text:
Michael Hill

Michael Hill may refer to:

 * Michael Hill (bishop) (born 1949), Bishop of Bristol
 * Michael Hill (1672–1699), MP in England and Ireland
 * Michael Hill (diplomat), administrator of Ascension Island
 * Michael Hill (entrepreneur) (born 1938), New Zealand jeweller, businessman and philanthropist
 * Michael Hill Jeweller, the company
 * Michael Hill (activist) (born 1951), leader of the League of the South, a separatist organization in the Southern United States
 * Michael Hill, leader of the American blues trio, Michael Hill's Blues Mob

Sports

 * Michael Hill (tennis) (born 1974), former tennis player winner of 3 ATP doubles titles
 * Michael Hill (baseball) (born 1971), general manager of the Miami Marlins
 * Michael Hill (cricketer, born 1945) (born 1945), Australian cricketer
 * Michael Hill (cricketer, born 1988) (born 1988), Australian cricketer
 * Michael Hill (English cricketer) (born 1951), retired English cricketer
 * Michael Hill (American football) (born 1989), American football running back

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

title: Michael Hill


text:
Alla Amidas

Alla Amidas (c. 540) was a king of the Kingdom of Aksum. He is primarily known from the coins minted during his reign.

Based on die-links between the coins of Alla Amidas and Kaleb, Stuart Munro-Hay suggests that the two kings were co-rulers. Alla Amidas possibly ruled the Aksumite territories on the western side of the Red Sea, while Kaleb was campaigning in the east in Southern Arabia.

Some Ethiopian chroniclers claimed that it was during the reign of Alla Amidas that the Nine Saints came to Ethiopia.

Coinage
Only gold coins bearing the name of Alla Amidas are known. These comprise one type with crowned and draped right-facing profile with a crown between two stalks of wheat within a circle on the obverse, and a right-facing profile with a head-cloth on the reverse; the legend on the obverse is his name in Greek ("AΛΛΑΑΜΙΔΑΣ"), and legend on the reverse is his title "King". A similar type where the name has been read in the past as "Allamiruis" ("ΑΛΛΑΜΙΡΥΙΣ") is now attributed to him.

Because no silver or copper coins are known bearing his name, and no gold coins bearing the name of Armah are known, expert consensus has identified the two as the same king, "Alla Amidas" being his throne name while "Armah" was his personal name.

title: Alla Amidas


text:
1994 in archaeology

The year 1994 in archaeology involved some significant events.

Excavations

 * National Institute of Anthropology and History excavations at Maya site of Chacchoben begin
 * Ruth Shady's work on the Norte Chico civilization site at Caral in Peru begins
 * Martin Carver's excavations of an early medieval Pictish monastery at Portmahomack, Scotland, begin
 * Jeffrey P. Brain begins work on the Popham Colony

Publications

 * Alan K. Bowman – Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier: Vindolanda and its People (British Museum).
 * Marc Bermann – Lukurmata: Household Archaeology in Prehispanic Bolivia (Princeton University Press).
 * Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza – The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton University Press).
 * Gillian Hutchinson – Medieval Ships and Shipping (Leicester University Press).
 * Naomi F. Miller and Kathryn L. Gleason (ed.) – The Archaeology of Garden and Field (University of Pennsylvania Press).
 * John Schofield and Alan Vince – Medieval Towns (Leicester University Press).

Finds

 * 26 June – British submarine HMS Vandal, lost on sea trials in 1943, is rediscovered in the Sound of Bute off the west coast of Scotland.
 * Late – Marine archaeologists led by Jean-Yves Empereur find remains of the Lighthouse of Alexandria in Egypt.
 * December
 * Spotted horses and human hands, Pech Merle cave, Dordogne, France (painted c. 16000 BC).
 * Wall painting with horses, rhinoceroses and aurochs, Chauvet Cave, Vallon-Pont-d'Arc, Ardèche Gorges, France (made c. 25,000–17,000 BC).
 * Kafkania pebble.
 * Moroccan gold coins and jewellery discovered at Salcombe Cannon Wreck site off the coast of south-west England.
 * Diver Colin Martin discovers the wreck of the Hanover (built 1757) off the coast of Cornwall.
 * Sannai-Maruyama Site discovered at Aomori, northern Honshu, Japan (mainly of Jōmon period).
 * Recovery of Homo antecessor skeletal remains from the Trinchera Dolina at the archaeological site of Atapuerca in northern Spain begins; these are the oldest known hominid fossils found in western Europe (between 850,000 and 780,000 years old).
 * 'Ardi', the fossilized skeletal remains of a female Ardipithecus ramidus, discovered at Aramis, Ethiopia, in the Afar Depression, the oldest known hominid fossil (4.4 million years old).
 * First of the Schöningen spears.

Other events

 * 16 January – British archaeological television series Time Team first shown on Channel 4.
 * 12 March – Kabul Museum building hit by rocket fire and destroyed.
 * ASPRO chronology published.
 * The British Library acquires the Kharosti scrolls, the oldest collection of Buddhist manuscripts in the world.

Deaths

 * 10 March – Rupert Bruce-Mitford, English archaeologist (b. 1914)
 * 27 March – Elisabeth Schmid, German archaeologist and osteologist (b. 1912)
 * 8 September – Margaret Guido, English archaeologist (b. 1912)
 * 10 October – Richard J. C. Atkinson, English archaeologist and prehistorian (b. 1920)

title: 1994 in archaeology


text: User talk:70.28.106.42

title: User talk:70.28.106.42


text:
NWA Southeastern Heavyweight Championship (Northern Division)

The NWA Southeastern Heavyweight Championship (Northern Division) was a major title in the NWA's Alabama territory known as Southeastern Championship Wrestling. It existed from 1972 until 1988 when the promotion became the Continental Wrestling Federation. This title had two divisions of it, the "Northern Division" and the "Southern Division", with the Northern Division being the predominant one. The Southern Division was the continuation of the NWA Gulf Coast Heavyweight Championship. Please see that title history for the Southern Division title history.


text:
WDBK

WDBK (91.5 FM) is the radio station of Camden County College, serving the campus and wider Camden County community since 1977. WDBK is a 100-watt, non-commercial radio station broadcasting at 91.5 FM from the school's Blackwood studios.

title: WDBK


text:
Bev Brentnall

Beverley Anne Brentnall (born 21 February 1936) is a New Zealand former cricketer who played as a wicket-keeper. She appeared in 10 Test matches and 5 One Day Internationals for New Zealand between 1966 and 1973. She was New Zealand's first ODI captain, leading them at the 1973 World Cup. Three of the five ODIs in which Brentnall captained were won by her team. She played domestic cricket for North Shore, as well as playing three matches for Middlesex in 1964 and playing in South Africa in the 1970s, including for Southern Transvaal.

Career highlights
1966 tour to England. Conceded only 1 bye in the 3 Test series. Scored 84 not out, 2nd Test, 2nd innings at Edgbaston.

1969 v England at Auckland. 5 dismissals in an innings (3c 2st).

1972 v South Africa at Johannesburg. 6 dismissals in an innings (2c 4st).

title: Bev Brentnall


text:
Talk:History of the United States/Archive 3

CJK
Myself and 172 seem to dispute two paragraphs in the "The End of the Cold War" section. I have a number of objections to the way this is worded. First of all it asserts that the U.S. had "hegemony" in Europe due the Cold War but lost it at the end, but "revitalized" it because it wanted to remain at the top which it was "used to". If not ambiguous, this is POV.
 * No, it does not. That's an over-simplification and a strawman. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I realize that the US influenced Western Europe against communism, but this is no way "hegemony" or economic/political dominance.
 * I am a professional historian and I am engaged with all of the latest social science literature on the subject. The term is used in the context in which it is used in the said paragraph by scholars in just about every school of thought on international relations in a value-neutral sense. I suggest that you do not pursue this argument, as it will take us nowhere and just squander too much of our time. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So you can pursue the arguement and not me? I'm sorry if I attempted to shake your all-knowing status as a "professional historian" CJK 20 July 2005
 * Go do some reading. Start by going to a university library and doing a search in Jstor, a database of scholarly journal articles, and serching for "hegemony" to get a sense of how the term is used in a value-neutral sense in history and its sister social sciences. If you are unwilling to take the time to do the necessary reading, an argument from ignorance is not going to suffice to remove factual information. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Hegemony: "leadership or predominant influence when exercised by one state over another."

