text:
Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem

political philosophy

 * Harry491 wrote: (Political philosophy is "tudy of the fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, property, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority" go to talk.

No. The study on the enforcement of a legal code by authority is no part of Libertarian philosphy. You tell me nonsense. Libertarianism is at first the NAP-axiom and then the derivation of all consequences. Politics is no topic in Libertarianism. (Maybe in the LP, but not in Libertarianism.) --Alfrem 13:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I was under the impression that Libertarianism opposes, where possible, of the enforcement of a legal code by an authority. And Libertarianism has things to say about the government. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Clearly libertarian philosophy has things to say about the state, the government, property and law enforcement. So it is a political philosophy in any sensible usage of the term. Cadr 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * No. "Law enforcement" is something else than "the enforcement of a legal code by authority". Libertarianism has also not more to say, than "government is evil" by definition. What is political at it? And there is not named only one libertarian thinker on Political philosophy. That should make you thoughtful.  --Alfrem 18:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Uh, what? "Thus, they oppose governmental initiation of force, even if it is supported by a democratic majority" and "As a result, they oppose prohibition of 'victimless crimes.'". Libertarians most definitely have opinions on law enforcement. Besides which, law enforcement is just one component of political philosophy. It also has things to say about the state, government, politics and property! So it therefore satisfies all criteria for being a political philosophy. I'm putting it back. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes. This may clear up the confusion: Politics has *two* meaning:  the study of the polis (Greek for city-state, or, more generally, society) and politics as in 'the processes of power'. So libertarianism is political in the first sense, but opposes the second.
 * No. "Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups." Libertarianism itself makes no statement on any decision for groups. Libertarianism says only what is right from the view of the NAP. That's all. --Alfrem 08:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Your quotes are descriptions on people who are Libertarians. It is a political direction of those people. But it is no description of the philosophy. It is like a religion. Nobody comes to the idea to say: "the catholics are political". Of course they are political, but it is not their direct task and intension. The same is here. The libertariansim is a philsophy on the NAP. What some people do with it in Libert. Parties and so on is something else. And again: "Law enforcement" is something else than "the enforcement of a legal code by authority". --Alfrem 08:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * How can law enforcement be anything but the "enforcement of a legal code by authority"?. Law is by definition encoded, and any enforcing agent is by definition an authority. Anyway, libertarianism is usually seen as a political philosophy for the reasons give above: it has lots to say about political issues such as the role of government, taxation, etc. Politics is not just "...the process and method of making decisions for groups", it's clearly far more than that. Cadr 12:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Obviously you have no idea of customary law.
 * I think customary law fits the definition. It's a code (even if it's an unwritten code) and even if enforcement is not carried out by a formal authority, one still needs some sort of authority in order to enforce anything. In fact, by enforcing a standard (either collectively or individually), the enforcing agent becomes an authority. Cadr 15:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "libertarianism is usually seen as a political philosophy" - yes, that is true for the public meaning, and you can wording it so, but it is anyhow a POV-assertion. "...the process and method of making decisions for groups" is one pressupposition. --Alfrem 15:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, let's write an article on the public meaning of libertarianism, not your private meaning. Cadr 15:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't begin an edit war or you get an entry in Vandalism_in_progress ! --Alfrem 15:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Excuse me? I think I reverted your change once, a couple of days ago. I'm not starting an edit war, but you are refusing to respond to anything I'm saying in a constructive manner. Cadr 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that one may understand Libertarianism as political movement. Yes. The movement is political, but not the philosophy. --Alfrem 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * There is definitely an enormous ethical component to libertarianism. "Political" philosphy would seem just to emphasize the factional component, whereas libertarians tend to take principled stands, whether it is too their individual benefit or not.--Silverback 09:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * People of more or less every political stripe claim that they are taking principled stands without regard to their own interests. I don't see how this disqualifies libertarianism from being a political philosophy. Political philosophies usually do have their basis in a moral theory of some sort. Cadr 12:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In WP exists a strict NPOV-rule. You have every right to hold your own POV, but to say Libertarain philosphy must be political comes from your point of view. Therefore I can't accept it. --Alfrem 12:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * You haven't provided any sensible argument in favour of not describing libertarianism as a political philosophy. Given that it is near-universally regarded as such, you need to do so. You do need to justify your POV -- otherwise what's to stop me or anyone else claiming something even more ridiculous (e.g. that libertarianism isn't a philosophy at all) and insiting that the page incorporates this POV. Cadr 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Nonsense. Libertarianism is based on the NAP-axiom. There is no compulsive reason to make a political doctrine of it. Thats only your wish. --Alfrem 13:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not my wish, I'm not a libertarian. The NAP-axiom has clear political consequences (e.g. against taxation), and libertarians almost always concentrate on the political consequences of NAP (which is probably why they fail to realise how absurd their philosophy is). Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Cadr 14:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no more need to dicuss the point again. Look into politics and political philosophy. The term fulfills not the presuppositions. --Alfrem 15:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I have, and it does, for the reasons I've given above. Do you have a response? Cadr 15:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * How old are you? --Alfrem 15:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * What the heck does that have to do with anything? This is an ad hominem attack. Don't use it. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * 20. You? When we've established our respective age, ethnicity, hair colour, etc., can we get back to discussing the article? Cadr 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism is the first of several examples of a political philosophyon this professor's course page. About.com defines libertarianism as a political philosophy here. A libertarian web publication calls libertarianism a "political philosophy. The Los Angeles Times calls libertarianism a political philosophy.  Encarta defines libertarianism as "political philosophy emphasizing the rights of the individual." Dave (talk) 12:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * No evidience. Same POV in this sources. So what? --Alfrem 12:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have placed a note on RFC regarding this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, of course libertarianism is a political philosophy. It's a moral system which attempts to define the role of government. Rhobite 04:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Saw this on RFC, libertarianism is obviously a political philosophy; read the definition at politics and this is clear. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

