text:
User talk:Zeimusu/chronicles

Hello Zeimusu, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to join the community. Drop us a note at New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. If you need editing help, visit How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Newcomers' Village pump. And of course, feel free to talk with me or ask questions on my talk page. Enjoy! --Alex S 02:00, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Categories
Yes, it's a new feature. The articles are grouped into categories. For details see Categorization the talk page, and the links on the page. All existing categories are listed here. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:35, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Before you get too involved, and because it seems to be VERY hard to fix misnamed categories, I thought I should warn you that you've misspelled "psychologists" (you left the h out). - Nunh-huh 04:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Glad to have spotted it. I won't even go near whether psychologists are scientists (to my mind, clinical psychologists are not, experimental psychologists are, but we'll have to see how well categories work before getting too worried about it). - Nunh-huh 04:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Novel vs romance
Just looking at your recent edit on the Novel article. It seems to me that a "romantic novel" is still a novel, and that one doesn't contrast a novel with a romance because a romance *is* a novel. Maybe it's just the phrasing, but it seems confusing. And although I know what you mean by the old romance writers, a "romance novel" these days tends to be a formulaic love story, so maybe even that needs to be rephrased. I didn't want to barge in and change it without checking with you what you had intended. Elf | Talk 16:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Got your response just as I was about to log out for the night. Watch out for saying that science fiction is "plot driven, shallow characterization, fantastic settings, and written in straighforward language." Most of what I read has strong characterization, might or might not have "fantastic" settings, uses language beautifully.  Try Orson Scott Card, Ursula K. LeGuin, for example. :-)  But the subcategory "space opera" might fit-- or the qualification "formulaic science fiction" (such as star trek novels, series with a dozen or more books, and so on... but then I'd get in trouble for wanting to lump those in, too :-) ).  Elf | Talk 05:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ndash
Strange, when I put in dash "-"(keyboard minus/hyphen), it gets replace by other editors with "–" (ndash, wihich does not respond to nowiki commands), now you edited Doolittle Raid the other way. So what is correct the wiki way? (I would think that hyphen would be more searchable). Any thoughts? Leonard G. 02:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the info; (this and your response is now on my page) Leonard G. 17:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * 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, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Logarithmic timeline
I've created Logarithmic timeline/New version, which takes into account some of the criticisms from the talk page and includes a introduction to the concept. I'd be grateful if you could comment on it, so I can see whether there's consensus or not for this to become the accepted version. Thanks. G Rutter 10:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You told me to contact you if I needed help...
I noticed that the page El Cid Has been maliciously changed, and I can't seem to figure out how to change it back to an older version, if you could do this, or tell me how to, I would be most appreciative. Thanks.

RE: I recieved your response and thank you for it, very very kind of you.

Greetings
Discussion of Roger Billing page is now at Talk:Roger E. Billings

Australian copyright
Thank for doing the research on Australian copyright! I've now made 2 new templates: AustraliaGov and PD-AustraliaGov. See what you think. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
Dear Zeimusu - thank you so much for the Barnstar - it was most welcome indeed - I had just lost a large amount of text I was trying to insert on the Yakuts and was very discouraged - only to discover a few minutes later that I had been awarded the Barnstar! Most kind of you - and I'm glad you have been appreciating my entries (though many of my entries are still unfinished and I always remain open to suggestions or corrections). You have really cheered me up tonight.

I should be leaving Vancouver, Canada on Monday for my home in Cooktown in far northern Queensland, Australia. I will, then, have access to my books and notes and look forward to contributing more to the grand project of the Wikipedia. However, there might be some delay as I have to finish editing my first book - an annotated translation of the Chapter on the Western Regions from the Hou Hanshu - which is due to be published in late (northern) summer or early fall. Cheers and thanks, John Hill.

Barnstar award
Zeimusu, you've been a star on the image sleuthing page. In particular, de-stubbing James Keir Baxter to make a good fair use claim was so far beyond the call of duty, I don't think the call of duty even saw it coming. Congrats! – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:42, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks \_^.^_/   — Zeimusu | Talk

Edit summary
Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 20:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OOTS
Hi there! After merging two articles, one shouldn't put one on VfD, but rather redirect it. This is done by editing the page and replace its content by #redirect name of other page. P.S. OOTS = cool. Yours, Radiant_* 13:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Your recording
Hi. You said you have recorded an article, but you can't upload it? If you put it somewhere up on the web and e-mail me, I'll download it and then upload it to Wikipedia for you. — Timwi 11:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, but my problem is that my broadband access is down at the moment so I can't upload large files easily, to here or the web. I hope to get it fixed soon. Zeimusu | (Talk page)

 * Now uploaded Zeimusu | (Talk page)

Moth list
Hi. I've just noticed your comment on Talk:Moth about the list of moth species getting too long. I completely agree with you even though this is almost entirely my fault! I've been considering doing this for a while but I'm not sure how best to format it. The list does have the potential to be frighteningly vast so I guess it's best to do something sooner rather than later! Perhaps you could tell me your thoughts. Could you drop them on my talk page thanks.

Also I noticed your comment further up about not using non-commercial only images in Wikipedia. I think I may have added a couple of these in these articles: Ghost Moth and Common Swift (moth). Do these need to go? Sorry, I wasn't aware of this policy. Richard Barlow 13:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pakistan
Would you like to join the animated discussion on the Pakistan's talk page? The current issue is whether "Pakistan is famous for its support of Taliban and 9/11 terrorist" is a suitable sentence to start the article's first paragraph. Your contribution would be much appreciated, as the current discussion seems to be more of a dialog between User:Ragib and User:SamTr014 Talk:Pakistan Thanks!--Raju1 07:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion/Military Families Against the War
I have just rewritten the page Military Families Against the War. I would be grateful if you would reconsider your delete vote. Kel-nage 20:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Much thanks. Kel-nage 20:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James Keir Baxter
I see you wrote most of this article. This will be the featured article on the New Zealand portal page in a couple of days' time. I and others have done some copyediting on it, but could you please cast an eye over it for any factual errors which may have been introduced in the process.

Also, if you're in a position to do so, it would be nice to have a summary paragraph about his importance to New Zealand writing/poetry. I've asked others as well if they could provide such a summary.-gadfium 03:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blood type
Would it be possible to reword your edit on Blood type (the one from a lecture given by forensic scientist). It is bit hard to grok as it is. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 00:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is better. Pavel Vozenilek 03:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for Children's Drawing
Hi Zeimusu,

On the Requested pictures page you asked for some on children's drawing.

Here's a few samples from our boy:

http://218.101.48.33/~tom2/images/Picture3.jpg Aged 2.5, a smiley face with 'writing underneath' http://218.101.48.33/~tom2/images/Picture6.jpg Aged 2.5 'blue fish, large and small'. Carefully drawn. http://218.101.48.33/~tom2/images/Picture4.jpg Aged 4.5 http://218.101.48.33/~tom2/images/Picture5.jpg Ditto

These are crude pictures taken with my cellphone. Let me know if any of them take your fancy and I'll do a proper job. I don't mind what they're used for. If you are interested I might need your help through the process.

Cheers
 * OK, as requested all four are available from the Commons:

 * image:Smiley_Face_with_Writing_Underneath.png
 * image:Child_Art_Aged_2.5_Blue_Fish_Large_and_Small.png
 * image:Child_Art_Aged_4.5_Person_1.png
 * image:Child_Art_Aged_4.5_Person_2.png

I'm not too taken with the contrast on the colour ones, though they're reasonably true to the original. Let me know if you're any good with manipulating them! Will leave you to add them to the Child art page and adjust request on the pictures page. Barefootguru 08:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Tempera and Child art
I like what you've done on the Child art and Egg tempera/Tempera pages! Thanks! -->>sparkit| TALK << 15:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Old-fashioned bass clef
Hey, that old-fashioned bass clef you posted at clef looks great! Did you do that from scratch or did you clean up the one I posted? --Angr/undefined 18:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

welcoming
Thanks for the tip, I just started welcoming. --Eliezer 04:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for categorization
Hi.Thanks for categorizing a couple of articles that I started. Much appreciated. Zeimusu | (Talk page)

 * You're most welcome! >>sparkit| TALK << 04:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

numerals, principals
Hello. Since you teach English, you may find it useful to know the difference between principal (ending with -al) and principle (ending with -le), and maybe even between number systems and numeral systems (I've just done some editing of abjad numerals). Michael Hardy 21:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you know I can't spell nessessary or speicies either. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 05:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dowry in India... your objections and mine
Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dowry_law_in_India for my objections to your edits. 498aVictim 14:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

