text:
Supreme Administrative Court of Poland

The Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Poland (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, NSA) is the court of last resort in administrative cases e.g. those betweens private citizens (or corporations) and administrative bodies. This court deals with appeals from lower administrative courts called Voivodeship Administrative Courts.

Structure of the Supreme Administrative Court of Poland
The Supreme Administrative Court is located in Warsaw. It consists of The President of the Supreme Administrative Court, Vice Presidents, and judges.

Chambers
The Supreme Administrative Court is divided into three chambers: Commercial Chamber, Financial Chamber, and General Administrative Chamber.

The Commercial Chamber supervises the jurisdiction of regional administrative courts as far as customs, and most business regulation is concerned. The Financial Chamber supervises the jurisdiction of regional administrative courts when it comes to financial obligations and other payments regulated by tax law. The General Administrative Chamber supervises the rest of the jurisdiction of regional administrative courts.

Within its organization, there are three organs: The President of The Supreme Administrative Court, The General Assembly of Judges, and The Council of Judges.

President and Vice President
The President of the Supreme Administrative Court manages the functioning of The Supreme Administrative Court and represents it on the outside. He has the right to look into all cases pleaded in The Supreme Administrative Court. He may require not only explanations but also removing faults in a procedure and may also be present during a closed session. The President of Supreme Administrative Court is nominated for 6 years by the Polish President as one of two candidates designated by The General Assembly of Judges. These two candidates are chosen from all the judges of the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Vice-presidents of the Supreme Administrative Court take up their activities commissioned by The President. Being designated by The President, they direct the work within each Chamber. They are nominated and dismissed by the President of Poland.

Judges
The General Assembly of Judges consists of judges nominated to the Supreme Administrative Court. At the top of the hierarchy, there is The President of the Supreme Administrative Court. To their duties belong:
 * considering the annual report concerning the activity of The Supreme Administrative Court prepared by The President,
 * presenting candidates for judges to the Polish Judiciary Council,
 * designating two candidates for The President of The Supreme Administrative Court,
 * approving candidates for Vice-presidents, which is needed for their nomination by the President of Poland,
 * recognizing and giving an opinion to every case presented by The President or by each judge.

An absolute majority in the presence of at least half of the members is needed in order to pass the resolution.

The Council of Judges sets a division of activities within the Supreme Administrative Court and distributes the coming cases to the judges. It gives an opinion concerning candidates for judges to The General Assembly. The term of this organ lasts three years. The chairman of The Council is The President of the Supreme Administrative Court. Again, an absolute majority in the presence of at least half of the members is needed here to pass a resolution.

Presidents of the Court

 * 1980–1981 – Sylwester Zawadzki (lawyer)
 * 1982–1992 – Adam Zieliński
 * 1992–2004 – Roman Hauser
 * 2004–2010 – Janusz Trzciński
 * 2010–2015 – Roman Hauser
 * 2015–2022 – Marek Zirk-Sadowski
 * Since 2022 – Jacek Chlebny

title: Supreme Administrative Court of Poland


text:
Missouri Route 52

Route 52 is an east/west highway running from its eastern terminus at Route 133 7 mi east of St. Elizabeth to the Kansas state line where it continues as K-52 (this road continues for 23 additional miles). Highway 52 comprises 173 mi of primarily two-lane roadway in Missouri.

Route description
Route 52 begins at the Kansas state line from a continuation from K-52. It shares a brief concurrency with I-49 on the west side of Butler. After leaving I-49 it passes through Deepwater then it shares a concurrency with Route 13. It passes through Clinton where it leaves Route 13. Route 52 intersects with Route 2 in Windsor. Route 52 shares a concurrency with US 65. After leaving US 65, Route 52 passes through Cole Camp, Stover, and Versailles where it has a concurrency with Route 5. It leaves Route 5 and then passes through Marvin, Barnett, and Eldon before crossing US 54. It passes through Tuscumbia then it crosses the Osage River with a concurrency with Route 17. After leaving Route 17, it passes through St. Elizabeth then it ends at Route 133.

Route 52 is largely a two lane highway for its entirety except for the concurrency with I-49/US 71 and US 65.

History
Route 52 was formerly Route 24 between Eldon and the Kansas state line. The numbering change was to avoid duplication with the new U.S. Route 24 which came through Missouri in 1926.

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

title: Missouri Route 52


text:
Karl Ludwig Fridolin von Sandberger

Karl Ludwig Fridolin von Sandberger (22 November 1826 – 12 April 1898), German palaeontologist and geologist, was born at Dillenburg, Nassau, on 22 November 1826. He was educated at the universities of Bonn, Heidelberg and Giessen, at the last of which he graduated Ph.D. in 1846. He then studied at the University of Marburg, where he wrote his first essay, Übersicht der geologischen Verhältnisse des Herzogtums Nassau (1847).

In 1849 he became curator of the Natural History Museum at Wiesbaden, and began to study the Tertiary strata of the Mayence Basin, and also the Devonian fossils of the Rhenish provinces, on which he published elaborate memoirs. In 1855 he was appointed professor of mineralogy and geology at the Polytechnic Institute at Karlsruhe, and he took part in the geological survey of Baden. From 1863 to 1896 he was professor of mineralogy and geology at the University of Würzburg. In 1866, he was elected as a member to the American Philosophical Society. His great work Die Land- und Süsswasser-Conchylien der Vorwelt was published in 1870–1875. Later he issued an authoritative 2-volume work on mineral veins, Untersuchungen über Erzgänge (1882–1885). He died at Würzburg on 11 April 1898. His brother Guido Sandberger (1821–1869) was an authority on fossil cephalopoda, and together they published Die Versteinerungen des rheinischen Schichtensystems in Nassau (1850–1856). Adolf Sandberger, Fridolin's son, was a noted German musicologist and composer.

Fridolin Sandberger is credited with the first valid description of Laxitextella laxitexta, which is an extinct clam shrimp species named by him Estheria laxitexta.

title: Karl Ludwig Fridolin von Sandberger


text:
Rapscallion

Rapscallion may refer to:

 * Rapscallion, space freighter in The Space Gypsy Adventures
 * The Rapscallions, antagonist army in the book The Long Patrol
 * The Rapscallions, a collegiate a cappella group from the 1980s
 * Rapp Scallion, a character in the game Monkey Island
 * "The Last Superpower AKA Rapscallion", a song by Primus, from their 2003 EP Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People
 * RapScallions, an American rock band
 * Rapsgaliwn, a Welsh language children's TV show.

title: Rapscallion


text:
Suspended Animation (John Petrucci album)

Suspended Animation is the first studio album by Dream Theater guitarist John Petrucci, released independently in 2005 through Sound Mind Music. The songs "Jaws of Life", "Glasgow Kiss" and "Damage Control" have been played during the G3 tour, and the latter two are featured as openers to the 2005 DVD and live album G3: Live in Tokyo. Some releases of the album have "Curve" split into two separate tracks, with the majority of the song on track six and the latter portion on track seven. On these editions, "Lost Without You" and "Animate-Inanimate" form tracks eight and nine respectively. The correct track listing, without the aforementioned anomalies, is shown below.

Critical reception
Mark Sabbatini at All About Jazz gave Suspended Animation a mixed review, initially criticizing some songs as sounding like "what feels like a market-driven formula for success." He nonetheless noted "Animate-Inanimate" as a highlight, while praising Petrucci's guitar tone, which he described as "clear and distinct even during moments of high-speed indulgence" and setting him apart from his contemporaries.

Personnel

 * John Petrucci – guitar, production
 * Dave DiCenso – drums (except track 3)
 * Tony Verderosa – drums (track 3), remixing
 * Dave LaRue – bass (except track 3)
 * Tim Lefebvre – bass (track 3)
 * Doug Oberkircher – engineering
 * Steve Hardy – engineering
 * Kevin Shirley – mixing
 * Howie Weinberg – mastering


text:
Talk:Urnfield culture

Malformed references
I see and can't find an entry in the page history where this was not corrupted with ??? - does anyone know the correct reference? --Nantonos 15:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Konrad Jad?d?ewski, Urgeschichte Mitteleuropas (Wroc?aw 1984).

Why Cremation?
Funeral practices are a form of religious practice, and religious practices are among the most conservative of all cultural or linguistic elements. The question rises, then, of why inhumation gave way to cremation.

My answer is that some sort of religious innovation occured. I gather that cremation seems to be associated particularly with warriors. No specific ethnic or linguistic group can be clearly linked to them, tho' Italics and Celts are often linked to it. It is also
 * "the major late Bronze Age ... culture of temperate Europe" (JP Mallory, EIEC, "Urnfield Culture".

It was a prestige culture, probably the elite culture; it is hard not to think of it as a warlord culture. The Urnfield culture is reputed to have originated in the Balkans (references?).

Interestingly, the dates for Urnfield are the same as those for Mycenae. And the traditional date for Homer, ca, 800, comes at the end of the Urnfield culture. While the Mycenaeans practiced inhumation, and in fact, there is seems to be NO evidence for Urnfield practices in Greece (and particularly, in Thessaly), we nonetheless have the funeral of Patroclus in Book 23 of the Iliad, which is both an Urnfield burial and a kurgan burial -- with human sacrifices, and the addition of animal sacrifices, the ashes put into an urn and buried at the base of a tumulus. Homer has transmitted to us something very interesting, something that does not at all fit into the Mycenaean scheme, but nonetheless reflects something from further north, the steppe perhaps, but more likely, from the Balkans, something definitely Urnfield-related.

The picture I get is of late bronze age multi-ethnic war-bands wandering all over the place, following a barbarous war-god religion, a religion that perhaps saw the smoke of the dead warrior's pyre as a sort of translation into proto-Valhalla. It may have also been a recognition that wandering warriors could not stay put to watch over a proper inhumation, so the deceased and his grave-offerings were all incinerated, just to keep the grave-robbers away.

