text:
Talk:Ancient Celtic religion

NPOV: Human Sacrifice
The article sounds like it was written by someone with a neo-pagan agenda. Chief among its faults is the minimization of human sacrifice in pagan Ireland, which is well established by archeology. Here are some example links turned up by a brief web search:

 * http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/news-not-bog-standard.htm
 * http://bogbodies.wikispaces.com/Bog+Bodies+of+Iron+Age+Europe
 * http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ghosts-murdered-kings.html

Requested move 14 February 2019

 * 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 section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ancient Celtic religion. I think given the agreement over the past week since it was proposed, there is now a consensus for this option. Well done to participants for finding a compromise consensus. — Amakuru (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Celtic polytheism → Celtic paganism – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY with similar articles such as Slavic paganism, Germanic paganism, and Gothic paganism. "Celtic paganism" gets 500,000 Google search results while "Celtic polytheism" only gets 50,000. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. B dash (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. В²C ☎ 21:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)  --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but if you start checking on those results you will find that most of those links refer to modern day neo-paganism, which is a completely different subject area. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Support. The word "paganism" is not disparaging, which I presume was the original rationale. Srnec (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I could possibly be persuaded, but oppose. If we rename this article "Celtic paganism", it will be even harder to keep non-encyclopedic material out of it. It will be less historically focussed, and attract more contributions inspired by contemporary Wicca and similar traditions. Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposal states no reason for the change. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your opposed. The proposal gives clear reasons for the change. You haven't given a reason to oppose. Doug Weller  talk 15:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Doug Weller What clear reason? The proposal above says absolutely nothing other than stating the proposed name change. It gives no reason for it at all. Give a reason and it might be considered. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm even more confused by your statement no reason has been given. The reason is explicit, I'll quote what it sasy: "

Celtic polytheism → Celtic paganism – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY with similar articles such as Slavic paganism, Germanic paganism, and Gothic paganism. "Celtic paganism" gets 500,000 Google search results while "Celtic polytheism" only gets 50,000." Why do you say that's not a reason and what's your policy or guideline reason for opposing? Doug Weller  talk 16:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And if you'll bother to continue reading below that you will see where I refuted that misleading statement. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. No need to insult me, you're that said, incorrectly, that no reason was given. A clear reason was given and you disagreed. That should have been given as your reason when you opposed. Doug Weller  talk 19:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Alternative suggestion Paganism in Iron Age Celtic societies or Paganism in Iron Age Celtic cultures. This should help keep it encyclopedic and recognise the disparate cultures of the peoples who spoke a Celtic language.  Doug Weller  talk 15:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support - now see below  either the original proposal or Doug's suggestion(s). For consistency, plus giving the period may help to keep out modern revivalism. Nb, there is a 2009 discussion on this above. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternative suggestion Religion in Iron Age Celtic societies? Avoids the neopagan associations. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Religion in Iron Age Celtic societies. Better than my ideas. Doug Weller  talk 19:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose above alternates. "Celtic paganism" should appear first in the title for common name and search reasons. If disambiguation is needed, it should either be something like Celtic paganism (Iron Age) or Celtic paganism in the Iron Age. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the suggested scope for Iron Age here? Hallstatt culture (Celts and Proto-Celts, 12th-6th century BC), La Tène culture ("Gauls" and their affiliates, 5th-1st century BC), British Iron Age (8th century BC-1st century AD), Irish Iron Age (5th century BC-4th century AD)? Dimadick (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As their article explains, only Hallstatt C onwards, from c. 800 BC, is "Iron Age", otherwise, yes, I suppose so. In fact the little evidence we have is mostly from Romano-Celtic contexts, or later myths from the British Isles. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which makes the scope simple to determine - in real life, more or less everything not Christian would be included. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For the reason that Johnbod points out (i.e. that much of the evidence is from Romano-Celtic contexts), "Iron Age" would be inappropriate. I'd float Religion among the ancient Celts or something similar as an alternate suggestion. Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Religion among the ancient Celts would be better - "ancient" has the right degree of (im)precision for our purpose. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Support Religion among the ancient Celts per and, and kudos to for inquiring about iron age scope here, which prompted the brainstorming that led to this alternative., , , , what say you about this alternative? --В²C ☎ 21:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC) retract and striking out per discussion below --В²C ☎ 22:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't say I like it much - article names try to strike a note of precision (however misleading) which "among" somehow undercuts. Plus the article is all about paganism/polytheism, when plenty of ancient Celts no doubt were Christian by the end of the "ancient Celts".  Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, this isn't specific enough and readers would expect to read about Celtic Christianity, an important subject. Doug Weller  talk 15:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Polytheistic religion among the ancient Celts? Or Pre-Christian religion among the ancient Celts? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ancient Celtic religion would be a little tighter as well as losing the "among"...? And as you see, it's so close that it's already a redirect to this page :)  ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But what about Johnbod's objection above? "plenty of ancient Celts no doubt were Christian by the end of the 'ancient Celts'"? --В²C ☎ 17:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True; I was only addressing the precision aspect. Perhaps Pre-Christian celtic religion then, or someting. ——  SerialNumber  54129  20:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be convenient, for this article, to define "ancient" as "pre-Christian"? Ot to use Pre-Christian religion among the ancient Celts? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, but how about "of the" instead of "among the" to address 's other objection? Thus, Pre-Christian religion of the ancient Celts? Or... Pre-Christian Celtic religion? --В²C ☎ 20:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also support pre-Christian Celtic religion (brevity being the soul of wit). Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Support Pre-Christian Celtic religion per discussion above. Apologies, but this one seems to be taking several rounds... Re-pinging:, , , , , , . --В²C ☎ 22:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pinged, but I'd oppose. There is a simple, elegant way of referring to the pre-Christian Celtic religion. I'll let you guess. Srnec (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pre-Christian Celtic religion seems good. Or, per Srnec, just keep Celtic polytheism? Failing that, anything above except for "paganism"; I really think we should have an article clearly separate from the modern revival. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the original proposal: Celtic paganism. It is the Celtic form of paganism, not of Modern Paganism. I do not believe confusion is a serious problem. After all, the proposed title redirects here and nobody has even bothered to put a hatnote to Celtic neopaganism. Srnec (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And those are exactly the waters that will be muddied with a name change to Celtic paganism. If that's the title, we'll certainly need such a hatnote, and the content of this article will probably become more unfocused as well—we'll have new sections on Celtic shamanism, the Wheel of the Year, and Maiden, Mother, and Crone... And how can we argue that these aren't Celtic paganism, when they're part of the religious practice of thousands of people today who consider themselves Celtic pagans? If this article is to be historically focused, it should have a title that makes it historic focus clear: something with "ancient" or "pre-Christian" or the like in it would do nicely. (Polytheism has worked too because of its historic connotations, though it might not be the best in theory.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Change to Pre-Christian Celtic religion or retain the original title. I have reservations about both, but they are better than the other suggestions. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * More "paganism" articles (or at least redirects), not mentioned at top: Anglo-Saxon paganism, Frankish paganism, Norse paganism.  It certainly does seem the standard term, and these don't seem to have much difficulty avoiding revivalism taking over. I admit the Celtic one might be tougher. But the lead defines the topic clearly, and has a link to Celtic neopaganism at the end, with a small section lower down. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But most modern practitioners of Germanic paganism (including Anglo-Saxon, Norse, Frankish, and Gothic) call themselves something else, typically Heathens but also Ásatrúar, Vanatrúar, etc., as the case might be. Likewise with Slavic paganism and Rodnovery. By contrast, modern Celtic pagans often do call themselves Celtic pagans. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not an improvement. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 21:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop. Not an improvement.  The current situation is terrible.  This article, Celtic polytheism and Celtic mythology are forked and scrambled.  Fiddling with the titling is much more likely to create more mud than clarity.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They seem to have about the correct, small, amount of overlap to me, and the right stuff is in each article. The overlap between Celtic deities and Celtic mythology is far larger. Johnbod (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I was working through my impression that this article should be retitled and rescoped as Celtic gods, as a sub-article of Celtic mythology.  I didn't even notice Celtic deities.   I'm currently reading this article as a mix of Celtic archaeology, Celtic deities, and Celtic culture.  Maybe I haven't got my head around it, but changing to polytheism to paganism doesn't seem to be fixing a deeper problem.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It has the right, fairly small, amount on both deities and (later) mythology as far as I'm concerned. What's good about it is that it stays focused on ancient Celts, as the lead promises, and that's why I can support reflecting this in the title. Not sure what you are looking for. You might compare it with Ancient Greek religion, bearing in mind we have vastly more certain knowledge on that. I just added the specific stuff to the archaeology, which before was too much too short and vague - that reflects Celtic art rather than Celtic archaeology, & I'm happy with the resulting balance myself. This gets nearly 3 times the views of Celtic deities btw. We don't actually have an article on ancient Celtic culture, which is a pity, but it (sh/)wouldn't resemble this at all. We have Hallstatt culture and La Tene culture, and other bits and pieces. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 * On analogy with ancient Greek religion, why not move to ancient Celtic religion as User:Serial Number 54129 suggested earlier? The objection that readers would expect to see something on Christianization among ancient Celts is answered by the fact that the article has something on Christianization among ancient Celts, with an appropriate {{further}} link to Celtic Christianity. (Pinging, , , , , , , , , and apologies in advance if I've inadvertently omitted anyone.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to "Ancient Celtic religion" if that's the compromise people want to go with, but I still prefer my original proposal. Ancient Greek religion is named that because it's the religion of Ancient Greece. But Ancient Celts does redirect to Celts, so "Ancient Celtic religion" would probably be an okay name for this article, and it's definitely better than the current title. So I guess that means I support move to Ancient Celtic religion. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move to Ancient Celtic religion per QuartierLatin1968 and Rreagan007 above. bd2412  T 18:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment I wouldn't normally do a third relist, but in this case there was a brand new suggestion made just a day ago, so it's probably worth giving this one more week to see if any sort of consensus can be formed. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title focuses on the number of gods that the Celts had, which is not a focus of the article itself. I'm fine with either "Celtic paganism" or "ancient Celtic religion." FineStructure137 (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as badly failing WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME/WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. "Celtic paganism" almost exclusively refers to Celtic-themed -paganism, which is it's own separate topic. (If you don't believe me, go to Amazon and put in Celtic paganism as your books search term; you'll find that roughly 95% of the books on the topic are neo-pagan twaddle.)  While the actual topic of this article doesn't clearly have a common name (and thus we are using a neutral, descriptive title with terms found in pertinent reliable sources, per policy), the primary-redirect target for "Celtic paganism" is obviously and provably Celtic neopaganism, and the phrase may actually be the commonnest name for it, though one we should not use because it fails PRECISE. Even more strongly opposed to the obtusely long-winded suggestions above; they fail all three of WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENCY. It's not like we're going to move Greek mythology or Old Norse religion to "Ancient Greek pre-Christian religion of the Iron Age", or "Paganism in Iron Age Norse cultures". People would laugh in your face if you suggested suggested such a thing.  In short, we have disambiguation, including hatnotes, for a reason, we're already using them, and this article already branches to the neo-paganism topic per WP:SUMMARY. The present title is perfectly adequate under WP:NTITLE and almost certainly the best choice. This RM is a "solution" in search of a problem.
 * Just so I'm understanding your position, do you consider ancient Celtic religion (the most recent proposal) to fail WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:CONCISE, and/or WP:CONSISTENCY? (Your comments seem primarily directed at pre-Christian religion of the ancient Celts, etc., but I could be misunderstanding you.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Support Ancient Celtic religion which I'd say does meet WP:COMMONNAME Doug Weller  talk 12:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Switched to Support Ancient Celtic religion, which is progress. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ancient Celtic religion, not the only reasonable possibility but a good one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 * When I do Google Scholar searches, I get 122 hits for "ancient celtic religion", 696 hits for "celtic paganism" and 114 hits for "celtic polytheism". For comparison, I get 1320 hits for "greek polytheism", 906 hits for "greek paganism" and 4120 for "ancient greek religion". I stand by my original position, but I could live with Ancient Celtic religion as an improvement. Srnec (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, I got the same number of hits for "celtic paganism" but a lot of them were about modern Celtic paganism and I couldn't separate them. Doug Weller  talk 16:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if nothing else, this discussion & my research arising from it, has pursuaded me we need "ancient" or some other indication of antiquity in the article title. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Time for someone to close this, I think, Through all the smoke, a consensus for Ancient Celtic religion seems to have emerged. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:ERA style
This article was established, a long time ago, using "BC/AD". Completely against WP:ERA it was changed to BCE/CE in 2008, without any discussion, and with the misleading summary of "cleanup". I don't like to see such illegal changes surviving, in particular in popular non-specialist articles like this. We should follow the big museums and keep BC/AD, which we can be confident all our readers will understand. And we should normally support the choice of the main and initial editor, where there is one, rather than drive-bys. Here the article began with a 25k blast, all using BC. Unless anyone objects, I will return it to BC/AD in a few days. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC) --Geofpick (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that retention per WP:ERA still applies in this case. Considering that more than decade has passed with no other objection to the AD/BC to CE/BCE change, the consensus of editors clearly seems to favour the current format. However, I welcome other opinions. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing on talk, but there have been attempts to change the style by editing - I'm not suggesting it's worth analysing these. Personally I'm not much of a believer in WP:SILENCE, which suggests that our editors "favour" a vast number of spelling mistakes. We know that most of them just read what's in front of them.  Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnbod knows I object because I reverted him. I also raised the issue a couple of days ago at WT:DATE and it's part of the discussion at WP:ANI. In fact, there you say "I don't quite think "no matter how long ago", but I do think for several years, depending I suppose on the busyness of the article.". Are you now saying that 11 years is the same as "several years" and that this isn't a busy article?  Doug Weller  talk 16:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite know that - I thought I was reverting to an established style. This isn't a very busy article I think. I think I asked you first how long it takes to make a illegally-changed style established, which you haven't answered. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall that, but my answer is still that it depends on a combination of activity and how long ago the style was changed, and I think that's probably always going to be a judgement call. I'd like to see something better than that and hope that wiser minds can figure something out. In any case, this article has had a lot of edits over the last 11 years, enough I think that according to your criteria above BCE is established. I also think that era styles grab people's attention more than spelling errors, particularly when the style is BCE/CE. Doug Weller  talk 17:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned one format is just as good as another, since they essentially meant exactly the same thing. If you can provide some rationale to show that the AD/BC format is better for this article then it is certainly worth consideration. As of now the CE/BCE format is established, and hold precedent until shown otherwise. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ERA applies. There is no time limit on it. The original notation should be used, unless consensus is obtained to change. In this case it hasn't been. I've changed it back to BC (but AD is not normally required, so for the most part I've not used it). If anyone would like to change from the original to BCE/CE, please open a discussion here and try for a consensus. Arcturus (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the guideline says nothing about original version. I've reverted you and you are the one that needs consensus. Doug Weller  talk 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually it does. See Retaining existing format in WP:ERA and Manual of Style. As I mentioned on your Talk page, the concept of a "stable Version" is not valid. Arcturus (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently a mess, using BCE and AD in the same sentence: "Following the Roman Empire's conquest of Gaul (58–51 BCE) and southern Britannia (43 AD), Celtic religious practices began to display elements of Romanisation, resulting in a syncretic Gallo-Roman culture with its own religious traditions with its own large set of deities, such as Cernunnos, Artio, Telesphorus, etc."