TLAs
A proposal has been made at Requested moves to move TLAs from AAA to DZZ and other related pages to Wikipedia namespace. Please visit Talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ for the related discussion. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Generalization
(copied to Articles for deletion/Genrelization) I understand that this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, this is my mistake. Once I realized what I had done, I re-posted this entry in Wiktionary. Wiktionary deleted it within less than 12 hours from me posting it initially calling it spam/vandalism and then telling me it was a mis-spelling of the word generalization and conlcluding that there was not enough evidence that this word was in use as a real word.....how can I fix this? rm81dragon 8:00, 16 September 2005

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"
If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:
 * {{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~

Blank the page and replace the text with
 * {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

--nixie 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Orca
I suggest you move the page to Miami Seaquarium to allow further expansion and beacsue it includes discussion of issues whcih affect the sequarium itself as much as the particular animal. But well done for boldly cleaning it up. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Coriolis not Coriolanis, Sine Rule and references to web sites and spreadsheets
Thanks for your correction of my misspelling / bad memory. I'll try to tidy up Olympic Triangle over time. The reason I put the references to the web sites with the sine rule and to the ability to use spreadsheets to calculate the leg lengths and total course  length is because that is what had taken me about 5 hours to work through - how do I know from the sailing instructions for the Nationals (which only specify length of windward leg and total course length) what the angles of the triangle and the lengths of the other legs are. While it may seem of marginal relevance to the sport, being able to quickly access this information and manipulate it is critical to understanding and manipulating the Olympic triangle course. The material you deleted has high relevance to anyone using an Olypic triangle course, particularly when acting as a Principal Race Officer, a member of a Race Committee, or a committee member of an Organising Authority for a regatta using this type of course so I would like to put it back in, even if only as a footnote for additional references. The whole reason for doing the piece was to provide access to that information.

Tokitae
Your work on the article was amazing. It's still kind of short, but considering what you had to work with... nicely done. I've changed my vote accordingly. Matt Yeager 05:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Near Earth Object
Thanks for the diligence checking references. I'm glad that though I might have made a quick judgement based on the user being anonymous and a first edit, I put enough of a clue in the edit summary that it alerted you to chase it down. Thanks! Hu 17:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

My Bad
Oh Shoot, that's my fault. I thought about reverting it, but I meant to cancel it out. I think that those links were useful, but I wasn't really sure, so I decided not to do anything. I'll fix it. Carer Somevile 20:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Salvadori's monitor
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 07:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the note - what you actually created merely said: "Salvadori's monitor" - it was not a re-direct and as you left it - it was nonsense - hence the delete - now you've sorted it no problemo - just check before you save! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 09:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If that is the case, it is still not nonsense. It is speedily deletable as "providing little or no context". Zeimusu | Talk page 08:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Janaganamana-score.png
I am going to move Image:Janaganamana-score.png to the Wikimedia Commons because files that are in the public domain belong there (so that they can be used on other Wikimedia projects). It will still be accessible from. -- ʀ6ʍ ɑ  ʏ89  23:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Chile educational use images / Template:Chile-Educational-Use
Hello!... Please see Template talk:Chile-Educational-Use and Village pump (miscellaneous)

Thanks, --Yakoo 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Old LaTeX work
Hi James,

are you the same James Kilfiger who wrote the extsizes LaTeX classes long ago? I'd like to contact you personally, preferrably via e-mail, frank@debian.org.

Sorry for the noise, Frank Küster Ffrank 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

DSCF
Hi there! Can you please cite a source for the expansion of "DSCF" to "Digital Storage Compact Flash" you added to Design rule for Camera File system? This is a matter of some discussion on MetaFilter and I would like to know how you came about that conclusion. --Grouse 19:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

SAXON GENITIVE
I saw you created that article and you're a teacher of English, mmm

Maybe you can tell me something

I saw in a grammar book that after z when you have to put 's, you just put an apostrophe, for instance it's López', not López's; but just in that book, so i'm not sure of that rule, i used google for a little research and i didn't find that rule, i found a rule i knew about just an apostrophe after s (cats'),mmm

Do you know sth about that,mmm?

Gaudio 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, but i have a strange tendence to consider that we cannot find lies in 'suppossed' serious book, thanks for the information :) Gaudio 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

List headers in "states traversed"
I tried to bring this up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways under "States traversed / Route description consensus needed". No one replied. Trying to make paragraphs of information look decent in a list is impossible, so we need section headers instead. Usually I go to tables if I need a list with more information than can comfortably be listed (List of Illinois Routes) but here section headers actually make sense. — Rob (  talk  ) 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Belegarth
I'm wondering why you removed Belegarth from stub status? The article is extremely short and incomplete with no references at this point. Cephyr 03:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Some old images
Way back when the image tagging work was being done, I replaced some of unsourced untagged images with sourced ones. Many could be replaced with free images. I have no interest in keeping any old images that I uploaded with a "fair use" type tag so I don't require any "deletion" notification. Images that I uploaded with other copyright statuses, of course I appreciate deletion warning. Thank you Zeimusu | Talk page 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your article Transcribing_English_to_Japanese
Your article Transcribing_English_to_Japanese has been proposed for deletion "No_original_research & does NOT include Reliable_sources for WP:Verifiability of content." Please add references, or it will be deleted.--Parker007 02:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation Wikia
This wikia is inactive and doesn't have a clear goal, so I was wondering if I can adopt that wikia. Than I would use it for a demo of my proposal for a Wikimedia project. Thanks, SPQRobin 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reaction! I will start immediately. I want to ask if you can make me a sysop and a bureaucrat there (if you want that). SPQRobin 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Angela has made me already a sysop. But indeed, I am bureaucrat on another wikia and there doesn't work the special:makesysop also. SPQRobin 21:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Blackbody-colours-vertical.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Blackbody-colours-vertical.png, has been listed at. 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Joelholdsworth 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

BC Tel logo
Hi Zeimusu--I just noticed that you removed the license and commons transfer tag from File:BC Tel Logo.png. The logo consists of a font and two triangles, which I believe makes PD-textlogo the appropriate license; in any case, you did not replace the license with another one, which is obviously important. I assume it was just an oversight, but I wanted to let you know. - Gump Stump (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:Image permission problem with Image:GohST.jpg
Hi, thank you for notifying me of the error. It was done in haste a long time ago, and had forgotten to provide fuller details to the image rights. Pls find the amendments attached in File:GohST.jpg. Thanks for your efforts -- Marcuslim (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects WikiProject Free images, WikiProject Fair use, WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting material from article's talk page
Hi, it seems you deleted 36 kilobytes of discussion from Talk:Bernoulli number and marked that deletion as a "minor edit". I don't think that's appropriate. --Jmk (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, browser crash while editing. When tabs were reloaded it seems my new section clobbered the article. Thanks for fixing.Zeimusu | Talk page
 * Ok --Jmk (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Luther Welsh
A tag has been placed on Luther Welsh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Robin (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Luther Welsh
I have nominated Luther Welsh, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Luther Welsh. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robin (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Referencing
Hi ! An article you have been involved with has been tagged as being in need of  further sources to  avoid being  deleted. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Double-barrelled name.

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Gravura sample.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gravura sample.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you. That image has now been properly tagged template:PD-font Zeimusu | Talk page

Krill
I noticed that you changed the Japanese part on Krill, so I was wondering if you could give a gander to the article in Japanese mentioned in Talk:Krill to see if the image is of  shrimp or if of krill (or if it looks the same we could ignore that detail and still add it to English Krill), Thanks! --Squidonius (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/WeedySeadragon
The above discussion may be of interest to you. J Milburn (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I pointed to the wrong discussion. Please see Featured picture candidates/delist/Phyllopteryx taeniolatus. J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/delist/Greencastle Harbour
Feel free to weigh in at the above. The main issue is copyright. Chick Bowen 02:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ottawa rules for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ottawa rules is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ottawa rules until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mschamberlain (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Perilla
An article that you have been involved in editing—Perilla—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Diospireiro (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Freedom Medicine for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freedom Medicine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Freedom Medicine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm  (talk)  16:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of moths for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of moths is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of moths until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Please note that this list was mostly created by Richard Barlow (see history) You should notify him too. Zeimusu | Talk page 07:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Done. Thanks! SchreiberBike | ⌨   18:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

kana chart
Please upload the original chart instead of the snapshot because on phones the quality is bad when zooming in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_kana.png --Backinstadiums (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bee (mythology) into Bee (heraldry). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zeimusu/chronicles


text:
Knight-service

Knight-service was a form of feudal land tenure under which a knight held a fief or estate of land termed a knight's fee (fee being synonymous with fief) from an overlord conditional on him as a tenant performing military service for his overlord.

