text:
Talk:Harrying of the North

Problems
There are a whole lot of problems with this as it stands. It's obviously historically distorted by a strong point of view. I know different cultures at that time had different attitudes to kingship, with Scandinavians often having some degree of choice when it came to a succession, but William had some right to believe he was Edward the Confessor's legal heir and therefore the rightful ruler of the whole of England. The idea that Harold Hardrada brought an army over to provide security for people in the north of England is laughable - he wanted the throne. --Andrew Norman 09:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Firstly, Harold Hardrada was before the Battle of Hastings, he was not the Danish king (or nobleman) who attempted an invasion.

 * The main point behind the article, as I read it, is that William's claim to the throne was not supported by the people of England, and that in the north they simply accepted (or would have done, had they the chance) the kingship of a Dane. The main grounds for having a king at that time was to provide physical protection. William clearly took the legalistic view you have taken, thought himself the only rightful heir, and moved to 'quell' the 'rebellion'. Culturally, the northeners were only doing what they had always done - accepting or rejecting a king (see the Kingdom of York for more of the same).

From the article:
 * The new king brought with him an army

Which new king? AxelBoldt 18:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is a odd point in the article: their kings members of the House of Munsö of Sweden or the Fairhair Dynasty of Norway, or the Anglo-Saxon House of Wessex - the first one, no Swedish claim for England has ever been establish. The writer must be thinking about the Danish king (so many Nordic nations, hard to keep 'em apart I guess) - Finn Bjo --85.165.99.39 00:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I really do have a problem with persons talking of The People of England [ or of France, or of China ] as if they were one homogenous clear-sighted wise mass, able to collectively decide and direct.  For some reason the decisions ascribed are always those the writer would prescribe. Claverhouse (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

How many harrys?
Reading I've done, (the History of Ilkley by Collier) suggests there were two Harryings, with about 10 years between them. Can anyone comment on that assertion? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There was annother revolt in 1075 involving Hereford, Northumbria and Norfolk. I believe this was the event in which Countess Edith betrayed her husband to the king and became one of the first female land owners in England?Narson 15:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Which sounds a bit like Revolt of the Earls ... but it my recollection tallies with your "betrayed her husband to the king and became one of the first female land owners in England", which does not seem to be covered by that article's "Meanwhile the Countess held out in Norwich until she obtained terms for herself and her followers, who were deprived of their lands, but were allowed forty days to leave the realm. Thereupon the Countess retired to her estate in Brittany, where she was rejoined by her husband". I'm sure there's an article on her somewhere in wikipedia... the Revolt of the Earls doesn't sound much like a harrying, more your normal series of battles. --15:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs)

 * Well, I acctually live in what was Countess Edith's land in Northamptonshire or so I believe... I suspect the problem is that for so many years many chronicles and chroniclers were considered 'unreliable' that we have ended up with quite a few versions of that period of English history. I mean, for the longest time the Anglo Saxon Chronicle was considered unreliable. Blasted historians. They shouldn't revert more than 3 times in a 24 decade period >.< Narson 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Ooops. Judith, not Edith. Damn, my memory is failing in my old age. Narson 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, there was a second (some say even worse) Harrying in 1080, conducted by Bishop Odo of Bayeux (who also was directly responsible for much of the damage in 1069-1070). Orderic Vitalis describes Odo as one of the principal oppressors of the English people, so the English must have been relieved when he was imprisoned in 1082, and concerned when in September 1087 the Conqueror on his death-bed ordered Odo's release. Fortunately, Odo rebelled against William II in early 1088 and was defeated - in large measure by the English people, who thus exacted some revenge for 1066, 1069, 1070 and 1080. Zoetropo (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A question
I'm not a historian and just read this page out of curiosity. But was very surprised to see the link between The Harrying and the present day relative poverty of the North. Is that credible? 80.229.137.151

 * I'm not sure that this is entirely accurate. The north's period of greatest began to wane much earlier, with the barbarian raids of the Vikings who sacked Lindisfarne. Wessex in the south became most dominant after that. The Harrying of the North would have had a big effect, certainly but the Normans did a lot of rebuilding afterwards. I think an accumilation of continuous Scottish raids in the Middle Ages and then Herny VIII's destruction of the monastries moving towards to a far more centralised, London dominated state would have probably been the biggest cause of the north being poorer. In any case there are areas of relative prosperity in the north today, I think most sane people would prefer to live in Harrogate than Brixton. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Need a map!
As a non-British fellow, the clarity of this article & event would be vastly improved if a map was provided herein! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a generic contemporary north of england map. We could do with a better one, but I don't hold out much hope ... not sure how much information there is to identify the geography of the harrying. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The map is of the whole north of England but the harrying was only on the eastern side of the country. Needs a map showing the modern counties of Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I found this phrase: "Yorkshire and the North Riding" - presumably should be "The North Riding of Yorkshire". Herbgold (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Death toll
the article says the death toll is believed to be over 100,000 but in the article World population estimates about the estimated world population the numbers are around 400.000 for this time and although those numbers are just guesses the percentage seems not plausible. Eeignet (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you meant that estimates for the world population at that time was about 400,000,000? The Harrying of the North article states that the contemporary chronicler Orderic Vitalis said that the death toll was over 100,000, however Orderic was writing his account in Normandy and his information was largely derived from William of Poitiers Gesta Guillelmi. Other chroniclers such as William of Malmesbury described the destruction of the north from, apparently, first hand experience. The Domesday Book provides a fairly accurate survey of the people on the land, figures then have to be estimated for the women and children as well as the town dwellers, this comes out at about 2.25M ( see Bartlett. "England Under the Norman and Angevin kings" for more detail). Domesday compares the holdings under Edward the Confessor to the holdings in 1086, thus the Yorkshire Domesday is a record of the extent of waste due to the punitive measures taken during the winter of 1069-70 and enables a reasonably accurate figure to be extrapulated.Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * my bad Eeignet (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV - genocide?
There are sources calling this genocide, but not all academics agree. Mark Hagger argues that ravaging territory was not unusual - he quotes Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus who was still the main 'go to' author for war in Williams time, "'the main and principal point in war is to secure plenty of provisions for oneself, and to destroy the enemy by famine'. Hardly surprising, then, that the destruction of the enemy's resources was the aim of Caesar during the Gallic wars, of Charlemagne when lighting against the Saxons, of William the Conqueror in Maine and in both the north and south of England, and of the English in France during the Hundred Years' War. Nor is it clear that the harrying of the north represents an unusually extensive and intensive example of such destruction. The war fought between Anjou and Blois over the Vendomois in the eleventh century left the area ravaged and desolate." ..."This, then, was not a form of war that William aimed only against the north. It was not genocide, as some have claimed. And although William might have been, in the words of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 'stern beyond measure to those who opposed his will', he was no 'war criminal. We should not impose our own standards of morality on William, or on any other medieval person, for our standards were not theirs, and what William did was not in contravention of the standards of his own day." - which seems reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The article also uses a large quote from Orderic which I think is WP:UNDUE. Richard Huscroft writs: "Orderic's assessment of the number of people who died as a result of William's conduct in the north is surely exaggerated. If true it would mean that something approaching five per cent of England's population died in the winter of 1069-70. It is a pardonable overestimate, however, and reveals the shock contemporaries felt at what can only be described as William's terror tactics.

"There has been much debate about the true extent of the destruction caused by the Harrying of the North, and about its long-term effects on the lands and people of northern England. In Domesday Book, hundreds of vills in Yorkshire were described as 'waste', with no population or value. The conventional wisdom has tended to hold that these areas were devastated during the events of 1069-70.13 It is impossible to be sure that this was the case, however, and more recently it has been argued that major destruction was probably confined to the more remote upland areas of northern England and that only a relatively limited area in Yorkshire was affected. Lands in Yorkshire might later have been described as 'waste' simply because they were worthless. Perhaps they had been ravaged by a ferocious army; but they may have lacked value for other reasons, too. Further questions have been raised about the capacity of William's army, working in winter and for only three months, to inflict the sort of damage traditionally associated with the Harrying." In War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy by Matthew Strickland Strickland writes: "Chroniclers were notoriously prone to hyperbole, as Orderic's estimation of 100,000 fatalities incurred during the 'harrying of the North* amply demonstrates. Not only might the severity of local conditions first be exaggerated, but these in turn might then be inflated into broad generalities."

But you wouldn't know this from reading the article until you get down to the bottom of the section titled "The Harrying". The lead doesn't give the reader any hint this might be hyperbole.

