text:
William Moorcroft (explorer)

William Moorcroft (1767 – 27 August 1825) was an English veterinarian and explorer employed by the East India Company. Moorcroft travelled extensively throughout the Himalayas, Tibet and Central Asia, eventually reaching Bukhara, in present-day Uzbekistan.

Early life and education
Moorcroft was born in Ormskirk, Lancashire, the illegitimate son of Ann Moorcroft, daughter of a local farmer. He was baptised in 1767 in St Peter & St Paul, the Parish Church of Ormskirk, where there is a commemorative plaque to his life. His family had sufficient means to secure an apprenticeship with a surgeon in Liverpool but during this time an unknown disease decimated cattle herds in Lancashire and young William was recruited to treat stricken animals. His proficiency so impressed the county landowners they offered to underwrite his education if he would abandon surgery to attend a veterinarian college in Lyon, France. He arrived in France in the revolutionary year of 1789 and became the first Englishman to qualify as a veterinary surgeon. On completing his course he began practice in London, established a "hospital for horses" on Oxford Street, helped found the first British veterinary college, proposed new surgical methods for curing lameness in horses, and acquired four patents on machines to manufacture horseshoes. In 1795, Moorcroft published a pamphlet of directions for the medical treatment of horses, with special reference to India, and in 1800 a Cursory Account of the Methods of Shoeing Horses.

Superintendent of stud
In 1803 a citizen army was mobilised to defend Britain against a threatened Napoleonic invasion. Moorcroft joined the Westminster Volunteer Cavalry. He came to the attention of Edward Parry, a director of the East India Company (EIC), who recruited Moorcroft to manage the East India Company's stud in Bengal. In 1808 Moorcroft left for India and arrive in Calcutta, the then capital of British India.

Moorcroft found the company stud in dire shape, with apparently depressing signs of laxness, neglect and ignorance. Often undersized mares were bred with local stallions, the best colts were kept back and stud books falsified. He improved the procedures at the stud. He took brisk charge of his staff and weeded out deficient horses. Moorcroft also cultivated oats on a large scale in India and set aside 3000 acre at Pusa for its production.

In 1811 Moorcroft travelled extensively in the northern sub-continent in search of better breeding stock. Despite travelling to Lucknow, the capital of Oudh, and to Benares, then still part of Maratha territory, Moorcorft failed to acquire the ideal breeding horses that he sought. In Benares he learned that Bukhara was rumoured to have "the greatest horse market in the world." Moorcroft recruited a Persian named Mir Izzat-Allah to make a scouting trip to Bukhara and map out the route. He also learned that fine breeding horses might be found in Tibet.

Expedition to Tibet
Moorcroft and Captain William Hearsey disguised themselves as gosain pilgrims, and travelled through Garhwal, carrying a stock of merchandise for trading with the Tibetans. They travelled through the upper Ganges valley, and then the Dhauliganga valley and crossed the Niti Pass on 1 July 1812. Here they were met by Rawats who were under strict orders from Tibet to repel the foreigners. With his charm, the promise of gain, and proficient use of his medical kit, Moorcroft gained the friendship of two influential Rawats, Deb Singh and his brother Bir Singh. The orders from Tibet were ignored and Amer Singh, the son of Bir Singh, was recruited to serve as a guide through the Niti pass and over the Tibetan plateau. Arriving at the town of Daba they awaited permission to proceed to Gartok (then the seat of the Garpon, or Governor, of Western Tibet). The Garpon agreed to sell them pashm shal wool (Cashmere), and granted permission for them to travel to the sacred lake of Manasarowar. Moorcroft reached the main upper branch of the Indus near its source, and on 5August arrived at Lake Manasarovar, which they explored extensively. Returning via the Sutlej valley, he was detained for some time by the Gorkhas in Nepal, but eventually reached Calcutta in November, only to be chastised severely by the EIC for his failure to find horses—they were not interested in shawl wool or Tibetan lakes.

Bukhara
The journey to Tibet only served to whet Moorcroft's appetite for more extensive travel. But when he broached the idea of a new horse buying expedition to Bukhara in 1816, a searing reply from the EIC Board of Managers warned Moorcroft to keep "steady" at his stud duties and not "waste his time" on "wild and romantick (sic) excursions to the banks of the Amoo (Oxus) and the plains of Chinese Tartary." What Moorcroft coveted most were the Turkoman horses, with their pale golden coats, narrow chests, long necks and sturdy legs. The "good Turcoman horses" that Marco Polo had described some 500 years earlier could travel 100 mi a day for weeks on end. Their descendants, the Akhal-Teke, are bred to this day in Turkmenistan and Russia. Moorcroft persisted in his quest and his seven-year campaign was finally rewarded in May 1819 when Charles Metcalfe, head of the EIC's Political and Secret Department, granted him leave to proceed. Metcalfe's goal was to use his friend as an intelligence scout on his epic journey.

Moorcroft's preparations took nearly a year. His roster of recruits included the Persian, Mir Izzat Khan, who had already made the trip alone some years before and an Afghan, Gulam Hyder Khan from his previous expedition to Tibet. Nineteen-year-old George Trebeck, a recent arrival in Calcutta, was selected as second in command. The total expedition totalled 300 persons, including an escort of 12 Gurkas, sixteen horses and mules along with £4,000 of trading goods as well as medical supplies and equipment.

Leaving the main caravan at the border of the Punjab on the Sutlej River, Moorcroft travelled separately to Lahore to obtain permission from Maharaja Ranjit Singh to traverse his territory. This was finally granted in mid May 1820. He then met up with Trebeck and the rest of his party at Sultanpur in the Kulu valley in August. From there the caravan trekked up the Beas River, crossed the 13300 ft Rohtang Pass and descended into the Lahul valley and the city of Leh, capital of the Buddhist kingdom of Ladakh. Leh was reached on 24September where several months were spent exploring the surrounding country. A commercial treaty was concluded with the government of Ladakh, by which the whole of Central Asia was virtually opened to British trade in exchange for British protection. Unfortunately, this treaty would have required the Ladakhi's to break relations with Ranjit Singh, the Maharajah of the Sikh Empire. The EIC placed a high value on its alliance with Ranjit Singh so once again Moorcroft had overstepped his authority. His engagement with Ladakh was repudiated and his salary suspended. In all nearly two years were spent in Ladakh, awaiting permission from the Chinese in Yarkand to proceed.

While exploring Ladakh he had a chance encounter with another European, Alexander Csoma de Kőrös a penniless Hungarian philologist from Transylvania. Csoma was searching for the ancient Asian roots of the Hungarian language in the Tibetan tongue. Moorcroft shared his own Tibetan dictionary with the traveller and although Csoma failed to prove his thesis he is now widely seen as the founder of Tibetology. It was Moorcroft who steered Csoma towards the compilation of the first Tibetan-English dictionary and grammar book for the EIC.

Moorcroft continued his journey, reaching Kashmir on 3November 1822, Jalalabad on 4June 1824, and Kabul on 20 June. He and his companions were the first Europeans to see the Buddhas of Bamiyan and the first Englishmen to see the upper Oxus. They reached Bokhara on 25 February 1825, but found none of the rumored horses and also learned that a Russian mission had reached Bokhara four years before.

Death
Returning, at Andkhoy, in Afghan Turkestan, Moorcroft was seized with fever, of which he died on 27August 1825, with Trebeck surviving him by only a few days. However, according to the Abbé Huc, Moorcroft reached Lhasa in 1826, and lived there twelve years, being assassinated on his way back to India in 1838, although this story of Moorcroft's "second life" has been explained by late 20th-century research as unlikely.

Posthumous publication of papers
In 1841, Moorcroft's papers were obtained by the Asiatic Society, and published under the editorship of H. H. Wilson as Travels in the Himalayan Provinces of Hinduslan and the Punjab, in Ladakh and Kashnair, in Peshawur, Kabul, Kunduz and Bokhara, from 1819 to 1825.

title: William Moorcroft (explorer)


text:
Talk:Buckhead

Advertisements for Buckhead Not Needed
It's clear almost the entirety of this article is written by those who live in Buckhead or who are inordinately proud of it for personal reasons. Did you know almost every silly location in America repeats these various boasts (home to more than xxxx restaurants, fastest growing in xxxxx, most expensive in xxxx, ranked xx by xxxxx, etc...)? Most of the article as it exists now should be reduced to one or two sentences, citing recogized scholarly authorities, that Buckhead is an upper class neighborhood in Atlanta. The rest is just meaningless fluff. Want to sell Buckhead to others or need to boost your self-esteem about where you live - start a commercial website. Leave geography articles to geography facts - wikipedia is not the place to convince people of your position (that Buckhead is xxxxx). The whole article is starting to border on the inane and I find it in it's current form almost completely worthless. signed, Wolfgang (Vienna,Austria) 193.130.122.254 (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Schools
How can you talk about Buckhead schools and not mention the really good private schools that are a large part of the strength of the community. The Westminster Schools, the Lovett School, and Pace Academy are where most of the children from this area go to school. Not bad for a party area either though earlier closing times are changing that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.234.12.79 (talk • contribs).
 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you feel something is missing, just add it! - SCEhard T 16:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed duplicate paragraph
1/31/2006 Removed duplicate paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.36.152.153 (talk • contribs).

