text:
Talk:New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

Untitled
I tried to smooth out the article in a couple of spots and added minor bits of information. I also mentioned Katrina and the move to Decatur, Georgia. That may need updating fairly quickly. - Rlvaughn 00:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I revised the article's grammar and added the information about the SBC decision to keep NOBTS in New Orleans. I also added Headings to better orient the reader. I deleted the part about the seminary being mostly above sea level (about 1 mile above sea level due to its being on Gentilly Ridge) because it seemed irrelevant and the seminary was flooded anyway. --146.229.139.228 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Paul Lanier, 1:02 pm, 14 December 2005

Catalogue of NOBTS Buildings
Purpose of this project is to give those who have not visited the seminary an idea of what it looks like. This project serves as a timestamp if the seminary ever gets destroyed by another hurricane. This project will also be used for those who want to research the history of a particular building.

I am in the process of cataloguing all of the NOBTS buildings on campus including Providence Guest House. Not included will be the faculty housing as faculty are rotated out nor is the faculty housing on an individual scale of much importance. However, a "blanket" shot of Seminary place looking down the street at the faculty homes addressed with a "one statement fits all" I feel is okay. The exception to this would be the President's home as I feel it warrants mention.

Pictures of NOBTS buildings on an individual basis I think should be kept to two pictures at most to control "clutter".

I am also looking for the following information to be included with the photos: Name of building: Purpose of building: Date building was constructed: President of seminary at time of construction: Location of building: (ex: 1234 Lipsey street at Providence Place)

If you are interested in participating view the current photos to get a general idea of the shots, pick up a camera, grab a pen and notebook, and start taking shots! John Ball 20:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Seminary Offices
Needed is information about the different offices in the seminary whether they be located in the Hardin Student Center or elsewhere. Please add the information as you find it and make note where you found it (unless you added it yourself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exocetcm (talk • contribs)

Notable Landmarks
Needed is pictures and information about notable landmarks of the seminary. Notable landmarks are buildings of interest that the public (outside seminary walls) frequent or see and immediately think "thats the Baptist seminary" (such as the steeple at Leavell chapel). What is not a notable landmark would be the a building such as the Oaks or Dodd Faculty. These would fall under the section of Catalogue of NOBTS Buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exocetcm (talk • contribs)

Recent changes to NOBTS Main Article
In response to recent changes by Orlady: "remove promotional links and nonencyclopedic detail; this article has other issues that I have not addressed)" 1) The links to external websites referenced in the main NOBTS article such as the Providence Guest House, LifeSongs Radio, etc are no more promotional than external links in the [Coca-Cola article or similar articles on Wikipedia. 2) Removal of the Gentilly Postal Plus: This is a USPS recognized postal office located on the campus of New Orleans Baptist Seminary. I can't find any other university in New Orleans which has a USPS station on their campus. To me this is fairly unique especially since it services an entire zip code. 3) Lifesongs radio: Another unique aspect about this campus is that is houses a multi-parish radio station. The NOBTS article isn't listing all data about LifeSongs but that it houses it here on their campus. No different than Tulane University's Popular Culture references in which on their site they list their radio station... why can't ours be listed on our university page? Louisiana College even lists their radio station on their Wikipedia page: Louisiana College 4) Another public forum for both Christians and atheists, the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum is a public open forum. Once again, unique to our campus.

If you are going to remove the information on the NOBTS page, make sure that you extend your "policies" to every other college and university whether public or private with similar uniqueness and information.

exocetcm ~1524 19 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exocetcm (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Excuse me for attempting to apply Wikipedia standards of quality to this article. Don't look to me for help when it is nominated at WP:AFD for being an unsourced collection of promotional material and nonencyclopedic trivia. --Orlady 03:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NOBTSSeal.jpg
Image:NOBTSSeal.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 02:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Destruction.jpg
Image:Destruction.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120726194730/http://www.nobts.edu/ArchaeologyCenter/Default.asp to http://www.nobts.edu/archaeologycenter/Default.asp