Establish new consensus
As WP:ERA allows, let's do that. Reasons optional. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support BC/AD (see above and below for reasons). Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support BC/AD. Article started as BC/AD and subsequent changes went against policy. Also, I believe BC/AD is more widely understood. Arcturus (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support BCE/CE ce - WPERA is clear, "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content. I don't understand the use of Stable version which hasn't been vetted by the community so it can't override a guideline. But obviously anyone can start a new discussion. So fine, let's have that discussion. I notice that the two supports above don't have reasons specific to this article, so they should be ignored. "More widely understood" is an argument that we should never use BCE/CE, one I hear too often. So far as I'm concerned, this is a history/archaeological article on a non-Abrahamic religion, so it's more appropriate to use a non-Christian style. I'm interested in why a Christian style is preferable. Doug Weller  talk 17:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We have both discussed the factors at far too much length elsewhere, & frankly Doug your claim that you are "interested" in my reasons rather stretches credulity, as there has been little evidence of this in other discussions. The specific reasons are that the "established style" is highly in doubt as it has been changed without discussion many times, so it is best to make a clean start rather than squabbling over what is "established", for which WP policy gives no clear definition, and your own interpretation seems to vary in different cases. This is a broad article on a popular "homework" subject, and therefore "More widely understood" is a highly relevant argument, though I can believe you've got fed up with hearing it. The article covers countries where Christianity was later the religion, rather over-lapping with and probably influenced by Ancient Celtic religion. These are the reasons why the British Museum and other major museums use BC, a much more appropriate guide for us than what some academics, especially American ones, do.  It might be a relevant question to ask whether an editor always prefers one style; I don't, what about you Doug?   Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I just found this. No good faith from you I see. I supported AD at Talk:Pontius Pilate for reasons specific to the article. I'd never argue that BCE should be the norm, but your basic argument seems to be that BC should be the norm with some exceptions. Doug Weller  talk 18:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of "good faith" - I've explained my thinking several times, at considerable length in discussions you've participated in. Now you're "interested"! You say "I'd never argue that BCE should be the norm" - really; my memory must be playing tricks. Other than Christian subjects, and where you accept there is an established style (by somewhat personal criteria), what ones do you think should use BC? Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your memory is playing tricks. I know you've explained your thinking a number of times, I just didn't think you'd repeat the arguments about museums etc here. And if there's a proposal sometime to change WP:ERA I might discuss the general issue there, but let's let this discussion stick to this article now. Doug Weller  talk 19:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support BCE/CE. This article is not about Christianity. Q·L·1968 ☿ 00:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly reject the idea that BC/AD should only apply to "Christian subjects", which both BCE supporters have now said. This has no basis in WP:ERA or any other WP policy.Johnbod(talk) 03:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , no way did I say that. I did evidently misread you and thought that you (not me) believed AD more appropriate for Christian subjects. It is true however that if there was a discussion about a Christian subject as to what era style should be used I'm likely to agree to AD. Doug Weller  talk 15:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You said "So far as I'm concerned, this is a history/archaeological article on a non-Abrahamic religion, so it's more appropriate to use a non-Christian style. I'm interested in why a Christian style is preferable." I do generally believe BC more appropriate for the relatively few "Christian subjects" that need an era choice, but I strongly reject the idea that BC/AD should be limited to them, and the idea that it is a "Christian style" at all (other than using the same "year 0" as BCE/CE). Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You "do generally believe BC more appropriate for the relatively few 'Christian subjects' that need an era choice", but you will not apply the same standard to non-Christian religions? Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from "AH", which we are agreed not to use as the primary/initial era, non-Christian religions don't have their own alternatives - nobody wants to use eg the Jewish era by itself. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * According to that argument the articles about Hinduism should use the Hindu calendar. I cannot see any advantage in using a notation that may readers will need to look up what it means. These days, few people care what the letters stand for, but everyone understands their use. Arcturus (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps fortunately for WP talk pages, there is no Hindu era sufficiently widely used to be the standard, even (I believe) in Indian languages. Around 2,000 years ago, every new dynasty and sometimes king tended to start a new era, like the Shaka era (AD - 78), which can cause problems for historians, who don't know which "Year 23" is being referred to. Just like the Chinese system (David Vases).  Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment/suggestion I don't have a preference for either format - they both convey the same information, and they are both widely used both here and in RSes, but whichever one we use it will inevitably be a distraction/annoyance for some of our readers and editors. If we can come up with an objective rationale for choosing one or the other, rather than basing it on personal choice, that might allow us to move forward in a collegiate manner. I wonder whether someone who has access to the sources in the article would be prepared to skim though all of the ones published in the last 25 years (totally arbitrary number), and indicate which format they use? If there's a clear favourite, that might be the way to go? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  15:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If such a standard were applied uniformly, I might support it. But there has to be a very high bar for "establishing a new consensus". Doing so here gives editors a one-time chance to impose BC/AD arbitrarily, and for an article where the subject matter itself gives sufficient reason for not making a change. Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ??? Why does there have to be a very high bar for "establishing a new consensus"? It's more of a problem that the sources used are unlikely to be the best or most appropriate, because they rarely are, and probably no one person has access to all or even most of them.  The two easily accessible online both use BC:
 * Green, Miranda (1989), Symbol and Image in Celtic Religious Art, Routledge, google books
 * Stöllner, Thomas, "Between ruling ideology and ancestor worship: the mos maiorum of the Early Celtic Hero Graves", in: Gosden, Christopher, Crawford, Sally, Ulmschneider, Katharina, Celtic Art in Europe: Making Connections, 2014, Oxbow Books, ISBN 1782976582, 9781782976585, google books