Lovett
Not in Buckhead

 * Not true - You are not in Vinings until you cross the River. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.212.124 (talk • contribs).

 * Lovett is in Buckhead. The NW boundary of Buckhead is the main branch of the Chattahoochee River as can be clearly seen on the Google map of the neighborhood.  As can also be clearly seen, Lovett is inside this boundary.  Skiendog (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Buckhead
All I am sure is that Buckhead is basically the upper class neighbourhood of Atlanta (also known as "Beverly Hills of the South"). However, you must not exclude the fact that Inman Park and Midtown are neighbourhoods turning around into a creative, upper class neighborhood too. And may someone please add a picture of the ever expanding Buckhead Skyline.

You're wrong. Buckhead is more than a neighborhood, it is basically a 'city within a city', such as Hollywood, CA which is a part of the city of Los Angeles, CA. Buckhead has within it several different neighborhoods.R Young {yak ł talk } 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with R. Young here that Buckhead warrants its own article. I disagree on some points but my general opinion remains the same. First of all, Beverly Hills is incorporated whereas Buckhead isn't. I would also say that Hollywood, CA is more like midtown, not Buckhead, because of the way Hollywood is integrated into the street grid. Buckhead is almost like a separate suburban city, like a borough, with its own "downtown" (Lenox) and a somewhat seperate street grid. It only has two major arteries connecting it to downtown (Northside Parkway and Peachtree Street). I believe San Fernando Valley, Hollywood Hills, Bel Air are better analogies for Buckhead. They all have their own Wikipedia page as well. On the other hand, midtown is more like Upper East Side of Manhatten, Hollywood, CA or West Lake in L.A. in that it is a large subcity almost directly integrated into the street grid of the downtown district so boundaries blur. Inman Park / Little Five Points is more like West Hollywood, CA, Greenpoint in Brooklyn or  Gramercy Park in Manhatten in the sense that it is a very small, compact neighborhood within the city with its own character. Notice that all of them have their own Wikipedia pages. Netdragon (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Stereotypes
It is a common stereotype that citizens of the Buckhead and Morningside Communities tend to be snobby, rich, and egocentric people. I myself go to Grady High School in Midtown Atlanta, where you can see a big diference between the people of Morningside/Buckhead communities, and those of Candler Park, Inman Park, Midtown, and Grant Park neighbourhoods.
 * Obviously, any time an area is called snobby, it is stereotypical and should be removed from articles Netdragon (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Racial Comment/Bias -- Removed
I edited the following

Original was: During the late 1990s Buckhead saw a fair share of problems due to an increased crime rate around the area's nightclubs and shopping districts which was increasingly frequented by black patrons.

Currently is: During the late 1990s Buckhead saw a fair share of problems due to an increased crime rate around the area's nightclubs and shopping districts.

1) Crime increase in Buckhead was on par related to area. On a per capita basis Atlanta was in the top third for violent crimes against person (including muggings and such).  Please see http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/Cius_97/97crime/97crime3.pdf for more information.

2) The " . . . black patrons" could be considered an inflamatory reference.  To me, the inference or parallel that was being drawn (influx of african americans raised crime rate) had no basis in fact.   I deleted it.

-Matthew

w hotel
it says "patrons have stayed at the w hotel..."

i didnt know there was a w hotel in buckhead. i know they are developing one in lenox, and there is one in sandy springs, but wasnt aware of one in buckhead. am i wrong, or is the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.27.162.90 (talk • contribs). 14:52, January 16, 2007
 * While the Lenox area is part of Buckhead, the new W Hotel is still under construction, so the article is wrong when it states people have stayed there. I have corrected. (BTW, the one existing W Hotel is in Dunwoody, not Sandy Springs). -- Satori Son 16:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The new W Hotel is supposed to be 38 stories and will be on Lenox Road, across from Lenox mall. It is little more than a fenced-off site.R Young {yak ł talk } 08:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

=Buckhead has borders.They are listed on pages 13 and 15 of the "Buckhead Guidebook" publshed by the Buckhead Coalition www.buckhead.net/buckheadcoaliton.The boundaries of Buckhead as defined by Wikipedia are wrong. Buckhead also has nieghborhoods which are defined at Buckhead.net also.I have tried to edit this Buckhead page but have failed.

Geography
The article defines Buckhead as being a community made up of several neighborhoods. It does not, however, identify which neighborhoods those are, which seems like a big deal. For that matter, if Buckhead's not a neighborhood but a conglomeration of them, why's it in the Atlanta Neighborhoods navbox? Also, why doesn't the article state what Buckhead's borders are? It clearly says the northern border is Atlanta's city limit, but the southern border is only identified in one spot (does the entirety of Buckhead's southern edge abut Midtown, or just where Peachtree turns from Road to Street?), the western border may or may not be mentioned (it's not clear whether Vinings was the end of the Pace property, is the end of West Paces Ferry Rd., or is the border of Buckhead). There is no mention of an eastern border. Finally, Buckhead covers 1/5 of Atlanta without containing or bordering any freeway? Considering that Atlanta's got three interstate highways passing through it, not counting spurs and bypasses, plus state highway freeways, that seems unlikely, and I'd think mentioning which ones pass through or border Buckhead would be very good as far as helping to explain its location and geographic context. The Literate Engineer 16:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer, the neighborhoods are listed on http://www.buckhead.net/neighborhoods/neighborhood_map.html I'm adding a neighborhoods section - see the neighborhoods talk discussion item below. Netdragon (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, GA 400 (a state freeway) passes through Buckhead. No other freeway does.R Young {yak ł talk } 09:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. See my note below. Netdragon (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the boundaries of Buckhead officially include the whole of the city of Atlanta northwest of I-85 and northeast of I-75. Buckhead is not a neighborhood but basically a superdistrict, like Hollywood, CA. Buckhead has some internal powers in areas such as planning and zoning, as well as taxation (i.e. Buckhead patrons may be taxed to fund shuttle routes etc).R Young {yak ł talk } 08:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. Buckhead community also includes parts of West Paces Ferry, Northside Parkway, Moore's Mill, W. Wesley Rd, and Ridgewood West of I-75 bordering Vinings, and Cumberland in Cobb County and Bolton in Atlanta. In fact, drive across the bridge from Cumberland to Atlanta, and a sign says, "Entering Buckhead Community". Furthermore, the map at http://www.buckhead.net/neighborhoods/neighborhood_map.html shows neighborhoods Paces, Peachtree Creek, Margaret Mitchell and Pleasant Hill. Fixing accordingly Netdragon (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Neighborhoods
Like the Hollywood Hills, LA article, I'm going to list the neighborhoods based on the Buckhead site http://www.buckhead.net/neighborhoods/neighborhood_map.html Netdragon (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask me
I am the Atlanta editor for www.emporis.com (the #1 skyscraper website in the world). As such, I do a lot of research. I happen to know about boundaries. Hope the above explanation clears things up. Note that local advertisers may claim that something in DeKalb County is "Buckhead" but that is simply false advertising.R Young {yak ł talk } 08:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Better Photo?
Do we really need a photo of a thunderstorm?R Young {yak ł talk } 08:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Buckhead, Midtown not neighborhoods
Greetings, Buckhead and Midtown are not neighborhoods, but are larger districts that are comprised of several neighborhoods. For example, Home Park and Atlantic Station are part of Midtown.R Young {yak ł talk } 09:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Buckhead Renewal
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A255207 This article provides a little insight into the current shift in Buckhead. I didn't want to post it on the main page because of "advertising"-- however, it's kind of sad that the old Buckhead (from the 90's) is pretty much dead and that it's trying to become more upscale. Buckhead was something special-- it had a unique style/flavor--but now it's going to become more fabricated.

"Beverly Hills of the South/East"?
This shorthand way of expressing the area's dynamics might be found in various promotional literature, but it's hardly an accepted nickname for the area. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 * seconded. I have seen it written in promotional literature, but it is far from an accepted nickname among the locals.  Skiendog (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

notable residents
I am removing the list of notable residents, and copying it here. While I don't doubt the validity of any of them, they don't contain a single source and it doesn't even seem half-decent. Buckhead is full of music industry professionals in addition to Kenny Rogers and Elton John, many more pro-athletes that just Fran Tarkenton, and too many world-famous JD's, MD's, and Fortune 500 executives for me to even begin listing at this late hour. In conclusion: make it thorough, cite sources, or it doesn't need to be up here at all. Skiendog (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Elton John, British singer
 * Kenny Rogers, country songwriter
 * Jermaine Dupri, record producer/rapper
 * Dallas Austin, record producer
 * Nancy Grace, American television host
 * Fran Tarkenton, retired Hall of Fame football player
 * Arthur Blank, Owner of the Atlanta Falcons
 * The-Dream, R&B/Soul Singer
 * Tyler Perry, Writer, Actor, Producer, Humanitarian
 * Justin Bieber, Teen singer
 * Ludacris, rapper/actor

Racial factors in 1990s nightlife-related violence
Racial factors were a primary topic of discussion in the press in relation to the increasing violence in Buckhead in the 90s - the references confirm that. That is not to say racial changes *caused* the violence, but simply that it was a primary topic of discussion, and that alone makes it imperative to mention if we are to have any understanding of what happened in Buckhead in the 1990s.