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. 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/20150203193101/http://www.nobts.edu/about.html to http://www.nobts.edu/About.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203193101/http://www.nobts.edu/about.html to http://www.nobts.edu/About.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419132702/http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?id=34716 to http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?id=34716
 * Added tag to http://www.nobts.edu/Archaeology%20Center/Excavation%20Project.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419132702/http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?id=34716 to http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?id=34716
 * Added tag to http://www.nobts.edu/Archaeology%20Center/Excavation%20Project.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112175230/http://www.baptistmessage.com/node/3954 to http://www.baptistmessage.com/node/3954
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103232611/http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=40968 to http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=40968
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113134135/http://nobts.edu/Publications/News/PhelpsAward10.html to http://www.nobts.edu/publications/News/PhelpsAward10.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * NewOrleansSeminaryLogo-2015.png


text: User talk:67.183.16.31

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

title: User talk:67.183.16.31


text:
User talk:Tetratek

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Tetratek! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) David Goloschekin -

title: User talk:Tetratek


text: User talk:81.79.125.85

title: User talk:81.79.125.85


text: User talk:84.56.5.218

title: User talk:84.56.5.218


text: User talk:24.208.3.31

title: User talk:24.208.3.31


text: User talk:70.176.182.85

title: User talk:70.176.182.85


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joolz

Joolz
[ Vote here] (35/0/0) ending 00:32 9 September 2005 (UTC) - Joolz is a really friendly guy, who I've collaborated with on a number of articles and projects. He's level-headed, he's got the right mindset, and I don't doubt that he'll be an excellent administrator (he is currently an administrator on Commons). Plus, he might get a comb in the janitor kit. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks Talrias, I accept :) -- Joolz 13:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) I give Joolz my full support. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --  Jtkiefer  T - 00:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Just take a look through his contributions - it's quite obvious that he will do a great job of administrating Wikipedia with all this work and experience. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, I think Stevey has said it all already. Rje 02:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 02:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, SqueakBox 02:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support FOR GREAT JUSTICE! (I've seen some of his edits on RC patrol and they are quite good) Ryan Norton T 06:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Excellent contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support: Solid contributor, reasonable dispute resolution, nice distribution of edits. I'd be surprised if someone votes Oppose barring any revelations of behavior misconduct. --Durin 14:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support THEY SET UP US THE POV -- Phroziac  ( talk ) 15:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11)   Journalist  C./ Holla @ me!
 * 12) Seems like a responsible user. Andre ( talk ) 17:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, seems deserving of sysop rights. --Sn0wflake 01:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) --Jusjih 03:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) BRIAN 0918  • 2005-09-3 04:06
 * 16) Support. Another reasonable person who can be trusted to do the job well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Super strong support on wheels! I had planned to nominate him myself a few weeks ago. Joolz will make a fine admin. — Trilobite 14:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Yup Fire Fox T  C 15:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) For sure. violet/riga (t) 17:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Of course. Falphin 20:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Solid contributor. Surprised that this user was not one already. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Supporting. Denelson83 05:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) You supported me, I'll support you. N (t/c) 16:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Strong support. the wub  "?/!"  16:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Warren Harding approves of this user. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. --MarkSweep ✍ 16:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Strong support Proto t c 11:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. El_C 23:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Good man.— encephalon έγκέφαλος   18:09:22, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. --NormanEinstein 03:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) David Gerard 14:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. I haven't had much interaction with Joolz, but recently he was remarkably insightful, not to mention friendly. He'll make a fine admin. I'd caution slightly that the best decisions are made in the full flux of on-wiki discussions, rather than on IRC, but as an admin on Commons I'm sure he already knows that. -Splash 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support no prob with this one. Alf melmac 22:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Support, with a broom, strongly. -- BD2412 talk 23:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I'd like to help with basically anything that needs dealing with, such as the VFD AFD backlog or the copyright problems backlog. I'd also like to help with requested moves which need administrator intervention. You might also want to see my commons contributions and administrator actions on commons.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I'm proud of my efforts on the constituency project and Newbury (UK Parliament constituency) in particular because it contains things which aren't available elsewhere on the internet (the 1885-1950 results). I like to see wikipedia improve so I'm proud of any of my edits which have helped raise the standard, even a little bit ;)
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I have been involved in conflicts, I think sometimes it's inevitable and impossible to avoid sometimes, the important thing is when a conflict occurs that it doesn't escalate into a revert war or something nastier. I'm currently in a disagreement with someone over Castro's placement on the Cult of personality article (see Talk:Cult of personality) - if I get stressed at any time (which is in itself rare) I deal with it by staying away from that article until I'm calmer - I can't think of any particular time where I've been properly stressed though, not yet at least :)

title: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joolz


text:
St Columb's Cathedral

St Columb's Cathedral in the walled city of Derry, Northern Ireland, is the cathedral church and episcopal see of the Church of Ireland's Diocese of Derry and Raphoe. It is also the parish church of Templemore. It is dedicated to Saint Columba, the Irish monk who established a Christian settlement in the area before being exiled from Ireland and introducing Christianity to Scotland and northern England. Built after the Reformation in Ireland, St Columb's is the first Anglican cathedral to have been built in Britain and Ireland after the Reformation and was the first non-Roman Catholic cathedral to be built in Western Europe.