 * I'm not sure whether the above from 2020 did or didn't establish a consensus, but the article today used a messy mix of era styles. (Brought to my attention as it's today's target in "Redactle"!) I have, I hope, edited it to make it consistently BC/AD, on the grounds:
 * 1) Style used by creator of article
 * 2) Probably the majority usage in the article as was
 * 3) Seems to be probably the consensus above
 * 4) But most importantly, consistency is better than using both sorts. I don't care much if someone now carefully changes all uses to BCE/CE, but let's be consistent. It's a pity that AFAIK we don't have a template like Use dmy dates to use for era style decisions. Pam  D  22:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pam. I expect we'd all rather forgotten about this! Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Johnbod. I came here (for the same reason as you) and noticed you'd straightened out the mixed CE and AD references.
 * Before reading this chat I'd have changed them to BCE because these are not only talking about non-christian topics, but many of the primary sources would not have talked about those dates as BC or AD. But I endorse your points 1-4 above.
 * I've done a little bit of further work, mostly to replace a few spaces with non-breaking spaces according to the style page MOS:BCE. Tim C Harris (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

newer sources for future use
the academic sources used on this article are mostly from pre-2010, which isn't bad but i've gone looking for some newer sources that could be useful to improve the article, and it's kind of sparse. this is the best i've got: the works of Miranda Aldhouse-Green & Ronald Hutton are probably one's best bet. the works listed in "further reading" also seem promising for anyone looking to expand the article (that may be future-me).  ... sawyer * he/they *  talk  19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ancient Celtic religion


text:
Tandem wing

A tandem wing is a wing configuration in which a flying craft or animal has two or more sets of wings set one behind another. All the wings contribute to lift.

The tandem wing is distinct from the biplane in which the wings are stacked one above another, or from the canard or "tail-first" configuration where the forward surface is much smaller and does not contribute significantly to the overall lift.

In aviation, tandem wings have long been experimented with, but few designs have ever been put into production.

Tandem wings in nature occur only in insects and flying fish, although in the past there have been tandem-wing flying reptiles.

Design principles
A tandem wing configuration has two main wing planes, with one located forward and the other to the rear. The difference is greater than the wing chord, so there is a clear gap between them and the aircraft centre of gravity (CG) lies between the wings. Compared to the conventional layout, where the tailplane exerts little or no vertical force in cruising flight, both tandem wings contribute substantially to lift.

The basic tandem configuration uses wings which are equal in size and in line with each other. Examples have flown successfully, such as the Peyret glider of 1922. However the rear wing is usually placed either above or below the fore wing, in order to avoid its turbulent wake. One wing is often made a little smaller than the other, according to the details of the design. Indeed, there are no clear dividing lines between the conventional vs. tandem, or the tandem vs. canard configurations. The high-mounted fore wing and low-mounted aft wing arrangement is also sometimes treated as an extreme staggered biplane and referred to as the Nénandovich biplane.

Interference effects between the two wings can make a tandem layout less efficient in cruise than the equivalent conventional design, however examples such as the Scaled Composites Proteus are capable of exceptional efficiency.

The tandem layout creates a "slot effect" in which the front wing deflects air downwards over the rear wing, reducing the angle of attack (AoA) of the rear. At high aircraft AoA, this causes the front wing to stall first, allowing safer flight at low speeds than the equivalent conventional layout. It also offers good STOL performance.

Tandem wings have also been used on ground-effect vehicles, where the front wing is used to direct air downwards beneath the rear wing to create a lifting air cushion.

Stability, control and trim
In a tandem wing the lift forces on the two wings are separated longitudinally, allowing them to act together to achieve stability, control and trim. The mechanisms of stability and control for a tandem wing are similar to those for the tail-first or canard layout; the distinction is mainly in the relative size of the forward surface.

However, the larger trim forces available compared to a smaller tailplane or foreplane mean that a tandem design can offer a greater range of trim conditions, and hence of centre of gravity (CG) location than other layouts, which can offer a practical solution where weight loadings and distributions may vary during operations. However a wide CG range leads to other problems, including a compatible undercarriage layout and safe stalling characteristics.

Joined wing
The joined wing is a tandem-wing layout in which the front wing sweeps back and/or the rear wing sweeps forwards such that they join at or near the tips to form a continuous surface in a hollow diamond or triangle shape. The joined wing is also an example of a closed wing.

The Ligeti Stratos is a rare example to have flown.

Structural design
In a conventional layout, the moment arm of the outer section's lifting load is large, and this stresses the root section. However, in a tandem design each wing is smaller and the outer load is absent. This allows the wing structure to be lighter overall.

In a conventional design, the fuselage is supported only in one place, with the fore and aft fuselage sections cantilevered out from it. This creates significant bending stresses. A tandem wing supports the same fuselage in two places, reducing the bending stresses. However the torsion stresses on the centre section between the wings are greater.

Because it is more compact, the tandem-wing structure is stiffer overall, meaning that less allowance needs to be made for bending, and a smaller safety margin in stress levels is possible, allowing yet further weight and cost reduction.

Pioneers
The tandem wing configuration predates successful manned flight. As far back as the fifteenth century, Tito Livio Burraitni experimented with a tandem-wing model. Four sets of wings in tandem variously provided lift and propulsion, and Burraitni's cat became the first aeronaut to fly in a tandem design.

Having also flown simpler fore-and-aft tandem models of up to 14 ft in span, in 1903 Samuel Pierpont Langley built a full-size tandem-wing monoplane, the Aerodrome, and launched it from the roof of a houseboat. It failed to fly. After his death the Smithsonian Institution sought to prove that he had flown in the weeks before the Wright brothers, and employed successful planemaker Glenn Curtiss to secretly modify the aerodrome until it could fly, as "proof" that it had flown in 1903. Curtiss added floats and made other improvements, enabling it to undertake short hops as a true waterplane in 1914. The ruse was eventually exposed, yet the Smithsonian still sought to claim that the 1902 version had been "capable of flight". It would be many more years before they recanted.

Several pioneers had long made successful gliders. In 1905 John J. Montgomery flew a tandem monoplane glider, confirming that the aerodynamic principle was sound.

Powered flight followed two years later. In 1906 Louis Blériot built his third aeroplane with tandem elliptical closed wings, later modifying it as his type IV with the fore wing converted into a conventional biplane. But it was not until the next year that his type VI, a wheeled tandem monoplane of broadly similar configuration to Langley's Aerodrome, became the first tandem-wing aeroplane to fly.

Between 1907 and 1911, the aerodynamics studies of Gustave Eiffel showed that the tandem layout was inherently less aerodynamically efficient that the more conventional. Overlapping with Eiffel's work, Stefan Driezewicki developed and wind-tunnel tested an inherently stable tandem-wing design. He then built and successfully flew a full-sized example at the end of 1912.

Interwar period
Experimental tandem-wing aircraft continued to be built after World War I.

The Caproni Ca.60 prototype flying boat comprised a long passenger-carrying hull to which were attached in tandem three stacks of triplane wings from the successful Ca.4 line of heavy bombers and airliners, earning it the nickname "Capronissimo". However it broke up on its first attempted takeoff in 1921.

The first fully controllable tandem-wing type was the French-built Peyret tandem glider, which won the first British gliding competition in 1922. Peyret's novel control system comprised full-span trailing edge surfaces on all four wings. These operated in pairs on each side as ailerons, in pairs fore and aft as elevators, and synchronously as flaps for low-speed flight. The system proved effective and, despite the glider being less efficient than the conventional high-aspect-ratio entries, it proved more controllable and manoeuvrable. This enabled the pilot M. Maneyrol to remain in updraughts for longer than the others. Although Peyret continued to develop the design, in both gliders and powered types, they remained a curiosity.

The SFCA continued the work of Peyret after he died, adopting his control system. Their Taupin first flew in 1933. Its design proved practical and some 52 examples were produced.

Meanwhile Henri Mignet was taking a very different approach to flight control. Intended for amateurs to build at home, his Pou-du-Ciel (flying flea) had a novel two-axis control system to make it easy to fly. No ailerons were needed because when the rudder was operated, yaw-roll coupling ensured that the plane banked into a turn. For pitch control the whole front wing tilted to act as a canard elevator. Introduced at much the same time as the Taupin, it became a craze, hundreds were built and variations developed in many countries. However stability issues relating to the variable front wing could lead to lethal crashes in the hands of the novice pilot, and the type eventually fell out of favour.

World War II period
During the late 1930s, Maurice Delanne was working on tandem-wing designs. He proposed a fighter, the Delanne 10, featuring a gulled forward wing and twin fins on the tips of the low-set and slightly shorter-span rear wing. He first built two examples of a smaller aerodynamic test aircraft, the Delanne 20-T, which flew in 1938. The Arsenal de l'Aéronautique then constructed a prototype fighter, the Arsenal-Delanne 10. It was completed and test-flown after the German invasion of France, and was then taken to Germany for further testing.

Meanwhile Westland Aircraft were considering a modification of the Lysander light observation and liaison aircraft, by adding a rear gun turret to give it some protection from attack. The Lysander already had a suitable main wing, so to support the weight of the turret Westland thought of adding a Delanne-type rear wing. By now hostilities had started but France had not yet fallen. Chief Designer W. E. W. "Teddy" Petter and Chief Test Pilot Harald Penrose flew to Paris, where Penrose flew one of the 20-Ts and reported favourably on its handling. The tandem Lysander was not completed until 1941, when Penrose began test flights. Although it performed flawlessly – he wrote that "here was a military prototype that needed no alteration" – it was not ordered into production.

George Miles saw the tandem Lysander at RAF Boscombe Down and realised its potential as a short-span, short-take-off Naval fighter. The ensuing Miles M.35 Libellula test aircraft differed from the Delanne design in having wings of approximately equal span, but with the rear wing given a longer chord and swept back. Although the design was rejected, it flew well enough to prompt development of the larger M.39B, a subscale test aircraft for the proposed M.39 high-speed bomber to meet Specification B.11/41. This time the fore wing was smaller and mounted low, while the swept rear wing was high-mounted with twin engine nacelles slung beneath. Flying in 1943 it performed well, but the bomber requirement was subsequently cancelled.

Postwar
After WWII, interest returned to the Flying Flea's tilting forewing concept and, with its worst dangers now understood and fixed, designers have continued to develop the idea, typically still for home construction.

The Curtiss-Wright X-19 of 1963 marked the entry of the tandem wing configuration into the VTOL arena, as a quadrotor convertiplane, with large tilting proprotors mounted on each wing tip. It proved overly complex and unreliable for the technology of the day.