I would put out the challenge to anyone to find an in depth discussion of the topic where race is NOT mentioned as a factor. Creative Loafing even had it in the subtitle of an article: "The key to saving Buckhead. Atlanta's police shortage -- not racial tension -- to blame for Buckhead crimes" The fact that they had to say that (no, no) it *wasn't* race means that there was a primary perception that it *was* race, and this has to be mentioned in order to understand the history.

The quote from Frank Ski shows that in fact although race was discussed intensely - it was in fact the cruising which drove the violence. Keizers (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Race may have been a factor, but that's not the issue. We need more than just a quote from a V-103 DJ that "Young African-Americans with more disposable income now have the means to frequent upscale Buckhead clubs... But there is another element that follows them that does not frequent the bars and restaurants...They cruise." I don't that is the case, and that has not been proven. That was purely Mr. Ski's opinion. I lived through it, and none of these people had "disposable income", and if they did, they sure didn't show it.--Mmann1988 (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Buckhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110103232211/http://www.peachtreecorridor.org:80/streetcar/ to http://www.peachtreecorridor.org/streetcar/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Buckhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026105543/http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2004/0112/034.html to http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2004/0112/034.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Buckhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813044935/http://www.atlantaga.gov/client_resources/government/planning/npu%20system/maps/npu_b.pdf to http://www.atlantaga.gov/client_resources/government/planning/npu%20system/maps/npu_b.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928115358/http://www.hillstreetpress.com/BuckheadNet.html to http://www.hillstreetpress.com/BuckheadNet.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121220845/http://mobiltravelguide.howstuffworks.com/fivestar.php to http://mobiltravelguide.howstuffworks.com/fivestar.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Buckhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728010826/http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/countries/usat.html to http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/countries/usat.html
 * Added tag to http://stories.globalatlanta.com/2008stories/016266.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125085139/http://www.greekembassy.org/Embassy/content/en/Root.aspx?office=4 to http://www.greekembassy.org/embassy/content/en/Root.aspx?office=4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218210609/http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bo/?id=100304 to http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bo/?id=100304

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

AJC's From Big Apple to Buckhead: Fundraiser grows war chest for cityhood push
Here is an article from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution at From Big Apple to Buckhead: Fundraiser grows war chest for cityhood push. Rjluna2 (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 * As of October, it seems that the secession movement is receiving more media attention now that state legislators are agreeing to hold hearings on the issue. When would it be appropriate to mention this in the article? Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Buckhead


text:
Second Morning

Second Morning (セカンドモーニング) is the second album from the J-pop idol group Morning Musume. It was released on July 28, 1999, and sold a total of 428,990 copies.

Overview
It was released both on CD with the catalogue number EPCE-5025 and MiniDisc with the catalogue number EPYE-5025. It includes Morning Musume's first #1 single, Daite Hold on Me!.

The first pressing of Second Morning comes in special packaging with a trading booklet. 7 types of booklets were released in total, each identified by a unique color and containing slightly different photos. The colors are red, orange, yellow, green, light blue, blue and purple.

Because Asuka Fukuda graduated from Morning Musume before this album came out, she does not appear on the album's cover artwork. However, her vocals are still heard on tracks 3, 6 and 11.

title: Second Morning


text:
Talk:Soviet and communist studies

[Untitled]
This article notes that the historiography of Soviet and Communist studies is characterized by a split between "traditionalists" and "revisionists"-- a fair if simplistic characterization of the field. But then it sees confate the social science research with Cold War stances, at times unfairly maligning scholars writing after "traditionalists" like Conquest. This article needs a clean-up. 172 21:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that "Kremlinology" be merged into Soviet and Communist studies. "Kremlinology" is simply a Cold War kitschy phrase that means Soviet studies e.g. "study of" the Kremlin. The Kremlinology article is full of WP:OR and relies on dictionaries as primary sources (to prove it's an actual phrase I suppose). The correct name is Soviet studies. This was the name of a specific degree - a large proportion of Western universities offered undergraduate and graduate degrees in Soviet Studies. Unless someone can prove that Kremlinology is a specific study of kremlins (eg, the actual fortresses), and not a study of the Soviet Union, its politics, policies, culture and history, then it needs to be merged with Soviet studies or just deleted. Wikimandia (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any doubt that the terms "kremlinology", "sovietology", and "Soviet studies" exist, as even the most cursory of web searches will turn up plenty of reliable sources defining them. The real issue for us is whether these all refer to the same branch of study, or whether they're sufficiently different to merit separate articles.  The impression I'm getting is that "Soviet studies" is the most general term, referring to any sort of study, academic or otherwise, of the Soviet Union, whereas "kremlinology" tends to be more narrowly defined as the incredibly detailed and possibly unscientific analysis and inference of personal power relations within the Soviet government.  The following descriptions seem typical:
 * "Kremlinologists, using arcane and somewhat tedious formulas, attempted to determine which people and organizations exercised the most power in the Soviet Union by studying pictures of the May Day reviewing stand (you know—Beria stood only two places to the left of Stalin in 1951, Khrushchev was way off to the right, and Molotov wasn't even there, and we all know what happened later). They closely analyzed articles from Izvestia and Kommunist (who writes what about whom), and various other sensitive indicators." (M. Stern, "Under the Rotunda." Columbia Spectator 112(116):4–5.)
 * "Kremlinology, that is, the intensive analysis of the actions and entourage of the head of government, emphasizes what is currently topical." (R. Rose, W. Mishler, and N. Munro. Russia Transformed: Developing popular Support for a New Regime. Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 10)
 * "…numerous studies of elite politics in the Soviet Union—often referred to collectively as kremlinology,—had to infer policy and political changes from the slight variations in physical proximity of country leaders during parades." (A. Baturo and S. Mikhaylov. "Reading The Tea Leaves: Medvedev's Presidency Through Political Rhetoric of Federal and Sub-National Actors." Europe-Asia Studies, 66(6):969–992.)
 * If this characterization is correct, then the articles should remain separate, and they should be updated to more accurately reflect their topic. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your research. Your second reference from Rose/Mishler/Munro does provide a credible definition that puts it in a different light and should be used in the article. My main freakout was that the link to "Soviet studies" (contained on many academic and historian articles) was actually a redirect to the poorly written Kremlinology, which as it is now is basically an OR stub. I've sinced redirected Soviet studies to Soviet and Communist Studies. There is a lot of overlap of course but I will try to find time this weekend to rewrite the Kremlinology article. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there something you find non-credible about the other two references? One of them's an academic journal, and the other a university newspaper, and both of them characterize kremlinology in much the same way as the book. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I'll freely admit my entire knowledge of Kremlinology is from the article under discussion. That being said, I would agree that it's not the same thing as Soviet studies. As I understand it, it's the practice of trying to deduce what's going on inside the Soviet regime from the scarce clues available from the West. While it's related Soviet studies, it's not really the same thing. Soviet studies is the study of the politics of the Soviet Union. Kremlinology is looking at how the leaders' portraits were rearranged and trying to infer meaning from it. I don't know if it should have its own article, but they're distinct things. —ajf (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kremlinology contains a list Notable Kremlinologists and Sovietologists.Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is absolute garbage
Poor sourcing, PoV, stub, vague/misleading title. There is so much damn information under the heading "Soviet and Communist studies" ranging from a timeline of primary sources (obviously there was a media blockade and sources came out in waves; who released these sources? Was it official or smuggled out?), history of Western documentation of Soviet (and Communist?) history and sociology, a discussion of major authors... And these are all just off the top of my head. Instead, there is nothing but a little stub of unsourced unprofessional opinion that divides an historiographic controversy into 'traditionalists' and 'revisionists,' and then dares assert without a source that "Revisionists [...] are more numerous and, furthermore, dominate academic institutions and learned journals."

Really, this is garbage. If it's not cleaned up, then it ought not to exist in this state.67.44.164.142 (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that in recent weeks I have done significant cleanup, and also added some sources. It still needs to be improved further by someone more knowledgeable of the subject, but I think the article should be kept.(talk) user:Al83tito 20:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Focus of the article
This article now focuses mostly on Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism. While this should also be mentioned to an extent, we have other articles on that topic, and it isn't the sole focus of Soviet and communist studies. Soviet and Communist studies was primarily the broad, mainstream field of area studies of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, as found in Western universities, and sometimes in cooperation with the military and intelligence communities. For example it could include studies of topics such as Soviet agriculture, Soviet media, Kremlinology, studies of the Soviet military etc. Nowadays it has mostly been succeeded by "Russian studies", "Eastern European studies" or similar fields and programmes in universities, and continues as a more narrow historical field under different names. The paragraph on the supposed "double genocide theory" isn't very accurate or very relevant to Soviet and communist studies. One editor has asserted that such a theory really exists in Lithuanian debate, but I have seen no evidence of such a theory being posited by anyone in English language sources or the European sphere, certainly not within the field of Soviet and communist studies, and that article is currently, as admitted by its author, a WP:SUBPOV outlining the views of (what Barry Rubin called a tiny group of) opponents of recent political developments related to communism in Europe, and not a general article on these developments. The fact that the article is about Lithuania is made clear already in the first sentence that includes its Lithuanian name; I believe a WP:SUBPOV article outlining a certain (opposing) perspective on recent developments in Lithuania isn't WP:DUE in that paragraph here in this article on the field of Soviet and Communist studies. The sources discussing this don't mention or even engage with Soviet and communist studies as a research field either, and quite frankly seem ignorant of the history of the totalitarian paradigm. I can't see a strong justification for mentioning Katz, a linguist, in an article on Soviet and communist studies, when he doesn't even seem to be aware of the existence of this academic field/tradition.