 * You said that US "hegemony" gave it political and economic benefit in Europe, I do not see it. Western European states controlled their own policies. CJK 20 July 2005
 * Yes, they do. But keep in mind how NATO is structured and the difficulties in formulating a common foreign policy for Europe. 172 | Talk 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But you said POLITICAL and ECONOMIC not foreign policy. CJK 20 July 2005
 * They're all related. History does not occur in a vacuum. 172 | Talk 23:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay...tell me how exactly NATO influences European politics and economy....CJK 20 July 2005
 * Promoting North Atlantic integration, shaping priorities of defense industries, shaping ties with Russia... Really you should do some reading on this topic. I don't see why it's my job to do your homework. 172 | Talk 00:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is all foreign policy, not internal politics or economics. CJK 20 July 2005
 * Foreign policy affects internal politics and economics, and vice versa. It's pointless to discuss these things in a vacuum. 172 | Talk 01:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but I don't see the US getting benefits from it... CJK 21 July 2005
 * The issue is why history unfolds the way it unfolds. "Benefits" are beyond the point. 172 | Talk 15:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If its beyond the point why did you say:
 * "This status provided major political and economic benefits; to perpetuate the role and interests in the international system stated above"CJK 21 July 2005
 * Yes, we are talking about the liberal international system envisaged before the close of World War II by the Atlantic Charter. Please do some more background reading on U.S. history if any of this is unfamiliar to you. 172 | Talk 16:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Its very unclear what you are saying. European politicians opposed the US on a number of issues during the Cold War. And I'm still waiting to see how the US got rich off of Europe. CJK 21 July 2005
 * The article is not making the crude point that the 'U.S. got rich off Europe.' It is making the point that the U.S. depends on its relationship with Europe, which is indisputable considering the volume of trade with Western European countries. The U.S. is not an autarky. Even the world's most closed economy, North Korea, depends on trade and international reserves to one degree or another. 172 | Talk 16:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Then why do you insist the US got "economic benefits"? CJK 21 July 2005
 * Keep in mind the Great Depression, when the breakdown of the international system-- the proliferation of exchange controls and trade barriers-- led to global economic disaster. Without political and economic cooperation with the leading G8 and OECD economies, the U.S. economy would collapse, and in that sense the Trans-Atlantic alliance comes with "economic benefits" to both the U.S. and Europe. This does not imply that the relationship is exploitative. That's just the way the world works; not to resort to cliche, but we live in a global economy. 172 | Talk 16:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But you insist US "hegemony" caused this. CJK 21 July 2005
 * No, I am not. But the role of the U.S. as the world's economic and military superpower is an essential pillar of the international system which no one can deny; keep in mind that if the U.S. economy collapses, the world economy collapses. Keep in mind how devastating the Great Depression in the U.S. for countries around the globe that depended on U.S. prosperity for their own economic health. 172 | Talk 17:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes but again these are benefits that could occur whether or not the US had "hegemony". I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. CJK 21 July 2005
 * No, we are dealing with the real world, not a hypothetical one. At any rate, these edits should clear up the confusion. 172 | Talk 18:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * See these changes; they clear up this confusion. 172 | Talk 18:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your changes don't change your POV about the US "growing used to being a world power" and wanting to "reinforce" it. You've have also gone and changed hegemony to "political influence" while still implying the US wanted to keep the influence going. CJK 21 July 2005
 * This isn't my POV. This is just the reality of the 1990s. Do some reading on the Washington Consensus and NATO expansion. 172 | Talk 19:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

On the point about the US is scheming to "re-assert" its dominance on the world is also POV even if you ignore the fact there was nothing to "re-assert" since it was already asserted.
 * The article is making reference to broad structural realities and institutional interests. The paragraph does not imply that anyone is "scheming" to do anything. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * More ambiguous statements and even less clarity. It says specifically:

 * "The United States, however, had grown dependent on its position as the world's dominant power established during the Second World War and the central importance of U.S. hegemony in Europe. This status provided major political and economic benefits; and to perpetuate the role and interests in the international system stated above, the United States has sought to reassert its power through a revitalization of the Cold War institutional structures, especially NATO."

 * which implies the US wanted to re-assert and along with the other statements implies scheming for corporations. CJK 20 July 2005
 * No it does not. And to deny is that the U.S. does not have economic interests is such an obtuse assertion that it borders on being comical. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To many people it would. And yes, the US has economic interests. CJK 20 July 2005
 * We can ignore those people. All countries promote the interest of certain corporations, even Communist countries with the state monopolies. Pointing out a major agent in history is by no means a criticism of anything. 172 | Talk 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to "re-assert" as the US was already a world power. CJK 21 July 2005
 * Read the Huntington article. That's the source. 172 | Talk 15:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't care what source you used. You can't "re-assert" something that's already disputed.
 * Nothing is disputed. The article is describing how the U.S. reinforced Cold War era institutional structures like NATO following the end of the Cold War. 172 | Talk 16:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You said "re-asserted" not "reinforced" and in any case both descriptions defy reality. CJK 21 July 2005
 * Perhaps you are too young to remember, but there was a huge debate after the "fall of the Berlin Wall" about whether or not NATO and even the Trans-Atlantic Alliance on a broader level were still relevant in the new international order. You seem like a young guy, and perhaps you do not have too much experience taking history courses. You will read to learn how to do research to verify information that you find unfamiliar, rather than assuming that what you do know did not happen. 172 | Talk 16:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You said specifically "re-asserted" and gave a list of examples. Keeping NATO is not "re-asserting". NATO was already there. And exactly how was it "reinforced"? CJK 21 July 2005
 * For one, NATO was not dismantled but expanded. NATO was also called in to combat for the first time since its inception after the Cold War when intervening in the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia. BTW, if the word "reassert" bothers you so much-- I have no idea why-- I will change it to "reinforce," as it hardly matters one way or another. 172 | Talk 16:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How exactly was NATO "expanded" beyond the adding of certain countries? It intervened in Yugoslavia after the Cold War but that hardly counts as the continuation of US "hegemony". CJK 21 July 2005
 * The proposals themselves were called NATO expansion. See for yourself by going to a university library and logging onto Jstor, an online database of articles in academic journals, and doing a search for "NATO expansion," which will cover the expansion of NATO into the 1990s. BTW, "hegemony" does not imply anything "bad." It is a value-neutral social science term akin to calling the U.S. the world's sole superpower, which no one denies. In fact, many would consider this something to be proud of, and even a status that ought to be bolstered in the interests of global prosperity and democracy.  172 | Talk 17:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But many NATO nations cut funding for their militaries so this is misleading. And I am offended by the use of "hegemony" at least in the economic sense.CJK 21 July 2005
 * I saw your userpage and read about your concerns with "anti-Americanism." The term "hegemony" is not "anti-American." It is a value-neutral social science term. Granted it has been adopted by some left-wing propagandists to cloak their agenda with the academic credibility of the research using this term when in fact their work has no credibility, but the fact that some idiots misuse terms like "hegemony," "neoliberalism," "liberalism," "socialism," "capitalism," etc., is no reason to take important vocabulary out of the lexicon of historiography and social research. 172 | Talk 17:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Military hegemony in Europe would be fine, but political and economic not. The way it is worded would suggest that the US was power-hungry in Europe. CJK 21 July 2005

Its claimed that the US "pressures" other countries for economic reasons--also POV. I don't see a blatant example that the US applied pressure to certain (presumably Middle East States) if the corporations didn't get their way (after 1988).
 * Look up Washington Consensus, and, no, we are mainly not talking about the Middle East. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * What do you mean we're not talking about the Mid East? What other area does the US "pressure" for corporate gain? CJK 20 July 2005
 * No one is saying that the U.S. pressures areas for corporate gain. Do not expect a serious answer from my part if you are going to throw loaded rhetorical questions at me. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You specifically said the US applies pressure to those who don't follow their policies:

 * "pressure other countries to adopt economic policies and social policies that will benefit U.S. interests" CJK 20 July 2005

And since when does "free market" automatically mean that the US is getting rich off of foreign nations?
 * This is a rhetorical question unrelated to the text that is not worth responding to. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "promote U.S. corporate interests by supporting policies of "free trade" and "open markets";"

 * Sure it's unrelated... CJK 20 July 2005

 * So are you saying that free trade has nothing to do with corporate interests? One would hope not. A country would not fair too well if its economic policy-makers did not consider the interests of its industries and consumers. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No...you said that "free trade" benefited America. CJK 20 July 2005
 * I would hope that that was the goal of the first Bush and Clinton administrations, as opposed to "hurting America." 172 | Talk 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * More rhetoric. It didn't necessarily hurt or help'' America. CJK 20 July 2005