 * No, it is not clear. This is your clear POV. --Alfrem 06:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I have a clear explanation of why it is not a political philosophy? The page that it references is quite clear on its definition. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am quite clear, it is not. Do you accept to determine the term by politics and political philosophy? And then show me why it must be one. Which undeniable assertion(s) of the libertarian philosophy is/are making it political? --Alfrem 08:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Politics is about the process of making decisions for groups. Libertarianism supports a non-agression/non-coercion principle which obviously strongly impacts group decision making. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:14, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * And how can I use the NAP to make any political decision for groups? This is the same nonsense as to say the Christian love would be political. --Alfrem 17:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you mean. While you can argue, for example, that prohibiting marijuana or prostitution is wrong because it violates the NAP, you can't use the NAP per se to make that decision for the group.  Individuals in the group still have to decide for themselves.  Is that what you mean? --Serge 17:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * When you mean "per se not at all" then yes. Every political group decision must be a breach of NAP because it is an aggression. So why is the NAP political? Are the Libertarians all crazy? Therefore the most libertarians are even not in any party or in political associations. But the statist sees only what the LP and Harry Browne are doing. --Alfrem 18:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The LP are libertarians. You cannot artificially restrict the group of people who are allowed to be called "libertarian" to suit your pet theory. Question: If you want to exclude the hundreds of thousands of big-L libertarians from this article, what article should they be discussed in? Rhobite 18:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, there are libertarian people in the LP, but libertarian is not their sole attribute. You cant know WHY they make political decisions. But it cant be the NAP. --Alfrem 19:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You're great at dodging questions. Rhobite 19:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Every political group decision must be a breach of NAP? What if you buy a home in a private community, which involves explicit agreement to abide by the R&Rs of that community, which includes adhering to the decisions made by the home owners association (HOA) board (within some well-defined paramaters).  Say the board decides that it's time to repave the community's shared roads (a decision clearly within the paramaters), and you want to wait a year.  Is the "group decision" to fine you (as per the R&Rs) for not adhering to the "group decision" (to which you agree to abide by) a breach of the NAP?  This is not a subtle point.  I am illustrating that libertarian communities can be formed that make group decisions without requiring unanimity every time, and without violating the NAP.  A frequent criticism of libertarianism is that libertarian communities could not be formed since the unanimity that would allegedly be required to resolve community issues is practically impossible to achieve. But the HOA model, which I contend does not breach the NAP (by establishing a priori consent), shows otherwise. --Serge 18:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I cant understand all your terms.(R&R, repave). I am German. But I try an answer. Political philosophy is addressing laws. When everybody agree with a law or when nobody must take a disadvantage, then nobody must take a breach against NAP. But unanimity is not the aim of laws. Unanimity is a aim of market decisions. So a decision of a group, you can say it is a political decision like a sesssion, because it is also a question of power. But this would be a political and hypothetical decision and no political and libertarian philosophy. Power is no part of a libertarian philospohy. In your example of libertarian communities in seems to me that people agree that someone or something may make decsions for the group and has might to make decisions. Therefore, this process is political. But this is an internal (no libertarian) problem in the community, isn't it? --Alfrem 20:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Your conception of political philosophy is too narrow. It addresses the means of making decisions for groups -- for instance, the governing structure of firms (boards of directors, etc.), home owners associations, and families. It also addresses means like coercion, enslavement, and murder. Libertarianism makes a clear distinction between the voluntary means and coercive means - this is the NAP. By making this distinction, libertarianism declares some types of political interaction valid and others invalid (in the same way that, say, nationalism as a political philosophy declares some types of political interaction valid and others invalid). In short, libertarianism speaks to what sorts of political arrangements should exist (voluntary only), and is therefore a political philosophy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * When you think my defintion of political philosophy is too narrow, then change the defintion on political philosophy. --Alfrem 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It should also be pointed out that virtually all forms of libertarianism endorse a conception of physical property. Property is a political arrangement because it declares that one individual or group has certain rights over something. Let's say you and I are trying to decide what to build on a piece of land. Property affects this decision making process because if you own the land, you can decide. To the extent that libertarianism includes a specific framework of property, this makes it a political philosophy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:37, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * The social question of propertery don't allude enough the topic on political philosophy. It is also no question for groups. I can also say: It is a question of justice. --Alfrem 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alfrem: Please provide sources for your assertions. Wikipedia typically excludes opinions such as these that cannot be found in the literature. See the page on Original research. As far as I can tell, your views fall into the category of "statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". Dave (talk) 22:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * It is not my assertion that libertarianism must be a political philosophy. Where is the evidience of this assertion? Therefore, I cant know, why you mean, that it should be. I can not examine it without reason. It's a quest with infinte possibilities. You make a reversal of the burden of proof. --Alfrem 23:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The evidence was the half dozen articles, webpages, essays, and book reviews I linked to. You're the one with the novel interpretation unsupported by the literature.  What makes you think you know more than, say, law professors do on this issue?  Is it possible that it's a translation issue? Dave (talk) 02:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Which evidence? In the first link above from the "professor", you give the assertion: Libertarianism would be also called "classical liberalism" or just "liberalism". Such nonsense should be an evidience? And your political philosophy seems to be without political philosophers. Where are the political philosophers of Libertarianism? --Alfrem 09:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The terminology varies from country to country and over time. Friederick Hayek called himself a liberal, though he wouldn't be considered one today in the U.S. See for example Why I am Not a Conservative, which discusses the terminology.  I'd say that Murray Rothbard, David Boaz, Ayn Rand, and especially Robert Nozick are all political philosophers that support variationss on libertarianism (including anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism). Friederick Hayek (though he called himself a "liberal" for historical reasons) and Randy Barnett have written in detail about the best kind of government for implementing libertarian views.

 * If you're interested in learning something instead of continuing to spout your preconceptions, I encourage you to look at this page which has information on Hayek and calls him a "great Austrian economist and political philosopher." and then read chapter six from this document, which is all about different types of law, democracy's role, and designing a constitution. Lastly, libertarians look to political philosophers of other persuasions as well.  If the Federalist Papers aren't political philosophy according to your definition, you need to change your definition.

 * Dave (talk) 14:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

www.adamsmith.org is a classic liberal page and "great Austrian economist and political philosopher." comes only from a book review. And Hayek was by defintion a claasic liberal, so he must be a political philosopher, but he must not be a libetarian political philosopher. Stop this nonsense!!!!!!!!!! --Alfrem 14:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * My side has made sufficient arguments that your position is untenable, and was from almost the beginning. If you start making arguments of your own, I may bother to respond to them.  Until you start writing coherently and support your position with evidence this conversation is over. Dave (talk) 18:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Non-aggression principle as the first sentence of the article
Alfrem has twice edited the article to add this as the very first sentence: "Libertarianism is a philosophy which is completely based on one axiom - the non-aggression principle."

I think absolute statements like this one are inherently POV. In this case it's also inaccurate - libertarianism is too vague of a concept to apply such black and white thinking here. It means too many different things to different people. Civil libertarians and left libertarians don't believe in the non-aggression principle as an absolute, for example.

On a side note, libertarianism is obviously a political philosophy. This isn't even a debate. Please stop adding these POV notes and removing words from the article, Alfrem. Rhobite 06:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Although semantically it seems like they are, philosophically civil libertarians and left libertarians are not necessarily libertarians, or followers of libertarianism, unless they also happen to subscribe to the non-aggression principle. Otherwise, you're right, "libertarianism is too vague of a concept" to apply to anything, and would be essentially meaningless.  Serge 17:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I would love it if you or Alfrem could cite a source for the "one true definition" of libertarianism that you seem to cling to. Of course you can't, there is no such thing as a single correct definition. I hate arguing about definitions. Why do people go around forcing absolute definitions on broad terms such as capitalism, libertarianism, etc? Rhobite 19:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * All what I do is that I ward your absolute political attribute off. --Alfrem 20:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course, there is no source for the "one true definition" of anything. So my inability to produce such for "libertarianism" means nothing. However, I contend that virtually all references to the term "libertarianism" (and "libertarian") -- used without modifiers like "anarcho", "civil" or "left" --  in common usage today, are consistent with the philosophy based on the NAP.  If this is not true, it should be pretty easy for you to cite sources where the term is used with a meaning inconsistent with this definition. --Serge 21:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Where are you coming from? The Libertarian philosophy makes the absolute statement of NAP by defintion, not Alfrem.

 * And "political" is disputed. The libertarian movement is political. But the philosophy is no movement. --Alfrem 06:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * So where is this "one true definition" you're using? You keep speaking about the "definition of libertarianism". That's just silly, there is no such thing. And if you link to a dictionary I will be diasppointed. Rhobite 06:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * It is the first axiom of the ideology. Do you need refereces? No problem! --Alfrem 06:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Ooh, an axiom of an ideology. Sounds important - who wrote it? Rhobite 06:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Why do you not look for this in non-aggression principle ? --Alfrem 07:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * So Walter Block came up with it in 2003? What was libertarianism "completely based on" before Block's epiphany? OK, so I'm being sarcastic. My point is that there is no single definition of libertarianism. Rothbard agrees with you. Political libertarians such as Harry Browne approach the philosophy from the small government side, not from the non-aggression side. Many more moderate libertarians believe in limited government, but I suppose you'd exclude them from the "one true definition of libertarianism". Convenient. Rhobite 07:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Harry Browne is a politican. He makes political demands, but not a philosophical definition. We are speaking about the philosopical description. Politics of Libertarians is an other additional view. Show me only one - ONLY ONE - libertarian who dont accept the NAP! --Alfrem 07:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * You are imposing artificial restrictions on this debate, one after another. I won't have any more part of it. Please quit pushing your POV in the first sentence of this article. Rhobite 08:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * You tell nonsense. You make a revert and you have no empiric evidience of your position. Your unique argument is that the most people have problems with my point. So what? Populism. Troll. --Alfrem 08:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can follow the "arguments" of Rhobite? --Alfrem 08:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This from a guy who thinks that a Geocities site called "Jacob's libertarian press" is a better source than Harry Browne. Rhobite 15:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * On homepages is sometimes very good stuff. So what? And Harry Browne is a politican at first. So all what he say is to assess in this view at first. --Alfrem 17:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Not really. Geocities have low verifiability: it could be anyone posing as that person, and the information could change at any time - there is no edit history as on Wikipedia to see what the change was. We frown on those pages, though sometimes they can be used. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * So what? I don't use it as evidience. But Harry Browne?! --Alfrem 06:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Just pointing it out... no idea who Harry Browne is, so can't make any comment on this. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Harry Browne is a libertarain writer with very strong political interest. So what do you want tell me? That the program of the LP is a fine libertarian philosphy? --Alfrem 12:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This entire debate is lacking historical references. For example, Max Stirner was one of the first individualist anarchists, which like all anarchist thought falls under the larger umbrella of libertarianism, or libertarian philosophy. He rejected the entire concept of ethics as imaginary. He would argue ethics do not exist. He would have therefore rejected any "non-aggression principle". Benjamin Tucker, who was an influence on Murray Rothbard, also gave up on natural law and moved to the amoralism of Stirner Egoism. I am a libertarian, and I reject the NAP. I have instead developed my own ethical theory. Historically the NAP is not necessary to the definition of libertarianism; there have been a few different ethical theories, and some who even reject ethics altogether. What makes one libertarian or not is actions (whether or not you coerce others who have not first coerced)...this can result from Stirner Egoism (a rejection of ethics, but actions which refuse to act coercively because of penalties one might face for doing do - ie, self interest), the NAP (either derived via deontological or consequentialist means), or some other ethical theory (like my ethical theory which disregards aggression entirely, instead focusing on coercion as the enemy of liberty - which means acts of aggression are embraced insofar as they are the path of least coercion possible). In all cases actions may be exactly the same, resulting in libertarian behavior (non-coercive behavior). The way the come to these actions, via thought in ethics (or lack thereof), is irrelevant. Post-left anarchism ran into this problem some years ago, and it was a minor part of the "lifestyle anarchism" debate. There are just too many historical examples, and modern examples, of minority opinions in libertarian circles where the NAP is not the ethics embraced. To argue the NAP is necessary to the definition of libertarianism is ahistorical and amounts to argumentum ad populum (appeal to majority opinion). 2001:5B0:23FF:3CF0:0:0:0:38 (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I happened to be thinking a bit about the NAP recently. I think it is quite important to libertarian philosophy despite the fact that it doesn't really say much. It's an axiom. The additional principles of libertarianism fit into it, but, despite what some libertarians think, they don't follow automatically from it. A lot of people of various political stripes would find the NAP to be quite agreeable; it just stands to reason in the minds of a fair number of people, which is why it makes a good axiom.