The use of "revisionist" here in the context of the various mainstream European initiatives that build on the totalitarian model to condemn communism, e.g. in the European Parliament, is incorrect; revisionism in the context of Soviet and communist studies encompass those who "insisted that the old image of the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state bent on world domination was oversimplified or just plain wrong" as the article explains. Applying the totalitarian model in a rather traditional, Cold War-like manner is not "revisionist". In the context of Soviet and communist studies it is the traditionalist view, opposed by the revisionists.

Perhaps it is possible to say something about how mainstream political developments in the European Parliament and other European political bodies to condemn communism build on the totalitarian paradigm, and on how that paradigm has its roots in Cold War-era Soviet and communist studies to a significant degree, and on how Central and Eastern European countries have been influential (as discussed by Neumayer) in strengthening the totalitarian interpretation of communism in the spirit of traditionalist Soviet and communist studies, and on how these developments have promoted an anti-communist remembrance policy of the EU since the 2004 EU enlargement, how the "Europeanization of an antitotalitarian 'collective memory' of communism" has fostered "a field of anticommunism", but it would have to be worded differently than the current paragraph, and use sources that discuss and engage with communism and its legacy more directly than the current sources (with the exception of Neumayer). --Tataral (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree, and have trimmed the article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Nug (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Article focus - controversies and debates section
Given this article is about the field of historical studies of the Soviet Union and communism generally, and that the article defines the journals that covered that field, then the Soviet_and_Communist_studies section should really focus only on the historical controversies and debates covered by or related to the scholarship contained in the listed journals in the field. --Nug (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree but I think that this article is a good location for much related content, as long as it were confined to debates of those studying Communism. Do not Courtois and The Black Book of Communism count as those studying communism? Surely, the effect it has had on the popular press is also relevant, as noted by Wheatcroft 1999, and is clearly relevant to those studying Communism. The section about the holocaust is because Rosefielde is a subject within the field, so that is relevant too. All of this has been removed. What are your criteria exactly? Use only academic journals in the fields? Historians of Communism? Davide King (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Criticism of communist party rule would be a better place for that material. This article should only describe the debates contained in the journals that are identified in Soviet_and_Communist_studies and listed in Soviet_and_Communist_studies. --Nug (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good points by Nug and Davide King. I have to largely agree with the text removal by Nug, for reasons of due weight/redundancy of the topics. Most of the topics and major authors mentioned in the removed content are in the text otherwise, still in substantial detail (revisionist estimates, criticisms of the initial totalitarianism thesis, etc.) in the current version. The main scope of the article should be the content in journals in the field of Soviet and Communist studies, and where they overlap with academic books. Black Book of Communism does partially overlap with this and could be mentioned in passing plus some of its criticism, but there were many other aspects of the studies besides that debate. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly, using journals in the field has my full support as academic sources but to play devil's advocate: are they not too close and primary about the topic? First, the purpose of my additions was to use secondary coverage that was still relevant to the field; the section about the Cold War and spyonage by Rauisuchian is not cited to any of the field's journal but to the Wilson Center and other reliable sources, yet it is clearly relevant and fine, so why not the rest, which I tried to do in summary style precisely to avoid redundancy. Second, memory politics (the name of the section where much of the removed content can go like this) are certainly relevant to the field in light of Communist historiography in Eastern Europe, which bring us to comparisons with Nazism and double genocide as relevant. Thirdly, as I believe it to be too reductive and primary to rely only on the field's journals, I see no issue in using secondary coverage of relevant historians and scholars about comparison of Nazism and Stalinism (Rosefielde's Red Holocaust is a comparative analysis of Communism, the Holocaust, and fascist Japan, and he is a scholar in the field, so why was that removed?), and memory politics and double genocide, all of which are relevant to the topic (e.g. "totalitarian" and "orthodox" historiography). Finally, if "Victims of Stalinism" is problematic and controversial, how can we have articles like Mass killings under communist regimes in the first place if what we get from this is that Soviet and Communist studies have totally ignored the topic? I am referring to the topic as a whole, not for each individual country, e.g. discussing countries separately without synthesis.
 * Davide King (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We need to adhere to WP:TOPIC. We already have articles Double genocide, Black book of communism, Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, Historiography of the Cold War, Criticism of communist party rule, etc, we don't need to copy material from those articles into this one, we can just link them in Soviet_and_Communist_studies. This article is about field of study as represented by a set of journals, let's just keep it to that scope. --Nug (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is that I am not sure they are so off-topic that we cannot even use summary style, and that it is too restrictive to literally limit it to journals in the field, especially since the 1990s the field has expanded, rather than studies on Communism. As noted by, "[t]he main scope of the article should be the content in journals in the field of Soviet and Communist studies, and where they overlap with academic books." I used academic sources, and we cannot discuss the Black Book without summarizing its implications, just like we cannot discuss Rosefielde's Red Holocaust (Rosefielde is a scholar in the field and the book was published by an academic publisher, which I believe fulfills Rauisuchian's criteria) without its Holocaust implications and criticism of the concept.
 * If we cannot discuss the Black Book or Courtois here, then why are we even relying on them on Communist-related articles? If they are not within the field, which I assume to be the subject matters on the topic, we should avoid relying on them as much as we are. Certainly it would be better to put them under a "Memory politics" section as I suggested above, or do you think Memory politics is the more accurate place? But that would make the focus too much on Communism, and I do not think Criticism of communist party rule is the appropriate topic; they are not a criticism, it is a scholarly debate and discourse within this field and relevant Communist fields or among scholars who have at least some expertise on Communism. Davide King (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the removal is made more absurd by the fact that Michael David-Fox is the founding editor of Kritika, a journal in the field, and published this article:

Malia compared the "revisionist school" to Holocaust deniers, and David-Fox's mentioned the Black Book and the victims of Communism, and that it has an extensive literature, so the reason for removing as irrelevant, or that it needs to be published in a journal of the field, that is debunked and the criteria fulfilled. Again, Rosefielde is a scholar in the field and wrote Red Holocaust as a comparative analysis of Communism with Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan, so the section about the Holocaust also seem to be relevant (as is the Black Book) and fits the criteria of being a scholar in the field and relevant. Of course, not every reference is literally cited to an academic journal in the field, which would be nonsensical and a violation of our policies (WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:NPOV) but they are all cited to scholars, academic publications, or reliable sources. I also tried my best to use summary style, and I believe to have showed that they are clearly relevant. If the issue is going to be that it will be giving too much space to memory politics, that can be easily avoided by expanding the section about the historiography and debates through Karlsson & Schoenhals 2008 and Edele 2020. Davide King (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Kritika also mentions controversies involving Donald Trump. There may well be some kind of debate between authors about the merits of BBoC going on within Kritika journal, but we really need a tertiary source to help use identify those debates and controversies. --Nug (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We already have the article The Black Book of Communism so I don't see the point copying material to this article. As for your last sentence, that's probably for a new article Historiography of the Soviet Union. --Nug (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense and a strawman because Trump has nothing to do with Soviet and Communist studies, unlike the Black Book, the body count, and historiography. You asked that we rely on academic journals in the field, the bunch of scholarly sourced text you removed already did that. See also WP:PRESERVE. There are already tertiary sources that support this (Neumayer et al.). In fact, this article could serve as a summary of the rewrite of Mass killings under communist regimes., what are your thoughts on this? Perhaps some information from here could be already moved there instead. Davide King (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody would seriously suggest that BBoC or double genocide should not be covered in an article about Soviet and Communist studies. Levivich 17:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, someone apparently did and successfully removed all this in spite of WP:PRESERVE. Davide King (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a tertiary source that states BBoC and double genocide is a prominent topic of discussion in the journals listed in this article? Otherwise it is just giving undue weight. I hardly think WP:PRESERVE applies when “double genocide” is already mentioned in Double genocide theory, Holocaust trivialization, Communism, The Holocaust in Lithuania, Steven Rosefielde, Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, Bloodlands, Kristen Ghodsee, etc. Why don’t we add it to the article Kremlinology, because Zbigniew Brzezinski is a listed as a notable Kremlinologist, and he has commented on the communist death toll, and we know from elsewhere that the communist death toll is one component of double genocide, and so the circle of is complete. --Nug (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * David-Fox 2004 (primary) and Neumayer et al. (secondary/tertiary). Perhaps Kremlinology should be merged here, Sovietology should be a redirect to a section about the Soviet Union here, or that article should be limited to the studies of post-Soviet Russia. Can you please cite a policy that says we cannot summarize this if it is still relevant to the article? I fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is about summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, excessive listings of unexplained statistics, and exhaustive logs of software updates, somehow applies to this. Davide King (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that the sources for this article should be limited to the journals listed in this article. Levivich 19:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The journals listed in the article would be primary sources, so obviously secondary and preferably tertiary sources that discuss the debates and controversies that arose in those journals are needed. --Nug (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you think the bunch of text you removed was for and the sources did? It was exactly that, and you removed it, now claiming this. I see no consensus in removing that, and it was long-standing too. The fair criticism it focused too much of memory politics is not resolved by removing it but by expanding the historiography so that the section about memory politics is not undue. If you feel something is missing, the solution is to add it, not to remove well-sourced and relevant text by citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is not relevant at all. Davide King (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because something is well sourced doesn't mean it is due or even relevant. Look at Environmental studies, Women's studies, Oriental studies, etc, they don't even have a controversies and debates section. This is topic about an academic field, not a WP:COATRACK to hang tangential stuff off. --Nug (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe an article or draft article called Historiography of communism could satisfy everyone's concerns here. Historiography of communism could include all of the removed cited content from Soviet and Communist studies, and more content could be sourced from all articles mentioned in this talk section by Davide King and Nug, as well as Historiography in the Soviet Union, Anti-communism, Post-communism, and others that are suggested. Possibly organized chronologically, looking at the variety of articles starting with "Historiography of". The topic seems like it should be interesting or historically significant to all the editors on this page. What do you think? -- Rauisuchian (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a great idea. This will fill the gap that exists and solve a lot of issues (hopefully). --Nug (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me quote : "Nobody would seriously suggest that BBoC or double genocide should not be covered in an article about Soviet and Communist studies." How they are not "due or even relelant" to you is beyond me — they certainly are to David-Fox, the founding editor of one of the field's main journals. As for other articles, it does not matter — you accused me of doing that at MKuCR yet you are doing it here. Let's focus on this article, not on how other articles are structured. This article should be focused on the study(ies) of Communism and structured through summary style, so of course it is going to use content from other articles and the Black Book and memory politics are clearly relevant and due; you went from WP:INDISCRIMINATE to WP:COATRACK but neither of them apply because David-Fox and others discussed it.
 * Anyway, I like 's proposal but I fail to see why that content should not be re-added; in fact, it already provides a summary style of such an article, and my summary style could be used to go in much greater detail in such an article. Ironically, such an article would make my summary style even more due because the historiography and memory politics are so notable to be their own article, and you still believe we should not use summary style to discuss them here as I already did? Davide King (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me quote : "Soviet and Communist studies was primarily the broad, mainstream field of area studies of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, as found in Western universities, and sometimes in cooperation with the military and intelligence communities. For example it could include studies of topics such as Soviet agriculture, Soviet media, Kremlinology, studies of the Soviet military etc. Nowadays it has mostly been succeeded by "Russian studies", "Eastern European studies" or similar fields and programmes in universities, and continues as a more narrow historical field under different names.". Maybe you need to re-read and reflect on WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK and explain your understanding of what these mean in context of this article. --Nug (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the last paragraph, which was a fair analysis (I have moved the paragraph that used "revisionist" in a different context, as noted and suggested), and is what I attempted to do, and situated it within the context of the "totalitarian model", and that I prefer copy editing over outright removal. What do you think "totalitarian model" and "revisionist school" are if not historiography? Yet that has not been disputed or removed. I do not doubt the quoted part but it would be good to give me one or more sources for that so we can expand this. What we should be doing is giving more weight to those other topics of studies, as noted by Tatarl, other than historiography, which is still relevant per Haynes & Klehr 2003 and Davies & Harris 2005. Davide King (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that you never responded to Tataral's concerns at Talk:Soviet_and_Communist_studies, and you appear to be ignoring these issues. --Nug (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I did not ignore them, as I tried to improve the article's structure and followed their suggestions. Second, they did not provide any source. Third, you opened this section, so I replied here instead of there. Finally, you ignored their last paragraph which seemed to support that a section was appropriate, and that they disagree with the precise wording, not that they supported a full removal as you did and have since been reverted by another user. Davide King (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Revisiting this, as I've read more of the historiography, this article has too much of a focus on a niche "Black Book of Communism" and backlash section that gets the most peripheral passing mention if at all in most sources, as well as a memory politics section that was only tangentially related to Soviet studies. It stands out as even more of a WP:DUEWEIGHT problem now. In this talk page section there was not a significant consensus to restore that content, interest was just lost in the subject when a different talk page debate died down. The framing is quite limited in how well it reflects the scholarly consensus of Soviet studies journals and Soviet studies books and what the traditionalist and revisionist schools actually argued in their publications. It gives the wrong impression that revisionists focused on down-revising the Stalinist death count, that revisionists didn't also describe totalitarianism in their histories, etc. So the best option is to remove the WP:COATRACK content, it being saved in the page history and recoverable if necessary, and go with more cohesive and concretely related content. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 * I haven't followed any of the above, but would just like to note that the recent removals have done away with one section that was the one place on Wikipedia that dealt with the idea of the "communist holocaust" and that had several incoming redirects that are now broken. I have no opinion on the best place for that content, but it needs to brought back to the encyclopedia somewhere (either restored to this article, or copied to another page), and then the redirects fixed. – Uanfala (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. The content is also present on a section "Red Holocaust" here and on the article Double genocide theory. Additional problematic aspects of it are covered in Holocaust trivialization. There is a disambiguation page Red Holocaust as well. This can add some possible places for the content and redirects issue. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Meaningless sentence that tries to hard...
The concept is not popular among scholars in Germany or internationally.

??? Or among bartenders in Oklahoma, probably. What information is this sentence even supposed to convey? This is non-encyclopedic writing.  Volunteer Marek  22:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to revert the article renaming
The capitalization of "Communist" in "Soviet and Communist studies" was the most common form in this historical field, because it focused more on specific Communist Party apparatuses than the generic idea of communism. As such, the Wiki article move/ name change to "Soviet and communist studies" was not an improvement. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Soviet and communist studies


text:
Talk:Jeanne Guyon

--

Untitled
Dominique Tronc appreciated the contribution of this article on madame Guyon which enlarges the view on her. He added some references of old and recently published works ; and a link to "madameguyon.fr". He can be contacted as webmaster of this site or of "cheminsmystiques.fr" : he will be happy to have a contact : a 'conversation'. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.122.39 (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC) The name Bouvier, which is originally from Savoy reminds us of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy whose family is also from Savoy. So although this lady is not a direct ancestor, she may very well be a distant relative. --

In his main work, The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer, in several places, refers to Mme. Guyon as an example of saintliness. By this, he means someone who has renounced selfishness and worldliness. For Schopenhauer, the fact that she has acted in this manner within the framework of Christianity is not essential.

I deleted the archaic organization---but the article does need some simple sections. . .if somebody could put them on.--Jdavid2008 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the epilepsy sentence as there is nothing in any literature to support that statement. I cleaned up text and added citations where missing. I added new details which are emerging with the publication of new materials in English. I added links to new references. Roger Nebel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.165.208 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
I take exception the initial statement that Madam Guyon was linked to the Quietist movement. In her autobiography, she repeatedly denied even knowing Molinos until she read the name in a newspaper (Part 3, Ch. 3 of her autobiography) where she stated: "They then made known to His Majesty that I was a heretic, that I had constant correspondence with Molinos_I, who did not know there was such a person as Molinos in the world until I learned about it from the Gazette." It is true that the ruling church officials attempted to link her to the movement, but it cannot be asserted to be true, as such.

I also take possible exception to the statement that the Quietist Movement was considered heretical when your own article on Miguel Molinos states: “The matter was referred to the Inquisition. It pronounced that the Guida spirituale was perfectly orthodox, and censured the intemperate zeal of Segneri.”

Lightsearch 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)lightsearch

 * This article is basically straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia--and could very well have inaccuracies. Please feel free to rewrite any part that has mistakes--and the whole article if you have time :) Also, it needs to be organized I think with headers--I would do it but I don't know enough about her... It would be really good if you could!--Jdavid2008 18:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nancy C. James recently published "The Pure Love of Madame Guyon - The Great Controversy in the Court of Louis XIV" (University Press of America - June 2007) which corrects many inaccuracies and misconceptions about the life and works of Madame Guyon. 65.118.222.7 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Roger Nebel