Other tandem approaches such as the Delanne were largely forgotten, until David Lockspeiser conceived of his Land Development Aircraft, a low-cost utility transport. It was to utilise three interchangeable wing component; one each mounted high up for the left and right rear wings, and a third fore wing mounted centrally beneath the nose. His prototype LDA-01 flew in 1971. It proved successful enough to develop for production, but the project ended before it could be modified.

The next breakthrough to manufacture came once again in the homebuild market. Up-and-coming maverick designer Burt Rutan was working on a low-powered but highly efficient plane for home construction. The tandem layout offered a low-drag fixed undercarriage installation, by placing the main wheels in housings at the tips of the fore wing and applying anhedral to raise the fuselage high enough for a propeller. The high-mounted rear wing had compensating dihedral. The Quickie first flew in 1977 and the next year won the EAA's Outstanding New Design Award at Oshkosh. It became popular, and several variants subsequently appeared.

Rutan set up Scaled Composites and some of the company's later designs were also tandems.

List of tandem-wing aircraft

 * This list is incomplete. Please help by expanding it

 * Airbus A³ Vahana || US || Propeller || Private || 2018 || Prototype || 2 || Tiltwing personal air vehicle.
 * Arsenal-Delanne 10 || France || Propeller || Fighter || 1940 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Blériot III/IV || France || Propeller || Experimental || 1906 || Project || 1 || Failed to fly as either the III or IV.
 * Blériot VI || France || Propeller || Experimental || 1907 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Caproni Ca.60 || Italy || Propeller || Transport || 1921 || Prototype || 1 || Nine-wing triple-tandem triplane.
 * Croses Pouplume || France || Propeller || || 1960 || Home build ||  || Ultralight
 * Curtiss-Wright X-19 || US || Propeller || Experimental || 1963 || Prototype || 2 || Four-engined tiltrotor convertiplane
 * Delanne 20-T || France || Propeller || Experimental || 1938 || Prototype || 2 || Test plane for the Arsenal-Delanne 10 fighter.
 * Moscow Aviation Institute Sh-Tandem || USSR || Prototype || Attack || 1937 || Prototype || 1 || Also known as the Grushin Sh-Tandem. MAI-3.
 * Langley Aerodrome || US || Propeller || Experimental || 1902 || Project || 1 || Failed to take off.
 * Ligeti Stratos || Australia || Propeller || Private || 1985 || Prototype || 2 || Joined wing. (Cited in main text)
 * Lockspeiser LDA-01 || UK || Propeller || Utility || 1971 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Mauboussin Hémiptère || France || Propeller || Experimental || 1936 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Mignet Pou-du-Ciel || France || Propeller || Private || 1933 || Homebuilt || ||
 * Miles M.35 Libellula || UK || Propeller || Experimental || 1942|| Prototype || 1 || proof of concept for carrier fighter
 * Miles M.39B Libellula || UK || Propeller || Experimental || 1943 || Prototype || 1 || scale prototype for tandem wing jet bomber
 * Montgomery Aeroplane The Santa Clara || US || Glider || Experimental || 1905 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Payen PA-22 || France || Propeller || Experimental || 1942 || Prototype || 1 || Delta rear wing. Begun prewar.
 * Peyret Tandem || France || Glider || Private || 1922 || Prototype || 1 || Won the 1922 British Glider Competition.
 * Peyret VI || France || Propeller || Experimental || 1933 || Prototype || 1 || Forerunner of the SFCA Taupin.
 * Piel CP-10 Pinocchio || France || Propeller || Private || 1948 || Prototype || 1 || Similar to the Mignet Pou du Ciel.
 * QAC Quickie Q2 series || US || Propeller || Private || 1980 || Homebuilt || || Derivatives of the Rutan Quickie.
 * Rutan Quickie || US || Propeller || Private || 1978 || Homebuilt || ||
 * Salmon Tandem Monoplane || UK || Propeller || Private || 1923 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Scaled Composites ATTT || US || Propeller || Experimental || 1986 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Scaled Composites Proteus || US || Jet || Experimental || 1998 || Prototype || 1 || High-altitude endurance.
 * SFCA Taupin || France || Propeller || Private || 1936 || Production || 53 ||
 * SFCA Lignel 44 || France || Propeller || Private || 1946 || Prototype || 1 || 4-seat development of the Taupin.
 * Viking Dragonfly || US || Propeller || Private || 1980 || Homebuilt || ||
 * Westland P.12 Lysander Delanne || UK || Propeller || Utility || 1940 || Prototype || 1 || Modified Lysander to include rear wing and gun turret.
 * }
 * Miles M.39B Libellula || UK || Propeller || Experimental || 1943 || Prototype || 1 || scale prototype for tandem wing jet bomber
 * Montgomery Aeroplane The Santa Clara || US || Glider || Experimental || 1905 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Payen PA-22 || France || Propeller || Experimental || 1942 || Prototype || 1 || Delta rear wing. Begun prewar.
 * Peyret Tandem || France || Glider || Private || 1922 || Prototype || 1 || Won the 1922 British Glider Competition.
 * Peyret VI || France || Propeller || Experimental || 1933 || Prototype || 1 || Forerunner of the SFCA Taupin.
 * Piel CP-10 Pinocchio || France || Propeller || Private || 1948 || Prototype || 1 || Similar to the Mignet Pou du Ciel.
 * QAC Quickie Q2 series || US || Propeller || Private || 1980 || Homebuilt || || Derivatives of the Rutan Quickie.
 * Rutan Quickie || US || Propeller || Private || 1978 || Homebuilt || ||
 * Salmon Tandem Monoplane || UK || Propeller || Private || 1923 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Scaled Composites ATTT || US || Propeller || Experimental || 1986 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Scaled Composites Proteus || US || Jet || Experimental || 1998 || Prototype || 1 || High-altitude endurance.
 * SFCA Taupin || France || Propeller || Private || 1936 || Production || 53 ||
 * SFCA Lignel 44 || France || Propeller || Private || 1946 || Prototype || 1 || 4-seat development of the Taupin.
 * Viking Dragonfly || US || Propeller || Private || 1980 || Homebuilt || ||
 * Westland P.12 Lysander Delanne || UK || Propeller || Utility || 1940 || Prototype || 1 || Modified Lysander to include rear wing and gun turret.
 * }
 * Salmon Tandem Monoplane || UK || Propeller || Private || 1923 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Scaled Composites ATTT || US || Propeller || Experimental || 1986 || Prototype || 1 ||
 * Scaled Composites Proteus || US || Jet || Experimental || 1998 || Prototype || 1 || High-altitude endurance.
 * SFCA Taupin || France || Propeller || Private || 1936 || Production || 53 ||
 * SFCA Lignel 44 || France || Propeller || Private || 1946 || Prototype || 1 || 4-seat development of the Taupin.
 * Viking Dragonfly || US || Propeller || Private || 1980 || Homebuilt || ||
 * Westland P.12 Lysander Delanne || UK || Propeller || Utility || 1940 || Prototype || 1 || Modified Lysander to include rear wing and gun turret.
 * }
 * SFCA Lignel 44 || France || Propeller || Private || 1946 || Prototype || 1 || 4-seat development of the Taupin.
 * Viking Dragonfly || US || Propeller || Private || 1980 || Homebuilt || ||
 * Westland P.12 Lysander Delanne || UK || Propeller || Utility || 1940 || Prototype || 1 || Modified Lysander to include rear wing and gun turret.
 * }
 * Westland P.12 Lysander Delanne || UK || Propeller || Utility || 1940 || Prototype || 1 || Modified Lysander to include rear wing and gun turret.
 * }

Insects
Several orders of flying insects employ tandem wings, each with its characteristic anatomy and flight modes.

Insects with tandem flapping wings include the Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies), Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) and some Thysanoptera or Thrips. Odonata species typically have long, thin wings and can synchronise the flapping of fore and aft pairs in various different modes, allowing them to be both fast and highly manoeuvrable. By comparison the Lepidoptera have wider wings which are flapped in synchrony and may even overlap in flight, and are better suited to endurance flying. Thrips are smaller insects and the flying species have relatively stiff wings. Due to their small size, they generate lift via clap and fling flapping rather than the usual leading-edge vortex generation of most insects.

Many flying beetles, such as the ladybird, have forward wing cases which open out in flight but do not flap significantly. While on the ground they protect the delicate main, hind wings, while in the air they may be used to modify the aerodynamics of the flapping main wing.

Flying fish
Flying fish have enlarged pectoral fins and are capable of gliding flight, though not of true flapping flight. Some species, such as the band-wing, also have sufficiently enlarged pelvic fins, further back along their bodies, to form a tandem layout.

Dinosaurs
Microraptor was a genus of tandem-winged dinosaurs, possibly only a single species. It is known only from the fossil record, principally in China. Both fore and hind limbs were covered in flight feathers and it is thought to have been capable of true flapping flight as well as gliding. Its flight mode is not known.

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

title: Tandem wing


text:
Yaquis de Obregón

The Yaquis de Obregón (Obregón Yaquis) are a professional baseball team based in Ciudad Obregón, Sonora, Mexico. They compete in the Mexican Pacific League (LMP). The team plays at the Estadio Yaquis with a capacity of 16,500 seated spectators.

The team has won the LMP championship six times. The Yaquis are the only team in league history to have won three consecutive league championships, achieving this feat in the 2011, 2012, and 2013.

History
Professional baseball in Ciudad Obregón dates back to 1947, when the first club was established, nicknamed the Arroceros (Rice Growers). In 1958, the team changed its nickname to the Rojos (Reds), and in 1964 to the Trigueros (Wheat Growers).

The Yaquis de Obregón were founded in 1970 and the team played its first game on 8 October 1970 in the Estadio Tomás Oroz Gaytán.

The team has had 6 championships. The first one was in the 1965–1966 season with Mexican Manuel Magallón as coach. The next two titles were on the 1972–1973 season under Dave Garcia from the United States and the 1980–1981 season under Lee Sigman. On 27 January 2008 the team won their fourth championship, defeating Venados de Mazatlán four games to one, with Mexican Homar Rojas as manager.

Managed by Dominican Eddie Díaz, the team won the 2010-11 championship, defeating Algodoneros de Guasave four games to three, and went on to win the 2011 Caribbean Series contested in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. The team won a second and third consecutive title after winning the 2011–2012 and 2012–2013 championships under Díaz. Later, they went on to win the 2013 Caribbean Series. The 2013 Caribbean Series was the first to feature a final game after a Round-robin tournament. The final game lasted 18 innings, ending at 2 am local time. They are the first team in the Liga Mexicana del Pacífico to win three championships in a row.