As for Patroculus, I think Homer is just inserting some stuff unrelated to the Greeks, but quite pertinent to his stock of old stories. --FourthAve 07:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ha A, Ha B etc?
What does that mean? Does it stand for something? --AW 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * "The Urnfield culture covers the phases Hallstatt A and B (Ha A and B) in Paul Reinecke's chronological system", see Urnfield_culture. Tankred 03:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Vandalisim?
I would like to ask the author of this page, or someone with the proper knowledge to review the page for accuracy. I have found one blatant case of vandalism (something about "octopuss pie is good") and removed it.

The second case is somewhat suspect. Disclaimer: I am layperson on this subject. The following text is quoted from the article:

"Also in many regions of the celtic society the druids and druidesses used large sacred saber teeth straight from the mouth of saber tooth tigers. Often the teeth were still covered in blood from when they were removed. This showed the greatness of the druidess or druid that removed them."

I believe this to be suspect for the following reasons:

I don't remember hearing that Saber-tooth tigers and Homo sapiens coexisting.

While the rest of the article is very vague as to the religion of the Urnfield culture (due to our current lack of historical sources detailing the religious practices), the suspect comment is very detailed as to the druidic practice and the social standing of said "druid" once the tooth was removed from the animal.

The occurrence of other vandalism on this page also heightens my skepticism of this comment, which seems to differ from the rest of the article in detail and tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.144.98 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad link
The link on the map points to the stone age Danubian culture, not the bronze age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvdveer (talk • contribs) 09:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Simplified" map
Please either redo or skip this cruelly "simplified", rather mistaken map! HJJHolm (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree --Xoil (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

proto-Celtic?!
The intro says that the Urnfield culture spoke a proto-Celtic language. There isn't however a secton dealing on how this is arrived at, and a single reference from a 1970s work is all that support it. What the authors of that work say is that "If we are correct in assuming that the Celtic language crystallized among the Late Bronze Age Urnfield communities of Middle Europe, the extensive links which must have existed with Atlantic Europe at this time would have provided a context for Celtic to have been widely adopted as a lingua franca, accompanying the flow of goods and technological information. In this way the language may have spread through the Pyrenees to northern Iberia to emerge as Celtiberian, and through the Alpine passes to the Italian Lakes where Lepontic was to develop." If, assuming, must have, would have, and may have do not make for a lot of evidence for what sounds in the article like a scientific fact. I would suggest that it is either removed, or moved to a new section about theories of Urnfield culture language, until better sourced material are offered. Crock81 (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Further, "At one time commentators speculated that the Celtic languages were spoken by people of the Urnfield culture, c. 1500-80013C, a late Bronze Age development distinguished by techniques for burial of the dead. This theory can no longer be supported, but motifs of Urnfield origin are found in the oldest identifiably Celtic cultural era, that named for Hallstatt in what is today Austria." James MacKillop, Myths and Legends of the Celts, Introduction, Penguin UK, 2006 Crock81 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 * No, this is what the citation says and I have added another well-based on the archaeological evidence tied to the linguistic attestations. I have a copy of Nora Kershaw Chadwick's 'The Celts' 1970. On page 28, it says: "With the emergence of the Urnfield culture of Central Europe, there appear a people whom some scholars regard as being 'proto-Celtic', in that they may have spoken, as is suggested by the evidence of place-names, an early form of Celtic. Apart from the influence of some immigrants from the east during the early first millennium B.C., there is little to distinguish the Urnfield people from their descendants of the Hallstatt culture, other than the latter's use of iron. Again it would seem that the thread of continuity is strong.". This chapter was written by noted British pre-historian John Xavier Willington Patrick Corcoran:

 * http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095638681

 * Venceslas Kruta noted that the earliest Urnfield language was probably an early form of Celtic because of cultural continuity considerations with the development of the Canegrate->Golasecca culture speaking one of the earliest attested Celtic languages Lepontic. He also notes other earlier attested Celtic fragments from over the Alps.Jembana (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who cares who the author is? Can you cite evidence that Urnfield culture spoke some sort of Celtic? This is an encyclopaedic entry, not a forum for speculative discussion. If a source from 2006 says there is no evidence, the chances are that he has surveyed recent literature before saying so, never mind something four decades back. Crock81 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most authors (Gimbutas, Anthony, Kristiansen and others) actually believe that the Urnfield culture was not an homogeneous entity but rather different tribes/peoples (Proto-Celts, Proto-Phrygians, Proto-Italics etc.) who shared some cultural/religious traits.--Xoil (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Belief is falsifiable. The assertion this article makes in the lede is that the culture identified as Urnfield was Celtic and spoke Celtic, or Proto-Celtic. Anything placed in the lede must reflect the contents of the article as a whole, and must come with properly referenced evidence of this 'fact'. A brief survey of just a few recent works about Celts does not support the idea that there is any evidence that Urnfield culture populations were Celts. Nor is there any mention of this in the rest of the article. If ancient Greek sources are to be believed the origins of Celts is on islands off the northern Europe, but no evidence to support this has been found to date either.
 * Anything with Proto in front of it is a speculative re-constructive theory. and does not have evidence to support it in terms of archaeological inscriptions never mind actual speakers. The Comparative Method does not produce evidence derived from facts, but hypothesises on something that can never be proven in absence of actual speakers. For some languages, commencing from the Iron Age, some inferences can be made via artefacts with inscriptions, but that is about it. Crock81 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree...dont'know if can be useful however here is a an old (1965) scheme proposed by Gimbutas (page 340)--Xoil (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So where would it go? Theories about origins section? Crock81 (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Or "Ethnic ascription: theories" . Another source, "Europe before history" (2000) by Kristiansen pg.388 (about the "Middle-Danube Urnfield groups") --Xoil (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As much as some in academia like to present theories as facts, they are still theories. This article is not however about theories! If you are going to create a theory section in this article, it needs to be replicated in quite a few others, and linked into the higher order migration theories, etc. It gets complicated. Too complicated for me to start doing the editing. However, I'm saying the theory should not be presented as fact here and certainly not in the lede.Crock81 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know they are only theories, no one knows for sure who the "Urnenfelders" exatcly were... but at the moment the article says that they were "Proto-Celts" while most archeologist (even some linguists) suppose that they spoke different dialects/languages, IMO it should by pointed out...i'm not going to create a new section because my english level is very basic, i can help to find/add sources --Xoil (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am with Crock 81. "Linguistic evidence and continuity with the following Hallstatt culture suggests that the people of this area spoke an early form of Celtic": The former: no! the latter: maybe, but it is only a suggestion, nothing more. No knoledge about facts, just belief. --Peewit (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Needs more sources
This article is very interesting but sources are scarce.

Please add more references. Jfrheault (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed
There is a global consensus that the information on the page is either contested or impossible to verify due to lack of sources. Jfrheault (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Urnfield culture


text:
Houseboat (film)

Houseboat is a 1958 American romantic comedy film directed by Melville Shavelson. The songs, "Almost In Your Arms" sung by Sam Cooke, and "Bing! Bang! Bong!", sung by Sophia Loren, were written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans. It was presented in Technicolor and VistaVision.

Starring Cary Grant, Loren, Martha Hyer and Harry Guardino, the film was written by Shavelson and Jack Rose on the basis of an original script by Grant's wife at the time, Betsy Drake. It was released on November 19, 1958.

Plot
For three years, Tom Winters, a lawyer working for the U.S. State Department, has been separated from his wife and three children: David, Elizabeth and Robert. Tom returns to Washington, D.C. from Europe after his wife dies. The children want to stay in the countryside with their mother's wealthy parents and her sister Carolyn, but instead Tom takes them to Washington. One evening, they attend the Boston Symphony. Robert disrupts the concert by playing the harmonica. The conductor's daughter, a well-bred and affluent Italian woman, Cinzia, laughs. After the concert ends, Robert leaves the family and disappears. Cinzia has an argument with her father and ends up with Robert. They visit a carnival before Cinzia brings Robert home to a worried Tom. The next day, he hires Cinzia as a maid to care for the children. Misadventures follow as Tom attempts to move Cinzia and the children away from Washington to a house in the country. After a train destroys the house, they wind up as inhabitants of a leaky, rotting houseboat. However, a renovation of the premises proves successful, and their floating home becomes the backdrop for various episodes, where Tom discovers that Cinzia cannot cook, do laundry, or make coffee. David tries to leave in order to be with his aunt Carolyn. However, Tom rescues him when David nearly drowns. His sister-in-law, Carolyn, suspects that Cinzia's relationship with Tom is not entirely platonic. Tom's military aide, Captain Wilson, while somewhat drunk, jokes about Cinzia's living arrangement with Tom. All misunderstandings are explained, and Tom marries his maid as the children look on approvingly.

Production
Grant's wife Betsy Drake wrote the original script, and Grant originally intended that she would star with him. After he began an affair with Loren while filming The Pride and the Passion (1957), Grant arranged for Loren to take Drake's place with a rewritten script for which Drake did not receive credit. The affair ended in bitterness before The Pride and the Passion's filming ended, causing problems on the Houseboat set. Grant hoped to resume the relationship, but Loren agreed to marry Carlo Ponti instead.

Filming locations

 * Parts of the movie were filmed in Fort Washington, Maryland on the Potomac River and Piscataway Creek at the present site of Fort Washington marina.
 * This film was shot on the Tidal Basin in Washington, DC.
 * The amusement park, Glen Echo Park, is located on the Potomac River in the Cabin John section of Montgomery County, Maryland.
 * The home in the opening scene is located in Mount Vernon, Virginia
 * The hotel for the film is the former Continental Hotel, located on Capitol Hill until it was demolished in the 1970s.
 * Also featured is the former Watergate barge stage behind the Lincoln Memorial on the Potomac River (1935–1965). (The Watergate barge is not to be confused with the Watergate complex).