I would like to comment that, even moreso than the name of a particular movement at a particular time, Quietism is definitely for Catholics the name of a heresy, which crops up in various eras. Basically it's the idea that one may attain the heights of holiness through passive prayer without any other significant human effort to dispose oneself to and actively practice Charity. Catholics believe, based on Scripture, that salvation and the Christian life entails both the grace of God received through faith in Jesus, and also human effort, even though effort all by itself is insufficient for salvation, God definitely asks it of us, and calls us to co-operate with Grace. Madame Guyon wasn't necessarily willfully espousing heresy, she professed her faithfulness to the Church and in the end she was willing to renounce her mistakes and stop promoting them. Even if her books are not "all bad," there are many far better writers on mystical prayer. Why read Guyon at all, when you can read Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross? But for the Protestants who picked up her works and ran with them, Madame Guyon was more acceptable. --Elizdelphi (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a misconception to state that Guyon simply and only practiced passive detachment. She was extremely active in starting hospitals, making medicinals for the patients, and teaching at St. Cyr, among other activities. In fact it was at St. Cyr that she came to the attention of the authorities - granted for teaching passive prayer - but the act of teaching is clearly active. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.36.216 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"In the Christian dispute regarding grace and works, Guyon defended the belief that salvation is the result of grace rather than works alone." This represents a frequent and disingenuous Protestant misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine. No Catholic theologian ever argued against the necessity of grace and faith, or that we could be justified by works alone. Guyon would have had no need to take a stance upon a non-existent controversy since Catholics believe that a person is justified by works as well as by faith (James 2:24). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.125.179 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia on Mysticism
First she attained a lively sentiment of the presence of God, perceived as a tangible reality. Prayer becomes easy to her; in it she is vouchsafed a savor of God which detaches her from creatures. This is what she calls "the union of the powers". She remains in this state for eight years; it is succeeded by another state in which she loses the sense of God's graces and favors, she has no taste for anything spiritual, is powerless to act, and afraid of her own baseness. This was the state of "mystical death" in which she remained for seven years; from this crisis she passes, as it were re-awakened and transformed, into the state of resurrection and new life. Whereas in the first of the three states she possessed God, in this last state she is possessed by Him; then God was united to the powers of her soul, but now He is united to its substance; it is He who acts in her; she becomes like an automaton in His hands; she writes remarkable things without preparation and without reflection. Her own activity disappears, to be replaced by the action of God which moves her, and she now enters into the "apostolic state". This apostolate she is to exercise not in preaching the Gospel, but in spreading the mystical life, the theory of which she presents in the Moyen court et facile de faire oraison (Short and Easy Method of Prayer), a work inspired mostly by her own experiences. In this work she distinguishes three kinds of prayer. The first is meditation properly so-called, the second is "the prayer of simplicity", which consists in keeping oneself in a state of recollection and silence in the presence of God; in the third, which is active contemplation, the soul, conscious that God is taking possession of it, leaves Him to act and remains in repose, abandoning itself to the Divine effluence which fills it -- powerless to ask anything for itself, since it has renounced all its own interests. This last state is pure love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkin2008 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Motte/Mothe
Why is her name spelled "de la Motte"? It is supposed to be "de la Mothe."Lestrade (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Some language not NPOV
Here's the most obvious example found in the "Life after Marriage" paragraph is the use of the language "mystical ideas." "Mystical" is subjective in this context (in almost any context really). This structure is also used to set up the next couple of sentences which are subtly pejorative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmckim (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Quietism (Christian philosophy) is defined as being mystical, I believe it is appropriate for the article. The article has been substantially changed since 2007, I've removed the NPOV template, please use or better yet  for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 05:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeanne Guyon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060809040132/http://home.infionline.net/~ddisse/guyon.html to http://home.infionline.net/~ddisse/guyon.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference in Encyclopédie
Madame Guyon is referenced in Louis de Jaucourt's article on Quietism for the Encyclopedia of Diderot and d'Alembert, is this worth contributing to her article? Hclark6 (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Dubious
13th April 1648 was a Thursday in the Julian Calendar (AFAICT) so therefore perfectly consistent with her saying she was born on the Eve of Easter. 2.29.206.252 (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 * France officially adopted the Gregorian Calendar in 1582, according to which 13th April 1648 was a Monday. While it is true that the Gregorian Calendar was not immediately widely accepted or used and it took several decades for the Gregorian Calendar to fully replace the Julian Calendar in all of France, this only holds for rural areas, and it is likely that in 1648 -- more than 60 years after its official adoption -- the Gregorian calendar was in use in Madame Guyon's home town of Montargis. Niranam Raichue (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 * What's more, while Easter Sunday was on April 12th according to the Gregorian calendar,according to the Julian calendar Easter Sunday was on April 2nd in 1648 ( see here), which clearly shows that the Gregorian calendar was used in Madame Guyon:s time and place, and that her purported birthday, April 13th, 1648 was a Monday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4454:48D:CC00:C49D:77CD:6119:F352 (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jeanne Guyon


text:
United People's Movement (Colombia)

The United People's Movement (Movimiento Popular Unido) is a liberal political party in Colombia. At the last legislative elections on March 10, 2002, the party won as one of the many small parties parliamentary representation. In the simultaneous legislative elections of 2006, the party won 2 out of 166 Deputies and no senators.

title: United People's Movement (Colombia)


text:
Wilhelm Kreis

Wilhelm Kreis (17 March 1873 – 13 August 1955) was a prominent German architect and professor of architecture, active through four political systems in German history: the Wilhelmine era, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, and the foundation of the Federal Republic.

Kreis was born in Eltville am Rhein in Hesse-Nassau. He first came to prominence with his 1896 submission for the Völkerschlachtdenkmal in Leipzig, although the commission went to Bruno Schmitz. Around the turn of the century, Kreis designed 58 of the Bismarck Towers, a number of civic projects in Dresden, the 1924 William Marx house, and other significant projects. The 1926 Rheinhalle (today:Tonhalle Düsseldorf) in Düsseldorf was his first major cultural project, followed by the German Hygiene Museum in Dresden. As opposed to the modernist movement then emerging, Kreis was among those architects like Heinrich Tessenow and Paul Bonatz who continued to work in a historical, conservative style.

Kreis was dismissed from the presidency of the League of German Architects (BDA) in 1933 and he saw his commissions dry up as a result. But within two years he was again working, under the direction of Albert Speer, for war projects in Dresden and the gigantic plans for Berlin, notably the design for the massive Soldiers Hall. Employing the respected Kreis brought Speer some legitimacy; Kreis responded by becoming an active supporter of National Socialism. He was named as one of the Reich's most important artists in the Gottbegnadeten list of September 1944.

In the postwar period, Kreis continued to receive commissions despite his advanced age.

title: Wilhelm Kreis


text:
Katie Feenstra-Mattera

Katharen Ruth Mattera ( Feenstra; born November 17, 1982) is an American college basketball coach and former player for the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA).

Mattera is one of the tallest players in WNBA history. At 6 feet 7.5 inches (2.02 m) tall, she is the ninth-tallest person to have played professionally in the WNBA. Only Margo Dydek, at 7 ft 2 in (2.18 m), Han Xu, at 6 ft 11 in (2.11 m), Bernadett Határ, at 6 ft 10.5 in (2.1 m), and Lindsay Taylor, Zheng Haixia, Maria Stepanova, Liz Cambage, and Brittney Griner, each at 6 ft 8 in (2.03 m), are taller than her.

College years
Born in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Mattera went on to star on the women's basketball team while attending Liberty University, where she majored in physical education. She was a three-time Big South Conference Player of the Year, a Wade Trophy, John R. Wooden and Naismith Award nominee. She also became the Big South Conference's all-time shot-blocker on February 14, 2005. Feenstra was the tallest player in Liberty University and Big South Conference history. She finished her career at Liberty as one of only two players in NCAA history to lead the nation in field-goal percentage in back-to-back seasons (2004, 2005)

Liberty statistics
Source

WNBA career
Mattera was originally selected by the Connecticut Sun on April 16, 2005, during the 2005 WNBA draft, but was quickly traded to the San Antonio Silver Stars in exchange for the Silver Stars' player Margo Dydek (the tallest player in the WNBA).

On September 14, 2005, she was named to the WNBA All-Rookie Team.

On February 22, 2007, she was traded to the Detroit Shock in exchange for Ruth Riley.

On February 6, 2008, she was selected in the expansion draft by the Atlanta Dream.

Coaching career
On November 5, 2019, Mattera was named assistant women's basketball coach at Liberty University. Her first head coaching job was at Cornerstone University., where she served for six years.

Personal life
Feenstra married Todd Mattera on November 8, 2008. Her sister, Meribeth Anderson, also played basketball at Liberty from 1999 to 2003.

Feenstra wears men's size 17 (US) / 53 (EU) shoes.

title: Katie Feenstra-Mattera


text:
User:Doppelgangland

Hi, this is Alex.

title: User:Doppelgangland


text:
Koffee Brown

Koffee Brown was an American R&B and neo-soul duo consisting of male singer Falonte "Fonz" Moore and female singer Vernell "Vee" Sales. They were discovered by music producer Kay Gee and RL of Next, and were signed to Arista Records. They are best known for their songs "After Party", and "Weekend Thing".

Mars/Venus
Their first and only album, Mars/Venus, was released on March 6, 2001, and featured the single "After Party," which peaked at Number 44 on the Billboard Hot 100. The album itself peaked at Number 32 on the Billboard 200. It performed considerably better on Billboard's R&B Chart, however, peaking at Number 7.

title: Koffee Brown


text: User talk:69.86.139.191

title: User talk:69.86.139.191


text:
Coalition (Colombia)

Coalición Colombia is a conservative political party in Colombia. At the last legislative elections, 10 March 2002, the party won as one of the many small parties parliamentary representation.

title: Coalition (Colombia)


text:
Talk:List of social psychologists

[untitled]
Michael Argyle entry: The linked page conveys no sense in which Argyle might be considered or known as a social psychologist. Is this a mistake? I think it should be removed unless there's some evidence that Argyle actually is a psychologist. 65.24.92.175 21:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, well spotted! Different Michael Argyle.  I've turned it into a disambig page and added a stub about the psychologist, I hope some of his many friends and students will expand it into something worthy of him. seglea 17:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Who should be on this list
Being unregistered, I'm not going to be presumptuous and make any deletions. However, I'm becoming concerned that this page is increasingly becoming a list of "psychologists we like," without careful consideration as to whether or not their contributions were relevant to the field of SOCIAL psychology in particular. (There are many people on this list who are certainly important academics, but for whom classification as "social psychologists" would be stretching it.)