History
It is associated in its origin with that development in warfare which made the mailed horseman, armed with lance and sword, the most important factor in battle. It was long believed that knight-service was developed out of the liability, under the English system, of every five hides of land to provide one soldier in war. It is now held that, on the contrary, it was a novel system in England when it was introduced after the Conquest by the Normans, who relied essentially on their mounted knights, while the English fought on foot. It existed in Normandy where a knight held a fief termed a fief de haubert, from the hauberk or coat of mail (Latin: lorica)  worn by knights. An allusion is made to this in the coronation charter of Henry I (1100), which speaks of those holding by knight-service as "militibus qui per loricam terras suas deserviunt" (literally "soldiers who serve [or are subject to] their lands by means of armour").

William the Conqueror divided the lay lands of England among his magnates in the form of "honours" or great blocks of land. These were subdivided by the magnates into smaller manors and yet smaller divisions or fiefs just large enough to support one knight, termed knight's fees. The knight paid homage to his overlord by taking a vow of loyalty and accepting the obligation to perform military service for his overlord.

The same system was adopted in Ireland when that country was conquered under Henry II. The magnate who had been enfeoffed by his sovereign for his honour of land could provide the knights required either by hiring them for pay or, more conveniently when wealth was mainly represented by land, by a process of subinfeudation, analogous to that by which he himself had been enfeoffed. That is to say, he could assign to an under-tenant a certain portion of his fief to be held by direct military service or the service of providing a mercenary knight. The land so held would then be described as consisting of one or more knight's fees, but the knight's fee had not any fixed area, as different soils and climates required differing acreages to produce a given profit requisite to support a knight and his entourage. This process could be carried further till there was a chain of mesne lords between the tenant-in-chief and the actual occupier of the land. The liability for performance of the knight-service was, however, always carefully defined.

The chief sources of information for the extent and development of knight-service are the returns (cartae) of the barons (i.e. the tenants-in-chief) in 1166, informing the king, at his request, of the names of their tenants by knight-service with the number of fees they held, supplemented by the payments for scutage recorded on the pipe rolls, by the later returns printed in the Book of Fees, and by the still later ones collected in Feudal Aids.

In the returns made in 1166 some of the barons appear as having enfeoffed more and some less than the number of knights they had to find. In the latter case they described the balance as being chargeable on their demesne, that is, on the portion of their fief which remained in their own hands. These returns further prove that lands had already been granted for the service of a fraction of a knight, such service being in practice already commuted for a proportionate monetary payment; and they show that the total number of knights with which land held by military service was charged was not, as was formerly supposed, sixty thousand, but, probably, somewhere between five and six thousand. Similar returns were made for Normandy, and are valuable for the light they throw on its system of knight-service.

Incidents of military tenure
The primary obligation incumbent on every knight was service in the field, when called upon, for forty days a year, with specified armour and arms. There was, however, a standing dispute as to whether he could be called upon to perform this service outside the realm, nor was the question of his expenses free from difficulty. In addition to this primary duty, he had, in numerous cases at least, to perform that of castle ward at his lord's chief castle for a fixed number of days in the year. On certain baronies also was incumbent the duty of providing knights for the guard of royal castles, such as Windsor, Rockingham and Dover.

Under the feudal system, the tenant by knight-service had also the same pecuniary obligations to his lord as had his lord to the king. These consisted of:
 * Aids, which consisted of the duty to ransom the lord if he were taken prison, to make the lord's eldest son a knight, and to marry the lord's eldest daughter
 * Relief, which he paid on succeeding to his lands;
 * Primer seisin
 * Wardship, that is, the profits from his lands during a minority (i.e., if the landholder is too young to manage the land);
 * Marriage, that is, the right of giving in marriage (unless bought off), his heiress, his heir (if a minor) and his widow.

Denaturation
The principle of commuting for the obligation of military service into payments struck at the root of the whole system. The change of conception was so complete, that tenure by knight-service of a mesne lord becomes, first in fact and then in law, a tenure by escuage (i.e. scutage). By the time of Henry III, as Bracton states, the test of tenure was scutage; liability, however small, to scutage payment made the tenure military.

The disintegration of the system was carried further in the latter half of the 13th century as a consequence of changes in warfare, which were increasing the importance of foot soldiers and making the service of a knight for forty days of less value to the king. The barons, instead of paying scutage, compounded for their service by the payment of lump sums, and, by a process which is still obscure, the nominal quotas of knight-service due from each had, by the time of Edward I, been largely reduced. The knight's fee, however, remained a knight's fee, and the pecuniary incidents of military tenure, especially wardship, marriage, and fines on alienation, long continued to be a source of revenue to the crown. But at the Restoration (1660) tenure by knight-service was abolished by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660, and with it these vexatious exactions were abolished.

Sources and bibliography
The returns of 1166 are preserved in the Liber Niger (13th century), edited by Hearne, and the Liber Rubeus or Red Book of the Exchequer (13th century), edited by H. Hall for the Rolls Series in 1896. The later returns are in the Book of Fees and in the Record Office volumes of Feudal Aids, arranged under counties.

For the financial side of knight-service the early pipe rolls have been printed by the Record Commission and the Pipe Roll Society, and abstracts of later ones will be found in The Red Book of the Exchequer, which may be studied on the whole question, but the editors' view must be received with caution and checked by JH Round's Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer (for private circulation). The Baronia Anglica of Madox may also be consulted.

The existing theory on knight-service was enunciated by Mr Round in English Historical Review, vi., vii, and reissued by him in his Feudal England (1895). It is accepted by Pollock and Maitland (History of English Law), who discuss the question at length; by Mr JF Baldwin in his Scutage and Knight-service in England (University of Chicago Press, 1897), a valuable monograph with bibliography; and by Petit-Dutaillis, in his Studies supplementary to Stubbs' Constitutional History (Manchester University Series, 1908).

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

title: Knight-service


text:
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Spanish: La revolución no será transmitida), also known as Chávez: Inside the Coup, is a 2003 Irish documentary film. It focuses on events in Venezuela leading up to and during the April 2002 coup d'état attempt, which saw President Hugo Chávez removed from office for two days. With particular emphasis on the role played by Venezuela's private media, the film examines several key incidents: the protest march and subsequent violence that provided the impetus for Chávez's ousting; the opposition's formation of an interim government headed by business leader Pedro Carmona; and the Carmona administration's collapse, which paved the way for Chávez's return. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was directed by Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha Ó Briain. Given direct access to Chávez, the filmmakers intended to make a fly-on-the-wall biography of the president. They spent seven months filming in Venezuela, following Chávez and his staff and interviewing ordinary citizens. As the coup unfolded on 11 April, Bartley and Ó Briain filmed on the streets of the capital, Caracas, capturing footage of protesters and the erupting violence. Later, they filmed many of the political upheavals inside Miraflores, the presidential palace.

Bartley and Ó Briain conceived of the film after Bartley returned from documenting the aftermath of the 1999 Vargas mudslides for an Irish charity. Following a visit to Venezuela to determine the feasibility of a film project, the pair formed a production company and applied to Ireland's film board, Bord Scannán na hÉireann (BSÉ), for a development grant. At BSÉ's request, the filmmakers partnered with a more experienced producer and shot a short pilot to show to potential investors. Funding for the €200,000 production was provided by BSÉ and several European broadcasters. Bartley and Ó Briain shot more than 200 hours of material; editing focused on identifying footage that would make the film entertaining and drive the plot. It was at this stage that the film's coverage narrowed to concentrate more on the coup attempt.

The film was positively received by mainstream film critics and won several awards. Reviewers cited the filmmakers' unprecedented proximity to key events and praised the film for its "riveting narrative"; criticism focused on its lack of context and pro-Chávez bias. First shown on television in Europe and Venezuela in 2003, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised later appeared at film festivals and secured a limited theatrical release on the art house circuit. Independent activists held unofficial screenings, and Venezuelan government officials encouraged its circulation to build support for Chávez's administration. The film is regularly shown on Venezuelan television, and in the capital it is often broadcast during "contentious political conjunctures". The Revolution Will Not Be Televised paints Chávez in a favorable light, which has led to disputes over its neutrality and accuracy; particular attention is paid to its framing of the violence of 11–13 April, the filmmakers' editing of the timeline, and the omission of incidents and personnel. The film is variously cited as an accurate portrayal or a misrepresentation of the events of April 2002.