And then it goes on to say that America enforces its laws outside of the country which is so POV I don't think I can convince anyone who believes it to change their mind.
 * No, the paragraph is not implying that. You are failing to understand the concept of extraterritoriality in international relations. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I assume "extraterritoriality" to mean outside of the nations territory.CJK 20 July 2005
 * Stop assuming and do some reading on the concept in international relations. Copyright laws are perhaps the most notable example these days. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So the US is going to send commandos to arrest whoever breaks their copyright laws? CJK 20 July 2005
 * Very funny. Are you familiar with the concept of soft power? Protection of copyright laws come up in trade summits, consideration of aid, even in sanctions. 172 | Talk 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * These are international laws, not American laws which you said in the article. CJK 20 July 2005
 * Who shapes "international laws?" Nation-states, including the U.S. They do not manifest from up high without reference to nations. 172 | Talk 23:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But you said the US enforces its own laws outside the country. CJK 20 July 2005
 * No, I did not. Reread the sentence and do some background reading on the concept of extraterritoriality. 172 | Talk 23:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "...enforce U.S. law extraterritorially in other societies". I think it is fairly clear. CJK 20 July 2005
 * Yes, it is fairly clear-- the U.S. signs treaties with other coutries that make agreements on extraterritorially of certain laws and the U.S. expects that they are lived up to. Again, the citation is Huntington. Do you dispute the accuracy in his work? 172 | Talk 00:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But those are INTERNATIONAL LAWS not regular US laws. CJK 20 July 2005
 * Under extraterritorially, something or someone is considered by international law (treaty) to be under the legal jurisdiction of the home country, so there is a relationship. Huntington did not make a mistake in the passage that has been cited. 172 | Talk 01:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute... what country is under legal juridiction of the US? CJK 21 July 2005
 * Have you read about the concept of extraterritoriality yet? If my answers don't suffice, see Huntington. 172 | Talk 15:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Extraterritoriality: "The exercise of political rights by a foreign power within a state having its own government."
 * And the US does not exercise its own laws in other nations. This should be re-worded as "international agreements".
 * Extraterritoriality means agreements to hold certain matters and individuals under the laws of one country in a foreign country. Again, this is mentioned in the context of the Huntington quotation and he was not making a mistake in the way he was using the term. 172 | Talk 16:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How can this be "enforced"? And again, if this was an agreement it should be called "international" not US. Maybe the US proposed it, but certainly didn't "enforce" it on any country they felt like it. CJK 21 July 2005
 * It is "enforced" in the sense that if the U.S. does not feel that agreements in treaties have been lived up to, it can retaliate by enacting (say) trade restrictions or sanctions, suspending aid or loans, and the like. 172 | Talk 16:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * These treaties were established by INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT. The US Congress just didn't make them up without consulting the nation in question. CJK 21 July 2005
 * Huntington's passage does not imply that the U.S. made them without consulting the nation in question. Whenever the term "extraterritoriality" is used, it is implied that an agreement has already been made, otherwise there would be no extraterritoriality. Huntington's passage makes reference to enforcing agreements that have already been made. If this is unclear to someone, he is probably unfamiliar with the concept; but that's no problem, he can just click on the link to extraterritoriality. 172 | Talk 17:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You worded the phrase to say enforce US laws, not agreements between nations. CJK 21 July 2005
 * Yes, yes, yes, and yes. See to it that U.S. laws granted extraterritoriality are enforced. Huntington is one of the world's leading experts on this subject. You weren't familiar with the term until a day ago. It was not Huntington who was making the mistake here. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you misunderstood something. No one is expected to be all-knowing. 172 | Talk 18:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally there are quotes around some policies the US promotes which creates the impression that they're all a facade to hide "corporate interests" which seem to blamed on everthing these days. I hope a compropmise can be reached, even though I doubt it. CJK 20 July 2005
 * The quotations belong where they are placed because the article is making reference to terms used by policy-makers and terms that made their way into the popular lexicon. You are failing to understand a simple function of quotations. 172 | Talk 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Then please put quotes around corporate interests and economic benefits as well. CJK 20 July 2005
 * No. Clinton, e.g., made a big campaign for "free trade" with NAFTA and GATT. No one made a campaign under the banner of "corporate interests," so there is nothing worth quoting. 172 | Talk 21:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Then say so instead if you're putting it in quotes. And stuff like "free trade" doesn't have to be stated as a campaign statement, it can be stated as a fact. CJK 20 July 2005
 * It's standard practice to put slogans in quotations. I have no idea why this is bothering you. Grammar is not an anti-U.S. conspiracy. 172 | Talk 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Then please say who said them and remember that they don't have to be campaign slogans as many are factual. CJK 20 July 2005
 * Every administration makes reference to U.S. standards on human rights. NAFTA, GATT, and WTO were also campaigns for free trade. At any rate, this is a moot point since I took these terms out of quotations, despite the fact it was wrong, just so that I don't have to put up with the squabbling any longer. 172 | Talk 23:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll take a look at this later, but my feeling is that the derisory language and punctuation can be altered to reflect the substance of the passage without the condescending and hostile tone. It would also seem to me that the reliance on Huntington is simply giving a more respectable face for whatever interpretations of the author, when Huntington's criticisms come in the context of a "realist" perspective on Clintonian foreign policy before anything.  --TJive 20:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, watch the reverts, CJK. In fact, I'd advise against another one simply because your first edits could be construed as a revert in a conveniently strict interpretation of the term.  They don't fail to notice.  --TJive 20:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Huntington
I just finished reading the actual article in question, and not only is Mr. Huntington being misrepresented, he is being plagiarized.
 * Absurd. He is properly cited. 172 | Talk 22:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Huntington's basis thesis is that for a brief period while the Cold War was winding up the world entered a unipolar state where the US could assert its policy with a bare minimum of resistance, but this time quickly passed in favor of a "uni-multipolar" world where the US attempts to set the agenda and regional powers undermine it without taking a formal step towards coalescing against the strongest power. He implicitly and explicitly recommends reassessing US policy the better to focus on key national interests rather than attempting to universalize American values, giving nods to Brzezinski and the Bismarckian tradition. With respect to realistic advice for American foreign policy this is not only not representative of neo-conservatism but the furthest thing from it.
 * Few living scholars have written so much on such a diverse range of topics as Huntington. So reading a few paragraphs in one article by him will not tell you much about him. I am not calling him a neoconservative, as he is very hard to pigeonhole, but it is a correct statement that he has been described as such by some, particularly in the 1980s when he supported many aspects of Reagan's foreign policy. 172 | Talk 22:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Reagan has very little to do with the topic, or the meaning of "neo-conservatism" today, which is taken to mean precisely the opposite of what Huntington here writes. --TJive 22:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Now, take this paragraph from the contested passage;

 * To reassert its status in the post-Cold War world, the United States has attempted or been perceived as attempting more or less unilaterally to do the following: pressure other countries to adopt U.S. values and practices regarding neoliberal economic policy and "human rights"; promote U.S. corporate interests by supporting policies of "free trade" and "open markets"; shape International Monetary Fund and World Bank policies to serve those interests; pressure other countries to adopt economic policies and social policies that will benefit U.S. interests; intervene in local conflicts in which it has little direct interest on the surface; grade countries according to their adherence to U.S. standards on "free markets," "terrorism," "human rights," drugs, and weapons proliferation; enforce U.S. law extraterritorially in other societies; apply sanctions against countries that do not meet U.S. standards on these issues; prevent other countries from acquiring military capabilities that could counter U.S. conventional superiority; promote the interests of U.S. arms producers such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, abroad while attempting to prevent comparable sales by other countries; expand NATO to the borders of the former Soviet Union; force out one United Nations Secretary-General and dictate the appointment of his successor; categorize certain countries as "rogue states," excluding them from international institutions because of their strained relations with Washington; and undertake military action against Iraq and later maintain harsh economic sanctions against the government of Saddam Hussein.

As well as this from Huntington:

 * American foreign policy is in considerable measure driven by such beliefs. In the past few years the United States has, among other things, attempted or been perceived as attempting more or less unilaterally to do the following: pressure other countries to adopt American values and practices regarding human rights and democracy; prevent other countries from acquiring military capabilities that could counter American conventional superiority; enforce American law extraterritorially in other societies; grade countries according to their adherence to American standards on human rights, drugs, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, missile proliferation, and now religious freedom; apply sanctions against countries that do not meet American standards on these issues; promote American corporate interests under the slogans of free trade and open markets; shape World Bank and International Monetary Fund policies to serve those same corporate interests; intervene in local conflicts in which it has relatively little direct interest; bludgeon other countries to adopt economic policies and social policies that will benefit American economic interests; promote American arms sales abroad while attempting to prevent comparable sales by other countries; force out one U.N. secretary-general and dictate the appointment of his successor; expand NATO initially to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic and no one else; undertake military action against Iraq and later maintain harsh economic sanctions against the regime; and categorize certain countries as "rogue states," excluding them from global institutions because they refuse to kowtow to American wishes.

Rather than deferring to Huntington as the author of what the US has "attempted or been perceived as attempting....to do", the selection merely copies his assertions with the derisory addition of quotes to the phrases "free markets", "human rights", and "terrorism" which attempts to legitimate the theft of content in its selectivity of direct attribution. This seems rather unacceptable to me, so I have attempted to compromise the wording which takes into account all views and gives explicit reference. --TJive 22:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * hah, i didn't even know Huntington had a passage that was almost identical in style. i do think that section needs to be reworked. my past edits may've simplified it too much, but i felt that whatever facts were in the current version, it just seemed to have a negative tone when i read it. J. Parker Stone 22:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, see No original research. We are supposed to defer to authors like Huntington, not to Wikipedia editors. And see my response concerning the quotations to CJK. 172 | Talk 22:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, go through the list and you will not be able to dispute the factual accuracy of any of the content. Attacking Huntington while providing no alternative sources disputing any of the factual claims shows us nothing. 172 | Talk 22:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * ''Tjive, the section now lost its focus. This is not the "end of the Cold War" section in the Cold War series, but in recent **U.S. history** Restoring version that keeps the U.S. at center focus.

 * 172, that is a rather pitiful defense of a section that is nearly copied verbatim from one particular commentator. Every single event that is referenced in my version places it in context to American history. That section is called, "The end of the Cold War", so it should explain what transpired, as well as how it relates to US history, and the implications. Mine very much does so.
 * He is properly cited, which is what we are supposed to do on Wikipedia. Replacing a version with a solid reference with one without one is no way to improve an article. 172 | Talk 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * We are supposed to defer to authors like Huntington, not to Wikipedia editors.