We also have "The wasting of the countryside must have continued for some time, as in 1086 the Domesday Book entries indicate wasteas est or hoc est vast (it is wasted) for estate after estate". That's cited to Muir's book The Yorkshire Countryside and Muir continues "There are, however, considerable problems of interpretation here. 'Waste' was a term that was sometimes applied to commons, and it is not clear whether it was used in Domesday to describe formerly productive land that had gone out of cultivation. Wightman believed that 'waste' in Domesday applied not only to abandoned or worthless land, but was also used to denote manors that had been amalgamated or were in disputed ownership. However, Harrison and Roberts, two leading authorities in northern landscape history, arc quite specific; with regard to the Pickering estate they write: 'One thing is, however, chillingly clear: in 1086 the estate was producing only a fraction of the revenue it had generated in 1066, and the phrase "The rest (is) waste" provides a clear explanation: waste was land which had been devastated.' When one maps the pattern of wasted vills and manors, it seems that only the loftiest parts of the Pennines, the plateaux of the North York Moors, and much of Holderness escaped severe devastation, while the worst of the wasting seems to have taken place in the Bsnnine foothills and the Dales." A bit before this he says "Palliser noted that Ordericus was born in 1075 near Evesham and could have been writing in 1125, some 55 years after the events described, and that his figure of 100,000 victims was used in a rhetorical sense - he also attributed the massively inflated figure of 60,000 knights to William." and notes that some of the undoubted devasatation may have been done by Scottish raiders. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is on my list of things to tackle at some point. It and Revolt of the Earls and some bios of leading actors in the Norman Conquest ... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that it was me that used the term 'genocide' in the article, so I thought that I would give you my reasoning behind it. Having looked at the various sources, some that are mentioned above, I thought on balance it should be called an ACT of genocide, which is slightly more ambiguous than just 'genocide'. I think that this is perfectly valid, as I was looking at Williams intent, what was he trying to do? He was fed up with the constant insurgency in the north and wanted to put an end to it. He had faced rebellions in other parts of the country and had dealt with them, but for some reason his action in the north was far more brutal. Most historians seem to agree that the 100,000 dead was an inflated number, the number comes from Orderic Vitalis who was based in Normandy and relied on third parties for his estimate. However, most historians agree that William intent was to utterly destroy the North and it's people - the definition of which is genocide. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But I do not see any serious historian using "genocide" any more though. Huscroft in Norman Conquest p. 145 says "It is more likely, however, that in late 1069, the king's intention was to make as much of northern England as uninhabitable as he could, at least temporarily, so as to 'make it impossible for the North to revolt after his departure'." (Huscroft is quoting either Dalton Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship p. 24 or Kappell The Norman Conquest of the North p. 117 - he's not clear which work the quotation is from). Clanchy says "This led to the notorious 'Harrying of the North', when King William in the winter of 1069-1070 systematically burned the countryside and destroyed villages so that Danish or Norwegian fleets in future would find nothing to live off. How permanent such damage was and whether the numerous deaths of men and livestock from disease were directly caused by William's policy are matters for debate." (p. 30 England and its Rulers) Barlow in Feudal Kingdom of England (4th ed. pp. 90-91) never uses the word genocide either - "William undertook the repression of the northern rebellion." and "On his way back to meet the Danes he learned that they had re-entered York, so he advanced from Nottingham on the northern capital, and by laying waste the surrounding areas drove the invader out. Devastation and depopulation were the traditional methods chosen by the king to deny the countryside to the Danes and to punish a rebellious people. After Christmas William extended his ravagin up to Durham and as far as the Tees." Chibnall (Anglo-Norman England pp. 18-19) says "By Christmas he (William) had crushed rebels at Stafford and in Yorkshire and had destroyed the Danish forces; he then took terrible punitive measure by ravaging large areas of the north. This was a deliberate scorched earth policy; seed corn was destoyed, houses burnt, and animals slaughtered. It was an act of cruelty that was never forgiven, and whose consequences were felt far beyond Yorkshire; the Evesham chronicler remembered destitute and uprooted fugitive seeking alms at his monastery some years later." Stenton (Anglo-Saxon England p. 605 3rd ed.) "But the operations of 1069-1070 were distinguished from ordinary warfare by a deliberate attempt to ruin the population of the affected districts. From the eleventh century onwards historians have noted the sustained ferocity with which the king set his men to destroy the means of life in northern England. The generalities are abundantly borne out by the evidence of Domesday Book, which shows that within the coutnry ravaged at this time vast areas were still derelict after seveteen years." and "The object of the harrying was to secure that neither Mercia nor Northumbria should ever revolt again. It was the most terrible visitiation that had ever fallen on any large part of England since the Danish wars of Alfred's time." Even Peter Rex in The English Resistance (pp. 91-103) never uses the word genocide, and Rex is definitely sympathetic to the English rebels. Williams in English and the Norman Conquest p. 40 says "The Harrying of the North is perhaps the best-known incident of William I's reign after the battle of Hastings itself. It recieved almost universal condemnation, at the time and later, but its actual effects are difficult to gauge. Obviously (one would suppose) the destruction of the native aristocracy of the north pave the way for the Norman settlement..." and p. 41 "As for the devastation of Yorkshire and the lands of Durham, its long term effects are hard to assess." I think it's pretty clear that most historians would not use the word genocide at all for this event. Destruction, harrying, ravaging, yes. But it doesn't appear that it was a genocide or that it's called such by historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was quoting from Kapelle. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to actually quote him rather than state in Wikipedia's words that it was a genocide. It's pretty clear that many other historians do not use that word to describe the event... so it's probably not a widely held opinion. It's also worth noting that Kapelle calls it "genocide" in the introduction (in fact the very first page of his work) but in the fuller treatment later on in the work (pp. 117-119) he does not describe it as genocide - he calls it "ghastly" and states that William's efforts ended in "destroying native society in Yorkshire and by severely damaging it in Durham". As additional evidence - see Aird's St Cuthbert and the Normans p. 76 where Aird states "In recent years, increasing scepticism among historians dealing with the 'harrying of the north' has served to modify views of the extent and, indeed, the thoroughness of the devastation." Dalton in Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship p. 23 says "Hundreds of vills distributed throughout Yorkshire were described in Domesday BOok as having no population, resources or values; and many of these were termed 'waste'. Although a number of historians have argued that many (or most) of these vills had been devasted by the Conqueror's armies or those of the Scots and Danes, particularly during the harrying of the north in the winter of 1069-70, there are grounds for doubting their conclusions, and for disposing of the myth that the Noramn devastation was almost total." I'm not saying Kapelle's view isn't noteworthy and shouldn't be presented - but it should be attributed to him and it probably should be the more complete view put forth in the body of his work, not the one liner from the introduction. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Kapelle is already cited, and if you look more at Genocide studies rather than Anglo/ Norman history you will see that there are quite a few references in connection with the conquest. I am not sure that it is worthwhile discussing any of the other points that you make as I pretty much agree with them, there is quite a useful analysis of the Domesday references to waste  here. I agree also with your proposed solution, we could simply say: William's strategy, implemented during the winter of 1069-1070 (he spent Christmas 1069 in York), is what some have described as an act of genocide that became known as the Harrying of the North and probably move the Kapelle citation to the act of genocide clause. What do you think? Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth suggests that Genocide is probably not a widely held view, Siobhan Brownlie in Memory and Myths of the Norman Conquest pp. 123-124 covers the modern attitudes to the Norman Conquest.  Her source material includes 807 articles collected from ten British newspapers. A quantitative survey for which a representative sample of 2000 UK residents was questioned and a  study of contemporary books and film material, as well as medieval chronicles for comparative purposes. She compares then  rationalizes or puts into context modern attitudes, which generally seem to be very negative about the Norman conquest, not necessarily for the right reasons.
 * As far as the term waste (Latin: vasta) is concerned manors described as waste paid no tax. The Domesday Book records large numbers of such manors, the great majority of which had no recorded value or human or animal resources. If these manors were, in fact, untaxed because they were uninhabited and uncultivated, then the destruction by the Harrying was huge. Thomas suggests that many historians cannot credit that mediaeval armies could wreak such destruction and have sought alternative explanations of the term waste (Thomas. The Norman Conquest: England After William the Conqueror pp.95-96). It has been variously argued that waste signified manorial re-organisation, some form of tax break, or merely a confession of ignorance by the Domesday commissioners when unable to determine details of population and other manorial resources.  The distribution of waste both before and after the Conquest matches almost exactly the areas known to have been those of greatest military activity in those periods; and all the chronicle sources agree upon the savagery of the punishment inflicted on Yorkshire and adjacent counties after the rebellion of 1069.  Probably the most (in)famous was that of Ordericus Vitalis, though a late source,  based his account on a lost portion of the contemporary biography of the Conqueror by William of Poitiers. Ordericus felt so strongly about the evil of what William had done that he told the story twice. On the first occasion, he reported: He cut down many in his vengeance; destroyed the lairs of others; harried the land, and burnt homes to ashes. Nowhere else had William shown such cruelty ... In his anger he commanded that all crops and herds, chattels and food of every kind should be brought together and burned to ashes with consuming fire, so that the whole region north of the Humber might be stripped of all means of sustenance. In consequence so serious a scarcity was felt in England, and so terrible a famine fell upon the humble and defenceless populace, that more than 100,000 Christian folk of both sexes, young and old, perished of hunger (Ecclesiastical history, ed. Marjorie Chibnall, vol. 2, pp 230-33) The second story portrayed the Conqueror on his death-bed, haunted by the memory of his savagery: I ... caused the death of thousands by starvation and war, especially in Yorkshire ... In a mad fury I descended on the English of the North like a raging lion, and ordered that their homes and crops and all their equipment and furnishings should be burnt at once and their great flocks and herds of sheep and cattle slaughtered everywhere. So I chastised a great multitude of men and women with the lash of starvation and, alas! was the cruel murderer of many thousands, both young and old (Ecclesiastical history, vol. 4, pp 94-95) In Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, William of Malmesbury suggests that what had not been destroyed by the Danes, William the Conqueror destroyed. The distribution of waste in Yorkshire in 1086 tells the same story. Sixteen years after the harrying, Yorkshire may still have contained only 25% of the population and plough teams of 1066, some 80,000 oxen and 150,000 people fewer than had been there on the day that King Edward 'was alive and dead'.(Strickland. War and Domesday Waste in Armies, Chivalry and Warfare in Medieval Britain and France. p.273) Kapelle suggest that the  Norman Conquest of the North has never been adequately explained even though the resistance of the northerners was one of the most dramatic episodes of the Conquest. What are the reasons for this? He claims that "It may be merely a side effect of the conviction that the South was the more important part of England. Alternatively, northern history threatens to complicate our picture of the Conquest. A close study of the northern resistance to William the Conqueror inevitably discloses that he made at least two blunders in dealing with the North and that he rescued himself from the results of these mistakes by committing genocide. Emphasis on these events fits poorly into the current appraisal of the Norman impact on England. The behaviour of the northerners in the face of the Conquest may also reveal a distressing exception to the precocious unity of Anglo-Saxon England. The idea of backwoods northerners being so impertinent as not to appreciate the splendid unity offered them by the West Saxon kings with their shires, fyrd, and Danegeld is undoubtedly as unpalatable to some historians as the picture of William the Bastard making mistakes is to others."(Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and Its Transformation, 1000-1135 p. 3) Henry of Huntingdon in his History of the English Peoples, suggest that the Normans were chosen to destroy the sinful English people.(Bloxham. The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies. p 290)Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All those quotes from Orderic and stuff do not actually help decide the issue though - we don't use primary sources to decide this sort of content on wikipedia. We aren't historians, we can't interpret primary sources. We relay what the secondary sources (historians) say. Genocide is a loaded term, and it's not used in the sources I pointed out above. If we use such a word, we need to attribute it, not just set it out baldly as if all historians use the word. They don't. A good number may, but not all. When you use the word without qualification you are basically saying that it's not a controversial view and that all the secondary sources agree. They clearly do not. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely sure that Orderic technically is a primary source as he was not contemporary with events and he based his account largely on William of Poitiers. In any case most historians seem to agree that the Orderic account was rhetorical at best and biased at worst. You are right though, genocide is a loaded term and it should be qualified and we already have the Kapelle reference for it. Other historians who do not go that far I would suggest use the 'if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck.. etc', they may not use the actual word but they do define it by describing it as mass murder for example.  Hugh Thomas describes the downplaying of the violence involved, in the Harrying, as an uncoordinated trend to a kinder, gentler Middle Ages! Anyway, as I said we can get round the genocide issue by saying that some have described it as genocide. If William was responsible for 100,000 deaths then it would be genocide, but some historians have suggested that the deaths and migration of people was partly due to Danish and Scottish raiders/ invaders. I already have talked about the waste issue. The fact is that Domesday does not tell us why the land is waste and why 150,000 people are displaced it just reports it. The main body of the article does tell us about some of the alternative views particularly in the Harrying section, I do think the lede needs some attention as it is supposed to reflect what is in the main body. I would suggest that although there are some historians who do dissent from the traditional most do not, so although we should reflect the alternative view, we need to keep it in perspective.  Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I should also say that the historians who dissent from the traditional view, do not deny that the harrying of the north country happened, rather that the scale of the destruction was so large that it was not possible for William's relatively small army to be able to wreak so much havoc on their own, thus they have developed several hypotheses to explain this discrepancy. You might want to check this from the historian Dan Snow to provide some incite to modern thinking on the subject. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done a bit of checking on Hagger's assertion. He was directly contradicting Peter Rex's conclusion,  in his book The English Resistance: The Underground War Against the Normans, that the Harrying was genocide. Other historians have agreed that the tactics used by William were entirely in keeping with those of the time, however the scale of destruction was excessive  Morris says "If Hagger perhaps goes too far here – the methods may have been unexceptional, but the death-toll was surely not – in general, his judgements are sensible and sound. Although one could quibble here and there on a particular point, his interpretation of events is convincing and his arguments academically up-to-the-minute." . Interestingly, Garnet critisises Hagger for being "credulous" of the contemporary written sources,  implying that he agreed with Orderic's figures? Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. To move this debate forward I have tried to take the essence from what we have discussed here and rewritten the Harrying section. The lead still needs some attention. I also think that we need to say something about the fact that the north of England was redeveloped and became very wealthy once the abbeys arrived. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * St Mary's Abbey in York "arrived" before Easter of 1088. How long after that did the North become "very wealthy"? What kind of wealth was it? How does one quantify this wealth? How wealthy did it become compared to London, say? How was the wealth distributed? What about factors other than the abbeys? (By the early 1200s, Lincolnshire's sea trade greatly exceeded London's.) Zoetropo (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the areas of "waste", domesdaymap.co.uk records some manors that paid high tax but low rent, and others that paid low tax but high rent. How does one explain that? Zoetropo (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They abbeys became wealthy particularly in the wooltrade. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller|Doug This discussion seems to have stalled. The article has been updated in line with the discussion. I think that in the harrying section, there is as much space given to discussing the anti-genocide view as not, so I think that you'll agree that it's more balanced now. In the light of that do you thinkl that it's time to remove the NPOV tag? Regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've removed the template. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Since William very clearly failed to kill everyone then at most it could only be described as an act of attempted genocide rather than an act of genocide. Furthermore, since genocide is the intentional murder of a whole nation or race or people and is thus dependent upon motive we can't really use the word genocide safely since William's motives were not murder per se but rather to punish and weaken the enemy. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Genocide doesn't require killing everyone, we (and other sources) define it as " is the intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religiousgroup) in whole or in part." Doug Weller  talk 12:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Fountains Abbey?
Although its parent abbey, St Mary's at York was founded in early 1088 (just before the Rebellion of that year), Fountains wasn't established until 1132.