Background
Throughout much of the twentieth century, Venezuela was beset by political, civil and military unrest. After Juan Vicente Gómez's long reign as president ended in 1935, a series of military rulers followed, concluding with Marcos Pérez Jiménez's overthrow by general uprising in 1958. Although the military remained influential, Venezuela's government has since been chosen by civilians through democratic processes. Until 1998, the dominant political parties were Acción Democrática and COPEI, who shared seven presidencies between them. In 1989, during the second term in office for Acción Democrática's Carlos Andrés Pérez, Venezuela was hit by a severe economic crisis. A wave of protests known as the Caracazo engulfed the country and dozens were killed in rioting.

Hugo Chávez, then a Lieutenant Colonel in the army, had formed a secret revolutionary group (MBR-200) in the early 1980s and was planning a "rebellious intervention". He later felt the Caracazo was a missed opportunity for his movement. Three years later, Chávez saw another chance; in February 1992, he led an unsuccessful military coup d'état and was imprisoned. A second coup attempt, without his involvement, also failed. Chávez enjoyed some popular support for his actions. Released from prison in 1994, he recast his revolutionary group as a legitimate socialist political party, the Fifth Republic Movement. The movement adopted former Venezuelan leader Simón Bolívar as its "iconic hero" and "reference point"; Bolívar had played a key role in Latin America's successful struggle for independence from Spain in the 1820s. In the 1998 presidential election, Chávez won 56.2% of the vote, on a promise to "end the corruption of several decades" and institute a new Bolivarian Revolution that he felt would secure Latin America's true independence from the outside world.

Chávez strengthened his support among the poor with a series of social initiatives known as the Bolivarian Missions, and created a network of grass-roots workers' councils, the Bolivarian Circles. Nevertheless, by early 2002, Venezuela was "embroiled ... in a severe political crisis" as Chávez sought to bring more of the country's vast oil wealth under state control. Although the state-owned radio and television stations remained staunch advocates of Chávez's stated policies—to redistribute the nation's wealth to the poorest—the private media was more hostile. The crisis reached a head when Chávez attempted to remove the management of the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), provoking a showdown. "Oil managers, business leaders, and large segments of organized labor" called a general strike. The strike was backed by a large segment of the population, "particularly the country's increasingly impoverished middle class" and army officers upset at the increasing politicization of the military.

On 11 April 2002, hundreds of thousands of people marched in protest against the government. Abandoning their planned route, the marchers advanced towards the palace, a path that took them close to government supporters who had come out in opposition to the protest. Journalist Phil Gunson wrote, "Shooting broke out on all sides. A score of civilians died and more than 150 suffered gunshot wounds. The military high command called for Chávez to resign, and at 3:20 the next morning they announced he had agreed to do so. The presidency was assumed by a business leader, Pedro Carmona Estanga, but his government collapsed in less than forty-eight hours and Chávez returned to power."

Synopsis
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised opens in 2001 with footage of Chávez as he tours the country. Met with "popular enthusiasm", he speaks at rallies, decrying neoliberalism and the international community's attacks on his character. The film outlines Chávez's rise to power, before covering his day-to-day routine and appearances on his television show, Aló Presidente, which includes a phone-in for citizens to speak with the president. Chávez outlines his aspiration to be seen as a modern-day Bolívar. Clips from Venezuelan and United States news reports demonstrate a "relentless campaign" against the president.

Interviews with communities from both sides of the political divide indicate how Chávez is seen by the rich and poor. The latter support his stated aim to redistribute the country's oil wealth; the former fear totalitarianism and are worried Chávez will institute communism. In February 2002, the media war intensifies after Chavez takes control of PDVSA. The film states that the company was previously run as a private interest for the benefit of a minority, despite being state-owned. Business leader Pedro Carmona and union boss Carlos Ortega are the main voices of the opposition. After the pair visit Washington, D.C., the CIA and the State Department express concern about Chávez's rule and stress the importance of Venezuela's oil. A Venezuelan general appears on private television to voice similar disquiet. Carmona appeals for a public protest at the offices of PDVSA.

On 11 April, opposition protesters begin their march outside PDVSA's headquarters in Caracas; Chávez's supporters gather outside the presidential palace. The protest route is changed to take it to the palace; shots ring out and civilians are killed. The private media blames Chávez's supporters, citing footage that shows them shooting at opposition protesters from a bridge. The narration states, "What the TV stations didn't broadcast was [this camera angle], which clearly shows that the streets below were empty. The opposition march had never taken that route." Later, the state television signal is cut; rumors circulate that the opposition has taken over the studio. At the palace, members of the military high command demand Chávez's resignation, threatening to bomb the building. The president refuses to resign, but submits to their custody. He is led away, and Carmona announces on television that a transitional government will be established.

On 12 April, opposition leaders appear on private television, where they disclose their plan to unseat Chávez. Carmona is sworn in as president while images play of unrest on the streets. Defying media censorship, Chávez's supporters disseminate the story that the president did not resign. On 13 April, they gather to protest outside Miraflores, while palace guards plot to retake the building. The guards take up key positions and, at a prearranged signal, take members of the new government prisoner. The state television channel is relaunched and urges the army to back Chávez. "Full military control" is returned to the Chávez administration and the president arrives at the palace amid celebratory scenes. Chávez makes an address in which he says it is fine to oppose him, but not the Constitution of Venezuela. The closing titles say Carmona fled to Miami while under house arrest, and that Ortega went into hiding, only reappearing to help lead the opposition after Chávez said there would be no repercussions. Most of the dissident generals, after being expelled from the army, fled to the US. Others remained as part of the opposition.

Development
In December 1999, independent Irish filmmaker Kim Bartley visited Venezuela as part of Concern Worldwide's emergency response team, to document the aftermath of the 1999 Vargas mudslides that had devastated much of Vargas State in the north of the country. Bartley become fascinated with how those affected by the tragedy perceived Chávez, and in late 2000, she and Donnacha Ó Briain—a filmmaker and former colleague who shared her interest in "Latin American politics and issues around globalization" —spent two weeks in Caracas to determine the feasibility of a film project. The pair formed a production company, Runway Films, and in January 2001 applied to Ireland's film board, Bord Scannán na hÉireann (BSÉ), for a development grant. Bartley and Ó Briain proposed a fly-on-the-wall documentary, a "personal profile and intimate portrait" of Chávez that would be "broadly supportive" of him. During their 2000 visit, the filmmakers had sensed that "something genuinely was happening" in Caracas, and felt an urgency to get the project underway; even so, it wasn't until April 2001 that BSÉ approved the £6000 (€9500) grant.

The project was at this point named Aló Presidente, a working title taken from Chávez's weekly television and radio program. BSÉ set about exploring avenues of funding; the organization persuaded Bartley and Ó Briain to make a short pilot to show to potential investors, but refused the filmmakers' application for a €60,000 grant towards their €131,000 production budget. BSÉ felt the pair needed to partner with a production company that had experience in the field, and which could help raise the remaining funds. Bartley and Ó Briain approached Power Pictures and, with the addition of David Power as a producer, reapplied for the grant. Even as filming began, the full budget—now at €200,000 —had not been secured. David Power pitched the project at several documentary festivals and markets. At Dublin's Stranger Than Fiction festival in September 2001, the BBC, S4C and Channel 4 declined to invest. Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) expressed interest in providing development funds; no such deal was made, but RTÉ did offer €10,000 (subsequently €20,000) for the Irish broadcast rights. In October, the Dutch broadcaster Nederlandse Programma Stichting also committed €10,000. At a November market in Amsterdam, Power once again approached the BBC and was turned down, as the organization believed the film's subject was "too far away to be relevant to [its viewers'] lives". However, RTÉ's Kevin Dawson pushed the film at a European Broadcasting Union pitching session, securing the interest of German television channel ZDF, which subsequently provided funds. In late 2001, BSÉ finally approved a production grant of €63,000.