History
The original site of the diocesan cathedral was in Templemore (An Teampalll Mór or "the Big Church"). Due to the violence of the Nine Years' War, the church was destroyed. It was first damaged by an accidental explosion on 24 April 1568, the church having been appropriated for the storage of gunpowder. On 16 April 1600, Sir Henry Docwra entered Derry with a force of 4,000 soldiers. He tore down the ruins of the Big Church and used its stones to build the walls and ramparts of the city. A small square stone tablet from An Teampall Mór is today fixed into the porch of the present structure. The Latin inscription reads "In Templo Vervs Devs Est Verec Colendvs" ("The True God is in His Temple and is to be truly worshipped"). The cathedral is located close to the original.

The present church was built by William Parratt, from London, and was consecrated in 1633. It is a good example of "Gothic Survival" in the English Gothic architecture of the 17th century, contemporary with the college chapel of Peterhouse, Cambridge. The style has been called "Planter's Gothic". Foundations for a chancel extending the east end were laid in 1633, but the building work advanced no further. In the porch is an inscription:

If stones could speake then London's prayse should sound who built this church and cittie from the grounde.

After its consecration in 1633, the church was nearly unaltered until the bishop in 1776, Frederick Hervey, 4th Earl of Bristol, extended the total height of the building to 221 feet by building up the tower by 21 feet and adding a very tall spire. This spire lasted only two decades before it threatened to collapse and was dismantled for rebuilding. The tower was finished in 1802, but the replacement spire was built another two decades later. The original south porch, attached to the hitherto unaltered nave, was removed in 1825, and in 1827 the turrets on either side of the east end were remodelled, with their previously crenellated tops rebuilt with domes.

In 1861–1862, the whole interior was remodelled with new woodwork in oak, and the galleries which had previously been in the aisles were removed. Other decorations and furnishings were replaced at the same time. In 1887, in beginning work for a new chancel, the 17th-century foundations were unearthed, and the new chancel was constructed on their plan, completing the church's intended form.

The chapter house was built in 1910.

St Columb's has in its possession many documents dating back from the Siege of Derry. They have portraits of William of Orange and the original keys of the city.

The cathedral also contains a memorial to Valentine Munbee McMaster VC.

Services
The cathedral has three Sunday services, 8:00 am Eucharist, 11:00 am Sung Eucharist (1st and 3rd Sundays of the month), Matins (all other Sundays of the month), 10:00 am Family Service (4th Sunday of the month) and 4:00 pm Choral Evensong.

On weekdays Morning Prayer is celebrated Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays at 10:30 am and on Tuesdays Holy Communion is celebrated with intercessions for the sick.

Dean of 19 years, the Reverend William Morton, retired on 18 September 2016 and was appointed dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin. In the transition period, before the appointment of a new dean, the Bishop of Derry and Raphoe, Ken Good, appointed the Reverend Mervyn T. E. Peoples to assist the cathedral's curate, the Reverend Canon John Merrick.

On 4 December 2016, Bishop Good appointed the Reverend Canon Raymond Stewart as the new dean of Saint Columb's Cathedral and rector of the Parish of Templemore. Stewart was inaugurated on 28 March 2017 at the cathedral by Bishop Good and succeeded the Rev William Morton who became dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin in September 2016.

Organists

 * 1873-1878 James Turpin
 * 1878-1911 Daniel Jones
 * 1912-1914 Sydney Weale
 * 1914-1921 Richard Henry Coleman
 * 1921-1948 John T Frankland
 * 1948-1968 Michael H Franklin
 * 1968-1971 Neil Wade
 * 1971 Ian Barber
 * 1972-1980 Michael Hoeg
 * 1981-1982 Marc Rochester
 * 1982-1988 William West
 * 1988-1990? Alexander Best
 * 1990-1991 William West
 * 1991-2001 Timothy Allen
 * 2002-2004 Jonathan Lane
 * 2005-    Ian Kenneth Mills

Burials

 * William Nicolson, Bishop of Derry (1718–1727)

title: St Columb's Cathedral


text:
User:Gaijinian

Eclecticology

title: User:Gaijinian


text:
Commonwealth v. Hunt

Commonwealth v. Hunt, 45 Mass. 111 (1842), was a case in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the subject of labor unions. Prior to Hunt the legality of labor combinations in America was uncertain. In March 1842, Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that labor combinations were legal provided that they were organized for a legal purpose and used legal means to achieve their goals.