St Olave's Church
It's a curious fact that in 1087, before William the Conqueror headed on his last journey to Normandy, Count Alan Rufus persuaded the King to come north to York to "refound" St Olave's Church as a way to apologise for the damage done during the Harrying. Zoetropo (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparant error
In the background information section there is the phrase "...Edgar Ætheling, grandson of Edmund and half-brother of Edward the Confessor." I read this as stating that Edgar was the half-brother to Edmund, whereas, surly the case is that Edward was the half-brother of Edmund Ironsides. Presumably then Edgar's relationship to Edward is something like half-grand-nephew, if such a term exists.

So, should this phrase read something like "...Edgar Ætheling, the grandson of Edmund Ironsides who was half-brother to Edward the Confessor."?

Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 * You are right. I'll see what I can do. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Salting the land"?
The article states that "the land was salted" - I very much doubt that the Normans gathered tons and tons of salt with which to render the entire countryside of the north infertile - "salting the earth" is a reference to an ancient *ritual* act, symbolically rendering a place uninhabitable for future generations, not to a practical method of rendering large tracts of farmland unproductive. This should be edited I think? Mhilhorst (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree and have removed the mention. Lumos3 (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Romans might have actually done this round Carthage etc, but even there it should be mainly considered as symbolic, and the Normans surely lacked the technology and money to do this on any meaningful scale. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Orderic quote paraphrase
I noticed on looking at the cited source for the Orderic quote in the "The Harrying" section that the quoted material does not match the actual source. The quote in the article is a paraphrase of the relevant portion of Orderic's words rather than a direct quote. Doing some digging, I came across what appears to be the source of this paraphrase at a now-defunct site for students about the Norman Conquest (see archive.org capture here); this site was referenced in an earlier version of the article. I can see why this quote was kept, being much more succinct than the original Orderic quote, but it struck me as odd that the quoted text did not actually appear in the source provided. I will leave it to more regular users to determine the best way to handle this issue; but in case anyone decides to use some part of the original Orderic that is cited, I will include a copy of the relevant text below this note for easy access. 108.48.97.105 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"His camps were scattered over a surface of one hundred miles; numbers of the insurgents fell beneath his vengeful sword, he levelled their places of shelter to the ground, wasted their lands, and burnt their dwellings with all they contained. Never did William commit so much cruelty; to his lasting disgrace, he yielded to his worst impulse, and set no bounds to his fury, condemning the innocent and the guilty to a common fate. In the fulness of his wrath he ordered the corn and cattle, with the implements of husbandry and every sort of provisions, to be collected in heaps and set on fire till the whole was consumed, and thus destroyed at once all that could serve for the support of life in the whole country lying beyond the Humber. There followed, consequently, so great a scarcity in England in the ensuing years, and severe famine involved the innocent and unarmed population in so much misery, that, in a Christian nation, more than a hundred thousand souls, of both sexes and all ages, perished of want. On many occasions, in the course of the present history, I have been free to extol William according to his merits, but I dare not commend him for an act which levelled both the bad and the good together in one common ruin, by the infliction of a consuming famine. For when I see that innocent children, youths in the prime of their age, and grey headed old men, perished from hunger, I am more disposed to pity the sorrows and sufferings of the wretched people, than to undertake the hopeless task of screening one who was guilty of such wholesale massacre by lying flatteries. I assert, moreover, that such barbarous homicide could not pass unpunished. The Almighty Judge beholds alike the high and low, scrutinizing and punishing the acts of both with equal justice, that his eternal laws may be plain to all."

the Anglicisation of the Lowlands?
" The influence of Margaret and her sons brought about the Anglicisation of the Lowlands"

This sentence cannot be true in any meaningful sense. The 'Scottish' lowlands, in particular Lothian, had been Anglian or 'English' since the Angles founded the Kingdom of Bernicia (later the northern half of the Kingdom of Northumbria) 500 years earlier.

It might better read: " The influence of Margaret and her sons enhanced the pre-existing Anglic nature of the Lowlands"

Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.163.219 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Bernicia only extended into one comparatively small portion of what became the Scottish Lowlands, the rest of which was not previously significantly (if at all, for most of it) anglicised.

 * Stop IP-socking and have you still not learned how to sign? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The Wiki page on the English Kingdom of Northumbria pre-Norman Conquest indicates that it included at least half or even more of the 'Scottish' lowlands. I agree its predecessor, Bernicia, was probably smaller. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.163.219 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 * As there is no discussion of anglicisation there, as far as I can see, I'm guessing you are extrapolating from the 700 AD map at the top of the page, with its then inclusion of parts of what had been the Brythonic Kingdom of Strathclyde and before the bulk of this area became Norse-Gael Galloway, independent of Scotland at the time of Margaret anyway. This map pertains to 800 AD, for what it's worth. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A useful map. But I'm sure we can agree that Margaret and her sons cannot have 'brought about the Anglicisation of the lowlands' but can only have added to that which already existed. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.173.183 (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Only by ignoring that you have failed to establish that much "already existed" for the bulk of the lowlands. The wording as it is is appropriate; your wording is misleading/false. It maybe enhanced the influence from the Lothians to the border but not elsewhere where there was effectively nothing to enhance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Well then let me quote the DOST. It seems unambiguous:

Analysis of the Anglian names and archaeological evidence in Galloway shows that a succession of different powers – British, Roman, Anglian – were in control of the coastal defences and strategic inland passes. It is uncertain when the Angles took control of Galloway, but they may have held as much as half of the accessible land, and were present as free peasants as well as overlords. They were also well established in Cumberland, on the other side of the Solway Firth (Higham, 1985)...