So, I certainly don't agree that the NAP should be described as the be-all-and-end-all of libertarianism, although we should state clearly that it is fundamental to most libertarianism. There are, on the other hand, some people who would say they agree with the NAP but are not libertarians. Also, there is probably a substantial minority of libertarians who do not accept the NAP. - Nat Krause 13:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) It is the basic rule for all and you say: it doesn't really say much
 * 2) they don't follow automatically from it - It is a theory or a rule. Libertarain favor the theory or the rule, but they are not Jesus Christ. So what?
 * 3) say they agree with the NAP but are not libertarians - maybe they dont identify themself with this group. I, too.
 * 4) is fundamental to most libertarianism -- where not? Where is the Libertarian, who dont favor the NAP. And then tell me what he favors if it is not the NAP.
 * 5) probably a substantial minority of libertarians who do not accept the NAP -  probably, so you dont know. It is POV. Then let them speak themself. Maybe there is nobody. --Alfrem 14:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * "Libertarain favor the theory or the rule, but they are not Jesus Christ. So what?" Quote of the year! Although I don't know what it means.
 * "Where is the Libertarian, who dont favor the NAP." Well, off the top of my head, Randians, at least, don't believe that the NAP is an axiom. Some libertarians very likely are Stirnerite egoists, and/or believers in might-makes-right. Some are probably in favor of aggression if it is sanctioned by the Bible or the Koran. Where is your evidence that every libertarian supports the NAP? - Nat Krause 01:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Max Stirner, and his Egoism are not part of Libertarianism. You tell me nonsense again. And for evidence you can visit Non-aggression principle, troll --Alfrem 28 June 2005 08:34 (UTC)
 * Geez, you got a bad attitude, Alfrem. I suppose you're right that the NAP is fundamental to all libertarians, if you are willing to define those who don't support it as automatically non-libertarian. By the way, what about the Christian or Muslim libertarians? - Nat Krause 28 June 2005 09:01 (UTC)
 * Nice day, troll --Alfrem 28 June 2005 09:20 (UTC)
 * Stirner was certainly a libertarian, as he was an anarchist and an individualist. Are you suggesting Tucker wasn't a libertarian too? He also bought into Stirner Egoism, and yet he is praised as in influence on both Rothbard and others over at Mises.org and other libertarian sites (especially among anarchists, both "left" and "right"). Just because you disagree on amoralism isn't evidence it isn't anarchic or libertarian for that matter. How can one be an anarchist and NOT a libertarian? It's makes no logical sense, given the goal of liberty for both. The goal of liberty, via the NAP, some other ethical theory, or a total rejection of ethics, and the actions of liberty (non-coercion of non-victimizers) make one libertarian. And even that is no hard and fast definition. I would say though, Objectivists aren't libertarians for the most part (or at all), even by their own admissions. Rand hated libertarians, and said as much many times. But her egoism WAS an ethical theory (see The Virtue of Selfishness), unlike Stirner's Egoism. And Rand was a minarchist, whereas Stirner was an anarchist. Rand's rejection of anarchism is very close to Nietzsche's rejection of anarchism, even though like Rand he hated the state with a passion (although Rand was clear on thinking the state necessary, while Nietzsche was much more ambiguous about the need for a state). So, you were half right, and half wrong. 2001:5B0:23FF:3CF0:0:0:0:38 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Political philosophy
I'm pretty sure we have established that Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Alfrem has reverted all our edits several times now and has not given us a clear and succinct reason why we should not call it by this term. I have left a message on Alfrem's talk page asking him to cease doing this. If he can find a source that disagrees with this, I would be more than happy to see it as a discussion on the page. Until then, I am requesting that we keep political philosophy. I have footnoted this, if people find further evidence for it, please feel free to add to the footnote. If need be we can incorporate the footnote into the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * No. You must give the evidence. Its your assertion, that L. should be a political philosophy. I cant know why you think it. Rothard and Hoppe did not wrote about it, so obvoiusly it isn't. --Alfrem 00:23, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I did give evidence. You would know this, after all you removed the footnote several times! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * At the risk of being called a "populist troll" another time by Alfrem, we have given evidence and explained this to you several times. To date, nobody agrees with you that libertarianism is not a political philosophy. Please move on. Rhobite 03:57, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Look in evidence and you find this: "... Apparent censorship through refusal to publish ideas unpopular with mainstream scientists (unpopular because of ideological reasons and/or because they seem to contradict long held scientific theories) has soured the popular perception of scientists as being neutral or seekers of truth and often denigrated popular perception of science as a whole."
 * And secondly, wikipedia is no democrazy.--Alfrem 28 June 2005 08:16 (UTC)

 * Sorry, what's your point? Yes, we are not a democracy, we are an encyclopedia. And as for censorship: that's not what we are doing. Applying your logic, you are more at risk of censoring the views of others because you remove the political philosophy part all the time! If you have evidence that backs up your claims, then we would have it now. We don't appear to have it, so we are maintaining that Libertarianism is a political philosophy. If you have evidence that shows that some don't believe this to be the case, please add it, but cite your sources. To put it more bluntly (and rudely): put up or shut up. - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 09:17 (UTC)

 * I have evidence that you have no evidence. So POV!!!!!! --Alfrem 28 June 2005 15:06 (UTC)

 * OK, that's ridiculous, and I think we all know it. Alfrem, one last time: I have provided a footnote and have only just updated it with an Encyclopedia Britannica reference that it is a "political philosophy". To risk treating your ridiculous statement seriously: I have evidence that proves that you have no evidence that I have no evidence! - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 01:47 (UTC)

Is libertarianism a political philosophy to the exclusion of being a moral philosophy or and idealogy? Political philosophy may be minimal common denominator, but for many it is way of life, a commitment to non-coercion even within the existing coercive culture. Some, especially the anti-fraud contingent, see it as a commitment to honesty and integrity as opposed to a license to explore the limits of the liberty they seek.--Silverback June 29, 2005 09:37 (UTC)

User conduct RFC filed on User:Alfrem
I have filed Requests for comment/Alfrem, due to his constant reversions on this page, his POV pushing, his lack of sources for assertions made in the article and for finally making a personal attack when losing an argument (he called User:Harry491 a "troll", when he is clearly not a troll). I would like to state for the record that I bare Alfrem no animosity, but that he has given me no choice but to file this RFC. Alfrem, I hope, will take the RFC as a wakeup call that his behaviour must change if he wishes to successfully edit Wikipedia in the future. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 01:43 (UTC)