Filming
In 2000, Bartley and Ó Briain had been promised "exclusive access" to Chávez by the government's Minister of Communications. They arrived in Venezuela in September 2001. While filming the pilot they met the president, after which they reconsidered their approach. Bartley explained, "We had ... this notion of investigating Chávez—was he a demagogue? Was the media persona just that? What makes him tick? My sense had changed as we got closer; what we're seeing here is a guy who is motivated, driven, not the demagogue with another side, drinking, carousing. I began to see him as more transparent—what you see is what you get." Bartley and Ó Briain began by attempting to build a relationship with Chávez that would allow them the access they required. At first, the president's staff treated the filmmakers with suspicion and made filming difficult. After numerous delays, Bartley and Ó Briain finally got through to Chávez. They calculated that they needed to "press the right buttons" to gain his support, so they presented him with an old edition of the memoirs of the general Daniel Florence O'Leary, who had fought alongside Simón Bolívar. Inside, they had written a quote from the Irish socialist playwright Seán O'Casey. Slowly, Bartley and Ó Briain gained their subjects' trust, "dissolving any self-consciousness as a result of their cameras".

Although ensconced with Chávez and his entourage, Bartley and Ó Briain felt a disconnect from the events of the outside world. During a "chaotic" road-trip with Chávez, they "knew something was coming", and divined that Chávez's trip was intended to bolster his support and "get people used to being on the streets". Chávez had recently "upped the ante" with the introduction of the Land Law. Increasing tensions further, in February 2002, Chávez took control of PDVSA; the private media stepped up its criticism of Chávez, which for Bartley and Ó Briain "marked the beginning of an exciting phase". By April 2002, Bartley and Ó Briain were in Caracas and spent much of their time filming at the presidential palace, following Chávez and his staff. As the 11 April crisis unfolded, Bartley and Ó Briain filmed outside the palace, first capturing footage of the demonstrations and subsequent violence, then events inside the palace during the afternoon, evening and early hours of 12 April. Through their previous contacts at the palace, Bartley and Ó Briain were able to continue filming without interference: "no one paid any attention to us—we just blended in." Later that day, Bartley and Ó Briain stayed away from the palace through fears for their safety. Unable to leave the country—the international airport was closed—the filmmakers instead took to the streets, "to document the repression [they] were witnessing". At the same time, a press office cameraman was in the palace, "reluctant to lose his job despite the change in government". He filmed the formation of the interim government. When Bartley and Ó Briain returned to the palace on 13 April, the cameraman let them have his footage. They remained filming in Venezuela until July 2002, interviewing residents and recording "witness" accounts from those who had been present during the coup—ministers, security guards and journalists.

Editing
Using two digital video (DV) cameras, Bartley and Ó Briain shot over 200 hours of material on 300 DV tapes. They intended that editing take ten weeks; instead, it took six months. Rod Stoneman, BSÉ's CEO at the time, described the amount of footage compared to the film's final length as "exceptional". The 200:1 ratio was far above the norm for most documentaries, which usually have a ratio of 10:1 or 15:1. When the filmmakers returned to Ireland, they decided they needed an editor who spoke Spanish. Bartley remembered a documentary she had seen about baseball in Cuba, El juego de Cuba, so they hired its editor, Ángel Hernández Zoido. Zoido approached the film as if it were entertainment, feeling that the primary concern was to ensure the audience did not get bored. He tackled each scene the same way. After watching the rushes with Bartley and Ó Briain, Zoido asked them, "What do we want to tell in this scene?" He focused on two factors: how much information would be necessary to drive the plot, and provide an emotional core. Preferring to work alone, Zoido would then send the filmmakers from the edit suite. After Zoido completed the scene, the trio discussed whether those aims had been realized.

The large amount of footage, and the fact that the filmmakers were "in a sense ... looking at it for the first time", meant that the film's concept only became clear during editing. The events of 11–13 April gave it "a new dramatic centre", although Bartley and Ó Briain were keen that the film did not concentrate entirely on the coup. They had intended to include more historical and political context; it wasn't until late in post-production that the focus narrowed to include more emphasis on the media's role in Venezuelan politics. In October 2002, a two-hour "rough cut" was shown to Stoneman and Brendan McCarthy, BSÉ's head of Production and Development. This version included the "witness" accounts that Bartley and Ó Briain had captured after April 2002. Stoneman felt that these sequences reinforced the film's claims, but "diluted its originality". He argued that they be cut, and that to compensate, Bartley and Ó Briain should record a voice-over and place themselves more in the frame as witness-protagonists, ideas that the filmmakers initially resisted.

As editing progressed, budget shortfalls prevented BSÉ from finalizing contracts. The organization also restricted post-production funds to "limit [its] exposure" in the event the project was not completed. Stoneman contacted a former colleague at the BBC, Nick Fraser, who had declined to help finance the film in 2001. Fraser was commissioning editor for the BBC's Storyville documentaries series. According to Stoneman, Fraser was "still undecided", having been told by the head of BBC Two that "we've done Chávez". Nevertheless, the BBC pre-purchased the film and in December 2002 received a rough cut. At the BBC's behest, the opening of the television version was made more dramatic. Fraser was unsure about the voice-over; he asked for a more "opinionated" narration that, according to Bartley, would "get the boot in". Although the BBC did not ask outright, Bartley's impression was that the organization wanted the film to be "against Chávez". Fraser later said he had asked for the filmmakers to "include [an interview] with someone not a Chávez supporter". He also suggested that a more experienced director be employed to help edit the film. The filmmakers "made a few minor concessions", but resisted major edits. Ó Briain's voice-over in the final cut was "polished up but not significantly changed".

The filmmakers created two versions of the film. Chávez: Inside the Coup, intended for television broadcast, lasts 52 minutes. The feature-length The Revolution Will Not Be Televised—which takes its name from the Gil Scott-Heron song of the same name —is 74 minutes long.

Television
Chávez: Inside the Coup aired on RTÉ One on 18 February 2003, as an installment of the channel's True Lives documentary series. The broadcast prompted a passionate public and critical response, and "lively debate" on radio and in newspapers; RTÉ soon arranged for a repeat broadcast. In the United Kingdom, it aired on BBC Two on 16 October 2003, as part of the channel's Storyville documentary strand, and on BBC Four on 18 November 2003. Chavez: Inside the Coup also aired in Canada, Japan, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark. The speed of the television broadcasts left a full theatrical run unlikely—a fact the filmmakers later regretted. The film also failed to be picked up by a television company in the US, although HBO was interested at one point. In Venezuela, La revolución no será transmitida premièred on 13 April 2003, on state television channel Venezolana de Televisión (VTV). It has since been shown regularly on Venezuelan television; the state-funded community station Catia TVe often broadcasts the film during "contentious political conjunctures", such as the 2004 recall referendum, the 2006 presidential election, and in 2007 to "help build support" for the government's controversial attempt to not renew the license of private television network RCTV.

Festivals and theatrical run
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised screened at several film festivals in 2003, winning numerous awards. Beginning with the South by Southwest festival on 7 March, its festival appearances included the Banff World Television Festival, the Seattle International Film Festival, the Marseille Festival of Documentary Film, the Three Continents Film Festival, the Chicago International Film Festival, the Monaco International Film Festival, the Galway Film Fleadh and the Los Angeles Wine & Country Festival. In March 2003, a VHS copy of the film screened to under 100 people as part of an American Cinematheque Irish film festival in Los Angeles. Among the viewers was the president of Vitagraph Films, David Schultz, who bought the rights for theatrical distribution and paid for the film to be converted from video. Schultz initially struggled to secure the support of exhibitors; they were skeptical of the film's commercial prospects, and believed "the environment was not hospitable" for a film critical of the US so close to the start of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They only became receptive a few months later, when political perceptions shifted and the public became more aware of Venezuela because of its oil wealth. One such exhibitor was the Film Forum in New York City. Mike Maggiore, a programmer at the theater, worked to market the film and raise its profile with film critics. He created press kits and circulated information to appeal to "a particular audience".

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised premièred to the public at the Film Forum in November 2003. The showing was accompanied by protests outside the theater from supporters and detractors of the film, both of whom "attempted to influence audience reception". A few weeks previously, the film had been withdrawn from an Amnesty International film festival in Vancouver; staff at the organization's Caracas arm said they "feared for their safety if it were shown". The film's success at the 2003 Grierson Awards was also overshadowed by a letter to the Grierson jury from London-based Venezuelan filmmakers, who disputed its version of events. Opposition demonstrators at the Film Forum première attempted to throw doubt on the film's "impartiality, precision, veracity, editorial integrity, and ideological independence", while supporters "encouraged theatergoers to denounce censorship" and sign a petition. Opposition protests also greeted showings in Canada, Australia and France. The run at the Film Forum earned $26,495 (€22,600)—several thousand above Maggiore's expectations. After a limited run in theaters in six cities, the film had earned over $200,000 (€171,000), not quite profitable, but still considered "a significant sum for a documentary".