In an expansion to the west, Kyle was annexed [by Northumbria] from Strathclyde around 750...

Scotland south of the Forth-Clyde isthmus remained part of Northumbria for about three hundred years until, with Northumbria weakened by the attacks of the Vikings, it was ceded to the Scots. Exactly when the Scots acquired Lothian (in the broad sense of Scottish Northumbria from the Forth to the Tweed) is unclear – dates ranging from 973 (Lothian ceded by Edgar) to 1018...

Nicolaisen contrasts baile ‘hamlet’ and achadh ‘field’ names – the absence of the latter in the south-east of Scotland suggests that the small numbers of Gaelic speakers in the east were “landowners rather than tillers of the soil”

It seems clear that Margaret and her sons didn't bring about the Anglicisation of the lowlands - but they certainly did increase it quite a lot, both by offering refuge and by resettlement. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.173.183 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you backing up something that isn't dispute about an area that wasn't part of Scotland? That Lothian was and was anglicised is also not in dispute. Are you under the impression that the Lothians and the Lowlands are synonymous? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that the current wording is misleading since it implies that the lowlands were not Anglic to any degree prior to Margaret and her sons. But clearly their action didn't bring about Anglicisation but rather increased/consolidated/added-to/extended something which already existed in at least a substantial part of the lowlands. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.248.97 (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 * In covering the overall picture, no it absolutely doesn't imply this and your wording is intentionally utterly misleading (part of a long multi article IP-sock campaign of related POVs), stating that all the lowlands, rather than just one comparatively small area, were already anglicised, particularly as you are repeatedly lumping in an irrelevant (if then historically and quite possibly still at least partly anglicised) area to bolster your argument when it wasn't even part of the country over which Margaret held her influence. Will you agree to desist from your Galloway red herring? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Repeated statements of contrary views regarding the Harrying
Hey, I've been reading about William (the Conqueror), and found this article interesting. I did stumble over the style of the section "The Harrying" though, since by proportion there are more statements of views taken by some people today (I guess historians - the people have no Bio's here, so I couldn't tell who they are), than actual description of the harrying itself.... I would suggest to move this discussion to a separate section describing different views of the events at the least.

To be honest, my feeling is that the "contrary" views are inserted in a one-sided and/or misleading way, and that current scientific opinion in general probably does not question the fact that scorched earth tactics were used in a widespread manner by William (and to pretty devastating effect). (As at least one of the historians is let to point out, this is something that occurred frighteningly often in history. But that doesn't make it any better, or mean that the act itself needs to be put in question, I think.)

I've not actually looked into that, but if that were the case, than a lot of the "contrary" views need to be removed as WP:Undue (as they are being undue prominence/ weight).

Regards 37.49.76.172 (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You should look at the NPOV - Genocide? section on this page, for background. Although it is generally accepted that William did Harry the North, modern historians are split on how much destruction he was actually responsible for, and whether you can describe the action as Genocide, because what he did was regarded by some as the norm for that era. Thus there are many differing views on the amount of destruction, rather than contrary views, which is what is reflected in the text. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I did read (most of) that section. That doesn't change the facts that: a) the current state is definitely bad style (more different viewpoints than actual description of the Harrying!), b) I strongly assume there is a view - or at least a certain range of events - which is taken to be most likely by most historians (Whether or not that is genocide was not my point). I've not looked into that myself yet though, so I'll have to wait until I have before I can further argue that point... Sean Heron (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC) P.S. I was the IP above...

'Genocide'
William in no actual sense of the word committed genocide, and the fact is that the sources for the Harrying being a genocide are bunk. A throwaway comment from Kapelle there (which is never really explored in depth), a non-academic source which compares the Norman occupation of England to the Nazi occupation of France there (The English Resistance: The Underground War Against the Normans), finish it off with a book by a genocide historian with no background in the period, and you get to pretend the categorisation of the Harrying of the North as a genocide can remotely be taken seriously. You might as well call the March to the Sea a genocide if you're counting the Harrying.

The Harrying was undoubtedly bad, an atrocity even by the standards of the time, but it was not a genocide. Genocide is not 'when a lot of people die'. Say this as someone with an immense fondness for pre-1066 England rivalled only by an immense dislike of historians of post-1066 England, btw, just to clarify where I'm coming from.

This is incorrect. The Doomsday Book clearly indicates a demographic population drop of around 75% in the areas Laid To Waste during "Williams campaigns", and the intention of William's strategy was to ethnically cleanse the rebellious areas of his new Domain as they were Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and other culture groups of the at the time ethnically diverse inhabitants of what we now call Great Britain.

The Harrying of the North Was a Genocide, and numerous desperate and varied contemporary scholars, Abbots, Bishops, Monks, oral traditions, folk tales, and indeed in GIS analysis of the main agricultural areas currently found across the north and in areas the doomsday book clearly tells were "laid to waste" In a way brutal and unseen even for the contemporaneous period of 1066 not just in Great Britain but across Western Europe.

I escalate this and contend that to uphold Wikimedia standards the claims of Genocide must be more strongly worded within the article.

What is your response?

Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.165.210 (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I think we can start by asking what percentage of scholars actually view it as a genocide - at present, the Great Famine of Ireland article states a minority of scholars assert that the aforementioned event was a genocide, which is all very well and true when backed up by good references. Unfortunately, the Harrying has only drawn a fraction of the level of scholarly analysis that the 'Potato Famine' has and is largely discussed in the matter of the north/south divide...1000 years past the event...--SinoDevonian (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Doubts expressed re. genocide label/extent in the lead
User:Wilfridselsey - you have reverted this edit from an IP editor today, and although there is an article worthy doubt that gets covered in out sentence on David Horspool, I wonder whether the IP editor is right inasmuch as this doubt is not leadworthy. Our lead, without the disputed material, already has Some present-day scholars have labelled the campaigns a genocide (my emphasis). We then go beyond what the article actually says by adding although others doubt... when we only cite Horspool (2009). I would contest that the word "some" already presents information that this is not a universal view. The discussion and unpacking of that belongs in the main, not the lead. Thoughts? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Sirfurboy - I think that you have to look at the history of this article for an answer. When the article just expressed the traditional or Orderic Vitalis description of events then the article had an NPOV template. Some work was done to try an express a more 'balanced' view, hence the inclusion of the word 'genocide' and the possibility that Williams army did not cause as much destruction as originally thought. The discussion around genocide is that essentially it is a modern word and we should not use it, to judge William by modern standards, as he was simply doing what armies at that time did. You quote the Horspool reference, but there is a much more solid analysis by Dalton(2002) which is referenced in the main text. He says that it was only possible for Williams army to carry out an extremely limited campaign.  Historians (not referenced in article)  such as Wightman (Northern History 10. 1975) concluded that estates were written off as waste as an administrative or an accounting device. Palliser (Northern History 29. 1993) suggested that not one of the Domesday Books entries for waste, for Yorkshire, attributed it to military intervention. Also if you turn this argument on it's head, there were a lot of estates listed that were not waste, inferring either there was no or little military intervention. Personally I am not convinced on the genocide label, I think that William's objective was to get the surrender of the Northern Earls. His army was pretty thinly spread across England and Wales and he had other rebellions to put down and castles to guard. However, several historians have used it rightly or wrongly. So my conclusion is that the one sentence about dissent from the traditional view is leadworthy. Particularly as it appears to be evolving into the mainstream.  I would remove or modify the sentence  'Records from the Domesday Book of 1086 show that 75% of the population died or never returned' as it does not provide context.Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. On that basis I am content. On that last sentence, would it help to change the mood? "Records from the Domesday Book of 1086 suggest that as much as 75% of the population could have died or never returned". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I think your version of the sentence works better. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I made the edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023
Change

Edgar Ætheling, had encouraged Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Scandinavian and Danish rebellions.

To ---> Edgar Ætheling, had encouraged native Celt Briton, Angle, Anglo-Scandinavian and Norse rebellions.

I suggest these changes to increase the article's accuracy, the area subject to the harrying had a substantial diversity in terms of the peoples who lived in this area of Britain prior to 1066.

See the Brittonic Kingdom of Elmet, and the Norse Jorvik. (Modern day Norwegian/Dane/Swedish peoples) 79.70.70.215 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No - no sources, and this is not the standard terminology for this period (except for "Norse" maybe). Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a Kneejerk reaction, you don't go through the edit suggestions point by point refuting them.
 * Bias perhaps from JohnBod? Not good, Wikimedia holds itself to higher standards. 79.70.70.215 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a wealth of academic evidence showcasing that the Saxons never settled in the north.
 * So the article is Wrong stating that Anglo-Saxons (As a combined group) were targeted by the Massacre.
 * Only Britons in Elmet, Norse folk in Jorvik, and Anglian Northumbrians were specifically targeted by King William's Norman, Saxon, and South Anglican Forces during the Northern Harrying.
 * See the Domesday Book, Historia Brittonum, Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, and the Tribal Hidage, in addition to Norse Sagas written in Modern Yorkshire, Sweden, Norway, and North Denmark. as Irrifutable evidence in support of this. 79.70.70.215 (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023
Change

Edgar Ætheling, had encouraged Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Scandinavian and Danish rebellions.

To ---> Edgar Ætheling, had encouraged native Celt Briton, Angle, Anglo-Scandinavian and Norse rebellions.

I suggest these changes to increase the article's accuracy, the area subject to the harrying had a substantial diversity in terms of the peoples who lived in this area of Britain prior to 1066.