 * Thanks for setting this up. Next time, I'll know how to do it myself.  Is there any way to get an injunction on Alfrem's edits to libertarianism-related articles until the RFC closes? Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 02:46 (UTC)
 * The purpose of RFC is not to halt the editing of a user. The RFC is just that: a request for comment on that users behaviour. It is one of the first steps in dispute resolution. The steps are usually as follows:
 * Ask on talk page what is going on
 * Ask user on their talk page to cease from reverting, ask them to clarify why they are doing this and see if a resolution can be found
 * File an RFC about the page in question to solicit feedback from other Wikipedia editors
 * File a user conduct RFC on the user
 * File a request for Arbitration: if need be this is where you ask for an injunction on editing this article
 * Once ArbCom accepts the case, present evidence
 * The process, while it is long, is designed to be as fair as possible to all parties concerned. At any point the offending party can start altering their behaviour. If all avenues are exhausted, then they can blocked from editing for some time. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 03:01 (UTC)

 * Good. His edits are absurd and it is impossible to reason with him. --Malathion 29 June 2005 02:47 (UTC)

 * this is absurd, these are the excat same arguments(with even the excat same evidence) that were going on in this page a year ago Chuck F 2 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you could elaborate further on the RFC? - Ta bu shi da yu 2 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)

political / RFC
Do people know this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alfrem

--Alfrem 29 June 2005 14:36 (UTC)

 * Yes. If you actually bothered to read this very talk page you would note (a few sections up) that I have told people about this. I also left a message for you about it on your talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 00:08 (UTC)

pov-tag
Why no pov tag when it is so? --Alfrem 29 June 2005 13:41 (UTC)
 * You have not proved or made clear what is POV. Clearly state (in an understandable fashion) what is POV, then we can address the concerns. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 13:43 (UTC)
 * Oh, P.S. Alfrem, remove the political philosophy text again and I'll file an arbcom request and request that a temporary injunction be issued so that you can't edit Libertarianism related articles. I'd prefer not to, but I'm not a man to be tested. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 13:48 (UTC)

 * You can only have one thing: a political philsophy with pov-tag, or a philosophy without pov-tag. This is stand of discussion. What is "arbcom"?

 * It seems to me that there is a strong consensus that the intro should include the term "political philosophy." A number of editors have posted regarding this and as far as I can tell all, excluding you, support the use of the the term "political philosophy." Despite your beliefs, in the presence of this consensus you should not continue to revert the article. Doing so continually is in violation of policy. This issue, as far as I can tell, has already been resolved, and unless you have other issues the POV tag should be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 14:02 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is no democrazy. --Alfrem 29 June 2005 14:06 (UTC)

 * That's why we're not voting. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 14:25 (UTC)

 * But you need "majority" as argument?! --Alfrem 29 June 2005 14:36 (UTC)

 * If your argument is that Wikipedia is not a democracy, then you cannot complain when what you believe to be the route that the article should go is not taken. We do not need majority as an argument, we need to understand where we can fix the article. So far you've not given us any real arguments! - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 00:06 (UTC)

 * Who is we? I can fix the article myself. This doesn't mean that all arrogant people must understand what happened. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 07:40 (UTC)

 * Go ahead and fix it then. However, if you feel that "fixing" an article is by removing well sourced material and adding in material that is not well sourced, I think you need to rethinking your definition of the word "fixing". - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:48 (UTC)

Is "political philosophy" intended to exclude the moral and idealogical elements of libertarianism? Why be specific, or why not list all elements?--Silverback June 29, 2005 17:17 (UTC)

 * I think its character as an ideology is expressed by its description as a political philosophy. As far as its moral elements, aside from the basic right/wrong approaches described by its political aspect, I think describing libertarianism as a system of morality would be highly questionable. Unlike a more complete philosophic system like Objectivism, libertarianism skirts around most issues of right and wrong, aside from what follows from its political premises. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 17:35 (UTC)

 * The sole ideological affair of L. is the non-aggression axiom. Now say me, what is political at this ethic? --Alfrem 29 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)

 * Provide a source that backs up this argument!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 00:07 (UTC)

 * non-aggression principle --Alfrem 30 June 2005 07:40 (UTC)

 * What? Please quote (using copy and paste if you need to) the exact words in that article that state theat the "sole ideological affair of L. is the non-aggression axiom". Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:48 (UTC)
 * P.S. As you don't seem to understand a basic request, allow me to show you what I mean:
 * "Walter Block, a U.S. Austrian School economist believes that the non-aggression axiom is the central lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism ."
 * But wait! There's more! Block himself says that this is not actually agreed upon by all who call themselves libertarian, as he says: "The non-aggression axiom and private property rights theory which underlies it have recently come under furious attack, amazingly, from commentators actually calling themselves libertarians." NPOV policy would state that those opinions must be detailed.
 * Now do you finally see what I'm asking for? If you have sources to information on this, provide them! That's what we've been asking for. Perhaps now I've shown you what we need then you will help us? - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:57 (UTC)

 * Notes
 * Walter Block, "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism". February 17, 2003. Accessed 30 June, 2005.
 * That is just one viewpoint. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:54 (UTC)

 * This is only a evidence of your silliness. Block points out "1. They misunderstand the nature of libertarianism." and so on. There is no serious dispute about that under scholars." When you don't accept the testimony of non-aggression principle I cant help you, then go your way. Or else, it must be clear what is the basis of the ideology. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 09:38 (UTC)
 * Really? Perhaps you could explain how libertarianism deals with the following scenario:
 * A group of libertarians exist in peace and harmony and follow the non-aggression principle to the letter. Another group, living close by, have a practice of enslaving their people and yet also live by the principle that it against their moral principles and law to enslave any people who exist outside of their community. One day one of their slaves finds out about the group of libertarians and decides that this is where she wishes to live. She escapes and goes to join the libertarians, living amongst them and strictly following their principle of non-aggression.
 * Shortly thereafter, the group who enslaved the women discover where she has gone and come after her in force. They capture her through aggressive force and coerce her to leave with them, back to her life of slavery. Because of their moral and legal understanding that they must not enslave people who live outside of their community, they leave the libertarian community alone.
 * So: what do the libertarians (who live by your definition) do? Do they defend her and stop them from capturing her, or do they meekly let her be enslaved again? I would very much like to hear your answer, if you have one. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 10:30 (UTC)

 * I don't know what you want. Slavery is a breach of NAP. So what? How can I know what people will do? --Alfrem 30 June 2005 12:13 (UTC)

 * That's my point, Alfrem. There is a school of thought that believes that NAP is not necessarily the sole axiom of the Libertarianism. My question stands: do libertarians let the girl go into slavery, or do they assist her gain her liberty? - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 12:49 (UTC)

 * This is nonsense. Libertarianism is at first a theory which says: non aggression principle. This theory doesn't get rifts solely the practies avoid the enforcement or realization. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 14:23 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand the sentence "This theory doesn't get rifts solely the practies avoid the enforcement or realization." Can you please rephrase? Chairboy 30 June 2005 14:36 (UTC)

 * Sorry for my English. The NAP rule as moral is always valid. It remains just as well valid when self-defense is not realizable. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 14:49 (UTC)

ArbCom request filed against User:Alfrem
See Requests for arbitration. Anyone who wishes to participate must add themselves to the relevant party list. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 08:51 (UTC)

 * Agree with Ta bu shi da yu, User:Alfrem is going nuts with no justification. Is he some Lyndon Larouche person?  BTW, on his issue as to removal of "political philosophy" from the summary, if he wants to make the argument (if he can make the argument) he can put it down below.  But in the summary, he just fundamentally misunderstands what "political philosophy" means and the purpose of the summary, which is to broadly state the issue. --Noitall 16:54, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Tell me, what must be so clearly political. Or you are going nuts. --Alfrem 20:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Alfrem violated the 3RR, deleting "political philosophy" 4 times within 24 hours (actually he missed 5 times by a couple minutes). Who is going to fill out a report? --Noitall 21:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * lies, but no answer. --Alfrem 21:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've already reported this here, but if you see that I missed any of his reverts, please add them. Feel free to add your comments as well. --Malathion 22:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * kindergarten --Alfrem 22:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There are sources which clearly differentiate between political and non-political libertarian views.

"Libertarians buy into the system to a still lesser degree. We need a distinction between political and non-political Libertarians. Political Libertarians seek to bring about freedom via political means to change the political system. They have bought into the system in that they employ political means.

