-film mix of Too Much Johnson at the Stony Creek Theatre in Connecticut as a pre-Broadway trial run, but discovered that the theater's ceiling was too low to allow for film projection. The show opened on August 16, 1938, without the filmed sequences. Most modern sources report that audience and critical reaction to the show was poor and caused Welles to abandon the production, but a search of press coverage at the time indicates no negative published reports and no reviews from major critics. The Branford Review reported that interest in the stage production was strong as it began its second week.

Loss and rediscovery
Welles never completed editing the film component for Too Much Johnson and put the footage in storage. He rediscovered it three decades later at his home outside of Madrid, Spain. "I can't remember whether I had it all along and dug it out of the bottom of a trunk, or whether someone brought it to me, but there it was", he later recalled. "I screened it, and it was in perfect condition, with not a scratch on it, as though it had only been through a projector once or twice before. It had a fine quality." Welles, however, never allowed the footage to be seen publicly, stating the film would not make sense outside of the full context of the Gillette play. In August 1970, a fire broke out at Welles's villa and the only known complete print of Too Much Johnson was destroyed.

A copy was discovered in Italy in 2008, and on August 5, 2013, the George Eastman House museum of film and photography in the U.S. announced that it had completed a long process of restoration together with Cinemazero, the National Film Preservation Foundation, and laboratory experts in the U.S. and the Netherlands. Cinema Arts, a Pennsylvania film laboratory, performed most of the preservation work. "The next step was to begin the actual photo-chemical preservation", said Tony Delgrosso, Head of Preservation at George Eastman House. "For that we turned to a lab called Cinema Arts who are world famous for the quality of their black-and-white photo-chemical preservation and restoration."

Too Much Johnson premiered October 9, 2013, at the Pordenone Silent Film Festival. The film's North American premiere was held October 16, 2013, at George Eastman House's Dryden Theatre, and the film's New York City premiere took place on November 25, 2013, at the Directors Guild of America Theater.

On August 21, 2014, the complete 66-minute work print of the film was posted online by the National Film Preservation Foundation. An edited version running about 34 minutes including intertitles, with new music composed and performed by Michael Mortilla, was also made available. "If this edit is only a guess, it strives to be an educated one," stated the foundation, "informed by research into the unpublished play scripts left behind by Welles and the Mercury Theatre company."

On February 5, 2015, Too Much Johnson was screened and performed for the very first time as a complete stage performance at the Film Forum in New York City, in association with George Eastman House, as Welles originally intended. The filmed portions were shown as prologues to the play's three acts which were performed as a staged reading by the Film Forum Players. The staged reading was directed by Allen Lewis Rickman, who adapted the play from both the Welles and Gillette versions. It was produced by Bruce Goldstein. Steve Sterner composed and performed the soundtrack for the film. The footage was re-edited by William Hohauser to fit a coherent narrative structure in conjunction with the play. Sequences already edited by Welles were left intact.

Reception
Demand to see Too Much Johnson at its 2013 world premiere at the Pordenone Silent Film Festival warranted two additional showings. Reporting the "snaking queues outside the auditorium", The Guardian described the film as "a gleeful experiment in silent cinema pastiche": "And while it is a work print, not a finished film, Too Much Johnson offers breathlessly enjoyable viewing. Joseph Cotten makes a tremendous movie debut as the play's philandering lead, displaying unimagined guts and agility in a series of tumbles and leaps across Manhattan rooftops, pursued by a prancing, moustache-twirling Edgar Barrier. And Too Much Johnson is itself an affectionate romp through Keystone two-reelers, Harold Lloyd's stunt slapstick, European serials, Soviet montage and, notably, Welles's favoured steep expressionist-influenced camera angles."

Variety called the unedited footage "an unanticipated delight":

"There are moments of ultra-broad comedy — Arlene Francis, looking ravishing, hams it up with evident delight at the start — yet the outdoor footage, much of it shot in the Meatpacking District and further south, is a delightful spin on slapstick chase conventions, and a dashing Joseph Cotten, in Harold Lloyd mode, demonstrates a remarkable lack of vertigo along with physical grace. Genuinely funny rather than derivative, the film as seen, complete with multiple takes, feels fresh and spirited up until the last section, when scenes meant to take place in Cuba (but shot near the Hudson, with a few rented palm trees) lose a bit of steam before the amusing final shots."

Writing for Bright Lights Film Journal, film historian Joseph McBride categorizes Too Much Johnson as Welles's pre-Hollywood filmmaking experiment,

"a youthful tribute not only to the spirited tradition of exuberant low comedy but also to the past of the medium he was about to enter. Welles was always enamored of the past, though more, he said, of the mythical past we prefer to revere in fantasy than the actual messy past that was, e.g., “Merrie Old England” and “Camelot” rather than the real England of those days. He explores that theme in deeply personal ways in The Magnificent Ambersons and Chimes at Midnight, and Too Much Johnson is also reflective of his obsession with bygone times, cultural mores, and means of expression."

title: Too Much Johnson (1938 film)


text:
Peter White (broadcaster)

Peter White MBE (born 1947, Winchester) is a visually impaired British broadcast journalist and DJ.

Early life and career
White was born in Winchester, Hampshire. Blind since birth (as was his elder brother), he attended New College Worcester, which was then known as the Worcester College for the Blind. He was a regular presenter on BBC Radio Solent from the station's launch in 1971 until November 2006, when he was downsized.

He currently co-presents, for BBC Radio 4, You and Yours and since 1974 In Touch, a programme for blind and partially sighted people. He also regularly contributes to other science, news or educational programmes to talk about disabilities. He was the presenter of Channel 4's Same Difference (1987–1989) and Central Television's Link (1989–1991). He was made the BBC's Disability Affairs Correspondent in 1995. He was part of the reporting team for BBC News at the 2008 Beijing games. White wrote a column for The Guardian 'G2' magazine which appeared on 8 September 2006.

Charity work
On 13 March 2009 White participated in Radio 4's Stand Up With The Stars, a competition for Red Nose Day 2009 where well-known, serious presenters from Radio 4 (including Evan Davis, Libby Purves and Laurie Taylor), attempted to make and deliver a stand-up comedy routine, mentored by other well-known Radio 4 comedy presenters. White won after a vote from Radio 4 listeners. Much of his routine focused on his blindness and others' perceptions of blind people.

In February 2011, White took part in a 100 km trek across the Kaisut Desert in North Kenya for Comic Relief to raise awareness of Africans losing their sight to diseases like glaucoma. Despite painful blisters he finished the challenges, crossing the line first with actress Kara Tointon. The feat raised £1,375,037.

Awards and achievements

 * 1988: appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE)
 * 1999: published his autobiography, See It My Way
 * 2001: awarded Sony Speech Broadcaster of the Year 2001
 * 2002: awarded Viv Bradford Rose Bowl by Warwickshire Association for the Blind

On 17 November 2023 White was the guest for BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, where his choices included "Somebody Who Loves You" by Joan Armatrading, "Badge" by Cream and "Albatross" by Judy Collins.

title: Peter White (broadcaster)