See the Brittonic Kingdom of Elmet, and the Norse Jorvik. (Modern day Norwegian/Dane/Swedish peoples)

There's a wealth of academic evidence showcasing that the Saxons never settled in the north. So the article is Wrong stating that Anglo-Saxons (As a combined group) were targeted by the Massacre. Only Britons in Elmet, Norse folk in Jorvik, and Anglian Northumbrians were specifically targeted by King William's Norman, Saxon, and South Anglican Forces during the Northern Harrying. See the Domesday Book, Historia Brittonum, Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, and the Tribal Hidage, in addition to Norse Sagas written in Modern Yorkshire, Sweden, Norway, and North Denmark. as Irrifutable evidence in support of this. 79.70.70.215 (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Still no, per the above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Harrying of the North


text: Template:Politics of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

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


text:
User talk:Vorash/1

Psytrance artists
Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Great job on updating my psytrance music stubs, we need all the help we can get. :) Just one thing ... I see you created separate articles for Juan Verdera and The Muses Rapt, but they contain the same information.  In cases like this you would probably want to redirect one of the articles to the other (see ).  Once again, good job on the articles and the images! - Ld | talk 17:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i really dont know if it will be appropriate to do a redirect......because its different names,its like on discogs.com, there are also two different entrances there.

Babylon
Hi Vorash, since you moved the Babylon page, it is now your job to fix [all links] that used to point to the city, and now point to the disambiguation page. Also, it would be better if you discussed moves of articles linked to by so many others beforehand. dab (ᛏ) 12:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * can you please stop moving the bloody Babylon page around without discussing? "Babylon (Iraq) is a terrible choice -- the archaeological site may be in Iraq, but the city was, well, in Babylonia. dab (ᛏ) 16:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alla Pugacheva
Thanks for starting the article, I've been pretty busy the past few months and haven't had a chance to get to the stuff on my to-do list, but you gave me the push I needed to get back in the game a little. I've rewritten most of the article, and it's now featured on the front page, in the "Did you know..." section. --Aramգուտանգa|  03:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another FIRSTer: Cool
Hi! I'm another FIRSTer, thought I'd stop bye and say hi! --Astronouth7303 21:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User categories
Hi. I see that you're in quite a few user categories. Just a note that links in the category articles are sorted based on the full name of an article, which in your case is User:Vorash. But I do believe we want them sorted based on the user names alone. If you change those links to the piped form, e.g.

then the string "Vorash" becomes the sort key. Thanks. Ddawson 16:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

doneVorash 18:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fabrika Zvezd
Can you please help me expand the article I started over at Star Factory? Thank you... — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  19:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but i don't have any info about this program and i never watched it before. I just know that she participated there. Vorash 18:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Bangles
The Bangles are already listed on List of all-women bands. HelenWatt 12:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sabrina Salerno
Hi, you did a copy-paste of Sabrina (singer) to Sabrina Salerno so I cleaned it up. Please use the Page Move function. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

New LGBT noticeboard.
Hi, I've created a LGBT noticeboard for wikipedians to post issues and concerns. Please take a look. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 08:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Stock Aitken Waterman
While I believe your reversions here were correct, you need to try to be more polite in the way you inform the user of his mistake. --InShaneee 14:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

THis is not a mistake !. HE knows exactly what a copyright is ! THats why he doesn't host this image on his site. He just doing a cheap advertisement of his site here on WIkipedia.Vorash 14:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Regardless, you still need to follow Wikiquette. Assume good faith, and if you have proof this guy IS a spammer, than just do what needs to be done. No need to verbally attack him! --InShaneee 17:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I just said that he don't have any rights to "Copyright" images ! Why are you calling it "verbally attack"???? --Vorash 29 June 2005 00:15 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/North (band)
Could you please explain your Keep vote? RickK 21:32, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

"It claims to have made music videos prior to MTV's inception" ...what does it mean exactly ? do you have any idea ? it means that they were inventors of music video ? or what ?Vorash 21:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

or at least they are claiming so.....Vorash 21:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing, the claim can't be substantiated. Their very existence can't be substantiated. So why are you voting keep? I know they didn't invent music videos, because the Beatles did one for "Strawberry Fields Forever" in the 60s. RickK 22:35, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

ok i will change my vote to delete.Vorash 22:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't really trying to argue you into anything, I just wanted to understand your vote. :) RickK 04:47, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cats
Hi, thanks for your input on the CfD page regarding the P2P cats. I have now migrated all the former articles categorized under P2P to the new cats you created, "File sharing networks" and File sharing programs".

One thing that I have noticed is that a number of Java programs, such as LimeWare, are categorized as "Free {Windows|Mac|Linux} programs. It seems to me that they should not be categorized as such but as "Free Java programs" (or not "free" as they case may be). What do you think? Is this worth changing? -- Viajero | Talk 16:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm....I see on download.com that LimeWire 4.8 for Mac OS X and LimeWire 4.8 for Windows are totally different programs even so they both use JAva and were released in a same day. LimeWire 4.8 for Mac OS X size: 4.88MB, LimeWire 4.8 Windows size: 2.33MB. Link......so maybe in theory programs for Java should be the same, but in practice every platform has different version. Vorash 16:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If you look more closely at each package, you will see that the central .jar file and related Java files are the same, only the (platform dependent) install program is different, hence the variation in file size. -- Viajero | Talk 18:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

well i don't have a MAc so i don't know how exactly i can check this, since i can't install MAc version on PC.......in any case if you say that jar files are the same ,so probably installers are different because each of them install different version of JAva Virtual Machine. I also don't understand what do you mean in writing "It is written in Java, and hence runs on any computer with Java installed." Do you really expect from average user actually to take this Jar package and to install it by hand on other computer ? Vorash 19:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, exactly. When I was running OS/2 (before switching to Linux) I used to download the Solaris package; it was just a .tar file with the .jar file and a few config files. I unpacked it and then ran java --jarfile LimeWire.jar and that was that. LimeWire started up. In theory, that will work on any machine with Java installed. Of course, naturally it is easier for most users to download OS-specific packages which include an install program. The Linux RPM just copies the LimeWire installation to /usr/lib and puts a startup file in /usr/bin, but it is based on the very same .jar file as any other package.
 * Also, keep in mind: the LimeWire packages do not include Java; users have to install that first by themselves if it is not included in their OS.
 * So, you see, my text It is written in Java, and hence runs on any computer with Java installed. is quite correct. It is simply that LimeWire devs have only written installers for Win, Mac, and Linux. HTH, -- Viajero | Talk 13:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I am 99% certain you are wrong about the LimeWire install packages installing an OS-specific JVM, but I have written to the devs and hope to clear this up for certain. -- Viajero | Talk 16:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just downloaded Lime Wire and it installed Sun's JVM on my computer. What are you talking about ? I don't understand. Could you please explain ? Do you want to say that JVM PC will run on MAc????????Vorash 16:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are seriously claiming that all Sun's JVMs are the same for all platforms i will not argue with you . I will aks for arbitration. Any computer programmer or computer specialist can confirm itVorash 16:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't install any Java JRE FULL 15-20mb package. I downloaded Limewire and it installed basic "J2SE Runtime Environment 5.0 Update 1" which size is aproximatly 1mb (when compressed). I also uninstalled both java and Limewire (it also deleted "Java" directory), and installed LimeWire again to be 100% sure. And again after LimeWire instalation it installs "J2SE Runtime Environment 5.0 Update 1". YOu also don't need my opinion !! YOu can uninstall Java on your computer, to download LimeWire installation and to see by yourself how it istalls JAva!!Vorash 17:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It makes a sense, because if Installer doesn't install Java you will see the note on download.com about "Java" requirements. Download.com will not publish any software that requires additional uncommon software components, without prior warning. See by yourself - programs that require java have in their "Minimum requirements" "Java Development Kit" note on download.com. Link1 ,but LimeWire 4.8 dosn't have this note in "Minimum requirements". Vorash 20:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm......and finally : Limewire on its site claims, that Windows installer includes JRE :)))Vorash 21:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:Israel & WP:WNBI
Привет Vorash, I thought you might be interested, please consider yourself invited. Spread the word. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please help with Rishon-LeZion
Я всё-таки по-русски спрошу, если ты не возражаешь.

В каком всё-таки округе находится город Rishon-LeZion (и ещё там есть несколько таких сомнительных городов около Тель-Авива)? В статье List of cities in Israel написано, что в центральном, а по другим данным в Тель-Авивском. Может ты знаешь? --ajvol 21:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chestno tibe skaju, ia pro Tel-Aviv district uslishal vpervie zdes na wikipedii.... V samom izraile nikogda o takom districte ne slishal. Ia znaiu chto iest Gush Dan i Central district ,a chto eto takoie "Tel-Aviv district" ia ne znaiu. No iesli oni tut pishut chto Rishon-Lezion otnositsia k "Central Disrtict" naverno oni znaiut.... Vorash 22:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Umenya est' informaciya, cxho paru let nazad bila reforma v hode kotoroj "Tel-Aviv district" pereimenovali v "Gush Dan district" i rasshirili ego, vkluchiv neskolko gorodov (v tom chisle Rishon-LeZion). No ya nigde ne mogu nayti etomu podtverzhdeniya. Moxhen v ivritskoj versii stat'i? Ili na oficialnom sayte Rishon-LeZion? --ajvol 07:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Na saite Ministerstva Obrazovania Izrailia dannie takie je kak i v wikipedii - Rishon otnositstia k "Central District". Vot Goroda iz "Central District": http://www.education.gov.il/merkaz/ataray_rashot.htm, a vot Goroda iz "Tel-Aviv District":http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/UNITS/TelAviv/ Vorash 12:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Na oficialnom sayte Rishon-LeZiona nikakoi infi netu.. Vorash 13:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Madonna
Why did you change my career achievements list back? MY VERSION is PERFECT! Is there a problem? MadonnaBoy 20:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't lengthen the LISt, its already long enough !!! THere is no need to make it much longer !! Vorash 20:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I WROTE THAT LIST LAST YEAR AND I POSTED IT HERE UNDER THE USERNAME MADONNAFAN, I HAD TO CHANGE USERNAMES (I switched internet providers, e-mail, and have a different computer now) AND I CAME BACK HERE YESTERDAY AND SAW THAT IT HAD BEEN CHOPED TO HELL. THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH IT'S LENGTH UNTIL YOU CAME ALONG, PLEASE RETURN IT TO IT'S FORMER GLORY!