Labor combination laws before Hunt

The history of labor disputes in America substantially precedes the Revolutionary period. In 1636, for instance, there was a fishermen's strike on an island off the coast of Maine, and in 1677 twelve carmen were fined for going on strike in New York City. However, most instances of labor unrest during the colonial period were temporary and isolated, and rarely resulted in the formation of permanent groups of laborers for negotiation purposes. Little legal recourse was available to those injured by the unrest because strikes were not typically considered illegal. The only known case of a criminal prosecution of workers in the colonial era occurred as a result of a carpenters' strike in Savannah, Georgia, in 1746.

By the beginning of the 19th century, after the revolution, little had changed. The career path for most artisans still involved apprenticeship under a master, followed by a move into independent production. However, over the course of the Industrial Revolution, this model rapidly changed, particularly in the major metropolitan areas. For instance, in Boston in 1790, the vast majority of the 1,300 artisans in the city described themselves as "master workman". By 1815, journeymen workers without independent means of production had displaced these "masters" as the majority. By that time journeymen also outnumbered masters in New York City and Philadelphia. This shift occurred as a result of large-scale transatlantic and rural-urban migration. Migration into the coastal cities created a larger population of potential laborers, which in turn allowed controllers of capital to invest in labor-intensive enterprises on a larger scale. Craft workers found that these changes launched them into competition with each other to a degree that they had not experienced previously, which limited their opportunities and created substantial risks of downward mobility that had not existed prior to that time.

These conditions led to the first labor combination cases in America. Over the first half of the 19th century, there were twenty-three known cases of indictment and prosecution for criminal conspiracy, taking place in six states: Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Virginia. The central question in these cases was invariably whether workmen in combination would be permitted to use their collective bargaining power to obtain benefits—increased wages, decreased hours, or improved conditions—which were beyond their ability to obtain as individuals. The cases overwhelmingly resulted in convictions. However, in most instances the plaintiffs' desire was to establish favorable precedent, not to impose harsh penalties, and the fines were typically modest.

One of the central themes of the cases prior to the landmark decision in Commonwealth vs. Hunt was the applicability of the English common law in post-revolutionary America. Whether the English common law applied—and in particular whether the common law notion that a conspiracy to raise wages was illegal applied—was frequently the subject of debate between the defense and the prosecution. For instance, in Commonwealth v. Pullis, a case in 1806 against a combination of journeymen cordwainers in Philadelphia for conspiring to raise their wages, the defense attorneys referred to the common law as arbitrary and unknowable and instead praised the legislature as the embodiment of the democratic promise of the revolution. In ruling that a combination to raise wages was per se illegal, Recorder Moses Levy strongly disagreed, writing that "[t]he acts of the legislature form but a small part of that code from which the citizen is to learn his duties... [i]t is in the volumes of the common law we are to seek for information in the far greater number, as well as the most important causes that come before our tribunals."

As a result of the spate of convictions against combinations of laborers, the typical narrative of early American labor law states that, prior to Hunt in Massachusetts in 1842, peaceable combinations of workingmen to raise wages, shorten hours or ensure employment were illegal in the United States, as they had been under English common law. In England, criminal conspiracy laws were first held to include combinations in restraint of trade in the Court of the Star Chamber early in the 17th century. The precedent was solidified in 1721 by The King v. Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge, which found tailors guilty of a conspiracy to raise wages. Leonard Levy went so far as to refer to Hunt as the "Magna Carta of American trade-unionism," illustrating its perceived standing as the major point of divergence in the American and English legal treatment of unions which, "removed the stigma of criminality from labor organizations."

However, Levy's statement incorrectly characterizes the case law in American prior to Hunt. Pullis was actually unusual in strictly following the English common law and holding that a combination to raise wages was by itself illegal. More often combination cases prior to Hunt did not hold that unions were illegal per se, but rather found some other justification for a conviction. After Pullis in 1806, eighteen other prosecutions of laborers for conspiracies followed within the next three decades. However, only one such case, People v. Fisher, also held that a combination for the purpose of raising wages was illegal. Several other cases held that the methods used by the unions, rather than the unions themselves, were illegal. For instance, in People v. Melvin, cordwainers were again convicted of a conspiracy to raise wages. Unlike in Pullis, however, the court held that the combination's existence itself was not unlawful, but nevertheless reached a conviction because the cordwainers had refused to work for any master who paid lower wages, or with any laborer who accepted lower wages, than what the combination had stipulated. The court held that methods used to obtain higher wages would be unlawful if they were judged to be deleterious to the general welfare of the community. Commonwealth v. Morrow continued to refine this standard, stating that, "an agreement of two or more to the prejudice of the rights of others or of society" would be illegal. Another line of cases, led by Justice John Gibson of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's decision in Commonwealth v. Carlisle, held that the motive of the combination, rather than simply its existence, was the key to illegality. Gibson wrote, "Where the act is lawful for an individual, it can be the subject of a conspiracy, when done in concert, only where there is a direct intention that injury shall result from it." Still other courts rejected Pullis' rule of per se illegality in favor of a rule that asked whether the combination was a but-for cause of injury. Thus, as economist Edwin Witte stated, "[T]he doctrine that a combination to raise wages is illegal was allowed to die by common consent. No leading case was required for its overthrow." Nevertheless, while Hunt was not the first case to hold that labor combinations were legal, it was the first to do so explicitly and in clear terms.