 * Which is why I said, "[r]ather than deferring to Huntington...." implying that you did not.
 * Well, then I should have ignored your finger-pointing... What particular factual problems do you have with any of the content in the list? At least CJK was willing to work toward verifying the information. 172 | Talk 23:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * And see my response concerning the quotations to CJK.

 * Your response contains no mention of the fact that the only quotations are for derisory purposes over certain terms, rather than the substance of the paragraph, lifted almost directly from Huntington.
 * Encyclopedias give less room for stylistic leeway than articles published in academic journals. In encyclopedias policy slogans like "human rights" or "free trade" belong in quotations. 172 | Talk 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Attacking Huntington

 * I never attacked Huntington. I have great respect for him.  --TJive 22:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. Then what's the reason not to cite him? 172 | Talk 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain how lifting an entire paragraph with minor differences without direct attribution of the text constitutes "citing". If you were to "cite" Huntington then you would either quote him or outline his argument.  The only thing you are "citing" are, conveniently, terms like "human rights" and "free trade", which happens to coincide with delegitimizing their usage as "slogans" (which he does not explicitly reference to in the same particular instances).  --TJive 23:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that what's bothering you? You think that putting something in quotations is delegitimizes it as a slogan? It does not. But frankly, if it bothers you so much I'll take them out of quotations, even though I know it's wrong. 172 | Talk 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's also "bothering" me that you find no problems with the plagiarization of Huntington. Do you really find the usage of his material here appropriate?  --TJive 23:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * He is perhaps the world's most widely cited living political scientist. The text is attributed to him, so it is fine. 172 | Talk 23:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The text is not "attributed to him", here is merely listed in a footnote which implies him as a source for the substance of the content. It is most certainly not okay to copy an author's text, alter it in minor ways, and plop it here with a footnote and no explanation.  --TJive 23:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe there was an explantion, but it could have been lost over the course of many reversions. These things are sometimes very hard to follow on Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 23:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I would also like you to take a legitimate look at my material rather than the brief summary revert you engaged in. Not only does it more specifically reference instances that have been evaluated in these terms but it most certainly is not anything but a contextualizing of US policy in regards to the subsection, "The end of the Cold War". What is wrong with it? --TJive 23:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I did look through it closely, and found the previous version better. The article lost its focus on broad structural considerations in the international system and started darting from one topic after another, failing to see connections to international politics and economics. 172 | Talk 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My version was posted for about five minutes before it was already reverted. That is barely enough time to verify the factual accuracy of referenced events.
 * The only substantial difference between the two is that my version does not briefly recount history as an instance to Huntington's synthetical analysis. Rather than "darting" (in a manner as, say, having the Cold War end, going to a Bush speech after Saddam invaded Kuwait, going back to the cold war, ending it again, and then restarting the Gulf War), the version I posted makes more sense from the events.  --TJive 23:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Five minutes is sufficient time for me to compare versions. I have been doing this for a living before most Wikipedia editors were born, so that doesn't seem like a fast pace at all for me... And I would disagree. The section is on the U.S. in the post-Cold War era, and the new revision is not tracing U.S. policy along changing international political and economic structures. 172 | Talk 23:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

TJive, here you go. It's wrong, meaning the Wikipedia has no adopted these policy paradigms inself, rather than just reporting them. But I am willing to make this change to stop this squabbling here. 172 | Talk 23:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

stuff like human rights and free trade have definitions, they're more than just slogans even if presidents utilize them that way. J. Parker Stone 23:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but we're not in Plato's world of ideal forms. We are making reference to the policies of presidents, not the definitions. 172 | Talk 23:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * 172, I have just as much a problem with the casual reference to "free trade" and "human rights" as to "hegemony" or, say, "social justice", but Wikipedia defers to definition over scare quotes and your previously attempted explanation of attributing these terms to Huntington is fallacious as Huntington himself did not deride all of these as slogans, merely "free trade" and "open markets"; and, as I have essentially repeated a few times now, it is an instance of attributing a small amount of quotation where the substance of entire paragraph has actually been lifted. --TJive 23:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, I dropped this point and removed all quotations from this paragraph. I've already had all I can take about quotations for tonight. 172 | Talk 23:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

172, I'm sorry that I have to harp on the point but you have been, at best, incredibly misleading here. I have just gone through the history of this article, locating the insertion of the paragraph in question as well as its footnote. You are the one that put in the paragraph, here, on October 12, 2004, with no footnote. This is how it read:

 * To reassert its status in the post-Cold War world, the United States has attempted or been perceived as attempting more or less unilaterally to do the following: pressure other countries to adopt U.S. values and practices regarding neoliberal economic policy and "human rights;" promote U.S. corporate interests under the catchphrases of free trade and open markets; shape International Monetary Fund and World Bank policies to serve those interests; pressure other countries to adopt economic policies and social policies that will benefit U.S. interests; intervene in local conflicts in which it has little direct interest on the surface; grade countries according to their adherence to U.S. standards on "free markets", "terrorism," "human rights," drugs, and weapons proliferation; enforce U.S. law extraterritorially in other societies; apply sanctions against countries that do not meet U.S. standards on these issues; prevent other countries from acquiring military capabilities that could counter U.S. conventional superiority; promote the interests of U.S. arms producers such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, abroad while attempting to prevent comparable sales by other countries; expand NATO to the borders of the former Soviet Union; force out one U.N. secretary-general and dictate the appointment of his successor; categorize certain countries as "rogue states," excluding them from international institutions because they refuse to grovel before their wishes; and undertake military action against Iraq and later maintain harsh economic sanctions against the government of Saddam Hussein.

In apparent deference to Huntington's actual text, you did not initially even feel the need to put quotes over "free trade" and "open markets" but you later did. Only on the 30th of October, during a series of reverts with "User:Neo-Comm", did you finally even provide a footnote that mentioned Huntington, which had remained completely intact from its original form until just today.

Now, this is the objection you still claim to my wording of the particular subsection.

''The section is on the U.S. in the post-Cold War era, and the new revision is not tracing U.S. policy along changing international political and economic structures.

This article is about the "[h]istory of the United States (1988-present)", it is not about "international political and economic structures". It is also not about minute differences in the substance and rationale of foreign policy. It is supposed to be a general reading of US history. However, I rewrote the period of "[t]he end of the Cold War" allowing for Huntington's synthetical analysis to be made, but with specific historical events that are only indirectly being alluded to in passing. For instance, it mentions "hegemony" over allies but doesn't mention specific countries where the US was involved and how. Not only did my rewrite put the end Cold War events in proper chronological order but it more clearly explains the course of how foreign policy changes were set into motion. Rather than a plagiarized laundry list (which needs removed in any case) I believe this is a much better model to work off of. --TJive 00:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress for non-commerical use. Unintentional errors might have been made in the pervious version, but this has no bearing on the current version of the article. The current version, with a footnote stating that the sentence is adapted from Huntington's article is one possibility, or a direct quote is another. Either of those two options are superior to your version for general U.S. history, as international political and economic structures relly are relevant in a section specifically dealing with the role of the U.S. on the international stage. 172 | Talk 00:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * ''The current version, with a footnote stating that the sentence is adapted from Huntington's article

 * No, it states that the sentence is "taken from" the article, which is inaccurate and were it so it should appear as a quotation.

 * It appears that you are simply going to rely on arguments implicitly constructed on my behalf rather than engage my comments directly, and simply repeat that your content (well, not your content) is superior. "[I]nternational political and economic structures relly [sic] are relevant...."  Well sure; can you point out where I said they weren't?

 * However, as I must repeat in yet another fashion with yet more prose, this is not an article about "international political and economic structures"; it is about the "[h]istory of the United States (1988-present)". It should only mention "international political and economic structures" insofar as they are contextually important to a relay of history.  I did not delete any reference to "international political and economic structures"; I amplified examples of where they are relevant to U.S. history.  So what is at dispute here is whether we recount this history or whether we simply talk about Huntington's views on U.S. hegemony.

 * Allow me to make another point I failed to previously. The wording before your second to last edit stated the following:

 * ''During the Cold War, the purported "threat" of communism served to legitimate U.S. hegemony over Western Europe and other capitalist states.

 * Beyond the point of what "capitalist states" the US is exercising "hegemony" over, this is a clear instance where quotation marks are serving a derisory purpose in regard to communism and its "threat"; this, of course, does not appear in Huntington, the authority we rely on, who argues that the Cold War was a period where two great powers existed in a bipolar arrangement where one power intended for its hegemony to trump the other. There is no "Soviet hegemony" mentioned in this article; instead, we have the analysis of a Wiki editor who transfers this into a "purported "threat" of communism" where there is no relevant text in which "threat" appears.  You delete this in a rather recalcitrant edit, "wrong but I'll do it anyway."  So, the point on derision is rather not incidental.  --TJive 01:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Now the text appears as a direct quotation. The issue is now settled, unless you want to deny the reality of any of the facts mentioned in the list. BTW, I've never run across any two people so offended by quotations. "Treat" was in quotations because many were calling it that in popular discourse. 172 | Talk 01:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe a direct quotation is better in this case, though it is very long. Anyhow, extraterritorially is dead.  --TJive 01:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of the additions. I wish we could deal with the power concepts, not the idealistic slogans. But I've had enough with this page for today and will leave them fully intact for now... See extraterritoriality. 172 | Talk 01:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I take that back partially. I made some minor changes and restored some old content. 172 | Talk 02:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Miki Biasion

Massimo "Miki" Biasion (born 7 January 1958) is an Italian rally driver, two-time World Rally champion.