 * Good point. I removed a few, but there are still some that may be questionnable. This page could use some careful going over, to remove people who aren't prominent social psychologists, and to write brief summaries for anyone who is. --Jcbutler 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that the list diminishes in value if it is simply a vanity page or page of likable psychologists. To be an encyclopedia, the entries must be notable.  To prevent deletion of any item that is thought not to be notable, a source must be cited or an explanation attached.

 * It is only wrong to delete someone if there is no source or explanation and the person doing the deletion hasn't done at least a superficial search (e.g., Google).

 * I think it would be a good thing to automatically delete the name of everyone on the list that doesn't have an article in Wikipedia, doesn't have a source cited, has no attached explanation of why they are notable, and don't show up in Google with something notable. The same is, or should be, true of the List of psychologists page.

 * Wikipedia policy specifically asks us to be bold. As long as we act in good faith, respect someone's dissent, and make a modest effort to see if the person is notable, it is not only acceptable to delete - but a requirement of having a good encyclopedia.  I think an unregistered user helps by taking a tiny bit more effort to comment their actions on a talk page but, given that, they should still be able to delete. Well, that's my two cents.  Steve 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * We should be careful about deleting them just because they don't have a Wikipedia entry (yet), but otherwise I agree. I'd also add that the index of any social psychology textbook would be an excellent criterion for exclusion or inclusion. --Jcbutler 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Excellent suggestion on the textbook index. And I would always say that using good faith and consideration for others when deleting is of primary importance.  If I can't find anything to support an entry (despite looking in Wikipedia, the entry itself, the talk page, or google), I make the deletion, but I put an entry on the talk page saying what I did, show the entry I deleted, and invite objections. Steve 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The last entry in the conversation above was made a year and a half ago. I assume everyone agrees that a notable social psychologist ought to have an entry in Wikipedia. Those who didn't as of a year and a half ago but who were already on this list are overdue for at least a stub to be created. Recent redlinked additions may be more suspect. I'm moving them all here in hopes that it will spur articles to be written about those who deserve to be here (I can't believe there's no article on Ed Diener!), and to resist the addition of those who don't. - Do c  t  orW  05:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Icek Ajzen
 * Alex Bavelas
 * Arne van den Bos
 * Jack Brehm
 * Hadley Cantril
 * Donal Carlston
 * Shelley Chaiken
 * Joel Cooper
 * Richard Crisp
 * Patricia Devine
 * Ed Diener
 * Gerard Duveen
 * Alice Eagly
 * Rob Farr
 * Russell Fazio
 * Dennis Fox
 * Harold B. Gerard - key figure in research on cognitive dissonance and social comparison processes
 * Alexa Hepburn
 * Chester Insko
 * Gustav Jahoda
 * Robert M. Krauss
 * Arie Kruglanski
 * Robert Levine
 * P. Marijn Poortvliet
 * Leo Postman
 * Diane Ruble
 * James Shepperd
 * John Shotter
 * Abraham Tesser
 * Fahad Turk
 * Gregory D. Webster
 * Gary Wells
 * Alvin Zander

Article Deletion
Hi everyone.

I posted the “delete” query on this page. My argument relates to the Wikipedia guideline of “what Wikipedia is not”. Specifically, Wikipedia is “not a directory”.

I did think about this more freely and generally I do not see this page as a useful resource for either lay wiki users or social psychologists. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not familiar with the field. It really does read like a completely arbitrary list of names. Or perhaps, as someone else said, a vanity list. I.e. “look whose supervisor made it onto the list of prominent social psychologists”.

If a social psychologist is prominent then a wiki user is likely to search for that psychologist (or identify them through the documentation their contribution the field of social psychology). It seems improbable that someone would simply be interested in a list of social psychologists.

As it stands I believe this article is at best a distraction. However, in place of deleting the article, I do believe that it could be augmented to become a “History of key social psychological advances” article. This would contextualise those who are mentioned for the lay reader, as well as provide some idea of what criteria we should measure social psychologists against in terms of prominence.

If however we feel a history of social psychological advances would not be beneficial as a wiki page, then again, I propose deletion.

P.S. I am aware that some other industries have done this. I do not see those as useful Wikipedia articles either.

U3964057 (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

 * It is probably more useful than a list of Transformers. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I would disagree. a) Unlike this list, lists of transformers have clear inclusion criteria as well as some other useful categorisation information. And b) transformers are heaps cooler than social psychologists. U3964057 (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of social psychologists


text:
Hillersjö stone

The Hillersjö stone, listed in the Rundata catalog as U 29 and located at Hillersjö, which is about four kilometers north of Stenhamra on Färingsö, is a runic Younger Futhark inscription that tells, in Old Norse, the tragic real life family saga of Gerlög and her daughter Inga. It is the longest runic inscription in Uppland and the second longest one in Sweden after the Rök runestone.

Description
The inscription on the Hillersjö stone, which is 2.8 by 1.0 meters, consists of runic text in the younger futhark that is carved on an intertwined serpent. The main text is written on the serpent with extraneous information, such as the fact that "Þorbjôrn Skald carved the runes," carved outside of the serpent. The inscription is classified as being carved in runestone style Pr4, which is also known as Urnes style. This runestone style is characterized by slim and stylized animals that are interwoven into tight patterns. The animal heads are typically seen in profile with slender almond-shaped eyes and upwardly curled appendages on the noses and the necks.

The runic text indicates that Gerlög married with Germund when she was very young, and they had a son who is not named. Germund drowned and the son died. Then Gerlög remarried with Gudrik and they had several children, but only one survived, who was named Inga. Inga married Ragnfast of Snottsta and they had a son who is not named. Both Ragnfast and the son died and so Inga inherited the estate Snottsta. Inga then married Eric, but both soon died without leaving any children. This meant that Gerlög inherited her daughter's property. It has been noted that the chain of inheritance documented on the Hillersjö stone, including how property passed to women through their children, is consistent with the inheritance rules later codified in the 1296 Uppland Law.

This text is completed with information from runestone U 20/U 21, where it is said that both Gudrik (Gerlög's second husband and Inga's father) and Eric (Inga's second husband) had died.

The estate Snottsta (also spelled Snåttsta) still exists. At Snottsta and the neighboring Vreta there are several other runestones that complete the saga of Inga that are called the Snottsta and Vreta stones.

The runic text begins with the imperative Rað þu! which is translated as "Interpret!" Other runestones with similar imperitive exclamations in their runic texts include U 328 in Stora Lundby and Sö 158 in Österberga. On the Hillersjö stone, Rað þu! is carved on the eye of the serpent, perhaps indicating that the stone as a record of inheritance was intended for the public.

The inscription is signed by the runemaster Þorbjôrn Skald, who also signed the runestone U 532 at Roslags-Bro. Other inscriptions have been attributed to him, including several stones signed only with "Þorbjôrn." He was likely selected as the runemaster for his composition of the Hillersjö stone's text in alliterative verse known as höjningar, a traditional style which uses half-lines characterized by two stressed and accented or rising syllables.

The Stockholm County Museum presents the story of Gerlög and Inga as a dramatic real life family saga which was documented for posterity on this runestone sometime between 1060 and 1100. Local theater associations nearby have conducted plays which recreate the rather dramatic tale of Gerlög.

title: Hillersjö stone


text:
User:John Nolan

Just found the Wikipedia entry on stable distrbutions. I made a few minor changes, then figured out how to set up a user account and added myself to the watch list for stable distributions.

title: User:John Nolan


text:
Radical Change

Radical Change (Cambio Radical; stylized with a backwards "R") is a conservative liberal political party in Colombia.

After the elections on 12 March 2006, the party became one of the most important in the new Congress, receiving 20 seats in the lower house and 15 in the upper house. Along with the Social Party of National Unity, or "Party of the U" (the largest party in the lower house and the second-largest in the upper house) and the Conservative Party, it was president Álvaro Uribe's main ally in Congress and formed part of his majority.

It is currently in opposition to the left-wing government of Gustavo Petro.

Origin
After the tenure of president Ernesto Samper (1994-1998), a faction of the Liberal Party was not happy with the new social democratic route the party was moving towards. As such, a more right-wing faction of the party split away and formed Radical Change. However, it did not run for either parliamentary or presidential elections during the 1990s. It took on its current name on July 5, 2000.

Uribe government
In the 2002 elections, the party won two seats in the Senate and seven in the chamber of representatives. The party joined a coalition with the government of Álvaro Uribe, and voted in favor of the re-electionist project; this involved changing sections of the constitution that prevent a president from running for a second term. The 2006 election was their best electoral year. They became the 4th largest political group in Congress with 15 senators and 18 representatives. They remained in coalition with the Uribe administration and supported his candidacy for re-election. German Vargas Lleras, then leader of the party and senator, became one of the Senate's most active voices.