Non-political Libertarians reject political means to bring about freedom. They tend to buy into the system to a lesser degree than political Libertarians, but they still tend to believe they can't be free unless the political system is changed. They may focus on educational activities such as distributing literature and writing letters to newspapers. They've bought into the system to the extent they believe they must obey the system and the system must be changed for them to be free." Frederick Mann - http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/tl50c.htm

"Libertarianism is typically formulated as a theory of the permissible use of force. This political libertarianism holds that the use of force is permissible just in case it violates no one's libertarian rights (e.g., is consensual or is necessary to prevent a rights violation). Here we will briefly note two other topics that libertarianism could be taken to address. One is moral permissibility in general. Libertarianism, that is, could be taken as giving a full moral theory of permissible action. This ethical libertarianism says that an action is permissible just in case it violates no one's libertarian rights. This is a much more radical doctrine than political libertarianism. For it denies that there are any impersonal duties and that there are any non-enforceable duties owed to others. Most political libertarians probably reject ethical libertarianism." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/#5

--Alfrem 22:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm reluctant to respond to Alfrem, but I'd like to point out that these quotes do not seem to support his assertion that libertarianism is not a political philosophy. Rhobite 23:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * It is not my assertion to coin Libertarianism as non-political. It is your assertion to claim it must be political. --Alfrem 08:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Just because those within this extremely narrow community believe some wierd argument about the term "political" does not mean that it should be addressed in the summary. In addition, the term "political philosophy" has nothing to do with their argument but with a categorization of general thought.  --Noitall 23:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * A categorization of general thought is not: Libertarianism = political philosophy. The most books about political philosophy don't deal with Libertarianism. Also, political philosophy is giving no empirical evidence. --Alfrem 08:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Good Lord. Alfrem has just quoted someone as saying that there is a political component to Libertarianism... so much for the philosophy never dealing with politics!
 * Anyway, now that Alfrem has finally provided sources, it might be worthwhile to note that some Libertarians do not believe it to be a political philosophy, while others do. - Ta bu shi da yu

 * I don't think so. "Libertarian" has several obscure meanings in philosophy, depending on what you're talking about, and that's all the Plato article is saying. For example, "libertarian" in the context of moral philosophy means someone who thinks we have free will. Unless you plan to fork and disambiguate the page into several separate articles (such as Libertarianism (political philosophy) I think it's fine for Wikipedia to stick with the common definition. After all, anyone who even knows the various definitions of libertarian isn't likely to be looking here for them. --Malathion 02:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The common definition is even not to call it "political". All better sources (Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, de Jasay, D.Friedman) avoid the misleading term "political". --Alfrem 08:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no general "political component to Libertarianism". There are some liberal applications mixed in libertarian thinking which are not general accepted (limited government) of all libertarians. "Libertarian philosophy" is not "Libertarian philosophy". But you lump all together. --Alfrem 08:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Libertarian philosophy" is not "Libertarian philosophy". Uh-huh. Thanks for clearing that up for us all, Alfrem. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * wow. Dave (talk) 15:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu blocked Alfrem 48 h and runs riot in the article. I am not clear by which right.--80.131.0.46 08:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 80.131.0.46 appears to BE Alfrem, based on his edits to the Libertarianism article, plus the IP resolves to a german ISP. It is not certain how his actions are anything other then pure vandalism at this point.  If he needs to lie, there's something wrong with his position. - Chairboy 14:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is aware of the situation. They're probably going to treat this IP (and any others that act like Alfrem) as sockpuppets. --Malathion 15:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Temp injunction
The arbitration committee has issued a temporary injunction, prohibiting Alfrem from editing this article pending the outcome of your arbitration case. Furthermore, ''It shall be presumed that any user, such as 80.131.0.46... who makes Alfrem's trademark edit, removal of the phrase "Libertarianism is a political philosophy[2]," from the article is a sockpuppet of Alfrem. Such sockpuppets may be banned indefinitely if practical.'' →Raul654 20:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem


text:
Talk:Raid on Deerfield

Needs renaming
Someone suggested changing the name to "Raid" instead of "Massacre." When women and children are slaughtered by hand, it seems to qualify as a massacre.

--As the Historic Deerfield 1704 website makes clear, the raid was part of larger military operations in Queen Anne's War, involving 5 different cultural groups with varying interests. The term "raid" implies a history and a context to the violence that the term "massacre" (a 19th century addition to the history, as I recall) flattens and erases. I vote for changing the name to "1704 Raid on Deerfield" or something like that. Whenelvisdied (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For the past 200 years, everybody has known it as "the Deerfield Massacre". Has anyone ever called it "The Raid on Deerfield"? It was, to be sure, both a raid and a massacre, but we should use the name it's known by, which is the name people will search for on the Internet too, rather than invent a new name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B00A:E29A:DBF:2263:36BC:3385 (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Who is this "everybody" you speak of? Suitably focused searches of Google (web), Google Scholar, Google Books, and JSTOR (a library of scholarly journals) all return more results for "Raid on Deerfield" than they do for "Deerfield Massacre". (Not that Google hits are the best of ways to approach this, mind you. It's at least better than a vague "everybody".) The Memorial Hall Museum, located in Historic Deerfield, calls it the "Deerfield Raid".  Magic ♪piano 20:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Voluntary captives
The article says that some captive remained in Indian communities for the rest of their lives. Voluntarily, or otherwise?

https://books.google.com/books?id=O3QOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7&dq=Christopher+Gist+journal+of+1750&hl=en&ei=o4yGTZzcLerG0QHy6cm_CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Mary%20harris&f=false
 * One was Eunice Williams.
 * ANother was Mary Harris born About 1694. She was also assimilated. The only known memtion of her later life was about 50 years after the Deerfield Massacre/Raid in 1754 when she was still living with the Indians in what is now Ohio, See Christopher Gist Journal p.41 and 114

Other captives who responded to assimilation were:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jemison

Some were "redeemeded"
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Ann_Parker
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Lehmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.95.215 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Captors and Captives 1704 cover.jpg
Image:Captors and Captives 1704 cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Year in the title
Is it necessary to specify in the article's title that this is about the 1704 raid? Were there any other raids on Deerfield? Funnyhat (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. "Raid on Deerfield" -wikipedia gets 4,050 hits, and "1704 Raid on Deerfield" -wikipedia gets 310 hits. Poking through "Raid on Deerfield" -wikipedia -1704 suggests there was not a separate raid in a different year. Kingturtle (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I moved it. Funnyhat (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Revenge?
The text claims that the reason for the 1704 raid was "revenge" for an attack of some 30 year earlier. This is a bit of a stretch when you think of it. Hard to keep mad that long, even for those guys!

A 1871 account claims that the reason was a privateer had captured a bell destined for Quebec. The bell was ultimately sold to Deerfield. That the attackers indeed carried off the bell, buried for a time near Burlington (Vermont) "as every schoolchild knows." Then was dug up and carried back to Quebed at leisure. See Gazeteer, page 25 or thereabouts. Student7 (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The Deerfield bell story is debunked here. It is the sort of thing that probably ought to be mentioned here anyway (as a debunked tale).