Career

Biasion was born in Bassano del Grappa, Veneto.

Biasion came to prominence in the early 1980s, winning both the Italian and European Rally Championships in 1983, driving a Lancia 037. He began competing in 1979, in an Opel Kadett GT/E. He was later drafted in to play a key role for the works Lancia World Rally Championship team in the mid-1980s as the squad sought to regroup after previous star driver Henri Toivonen's fatal crash, and would go on to dominate early Group A rallying, taking the world championship in the years 1988 and 1989. At his peak, Biasion was notching victories in almost three quarters of all events he entered. He also was only the second driver to successfully defend his title (after Juha Kankkunen) and the third one to win two titles (after Kankkunen and Walter Röhrl).

After his championship years, Biasion was never able to achieve that level of success again. He failed to win an event for Lancia in 1991, and switched to Ford for 1992 on a contract that made him the highest-paid driver of his day, and gave him some managerial input. The optimism did not last. Biasion reputedly described the Ford Sierra RS Cosworth 4x4 as "a pile of shit" after his first event for the team (the 1992 Monte Carlo Rally), although on the Portuguese Rally he did give the car its best WRC result by finishing second. The following year, driving the new Ford Escort RS Cosworth, he won the Acropolis Rally and led the driver's championship for part of the season.

Throughout Biasion's tenure at Ford he was overshadowed by the younger François Delecour, who generally proved to be faster, especially on tarmac. Moreover, Delecour's road accident, which forced him to sit out much of the 1994 season, exposed the weaknesses in the team. Insufficient resources meant that development of the Escort slipped behind its rivals, and Biasion's relationship with the team worsened as the season progressed. He was subsequently dropped for the following year. After contesting a couple of rallies for private teams, he retired quietly at the end of the 1995 season (his two last WRC events were part of the 2LWC prior to the late Colin McRae's honor as 1995 World Rally Champion, but this truly last WRC event was the RAC (now Wales Rally GB) in 1994 when it was won by McRae himself and Didier Auriol's honor as 1994 World Rally Champion).

Throughout his entire career he was co-driven by Tiziano Siviero, the sole exception being the Portuguese Rally of 1988, where Siviero was replaced by Carlo Cassina due to health problems.

Biasion won the World Truck Championship in 1998 and 1999 driving an Iveco.

Personal life
Biasion was married to Italian rally driver Chantal Galli, who won the Italian women's rally championship several times. They had four children, named Bettina, Isotta, Jacobo, and Olivia. The pair are now divorced, and Biasion is currently married to Paola.

Complete WRC results

 * The results of the 1986 Rallye Sanremo were annulled by the FIA.

title: Miki Biasion


text:
South Carolina in the American Revolution

South Carolina was outraged over British tax policies in the 1760s that violated what they saw as their constitutional right to "no taxation without representation". Merchants joined the boycott against buying British products. When the London government harshly punished Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party, South Carolina's leaders joined eleven other colonies (except Georgia) in forming the Continental Congress. When the British attacked Lexington and Concord in the spring of 1775 and were beaten back by the Massachusetts Patriots, South Carolina Patriots rallied to support the American Revolution. Loyalists and Patriots of the colony were split by nearly 50/50.

Many of the South Carolinian battles fought during the American Revolution were with loyalist Carolinians and the part of the Cherokee tribe that allied with the British. This was to General Henry Clinton's advantage. His strategy was to march his troops north from St. Augustine, Florida, and sandwich George Washington in the North. Clinton alienated Loyalists and enraged Patriots by attacking a fleeing army of Patriot soldiers who posed no threat. Enslaved Africans and African Americans chose independence by escaping to British lines where they were promised freedom.

Combined Continental Army and state militia forces under the command of Major General Nathanael Greene regained control of much of South Carolina by capturing the numerous interdependent chain of British-held forts throughout the State. One by one, the British and Loyalists were surrounded in the capital of Charles Town and became completely dependent on supplies by sea. After preliminary peace terms had been agreed, the British evacuated Charles Town on December 14, 1782, a day now officially designated as "South Carolina Independence Day". Greene was awarded a Congressional Medal and numerous other official awards from the State of South Carolina for his leadership in liberating the state and for restoring an elected government. In 1787, South Carolina representatives John Rutledge, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Pierce Butler went to Philadelphia where the Constitutional Convention was being held and constructed what served as a detailed outline for the U.S. Constitution.

Pre-war causes
After Parliament began taxing the North American colonies to raise revenue to make up for the costs of the French and Indian War and Pontiac's War, to protest the Stamp Act, South Carolina sent wealthy rice planter Thomas Lynch, 26-year-old lawyer John Rutledge, and Christopher Gadsden to the Stamp Act Congress. Gadsden, leader of the pro-Independence "Liberty Boys," is often grouped with James Otis and Patrick Henry as the prime agitators for American independence by historians.

In 1767, the Townsend Acts levied new taxes on glass, oil, wine, tea, paper, and other goods. Gadsden led the opposition and although Britain removed the taxes on everything except tea, Charlestonians mirrored the Boston Tea Party by dumping a shipment of tea into the Cooper River. Other shipments were allowed to land, but they rotted in Charles Town storehouses.

Delegates from twelve colonies, all of the Thirteen Colonies except for Georgia, came together for the First Continental Congress in 1774. Five South Carolinians, including those who represented the colony in the Stamp Act Congress, headed for Philadelphia. Henry Middleton served as president for part of Congress. The following January the South Carolina colonial assembly was disbanded by Royal Governor Lord William Campbell, and it was reformed as an extralegal Provincial Congress. During this meeting and following meetings, in June 1775 and March 1776, the South Carolinians created a temporary government to rule until the colony had settled things with Britain. John Rutledge was voted "president" of the state which was called the "General Assembly of South Carolina" (the term "Republic" or "Republic of South Carolina" was never used.)

Most Loyalists came from the Upcountry (known as the Upstate, since the 1960s), which thought that domination by the rich, elitist Charles Town planter class in an unsupervised government was worse than remaining under the rule of the British Crown. Judge William Henry Drayton and Reverend William Tennent were sent to the Back Country to gain support for the "American Cause" and Lowcountry's General Committee and Provincial Congress but did not have much success. In September 1775, the Royal Governor dissolved the last-ever Royal Assembly in South Carolina and left for the safety of the British warship Tamar in the Charleston Harbor.

Early conflicts
Throughout the course of the American Revolutionary War, over 200 battles were fought within South Carolina, more than in any other state. On November 19, 1775, Patriot forces of the Long Cane Militia fought Loyalists in the first battle of Ninety Six, resulting in the death of James Birmingham, the first South Carolinian and southerner of the war. Colonel Richard Richardson led a large party of Whigs into the Upcountry to arrest Loyalists and to assert the power of the revolutionary General Committee over the entire colony.

Britain's strategy was to take advantage of the Loyalist support in the South, begin a military drive in Charles Town, and perhaps sweep through the Upcountry, North Carolina, and Virginia while gathering men to take on Washington in the North. Under Colonel William Moultrie, the South Carolinians defeated the Royal Navy in the Battle of Sullivan's Island on June 28, 1776, and brought the Patriot Continental Army a major victory. In Philadelphia, the news reached delegates of the Second Continental Congress on July 19, over two weeks after delegates had voted to adopt the Declaration of Independence. The Battle of Sullivan's Island also caused the British to rethink their strategy and leave the South for approximately three years.

The new state legislature met the next December to complete the state constitution made the previous October, de-establishing the Anglican Church. In the Upcountry, the British had convinced the Cherokee to fight on their side. Although the British officer in charge of the operation had told the Cherokee to attack only Patriot soldiers in organized groups, soon murder and cabin burnings were widespread on the frontier. The Whigs' Andrew Williamson, Andrew Pickens, and James Williams, who had been battling Loyalists in the Upcountry, launched a successful campaign against the Cherokee. In 1777 they ceded their remaining lands to the South Carolina government. On February 5, 1778, South Carolina became the first state to ratify the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States. In 1780, the British returned to South Carolina.

Siege of Charleston
In 1780, the British, stalemated in the north and facing pressure from home to end the war, embarked on a plan of action that would come to be known to historians as "The Southern Strategy." They planned to trap George Washington's troops by pushing their troops up from the South while Washington defended himself in the North. The British landed a major expeditionary force south of Charleston, landing on John's Island, moving to James Island, and then besieging Charles Town. General Benjamin Lincoln defended the city during a two-month siege but was forced to surrender almost all the Continental forces in the Carolinas to General Clinton. Henry Middleton, once president of the Continental Congress, was forced to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown as a prisoner.

General Washington begged Governor John Rutledge and the rest of the state's council to leave Charles Town while there was still time, and they did. Rutledge traveled around the state, printing proclamations and other state papers on a printing press he had with him, and sending numerous letters demanding that the Continental Congress send the Continental Army to relieve South Carolina.