Stadium
The Yaquis first played in the Álvaro Obregón Stadium from its inception until 1971, when the Estadio Tomás Oroz Gaytán was inaugurated. In 2016, for the 2016–17 Mexican Pacific League season, the team moved to the newly inaugurated Estadio Yaquis, with capacity of 16,500 seated spectators.

Notable players

 * 🇺🇸 Willie Aikens
 * 🇲🇽 Alfredo Amézaga
 * 🇲🇽 Fabián Anguamea
 * 🇺🇸 Dusty Baker
 * 🇺🇸 Marlon Byrd
 * 🇨🇺 Bárbaro Cañizares
 * 🇲🇽 Vinicio Castilla
 * 🇺🇸 Justin Christian
 * 🇺🇸 Doug Clark
 * 🇺🇸 Chris Coste
 * 🇲🇽 Francisco Estrada
 * Nelson Figueroa
 * 🇲🇽 Jorge Fitch
 * 🇲🇽 Giovanny Gallegos
 * 🇲🇽 Karim García
 * 🇲🇽 Gerónimo Gil
 * 🇲🇽 Leo Heras
 * 🇺🇸 Al Hrabosky
 * 🇺🇸 Jacque Jones
 * 🇺🇸 Randy Keisler
 * 🇲🇽 Luis Mendoza
 * 🇲🇽 Sid Monge
 * 🇲🇽 Agustin Murillo
 * 🇲🇽 Juan Navarrete
 * 🇺🇸 Sean Nolin
 * 🇯🇵 Tomo Otosaka
 * 🇲🇽 Aurelio Rodríguez
 * 🇲🇽 Enrique Romo
 * 🇲🇽 Vicente Romo
 * 🇯🇵 Taiki Sekine
 * 🇲🇽 Joakim Soria
 * 🇺🇸 Reggie Taylor
 * 🇺🇸 Jerry Turner
 * 🇲🇽 Luis Urías
 * 🇲🇽 Jorge Vázquez

title: Yaquis de Obregón


text: User talk:70.33.160.198

title: User talk:70.33.160.198


text:
Talk:Piano Concerto No. 4 (Beethoven)

As to the contemporary review (translated from the German?)

 * A review of the concerto right after the first public performance said it was the "most difficult and most complex Beethoven concerto ever", meaning this fourth concerto was very virtuosic for the time in its musical writing.

do you have a source? (I have Beethoven: A Documentary Study - one of H. C. Robbins Landon's books - here - and the concert of Dec 22 1808, as described by Ries, is quoted on page 126. There is an account by Spohr, too, of the concert, of Beethoven forgetting that he was the soloist, ... various anecdotes; but a source for this review would be helpful.) Thank you. Schissel : bowl listen 01:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry,i've found now the source( i thought i lost the source) and is the "Allegmeine Musikalische Zeitung" May,1809 : the review says exactly that " [this concert] is the most admirable,singular,artistic and complex Beethoven concerto ever".I have only a translation in italian but the source is reliable.So i edit the article with the source, you're right for the source, thanks 16:17, July 20, 2005 (CEST)

Thanks! My command of German has never been very good, but there may be an issue that early at the library here; like the later Neue Zeitschrift a number of libraries carry it (the Neue Z. especially since its older issues have been "reprinted" in a way, on better paper, a few decades ago - maybe someone will do that for the AMZ too, as a similar musicians/music historians' resource.) Schissel : bowl listen 17:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

In the section on the second movement, the phrase "pedaling directions that cannot be executed on the modern piano" is rather misleading. Of course the direction in question cannot be technically executed on the modern piano, but neither can any other "una corda" marking in piano literature. I recommend either deletion or a change to better wording. Junggai 22:20, August 30, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The cadenza is in the end of the 1st movement instead of the 2nd !
There's a serious mistake in the page : The cadenza is in the end of the 1st movement instead of the 2nd!

You can check out the sheet of the 1st movement, there's a little note "cadenza" in the piano part in the page 34 : http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/01287

Can some one fix this?

Bisconect (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

=
================================
 * I think there's a cadenza near the end of each movement. The *big* one is in the first, yes, but this note could be talking about the mini-cadenza in second movement.DavidRF (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

=
================================ No, I checked the sheets of the 2nd movement : http://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No.4,_Op.58_%28Beethoven,_Ludwig_van%29

There's no cadenza in it. There are many solo parts, but none of them is cadenza.

Bisconect (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

=
================================ I appreciate your vigilance, but if there's a mistake in the page, it's an overly liberal definition of "cadenza," not a factual error. At any rate, the passage described in the article is indeed in the second movement, and it is a place where the orchestra pauses shortly before the ending while the pianist embellishes the I 6/4 - V - I harmonic motion, all of these characteristics of a classical cadenza. As the passage's formal label is not the point of the sentence, there should be little harm in changing the wording to "solo passage" if you prefer. Junggai (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Jander and the 2nd movement
The quotation by Marx by way of Jander is correct. But Jander has an elaborate (and in musicological circles, pretty famous) discussion on how the 2nd movement is really a dialogue between Orpheus and the Furies, with the result being that Eurydice is sent back to Hell. Since this idea (first published in 1985) has been used already in program notes and liner notes, I think it's appropriate that it should be in the section on the 2nd movement. Yes? - kosboot (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes – but probably without delving into Jander's complete elaboration. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Unresolved root tonic chord in 1st movt
Is this notable enough to comment on? Eg I always wondered at it but can't see much WP:RS discussion of it. Any one any sources for this? — Iadmc  ♫ talk  08:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Piano Concerto No. 4 (Beethoven)


text:
Fujiwara no Michinori

Fujiwara no Michinori (藤原 通憲), also known as Shinzei (信西), was an aristocratic Confucian scholar and Buddhist monk in late Heian period Japan. He was one of the chief advisors to Emperor Nijō, and one of the chief allies of Taira no Kiyomori. Enmity towards him led to the Heiji Rebellion of 1159, in which he died early in the conflict.

As the head of the leading faction at Court, Shinzei enjoyed access to the emperor and other privileges which his rival Fujiwara no Nobuyori envied. In early 1160, Shinzei's ally Taira no Kiyomori left the capital with much of his family, thus providing Nobuyori's faction (and his allies, the Minamoto clan) to make a move for power. Some believe this may have been intentional on Kiyomori's part, laying a trap for the Minamoto.

Nobuyori and the Minamoto set fire to the Sanjō Palace and abducted both Emperor Nijō and the cloistered Emperor Go-Shirakawa. They then turned on Shinzei's home, destroying it and killing all those inside, with the exception of Shinzei himself, who escaped only to be captured in the mountains near Kyoto and decapitated soon afterward.

title: Fujiwara no Michinori


text:
Rhode Island Route 122

Route 122 is a numbered state highway running 14.2 mi in Rhode Island, United States. Its southern terminus is at U.S. Route 1 (US 1) in Pawtucket, and its northern terminus is at the Massachusetts border where it continues as Massachusetts Route 122.

Route description
Route 122 takes the following route through the State:

 * Pawtucket: 1.6 mi; U.S. 1 to Central Falls city line
 * Main Street and Lonsdale Avenue
 * Central Falls: 0.9 mi; Pawtucket city line to Lincoln town line
 * Lonsdale Avenue
 * Lincoln: 1.0 mi; Central Falls city line to Cumberland town line
 * Lonsdale Avenue
 * Cumberland: 6.9 mi; Lincoln town line to Woonsocket city line
 * Mendon Road
 * Woonsocket: 3.8 mi; Cumberland town line to Massachusetts State line at Route 122
 * Mendon Road, Cumberland Hill Road, Hamlet Avenue, Court Street, [High Street] (Main Street, Arnold Street), Arnold Street, Railroad Street and Harris Avenue

History
Route 122 used to extend south along US 1 into Providence then along Randall Street to end at Charles Street (present-day Route 246).

title: Rhode Island Route 122


text:
Matthew of Edessa

Matthew of Edessa (Մատթէոս Ուռհայեցի; late 11th century – 1144) was an Armenian historian in the 12th century from the city of Edessa. Matthew was the superior abbot of Karmir Vank, near the town of Kaysun, east of Marash (Germanicia), the former seat of Baldwin of Boulogne. He relates much about the Bagratuni Kingdom of Armenia, the early Crusades, and the battles between Byzantines and Arabs for the possession of parts of northern Syria and eastern Asia Minor.

Biography
Matthew was born in Edessa sometime in the second half of the 11th century and was a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church. He was a determined opponent both the Greek church and Latin church. Matthew was especially bitter against Frankish settlers, whose avaricious and imperious rule and ingratitude he condemns in his work. He was probably slain during the siege of Edessa by Zengi, atabeg of Mosul, in 1144.

Chronicle
Matthew's work, Zhamanakagrutyun (Ժամանակագրութիւն, which he probably began writing in 1113 and completed before 1140, is rather chronological, covering two centuries starting in the second half of the tenth and continued by Gregory the Priest through the second half of the twelfth. In an article published in 1971 by Armenian academician Levon Khachikyan, the author established that one of the sources Matthew used to write his work was an 11th-century vardapet named Hakob of Sanahin.

He remains the only primary source of certain information about the political and ecclesiastical events of his time and area. The literary and historical knowledge of Matthew was limited, and some of his chronological data is disputed by modern scholars. Matthew was also a fervent Armenian patriot, lamenting the martyrdom of his people and exalting their heroic deeds. To him, scholars and readers are indebted for the record of two documents of importance — a letter from the Byzantine Emperor John I Tzimisces, to Bagratuni king Ashot III and a discourse delivered in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, in the presence of the Emperor Constantine X Ducas by Gagik II, the exiled Bagratuni king, concerning the doctrinal divergence between the Greek and Armenian churches.

According to some scholars, Matthew was intolerant towards both Greeks and Latins, as well as unsympathetic towards Syrians, judging by allusions made by Gregory Bar Hebraeus (Abu l-Faraj) at a later date.