Background
Members of the Boston Journeymen Bootmaker's Society, founded in 1835 and local to Boston, worked exclusively on high-quality boots. In 1835, in response to rampant inflation caused by Andrew Jackson's destruction of the Bank of the United States, the society raised their pay, by means of striking, to $1.75 per pair of boots produced. In 1836, they staged another strike, this time successfully raising their pay to $2.00 per pair. Their rates remained the same in 1840, when the incidents giving rise to Hunt occurred. However, by that time increases in the quality of the boots being produced prevented the bootmakers from producing pairs as quickly, essentially lowering their hourly rate in the midst of a severe economic downturn triggered by the Panic of 1837.

One journeyman bootmaker, Jeremiah Horne, was in a dispute with the Society. Horne began to have disagreements with the Society when he agreed to do extra work on a pair of boots without charging for the extra labor. The Society imposed a fine on Horne, which he refused to pay. Ultimately the fine was forgiven when Horne's master, Isaac Wait, agreed to pay Horne for the work at the Society-fixed rate. Horne nevertheless continued to breach the Society's rules, and soon had incurred another $7 in fees. The Society demanded that he pay. When Horne refused, the Society threatened a walkout of Wait's shop and Wait fired him.

Horne responded by entering a complaint with the Suffolk County Attorney, Samuel D. Parker, and by sending his cousin, Dennis, who was also a member of the Society, to try to reach a settlement with them. Dennis attended a Society meeting in early October 1840, but was ridiculed and stormed out. A few days later, on October 8, an indictment was entered charging that the Society was a criminal conspiracy to impoverish employers and non-union laborers. Seven members of the Society were named as defendants. Although there was no evidence that the Society planned to strike or that there was any large-scale disagreement between employers and the Society, Parker decided to take the case. The trial began on October 14 and ended on October 22.

Trial court

At trial, the prosecution, led by Parker, focused on proving that the Society was coercive. Wait, Horne's master, testified, "He did not feel at liberty to employ any but society men", because he, "would not wish to lose five or six good workmen for the sake of one." However, he also testified he had not been oppressed and that he had benefited from the Society's existence. Parker tried to call Horne himself to testify, but the defense successfully prevented his testimony from being heard on the ground that he was an atheist. The prosecution, however, was able to directly ask several masters, over the defense's objection, whether the Society was coercive. Some said yes.

The Society hired Robert Rantoul, Jr. to represent them. Rantoul's defense focused on establishing the benefits of the Society. He called witnesses who testified the wages stipulated by the Society were reasonable and non-members were also able to attain wages at the same rate. Non-workers were only prevented from working at a handful of the larger shops. Rantoul also called representatives from other professional organizations, such as the Boston Medical Association and the Boston Bar, of which the Judge, the District Attorney, the Attorney General, Daniel Webster and the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, Lemuel Shaw, were all members. Rantoul also solicited testimony that the Bar Association fixed minimum fees for which its members could receive and forbade members from advising or consulting any non-member attorney. He hoped to show the jury that professional organizations such the Bootmaker's Society were not uncommon in Boston.

Rantoul also argued there was no law in Massachusetts against a conspiracy in restraint of trade. (At that time in Massachusetts, juries still served as triers of both law and fact). Rantoul told the jury, "We have not adopted the whole mass of the common law of England. [...] Law against acts done in restraint of trade belong to that portion of the law of England which we have not adopted." Rantoul argued, as the conspiracy itself was not unlawful, the question was whether the defendants had injured anyone through an illegal act. He stated, "We contend they have a perfect right to form a society for their mutual interest and improvement. [...] To substantiate these charges [...] they must prove actual force, fraud and nuisance." Rantoul's emphasis on the requirement of injury recalled Gibson's opinion in Carlisle twenty years earlier, and drew from the entire line of cases opposing Pullis and Fisher.