The British quickly established control over the coast, making posts at the other port cities of Beaufort and Georgetown. It was during this time that many enslaved African Americans managed to escape to their lines. The African Americans wanted freedom, and the British promised them that. Approximately 25,000 African Americans, one-quarter of the enslaved population, escaped to the British during the war to achieve freedom.

The British followed their coastal occupation by establishing posts upcountry where they could establish control by coordinating with local Tories.

Responding to Rutledge's pleas and the British threat to the whole southern flank, Washington sent an army of Continentals under General Gates, but was defeated at Camden on August 16, 1780, and the remnant of the army retreated northward in record time.

Just before the battle of Camden, Gates met with Francis Marion, a militia officer who had escaped parole at the defeat of Charleston because of an accidental injury, which caused him to be out of town at the surrender. Marion had a small group of rag-tag militia men with him, whose appearance evoked derision from the Continentals. Gates saw Marion as an embarrassment and got rid of him by giving him orders to scout the British and destroy boats, bridges, and other items that might be useful to the British.

Marion left, obeying his orders, and missed the battle. The following day, by order of Governor Rutledge, and by invitation of the troops, he accepted command of the Williamsburg militia at the confluence of Lynches River and the Pee Dee River. This band joined together with a few other militiamen from around the state became known as Marion's Brigade (Marion was eventually commissioned general). Marion had not yet heard the news of Gates' defeat at the time. The next day a small militia under Thomas Sumter was surprised and completely routed at Fishing Creek; Sumter barely escaped with his life. At this point, Marion had the only viable Patriot army left in the South. From that time until the arrival of General Nathanael Greene, the war's outcome in the south depended entirely on the militia, and the militia gradually turned the tide.

The war was not only a clash of arms but a battle for the sympathy of the population. After leaving Gates, Marion began a new and unheard of policy, as he destroyed boats the British might use, and commandeered food, horses and other property from the settlers. He had his troops issue receipts for each item to the owners. His gentlemanly actions quickly made Marion a hero and garnered support for his brigade. Many of these receipts were redeemed after the war, with the new state government usually paying in full.

General Clinton's Mistakes
General Clinton thought that South Carolina was a Loyalist colony that had been bullied into revolutionary actions by a small minority. His idea was to increase British presence in the entire state and bring back the confidence of moderates in the area so that they would fight for the British. Clinton alienated Loyalists by spending all of the money on extra arms and soldiers rather than doctors.

American Colonel Abraham Buford and his body of Virginia patriots had set south in hopes of defending Charles Town but turned back when they realized they were too late. British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton was unwilling to let the rebels escape back to the North and chased after them, another act that alienated more loyalists. Tarleton caught up with them on May 29, 1780, near the present town of Lancaster, South Carolina, and Americans were told to surrender, but refused. They still marched forward with full knowledge that Tarleton was fast approaching. In the Battle of Waxhaws the Americans were routed by Tarleton and his men, who suffered minimal casualties. Due to confusion in the battle, quarter was refused, and a number of Americans who had surrendered were killed. This spawned the battle cry that Southern patriots would use for the rest of the war, "Tarleton's quarter!".

The second British blunder was Clinton revoking the Carolinians' paroles. He broke his promise that if the Carolinians who surrendered did not actively seek to harass the British government, he would leave them and their paroles alone. On June 3, he proclaimed that all prisoners of war could either take up arms against their fellow Americans or be considered traitors to the Crown. Many soldiers, whose pride had already been bruised, reasoned that if they were going to have to take the chance of getting shot again, they might as well fight on the side they wanted to win.

The third British mistake was burning the Stateburg, South Carolina, home and harassing the incapacitated wife of a then inconsequential colonel named Thomas Sumter. Because of his fury over this, Sumter became one of the fiercest and most devastating guerrilla leaders of the war, becoming known as "The Gamecock". The Lowcountry partisans fighting under Marion and Upcountry partisans fighting under Andrew Pickens (whose home had also been burned) plagued the British by using guerilla warfare in the mountains, woods, and swamps of the state.

Tides turn for the Americans
On October 8, 1780, at Kings Mountain, American Colonel Isaac Shelby led a body of North and South Carolinians and attacked British Major Patrick Ferguson and his body of American loyalists on a hilltop. America's first major poet, William Cullen Bryant, described the home field advantage that led to the Patriot victory in one of his poems. This was a major victory for the Patriots, especially because it was won by militiamen and not trained Continentals. It provided a great swing of momentum for the moderate "Overmountain Men" who had grown tired of British brutality. Kings Mountain is considered to be the turning point of the revolution in the South, because it squashed any significant further recruitment of Loyalists, and compelled Cornwallis to temporarily abandon North Carolina.

That December, General Nathanael Greene arrived with an army of Continental troops. When Greene heard of Tarleton's approach, he sent Brigadier General Daniel Morgan and his backwoodsmen over the Appalachian Mountains to stop him. On January 17, 1781, the two forces met at a grassy field with widespread hardwoods, reeds, and marsh in a well-known cattle grazing area called Cowpens. Pickens and his guerilla soldiers joined Morgan directly before the battle. Morgan still felt they were not strong enough to take on Tarleton's trained troops and wanted to cross a river that would separate them from the British and secure them a chance to retreat. Pickens convinced Morgan that staying on the British side of the river would force his men to fight it out in what some historians consider the best-planned battle of the entire war. The Patriots defeated the British and later battles at Hobkirk's Hill and Eutaw Springs would further weaken the British.

Fighting continued throughout 1781 in the backcountry, where patriot and loyalist militias alike looted homes and killed civilians. One of the most infamous is William "Bloody Bill" Cunningham's "Bloody Scout," who terrorized homes and massacred dozens of Whigs.

In December 1782, the British evacuated Charles Town. The overjoyed residents changed the name to "Charleston" because it sounded "less British."

Loyalists
South Carolina had one of the strongest Loyalists factions of any state. About 5000 men took up arms against the Patriot government during the revolution, and thousands more were supporters who avoided taxes, sold supplies to the British, and who had avoided conscription. Nearly all had emigrated to the province after 1765, as only about one in six was native-born. About 45% of the Loyalists were small farmers, 30% were merchants, artisans or shopkeepers; 15% were large farmers or plantation owners, and 10% were royal officials. Geographically, they were strongest in the back-country, where most settlers before the revolution had opposed the coastal aristocracy.

South Carolina had endured bitter internal strife between Patriots and Loyalists during the war (esp. 1780-82). Nevertheless, it adopted a policy of reconciliation that proved more moderate than any other state. About 4500 Loyalists left when the war ended, but the majority remained behind. The state government successfully and quickly reincorporated the vast majority. During the war, pardons were offered to Loyalists who switched sides and joined the Patriot forces. Others were required to pay a 10% fine of the value of their property. The legislature named 232 Loyalists liable for the confiscation of their property, but most appealed and were forgiven.

The Constitution
In 1787, John Rutledge, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Pierce Butler went to Philadelphia where the Constitutional Convention was piecing together the Constitution. At thirty years old, Charles Pinckney had long been a critic of the weak Articles of Confederation. Although he was wealthy by birth and quite the epicurean, Pinckney became the leader of democracy in the state. On May 29, 1787, he presented the Convention with a detailed outline of the United States Constitution, and John Rutledge provided valuable input. Pierce Butler, a major slaveholder who lost numerous slaves during the war who escaped to the British, included a constitutional clause for the return of fugitive slaves.

The federal, and Federalist-leaning, Constitution was ratified by the state in May 1788. The new state constitution was ratified in 1790.

During the 1780s, Charleston physician David Ramsay published two of the first histories of the American Revolution: The History of the Revolution of South-Carolina (1785) and The History of the American Revolution (1789).


text:
Richard Goodwin

Richard Goodwin may refer to:

 * Richard Goodwin (minister) (died 1685), British minister
 * Richard Goodwin (sportsman), Australian-Filipino cricketer, Rugby League player and Rugby Sevens player
 * Richard Goodwin (producer) (born 1934), British film producer
 * Richard Elton Goodwin (1908–1986), British general
 * Richard H. Goodwin (1910–2007), American botanist and conservationist
 * Richard J. Goodwin (born 1953), Australian artist, architect and professor
 * Richard M. Goodwin (1913–1996), American mathematician and economist
 * Richard N. Goodwin (1931–2018), American writer and advisor to US Presidents Kennedy and Johnson

title: Richard Goodwin


text:
History of thermodynamics

The history of thermodynamics is a fundamental strand in the history of physics, the history of chemistry, and the history of science in general. Owing in the relevance of thermodynamics in much of science and technology, its history is finely woven with the developments of classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, magnetism, and chemical kinetics, to more distant applied fields such as meteorology, information theory, and biology (physiology), and to technological developments such as the steam engine, internal combustion engine, cryogenics and electricity generation. The development of thermodynamics both drove and was driven by atomic theory. It also, albeit in a subtle manner, motivated new directions in probability and statistics; see, for example, the timeline of thermodynamics.