Reception
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 64% based on 11 reviews, with an average rating of 5.84/10.

Wanda Hale of the New York Daily News gave the film a full four-star rating, remarking that it is "one of those screen rarities made solely for entertainment, conveying no message except the message that Sophia Loren finally communicates to Cary Grant." Jack Karr of the Toronto Daily Star recalled that "a thoroughly improbable set of circumstances has been brought together by Paramount Pictures to make "Houseboat’ a funny and appealing movie. The exact chemistry of this new production at the Imperial is not hard to analyze. It involves a mixture of color romance and some kept-in-check sentimentality along with a sort of brash offhand humor and a plausible though unlikely story line. With all these ingredients set out to cool, Director Melville Shavelson has worked up an amiable whimsy which may not be long remembered but which is there to be enjoyed while it lasts." John L. Scott of the Los Angeles Times described the film as "an agreeable light comedy" that "Should have happy sailing" while Selma Wilcox of the Los Angeles Evening Citizen-News said that it had "fun for everyone [...] if you like your fun far, far fetched." Hortense Morton of the San Francisco Examiner said that "without Grant, Houseboat might emerge a pleasant and lighthearted comedy dubbed with the kiss of death brush off as 'entertainment for the whole family.' With Grant, it doesn't quite work out this way. It's still good clean fun, but the actor gives it that extra fillip of sly charm which makes the film definitely adult entertainment. No easy triumph since much of the story revolves around three moppets." Helen Bower of the Detroit Free Press called it "an unusual domestic comedy" featuring three children who are "scene-stealers". Hope Pantell of the Baltimore Evening Sun called the comedy "a warmly appealing, sometimes very funny and sometimes very corny and sentimental family style film." Corbin Patrick of The Indianapolis Star called the film "a happy little holiday show, improbable but charming", while Charles Staff of The Indianapolis News remarked that it "has something for everybody". Harold Whitehead of the Montreal Gazette stated that Loren, "the statuesque Italian has done some impressive-dramatic work and now in Houseboat she is trying her hand at romantic comedy with equally good results." Sydney Johnson of the Montreal Star said that "the minutes pass pleasantly enough [...] mostly due to the expert performance of Cary Grant, the widower, and the several lively appearances of a refreshing personality named Harry Guardino. Mr. Guardino is one of the most likable newcomers to cross the screen in years and things really hum when he is around. Sophia Loren manages very nicely as the Italian visitor, the children are bearable and all the other parts are extremely well acted." Jay Carmody of the Washington Evening Star called the film "a good, healthy look at a family undergoing the daily travail of learning to live as a unit." Clyde Gilmour wrote in the Vancouver Sun that the movie told "a wacky story which easily could have been too silly for belief without a leading man of Cary Grant's skill and charm." Myles Standish of the St. Louis Post Dispatch described it as "that old-fashioned, improbable light comedy" which "has been prettied up with some palatable dialogue by Melville Shavelson and Jack Rose and does nicely as a vehicle for the slick Cary Grant." A user of the Mae Tinee pseudonym in the Chicago Daily Tribune said that "Cary Grant carries this rather thin little comedy on his broad and capable shoulders" while a critic for The Boston Globe said "if there's a picture that can be described [as being] 'for the whole family,' then 'Houseboat', at the Metropolitan Theater is the best bet of the season."

On the negative side, Bosley Crowther of The New York Times said that it "misses on two scores. First, it is in bad taste. The trumped-up pathos of motherless children and the aura of Miss Loren do not mix. Both are exaggerated in this elaborately synthetic film, but that's no warrant for making a tasteless mishmash of essentially clean sentiment and leering sex. With Miss Loren slinking about the houseboat in various revealing states of décolletage, designed to catch the audience's attention, as well as Mr. Grant's, it is offensive to pretend to be interested in the emotional disturbances of kids. In the second place, what has been concocted by the Messrs. Rose and Shavelson is extremely short on entertainment—and that's its more chargeable score." He added that "although Paul Petersen, Mimi Gibson and Charles Herbert look cute as the kids, their acting is generally affected under the direction of Mr. Shavelson. So is that of Miss Loren and the leathery Mr. Grant, who looks old enough to be the kids' grandfather." He concluded that "there are songs and some scenic shots of Washington in this Paramount color film, but they fail to provide this creaky Houseboat with much-needed buoyancy. A London-based critic for The Guardian wrote a scathing comment on the film, saying that "'Houseboat', which describes itself as a romantic comedy, is dedicated to the unacceptable proposition that modern, self-expressive, outspoken American children are necessarily adorable. The three children here chosen for our adoration are, in fact, horrors. Neither Cary Grant, a suave and talented player, nor the gorgeous Sophia Loren can atone for them. In this film, too, the trimmings are coloured and handsome but, thanks to the children, it is a film beyond redemption."

title: Houseboat (film)


text:
Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model

In quantum field theory, the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model (or more precisely: the Nambu and Jona-Lasinio model) is a complicated effective theory of nucleons and mesons constructed from interacting Dirac fermions with chiral symmetry, paralleling the construction of Cooper pairs from electrons in the BCS theory of superconductivity. The "complicatedness" of the theory has become more natural as it is now seen as a low-energy approximation of the still more basic theory of quantum chromodynamics, which does not work perturbatively at low energies.

Overview
The model is much inspired by the different field of solid state theory, particularly from the BCS breakthrough of 1957. The first inventor of the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model, Yoichiro Nambu, also contributed essentially to the theory of superconductivity, i.e., by the "Nambu formalism". The second inventor was Giovanni Jona-Lasinio. The common paper of the authors that introduced the model appeared in 1961. A subsequent paper included chiral symmetry breaking, isospin and strangeness. At the same time, the same model was independently considered by Soviet physicists Valentin Vaks and Anatoly Larkin.

The model is quite technical, although based essentially on symmetry principles. It is an example of the importance of four-fermion interactions and is defined in a spacetime with an even number of dimensions. It is still important and is used primarily as an effective although not rigorous low energy substitute for quantum chromodynamics.

The dynamical creation of a condensate from fermion interactions inspired many theories of the breaking of electroweak symmetry, such as technicolor and the top-quark condensate.

Starting with the one-flavor case first, the Lagrangian density is

 * $$\mathcal{L}=\,i\,\bar{\psi}\partial\!\!\!/\psi+\frac{\lambda}{4} \,\left [\left(\bar{\psi}\psi\right)\left(\bar{\psi}\psi\right)-\left(\bar{\psi}\gamma^5\psi\right)\left(\bar{\psi}\gamma^5 \psi\right)\right]$$

or, equivalently,

 * $$ \mathcal{L}=

\,i\,\bar{\psi}_L\partial\!\!\!/\psi_L+\,i\,\bar{\psi}_R\partial\!\!\!/\psi_R+\lambda \,\left(\bar{\psi}_L \psi_R\right)\left(\bar{\psi}_R\psi_L \right).$$

The terms proportional to $$\lambda$$ are an attractive four-fermion interaction, which parallels the BCS theory phonon exchange interaction. The global symmetry of the model is U(1)Q×U(1)χ where Q is the ordinary charge of the Dirac fermion and χ is the chiral charge. $$\lambda$$ is actually an inverse squared mass, $$\lambda = 1/M^2$$ which represents short-distance physics or the strong interaction scale, producing an attractive four-fermion interaction.

There is no bare fermion mass term because of the chiral symmetry. However, there will be a chiral condensate (but no confinement) leading to an effective mass term and a spontaneous symmetry breaking of the chiral symmetry, but not the charge symmetry.

With N flavors and the flavor indices represented by the Latin letters a, b, c, the Lagrangian density becomes

 * $$\mathcal{L}=\,i \,\bar{\psi}_a\partial\!\!\!/\psi^a+\frac{\lambda}{4N} \,\left [\left(\bar{\psi}_a\psi^b\right)\left(\bar{\psi}_b\psi^a\right)-\left(\bar{\psi}_a\gamma^5\psi^b\right)\left(\bar{\psi}_b\gamma^5 \psi^a\right)\right]$$

 * $$=\,i\,\bar{\psi}_{La}\partial\!\!\!/\psi_L^a+\,i\,\bar{\psi}_{Ra}\partial\!\!\!/\psi_R^a+\frac{\lambda}{N} \,\left(\bar{\psi}_{La} \psi_R^b\right)\left(\bar{\psi}_{Rb}\psi_L^a \right).$$

Chiral symmetry forbids a bare mass term, but there may be chiral condensates. The global symmetry here is SU(N)L×SU(N)R× U(1)Q × U(1)χ where SU(N)L×SU(N)R acting upon the left-handed flavors and right-handed flavors respectively is the chiral symmetry (in other words, there is no natural correspondence between the left-handed and the right-handed flavors), U(1)Q is the Dirac charge, which is sometimes called the baryon number and U(1)χ is the axial charge. If a chiral condensate forms, then the chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken into a diagonal subgroup SU(N) since the condensate leads to a pairing of the left-handed and the right-handed flavors. The axial charge is also spontaneously broken.

The broken symmetries lead to massless pseudoscalar bosons which are sometimes called pions. See Goldstone boson.

As mentioned, this model is sometimes used as a phenomenological model of quantum chromodynamics in the chiral limit. However, while it is able to model chiral symmetry breaking and chiral condensates, it does not model confinement. Also, the axial symmetry is broken spontaneously in this model, leading to a massless Goldstone boson unlike QCD, where it is broken anomalously.