Informal distribution
Bartley and Ó Briain showed the film to Chávez in February 2003. They recalled his response as "quite emotional". BSÉ waived Venezuelan licensing fees for the film; on 13 April, it was screened simultaneously with the television broadcast at a cinema in Caracas, before which Chávez made a speech saying, "Watch this film and you will see the face of the coup." Pro-Chávez activists also distributed the film unofficially. The Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador screened the film in New York City, where Bolivarian Circle members "accepted donations" for bootleg copies. El Universal said the Venezuelan government had 10,000 copies made, and according to National Review, the Venezuela Information Office (VIO) "encouraged art-house theaters" to screen the film. Government representatives aided the film's distribution officially and unofficially. Venezuelan filmmaker Wolfgang Schalk said the film counted on the worldwide support of Venezuelan embassies and a public relations effort to show the film free at universities and theaters in cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. Peace Action New York was given permission for a screening during a fund raiser in the Lincoln Center, where 250 people paid $35 (€30) each to see the film and take part in a "question-and-answer session" with guests such as Leonor Granado, the Venezuelan Consul General. The consulate office made DVDs of the film available to "anyone who wanted a copy", as Granado said the film was vital to "building support in [the US] for the Venezuelan government".

Journalist Michael McCaughan invited a group of people who held anti-Chávez views to a screening of the film. He said some among the audience changed their opinion of Chávez after seeing it, although many remained hostile. McCaughan said the consensus opinion was that the film was excellent' and reasonably objective", but that "Chávez remained a dictator leading the country to a totalitarian grave". As of 2006, groups such as Global Exchange were arranging tours to Venezuela that included a screening of the film.

Disputed accuracy
In Venezuela, debate about The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is "often acrimonious". The film has become key to framing people's understanding of the events of April 2002. The previously accepted international view was that Chávez's ousting came from a "spontaneous popular response" to the repression of his regime; the film "directly contradicts" this position, and since its release it has rapidly become "the prevailing interpretation of [the crisis]". The film's critics charge that it omits or misrepresents important events. Much of the criticism is centered on the filmmakers' "use of stock [documentary] devices", such as compositing clips from several events to present them as one incident. Parallel editing also depicts sequences as if they occurred at the same time, when some of the footage was captured on different days. Bartley and Ó Briain justify these methods as standard practice in the construction of documentary realist films. Caracas-based journalist Phil Gunson, writing in Columbia Journalism Review, says that most of the film critics who embraced the film ignored "the complex, messy reality" of the situation. He charges that the filmmakers "omit key facts, invent others, twist the sequence of events to support their case, and replace inconvenient images with others dredged from archives". Bartley and Ó Briain argue that Gunson's points are "issues of dispute" that "continue to divide opinion" in Venezuela. Author Brian A. Nelson says that Bartley and Ó Briain—in their initial meeting with Chávez—did more than merely invoke the Irish general Daniel O'Leary to gain the president's support for filming; Nelson alleges that they offered to portray the president positively in return for open access, with a "you scratch my back if I scratch yours" understanding that he says was ultimately reflected in the film's "unabashed pro-Chavismo."

BBC and Ofcom investigations
Soon after the film's October 2003 broadcast on BBC Two, Venezuelan engineer and filmmaker Wolfgang Schalk began a campaign against The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, representing El Gusano de Luz ("The Worm of Light"), an organization associated with the Venezuelan opposition. In July, Schalk had complained to RTÉ about its broadcast of the film. On 21 October, El Gusano de Luz published a "detailed critique" as part of an internet petition that attracted 11,000 signatories, 85% of whom self-identified as Venezuelan. Directed at the European broadcasters that financed and aired the film, the petition said in part, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is being presented as an author's film, as an objective journalistic research film, while it is really a very well plotted and accomplished propaganda operation, supported logistically by the Venezuelan government, with the aim of misleading unprepared spectators of countries who do not know the totality of events." The petition submitted 18 specific points of contention with the film. Venezuelan private television soon aired two programs "dissecting and denouncing" the film, and similar newspaper articles followed.

Much of the anger about the film stemmed from its high-profile internationally; that it had been "blessed with the imprimatur of the BBC ... with its connotations of fair and authoritative reporting" only made matters worse. John Burns, writing in The Sunday Times, restated many of Gunson's arguments, and the BBC received 4,000 e-mails demanding that Storyville's commissioning editor, Nick Fraser, be sacked. Toward the end of 2003, the weight of criticism forced the BBC to act. The corporation's complaints unit opened an investigation, and Fraser said the BBC would not show the film again until it had concluded. He wrote to David Power expressing particular concern over an error with the end titles and the use of out-of-chronology footage, saying the latter was "a real problem—particularly ... since it has been used in a film dedicated to exposing the frauds of Venezuelan TV". The furor came at a difficult time for the corporation, which was under the spotlight of the Hutton Inquiry, the official investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of David Kelly; the BBC had been criticized for reporting that intelligence dossiers had been "sexed up" by the UK government to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The petition's claims were also taken up by the UK's independent telecommunications regulator, Ofcom. The body investigated official protests made by several Caracas residents. The concerns largely focused on footage of the residents' attending a neighborhood meeting in June 2002, which was positioned in the film as a prelude to the April coup attempt. The residents said that the filmmakers had used footage of them without consent and that the film had misrepresented their views. In September 2005, Ofcom provisionally ruled that it had not upheld the complaints, citing the BBC's internal review and rebuttal as grounds. A subsequent appeal by the residents was unsuccessful. Two weeks after Ofcom's initial ruling, the BBC announced it had closed the complaint and that no further investigations would take place. Stoneman believed the BBC had overreacted, saying its guardedness was merely a product of being a frequent victim of press attacks on its ethos. Fraser said, "The film was very good in many respects, but also misleading." He believed the filmmakers considered Chávez honorable, but having written a book on Peronism was more skeptical himself. Fraser concluded, "I still think it's a good film, because of the coup sequence. It should be seen as a Venezuelan West Wing—biased, of course, but highly entertaining."

Responsibility for violence
One of the film's key contentions is that the private media aired footage selectively to make it look like the violence of 11 April was caused by Chávez's supporters, portraying them as an "irrational and uncivilized mob". Private television repeatedly showed Chávez's supporters on Puente Llaguno as they shot at Baralt Avenue below, an area purportedly full of opposition marchers. The film says this footage was edited to show the gunmen but not the people near them who were ducking to avoid being shot. It follows with images taken from above the bridge showing an empty Baralt Avenue, claiming that "the opposition march had never taken that route" and that Chávez's supporters were only returning fire. Gunson charges that this edit is itself a misrepresentation, stating that the film does not mention that both sets of marchers were fired upon, and taking issue with the implication that "coup plotters" were the shooters. In response, the filmmakers say, "Nowhere in the film did we say that only [Chávez's supporters] were shot ... Nobody can say with certainty who orchestrated the shootings." Gunson also asserts that the footage of the empty street was taken earlier that day, citing an "analysis of the shadows" by Schalk, who created a counter-documentary, X-Ray of a Lie, to examine The Revolution Will Not Be Televised "scene by scene to uncover [its] narrative strategies and use of artifice". Brian A. Nelson agreed with the analysis, claiming that Baralt Avenue was not as empty as the film portrays and that the filmmakers "put a black bar at the top of the frame to hide the Metropolitan Police trucks that were still there". Bartley and Ó Briain reaffirmed their claim that the opposition did not pass below the Puente Llaguno bridge, citing eyewitness statements—including one from Le Monde Diplomatique's deputy editor—and an Australian documentary, Anatomy of a Coup, that "came to conclusions similar to our own". A Venezuelan documentary, Puente Llaguno: Claves de una Masacre, also supported Bartley and Ó Briain's view.

Timeline and media depictions
Other issues of contention include the lack of historical context; the film does not cover some of the events leading up to Chávez's ousting, including the long-running political crisis and the general strike. Gunson also criticizes the filmmakers for showing events out of order. In June 2002, they filmed an opposition community group as its members considered "how to defend themselves against possible ... attacks" from Chávez's supporters. In the film, this sequence is placed before the march. Bartley justified the action, saying that the residents' opinions were representative of those held "long before" the events of April 2002. Responding to the critique, the BBC added a date stamp to the sequence for the film's repeat broadcast. Gunson also cites footage of Caracas mayor Freddy Bernal as he sings to a happy group of Chávez supporters in front of the palace. Later images of a "differently dressed Bernal" reveal that the footage was from another day. Similarly, Gunson says that until shot at, "The opposition march was entirely peaceful." The film presents footage of its "violent finale"—including an image from another day—as if it occurred during the protest's approach to the palace, accompanied by the narrated claim that "some in the vanguard looked ready for a fight". Bartley and Ó Briain admit that they included a "limited" amount of archive footage, but say it was a "legitimate reconstruction" to build context "before the core narrative of the coup [took] off" as they "could not be everywhere filming at all times".