Sorry for the ranting but I'm mad, and where is the Guiness book fact? Please change it back to my version!!! Please???? MadonnaBoy 20:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will restore now all facts that you added including "Guiness book" but we should try to keep this list as short as possible, otherwise it will be moved to separate page. Vorash 20:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We also don't know for sure who is the biggest selling female music artist. See more ditails here Biggest-selling female musician. Vorash 21:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Italo Disco
Hi Vorash. Please avoid accusations of sockpuppetry unless you are absolutely certain that someone is using another account to game the system. Such gaming includes, but is not limited to, avoiding WP:3RR and placing multiple votes. Editing without logging in is not sockpuppetry. I have deleted your comment at Talk:Italo disco about not talking to sockpuppets because it can be read as a personal attack. You and User:Milk are developing a great article. It helps to assume good faith when working together. It also helps to remember that most conflicts over articles arise because both editors want to see the best article that they can imagine.—Theo (Talk) 08:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anyone of sockpuppetry !!! Using wrong word is not an accusation !! I am the one who was accused of Vandalism for doing nothing but "too much edits" !! Also why are you saying that me and User:Milk are developing great article ? He doesn't allow to me or anybody else to contibute even one single word to this article and uses anonymous IP addresses in order to enforce his opinion.Vorash 12:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I say that because I think that Italo disco reads as if it will become a comprehensive and interesting encyclopedia article. You have both made many changes to it and I do not share the extent of your concern about User:Milk not logging on for every edit. Ultimately, the source of each edit is not important to me. All that matters is that each edit should improve the article. This is a collaborative process and a combatative approach is not helpful.—Theo (Talk) 28 June 2005 10:53 (UTC)

The Italo Disco article should represent different POVs, otherwise the "Edit War" will continue ! Vorash 28 June 2005 23:50 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vorash/1


text:
File:SkeletonCrew1982.jpg

Summary
Skeleton Crew in 1982. From left to right: Tom Cora, Dave Newhouse and Fred Frith.
 * Photo: Andy Freeberg.
 * Source: Down Beat magazine, January 1983.

Fair use for the band Skeleton Crew (band) (1982–1986)
The use of this image in the article named above is claimed as Fair use of copyrighted material because:
 * 1) This photograph is being used for informational purposes only;
 * 2) The article named above concerns the subject of the photograph;
 * 3) The inclusion of the photograph in the named article makes a significant contribution to the article because it:
 * 4) identifies the subject of the article;
 * 5) identifies the subject of the photograph;
 * 6) No public domain images of the band have been found yet;
 * 7) The band no longer exists, so no new photographs can be taken.

title: File:SkeletonCrew1982.jpg


text:
User:Fred Bradstadt/Monobook.css

@import "/w/index.php?title=User:Fred_Bradstadt/myskin.css&usemsgcache=yes&action=raw&ctype=text/css&smaxage=2678400"

title: User:Fred Bradstadt/Monobook.css


text:
Giuseppe Pinelli

Giuseppe "Pino" Pinelli (21 October 1928 – 15 December 1969) was an Italian railroad worker and anarchist, who died while being detained by the Polizia di Stato in 1969. Pinelli was a member of the Milan-based anarchist association named Ponte della Ghisolfa. He was also the secretary of the Italian branch of the Anarchist Black Cross. His death, believed by many to have been caused by members of the police, inspired Nobel Prize laureate Dario Fo to write his famous play titled Accidental Death of an Anarchist.

Early life
Pinelli was born in Milan to Alfredo Pinelli and Rosa Malacarne. His family was working-class in one of the poorest areas of post-World War I Milan. Although he had to work in many low-income jobs, such as waiter and warehouseman, in order to make ends meet, he nonetheless found the time to read many books and become politically active throughout his youth. Among other political activities, he also worked with the anarchist group that published the weekly paper Il Libertario (The Libertarian).

In 1944, Pinelli was a member of the Italian resistance movement within the Franco Brigade, and worked with a group of anarchist partisans that introduced him to libertarian thought. In 1954, he found work as a railroad fitter. In 1955, Pinelli married Licia Rognini, whom he had met at an evening class of Esperanto. During the 1960s, he continued anarchist activism. He organized young anarchists in the Gioventù Libertaria (Libertarian Youth) in 1962. In 1965, he helped found the Anarchist Association named after Sacco and Vanzetti. He also founded the Ponte della Ghisolfa association (named after the nearby bridge) in 1968.

Suspicious circumstances surrounding his death
On 12 December 1969, a bomb exploded at the Piazza Fontana in Milan; it killed 17 people and injured 88. Pinelli was picked up, along with other anarchists, for questioning regarding the attack. Just before midnight on 15 December 1969, Pinelli was seen to fall to his death from a fourth-floor window of the Milan police station. His death was widely believed to have been caused by members of the police. Three police officers interrogating Pinelli, including Commissioner Luigi Calabresi, were put under investigation in 1971 for his death; legal proceedings concluded it was due to accidental causes, citing active illness. He was 41, and was survived by his wife and two young daughters.

Since his death, Pinelli's name was cleared, and the far-right Ordine Nuovo was accused of the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing. In 2001, three neo-fascists were convicted, a sentence that was overturned in March 2004; a fourth defendant, Carlo Digilio, was a suspected CIA informant who became a witness for the state and received immunity from prosecution. Calabresi was later killed by two shots from a revolver outside his home in 1972. In 1988, former Lotta Continua leader Adriano Sofri was arrested with Ovidio Bompressi and Giorgio Pietrostefani for Calabresi's murder. The charges against them were based on testimony provided 16 years later by Leonardo Marino, an ex-militant who confessed to the murder of Calabresi under order from Sofri. Claiming his innocence, Sofri was finally convicted after a highly contentious trial in 1997.

In 2022, as part of an investigative podcast about the Piazza Fontana bombing by Il Fatto Quotidiano, the then 99-years-old General Gianadelio Maletti, former number two of Servizio Informazioni Difesa, the secret service of Italy's Ministry of Defence between 1971 and 1975, who was definitively sentenced to 12 months in prison for the misdirections on the Piazza Fontana investigations and had been at large in South Africa since 1980, discussed the death of Pinelli. He described Pinelli's suicide as "a hoax", as General Vito Miceli had reportedly confided to him. Brigadier Vito Panessa was also quoted as saying that one of the policemen who were in the room of Calabresi that night had joked: "Pinelli asked for it that night." According to Panessa, there was not just an unexpected incident involving somewhat harsh policemen but someone who had taken revenge on Pinelli, who persisted in not confessing after three days of illegal interrogation. Maletti concluded: "Pinelli refuses to answer questions. The interrogators then resort to stronger means and threaten to throw him out the window. They jerk him and force him to sit on the windowsill. With each negative response, Pinelli is pushed a little further towards the void. Finally, he loses his balance and falls."

In popular culture
Pinelli's death is the inspiration for Dario Fo's play Accidental Death of an Anarchist, although in the original script his name was not mentioned explicitly. The political documentary film 12 dicembre (1972) directed by Giovanni Bonfanti about Pinelli's death was based on an idea by Pier Paolo Pasolini and included an interview to Pinelli's mother and wife. His death inspired the painting Funeral of the Anarchist Pinelli by Italian artist Enrico Baj. In Piazza Fontana: The Italian Conspiracy (2012), Pinelli was portrayed by Pierfrancesco Favino. Hints of his death are also in the songs "La ballata del Pinelli" (1969, with various versions), "Asilo 'Republic'" (1980) by Vasco Rossi, and "Quarant'anni" (1993) by the Modena City Ramblers, among others.

title: Giuseppe Pinelli


text:
Disney's One Too

Disney's One Too (later known as Disney's Animation Weekdays) was an American two-hour Sunday-to-Friday children's programming block that aired on UPN (and sometimes in syndication) from September 6, 1999 to August 31, 2003. A spin-off of the Disney's One Saturday Morning block on ABC (which is owned by The Walt Disney Company), it featured animated series from Disney Television Animation aimed at children between the ages of 6 and 11.

Beginning deal with UPN
In January 1998, UPN began discussions with The Walt Disney Company (owner of rival network ABC) to have the company program a daily two-hour children's block for the network, airing on weekdays (during the morning or afternoon hours) and Sunday mornings. Attempts to reach a time-lease agreement deal with Disney were called off one week after negotiations started due to a dispute between Disney and UPN over how the block would be branded and the amount of E/I programming that Disney would provide for the block; UPN then entered into discussions with then-corporate sister Nickelodeon (both networks were owned by Viacom) to produce a new block. That February, UPN entered into an agreement with Saban Entertainment (then a subsidiary of Fox Family Worldwide, which Disney later acquired in 2001) – which distributed two series recently aired on the UPN Kids block around that time, Sweet Valley High and Breaker High – to program the Sunday-to-Friday block.

In March 1998, UPN resumed discussions with Disney and the following month, The Walt Disney Company and UPN came to an agreement to provide Disney-produced programs on the network on weekdays (from 7:00am - 9:00am or 3:00pm – 5:00pm) and Sunday (from 9:00am – 11:00am). The block was originally announced under the working title "Whomptastic", though the name was changed before the launch of the block for greater brand identity (incidentally, "whomp" was used as a pejorative term in the Disney-produced animated series Recess, one of the series that would end up part of the new block, as a substitute for "sucks").

The new lineup was later renamed Disney's One Too in July 1999, formatted to serve as a competitor block to ABC's existing children's block Disney's One Saturday Morning. The block premiered on September 6, 1999, replacing UPN Kids, which ended its run the day before (on September 5) after four years. Compared to the format of One Saturday Morning, One Too varied in that, instead of incorporating hosted segments, short segment gags from the series featured in the block (such as Sabrina: The Animated Series, Doug (bought from Nickelodeon) and Recess, all of which – alongside a few other series – were originally aired on One Saturday Morning) were actually shown, often preceding the start of each program, and after commercial breaks. The block also featured an alternate opening sequence, using more futuristic buildings and a theme similar to that used on One Saturday Morning. Many series previously aired on One Too continued in reruns on two Disney-branded cable television networks, Toon Disney and Disney Channel.