Since the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model is nonrenormalizable in four spacetime dimensions, this theory can only be an effective field theory which needs to be UV completed.

title: Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model


text: Category:Portuguese art

title: Category:Portuguese art


text:
Talk:Scholar's mate

Title
in my area, we always called the sequence "Blitzkrieg" after the lightning-fast german war tactics. i happen to think it's a pretty suitable name, but i wondered if anybody else has heard that name for it?
 * See Votes for deletion/Blitzkrieg (chess strategy)

Xiong Chiamiov 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I've actually heard it called the "terrorist attack;" Bruce Pandolfini referred to it thus in the opening tutorials for the Chessmaster PC games. I have no better source, unfortunately. Darthmix 23:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Black is the Scholar
Unfortunately in this page's current version of the mate, Black's motivation is less clear than this example: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qh5 and Black, seeing that his e-pawn is attacked, defends it with 3...Nc6 only to lose to 4.Qxf7#. I think this is why the line is called "Scholar's mate": It is not White, but rather Black who is the Scholar, who sees and responds to a threat but still fails, in contrast to the Fool who has no clue at all. --Wfaxon 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * True enough. I did a double-take when I read the bit about 3. ...g6 being "fine for Black," because I've always seen 2. ...Bc5, and in that line 3. ...g6 fails badly: White can respond 4. Qxe5+, winning the rook.  Another "scholarly" response for Black in this line is 3. ...Nf6, which sensibly attacks the queen but misses the checkmate threat.  (Black's best response is to block both threats with 3. ...Qe7, then chase away White's queen at his leisure.) ~ CZeke 22:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * About the 3. ... g6 move, I've actually used that against somebody when opening with scholar's mate. But then my queen got stuck... o_o ZtObOr 04:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But in all seriousness, I think the 2 Bc4 Bc5 example should be the one on the page. ZtObOr 04:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and added it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Animation
I removed the animation because it was superfluous. W/o it, the entry looks more tidy.

I think the animation is good because it shows a step-by-step process that eases understanding of the concept. I'm gonna replace the current image w/ the animation to make both of us happy. --Kevin [ [User_talk:Guitarmankev1|(TALK)]] 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The animation is good, please keep. Nicolasdz 15:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; the animation is nice. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg
The article stated in the first line that scholar's mate was "widely known" as blitzkrieg. I have moved this to the end of the article with the other alternative names. I've certainly never heard it called blitzkrieg (this discussion shows I'm not alone), and the Oxford Companion to Chess, for example, doesn't give it as an alternative name (it actually gives blitzkrieg as an alternative name for progressive chess). I think it's fine to list it in the article (it is referenced, after all), but putting it in the lead-in paragraph and making out that it's as widely used a term as "scholar's mate" itself seems to me rather misleading (I have similar doubts about "four move checkmate" to be honest, but at least that's not in the very first sentence). --Camembert 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We've gone 'round this issue before. I think it's utter bullocks, but people involved with scholastic chess assure us that this is established usage in youth chess.  I find the source weak and unconvincing.  Anyone can write a book on anything, and Harvey Kidder is a chess writer totally unknown to me.  If Hooper, Whyld, Reinfeld, Horowitz, Chernev, Burgess, Winter, Golombek, Kasparov, etc. would confirm it, I'd be OK with it, but corroberation of this usage is very hard to find.  AFAIK, the listed book is the only reference the blitzkriegers can come up with.  I'm disappointed to see Wikipedia promote what I consider to be a completely bogus usage, but there it is.  Thanks for at least moving it out of the lede.  (Why would "blitzkrieg" be a popular term among youth today anyway?  That term had currency around WW II and is almost never used anymore.)   Quale 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, it is in that reference (Kidder); I looked it up. Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I did a google search, and found a reference on the web, but Wikipedia says it is a blacklisted site. Bubba73 (talk), 03:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Funny, I learned it as Blitzkreig and had never heard the term Scholar's Mate until reading this article. There are a few minor web references, enough to show the term is at least used casually, which is pretty much what the article says. e.g.,,  and www.associatedcontent.com/article/286783/losing_a_chess
 * _game_in_two_moves_the.html?cat=11 (blacklisted). I won my first-ever competitive chess match in grade 2 using this tactic, only to have my 7-year-old opponent declare it a practice game. Roger (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I found that reference to the book by Kidder that uses "blitz" or "Blitzkreig", and I've heard a few people use it (with is wp:or). It doesn't seem to be very common, though.  It may depend on the area.  I've also heard people who should know better incorrectly call it Fool's mate.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Optimal Move List
I don't know if this is the "traditional" scholar's mate, but I find that a more optimal move list, in an actual game, is:

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Qh5 Nf6 4. Qxf7#

Notice how the bishop's move is before the queen's. If you use a move list like the one presented in an article, a more logical progression would be:

1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6

Therefore endangering the queen. If the white player insists in trying the scholar's mate, he will lose his queen with Nxh5. With the move list proposed above, you can fool the black player in playing 2. ... Nc6 instead of 2. ... Nf6 more easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereallarkas (talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Wrong. 2.Qh5 induces 2...Nc6 because it attacks the e5-pawn. 2.Bc4 encourages Blacks "best" move, 2...Nf6, since there's no immediate reason to defeind e5. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Indeed. --Thereallarkas (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Names around the world
The "Names around the world" section seems somewhat misleading. I assume the point is to describe translations of the term in different languages, but that would better be achieved by listing the translations by language instead of by country. For example, an Italian could use the term "Barber's mate" in Italian but would certainly say "Scholar's mate" when speaking in English. Similarly a person speaking in Italian would say "Barber's mate" regardless of whether they are in Italy or somewhere else. I think the section should really list languages instead of countries/regions. Jafeluv (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * How would that work for the first item listed?:"In some regions, including France, Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Latin America: Shepherd's Mate."Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * How about this: "In some languages, including French, Turkish, German, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese: Shepherd's Mate."Jafeluv (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Oh (I see your point). Yeah. (I'm guessing the text was trying to mean that, but failed.) I !vote go ahead and make the necessary changes. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Done. Jafeluv (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * By the way, any reason why Denmark/Danish is listed twice? Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * This editor doesn't offhand know. (Would take digging into the src I suppose. Or one could check w/ the editor who added the content originally.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * There's no article on da.wiki, but a quick Google search seems to indicate that the Danish term is "skolmagermat", ie. "shoemaker mate". Maybe someone has just assumed that it's the same term as in Swedish and Norwegian, which both use "school mate". Will need to find a reliable source for the term, though... Jafeluv (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that a Google search for "skolmagermat" is fruitless, as this is "skomagermat". Kamdenek (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Pandora's Box
One consequence of changing the main line from 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 (as presented in the 1987 OCC entry for Scholar's Mate) to 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qh5, as was done today, is that now the best move 3...Qe7, "which [...] intends 4... Nf6 to gain a tempo on the h5-queen", never works out that way after 4.Nf3 (4...d6 5.Ng5). (See the Bilguer lines in ECO C23.) IHTS (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw this line in print in only one book, which gives 4. Nf3 Nc6 (defending the e5-pawn) 5. Ng5 (White really won't give up) Nh6. Then White has no way to step up the pressure and will soon have to pull his pieces back. Not too hard to add it to the text I guess. Banedon (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In what book? (The line & eval you added s/ probably carry a ref.) ECO C (1997) gives:"4.Nf3 d6 (4...Nf6 5.Qxe5 Bxf2+ 6.Ke2 Qxe5 7.Nxe5 Bb6 8.Bxf7+ Ke7 9.Bb3 d6= Bilguer) 5.Ng5 Nf6 (5...g6 6.Qf3! Be6 [6...Qxg5? 7.Qxf7+ Kd8 8.Qf8+ Kd7 9.Be6+! Kxe6 10.Qxc8+ Ke7 11.0-0!+/−; 6...Nh6 7.d3+/=] 7.Nxe6 fxe6 8.d3+/= Minev, Kajkamdzozov) 6.Qxf7+ Qxf7 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 8.Bc4 h6 9.Nf3 Nxe4 10.0-0= Bilguer"Ok, IHTS (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting, after 9...Nxe4, Larsen says Black has the advantage (Estrin, 3 Double King Pawn Openings, p. 7). More complexity, if 6.Bxf7+ (instead of 6.Qxf7+), then 6...Kd8 7.Qh4 Rf8 8.Bc4 Ng4! 9.0-0 Rxf2 (Estrin). IHTS (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Weird, I've certainly not seen the lines before and in fact it even evaluates the position after 6...Nh6 as +/=. Still, I'd call ECO more reliable than any individual author, especially one that's devoting space to Scholar's Mate (implying an amateur audience). I don't know what to make of the section. Feel free to change it as you see fit. Banedon (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, what book (ref)? p.s. I won't be editing this article. IHTS (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Mammoth Book of Chess by Graham Burgess, with a foreword by Dr John Nunn, first published in the UK by Robinson Publishing 1997, page 484. Burgess gives 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Qh5 Qe7 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Ng5 Nh6, and says this: "Defending f7 once more. White has no way to increase the pressure and will soon have to back-pedal." Banedon (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx. IHTS (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Another point re changing this article's main line from 2.Qh5 Nc6 to 2.Bc4 Bc5 ... Yakov Estrin describes 2...Bc5 as "ancient":"This ancient defense is quite playable, although less energetic than 2...Nf6."

- 3 Double King Pawn Openings (1982), Chess Enterprises Inc, p. 7.