Antiquity
The ancients viewed heat as that related to fire. In 3000 BC, the ancient Egyptians viewed heat as related to origin mythologies. The ancient Indian philosophy including Vedic philosophy believed that five classical elements (or pancha mahā bhūta) are the basis of all cosmic creations. In the Western philosophical tradition, after much debate about the primal element among earlier pre-Socratic philosophers, Empedocles proposed a four-element theory, in which all substances derive from earth, water, air, and fire. The Empedoclean element of fire is perhaps the principal ancestor of later concepts such as phlogiston and caloric. Around 500 BC, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus became famous as the "flux and fire" philosopher for his proverbial utterance: "All things are flowing." Heraclitus argued that the three principal elements in nature were fire, earth, and water.

Vacuum-abhorrence
The 5th century BC Greek philosopher Parmenides, in his only known work, a poem conventionally titled On Nature, uses verbal reasoning to postulate that a void, essentially what is now known as a vacuum, in nature could not occur. This view was supported by the arguments of Aristotle, but was criticized by Leucippus and Hero of Alexandria. From antiquity to the Middle Ages various arguments were put forward to prove or disapprove the existence of a vacuum and several attempts were made to construct a vacuum but all proved unsuccessful.

Atomism
Atomism is a central part of today's relationship between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Ancient thinkers such as Leucippus and Democritus, and later the Epicureans, by advancing atomism, laid the foundations for the later atomic theory. Until experimental proof of atoms was later provided in the 20th century, the atomic theory was driven largely by philosophical considerations and scientific intuition.

Early thermometers
The European scientists Cornelius Drebbel, Robert Fludd, Galileo Galilei and Santorio Santorio in the 16th and 17th centuries were able to gauge the relative "coldness" or "hotness" of air, using a rudimentary air thermometer (or thermoscope). This may have been influenced by an earlier device which could expand and contract the air constructed by Philo of Byzantium and Hero of Alexandria.

"Heat is motion" (Francis Bacon)
The idea that heat is a form of motion is perhaps an ancient one and is certainly discussed by the English philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon in 1620 in his Novum Organum. Bacon surmised: "Heat itself, its essence and quiddity is motion and nothing else."

Precursor to work
In 1637, in a letter to the Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens, the French philosopher René Descartes wrote:

"Lifting 100 lb one foot twice over is the same as lifting 200 lb one foot, or 100 lb two feet."

In 1686, the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz wrote essentially the same thing: The same force ["work" in modern terms] is necessary to raise body A of 1 pound (libra) to a height of 4 yards (ulnae), as is necessary to raise body B of 4 pounds to a height of 1 yard.

Quantity of motion
In Principles of Philosophy (Principia Philosophiae) from 1644, Descartes defined "quantity of motion" (Latin: quantitas motus) as the product of size and speed, and claimed that the total quantity of motion in the universe is conserved.

"If x is twice the size of y, and is moving half as fast, then there's the same amount of motion in each.""[God] created matter, along with its motion ... merely by letting things run their course, he preserves the same amount of motion ... as he put there in the beginning."

He claimed that merely by letting things run their course, God preserves the same amount of motion as He created, and that thus the total quantity of motion in the universe is conserved.

Boyle's law
Irish physicist and chemist Robert Boyle in 1656, in coordination with English scientist Robert Hooke, built an air pump. Using this pump, Boyle and Hooke noticed the pressure-volume correlation: PV=constant. In that time, air was assumed to be a system of motionless particles, and not interpreted as a system of moving molecules. The concept of thermal motion came two centuries later. Therefore, Boyle's publication in 1660 speaks about a mechanical concept: the air spring. Later, after the invention of the thermometer, the property temperature could be quantified. This tool gave Gay-Lussac the opportunity to derive his law, which led shortly later to the ideal gas law.

Gas laws in brief

 * Boyle's law (1662)
 * Charles's law was first published by Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac in 1802, but he referenced unpublished work by Jacques Charles from around 1787. The relationship had been anticipated by the work of Guillaume Amontons in 1702.
 * Gay-Lussac's law (1802)

Steam digester
Denis Papin, an associate of Boyle's, built in 1679 a bone digester, which is a closed vessel with a tightly fitting lid that confines steam until a high pressure is generated. Later designs implemented a steam release valve to keep the machine from exploding. By watching the valve rhythmically move up and down, Papin conceived of the idea of a piston and cylinder engine. He did not however follow through with his design. Nevertheless, in 1697, based on Papin's designs, Thomas Newcomen greatly improved upon engineer Thomas Savery's earlier "fire engine" by incorporating a piston. This made it suitable for mechanical work in addition to pumping to heights beyond 30 feet, and is thus often considered the first true steam engine.

Heat transfer (Halley and Newton)
The phenomenon of heat conduction is immediately grasped in everyday life. The fact that warm air rises and the importance of the phenomenon to meteorology was first realised by Edmond Halley in 1686.

In 1701, Sir Isaac Newton published his law of cooling.

Phlogiston theory
The theory of phlogiston arose in the 17th century, late in the period of alchemy. Its replacement by caloric theory in the 18th century is one of the historical markers of the transition from alchemy to chemistry. Phlogiston was a hypothetical substance that was presumed to be liberated from combustible substances during burning, and from metals during the process of rusting.

Limit to the "degree of cold"
In 1702 Guillaume Amontons introduced the concept of absolute zero based on observations of gases.

Kinetic theory (18th century)
The first written scientific reflection on the microscopic nature of heat is probably to be found in a work by Mikhail Lomonosov, in which he wrote:

 * "(..) movement should not be denied based on the fact it is not seen. Who would deny that the leaves of trees move when rustled by a wind, despite it being unobservable from large distances? Just as in this case motion remains hidden due to perspective, it remains hidden in warm bodies due to the extremely small sizes of the moving particles. In both cases, the viewing angle is so small that neither the object nor their movement can be seen."

During the same years, Daniel Bernoulli published his book Hydrodynamics (1738), in which he derived an equation for the pressure of a gas considering the collisions of its atoms with the walls of a container. He proved that this pressure is two thirds the average kinetic energy of the gas in a unit volume. Bernoulli's ideas, however, made little impact on the dominant caloric culture. Bernoulli made a connection with Gottfried Leibniz's vis viva principle, an early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy, and the two theories became intimately entwined throughout their history.

Heat capacity
Bodies were capable of holding a certain amount of this fluid, leading to the term heat capacity, named and first investigated by Scottish chemist Joseph Black in the 1750s.

In the mid- to late 19th century, heat became understood as a manifestation of a system's internal energy. Today heat is seen as the transfer of disordered thermal energy. Nevertheless, at least in English, the term heat capacity survives. In some other languages, the term thermal capacity is preferred, and it is also sometimes used in English.

Steam engines
Prior to 1698 and the invention of the Savery engine, horses were used to power pulleys, attached to buckets, which lifted water out of flooded salt mines in England. In the years to follow, more variations of steam engines were built, such as the Newcomen engine, and later the Watt engine. In time, these early engines would eventually be utilized in place of horses. Thus, each engine began to be associated with a certain amount of "horse power" depending upon how many horses it had replaced. The main problem with these first engines was that they were slow and clumsy, converting less than 2% of the input fuel into useful work. In other words, large quantities of coal (or wood) had to be burned to yield only a small fraction of work output. Hence the need for a new science of engine dynamics was born.

Caloric theory
In the mid- to late 18th century, heat was thought to be a measurement of an invisible fluid, known as the caloric. Like phlogiston, caloric was presumed to be the "substance" of heat that would flow from a hotter body to a cooler body, thus warming it. The utility and explanatory power of kinetic theory, however, soon started to displace the caloric theory. Nevertheless, William Thomson, for example, was still trying to explain James Joule's observations within a caloric framework as late as 1850. The caloric theory was largely obsolete by the end of the 19th century.

Calorimetry
Joseph Black and Antoine Lavoisier made important contributions in the precise measurement of heat changes using the calorimeter, a subject which became known as thermochemistry. The development of the steam engine focused attention on calorimetry and the amount of heat produced from different types of coal. The first quantitative research on the heat changes during chemical reactions was initiated by Lavoisier using an ice calorimeter following research by Joseph Black on the latent heat of water.

Thermal conduction and thermal radiation
Carl Wilhelm Scheele distinguished heat transfer by thermal radiation (radiant heat) from that by convection and conduction in 1777. In the 17th century, it came to be believed that all materials had an identical conductivity and that differences in sensation arose from their different heat capacities. Suggestions that this might not be the case came from the new science of electricity in which it was easily apparent that some materials were good electrical conductors while others were effective insulators. Jan Ingen-Housz in 1785-9 made some of the earliest measurements, as did Benjamin Thompson during the same period.

In 1791, Pierre Prévost showed that all bodies radiate heat, no matter how hot or cold they are. In 1804, Sir John Leslie observed that a matte black surface radiates heat more effectively than a polished surface, suggesting the importance of black-body radiation.

Heat and friction (Rumford)
In the 19th century, scientists abandoned the idea of a physical caloric. The first substantial experimental challenges to the caloric theory arose in a work by Benjamin Thompson's (Count Rumford) from 1798, in which he showed that boring cast iron cannons produced great amounts of heat which he ascribed to friction. His work was among the first to undermine the caloric theory.

As a result of his experiments in 1798, Thompson suggested that heat was a form of motion, though no attempt was made to reconcile theoretical and experimental approaches, and it is unlikely that he was thinking of the vis viva principle.