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised claims that state television was "the only channel to which [Chávez] had access", but does not mention that during the violence he requisitioned "all radio and TV frequencies" to broadcast his two-hour address. Private television circumvented the rules allowing this action by splitting the screen, showing Chávez's address on one side and footage of the violence on the other. Chávez subsequently took television stations RCTV and Venevisión off the air. The film's assertion that VTV was taken over by opposition "plotters" is also disputed; according to X-Ray of a Lie and Gunson, staff left willingly. Gunson further alleges that footage of VTV's signal being cut—mid-interview with a government legislator—was fabricated. Bartley and Ó Briain say they witnessed ministers' being unable to broadcast and that the International Federation of Journalists corroborated their claim that opposition forces took over VTV. The film also presents footage of armored vehicles around the palace, which Gunson says were there at the request of the president, not the opposition. He also challenges the film for presenting Chávez's supporters as "invariably poor, brown-skinned, and cheerful" and the opposition as "rich, white, racist, and violent". He says that the opposition protests were multiracial and that armed government supporters "made the center of Caracas a no-go area". Bartley and Ó Briain cite several commentators who uphold the claim that Chávez's supporters "were broadly poor and dark-skinned and the opposition broadly white and middle class", including Gunson himself in an April 2002 article in The Christian Science Monitor. Gunson does agree that the film was right to point out that the private media "behaved disgracefully" by "systematically [excluding the pro-Chávez] viewpoint from print, radio, and TV" during the period of the coup.

Military involvement
Of greater concern, Gunson says, is the "deliberate blurring of responsibility for the coup". The film presents the idea that the military commanders dispersed, "leaving a total power vacuum". However, the high command's senior figure, General Lucas Rincón (who announced Chávez's resignation on television), was not part of the coup and remained in the government after April 2002. The petition draws the conclusion, "(1) either General Rincón stated a truth that was accepted throughout the whole country ... or (2) General Rincón lied, because he was an accomplice ... that seems not to be the truth because he [remained in Chávez's administration]." Only one of the high command joined Carmona's interim administration before contributing to its downfall by withdrawing his support. The military leaders shown withdrawing their support for Chávez were not the high command, and Vice-Admiral Hector Ramirez Perez was not the head of the navy, as the film claims. Gunson says, "With one solitary exception, these generals and admirals had not 'fled abroad' after the Carmona government collapsed." Although Bartley and Ó Briain accept that Rincón said Chávez "had agreed to resign", they reiterate that "elements in the military [threatened] force in the effort to make Chávez resign"; the filmmakers say it is "irrelevant" that the whole military did not join the coup, as this "is the case with most coups". General Rincón's announcement was omitted because they felt it was "supplementary to the main, key fact of the story", that no documentary evidence of the resignation exists.

X-Ray of a Lie
Schalk investigated The Revolution Will Not Be Televised for five months. Along with producer Thaelman Urguelles, he was commissioned by the Federation of Venezuelan Movie Directors to "produce a response", and in 2004 they created the documentary X-Ray of a Lie, which set out to expose its "manipulation". Schalk said the film "presented a distorted version of events ... to fit a story that appeals to audiences". Schalk is associated with the Venezuelan opposition; Bartley and Ó Briain say that it is "not insignificant that Schalk has led the well-resourced campaign, linked to [the opposition], to discredit and suppress [the film]".

Chavez: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
In 2008, Stoneman published Chavez: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised – A Case Study of Politics and the Media. A book "of film studies rather than politics", it nevertheless looks in detail at the petition's arguments. Stoneman "broadly absolves" the filmmakers; he concludes, "There were some relatively small examples of slippage in the grammar of the piece, but overall the film was made with honesty and integrity. Of the 18 objections made, 15, if not 17, were wrong. The filmmakers spent a long time assembling evidence to show why they'd done what they'd done in the film and mostly it's true." Stoneman conceded that the filmmakers' cinéma vérité approach meant that for wider historical and political context, viewers should look elsewhere. Stoneman received an "Executive Producer" credit on the film, which he explains as an unasked-for gratuity that came by virtue of his position as head of BSÉ.

Critical response
Almost all local and national film critics in the United States said the film presented a "riveting narrative", but conceded that it was a biased account of the events.

Frank Scheck, writing in The Hollywood Reporter, said the film presented an enthralling story that "resembles a taut ... political thriller", and Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times called it a "remarkable documentary" full of "astonishing shots". Both critics said the film was made so through the filmmakers' unique inside access to the events at the palace with Ebert calling that aspect "unique in film history". Although Ebert was generally very praising of the film, he criticised the way in which Chávez's opponents were portrayed, while Shenk faulted the lack of historical context; however, he said this was balanced by the film's "brevity and succinctness". In Variety, Scott Foundas wrote that the film was a "superior example of fearless filmmakers in exactly the right place at the right time", and likely the best of a string of documentaries that have shone the light on US involvement in South America. He had praise for the camera work and editing, and said the film was a "startling record" that reached "another level" when events shifted to the presidential palace. He cited these scenes—along with those of the protesters' clashing—as ones that "spark with a vibrant tension and uncertainty".

J. Hoberman of The Village Voice said the film was a "gripping" account that did "an excellent job in deconstructing the Venezuelan TV news footage of blood, chaos, and rival crowds", and said it was "nearly a textbook on media manipulation". Writing for The New York Times, Stephen Holden said the film was "a riveting documentary" that delivered "the suspense of a smaller-scale Seven Days in May", citing the way in which it examined how television can be used to "deceive and manipulate the public". He reproached the film's uncritical depiction of Chávez, and how it hinted at CIA involvement without presenting any proof. Ty Burr in The Boston Globe called the film "our best chance" to find out what really happened on 11–13 April, but cautioned that the filmmakers' "pro-Chávez stance" meant that for wider context audiences should look elsewhere, as it left out too much of Chávez's record. Burr also said the film's attempt to make the US into a villain was ineffective. He said, "because [the filmmakers] view the chasm that divides Venezuela purely in the context of the Cold War and Latin American political instability, they downplay the class warfare that's exploding right in front of them." Nevertheless, Burr concluded that the film's narrow focus remained engrossing.

Desson Thomson of The Washington Post stated that the film successfully reproduced the "panic and fear" at the palace as events unfolded, saying it came across like a "raw, Costa-Gavras-style thriller" that was "worth watching down to the last thrilling minute". He said that knowing how uncertain Venezuela's future was made the film even more powerful. Thomson believed the handheld video was put to good use, calling its "news-breaking immediacy ... intoxicating". He concluded, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is an extraordinary piece of electronic history. And a riveting movie." In the Miami New Times, Brett Sokol agreed that the film was "never less than thrilling", but said that as history, it was "strictly agitprop". Similarly, Mark Jenkins wrote in the Washington City Paper that the film was "unapologetically polemical", but "notable foremost as a gripping you-are-there account".

Accolades
The film won several awards in 2003–04. It was also nominated for Best Documentary and Best Irish Film at the Irish Film and Television Awards. The annual International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam gives an acclaimed filmmaker the chance to screen his or her Top 10 films. In 2007, Iranian filmmaker Maziar Bahari selected The Revolution will not be Televised for his top ten classics from the history of films.


text:
Háry János

Háry János is a Hungarian folk opera by Zoltán Kodály with a Hungarian libretto by Béla Paulini and Zsolt Harsányi. The opera, in four acts, is in the manner of a Singspiel and is based on the comic epic The Veteran (Az obsitos) by János Garay about a supposed veteran named Háry János. The subtitle of the piece is Háry János kalandozásai Nagyabonytul a Burgváráig – János Háry: his Adventures from Nagyabony (Great Abony) to the Vienna Burg.

The 1926 première was at the Royal Hungarian Opera House, Budapest. The UK stage première was at the Buxton Festival in 1982 conducted by Anthony Hose, with Alan Opie in the title role.

Background
The story is of a veteran hussar in the Austrian army in the first half of the 19th century who sits in the village inn regaling his listeners with fantastic tales of heroism (in the tradition of Miles Gloriosus ). His supposed exploits include winning the heart of the Empress Marie Louise, the wife of Napoleon, and then single-handedly defeating Napoleon and his armies. Nevertheless, he finally renounces all riches in order to go back to his village with his sweetheart.