And that was 34 yrs ago! Whereas 2...Qh5 has received new vigor as a result Hikaru Nakamura. So I'd suggest 2.Qh5 might be a more modern (not to mention more forceful, and less complex [per above]) way to get to a Scholar's mate, s/ a beginner want to try that/do that. (Which might be a common thing, right, and a reason why beginner player readers might access this article.) IHTS (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the third-most popular response to 2. Bc4 though, and "ancient" doesn't necessarily mean it's no longer being played it just means it's very old. In the same way, the Ruy Lopez is an ancient opening. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My points are that 2.Qh5 is more modern,more forceful, and less complex way to get to a Scholar's mate. IHTS (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 * If a beginner player reads the article from wanting to try Scholar's, then 2.Qh5 is more forcing. If they read it from wanting to know how to defend against it, then 2.Qh5 is what they s/ probably see first (same reason, more forcing). IHTS (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I don't think Scholar's Mate is something beginners should be encouraged to try, and even if they do try it, 2. Bc4 is the better way to go about it. 2. Qh5 is not only transparent, it leads to a worse game if the mate attempt is fended off. I don't have anything more to say, it comes down to what other editors think should be the main variation. Banedon (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then, the main line s/b 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qh5. (Possible reasons: I think we agree White is more assuredly driven back after 3...Qe7 than after 2...Bc5 3.Qh5 Qe7; and per your openings link 2...Nc6 is also more common than 2...Bc5. [Curious thing re that, at article Bishop's Opening, 2...Nc6 isn't even presented, it only appears in an unreferenced list at bottom of subsec Bishop's Opening.]) IHTS (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Banedon (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External link game showing example followup to defense beginning 3...g6 4.Qf3 Nf6
, please explain what part of WP:ELNO you think disallows the EL I added here that you reverted here. It links a game analysis that is relevant to article content, an application of the article recommendation for best line of defense to Scholar's (3...g6 4.Qf3 Nf6), and is too detailed for the article proper, which is what External link section is for. With Magnus Carlsen as Black the vid is well-done w/ over 2.3 million views, what is not to like? --IHTS (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The part above WP:ELNO. "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" -- answer for this link is "no". There is less than 30 seconds of "game analysis" related to the opening. 2.3 million views doesn't matter since the content is barely relevant, plus the title of the video is shamelessly clickbait. Banedon (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The vid demonstrates how the best player in the world *continues* Black's play (i.e. strategy) after the article best line of defense. As a player, that has great value (is "useful, informative"), it helps complete understanding of an opening for practical use. The vid is "tasteful" and "factual"; as far as the title, I don't believe in changing an uploader's original title, I wouldn't reject the value this vid adds to this article on that basis. --IHTS (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that. As mentioned the video has barely any analysis, most of it is just a bunch of moves, and the "focus" of the video (if any) is later in the endgame when White blundered a drawn position. I don't think it adds anything to the article. I'm going to notify WP:Chess, see what others think. Banedon (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Responding to the post at WT:CHESS. I think it's a little unclear. On one hand, it shows a top-level follow up to a line that is related to this topic. I think the crucial thing, though, is that this article isn't about games that start out e4 e5 bc4 nc6 qh5 and then go somewhere else other than a quick mate on f7 -- it's about that mate. The g6 line is relevant in terms of the "ways not to get mated" as usefully described in the article, but the theory of that opening and subsequent ideas seems like it makes more sense in the article we have about that opening, Danvers Opening. I think that once you move past that video's title, which seems framed for clickbait purposes, it's a video about Carlsen vs. the Danvers Opening and could possibly be a useful addition to that article (that it's a blitz game isn't great, but being Carlsen may make up for it). That's nothing against the quality of its content, of course -- just that I think its relevance is limited to this article, but might be appropriate for the other article. I don't object to the idea of a YouTube video, or an analysis on YouTube, or even a video from this person FWIW. — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

IMO the youtube link does not add anything of value to the article. White clearly did not expect to catch Carlsen in a 4 move checkmate, he just wanted to get out of main lines... and it was just an internet blitz game. Besides, the defence used by Carlsen (2...Nc6, 3...g6, 4...Nf6) is already covered by the article text. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree with User:Rhododendrites and User:MaxBrowne2. By coincidence, although I am not familiar with what's available on YouTube for chess, I had heard of Suren, who is apparently a popular YouTube chess publisher -- 32M views, 70K subscribers, according to what I read (not necessarily reliable). I wonder if we should have an article about him. But I don't see an easy way to hang this video off the Scholar's Mate article.

Looking at the article on Danvers Opening, I wonder if it should be updated to mention Carlsen's loss (with White) in the recent World Rapid. That game, more than Nakamura's game, had a genuinely theoretical look to it -- Carlsen seemed to get a good game out of the opening. Who would have thought that 2. Qh5 would look interesting at the top level. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Youtube videos are probably not the best ELs in general, and in this case, there's very little of it that is relevant to the article at all. I can't really think of a reason why this article would need any ELs to videos, but certainly not this video. --SubSeven (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with other commenters that this video is probably more adequate for the Danvers Opening article, mainly because it is Carlsen playing against it. Not so much here since, as others have pointed out, it just glances over the Scholar's mate.--Gorpik (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

✅ I think there is a clear consensus that the youtube link is not needed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Early 2021 Edits, Scholar's & Fool's, vis-a-vis Beale
I've recently edited the present article and the closely-related Fool's Mate article to indicate historical origin of each article's titular phrase. It turns out that both are found in Francis Beale's 1656 adaptation of Greco's text. The origin of both phrases (and the chosen, uncited game examples in the old wiki articles) have been mysterious to me for years (because no cites/clear historical context in the central sections during that time!), and Beale seems to be a satisfactory historical explanation of both title-usages (Fools'/Scholar's), and the gameplay examples themselves, though very slightly different from what has historically obtained on wiki. This is why I am strongly inclined to rework both articles in Beale's terms, which I suspect informed the (slightly different) years-old examples in both cases-as some uncited historical accretion.

At my talk, Bruce leverett indicated that there are lower details that would have to be changed to accommodate, and also expressed reservations. I agree that an article's details should be consistent, and in this case, yes, I think it's worth the changing to accommodate the clear historical example (source) where none was explicit before, which I am introducing. ''Where does it come from? Why do we call it 'Scholar's mate' in the first place?'' Is there a source?  Beale provides the answer, with a certain specific version of the mate which I think should therefore be followed. I am strongly inclined to rework the basic example of Scholar's Mate in the article to match Beale's example (permuting moves of white queen and bishop). I've already carried this out in the lead, and as Bruce indicated, this would need to be continued to fix any existing factual errors downstream in the article, which I'll start looking at.MinnesotanUser (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 * In the process of reorganizing the article to deal with the citation of, and quotation from, Beale, I deleted some material about how to prevent Scholar's mate when White has played 2. Bc4. I don't remember my full rationale, and I don't object to your recent changes to restore some of that material. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization
Is it Scholar's mate with a lowercase m or Scholar's Mate with an uppercase M? The article can't seem to decide which. The Fool's mate article has a similar problem with inconsistency. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * These terms have been around for many years. I don't know of any good reason to use uppercase 'M'. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you expected to accomplish by informing me of the duration for which these terms have existed, but okay. I'm also not sure what you expected to accomplish by informing me that you don't know of any good reason to use an uppercase M; I would have preferred that you tell me about the things that you do know, not the things that you don't. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

– capitalization conforms to general usage ISaveNewspapers (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Scholar's mate → Scholar's Mate
 * Fool's mate → Fool's Mate
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Hi, are these 2 not nouns? Dr. Vogel (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Proper nouns, in this case. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are they? That doesn't seem obvious to me. In fact I largely see them uncapitalized when I google it. Endwise (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "General usage" is a bit vague, and capitalization can be contentious on Wikipedia, so contesting. This should be discussed. — BarrelProof (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not convinced that these are proper nouns that should be capitalized. Dictionary.com and thefreedictionary.com do not capitalize them. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:NCCAPS/MOS:CAPS says we should capitalize this only if it's consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Ngrams do not suggest this to be the case. (And the standard caveat applies that ngrams will tend to overstate the degree of capitalization because it is indexing not just running text, but also titles, section headings, etc.) Colin M (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I mostly see these uncapitalised in sources (see e.g. Rreagan007's and Colin M's comment above), and I don't think there's a Wikipedia-specific MOS/NCCAPS reason these should be capitalised. Endwise (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not capitalized in The Oxford Companion to Chess either, as pointed out on the Wikiproject Chess talk page. Cobblet (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:GAMECAPS.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose a lot of chess terms are capitalized due to the "Common Use" rule in ways that don't quite follow general Wikipedia style guidance. There is a certain argument that these should also be over-capitalized for consistency.  On the other hand, if the chess sources don't capitalize these terms, we shouldn't either. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 19:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scholar's mate


text:
User talk:Hawstom/Archive5

Misc
Thanks for the alert. See you at User:Hawstom/Chalkboard.

Tom, did you intentionally place your comment within mine? Moogle 00:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Tom, thanks for checking out the JW main page. I would really appreciate whatever input you could bring. George 12:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evolution
I realize that you may have a busy schedule here at wiki, but after being referred to you by Kim Bruning, I was wanting to ask your opinion about the evolution article. The debate that I began evidently has been waged before, but without avail. There are a couple of very maniacal 'sentries,' so to speak, who are completely close-minded about hearing me out. I am not out to destroy their theory, but there are some problems with the article itself that need to be fixed. Evidently they see these discrepancies as important, though I don't understand why -- they have little to do with the theory of evolution. Several weeks back I heard someone on National Public Radio say that 'the evolutionists don't play fair with the debate.' I had to see it for myself. So, if I am intruding, forgive me, but I could use a teammate in this fight. If not, at least an anecdote would be nice, or even a small opinion. Regards, Salva31 09:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually I'd just reccomended Salva to look at your edits in the archives at Talk:Human, I think you already know that I was somewhat impressed with those. :-) Kim Bruning 14:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Spotted your message on my talk page. Sure, if you think you can help him out, that'd be really nice. :-) Buuuut... Evolution is one of the biggest wikiminefields, so take care! Kim Bruning 14:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the problem that I have with this article is the unsupported and wholly unencyclopædic statement in the introduction:
 * "As the theory has become widely accepted in the mainstream scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism. Skeptics — often Creationists — sometimes minimize the explanatory power and validity of evolution theory by criticizing it as "just a theory" — using "theory" as synonymous with "conjecture" or "speculation", instead of the technical, scientifically accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, evolution is a very powerful theory."