Modern thermodynamics (Carnot)
Although early steam engines were crude and inefficient, they attracted the attention of the leading scientists of the time. One such scientist was Sadi Carnot, the "father of thermodynamics", who in 1824 published Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, a discourse on heat, power, and engine efficiency. Most cite this book as the starting point for thermodynamics as a modern science. (The name "thermodynamics", however, did not arrive until 1854, when the British mathematician and physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) coined the term thermo-dynamics in his paper On the Dynamical Theory of Heat.)

Carnot defined "motive power" to be the expression of the useful effect that a motor is capable of producing. Herein, Carnot introduced us to the first modern day definition of "work": weight lifted through a height. The desire to understand, via formulation, this useful effect in relation to "work" is at the core of all modern day thermodynamics.

Even though he was working with the caloric theory, Carnot in 1824 suggested that some of the caloric available for generating useful work is lost in any real process.

Reflection, refraction, and polarisation of radiant heat
Though it had come to be suspected from Scheele's work, in 1831 Macedonio Melloni demonstrated that radiant heat could be reflected, refracted and polarised in the same way as light.

Kinetic theory (early 19th century)
John Herapath independently formulated a kinetic theory in 1820, but mistakenly associated temperature with momentum rather than vis viva or kinetic energy. His work ultimately failed peer review, even from someone as well-disposed to the kinetic principle as Humphry Davy, and was neglected.

John James Waterston in 1843 provided a largely accurate account, again independently, but his work received the same reception, failing peer review.

Further progress in kinetic theory started only in the middle of the 19th century, with the works of Rudolf Clausius, James Clerk Maxwell, and Ludwig Boltzmann.

Mechanical equivalent of heat
Quantitative studies by Joule from 1843 onwards provided soundly reproducible phenomena, and helped to place the subject of thermodynamics on a solid footing. In 1843, Joule experimentally found the mechanical equivalent of heat. In 1845, Joule reported his best-known experiment, involving the use of a falling weight to spin a paddle-wheel in a barrel of water, which allowed him to estimate a mechanical equivalent of heat of 819 ft·lbf/Btu (4.41 J/cal). This led to the theory of conservation of energy and explained why heat can do work.

Absolute zero and the Kelvin scale
The idea of absolute zero was generalised in 1848 by Lord Kelvin.

Lord Kelvin
In March 1851, while grappling to come to terms with the work of Joule, Lord Kelvin started to speculate that there was an inevitable loss of useful heat in all processes. The idea was framed even more dramatically by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1854, giving birth to the spectre of the heat death of the universe.

William Rankine
In 1854, William John Macquorn Rankine started to make use of what he called thermodynamic function in calculations. This has subsequently been shown to be identical to the concept of entropy formulated by the famed mathematical physicist Rudolf Clausius.

Rudolf Clausius
In 1865, Clausius coined the term "entropy" (das Wärmegewicht, symbolized S) to denote heat lost or turned into waste. ("Wärmegewicht" translates literally as "heat-weight"; the corresponding English term stems from the Greek τρέπω, "I turn".) Clausius used the concept to develop his classic statement of the second law of thermodynamics the same year.

Temperature is average kinetic energy of molecules
In his 1857 work On the nature of the motion called heat, Clausius for the first time clearly states that heat is the average kinetic energy of molecules.

Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution
Clausius' above statement interested the Scottish mathematician and physicist James Clerk Maxwell, who in 1859 derived the momentum distribution later named after him. The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann subsequently generalized this distribution for the case of gases in external fields. In association with Clausius, in 1871, Maxwell formulated a new branch of thermodynamics called statistical thermodynamics, which functions to analyze large numbers of particles at equilibrium, i.e., systems where no changes are occurring, such that only their average properties as temperature T, pressure P, and volume V become important.

Degrees of freedom
Boltzmann is perhaps the most significant contributor to kinetic theory, as he introduced many of the fundamental concepts in the theory. Besides the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution mentioned above, he also associated the kinetic energy of particles with their degrees of freedom. The Boltzmann equation for the distribution function of a gas in non-equilibrium states is still the most effective equation for studying transport phenomena in gases and metals. By introducing the concept of thermodynamic probability as the number of microstates corresponding to the current macrostate, he showed that its logarithm is proportional to entropy.

Definition of entropy
In 1875, the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann formulated a precise connection between entropy S and molecular motion:

 * $$S=k\log W \,$$

being defined in terms of the number of possible states W that such motion could occupy, where k is the Boltzmann constant.

Gibbs free energy
In 1876, chemical engineer Willard Gibbs published an obscure 300-page paper titled: On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, wherein he formulated one grand equality, the Gibbs free energy equation, which suggested a measure of the amount of "useful work" attainable in reacting systems.

Enthalpy
Gibbs also originated the concept we now know as enthalpy H, calling it "a heat function for constant pressure". The modern word enthalpy would be coined many years later by Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, who based it on the Greek word enthalpein meaning to warm.

Stefan–Boltzmann law
James Clerk Maxwell's 1862 insight that both light and radiant heat were forms of electromagnetic wave led to the start of the quantitative analysis of thermal radiation. In 1879, Jožef Stefan observed that the total radiant flux from a blackbody is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature and stated the Stefan–Boltzmann law. The law was derived theoretically by Ludwig Boltzmann in 1884.

Quantum thermodynamics
In 1900 Max Planck found an accurate formula for the spectrum of black-body radiation. Fitting new data required the introduction of a new constant, known as the Planck constant, the fundamental constant of modern physics. Looking at the radiation as coming from a cavity oscillator in thermal equilibrium, the formula suggested that energy in a cavity occurs only in multiples of frequency times the constant. That is, it is quantized. This avoided a divergence to which the theory would lead without the quantization.

Third law of thermodynamics
In 1906, Walther Nernst stated the third law of thermodynamics.

Erwin Schrödinger
Building on the foundations above, Lars Onsager, Erwin Schrödinger, Ilya Prigogine and others, brought these engine "concepts" into the thoroughfare of almost every modern-day branch of science.

Branches of thermodynamics
The following list is a rough disciplinary outline of the major branches of thermodynamics and their time of inception:
 * Thermochemistry – 1780s
 * Classical thermodynamics – 1824
 * Chemical thermodynamics – 1876
 * Statistical mechanics – c. 1880s
 * Equilibrium thermodynamics
 * Engineering thermodynamics
 * Chemical engineering thermodynamics – c. 1940s
 * Non-equilibrium thermodynamics – 1941
 * Small systems thermodynamics – 1960s
 * Biological thermodynamics – 1957
 * Ecosystem thermodynamics – 1959
 * Relativistic thermodynamics – 1965
 * Rational thermodynamics – 1960s
 * Quantum thermodynamics – 1968
 * Black hole thermodynamics – c. 1970s
 * Theory of critical phenomena and use of renormalization group theory in statistical physics – 1966-1974
 * Geological thermodynamics – c. 1970s
 * Biological evolution thermodynamics – 1978
 * Geochemical thermodynamics – c. 1980s
 * Atmospheric thermodynamics – c. 1980s
 * Natural systems thermodynamics – 1990s
 * Supramolecular thermodynamics – 1990s
 * Earthquake thermodynamics – 2000
 * Drug-receptor thermodynamics – 2001
 * Pharmaceutical systems thermodynamics – 2002

Concepts of thermodynamics have also been applied in other fields, for example:
 * Thermoeconomics – c. 1970s

title: History of thermodynamics


text:
Wazena of Axum

Wazena (mid-6th century) was a King of the Kingdom of Aksum. He is primarily known through the Aksumite currency that was minted during his reign. Without any clear discussion, Stuart Munro-Hay identifies him with a king Alla Amidas, who is also known only through the coins he issued.

Coinage
Two types of coins bear his name, one in silver, the other in copper. The silver issue bears the crowned bust of the king with the inscription in Ge'ez "King Wazena" on the obverse, a cross with a gilded punch hole center under an arch with the inscription in Ge'ez "The king who exhales the Savior." The copper issue bears a draped profile wearing a head-cloth and holding a stalk of wheat, sometimes topped by a cross with the inscription in Ge'ez "May this please the peoples" on the obverse, while the reverse bears a large cross crossed by an oblique cross with a gilded punch hole center and the inscription "of Wazena, of the King." The legend on the obverse may be a translation from the familiar Greek phrase "May this please the country" used on many earlier issues, the previous instance by Kaleb on his rare bronzes.

A king of Aksum issued three types of silver coins with crosses on the reverse inlaid with gold, who identified himself on two types only as "The king who exalts the Savior" (Za-Ya `Abiyo La Madkhen Negus); on the third type the name "Wazena" is added, suggesting these silver coins were also issued by Wazena. Munro-Hay notes the reverse "is quite new in the Aksumite numismatic repertoire, and foreshadows a design used frequently in manuscript design." Hahn and West note that this name "in conjunction with the luminous cross of the copper coins ... may have promoted the stories told in Ethiopia about a famous king called Gebre Maskal ("Servant of the cross").

title: Wazena of Axum


text:
File:Savannahchanelle.jpg

Summary
Savannah-Chanelle Vineyards label

title: File:Savannahchanelle.jpg