Translations

 * Chronique de Mathieu d'Édesse (962-1136), continuée par Grégoire le prêtre, French translation from 1858
 * Armenia and the Crusades: Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, translated from the original Armenian with a commentary and introduction by Ara Edmond Dostourian. Belmont, MA: National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, 1993.

title: Matthew of Edessa


text:
Dodgetown, North Carolina

Dodgetown is an unincorporated community in Stokes County in the U.S. state of North Carolina, a little over a mile south of Prestonville on North Carolina State Highway 772, and about five miles east of the county seat, Danbury.

title: Dodgetown, North Carolina


text:
Home Fires

Home Fire or Home Fires may refer to:

Literature

 * Home Fire (novel), a novel by Kamila Shamsie
 * Home Fires (Katz book), a 1992 book by Don Katz
 * Home Fires (novel), a 2011 novel by Gene Wolfe

Music

 * Home Fire, a 1991 album by Ron Kavana
 * Home Fires (Dead Ringer Band album), an album by Dead Ringer Band

Television

 * Home Fires (British TV series), a drama series that debuted in 2015
 * Home Fires (Canadian TV series), a drama series that debuted in 1980
 * Home Fires (Upstairs, Downstairs), episode 6 of Upstairs, Downstairs series 4

title: Home Fires


text:
Battle of Forum Gallorum

The Battle of Forum Gallorum was fought on 14 April 43 BC between the forces of Mark Antony and legions loyal to the Roman Senate under the overall command of consul Gaius Pansa, aided by his fellow consul Aulus Hirtius. The untested Caesar Octavian (the future emperor Augustus) guarded the Senate's camp. The battle occurred on the Via Aemilia near a village in northern Italy, perhaps near modern-day Castelfranco Emilia.

Antony was attempting to capture the province of Cisalpine Gaul from its appointed governor, Decimus Brutus. Brutus was besieged by Antony in Mutina (modern Modena), just south of the Padus (Po) River on the Via Aemilia. The Roman Senate sent all its available forces to confront Antony and relieve Brutus. Hirtius and Octavian arrived near Mutina with five veteran legions, where they waited for Pansa, who was marching north from Rome with a further four legions of recruits. Antony had four veteran legions in addition to the troops that were besieging Mutina. Aware that he would soon be outnumbered, Antony sought to defeat his opponents in detail before they could link up. After failing to provoke a battle with Hirtius, Antony marched two of his legions between the two Senatorial armies and laid an ambush on Pansa's approaching recruits. Unknown to Antony, Pansa had already been joined by one of Hirtius' veteran legions and Octavian's praetorian cohorts.

Antony's forces caught Pansa's army by surprise on a narrow road surrounded by marshes. A bitter, bloody battle ensued, in which Antony's II and XXXV legions defeated Pansa's troops and forced them to retreat southwards. Pansa himself was severely wounded. Antony called off the pursuit of Pansa's broken army and began marching his jubilant troops back towards Mutina. Hirtius then arrived from the north with a single veteran legion, which crashed into Anthony's exhausted troops, taking two Roman eagles and 60 standards. Antony's victory was turned into a major defeat; he fell back with his cavalry to his camp outside Mutina.

After receiving a report of the battle, Marcus Tullius Cicero, a fierce adversary of the Antonian faction, pronounced in the Senate the Fourteenth Philippic, exalting the success and praising the two consuls and young Caesar Octavian. Nevertheless, the battle was not decisive and the campaign continued. The two armies fought again seven days later (21 April) at the Battle of Mutina, which forced Antony to abandon the siege of the city and retreat westward. Hirtius was killed in the fighting at Mutina; Pansa was still recovering from his wound at Forum Gallorum but died on 23 April in unexplained circumstances.

Background

After the assassination of Julius Caesar, Antony's relations with Caesar's adoptive heir Octavian and the rest of the Roman Senate broke down. At the start of the War of Mutina in late 44 BC, he moved to invest the homonymous city in an attempt to force Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, the governor of Cisalpine Gaul, to give it up to him in accordance with an illegal law he had passed the previously that year in June.

At the start of 43 BC, the moderate Caesarians Aulus Hirtius and Gaius Vibius Pansa became consuls. Through the early months of the year, Antony's relations with the Senate broke down. Supported by a heterogeneous coalition including Cicero, Octavian, and large potions of the Senate, the consuls were dispatched to relieve Decimus Brutus' forces at Mutina and go to war against Antony. The consuls marched north, joined by Octavian and his private army, which had been legitimised by a grant of imperium pro praetore.

Mark Antony's plan of attack
In early March 43 BC, Hirtius and Caesar Octavian advanced along the Via Aemilia and reached Bononia; Mark Antony chose to fall back again. For the moment, he sought to strengthen the encircling front around Mutina to contain Decimus Brutus. In fact, neither Hirtius nor Octavian were seeking an immediate battle; they had two of Caesar's legions that had abandoned Antony and three legions of recalled veterans gathered by Octavian in Campania, but for the moment they were waiting for the other consul Vibius Pansa, who left Rome on 19 March, to return along the Via Cassia with four legions of recruits that had been quickly mobilized in January 43 BC.

When Mark Antony became aware of the approach and imminent concentration of his enemies, he set out to take the initiative and move on to the attack as soon as possible. At first, Antony tried to hasten the battle and gain a decisive victory against the forces of Hirtius and Octavian. After leaving a part of his troops behind to detain Decimus Brutus at Mutina, he brought up the bulk of his forces, consisting of four veteran legions and large contingents of cavalry, near his two opponents' camp, harassing them with continuous skirmishes. Hirtius and Octavian, however, did not leave their camp but continued to await Pansa's arrival.

Mark Antony then decided on a new plan: having learned of the arrival of scouts from Vibius Pansa's legions along the Via Aemilia from Bononia, Antony thought he could easily attack and destroy them with his veterans. He also counted on the arrival of three legions from the south, recruited by his capable lieutenant Publius Ventidius Bassus from among Caesar's veterans settled in Picenum. Antony decided to leave part of his forces under the command of his brother Lucius Antonius to hold Decimus Brutus in check, and engage Hirtius and Octavian with a feigned attack on their camp, while moving against Pansa's troops under cover of darkness with his best legions.

Because of the uneven and marshy terrain near Forum Gallorum through which the antagonists would have to pass, Mark Antony could not deploy his excellent cavalry forces, but decided to attack by sending Legiones II Gallica and XXXV into the marshes and deploying his praetorian cohorts and those of Marcus Junius Silanus along the main road (Via Aemilia) over the marshy ground. The legionaries were deployed in the shelter of the reeds of the marshes at the point where the main road was narrowest; cavalry units and light infantry moved forward along the Via Aemilia to harry Pansa's troops and draw them into the trap.

Caesar Octavian and Aulus Hirtius had expected the legions of Vibius Pansa to arrive before attacking the forces of Mark Antony. When they learned of the approach of the other consul's four legions, they attacked the legate Servius Sulpicius Galba, one of Caesar's killers, with the Caesarian veterans of the Legio Martia led by the energetic Decimus Carfulenus and the personal praetorian cohorts of Caesar Octavian and Aulus Hirtius. Carfulenus and Galba moved in the darkness eastwards along the Via Aemilia and passed through Forum Gallorum; Pansa and Carfulenus made a junction in the night of 14 April 43 BC and started marching at dawn along the road with the pugnacious Legio Martia, five cohorts of recruits, and the praetorian cohorts of Caesar Octavian and Hirtius. In the marshes on either side, the first signs of the enemy were spotted, and presently Antony's praetorian cohorts appeared to block the main road.

The battle in the marshes
The Legio Martia and Vibius Pansa's recruits suddenly stood threatened in front of and alongside Antony's legions. The experienced legionaries did not lose their cohesion, but accepted battle after sending back the cohorts of recruits that were deemed unsuitable for the fight by the Caesarian veterans of the Martia. While the praetorian cohorts of Antony and Caesar Octavian fought sharply along the main road, the Martia veterans split into two parts and, under the command of Pansa and Carfulenus, ran into the marshes to join the battle. Carfulenus led eight cohorts of the Legio Martia into the swampy soil to the right of Via Aemilia, while in the marshes on the left side of the road, the consul Pansa commanded the other two cohorts of the legion, reinforced by Aulus Hirtius' praetorian cohorts. Mark Antony's veterans of Legio XXXV attacked the eight cohorts of the Martia while the entire Legio II moved against the two cohorts under the command of Vibius Pansa to the left of Via Aemilia.

The fighting between the Caesarian veterans of both parties was dramatic and bloody; in his history, Appian describes the particular bitterness of the two parties to a fratricidal struggle. Mark Antony's Caesarians were angry at the defection of the legionaries of the Legio Martia, now allied with the Senate, while the latter legion wanted to take revenge for the decimations and other punishments inflicted on them at Brundisium. Both sides believed that they could obtain a decisive victory, as the veterans' military pride increased the fury of the fight.

The clash between the Caesarian veterans on the two sides took place in a dark silence: without battle-cries or exhortations, the legionaries fought hand-to-hand in a frontal collision between their massed ranks in the swamps and valleys. The legionaries' fratricidal carnage was interrupted only by short breaks used to tighten their formations. The veterans knew their job well; without the need for encouragement, they continued the struggle with tenacity and obstinacy. The mutual slaughter with drawn blades impressed Pansa's inexperienced recruits, who watched the deadly and silent action of the Caesarian legionaries on both sides.

This fierce battle between the veterans continued in the swamps, initially without decisive results. On the right wing, the eight cohorts of the Legio Martia under the command of Decimus Carfulenus managed slowly to gain ground, while Antony's Legio XXXV gradually retreated in good order. On the left wing, on the other hand, the other two cohorts of the Legio Martia and the praetorian cohorts of Hirtius, under Pansa's command, first offered a stiff resistance but then began gradually to fold before Antony's entire Legio II. The battle finally turned to the favour of Antony's forces: in the centre along the Via Aemilia, Antony and Silanus' praetorian cohorts prevailed in a brutal clash with Caesar Octavian's praetorian cohorts, which were completely destroyed.

In the marshes to the right of the highway, the legionaries of the Martia, who were isolated some 500 paces in advance, were threatened by Antony's Moorish cavalry; Decimus Carfulenus had fallen mortally wounded, and the veterans began to fall back while still repulsing the cavalry's assaults. Exhausted, the legionaries of Antony's Legio XXXV did not at first pursue the retreating enemy. In the marshes to the left of the Via Aemilia, the consul Vibius Pansa suffered a serious injury while fighting on the line; his wound from a javelin shook the two cohorts of the Legio Martia. While the injured consul was transferred to Bononia, the Antonian veterans of Legio II finally put the two cohorts to flight; they now began to fall back in disorder, sowing panic in the ranks of Pansa's raw recruits, whose two legions had been kept far back in reserve. At the sight of the apparent collapse of the veterans of the Legio Martia, the new recruits scattered, falling back to camp in disorder.