I have seen this card pulled by evolutionists time and time again. Actually, I have never known the theory itself to be presented without a statement which attempts to discredit or 'bull-head' out other theories that may be in any sort of conflict with it. When I originally began discussing the reason for this, the obstinant agression that was thrown back at me was incredible. Kim Bruning archived most of what I said and left quite a bit of my opponents' rebuttals in the main discussion page. However, considering my original intentions, which in no way had to do with arguing against science or destroying a theory, why this had to escalate into what it did is still a mystery to me. The comment in the introduction has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory itself, and is based solely on opinion rather than observation. I know several creationists who actively practice science, that of which is an increasing number. Secondly, evolution is a theory. Their attempts to bring it closer to fact nearly throw the scientific method out the window, especially to people who have not been informed of both viewpoints. This maneuver is made because they (evolutionists) are insecure about the validity of their theory, and they should be considering the long list of discrepancies that exist, which tend to disprove the religious notion that evolution is fact. Salva31 02:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure how to begin talking about this. Kim B. is right that it is a huge minefield.  And yet perhaps there can be some progress made in the article.  On first reading, I must say I was impressed by the passage you quoted.  At the same time, I believe there is reasonable substance to your objection, and I fancy that perhaps I can begin to glimpse it.  There may be pay in exploring a mental separation of the concepts of Origin of Life, Origin of Humans, and The Theory of Evolution.  Perhaps it isn't the theory of evolution that you dispute.  Perhaps it is the applications, inferences, and extrapolations that are made from it.  And perhaps there is a way to clarify all this.  Tom Haws 20:07, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Haws, my thanks go out to you for your support with the evolution article. I believe that I have succeeded in convincing the removal of the picture mocking the Ichtyus fish. This would not have been possible without User:Kim Bruning's help as well as your comments. As a Christian, it is my duty to work towards the obliteration of the will which has rotted the social infrastructure of my country and most of the Western world. We must be on guard against the forces of darkness that will not stop untill every moral foundation is destroyed. If I have overwhelmed you, I apologize. You must be busy with other things on Wikipedia. But please, do not forget that when you are in need of a fellow Christian's vote or opinion in any of your projects, my word is yours. Regards, Salva 02:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint Articles of Faith
Yesterday I made a change to the Artices of Faith on the Latter Day Saint page which you corrected since, according to you, "I'm not sure how the AofF are presented by Community of Christ and other denominations, so I guess it's safest to leave them as written by JS."

However, you are apparently unaware that the Articles of Faith, as listed in that article, are NOT how they were written by Joseph Smith.

Here's how AofF #4 was written by Joseph Smith:

"We believe that these ordinances are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."

It was modified in 1902 by the LDS Church, and "these ordinances" was removed and was replaced with "the first principles and ordinances of the gospel". That way AofF number 4 doesn't require AofF 3 as an anticedent.

Here's how AofF #10 was written by Joseph Smith:

"We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon this continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory."

This one was changed a couple of times. First the words "the American" were added before "continent", then "this" was later removed.

Here's how AofF#11 was written by Joseph Smith:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

In 1902, the LDS Church added the word "own" before "conscience."

Since you don't have the original text for Articles of Faith #4 or #11, I assumed you were using the current text used by the LDS Church, and would welcome the one-word correction. How was I supposed to know that you were trying to maintain a false perception of leaving them how Joseph Smith wrote them?

I suggest that you examine your own bias, because even though you claim you want to "leave them as written by JS", you aren't.

To be honest, it makes me not want to contribute to the project at all. And I really thought I might have something to contribute, however it is apparently not wanted. 149.24.204.1

 * My sincerest apologies for both my ignorance and my offense. Please continue to add your expertise to the article and any others.  Tom Haws 19:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hello
I'd like to add some small notes of encouragement. I do believe the FLDS page is invaluable. I'm unaware of another reference that pulls all the timely information together so well.

Currently, I'm in some sort of semi-retirement from wikipedia. Some involvement in wikipolitics rather discouraged me (you seem to be quite active on the mailing list though, and I do enjoy reading that).

I'd like to strongly encourage you to keep doing what you're doing. You have some skill at consensus-building, I think. Or at least you're good at bringing together people with diverse viewpoints. Keep it up. Cool Hand Luke  07:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exmormonism
Since it seems like you are pretty familiar with exmo linguistics I would like ytou to contribute to Exmormon once I get a decent ammount of information onto the page. Sound good? --Vegasbright 19:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the confidence. I will do my best. Tom Haws 19:53, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

WikiBreak
In the small time I've been keeping tabs on the JW related articles I think you've been doing a good job of being a moderate voice. I will be keeping tabs on the JW artices to try to help keep them NPOV. However, I'll be staying out of the Mormonism related artices. Trying to work on more than one of the two would be just too much stress and probably would send me to to a Wikivacation. Enjoy your break and come back refreshed. Kevin Rector (talk) 23:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, Tom any time. Glad I could help. Raj2004

Re: Parley P. Pratt
Hi - I stuck the explain-significance tag on this article because, at the time I did so, the piece was written in such a way as to make it unclear to a reader unfamiliar with the history of the LDS church (e.g., me) what significance Pratt had. WBardwin made some edits to make his significance much clearer, so I have no objection to that label being removed now. In hindsight, I should have explained my actions on the Talk page. --Dcfleck 00:40, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

 * An LDS list of apostles from the beginning to the near present exists at:  - Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Certainly, I would have a copyright concern if we simply copied it to Wiki -- someone put a lot of work into it, but there is nothing creative about a list.  Perhaps we could ask permission (on the site's E-mail function)?   If we choose to use it, it needs updating with the recent deaths of two and the calling of their replacements.  And we should probably double check dates, etc.  I've never made a Wiki - list, so I will try and check the policy.  WBardwin 07:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Tom - I just noted the list of apostles we were speculating about is actually tucked at the end of Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. A great mind preceeded us! WBardwin 20:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.
I found the paragraph to have an offensive tone, which is why I edited it. If you feel that changes I made were inappropriate, you may reverse them (or better yet, come to some kind of happy medium.) Regards, Rmisiak 06:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Tom: I've posted an "Alert" on the LDS page. A young editor with a history of confusing and contentious edits has weighed in on Joseph Smith, Jr (see User:Gabrielsimon). I've politely referred him to the talk page. It appears he might be an issue for awhile. Peace. WBardwin 00:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BC - CE debate
FYI - I think you vote (in favor of the proposal) got deleted in the attempt to remove the duplication of the entire page that happened sometime this morning. While I am here - I thought I would lobby you a little - the current policy to let each page be specific to its content - CE or BC/BCE or BC is a good one - and it shouldn't be overturned for usage that would be unfamiliar to many users (as opposed to editors) of wikipedia - we should focus on our audience. After losing the debate and refusing to accept the BC/BCE compromise on Jesus User:Slrubenstein is trying to force his views though a claim to NPOV that I disagree with. Anyway - you may want to restore your vote. Trödel| talk 16:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think letting each article use the designation appropriate to its subject matter is the best way to go. I proposed (and eliminated AD here: but edited that only BC should be used here: ) on the Jesus page not using AD at all and letting years without designation mean the obvious i.e. the current time keeping system. (At that time I thought the objection was only to the Anno Domini - Year of our/the Lord since that was the only discussion). I also reverted the BC/BCE several times to see if there were others besides the verbose Slrubenstein (and his friends) who were opposed to just leaving in BC and having no designation for AD - there was sufficient support so I stopped reverting. I think the current status of BC/BCE on Jesus is appropriate for that page.

I disagree however, that BC/AD are any more NPOV by nature than BCE/CE because
 * 1) The abbreviations now have meanings themselves attached to them that are different than the words they stand for. (And that meaning presents no opinion as to the divinity of Jesus)
 * For instance, I didn't realize BC was before christ until I was 14, many (2/3) in my office (I took a quick straw poll) had no idea what they meant - although they knew that the transition from BC to AD had something to do with Jesus.

 * 1) The demarcation(sp?) of the time change is the same - Jesus
 * 2) We should use what is convention instead of a more confusing term
 * Perhaps with time BCE/CE will become more common; however, except in certain disciplines using BCE/CE will detract from the article because many of the readers will not be sure what BCE is.

I am also feeling personally attacked by Slrubenstein - he has called me a liar and a hypocrite, I feel he misreprsented my views and the opposition by claiming only 2 people were against the change, etc. As above your comment on my talk page he continues to be derogatory towards me - despite the fact that I agreed to the compromise.

One of the things that just gets on my nerves is people who start implementing a change while a vote is taking place and that is where I got in this one - which I had been avoiding - he kept reverting people who wanted the article to stay the same until the vote was complete - that is when I made my first revert.

Anyway, to sum up I don't think there should be any official site wide policy other than to be sensitive, to use NPOV terms, and to use terms appropriate to the article's material. Trödel| talk 17:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Trödel| talk 21:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD
Hi Tom, this was decent of you. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Article validation is go!
Validation is running on the test wiki, http://test.leuksman.com/ (the interface is only in the Monobook skin at present) and there's discussion on wikipedia-l starting here. It'll be in 1.5. W00t! See Article validation feature and En validation topics - do freely add topics to rate on, we can cut the list down later - David Gerard 10:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Your previous comments about not giving up make complete sense now
Tom, I am not trying to be smarmy or rude but I know now why others have dropped out of editing mormon wiki pages. During my wikiholiday I took for finals I came to the realization that the editing of mormon wiki's by me and others who respect history, documentation, and above all else objective truth cannot possibly share their point of view on wikipedia. I find the tactics of questioning everything that sheds a not so positive light on the LDS church but allowing the sugar coated happy-fun-time tales of pro mormon wiki authors frustrating and above all else a poor interpretation of what wikipedia is.