 * As far as the revenge thing goes, it might be a contributing factor, especially for people at formative ages during the first encounter. I can also see "recruiters" using those sorts of events as propaganda tools.  Magic ♪piano 23:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Tried putting a few words there. I suspect that the myth was more widely circulated that the rebuttal! As usually happens! :)  18:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Authors Haefeli and Sweeney (see article for ref) note that the bell story is an important part of Kahnawake historiography. They also go into the deep roots of some of the native participation, some of which was rooted in the loss of land in the area.  I will add some of this to the article eventually...  Magic ♪piano 19:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Shame
You people should be ashamed of yourselves for the obfuscation and outright lies you tell in this article. Eunice williams, wife of Rev. John Williams was savegly[savagely] murdered by the hatchet of an indian just six miles north of what is now Old Deerfield. Thats about two hours walking time after being dragged from her home in this raid. To REMOVE that fact from this article and obfuscate her name in deciet[deceit] is just outright communist. Your[You're] the reason the wikiproject is losing all it's[its] credibility.. shame, shame, shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.233.217 (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, but you're wrong. Quoting from the article: "Williams' wife Eunice, weak after having given birth just six weeks earlier, was one of the first to be killed during the trek; her body was recovered and reburied in the Deerfield cemetery." The reason for her "savage" slaying is also given; do you object to the explanation? (I've also taken the liberty of noting spelling and grammatical corrections in your commentary.  Some of us take pride in our attention to detail; you should too.)  Magic ♪piano 02:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I have to agree with the first commenter. You not only left out of the article (or ignored researching) many of the most pertinent facts, including the startling brutality of the massacre and the subsequent march - in which many killed were women, elderly, and children including babies. Contempory accounts of the massacre (which is what it was!) tell of the butchery of babies and children. There are contempory accounts that turn your stomach. You also worked hard to insist that those held captive somehow wanted to be there. In truth - something you seem oblivious to - many were young girls who, once in Canada were forcibly married and impregnated. The Indians did not release a captive (after having sold her again through bargaining) and allow her to take her children. To leave would have meant young women would leave toddlers behind. For you to sit on your rather naive 21st-century throne and assume they all stayed because they were just so happy, were never abused - and never missed their families and culture of origin - is astounding. You also use very soft language - they were "assimilated", for example. Being kidnapped, forced into slavery, manual or sexual, while a child, demands that you learn to survive. This is not "assimilation" because you "love the outdoor lifestyle". You may wonder how I know these things: I know a great deal about Deerfield (more than your article shows you do) because amongst the many murdered were several of my own family. Two young girls - possibly 3 - were kidnapped and taken to Canada. (One/two were bought back by ransom after years in Indian captivity, the other had entered a convent in Canadian territory.) You also ignore in your numbers those murdered in cold blood while in their own fields in the weeks before the raid - including three of my ancestors, Edward Allen and his sons - amongst others. I can only assume you are the product of our failed educational system, when I read such a biased article. 98.127.202.130 (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you are responding to a post made more than 10 years ago? Nevertheless, I would encourage you to find reliable sources that support your position and edit the article accordingly. Indyguy (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raid on Deerfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050625014244/http://www.1704.deerfield.history.museum/ to http://www.1704.deerfield.history.museum/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Dates are equivocal
It should be mentioned clearly that the dates indicated in the text are based on the Julian calendar that was in use in New England during that period. For example, the 29th of February, the day of the raid, was the 11th of March in the Gregorian calendar.

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

title: Talk:Raid on Deerfield


text:
Team Bianchi

Team Bianchi was a makeshift team that was put together from the remnants of the Coast team in time for the 2003 Tour de France.

Team Coast had been unable to pay the salaries of their riders and Bianchi took over the team and the role of title sponsor. Coast had recently signed Jan Ullrich following his departure from after his drunk driving and amphetamine use. During the 2003 tour while riding for Bianchi, Ullrich placed second to Lance Armstrong by just 61 seconds, his closest ever margin in any of Armstrong's seven victorious years. In the process, Ullrich also managed to upstage Alexander Vinokourov, Telekom's highest-placed rider, who finished third.

Team Bianchi had planned to continue on as a professional road racing team. However, Ullrich's return to his former team Telekom (later T-Mobile and ), as well as the departure of Ángel Casero led to the demise of Team Bianchi as they now lacked the star power necessary to justify a top-tier team.

2000

 * Grand Prix Pino Cerami, Jan Bratkowski
 * Stage 12 Tour de Langkawi, Jan Bratkowski

2001

 * Stage 4 Paris - Nice, Alex Zülle

2003

 * Profronde Stiphout, Jan Ullrich
 * Rund um Köln, Jan Ullrich
 * Stage 1b International Niedersachsen-Rundfahrt, Thorsten Wilhelms
 * Stage 1 Bayern-Rundfahrt, Thomas Liese
 * Stage 1 Tour of Austria, Steffen Radochla
 * Stage 12 Tour de France, Jan Ullrich

title: Team Bianchi


text:
Woodleigh MRT station

Woodleigh MRT station is an underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on the North East line (NEL), in Bidadari, Singapore. The station is underneath Upper Serangoon Road, near the junction with Upper Aljunied Road. Areas served include the Bidadari Estate, Stamford American International School and Woodleigh Residences.

Woodleigh was first announced along with the 16 NEL stations in March 1996. Though it was completed along with the rest of the NEL in June 2003, the station remained closed due to the lack of local developments. It eventually opened in June 2011. As with most of the NEL stations, it is a designated Civil Defence shelter. Woodleigh station features an Art-in-Transit public artwork Slow Motion by April Ng, depicting commuters going about their daily lives, on 30 zinc panels.

History
The North East line (NEL) project, which was first proposed in 1984, received government approval in January 1996. Woodleigh station was among the sixteen NEL stations announced by communications minister Mah Bow Tan in March that year. To minimise operating costs, Woodleigh was not planned to open along with the other NEL stations. It was intended to build only the structural shell of Woodleigh station, but it was later decided to build it fully, as it would have been more costly to wait until later to complete the station from the structural shell.

The contract for the station's construction and 2.5 km of bored tunnels was awarded to a joint venture consisting of Wayss & Freytag, Econ Corporation and Chew Eu Hock Construction. The S$317   million contract (US$0 million in ) included the construction of the adjacent Serangoon station and a vehicular viaduct along Upper Serangoon Road. Though the station was fully equipped and ready for operations in 2003, transport minister Yeo Cheow Tong explained in July that the station might not open for seven or eight years. The station would begin operating once the area around it was sufficiently developed.

With preparations for the station's opening ongoing since the second half of 2010, The Straits Times transport correspondent Christopher Tan speculated that the station would open in mid-2011 to serve new developments in the area. In a parliamentary session in March, Transport Minister Raymond Lim confirmed that Woodleigh station would open on 20 June 2011. Before its opening, the station was refurbished and repainted, and SBS Transit staff tested the station equipment and lighting.

On the opening day, several commuters, who were unaware that Woodleigh station had opened, alighted there by accident, having intended to alight at the adjacent Serangoon station. The operator SBS Transit deployed several staff to assist the confused commuters.

Security incident
On 18 April 2017, Woodleigh station was closed for about three hours after a suspicious substance was found in various areas in the station. All trains skipped Woodleigh station during the closure. The station reopened at 4:20   pm after police established the substance to be baking flour. Authorities arrested a 69-year-old man that same day for "causing public alarm" and summoned two other men to help with police investigations. The investigation revealed that the three men were members of the running group Seletar Hash House Harriers, who intended to mark a trail for other runners to follow (known as "hashing"). The man responsible was fined S$1000 (US$) for causing a public nuisance.

Station details

Woodleigh station serves the North East line (NEL) of the Singapore MRT and is between the Potong Pasir and Serangoon stations. The station code is NE11. Being part of the NEL, the station is operated by SBS Transit. The station operates daily from about 6:00   am to 12:15    am. Train frequencies vary from 2.5 to 5.0 minutes. The station is underneath Upper Serangoon Road, near the junction with Upper Aljunied Road. The station has three entrances, serving Stamford American International School, Mount Vernon Columbarium and Mount Vernon Sanctuary, along with various residential developments in the area such as Avon Park. Woodleigh station will also serve the developing Bidadari public housing estate. The station is next to Woodleigh Residences – an upcoming integrated commercial and residential development part of the estate's future town centre which will include a bus interchange. The bus interchange was expected to be completed at the end of 2024 after a three year delay due to engineering challenges and the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Each of the three entrances has a curved canopy with aluminium louvres; these are linked to the taxi stands and bus stops near the station. The windows at the entrances allow commuters to have a view of the station's surroundings. The station is designated as a Civil Defence (CD) shelter: it is designed to accommodate at least 7,500 people and withstand airstrikes and chemical attacks. Equipment essential for the operations in the CD shelter is mounted on shock absorbers to prevent damage during a bombing. When electrical supply to the shelter is disrupted, there are backup generators to keep operations going. The shelter has dedicated built-in decontamination chambers and dry toilets with collection bins that will send human waste out of the shelter.

Like all other NEL stations, the platforms are wheelchair-accessible. A tactile system, consisting of tiles with rounded or elongated raised studs, guides visually impaired commuters through the station. Dedicated tactile routes connect the station entrances to the platforms.

Public artwork

Commissioned as part of the MRT network's Art-in-Transit programme, a showcase of public artworks on the MRT network, April Ng's Slow Motion is displayed on the station walls at the concourse level. A "snapshot" of Singapore's urban life, the work is printed on thirty zinc panels, and depicts commuters going about their daily lives.