Mark Antony's legionaries hastened to pursue the enemy, inflicting heavy losses on the veterans and new conscripts as they fled back towards their camp. The survivors of the Legio Martia actually remained outside the camp and by their presence dissuaded the Antonian legionaries from attacking further. The remnants of the Senatorial legions were virtually trapped inside their camps, and the Antonian veterans would likely force them to surrender in the event of prolonged siege, but Mark Antony was concerned about losing time, fearing that the situation would deteriorate in Mutina in case Hirtius and Octavian's legions sought to break his siege there. Antony therefore felt that he could not stay on the battlefield and decided to return with his forces to the city. In the afternoon, Antony's two victorious legions began to return westward along Via Aemilia in the direction of Mutina. The soldiers were tired but euphoric after apparently achieving a brilliant success.

The second phase of the battle
Vibius Pansa, while leading his recruits into battle in the marshes of Forum Gallorum, where he was later seriously injured, had at the same time sent messengers to the other consul, Aulus Hirtius, to inform him of the unexpected battle with the Antonians and their difficult situation. Hirtius was about sixty stadia (c. 11 km) from the battlefield. He decided at once to march to Pansa's aid with the Legio IV Macedonica, the other Caesarian legion that had defected at Brundisium. These fresh troops moved quickly and, in the late afternoon of 14 April 43 BC, came unexpectedly into contact with the legions of Mark Antony who, exhausted after the tough battle, marched in the direction of Mutina in poor order and heedless of danger in their front.

The IV Macedonica led by Aulus Hirtius, experienced and well-rested, came to the attack in tight formation against Antony's disorderly and tired troops. Despite attempts at resistance and instances of bravery, the Antonian legions could not withstand the assault, but suffered heavy losses and disintegrated under the attacks of Hirtius' Caesarian. The Antonian legions disintegrated, scattering into the marshes and nearby forests; two eagles and sixty other standards were captured by their enemies. Only with great difficulty could Mark Antony rally the remnant with the help of the cavalry, which managed to round up the soldiers during the night and bring them back to camp near Mutina. Aulus Hirtius, hindered by darkness and wary of being lured into a trap, chose not to pursue the defeated Antonian legions. Thus ended the long battle of Forum Gallorum. The marshes were covered with arms, trunks, horse remains, corpses of legionaries of the two sides perceived in the alternate fights.

Caesar Octavian's direct role on the day of the battle, 14 April 43 BC, had been minimal. The propraetor held his ground with the other three legions available in their camps, busying themselves with checking and repulsing the faint diversionary attacks led by Lucius Antonius on his brother's instructions. Despite taking a lesser role than the two consuls Hirtius and Pansa, he was acclaimed as imperator on the field by his troops.

Aftermath and assessment
Although the Battle of Forum Gallorum ended without a decisive victory for either of the two parties, at the end of the day, Mark Antony's bold plan had been foiled and the two consuls' Senatorial forces had reversed the disastrous outcome of their initial clash, thanks to the decisive intervention of Caesar's legionaries now serving Caesar Octavian—the famous "heavenly legions" exalted by Cicero. The fighting, however, was extremely fierce and bloody. In the first phase, according to Appian, more than half of Vibius Pansa's forces and Octavian's entire praetorian cohort were destroyed by the Antonian veterans; the latter were then decimated in turn, losing half of their forces before finding escape in fields around Mutina. The losses to Aulus Hirtius' legion in the second phase were, however, light.

The first news of the battle that reached Rome of the battle was uncertain, provoking doubts and consternation among the Republican Senators grouped around Cicero. The letter sent by Aulus Hirtius with the news of the triumphant victory and a personal account by Servius Sulpicius Galba, addressed to Cicero, raised morale and aroused euphoria among Antony's Senatorial enemies. After a few days, on 21 April 43 BC, Cicero pronounced in the Senate the triumphalist Fourteenth Philippic, in which he exalted the victory, called even for fifty days of public thanksgiving, and praised above all the two consuls Aulus Hirtius and Vibius Pansa, while somewhat minimizing the contribution by Caesar Octavian. During the session, Cicero also gave the news of Vibius Pansa's injury, but the latter's life did not seem to be in danger. On the morning of 23 April, however, the consul died in circumstances that have never fully been explained. His doctor Glyco was briefly arrested on suspicion of poisoning Pansa, and the rumour spread, later recorded by some ancient historians such as Suetonius and Tacitus, that Octavian had been directly responsible for the sudden death of the consul, whose wound had not seemed serious.

On 21 April 43 BC, while Cicero pronounced his last invective against Antony, the Battle of Mutina was bitterly joined. That engagement decided the outcome of the Mutina campaign through the victory of the coalition between the republicans and Octavian's Caesarians, the death of the other consul Hirtius, and the definitive retreat of Mark Antony with the consequent lifting of the siege of Decimus Brutus. The Senatorial victory was, however, to prove ephemeral, for soon Caesar Octavian, alone in command since the two consuls' providential but suspicious demise, would break off his alliance with the senatorial Ciceronian faction in an abrupt realignment of forces that resulted in the formation of the Triumvirate with Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus.

Modern sources

 * Encyclopædia Britannica
 * Dictionary of the Roman Empire
 * Osprey Essential Histories, Caesar's Civil War
 * (Italian translation)
 * Osprey Essential Histories, Caesar's Civil War
 * (Italian translation)
 * (Italian translation)