Furthermore I now understand why there have been so many exmormons that have stopped editing due to this same finding and now have decided to limit seriously the childish and distorted views expressed about joseph smith, brigham young, the funny dress up game I used to think was so sacred in the temple and other indviduals, beliefs and activities ou find to be above objectivity.

Do I fault you? No. I fault the organization that has pounded into your head that the activity of objecting to the mormon faith is in some way showing persecution toward mormonism. If all else fails in defending a falsehood, just claim you are being persecuted. Seems to work pretty good for most of the LDS authors.

I do not have the time to sit and correct the voluminous ammounts of faith promoting banter that is so pro-mormon as to be laughable. Do not take this personally, as you have been trained to do but merely take it as a continual sign that frustration abounds when dealing with this medium that has been capialized by individuals who are not motivated by objectivity and scholarly intentions but instead are seeking to shoot down documented facts through worn out apologetic arguments. Utilizing the most tried and true mormon apologetic argument of ad hominem is old hat, attacking the person and not the fact. I should have expected this and it is my fault for believing the pro-mormon editors were above this laughable tactic among other childish moves.

I am sick of this and am saddened that Wikipedia is at a loss because of the actions of a few. Vegasbright

 * I'm not sure I understand completely all your concerns, but I think I get the general gist. I am sorry that things are turning out every bit as difficult here as I thought they might for you, but I am glad you are persisting.  I will continue to do all I can to facilitate improvement and understanding in the WP:LDS project, and I will always appreciate your dedication to the project.  Tom Haws 15:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion at this talk page is sought
Talk:Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

The subject of the debate is the 1975 armageddon date by the Jehovah's Witnesses, specifically the section marked "Jehovah's Witnesses and failed 1975 prophecy" and "Personal Crusade".

One person, User:66.158.232.37, argues that since there was no "official" prophecy made by the Watchtower, then the 1975 armageddon prophecy should not be included in the article.

Another person, User:One Salient Oversight (myself) argues that books by leading Jehovah's Witnesses, plus the behaviour of individual witnesses around the time indicate that belief in a 1975 armageddon was widespread amongst the organization. This therefore demands inclusion in the Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy article.

I am not asking you to intervene on my behalf, nor am I asking you to take sides. You are a major contributor to WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses and I believe you can help settle our disagreement in an objective and impartial fashion.

--One Salient Oversight 03:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Combine the Existence of God Articles
I'm proposing combining the Arguments for the existence of God and the Arguments against the existence of God articles. Bryan also supports this, Mel opposes. Since you have supported a similar idea in the past, I was hoping you might want to give your two cents on the matter. Here is the discussion: Talk:Arguments for the existence of God. Thanks! crazyeddie 17:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate restoration on FLDS
Thanks for your work on the FLDS article. However, when I restored the other two paragraphs I'd also integrated that paragraph into the first paragraph of History:

 * The area of Hildale and Colorado City have a long history of polygamy, dating from the early decades of the 20th century. According to FLDS accounts, Brigham Young visited the area and stated that "this is the right place [and it] will someday be the head and not the tail of the church [and]...the granaries of the Saints."

If you want to delete my addition and use the older placement that's fine with me, but it probably doesn't make sense to have both versions in there. mennonot 15:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi from cookiecaper
I'm 17. :) Cookiecaper 04:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy
Because the image is a copyvio. Yours, Radiant_ >|< 09:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

LDS under Arianism
Hi Tom. Please see the discussion of LDS views on the Arianism page, and review it (if you haven't already) for accuracy, POV and terminology. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 21:44 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to read your positive assessment, Tom. Mkmcconn (Talk) 3 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)

JW Pages
Tom,

In response to your recent request for me to re-join the fray here at WP I've been trying to contribute to the JW pages.

I know you're aware of the current difficulties going on, in particular with user Central. I've tried everything I can think of to reason with him: logic, patience, humor, and even "writing for the enemy"! I am at wits end as everything seems to antagonize this guy.

That being said, I recently noticed that all the books in the "Books Critical ..." section of the JW page are published by the same company. You probably won't agree with my methods of pointing this out, but it does call into question the validity of their inclusion on the page and indeed the entire section. I have suggested some compromises and possible resolutions on the JW Talk page. Short of deleting the entire section (which I personally favor) I suggested changing all of the book descriptions to that of the publisher as they do not include the over-the-top rhetoric that Central keeps trying to include. This was the initial change I made to the descriptions, but this to was reverted by Central. I can't imagine why he'd not like the publisher's description!?!?

Would you please review the situation and comment. Thanks! --DannyMuse 7 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

 * Tom, I've really had it with Central. His cowardly, insulting remarks are bad enough but the worst part is his total lack of ability to be reasonable or do anything in a way that approaches a spirit of cooperation. It was because of ridiculous behavior like this that I previously left WP. Recently Duffer tried to reason with him and eventually got so frustrated that he left. It's really out of line. I realize you've tried to address the situation in a reasonable way, but it doesn't seem to have done anything but antagonize him further. Is there anything that can be done?

 * That being said, I suspect that uberpenguin was right. Earlier I thought he was overreacting and might just be a bit paranoid so I checked. Eyesopen made about 33 edits on WP beginning on 10 April 2005 and ending 6 June 2005. With the exception of two edits regarding Pound sterling articles and a few edits to his own User page every other edit was only to the Jehovah's Witnesses page and its Talk page. User Central began editing on 10 June 2005. 21 of 22 edits are to the Jehovah's Witnesses page or its Talk page. So are they the same user? The Modus operandi is the same, that's for sure! Now we have user Elenap with the same pattern. I suspect they are all aliases for the same user.

 * BTW, have you seen these:

 * Votes for deletion/Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses2
 * User:Sjakkalle/Eyesopen

 * Thanks for reading! Your WP friend, --DannyMuse 07:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * FYI: Please see this: User talk:Central. If there isn't a comment from me to Central here check the history.

Hemorroids image
I noticed your revert (perhaps influenced by the user's chosen name).

Not really a bad picture for a medicine related article, just rather shockingly placed up front. How about a textual reference this way: Click to see an image of a hemorroid? Leonard G. 8 July 2005 04:46 (UTC)

Polygamy
Hey! Thanks for clarifying things. I honestly didn't see it as biased in any way at all. It just seemed factual. But it looks like it has since been edited again, and another POV added, which suits me fine. The way it reads now (er, the last time I checked) is cool with me.

Although, I don't know that "Current Proponents and Critics" is the best place for it, since it seems more a commentary on legalities and the Bible than any particular proponent or critic.

But oh well. I'm done. It works for me. Thanks!

Blocking for personal attacks
Hey, Tom, I accidentally ran into your post on Kim Bruning's page. Please don't do that. There is no need to inflame anew a situation that has been amicably resolved, please see Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington. Bishonen | talk 05:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Bishonen! :-)

Blocking people is to give them a time-out and let them blow off their steam elsewhere if they're all boiling over. If they're not boiling over, blocking them might not have a useful effect.

If you want to do an actual token block in real time, (if you catch a person red-handed but don't want to throw the book at them), think of times like 10 minutes to an hour or so.

Does that help any?

Kim Bruning 09:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It helps a lot. It is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. (This abusive behavior by admins is embarrassing.) Tom Haws 14:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Reform Mormonism
Strangly, just yesterday I stumbled upon the Reform Mormonism website, and signed on to their Yahoo group, when I noticed you had just posted a request for information there, for the Reform Mormonism article. This is the first I'd heard of the group, but I'm pretty fascinated. I'm not sure how I'd classify the group--it's not really a new religion, but they have their own "scripture"--although I understand their view of what "scripture" means is more expansive that usual. It also seems to be a pretty diverse and eclectic group. It's also something that probably couldn't exist before the advent of the internet. In a sense, it only exists in the internet, because it's not a physical organization, and doesn't really have a "center". Maybe it's the first example of what I would call postmodern Mormonism. But maybe not--it's hard to tell, because their website is pretty nonspecific about a lot of questions. Hopefully someone there can fill in some information for the Wikipedia article. CO GDEN  16:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hawstom/Archive5


text:
Revolutions of 1830

The Revolutions of 1830 were a revolutionary wave in Europe which took place in 1830. It included two "romantic nationalist" revolutions, the Belgian Revolution in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and the July Revolution in France along with rebellions in Congress Poland, Italian states, Portugal and Switzerland. It was followed eighteen years later, by another and much stronger wave of revolutions known as the Revolutions of 1848.

Romantic revolutions
The romantic nationalist revolutions of 1830, both of which occurred in Western Europe, led to the establishment of similar constitutional monarchies, called popular monarchies. Louis-Philippe I became "King of the French" on 31 July 1830, and Leopold I became "King of the Belgians", on 21 July 1831.

In France

In France, the July Revolution led to the overthrow of the Bourbon King, Charles X, whose family had been reinstated after the fall of the French Empire of Napoleon Bonaparte. In his place, Charles' cousin Louis-Philippe, Duke of Orléans was crowned as the first "King of the French". It marked the shift from one constitutional monarchy, the Bourbon Restoration, to another, the July Monarchy; the transition of power from the House of Bourbon to its cadet branch, the House of Orléans; and the substitution of the principle of hereditary right for popular sovereignty. Supporters of the Bourbons would be called Legitimists, and supporters of Louis Philippe Orléanists.

The French July Monarchy would last until the revolution of 1848.