Kodály wrote in his preface to the score: "Háry is a peasant, a veteran soldier who day after day sits at the tavern spinning yarns about his heroic exploits... the stories released by his imagination are an inextricable mixture of realism and naivety, of comic humour and pathos." He also comments that "though superficially he appears to be merely a braggart, essentially he is a natural visionary and poet. That his stories are not true is irrelevant, for they are the fruit of a lively imagination, seeking to create, for himself and for others, a beautiful dream world." Háry János embodies the poetic power of folklore to go beyond political frustrations; Kodály intended to bring his national folk music to an operatic setting.

Both the opera and the suite begin with an orchestral 'musical sneeze', best explained in Kodály's own words: "According to Hungarian superstition, if a statement is followed by a sneeze of one of the hearers, it is regarded as confirmation of its truth. The Suite begins with a sneeze of this kind! One of Háry's group of faithful listeners … sneezes at the wildest assertions of the old tale-spinner."

At the request of the Universal publishing house in Vienna, Kodály himself described the message behind Háry János: "Every Hungarian is a dreamer. He flees from the sad reality of the centuries...into the world of illusions. Yet Háry János's boasting is more than a dream: it is also poetry. The authors of heroic tales are themselves no heroes, but they are the spiritual kin of heroes. Háry János may never have done the deeds he talks about, but the potential is always there. János is a primitive poet, and what he has to say he concentrates in a single hero: himself. After we have listened to the heroic feats he has dreamed up, it is tragically symbolic that we see him in a grubby village inn. He appears happy in his poverty: a king in the kingdom of his dreams."

Synopsis
Overture

Prologue – The Tale Begins

In the Hungarian village of Nagyabony people gather at the tavern. A picture of Napoleon hangs on the wall. The regulars and students wait glass in hand for the next tale from the old soldier Háry János.

First Adventure – On the frontier near Moscow

A border crossing point between Galicia and Russia; there is frost and ice on the Russian side, sun shining and flowers blooming on the Hungarian side. János, after having got rid of all his female admirers meets Örzse.

The court chamberlain complains that Mária Lujza and her retinue have not been able to cross the frontier. Örzse and János talk with Marci, a Hungarian coachman working at the French Court, who tells them that Mária Lujza, the daughter of the Emperor, is being refused passage by the Russian guard. János pushes the border gate along the ground, so that she finds herself across the Hungarian frontier. Marci toasts the young couple as Örzse and János sing a duet. Ebelasztin says the noise is disturbing the rest of the princess. However, when Mária Lujza enters she takes a fancy to János and invites him to come to Vienna and enter the Imperial Guard. He asks for double rations for his horse, Hungarian livery for Marci, and for Örzse to come with him. The Russian sentry is worried that he will be punished if he is found in the wrong country. Ebelasztin fails to push the frontier post back, but János manages to do it.

Intermezzo

Second Adventure – In the Garden of the Imperial Palace, Vienna Burg

The park is resplendent. In the course of conversation between János and Marci Ebelasztin's dislike of János becomes clear. Mária Lujza tells János to seek her if he ever needs assistance. Ebelasztin sends János to the stables where he has to ride the wildest horse, but János returns from the roof unruffled by the ride. Mária Lujza points out János to the Empress. The envious Ebelasztin tells Örzse that he has in his pocket the declaration of war from Napoleon which he intends to use; moments later military sounds emerge from inside the palace. János has been promoted to captain by the Emperor. As the curtain falls an enormous cannon is wheeled on.

Third Adventure – A battlefield near Milan.

Háry János, by now promoted to the rank of colonel, single-handedly wins the battle with the wind from drawing his sword, and has Napoleon kneeling for mercy. The emperor's wife now wants to win his heart, to the consternation of Örzse. Mária Lujza and Örzse argue over János, who refuses to marry the princess, who herself threatens suicide. János saves the situation and leads the soldiers in a rousing march.

Fourth Adventure – Imperial Palace, Vienna Burg.

The preparations for the wedding of the hero János and the infatuated princess are under way, but János can't eat. All the archdukes come and pay homage to the hero. Örzse arrives to take leave of Háry but, now an infantryman, he swears allegiance to the Emperor, whether as a soldier or farmer. True to her and to his homeland, despite all the imperial trappings they leave the court.

Epilogue

Back at the inn in Nagyabony, János concludes by telling his sleeping audience that the condition of freeing Napoleon was that a gold watch should be sent to the headman of the village, who replies that he never got it. János states that the only person who can corroborate his story is Örzse, who is now dead.

Musical numbers

 * (A 'Theatre Overture' (Színházi nyitány, K.13) originally written for Háry János, exists mainly as a separate orchestral piece)
 * The Tale Begins – orchestra
 * A Hussar is playing the pipe (A furulyázó huszár) – instrumental
 * Song: The red apple has fallen in the mud (Piros alma leesett a sárba – Háry, Örzse)
 * Plead: Oh mr. murky water, please get it together
 * Drinking Song: Oh how many fishes (Ó, mely sok hal – Marci)
 * Duet: This side of the Tisza (Tiszán innen, Dunán túl – Háry, Örzse)
 * Intermezzo – orchestra
 * Song: My little cuckoo (Ku-ku-ku-kuskám – Marie-Louise)
 * The Viennese Musical Clock – orchestra
 * Song: How did you get here? (Hogyan tudtál, rozsám – Örzse)
 * Song: Hey, two of my hens (Haj, két tikom tavali – Örzse)
 * Chorus of soldiers: Oh, they took me (Sej, besoroztak)
 * The Battle of Napoleon – orchestra
 * Song: Oh you old porcupine (O, te vén sülülülülü – Napoleon)
 * Song: Leave me, tourmenter (Hagyj békét, viaskodó – Ebelasztin)
 * Recruiting dance: The good cavalier (A jó lovas katonának – Háry, Chorus)
 * Duet with chorus: I've lit a candle for the bridegroom (Gyujtottam gyertyát – Empress, Marie-Louise, ladies-in-waiting)
 * Entry of the Emperor and his cortege – orchestra
 * March and Children's chorus: A, B, C, D (Ábécédé)
 * Song: I am poor (Szegény vagyok – Örzse)
 * Song: I will plough the emperor's courtyard (Felszántom a császár udvarát – Háry)
 * Closing chorus: Poor brave Hungarian people (Szegény derék magyar nép – Háry, Örzse)

Suite
From the music of the opera, Kodály extracted the orchestral Háry János Suite, a popular piece in the classical repertoire. This notably includes the cimbalom, a traditional Hungarian variant of the hammer dulcimer. The world première of the suite was at the Gran Teatro del Liceo Barcelona, on 24 March 1927, by the Pau Casals Orchester conducted by Antal Fleischer.

The suite is scored for three flutes (all doubling piccolo), 2 oboes, 2 clarinets in B-flat (one doubling clarinet in E-flat and one doubling alto saxophone), 2 bassoons, 4 horns in F, 3 trumpets in C, 3 cornets in B-flat (used in the last movement only), 3 trombones, tuba, timpani, snare drum, bass drum, cymbals, triangle, tambourine, tam-tam, glockenspiel, chimes, xylophone, celesta, piano, cimbalom and strings.

The movements of the Háry János Suite are as follows:
 * 1) Prelude; the Fairy Tale Begins
 * 2) Viennese Musical Clock
 * 3) Song
 * 4) The Battle and Defeat of Napoleon
 * 5) Intermezzo
 * 6) Entrance of the Emperor and His Court

Films and other adaptations
The play has thrice been adapted into films, all Hungarian: a 1941 film Háry János directed by Frigyes Bán, a 1965 film Háry János directed by Miklós Szinetár and a 1983 animated film Háry János directed by Zsolt Richly. It also was adapted as a children's book by Miklós Rónaszegi.

Recordings

 * Háry János sung in Hungarian, conducted by István Kertész, with English narration by Peter Ustinov. Decca
 * Háry János sung in Hungarian with dialogue, conducted by János Ferencsik. Hungaroton
 * Háry János sung in Hungarian, with French narration by Gérard Depardieu. Friedemann Layer. Accord
 * Háry János Suite recorded by Georg Solti with the London Philharmonic Orchestra, in 1955, Decca LXT 5059.
 * Háry János Suite recorded by Artur Rodzinski with the Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra of London, in 1956, Westminster XWN 18775.
 * Háry János Suite recorded by Antal Dorati with the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra, in 1956, Mercury Living Presence MG 50132.

title: Háry János