Ng had previously used photo etching to create pictures of her friends as their farewell gifts; the gifts were well-received and hence she decided to use the technique again for Slow Motion. Ng used photos that showed the diversity of Singapore's culture, representing people of all races and ages. She took the photos herself, using LTA staff and the Woodleigh station construction crew as subjects, along with photos of her friends and her husband and son. The LTA wanted the Art-in-Transit works to have a "wayfinding" element to help guide commuters towards the platforms or out of the station, and Ng attempted to achieve this by making sure that some of the photos were of people moving in the appropriate direction.

Ng chose zinc instead of copper because the photos she took reproduced better in zinc. The choice of zinc fit in well with the station's design, which used zinc in the roof materials. Singapore's high humidity caused problems during the photo-engraving process. To create the images, a polymer film had to be applied to the zinc plates. The humidity caused the film to stick to the plates immediately, so that it could not be adjusted. Ng was able to resolve the problem by spraying the film and plates with water before applying the film.

title: Woodleigh MRT station


text:
Roko Tui Namata

The Roko Tui Namata is the title of the Paramount Chief of the Namata district in Fiji's Tailevu Province.

The chiefly family of Namata is closely related to that of Bau, with frequent intermarriage between them. Adi Viniana Gavoka, the first wife of Ratu Sir George Cakobau, the late Governor-General and Vunivalu of Bau, was the daughter of the late Roko Tui Namata, Ratu Inoke Mara.

title: Roko Tui Namata


text:
Talk:Haynes Manual

VfD
This article was subject to a VfD which resulted in a keep vote. The discussion may be found here. The article has greatly improved from when it was first listed for deletion, and the VfD probably helped to get the article noticed and subsequently greatly expanded. Harro5 22:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
The article is way better now than it was yesterday. I'm not sure about the point of listing every car for which a manual is available though. Would it suffice to say (and be more maintainable) that many of the more common cars are covered? Friday 13:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If it were a list of the shops in the world that one could buy Haynes manuals from, it wouldn't be a terribly useful or maintainable list. But a list of the vehicles for which a Haynes manual exists is both useful (to those who want the answer to the question "Is there a Haynes manual for my car?") and maintainable.  Whilst it is difficult for any arbitrary Wikipedia editor to compile and maintain a list of all shops in the world where the manuals are sold, it is comparatively simple for any arbitrary Wikipedia editor to compile and maintain a list of all vehicles for which there are Haynes manuals.  Furthermore: Wikipedia articles on bands contain lists of the albums that they have created, Wikipedia articles on writers contain lists of the books that they have written, Wikipedia articles on actors contain lists of the films that they have acted in, and Wikipedia articles on South Park characters contain lists of the episodes in which the characters have died.  Why should an article on Haynes manuals not include a list of the vehicles for which there is a Haynes manual? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 13:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I guess I'd been assuming people wanting to know if their car is covered would use the Haynes website, maybe using a page like this .  If we're just cutting and pasting from a website, I don't see the value.  But then again I suppose I don't see the harm either.  BTW I completely agree that in some topic areas, the number/length of articles is completely out of control.  In this case, between the 40+ makes, the sometimes large number of models per make, and the number of years, I thought it was too much.  But if people want to add it, I'm certainly not going to go trying to delete it.  Friday 14:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I am quite unpleasantly surprised there is no list of Haynes manuals. I came here specifically hoping to see what manuals had been produced by Haynes specific to my needs. I am further shocked to see you did have one and it was deleted? That's a bummer. What good is a Wikipedia entry on manuals w/o listing them? Both in and out of print? Anyone looking up Haynes Manuals already knows they are Haynes Manuals, doh!

As to the list being incomplete- that's nonsense. How many entries in Wikipedia are actually asking users to submit additional info, meaning many existing Wikipedia articles are somewhat incomplete. Outdated? That's EXACTLY why that list was important, if i can find a listing of manuals somewhere else (no luck so far) they will likely only list the manuals currently in print.

As to unencyclopedic, who cares? What's the goal of Wikipedia? To emulate Funk & Wagnel, or to disseminate useful information the public needs and wants? This isn't Oxford University, it's the internet! Form over function belongs to the Victorian Era, not modern web data libraries.

Again, I'm quite dismayed the information I was hoping to find on Wikipedia may have been deleted.

Keith Robinson, Ct USA              —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.52.210 (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

my appologies 99.2.52.210 (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

list
The list is unencyclopedic, incomplete, and outdated. It's far more appropriate material for the Haynes website, or for the website of a bookseller. I'll be removing it in the next few days if there are no well-reasoned objections. -- Mikeblas 03:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Offering a third opinion here (in case it's still needed). A copy of Haynes's vehicle coverage would be redundant and inevitably out-of-date. If someone doesn't see their vehicle listed on the page they'll check the Haynes website anyway just in case Wikipedia's list is out-of-date. Maintaining a copy of the list on Wikipedia just creates unnecessary work. Regarding the comparison with discographies etc., I don't see this as valid for several reasons:
 * After two months with no comments or improvements, I've removed the un-cited content and the unencyclopedic directory of available manuals. -- Mikeblas 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You evidently didn't read the rest of this talk page first. Read it. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 11:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did. You're for it, and Friday is against it, but won't take action. I took action. The list is unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a directory. An external link to the list is appropriate, but including the list in this article serves no use, churns the article, and crowds the rest of the content. -- Mikeblas 12:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your action is wrong, as is your idea of what is unencyclopaedic. Your position will only become a consistent one when we see you removing all of the discographies from musician articles, too.  After all, they, too, could just as easily be externally linked to, and they, too, crowd articles.  Go and erase some discographies and then come back here.  Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Musical releases listed in the article describing the band or artist are a very different matter than reproducing a list of all the titles produced by a publisher. The list here pretty clearly falls into the latter category, as the books don't have a single author and aren't descriptive of a representative style or mode of artwork. I've again removed the list. If you still disagree, I think we should seek a third opinion. -- Mikeblas 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * there is not always a complete, up-to-date primary source for discographies like there is for the Haynes list,
 * many works listed on musician pages have or may deserve their own articles - Haynes Ford Focus 01-05 et al. will never need their own articles,
 * discography lists convey information that cannot be inferred from a single sentence - "covering a wide range of makes, models, and years (300 models of car and 130 models of the motorcycle)" gives me a pretty good idea of what the Haynes titles will be,
 * many lists on Wikipedia are unnecessary and arguing for consistency with them will only spread the list-mania. -- AbleRiver 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Assembly is the reverse of disassembly
Can someone confirm or correct the oft-quoted phrase "assembly is the reverse of disassembly" and provide context, please? Thanks Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I think you are wrong. I just got rid of my car so, for the first time in over 20 years, haven't a Haynes manual to hand. I think it is "Replacement is the reverse of removal". A complete pisser because you think you are nearly done then realize you have another two hours to go-- but now upside down and without instructions. SimonTrew (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * From Manual 0814 (1996):

 * 'Reassembly is a reversal of dismantling'

 * 'Refit in the reverse order of removal'

 * 'Refitting is a reversal of removal'

 * 'Refitting is the reverse sequence to removal'

 * 'Refitting is a direct reversal of the removal procedure'

 * However, from Manual 1711 (2003) (different car, different authors):

 * 'Refitting is a reversal of removal'

 * 'Refitting is the reversal of removal'

 * but the most commonly used wording is

 * 'Refitting is the reverse of the removal procedure'

 * This unscientific and unencyclopedic sampling suggests a slight tendency towards more consistent wording as the years pass . ..

 * 86.176.113.141 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

History
In the history section it could be added that in Australia, Haynes publishes manuals for exclusively Australian vehicles. Also they acquired several other manual publishers along the way. These include Gregory's (formerly Scientific Publications) & Rellim which had both been publishing car workshop manuals since the 50s, before even Haynes was established.

Terrybebb (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haynes Manual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308021439/http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2004/85-04 to http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2004/85-04

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

2018 manual for ford custom van.
Do u do a manual for 2018 ford custom desil van 86.8.156.155 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Haynes Manual


text:
Talk:Lisvane

Untitled
There is a public school in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, called Scarborough College and Lisvane School. Is the Lisvane here, named after Lisvane near Cardiff? Or does the word Lisvane have a meaning other than being a place name or a person's name?