Rantoul's efforts, however, were greatly undermined by Judge Thacher's emotional charge to the jury. Thacher told the jury that if societies such as the Bootmaker's Society were justified by the law and became common, it would "render property insecure, and make it the spoil of the multitude, would annihilate property, and involve society in a common ruin." Thacher also specifically rebutted Rantoul with regard to the status of the common law, stating that "conspiracy is an offence at common law, as adopted in Massachusetts, and by this decision and that of this court you must abide." Levy wrote that Thacher's charge, "practically directed a verdict of guilty."

After Thacher gave his instructions the jury returned a conviction against all seven defendants. Rantoul appealed the case to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

State Supreme Court
Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw held the union's actions were not unlawful, because the objects of the union and the action taken of threatening to stop work to prevent Horne's continued employment, were not unlawful in the law of Massachusetts. This contrasted with the laws in England in 1721, in R v Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge. The union could exercise "a power which might be exerted for useful and honorable purposes, or for dangerous and pernicious ones." But only if an independently unlawful act could be found, which was clearly laid down in the law, could a combination of people to do the same thing also be unlawful. He pointed out that competition among businesses were often treated the same, and so the economic loss to the employer or Horne could not count as actionable damage. The workers were "free to work for whom the please, or not to work, if they so prefer.... We cannot perceive that it is criminal for men to agree together to exercise their own acknowledged rights, in such a manner as best to subserve their own interests." Shaw CJ's judgment went as follows.

"Justice Lemuel Shaw William Morris Hunt.jpeg, painted by William Morris Hunt]] We have no doubt, that by the operation of the constitution of this Commonwealth, the general rules of the common law, making conspiracy an indictable offence, are in force here, and that this is included in the description of laws which had, before the adoption of the constitution, been used and approved in the Province, Colony, or State of Massachusetts Bay, and usually practised in the courts of law.... Still, it is proper in this connexion to remark, that although the common law in regard to conspiracy in this Commonwealth is in force, yet it will not necessarily follow that every indictment at common law for this offence is a precedent for a similar indictment in this State. The general rule of the common law is, that it is a criminal and indictable offence, for two or more to confederate and combine together, by concerted means, to do that which is unlawful or criminal, to the injury of the public, or portions or classes of the community, or even to the rights of an individual. This rule of law may be equally in force as a rule of the common law, in England and in this Commonwealth; and yet it must depend upon the local laws of each country to determine, whether the purpose to be accomplished by the combination, or the concerted means of accomplishing it, be unlawful or criminal in the respective countries. All those laws of the parent country, whether rules of the common law, or early English statutes, which were made for the purpose of regulating the wages of laborers, the settlement of paupers, and making it penal for any one to use a trade or handicraft to which he had not served a full apprenticeship—not being adapted to the circumstances of our colonial condition—were not adopted, used or approved, and therefore do not come within the description of the laws adopted and confirmed by the provision of the constitution already cited. This consideration will do something towards reconciling the English and American cases, and may indicate how far the principles of the English cases will apply in this Commonwealth, and show why a conviction in England, in many cases, would not be a precedent for a like conviction here. The King v. Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge, 8 Mod. 10, for instance, is commonly cited as an authority for an indictment at common law, and a conviction of journeymen mechanics of a conspiracy to raise their wages. It was there held, that the indictment need not conclude contra formam statuti, because the gist of the offence was the conspiracy, which was an offence at common law. At the same time it was conceded, that the unlawful object to be accomplished was the raising of wages above the rate fixed by a general act of parliament. It was therefore a conspiracy to violate a general statute law, made for the regulation of a large branch of trade, affecting the comfort and interest of the public; and thus the object to be accomplished by the conspiracy was unlawful, if not criminal.

[Shaw CJ set out the background on the conspiracy laws, and continued....]

We are here carefully to distinguish between the confederacy set forth in the indictment, and the confederacy or association contained in the constitution of the Boston Journeymen Bootmakers' Society, as stated in the little printed book, which was admitted as evidence on the trial. Because, though it was thus admitted as evidence, it would not warrant a conviction for anything not stated in the indictment. It was proof, as far as it went to support the averments in the indictment. If it contained any criminal matter not set forth in the indictment, it is of no avail. The question then presents itself in the same form as on a motion in arrest of judgment.