Closure of block and syndication
In September 2002, the One Too branding was discontinued (due to Disney's One Saturday Morning replacing with ABC Kids); although the UPN block wasn't rebranded (with bumpers and promos simply being created for each individual show). However, the Disney.com website referred to it under the title Disney's Animation Weekdays as a result of the rebranding of the ABC block from One Saturday Morning to ABC Kids. The block aired for the last time on August 31, 2003, with the time periods being turned over to UPN's affiliates; this left UPN as the only "big six" broadcast television network with no children's programming (it would not offer such a block again for the rest of the network's existence through its 2006 shutdown), and one of only two major commercial broadcast networks that did not air a children's programming block (the other being Pax TV, which discontinued its Pax Kids lineup in 2000, before returning children's programming as I: Independent Television through the 2006 launch of Qubo, as a 24/7 network, it was pulled off the air in 2021).

Aftermath
UPN was not the first "big six" network to pull children's programming: NBC became the first to remove children's series entirely in August 1992, when the network launched a live-action block for teenagers called TNBC; children's programming returned to NBC in 2002, through a time-lease agreement with Discovery Kids. In the years since the block was discontinued, all other major broadcast networks, including UPN successor The CW (sister of Big Three Network CBS), would gradually abandon children's programming by selling their respective children's blocks to Litton Entertainment, who produces primarily unscripted E/I content targeted nominally at teenagers (but having an older demographic overall by ratings), or in the case of Fox, removing children's programming entirely. Fox's sister network, MyNetworkTV, has never supplied children's programming as part of its lineup; both networks leave the responsibility of acquiring E/I programming to the affiliates, primarily through the syndicated block Xploration Station in the case of the former.

Programming
Notes

 * 1 Indicates that the program also ran ABC prior to the block.
 * 2 Indicates that the program aired episode premieres.

Originally from Disney

 * Recess (1999-2003)1 2
 * Buzz Lightyear of Star Command (2000–03)1 2
 * Doug (1999–2000)1
 * Hercules: The Animated Series (1999–2000)1
 * The Legend of Tarzan (2001–03)2
 * Pepper Ann (2000–01)1 2
 * The Weekenders (2001–02)1 2

Acquired programming

 * Digimon (2002–03, contained reruns of Digimon Tamers, as well as first run episodes of Digimon Frontier)
 * Sabrina: The Animated Series (1999–2002)1 2

title: Disney's One Too


text: Category:Environmental organizations by country


text:
Talk:Sidney Bradford

Comment
The "Mike May" link redirects to "Stem cell" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.94.242.140 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC).

Suicide
The acquired vision page says that Bradford committed suicide because he was unable to work as a mechanic due to the confusion brought on by his regained sight. Is that deliberately omitted here or is it incorrect on the acquired vision page?

Creationlaw 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation
I cannot find the mention of his death anywhere on the internet. Please find a source for it.Chinawoman (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bradford Suicide Not Cited Properly
The citation for Bradford's suicide, if you do a search provided by Google Books, appears to be factually inaccurate. No result for Bradford, Sidney, and other searches using its full text search feature do not reveal the citation listed. As this was added during a brief period of vandalism, I am inclined to disbelieve its authenticity. Comment removed until actual verification of source, page number included, can be presented. I hope I'm doing this properly.
 * TEXT REMOVED PENDING VERIFICATION

"Before surgery Bradford was a shoemaker, but upon gaining vision, he became confused and unable to work. He committed suicide two years after his operation. "
 * 72.83.42.247 (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

 * You may be right, but there is no need to completely remove the text, it just needs a tag. I did find 2 other reliable sources that states he died less than 2 years after the surgery and have added them. I did removed the mention on suicide for now though. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you for finding those additional citations! I looked them up and they seem to check out for me too. I was not aware of the "failed verification" tag, as I'm still new to this so thanks! Indeed, while the citations do mention his death now, it would be marvelous if we could find some sort of direct source (interview with family? Obituary? Something to think about). 72.83.42.247 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Found an additional book citation that clarifies he was, in fact, a machinist and that cause of death is unknown. Added and corrected text accordingly.FACT CHECKING ALIEN (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sidney Bradford


text:
User:Fred Bradstadt/Myskin.css

@import "/w/index.php?title=User:Fred_Bradstadt/myskin.css&usemsgcache=yes&action=raw&ctype=text/css&smaxage=2678400"

title: User:Fred Bradstadt/Myskin.css


text:
Tim Bradstreet

Tim Bradstreet (born February 16, 1967) is an American artist and illustrator, known for his work illustrating comic book covers, book covers, movie posters, roleplaying games and trading cards.

Early life
Tim Bradstreet was born February 16, 1967, in Cheverly, Maryland. He graduated high school in 1985.

Career
Bradstreet entered the comic book industry in 1990, working with Tim Truman on Dragon Chiang.

Bradstreet's work on White Wolf Publishing’s Vampire: The Masquerade garnered him much critical praise. This, in turn, led to the addition of many major comic book publishers to his clientele. He has since drawn for scores of comics-related projects including Dark Horse's Hard Looks and Another Chance to Get It Right (with author Andrew Vachss), Star Wars, Clive Barker’s Age of Desire, Marvel's The Punisher and Blade, and Vertigo's Gangland, Unknown Soldier, Human Target, and Hellblazer.

Bradstreet's work has also extended to games of many types. His work on role-playing games has included GDW’s Twilight 2000 and FASA’s Shadowrun. He was involved in art design for the Activision's Vampire: Bloodlines video game. He illustrated cards in Last Unicorn Games' CCG Heresy: Kingdom Come.

Bradstreet was awarded the 1996 International Horror Guild Award for Best Artist. He was also nominated for a 2005 IHG Award for his Hellblazer covers. Bradstreet has also been nominated for the 2002 Best Cover Artist Eisner Award for his Hellblazer covers.

In 2000, he joined director Guillermo del Toro as a conceptual artist helping work on the visual design for the film Blade II. In 2003, Bradstreet worked on a number of movie posters for the Marvel/Lions Gate film, The Punisher as well as the cover for The Punisher: Countdown mini-comic that was packaged with the original DVD release. In 2006 Bradstreet provided artwork for a black and white stop motion animated scene set in Kuwait for the extended cut DVD. Bradstreet has also done posters for the films – Punisher: War Zone, Dark Country, Give 'Em Hell, Malone, and I Melt with You. He has done a poster for the TV Series The Expanse.

Bradstreet was also the regular cover artist for two books, Marvel's The Punisher and Vertigo/DC's Hellblazer. He has created over 70 covers for both books in the past five years.

In 2006, Bradstreet created the album art for British heavy metal band Iron Maiden's album A Matter of Life and Death, which featured a mob of skeleton soldiers walking in front of a tank and features Eddie, the band's mascot at the top of the tank with a Thompson M1/M1A1 pointed up in the air. In 2016, he appeared on Brad Jones' Midnight Screenings to discuss the movie Why Him?

Reception
In the May 1994 edition of Dragon (Issue #205), Rick Swan specifically mentioned Bradstreet's work in GURPS Vampire: The Masquerade, saying, "The illustrations are among the best I’ve ever seen in an RPG product, particularly those by Tim Bradstreet. His depiction of a vampire feasting on the wrist of a fellow burn-out [...] evokes both the horrors of addiction and the intimacy of a shared secret. White Wolf, Steve Jackson, or Bradstreet himself ought to market it as a poster."

Interiors

 * Dragon Chiang (1991) one-shot (inker)
 * Hawkworld (1993) #30–32 (inker)
 * Aliens: Music of the Spears (1994) #1–4 (inker)
 * Barb Wire: Ace of Spades (1996) #1–4 (inker)
 * Rune: Hearts of Darkness (1996) #1–3 (inker)
 * Evil Ernie: Destroyer (1997) #1–3 (inker)
 * John Constantine, Hellblazer (1999) #141 (penciller, inker)
 * Batman/Deathblow: After the Fire (2003) #1–3 (inker)
 * Bad Planet (2005–2008) #1–6 (inker)
 * Black Panther (2006) #16 (inker)
 * Clive Barker's Age of Desire (2009) OGN (penciller, inker)
 * Robert E. Howard’s Savage Sword (2010) #1 (penciller, inker)