Also, is there a connection between Llysfaen in North Wales and Lisvane?

 * In name only. The English Lisvane is a corruption of the Welsh Llys-faen.

I am from Lisvane - Llysfaen, and I was led to believe that the translation of Llysfaen meant Court or Gathering place of kings. There is a local legend that talks of Llysfaen being an area attributed to a Welsh version of King Arthur

Never heard of any assoiciation with Lisvane and King Arthur, lots of places in Thornhill named after Arthurian legend. But I remember being told as a child, I cannot remember whom told me, but the lump of rock near the summit of Lisvane Graig was said to be the stone Arthur pulled Excaliber from, who knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David dudley90 (talk • contribs) 20:12, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Assessment - Class B
I have assessed this article as Class B, however there are very few references, especially in the history section. If this article is ever to become a Good Article, more work needs to be done on citing sources. All the best. Seth Whales (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisvane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311153302/http://www.lisvanebaptistchurch.org.uk/ to http://www.lisvanebaptistchurch.org.uk/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Lisvane (CAC) Tennis Club
Non-notable tennis club Tacyarg (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The tennis club is an integral part of Cardiff Athletic Club, which is the largest multi-sports club in Cardiff. There are a number of references and has an article on the national website of Wales (walesonline.co.uk) and local website (cardiff-times.co.uk). Admittedly it is a Stub, but not all Stubs should be merged. Seth Whales   talk  18:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, and I'd also strongly suggest it is merged with Cardiff Athletic Club because most of the Lisvane (CAC) Tennis Club article is about the latter. The tennis club website suggests it has only been going since 1988, so no significant claims to longevity or notability. Sionk (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the tennis section has been in existence since at least the mid 1920's "The tennis and bowls sections joined with the existing rugby and cricket sections of CAC in the mid-twenties." Seth Whales   talk  20:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lisvane


title: Talk:51-FORTH


text:
User talk:Wikunit

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Elfguy 13:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Wikunit


text:
Llysfaen

Llysfaen is a village and community in Conwy County Borough overlooking the north coast of Wales, and situated on the hill Mynydd Marian. For local government purposes, it is also a ward. The community includes the Peulwys estate of Old Colwyn.

Introduction
Llysfaen is located one kilometre (0.6 miles) inland, halfway between the coastal towns of Abergele and Colwyn Bay. Neighbouring villages include Old Colwyn, Llanddulas, Dolwen and Betws-yn-Rhos. To its immediate west is Mynydd Marian, a mountain known for its limestone grassland and the rare dwarf subspecies of the silver-studded blue butterfly, and Craig y Forwyn is to the east. Llysfaen also overlooks the Irish sea, as well as Kinmel Bay, Rhyl, and the Clwydian Range.

The council ward, including the village centre and surrounding precincts, occupies 5.11 square kilometres (1,260 acres, 511 hectares). The community's population has remained relatively static in recent times and was 2,652 at the census held in 2001.

The community is currently part of Conwy County Borough. However, it historically formed an exclave of Caernarfonshire assumed by the surrounding Denbighshire in 1923; subsequent local government reorganisation saw it administered as part of Clwyd (1974–1996).

The name, Llysfaen is Welsh for stone court (i.e. a court built of stone). Throughout much of Llysfaen's recent history, many of its villagers worked at the nearby Llysfaen and Llanddulas Limestone Quarry from where lime was shipped to Liverpool or Fleetwood using Raynes Jetty in Llanddulas Bay.

Facilities
The village has a small number of facilities including a primary school, Ysgol Cynfran, accepting pupils from nursery age to 11; a convenience store; the mediaeval St. Cynfran's parish church (see below); the village hall; a playgroup; three parks, a small hairdressers and barbers, two telephone boxes, and two post boxes. A mobile library run by Conwy Library Service also calls at the village every three weeks.

Llysfaen currently has a number of youth football teams catering for ages from 7 to 18 and a men's team too. A majority of the teams' games are played on the village's Banana Pitch, so called because it dips heavily in the middle.

Llysfaen has a bowling green which is home to a lawn bowls team and a MUGA where netball, tennis and hockey is played.

History
The patron saint of Llysfaen is Saint Cynfran, who is traditionally believed to have, in 777, founded the eponymous church in the village, above whose entrance is a carving in rock of the saint. The primary school is also named after Cynfran.

In the 1254 Norwich Taxation, Llysfaen was recorded as Ecc'a de Llesvaen, and in the 1291 taxation as Rectoria di Lisnaen and taxed at £4.

St. Cynfran's church has been rebuilt a number of times; the current twin-naved building is said to date from 1377 but is believed to incorporate stones from the original church. In 1870, the building was the subject of an extensive £1,950 internal restoration with only a few panels remaining from the Middle Ages, although the mediaeval stone walls remain. The rectilinear churchyard contains memorials going back as far as the 17th century. The churchyard is surrounded by a stone wall with yew trees both in and outside the walls, and there is a holy well, the Ffynnon Gynfran, about 100 metres to the north.

The ancient parish of Llysfaen was an exclave of the cwmwd (equivalent to a hundred) of Creuddyn within the county of Caernarfonshire, and comprised the townships of Isallt, Isyffordd, Pant (or Tre'r Pant), Penmaen and Rhwngyddwyffordd. According to the Royal Commission of the Welsh Church, the then parish had a population of 585 in 1831 rising to 1,489 in 1901.

The parish was originally slightly larger than today with an area of 1,772 acres (7.17 square kilometres) in the 1840s. In 1872, part of the parish was lost to Colwyn but the township of Twynnan was gained from Llanelian-yn-Rhos. Around 1910 the parish had increased to 1,879 acres (7.6 square kilometres).

In 1873, the local lime quarrying firm, Raynes & Co. Ltd, was established by James Trevelyan Raynes II to make sodium carbonate and limestone dust for use in glass manufacture.

20th century

 * 1923, the parish of Llysfaen was moved from Caernarfonshire (of which it had been an exclave) to the surrounding Denbighshire.
 * 1927, United Alkali Company Ltd took over Raynes & Co. and were then purchased themselves in the same year by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI).
 * 1931, Llysfaen railway station closed, but the signal box was not removed until 1983 as it served sidings used by the ICI lime works.
 * 1972, the church was subject to another restoration.
 * 1974, the vast majority of the county of Denbighshire including Llysfaen was assumed by the larger Clwyd with Llysfaen also becoming part of the borough of Colwyn.
 * 1996, as part of the reorganisation of Wales into unitary authorities, Llysfaen became part of the county borough of Conwy.

Governance
A Llysfaen electoral ward exists, coterminous with the boundaries of Llysfaen community. One county councillor is elected to Conwy County Borough Council. At the May 2017 election the seat changed hands, being won by the Conservative Party from Labour, who had held the seat since the first election in 1995.

Llysfaen also elects community councillors to represent them on Llysfaen Community Council, from the community wards of Peulwys and Upper Llysfaen.

title: Llysfaen


text:
Nature Reviews Neurology

Nature Reviews Neurology is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Nature Portfolio. It was established in 2005 as Nature Clinical Practice Neurology, but was renamed in April 2009. It covers research developments and clinical practice in neurology. Coverage includes prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease or impaired function of the central and peripheral nervous systems, including neurodevelopmental, neurodegenerative, and neuropsychiatric disorders. The Chief Editor is Ian Fyfe.

According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2021 impact factor of 44.711, ranking it 2nd out of 212 journals in the category "Clinical Neurology".

title: Nature Reviews Neurology


text:
Cartrema americana

Cartrema americana, commonly called American olive, wild olive, or devilwood, is an evergreen shrub or small tree native to southeastern North America, in the United States from Virginia to Texas, and in Mexico from Nuevo León south to Oaxaca and Veracruz.

Cartrema americana was formerly classified as Osmanthus americanus. Following the discovery that Osmanthus was polyphyletic, it was transferred to the segregate genus Cartrema together with Osmanthus floridanus and five Asian species.

Cartrema americana grows to 4 - 7 m, rarely to 11 m tall. The leaves are 5 - 14 cm long and 2 - 4 cm broad, with an entire margin. Its flowers, produced in early spring, are small (1 cm long), white, with a four-lobed corolla and have a strong fragrance. The fruit is a globose dark blue drupe 6 - 15 mm diameter, containing a single seed.

It is cultivated as an ornamental plant in gardens for its fragrant flowers.

title: Cartrema americana