The first count set forth, that the defendants, with divers others unknown, on the day and at the place named, being workmen, and journeymen, in the art and occupation of bootmakers, unlawfully, perniciously and deceitfully designing and intending to continue, keep up, form, and unite themselves, into an unlawful club, society and combination, and make unlawful by-laws, rules and orders among themselves, and thereby govern themselves and other workmen, in the said art, and unlawfully and unjustly to extort great sums of money by means thereof, did unlawfully assemble and meet together, and being so assembled, did unjustly and corruptly conspire, combine, confederate and agree together, that none of them should thereafter, and that none of them would, work for any master or person whatsoever, in the said art, mystery and occupation, who should employ any workman or journeyman, or other person, in the said art, who was not a member of said club, society or combination, after notice given him to discharge such workman, from the employ of such master; to the great damage and oppression, &c.

Now it is to be considered, that the preamble and introductory matter in the indictment--such as unlawfully and deceitfully designing and intending unjustly to extort great sums, &c.--is mere recital, and not traversable, and therefore cannot aid an imperfect averment of the facts constituting the description of the offence. The same may be said of the concluding matter, which follows the averment, as to the great damage and oppression not only of their said masters, employing them in said art and occupation, but also of divers other workmen in the same art, mystery and occupation, to the evil example, &c. If the facts averred constitute the crime, these are properly stated as the legal inferences to be drawn from them. If they do not constitute the charge of such an offence, they cannot be aided by these alleged consequences.

Stripped then of these introductory recitals and alleged injurious consequences, and of the qualifying epithets attached to the facts, the averment is this; that the defendants and others formed themselves into a society, and agreed not to work for any person, who should employ any journeyman or other person, not a member of such society, after notice given him to discharge such workman.

The manifest intent of the association is, to induce all those engaged in the same occupation to become members of it. Such a purpose is not unlawful. It would give them a power which might be exerted for useful and honorable purposes, or for dangerous and pernicious ones. If the latter were the real and actual object, and susceptible of proof, it should have been specially charged. Such an association might be used to afford each other assistance in times of poverty, sickness and distress; or to raise their intellectual, moral and social condition; or to make improvement in their art; or for other proper purposes. Or the association might be designed for purposes of oppression and injustice. But in order to charge all those, who become members of an association, with the guilt of a criminal conspiracy, it must be averred and proved that the actual, if not the avowed object of the association, was criminal. An association may be formed, the declared objects of which are innocent and laudable, and yet they may have secret articles, or an agreement communicated only to the members, by which they are banded together for purposes injurious to the peace of society or the rights of its members. Such would undoubtedly be a criminal conspiracy, on proof of the fact, however meritorious and praiseworthy the declared objects might be. The law is not to be hoodwinked by colorable pretences. It looks at truth and reality, through whatever disguise it may assume. But to make such an association, ostensibly innocent, the subject of prosecution as a criminal conspiracy, the secret agreement, which makes it so, is to be averred and proved as the gist of the offence. But when an association is formed for purposes actually innocent, and afterwards its powers are abused, by those who have the control and management of it, to purposes of oppression and injustice, it will be criminal in those who thus misuse it, or give consent thereto, but not in the other members of the association. In this case, no such secret agreement, varying the objects of the association from those avowed, is set forth in this count of the indictment.

Nor can we perceive that the objects of this association, whatever they may have been, were to be attained by criminal means. The means which they proposed to employ, as averred in this count, and which, as we are now to presume, were established by the proof, were, that they would not work for a person, who, after due notice, should employ a journeyman not a member of their society. Supposing the object of the association to be laudable and lawful, or at least not unlawful, are these means criminal? The case supposes that these persons are not bound by contract, but free to work for whom they please, or not to work, if they so prefer. In this state of things, we cannot perceive, that it is criminal for men to agree together to exercise their own acknowledged rights, in such a manner as best to subserve their own interests. One way to test this is, to consider the effect of such an agreement, where the object of the association is acknowledged on all hands to be a laudable one. Suppose a class of workmen, impressed with the manifold evils of intemperance, should agree with each other not to work in a shop in which ardent spirit was furnished, or not to work in a shop with any one who used it, or not to work for an employer, who should, after notice, employ a journeyman who habitually used it. The consequences might be the same. A workman, who should still persist in the use of ardent spirit, would find it more difficult to get employment; a master employing such a one might, at times, experience inconvenience in his work, in losing the services of a skilful but intemperate workman. Still it seems to us, that as the object would be lawful, and the means not unlawful, such an agreement could not be pronounced a criminal conspiracy.