Covers

 * Aliens: Music of the Spears (1994) #1–4
 * Evil Ernie: Destroyer (1997) #1–3
 * Unknown Soldier (1997) #1–4
 * Transmetropolitan (1997) #37–39
 * Gangland (1998) #1
 * Xena: Warrior Princess (1999) #2–3
 * Human Target (1999) #1–4
 * John Constantine, Hellblazer (1999–2006) #134–143, #146–215
 * Star Trek: The Next Generation – Perchance to Dream (2000) #1–4
 * The Punisher: Welcome Back, Frank (2000–2001) #1–12
 * JLA: Black Baptism (2001) #1–4
 * Action Comics (2001) #775
 * The Punisher (2001–2004) #1–37
 * Blade (2002) #1–6
 * Dial M for Monster: A Collection of Cal McDonald Mystery Stories (2003) novel
 * The Punisher (2004–2008) #1–60
 * The Punisher: The Cell (2005) one-shot
 * Bad Planet (2005–2008) #4
 * Jonah Hex (2006) #5
 * The Punisher: The Tyger (2006) one-shot
 * Black Panther (2006) #16
 * Criminal Macabre: Two Red Eyes (2006–2007) #1–4
 * Sandman Mystery Theatre: Sleep of Reason (2007) #1–5
 * 28 Days Later: The Aftermath (2007) TPB
 * Supernatural: Origins (2007) #1
 * Criminal Macabre: My Demon Baby (2007–2008) #1–4
 * Scalped (2008) #18–20
 * Wolverine: Flies to a Spider (2008) one-shot
 * Criminal Macabre: Cell Block 666 (2008–2009) #1–4
 * The Spirit: The New Adventures (2009) #6
 * 28 Days Later (2009) #1–8
 * The Punisher: Naked Kill (2009) one-shot
 * Clive Barker's Age of Desire (2009) OGN
 * Luke Cage Noir (2009–2010) #1–4
 * Punisher Noir (2009–2010) #1–4
 * The Amory Wars: In Keeping Secrets of Silent Earth: 3 (2010) #1
 * Motel Hell (2010) #1–2
 * Punisher MAX: Get Castle (2010) one-shot
 * Punisher MAX: Hot Rods of Death (2010) one-shot
 * Punisher MAX: Tiny Ugly World (2010) one-shot
 * Internecine (2010) novel
 * Iron Siege (2010–2011) #1–3
 * Bullseye: Perfect Game (2011) #1–2
 * Iron Man: The Rapture (2011) #1–4
 * Jennifer Blood (2011–2012) #1–20
 * Robert E. Howard’s Savage Sword (2011) #2
 * Star Trek (2011) #1-ongoing
 * Hellraiser (2011–2012) #1–21
 * True Blood (2012) #1–6
 * Jericho: Season 4 (2012–2013) #1–2
 * Hellraiser: The Road Below (2012) #1–4
 * Hellraiser: The Dark Watch (2013) #1–ongoing
 * The Shadow (2013) #13–ongoing

title: Tim Bradstreet


text:
Helmut Thieltges

Helmut Thieltges (24 September 1955 – 26 July 2017) was a German chef. Since 1978, he had been chef at the Waldhotel Sonnora, his own family business. Beginning in 1999, his restaurant was awarded three stars by the Michelin Guide for eighteen consecutive years.

Biography
Thieltges was the only child of the innkeepers Vinzenz and Maria Thieltges, who led the Pension Elisabeth in Dreis. After his apprenticeship in the Roman Emperor in Trier, he moved to the Schlosshotel Pontresina near St. Moritz in 1973, then to the Breidenbacher Hof in Düsseldorf, and in 1977, to the Bastei restaurant in Cologne. Since 1978, he cooked in the family-owned Waldhotel Sonnora, which is located in a forest on the edge of Dreis.

Thieltges gave few interviews, never published a cookbook, and only wanted to concentrate on his work. At the same time, he was able to delight guests from Belgium, Luxembourg, and France. He started out with the normal program of a dining restaurant; today his cuisine is praised for the "standards of precision".

Of his cooking he once said, "Classical is the true art. That is the basis of everything. Modern can call anyone who wants to do something else with violence."

Thieltges died after a brief illness, at the age of 61.

Awards

 * 3 Stars in Michelin Guide (Guide Rouge)
 * 19.5/20 points in Gault Millau (2015)
 * 5 points in
 * 5 spoons in ARAL SchlemmerAtlas
 * 1998 "Chef of the Year", Gault Millau

title: Helmut Thieltges


text:
Calmira

Calmira is an alternate shell available for Windows 3.1x and up that has an appearance resembling Windows 95. A version named Calmira Longhorn is not compatible with Windows Vista, but emulates some of the visual features of that operating system.

The shell is more than a simple cosmetic upgrade, however. Much of the functionality of later 32-bit shells has been incorporated into the Calmira software. The shell has a start menu, a task bar and a desktop that all function like those found in the Explorer Desktop of later 32-bit Windows operating systems.

Development
The Calmira shell was developed in Borland Delphi 1.0, an Object Pascal based programming environment by Borland. Because the Windows 3.x environment is virtually extinct as of 2009, additions of new features and addons to Calmira are few and far between.

Source code
The source code for the Calmira shell is publicly available under GNU GPL license, thus allowing software developers to participate in the project. However, as the Calmira shell was initially developed on the 16-bit Delphi 1.0 programming environment, active contributors are more or less restricted to developing the shell on that platform. An attempt to port parts of Calmira to Windows NT 3.51 has been made, and the project has resulted in NT Shell.

Modified versions
Being open source, some people developed their own version of Calmira, adding other features and customizations. Here is a list of the most used ones:

 * Calmira LFN: Modified version that supports Long File Names, better icon shading, a 'My Documents' icon, and a dialog to change the wallpaper. The last version (released on December 19, 2006) also has custom window borders that mimic Windows 95 ones.
 * Calmira XP: Modified version that tries to mimic the Windows XP interface. Version 4.0 Beta also includes modifications from Calmira LFN, but has been released on March 6, 2006, meaning that some bugs fixed in Calmira LFN since then are still there, and that there are no custom window borders.
 * Calmira Longhorn: It is a modified version of Calmira XP 4.0 that mimics the Windows Longhorn (or Vista) interface. Version 3.5 still had some bugs around dialog buttons (they are shown in French). After an extended time with no new updates (2 years) Calmira Longhorn 3.6 was released. In the new version, new features included a Vista style logon screen, an "X" button in the upper-right corner of windows, and LFN Support. Also, the "Frenchbutton bug" was fixed. On 2008-08-19, Peter Protus, developer of Calmira Longhorn, announced that he stopped both the development of the software as well as support. On 2008-11-12, support and development started again.
 * Calmira Blackcomb: It is a modified version of Calmira Longhorn intended to mimic Windows 7's user interface, following the announcement of continual development of Calmira Longhorn. It was being developed by Peter Protus. After the publication of Calmira Blackcomb Alpha 2, its development was ceased on 2011-09-10.

Other versions and the original one can be found at Calmira Online.

title: Calmira


text:
Navin Chowdhry

Navin Chowdhry (born 1 January 1971) is an English actor. He is best known for his roles as Indra Ganesh in Doctor Who, Sunil Mitesh in The Job Lot and as Nish Panesar in the BBC soap opera EastEnders.

Early life
Chowdhry is of Indian origin. He was born and brought up in Bristol, England. He is the son of Simi Chowdhry, a well-known female activist. In 1994, he graduated from Imperial College London with an upper second class honours degree in biochemistry.

Career
At age 16, Chowdhry made his acting debut in the 1988 film, Madame Sousatzka with Shabana Azmi and Shirley MacLaine.

His next major role was as I.T. teacher Kurt McKenna in the successful comedy show Teachers in 2001–2003, and is also well known for playing PC Sanjay Singh in Dalziel and Pascoe. He also appeared as a possible rapist in Judge John Deed.

Chowdhry appeared in Waking The Dead, Series 3, Episode 3, entitled "Breaking Glass", opposite Trevor Eve and Sue Johnston. In the episode, he portrays the psychologically affected "Rainman". He then starred in the Channel 4 drama series NY-LON as Raph.

On 30 October 2005, he appeared on stage at the Old Vic theatre in London in the one-night play Night Sky alongside Christopher Eccleston, Bruno Langley, David Warner, Saffron Burrows and David Baddiel. In 2005 he made a guest appearance in Doctor Who, then starring Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor. In 2006, he appeared in the BBC Three drama series Sinchronicity, playing Mani.

In 2009, he appeared in two episodes of the Channel 4 series Free Agents and featured in Skellig. In 2010, he starred in the BBC television pilot Reunited, playing Danny.

Chowdhry has also produced projects such as the award-winning short film "This Bastard Business" and a short play entitled Mashed.

He played Anwar in the critically acclaimed 2015 BBC TV series Doctor Foster and in 2016 he played Sonny Desai in Series 18's first episode of Midsomer Murders.

Chowdhry portrayed Nodin Chavdri in the 2017 film Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

In 2019, he appeared in Sarah Rutherford's play "The Girl Who Fell" at Trafalgar Studios.

In 2022, Chowdhry began playing the previously unseen and imprisoned Nish Panesar in EastEnders. Nish, a manipulative psychopath, first appeared during the final stages of his 20-year prison sentence and was released shortly thereafter.

title: Navin Chowdhry


text:
Closed-loop authentication

Closed-loop authentication, as applied to computer network communication, refers to a mechanism whereby one party verifies the purported identity of another party by requiring them to supply a copy of a token transmitted to the canonical or trusted point of contact for that identity. It is also sometimes used to refer to a system of mutual authentication whereby two parties authenticate one another by signing and passing back and forth a cryptographically signed nonce, each party demonstrating to the other that they control the secret key used to certify their identity.

E-mail Authentication
Closed-loop email authentication is useful for simple i another, as a weak form of identity verification. It is not a strong form of authentication in the face of host- or network-based attacks (where an imposter, Chuck, is able to intercept Bob's email, intercepting the nonce and thus masquerading as Bob.)

A use of closed-loop email authentication is used by parties with a shared secret relationship (for example, a website and someone with a password to an account on that website), where one party has lost or forgotten the secret and needs to be reminded. The party still holding the secret sends it to the other party at a trusted point of contact. The most common instance of this usage is the "lost password" feature of many websites, where an untrusted party may request that a copy of an account's password be sent by email, but only to the email address already associated with that account. A problem associated with this variation is the tendency of a naïve or inexperienced user to click on a URL if an email encourages them to do so. Most website authentication systems mitigate this by permitting unauthenticated password reminders or resets only by email to the account holder, but never allowing a user who does not possess a password to log in or specify a new one.

In some instances in web authentication, closed-loop authentication is employed before any access is granted to an identified user that would not be granted to an anonymous user. This may be because the nature of the relationship between the user and the website is one that holds some long-term value for one or both parties (enough to justify the increased effort and decreased reliability of the registration process.) It is also used in some cases by websites attempting to impede programmatic registration as a prelude to spamming or other abusive activities.

Closed-loop authentication (like other types) is an attempt to establish identity. It is not, however, incompatible with anonymity, if combined with a pseudonymity system in which the authenticated party has adequate confidence.

title: Closed-loop authentication