In Belgium

The Belgian Revolution broke out on 25 August 1830. The short-term influence was the outbreak of the French July Revolution one month earlier: Belgium had been attached to the Kingdom of the Netherlands  in 1815, and a Belgian Patriot movement had emerged, campaigning for a written constitution that would limit the powers of the Dutch absolute monarchy and enshrine fundamental civil rights; the French July Revolution appeared to them to be an equivalent struggle to their own. Within this context, the staging of a nationalistic opera (La muette de Portici) in Brussels led to a minor insurrection among the capital's bourgeoisie, who sang patriotic songs and captured some public buildings in the city. This early revolutionary group was swelled by a large number of urban workers. The following day, the revolutionaries began flying their own flag, clearly influenced by that of the Brabant Revolution of 1789. To maintain order, several bourgeois militia groups were formed. The situation in Brussels led to widespread unrest across the country. King William I rejected his son's advice to negotiate with the rebels, forcing them towards a more radical, pro-independence stance, and sent a large military force to Brussels to suppress the insurrection.

Between 23 and 28 September 1830, heavy fighting took place between Dutch forces and Brussels revolutionaries, who were reinforced by small contingents from across the country. The Dutch were eventually forced to retreat. In the aftermath of the failed attack and concurrent mass desertions of Belgian soldiers from the Dutch army, the revolution spread around Belgium. Dutch garrisons were pushed out of the area, until only Antwerp and Luxembourg remained occupied. The Provisional Government of Belgium, led by Charles Rogier, was formed on 24 September and Belgian independence was officially proclaimed on 4 October while work began on creating a constitution. In December, international governments at the Conference of London recognized the independence of Belgium and guaranteed its neutrality. The Dutch, however, only recognized Belgium's independence and the terms of the Conference in 1839. The Constitution, finally adopted in 1831, protected individual freedoms and was considered as a template for future liberal constitutionalists around the world. It also created a popular monarchy ("King of the Belgians", rather than "King of Belgium") to ward off fears of mob rule associated with republicanism in the aftermath of the French Revolution of 1789. The first King of the Belgians, Leopold I, was crowned in July 1831.

In Italy
By 1830, revolutionary sentiment in favour of a unified Italy began to experience a resurgence, and a series of insurrections laid the groundwork for the creation of one nation along the Italian peninsula.

The Duke of Modena, Francis IV, was an ambitious man, and he hoped to become king of Northern Italy by increasing his territory. In 1826, Francis made it clear that he would not act against those who subverted opposition toward the unification of Italy. Encouraged by the declaration, revolutionaries in the region began to organize.

The new French king Louis-Philippe had promised revolutionaries such as Ciro Menotti that he would intervene if Austria tried to interfere in Italy with troops. Fearing he would lose his throne, Louis-Philippe did not, however, intervene in Menotti's planned uprising. The Duke of Modena abandoned his Carbonari supporters, arrested Menotti and other conspirators in 1831, and once again conquered his duchy with help from the Austrian troops. Menotti was hanged, and the idea of a revolution centered in Modena faded.

At the same time, other insurrections arose in the Papal Legations of Bologna, Ferrara, Ravenna, Forlì, Ancona and Perugia. These successful revolutions, which adopted the tricolore in place of the Papal flag, quickly spread to cover all the Papal Legations, and their newly installed local governments proclaimed the creation of a united Italian nation. The revolts in Modena and the Papal Legations inspired similar activity in the Duchy of Parma, where the tricolore flag was adopted. The Parmese duchess Marie Louise left the city during the political upheaval.

The rebellious provinces planned to unite as the Italian United Provinces which prompted Pope Gregory XVI to ask for Austrian and French help against the rebels. Prince Metternich warned Louis-Philippe that Austria had no intention of letting Italian matters be, and that French intervention would not be tolerated. Louis-Philippe sent a naval expedition to occupy Ancona (until 1838) and arrested Italian patriots living in France.

In the spring of 1831, the Austrian army began its march across the Italian peninsula, slowly crushing resistance in each province that had revolted. This military action suppressed much of the fledgling revolutionary movement, and resulted in the arrest of many radical leaders.

In Poland

Simultaneously in Congress Poland, the unsuccessful November Uprising against Nicolas I of the Russia occurred. The uprising began on 29 November 1830 in Warsaw when the young Polish officers from the local Army of Congress Poland's military academy revolted, led by lieutenant Piotr Wysocki. They were soon joined by large segments of Polish society, and the insurrection spread to the territories of Lithuania, western Belarus, and the right-bank of Ukraine, all of which had been part of pre-partition Poland.

Despite some local successes, the uprising was eventually crushed by a numerically superior Imperial Russian Army under Ivan Paskevich. Tsar Nicholas I decreed that henceforth Poland was an integral part of Russia, with Warsaw little more than a military garrison, and its university was closed.

In Brazil and Portugal
The outbreak of the revolutions in Europe provided the opportunity for Brazilian liberals to expel Emperor Pedro I from the country, where he had played an authoritarian role since the struggle for independence. Given his commitment to Portuguese liberals, he took their side in the Portuguese Civil War.

In Switzerland
In Switzerland, the rural population was poor and uneducated while politically and economically under the control of the nearby cities. During the French-controlled Helvetic Republic in 1798 the ideas of freedom and equality spread. The medieval idea of different laws for city citizens and countryside peasants was overthrown. However, in 1803 the Helvetic Republic collapsed and was replaced by the Act of Mediation which struck a compromise between the Ancien Regime and a republic. In the following years, even the limited freedoms under the Act were undermined and following Napoleon's defeat in 1813 the Act was overturned. In the Restoration, which started in 1814, the new constitution reduced the representation of rural areas in the cantonal councils.

Following the French July Revolution in 1830, a number of large assemblies were held calling for new cantonal constitutions. As each canton had its own constitution, the assemblies in each canton addressed different specifics, but they all had two main issues. First, they called for peacefully adjusting the constitutions by adjusting the way seats in local legislatures and the Tagsatzung were allocated. In particular they objected to what they saw as the over-representation of the cantonal capital in the government. Secondly, they sought a way to amend the constitution. Very few cantons even had a way to amend or modify the constitutions, and none of them allowed citizens' initiatives to be added.

The first assembly was held near Weinfelden in Thurgau in October and November 1830, followed in November by meetings in Wohlenschwil, Aargau then Sursee, Lucerne and finally the Ustertag near Uster in Zurich. In December there were three assemblies in the Canton of St. Gallen in Wattwil, Altstätten and St. Gallenkappel as well as in Balsthal in Solothurn. The final assembly was held in Münsingen in Bern in January 1831.

The speeches and articles reporting on the assemblies were widely distributed and became very popular. The crowds were generally well behaved and orderly. For example, in Wohlenschwil it was reported that they met "in unexpectedly quiet attitude with decency and perfect order". Even in Aargau and St. Gallen, where the crowd marched through the streets of Aarau (known as the Freiämtersturm) and St. Gallen, the protest march was peaceful. Following the assemblies and marches, cantonal governments quickly gave in to the demands of the assemblies and amended their constitutions.

title: Revolutions of 1830


text:
Talk:Superconducting quench gun

This appears to have either been copied in to or out of the railgun article, where it is formatted correctly.

title: Talk:Superconducting quench gun


text:
Dimethylacetamide

Dimethylacetamide (DMAc or DMA) is the organic compound with the formula CH3C(O)N(CH3)2. This colorless, water-miscible, high-boiling liquid is commonly used as a polar solvent in organic synthesis. DMA is miscible with most other solvents, although it is poorly soluble in aliphatic hydrocarbons.

Synthesis and production
DMA is prepared commercially by the reaction of dimethylamine with acetic anhydride or acetic acid. Dehydration of the salt of dimethylamine and acetic acid also furnishes this compound:
 * CH3CO2H·HN(CH3)2 → H2O + CH3CON(CH3)2

Dimethylacetamide can also be produced by the reaction of dimethylamine with methyl acetate.

 * Industrial synthesis of dimethylacetamide.svg

The separation and purification of the product is carried out by multistage distillation in rectification columns. DMA is obtained with essentially quantitive (99%) yield referred to methyl acetate.

Reactions and applications
The chemical reactions of dimethylacetamide are typical of N,N-disubstituted amides. Hydrolysis of the acyl-N bond occurs in the presence of acids:
 * CH3CON(CH3)2 + H2O + HCl → CH3COOH + (CH3)2NH2+Cl−

However, it is resistant to bases. For this reason DMA is a useful solvent for reactions involving strong bases such as sodium hydroxide.

Dimethylacetamide is commonly used as a solvent for fibers (e.g., polyacrylonitrile, spandex) or in the adhesive industry. It is also employed in the production of pharmaceuticals and plasticizers as a reaction medium.

A solution of lithium chloride in DMAc (LiCl/DMAc) can dissolve cellulose. Unlike many other cellulose solvents, LiCl/DMAc gives a molecular dispersion, i.e. a "true solution". For this reason, it is used in gel permeation chromatography to determine the molar mass distribution of cellulose samples.

Dimethylacetamide is also used as an excipient in drugs, e.g. in Vumon (teniposide), Busulfex (busulfan) or Amsidine (amsacrine).

Toxicity
Dimethylacetamide, like most simple alkyl amides, is of low acute toxicity. Chronic exposure can cause hepatotoxicity. At high doses (400 mg/kg body mass daily), dimethylacetamide causes effects on the central nervous system (e.g. depression, hallucinations and delusion).

Dimethylacetamide may be incompatible with polycarbonate or ABS. Devices (e.g. syringes) that contain polycarbonate or ABS can dissolve when coming into contact with dimethylacetamide.

Regulation
In 2011, dimethylacetamide was identified in the EU as a Substance of very high concern (SVHC) because of its reproductive toxicity. In 2014, the European Commission has started an investigation to restrict the use of dimethylacetamide in the EU according to REACH.

In 2015, the CNESST (Committee on Standards, Equity, Health and Safety at Work in Quebec) has adopted a tightened classification of dimethylacetamide:

title: Dimethylacetamide