title: Battle of Forum Gallorum


text:
User:KSchutte/Cognition

Concepts Aboulia Absence seizure Acetylsalicylic acid Acoustic neuroma Activities of daily living Adenoma Adrenal gland Adrenergic Adrenergic receptor Adrenocorticotropic hormone Adrenoleukodystrophy Adverse event Affect Affective spectrum Afferent signal Agenesis Ageusia Agitation (emotion) Agnosia Agraphia AIDS Ankle jerk reflex Annoyance Anosmia Anthroposemiotics Anticholinergic Antidepressant Antidepressants Anti-social Anxiety Anxiety disorder Anxiolytic Aphasia Aphasiology Aphrodisiac Apperception Appetite Appetite suppressant Applied psychology Arachnoid (brain) Archetypes Archipallium A/S ratio Aspirin Associative Agnosia ATPase Atropine Attention Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder Attitude (psychology) Auditory Auditory system Autism Autonomic nervous system Avian pallium Awareness Axon Balint's syndrome Barbiturate Basal ganglia Behavior analysis Behavioral ecology Behavioral economics Behavioral finance Behaviorism Behavioural psychology Behavioural sciences Belief Benzedrine Benzodiazepine Benzphetamine Binge-eating Bioacoustics Bioelectricity Biological membrane Biological neural network Biological psychology Biopsychology Bipolar disorder BK channel Blood-brain barrier Body image Body language Botulin toxin Bounded rationality Brain-computer interface Brain damage Brain imaging Brain implant Brain pacemaker Bruxism Bulimia Bulimia nervosa Caffeine Cannabis (drug) Cannaboids Capgras delusion Captology Cathinone Caudate nucleus Cell potential Central nervous system Cerebellum Cerebral cortex Cerebral hemisphere Cerebrospinal fluid Cerebrovascular accident Cerebrum Chemical dependency Child development Chinese Room argument Choline Choline acetyltransferase Cholinergic Cholinesterase Cholinesterase inhibitor Chunking (psychology) Cingulate cortex Classical conditioning Clinical anxiety Clinical depression Clinical neuropsychology Clinical psychology Coca Cocaine Cocktail party effect Cognitive bias Cognitive dissonance Cognitive linguistics Cognitive map Cognitive neuropsychology Cognitive neuroscience Cognitive ontology Cognitive process Cognitive psychology Cognitive science Cognitive Semantics Cognitive space Cognitive therapy Cognitive tutor Cognitivism (psychology) Collective unconscious Color agnosia Colorless green ideas sleep furiously Coma Commensalism Communication Community psychology Compulsion Computational Computer addiction Concepts Conditioning Conformity (psychology) Consciousness Context Cooperation Corpus callosum Creativity Critical psychology Curare Data compression Decision Decision making Delirium tremens Delusion Delusional parasitosis Dementia Dendrite Depolarization Depressant Depression (mood) Detoxification Developmental psychology Dexamphetamine Dexedrine Dextroamphetamine Diazepam Diencephalon Direct realism Discourse analysis Discursive psychology Disinhibition Disorder Disorientation Distorted body image Distributed cognition Disulfiram Dog intelligence Dolphin intelligence Donepezil Dopamine Dopamine hypothesis of psychosis Doubt Down syndrome Downregulation Dreaming Drug Drug addiction Drunkenness Dura mater Dynamic cognition Eating disorder Eating disorders Ecological psychology Ecstasy Ecstasy (drug) Education Educational psychology Effexor Ego, superego, and id Electroencephalography Electrophysiology Embodied cognition Emergence Emergent materialism Emotion Emotional clearing Empathy Encephalization Endorphin Engram EOSFET Ephedrine Epilepsy Epileptic seizure Epinephrine Epiphenomenalism Epiphenomenon Epistemology Epithalamus Ethanol Ethology Etiology Euphoria Eusociality Evolution Evolutionary psychology Excitotoxicity Executive function Expected value Experience Experimental analysis of behavior Experimental psychology Expressive aphasia Extravert Face perception Facial expression Facial nerve Familial Alzheimer disease Fatigue Fear Fear conditioning Fenfluramine Fen-phen Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder Fetishism Fight-or-flight response fitness (biology) fMRI Folk psychology Forebrain Forensic psychology Forms of activity and interpersonal relations Fragile X syndrome Frontal lobe Functional magnetic resonance imaging Functional neuroimaging Functional Selectivity Functionalism (philosophy of mind) Functionalism (sociology) G-protein-coupled receptor Galantamine Gamma-aminobutyric acid Gender role Gerstmann's syndrome Gestalt effect Gestalt psychology Glia Global Assessment of Functioning Glutamate Glutamic acid Goal Goldman equation Grand mal seizure Great ape language Grey matter Group dynamics Group selection Gustatory system Habituation Hallucinations Hangover Headache Health psychology Hebbian learning Hemispherectomy Heroin Heuristic Higher order desire Hindbrain Hippocampus Homunculus Hormone Hormones Hrair limit HT-0712 Human agency Human brain Human computer interaction Human development Humanistic psychology Huntington's disease Hyperpolarization Hyperreflexia Hypersexuality Hypnotherapy Hypnotism Hypothalamus Ignorance Imidazopyridine Individual differences psychology Individuation Information foraging Information processing Information theory Inhibition Insight Insomnia Insula Intelligence Intelligence (trait) Intelligence in animals Intention Intoxication Introvert Intuition Ion channel I/V curve Kava-kava Khat Kin selection Knowledge Knowledge management Knowledge representation Koko L-DOPA Language Language acquisition Language and thought Language of thought Laws of thought Learning Learning styles Lesion Libido Ligand-gated ion channel Limbic system Linguistics List of psychological topics List of psychologists List of publications in psychology List of regions in the human brain Lobotomy Locus ceruleus Long term memory Lucid dreaming Major depressive disorder Manic Manic depression Mary's room Maskun Medical psychology Medulla oblongata Memantine Membrane potential Memes Memory Memory-prediction framework Meninges Meningitis Mental event Mental functions Mental illness Mental images Mental models Mental property Mental substance Mesencephalon Mesolimbic pathway Metabotropic receptor Metacognition Methadone Methamphetamine Methcathinone Methylphenidate Metrazol Microtubule Midbrain Midbrain tegmentum Mind-body problem Mini mental state examination Mirror test Model organism Modularity (programming) Modularity of mind Monoamine oxidase inhibitor Monoamine transporter Mood disorder Motivation Motor learning Motor system Muscarine Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor Muscle dysmorphia Mushroom bodies Myasthenia gravis Mydriasis Myelin Naïve realism NaKATPase Naltrexone Narcolepsy Natural selection Neocortex Neopallium Nerve Nerve agent Nerve fiber Nervous system Neural tube Neurobiology Neurochemistry Neurochip Neurocognitive Neurocognitive deficit Neurodegenerative disease Neuroeconomics Neurogenesis Neuroglia Neuro-linguistic programming Neurology Neuromuscular junction Neuron Neurons Neuropathy Neurophilosophy Neuropsychology Neuroscience Neurosis Neurotic Neurotransmitter Nicotine Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor Nim Chimpsky NMDA receptor Node of Ranvier Norepinephrine Normal (behavior) Nucleus (neuroanatomy) Nystagmus Obesity Object relations theory Observer effect Obsessive-compulsive Obsessive-compulsive disorder Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder Occam's razor Occipital lobe Olfaction Olfactory bulb Operant conditioning Opiate replacement therapy Opioid Orthorexia nervosa Overeating Pain Paleopallium Paramethoxyamphetamine Parasympathetic nervous system Parietal lobe Parkinson's disease Paxil Perception Performance psychology Peripheral nervous system Persistent vegetative state Personal Identity Personality Personality psychology Persuasion Pharmacist Pharmacology Phendimetrazine Phenethylamine Phenomenology Phentermine Phenylpropanolamine Pheremone Philippine Psychology Philosophy of action Philosophy of perception Philosophy of psychology Phobia Phobias Phosphorylation Physiological psychology Physiological tolerance Pia mater Pineal gland Piriform cortex Pituitary gland Pleasure Political psychology Pons Pornography addiction Positive psychology Post-traumatic stress disorder Practical reason Pre- and perinatal psychology Problem solving Procedural knowledge Proprioception Prosencephalon Prosopagnosia Psychiatry Psychodynamic psychotherapy Psychohistory Psycholinguistics Psychological addictions Psychological egoism Psychological testing Psychological trauma Psychology of religion Psychometric Psychometrics Psychonomics Psychopathology Psychopathy Psychopharmacology Psychophysics Psychophysiology Psychosis Psychotropic Psychotropic drug Purging Qualia Quantitative psychological research Rapid eye movement Rat Park Rationalism Rationality Reason Reasoning Receptor (biochemistry) Receptor antagonist Reciprocal altruism Reference Refractory period Reinforcement Reinforcement learning Relapse Repolarization Reuptake Reversal potential Rimonabant Schizophrenia School psychologist Schwann cells Sciatic nerve Scopolamine Second messenger Seizures Self (psychology) Self-concept Self-harm Self-organization Self-organizing map Self-realization Selfish gene Semantic Senile plaques Sensation Sense Senses Sensory system Serotonin Sexual addiction Sexual selection Sexuality Short term memory Sibutramine Simulated consciousness Situated cognition Skinner box Sleep deprivation Social action Social cognition Social influence Social psychology Sociobiology Socionics Somatic nervous system Somatosensory system Somatostatin Space-time theories of consciousness Spandrel Spatial memory Spinal cord Stereotype Stimulant Striatum Structuralism Subjective character of experience Substantia nigra Suicide Supervenience Symbol Sympathetic nervous system Synapse Synapses Synaptic vesicle Systemic psychology Tacrine Taste Tay-Sachs disease Tectum Telencephalon Temporal lobe Thalamus Theoretical psychology Theory of cognitive development Theory of mind Thiamin Thought Thought disorder Thought experiment Tic Tourette syndrome Traffic psychology Transmembrane potential Transmembrane protein Transmembrane receptor Traumatic brain injury Trigeminal nerve Try Tryptophan Turing machine Unconscious mind Unconsciousness Ventral tegmental area Ventricle Vision Visual Visual system Voltage-gated ion channel Washoe (chimpanzee) Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome White matter Withdrawal Word Workaholic Working memory Zolpidem
 * Ablation
 * Abnormal psychology
 * Acetylcholine
 * Acetylcholine receptor
 * Action (philosophy)
 * Action potential
 * Activity theory
 * Adaptation (biology)
 * Adderall
 * Addiction
 * Agency
 * Agenda
 * Agent
 * Agonist
 * Alcohol
 * Alcohol withdrawal syndrome
 * Alcoholic beverage
 * Alcoholism
 * Alex (parrot)
 * Alzheimer's disease
 * Ambien
 * Amphetamine
 * Amphetamine psychosis
 * Amygdala
 * Amygdalar cortices
 * Analytical psychology
 * Animal cognition
 * Animal communication
 * Animal intelligence
 * Animal language
 * Animal mind
 * Animal model
 * Animal psychology
 * Anorectic
 * Anorexia
 * Anorexia nervosa
 * Associationism
 * Brain
 * Cognition
 * Comparative psychology
 * Connectionism
 * Mind
 * Philosophy of mind
 * Psychology

Buddhist philosophy Tanha

Modeling Concepts ACT ACT-R Artificial consciousness Artificial intelligence Artificial neural network Artificial neuron Cognitive architecture Cognitive model Complex system Computer science Copycat (software) Cybernetics Economics Expert system Feedforward neural networks Game theory Neural network Perceptron Price equation Prisoner's dilemma Recurrent neural networks Sociology Subsumption architecture Systems theory
 * Soar

Normative Concepts Animal welfare Counselling Counselling psychology Ergonomics Group therapy Industrial and organisational psychology Neuroethics Nonhuman animals ethics Psychotherapy Rehabilitation Self-help
 * Altruism

Junk Concepts Eliminative materialism Mental (Sri Aurobindo) Phrenology Popular psychology Psychoanalysis Quantum mind Radical behaviorism Transpersonal psychology

Books As We May Think Consciousness Explained Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders How the Mind Works How the Self Controls Its Brain Society of Mind The Concept of Mind The Mind of an Ape
 * Unified theories of cognition

Journals Journal of Consciousness Studies

Societies American Psychiatric Association American Psychological Association American Psychological Society

Historical People Karl Abraham Alfred Adler Edgar Douglas Adrian Alois Alzheimer Aristotle George Berkeley Paul Broca Korbinian Brodmann Arvid Carlsson Henry Hallett Dale Charles Darwin Rene Descartes Emil du Bois-Reymond Hermann Ebbinghaus Jean Pierre Flourens Sigmund Freud Galen Franz Joseph Gall Luigi Galvani Camillo Golgi Hippocrates Thomas Hobbes Clark L. Hull David Hume Thomas Henry Huxley Carl Jung Immanuel Kant Wolfgang Köhler Emil Kraepelin John Locke Otto Loewi Konrad Lorenz James Mill C. Lloyd Morgan Ivan Pavlov Plato Santiago Ramon y Cajal George Romanes T. Schjelderup-Ebbe Charles Scott Sherrington B.F. Skinner Edward B. Titchener Edward C. Tolman Vesalius Lev Vygotsky John B. Watson Karl Wernicke Thomas Willis Ludwig Wittgenstein Wilhelm Wundt

Contemporary People Elizabeth Anscombe D. M. Armstrong William Bechtel Ned Block Jerome Bruner David Chalmers Roderick Chisholm Noam Chomsky Patricia Churchland Paul Churchland Andy Clark Francis Crick Donald Davidson Richard Dawkins Dan Dennett John Carew Eccles Gerald Edelman Gareth Evans Owen Flanagan Jerry Fodor Karl von Frisch Tim van Gelder Alvin Goldman Jane Goodall Temple Grandin Donald Griffin Stuart Hampshire Gilbert Harman Friedrich Hayek Donald Olding Hebb Richard Herrnstein Alan Lloyd Hodgkin Jennifer Hornsby Andrew Huxley Frank Cameron Jackson John Hughlings Jackson William James Eric R. Kandel Karl Lashley Keith Lehrer Alexei Nikolaevich Leontyev David Lewis (philosopher) John C. Lilly Alexander Luria Norman Malcolm Merab Mamardashvili James McClelland Warren Sturgis McCulloch John McDowell Colin McGinn Thomas Metzinger Marvin Minsky Robert L. Moore Thomas Nagel Bonnie Nardi Allen Newell Seymour Papert Francine Patterson Christopher Peacocke Irene Pepperberg Steven Phillipson Jean Piaget Steven Pinker Walter Pitts George R. Price Hilary Putnam Anthony Quinton Georges Rey Richard Rorty Frank Rosenblatt Gilbert Ryle John Searle Wilfrid Sellars Herbert Simon J. J. C. Smart Thomas Szasz Edward Thorndike Nikolaas Tinbergen John Wisdom Amotz Zahavi

title: User:KSchutte/Cognition


text:
Talk:Monthly Review

Its just parroting kremlin narratives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:D180:4E10:443F:7309:D00F:1295 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 * It used to. Now it follows an independent line. But it is all based on the idea that profits are stolen from the workers, and all the errors that flow from that. 199.33.32.254 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Untitled
Rhetorical question:

Can anyone explain the grammatical or syntactical meaning of this phrase,

 * During the 1950s, McCarthyism targeted its original editors

Who is "McCarthyism"? Thank you. nobs 01:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * “McCarthyism” is used to describe the anti-socialist stance and actions taken by senator McCarthy and his fallowers in the Cold War. --Bky1701 11:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Monthly Review