Breakup
The biggest party in Congress (and Uribe's new U Party) proposed to change the constitution, yet again, to allow the president to run for a third term. The party was divided between those who wanted a second direct re-election for a third term and those who were against it. Vargas Lleras was among those opposed.

Although a third term was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the damage was done and those who still supported Uribe quit the party to run for Congress in the 2010 parliamentary elections with the newly-formed U party.

The party suffered big blows in 2010, losing votes and members in both chambers: seven Senators and two Representatives. Vargas Lleras then ran as the candidate in the 2010 presidential election, finishing in third place in the first round. The party then joined the first-round winner, Juan Manuel Santos, along with the Liberal Party and the Conservative party to form the "National Unity Pact" that would work together for the next four years.

National Unity Pact
The party assisted the government with most of their agenda in Congress.

When the peace talks with the FARC began, the party offered their approval and criticized then ex-President Álvaro Uribe for opposing dialogue.

In 2014, the party participated in the parliamentary elections and joined in a coalition with Santos for his reelection. Vargas Lleras was named the vice-presidential candidate. Although the party received fewer votes than in 2010, they added one senator, but lost one seat in the lower chamber. Santos won the second round of the presidential elections that year, making the vice-presidential position the highest the party had ever achieved.

title: Radical Change


text:
Team Colombia

Team Colombia (Equipo Colombia) is a conservative political party in Colombia. At the last legislative elections, held on 10 March 2002, the party won, as one of the many small parties, parliamentary representation. It joined forces with ALAS, another small party, for the 2006 legislative election. In the election of 2006, the party won 7 out of 166 deputies and 5 out of 100 senators. The two political movements joined to form ALAS-Team Colombia.

title: Team Colombia


text:
Civic People's Convergence

The Civic People's Convergence (Convergencia Popular Cívica) is a progressive political party in Colombia. At the last legislative elections, 10 March 2002, the party won as one of the many small parties parliamentary representation.

title: Civic People's Convergence


text: User talk:63.227.213.17

title: User talk:63.227.213.17


text:
Liberal Opening Movement

The Liberal Opening (Movimiento Apertura Liberal) is a liberal political party in Colombia. At the last legislative elections, 10 March 2002, the party won as one of the many small parties parliamentary representation. In the simultaneous legislative elections of 2006, the party won 5 out of 166 Deputies and no senators.

title: Liberal Opening Movement


text: User talk:129.186.159.43

title: User talk:129.186.159.43


text:
National Salvation Movement

The National Salvation Movement (Movimiento de Salvación Nacional) is a conservative political party in Colombia, founded by Alvaro Gómez Hurtado in 1990. At the legislative elections held on 10 March 2002, the party, as one of the many small parties, won parliamentary representation. In the simultaneous legislative elections of 2006, the party won 1 out of 166 Deputies and no senators, after which the party was disbanded.

After being inactive for 15 years, the party was relaunched in 2021 by Enrique Gómez Martínez, who was its presidential candidate in the 2022 Colombian presidential election.

title: National Salvation Movement


text:
People's Participation Movement

The People's Participation Movement (Movimiento de Participación Popular) is a political party in Colombia. At the legislative elections on 10 March 2002, the party won parliamentary representation as one of the many small parties. In the simultaneous legislative elections of 2006, the party won 1 out of 166 Deputies and no senators.

title: People's Participation Movement


text: User talk:65.69.172.210

title: User talk:65.69.172.210


text:
Colombia Always

The Colombia Always (Colombia Siempre) is a national conservative party in Colombia. At the legislative elections held on 10 March 2002, the party won, as one of the many small parties, parliamentary representation. Germán Vargas Lleras and Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez each won a seat in the Senate under this party.

title: Colombia Always


text:
Renovation Movement Labour Action

The Renovation Movement Labour Action (Movimiento Renovación Acción Laboral) is a political party in Colombia. At the last legislative elections, 10 March 2002, the party won as one of the many small parties parliamentary representation. In the simultaneous legislative elections of 2006, the party won 1 out of 166 Deputies and no senators.

title: Renovation Movement Labour Action


text:
National Movement (Colombia)

The National Movement (Movimiento Nacional) is a conservative political party in Colombia. At the last legislative elections, 10 March 2002, the party won as one of the many small parties parliamentary representation. In the simultaneous legislative elections of 2006, the party won 2 out of 166 Deputies and no senators.

title: National Movement (Colombia)


text:
Slalomboard

A slalomboard is a skateboard, usually 60–80 cm long, with great manoeuvring capability.

It enables the rider to brake or propel the board without touching the ground. This is achieved by correct body weight placement, together with short, intense swings (sometimes referred to as "pumping").

Slalomboards are typically used in slalom skateboard racing, where riders race through a slalom course set with plastic cones.

Slalomboards are practical as a means of city transportation since the board can easily be taken onto public transport and ridden on sidewalks.

title: Slalomboard


text: User talk:71.35.180.91

title: User talk:71.35.180.91


text:
Talk:Cadaver (computer game)

I filled in the other page "Cadaver (video game)", by following a red link on "Bitmap Brothers". Searching for "cadaver" also procuced no results. Only now searching for "Cadaver video game" actually showed the other page in the results. Oh well.

I now merged the texts, put a redirect here (since I don't know the proper policy in such a case). I wasn't sure which page to keep.. the link which made me believe no page exists yet apparently goes to the other.. so I used that.

title: Talk:Cadaver (computer game)


text: User talk:80.44.82.203

title: User talk:80.44.82.203


text:
People's Will Movement

The People's Will Movement (Movimiento Voluntad Popular) is a political party in Colombia. At the last legislative elections, 10 March 2002, the party won as one of the many small parties parliamentary representation.

title: People's Will Movement


text:
Progressive Force

The Progressive Force (Fuerza Progresista), also known as Progressive Force of Courage (Fuerza Progresista del Coraje), is a political party in Colombia.

At the 2002 parliamentary elections, the party won a single seat in the Senate and two seats in the Chamber of Representatives. It has been represented by politicians including

title: Progressive Force


text:
Citizens' Convergence

The Citizens' Convergence (Convergencia Ciudadana) was a right-wing populist political party in Colombia. At the last legislative elections, 10 March 2002, the party won as one of the many small parties parliamentary representation. In the election of 2006, the party won 8 out of 166 Deputies and 7 out of 100 senators. This party is now the National Integration Party (Colombia).

title: Citizens' Convergence


text:
Alternative Way

The Alternative Way (Vía Alterna) was a political party in Colombia founded in 1998 by Gustavo Petro and Antonio Navarro Wolff. At the 2002 parliamentary election, the party won one seat. It merged into the Independent Democratic Pole in July 2003.

title: Alternative Way


text:
Social and Political Front

The Social and Political Front (in Spanish: Frente Social y Político) or FSP was a coalition of several left wing political parties in Colombia.

It was part of the wider Democratic Alternative (AD) movement, which in 2005 joined the Independent Democratic Pole (PDI) in order to create the Alternative Democratic Pole (PDA) alliance.

Participants
Parties or sections affiliated included the Colombian Communist Party, Present for Socialism, Movement for the Defense of the Rights of the People (MODEP), members of the Patriotic Union, and several union organizations.

Political Development
At the 2002-03-10 legislative elections, the party won parliamentary representation as one of the many small parties which participated.

Carlos Gaviria, a Colombian senator and former Colombian Constitutional Court magistrate who was also a member of the FSP, was chosen as Democratic Alternative's presidential pre-candidate.

In March 2006, the AD and the PDI subsequently decided on a common candidate for that year's May 28 elections, choosing Carlos Gaviria over the PDI's Antonio Navarro.

title: Social and Political Front


text:
Rubidium hydroxide

Rubidium hydroxide  is the inorganic compound with the formula RbOH. It consists of rubidium cations and an equal number of hydroxide anions. It is a colorless solid that is commercially available as aqueous solutions from a few suppliers. Like other strong bases, rubidium hydroxide is highly caustic. Rubidium hydroxide is formed when rubidium metal reacts with water.

Uses
Rubidium hydroxide is rarely used in industrial processes because potassium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide can perform nearly all the same functions of rubidium hydroxide. Metal oxide catalysts are sometimes modified with rubidium hydroxide.

title: Rubidium hydroxide


text:
Democratic Progressivity

Democratic Progressivity (Progresismo Democrático) is a political party in Colombia. At the last legislative elections, 10 March 2002, the party won as one of the many small parties parliamentary representation.

title: Democratic Progressivity


text:
Republican Movement (Colombia)

The Republican Movement (Movimiento Republicano) is a political party in Colombia. At the last legislative elections, 10 March 2002, the party won as one of the many small parties parliamentary representation.

title: Republican Movement (Colombia)


text:
Independent Conservatism

Independent Conservatism (Conservatismo Independiente) is a conservative political party in Colombia. At the legislative election held on 10 March 2002, the party won parliamentary representation as one of the many small parties. In the election of 2006, the party won no seats.

title: Independent Conservatism