From this count in the indictment, we do not understand that the agreement was, that the defendants would refuse to work for an employer, to whom they were bound by contract for a certain time, in violation of that contract; nor that they would insist that an employer should discharge a workman engaged by contract for a certain time, in violation of such contract. It is perfectly consistent with every thing stated in this count, that the effect of the agreement was, that when they were free to act, they would not engage with an employer, or continue in his employment, if such employer, when free to act, should engage with a workman, or continue a workman in his employment, not a member of the association. If a large number of men, engaged for a certain time, should combine together to violate their contract, and quit their employment together, it would present a very different question. Suppose a farmer, employing a large number of men, engaged for the year, at fair monthly wages, and suppose that just at the moment that his crops were ready to harvest, they should all combine to quit his service, unless he would advance their wages, at a time when other laborers could not be obtained. It would surely be a conspiracy to do an unlawful act, though of such a character, that if done by an individual, it would lay the foundation of a civil action only, and not of a criminal prosecution. It would be a case very different from that stated in this count.

The second count, omitting the recital of unlawful intent and evil disposition, and omitting the direct averment of an unlawful club or society, alleges that the defendants, with others unknown, did assemble, conspire, confederate and agree together, not to work for any master or person who should employ any workman not being a member of a certain club, society or combination, called the Boston Journeymen Bootmaker's Society, or who should break any of their by-laws, unless such workmen should pay to said club, such sum as should be agreed upon as a penalty for the breach of such unlawful rules, &c; and that by means of said conspiracy they did compel one Isaac B. Wait, a master cordwainer, to turn out of his employ one Jeremiah Horne, a journeyman boot-maker, &c. in evil example, &c. So far as the averment of a conspiracy is concerned, all the remarks made in reference to the first count are equally applicable to this. It is simply an averment of an agreement amongst themselves not to work for a person, who should employ any person not a member of a certain association. It sets forth no illegal or criminal purpose to be accomplished, nor any illegal or criminal means to be adopted for the accomplishment of any purpose. It was an agreement, as to the manner in which they would exercise an acknowledged right to contract with others for their labor. It does not aver a conspiracy or even an intention to raise their wages; and it appears by the bill of exceptions, that the case was not put upon the footing of a conspiracy to raise their wages. Such an agreement, as set forth in this count, would be perfectly justifiable under the recent English statute, by which this subject is regulated. St. 6 Geo. IV. c. 129. See Roscoe Crim. Ev. (2d Amer. ed.) 368, 369.

As to the latter part of this count, which avers that by means of said conspiracy, the defendants did compel one Wait to turn out of his employ one Jeremiah Horne, we remark, in the first place, that as the acts done in pursuance of a conspiracy, as we have before seen, are stated by way of aggravation, and not as a substantive charge; if no criminal or unlawful conspiracy is stated, it cannot be aided and made good by mere matter of aggravation. If the principal charge falls, the aggravation falls with it. State v. Rickey, 4 Halst. 293.

But further; if this is to be considered as a substantive charge, it would depend altogether upon the force of the word 'compel,' which may be used in the sense of coercion, or duress, by force or fraud. It would therefore depend upon the context and the connexion with other words, to determine the sense in which it was used in the indictment. If, for instance, the indictment had averred a conspiracy, by the defendants, to compel Wait to turn Horne out of his employment, and to accomplish that object by the use of force or fraud, it would have been a very different case; especially if it might be fairly construed, as perhaps in that case it might have been, that Wait was under obligation, by contract, for an unexpired term of time, to employ and pay Horne. As before remarked, it would have been a conspiracy to do an unlawful, though not a criminal act, to induce Wait to violate his engagement, to the actual injury of Horne. To mark the difference between the case of a journeyman or a servant and master, mutually bound by contract, and the same parties when free to engage anew, I should have before cited the case of the Boston Glass Co. v. Binney, 4 Pick. 425. In that case, it was held actionable to entice another person's hired servant to quit his employment, during the time for which he was engaged; but not actionable to treat with such hired servant, whilst actually hired and employed by another, to leave his service, and engage in the employment of the person making the proposal, when the term for which he is engaged shall expire. It acknowledges the established principle, that every free man, whether skilled laborer, mechanic, farmer or domestic servant, may work or not work, or work or refuse to work with any company or individual, at his own option, except so far as he is bound by contract. But whatever might be the force of the word 'compel,' unexplained by its connexion, it is disarmed and rendered harmless by the precise statement of the means, by which such compulsion was to be effected. It was the agreement not to work for him, by which they compelled Wait to decline employing Horne longer. On both of these grounds, we are of opinion that the statement made in this second count, that the unlawful agreement was carried into execution, makes no essential difference between this and the first count.

The third count, reciting a wicked and unlawful intent to impoverish one Jeremiah Horne, and hinder him from following his trade as a boot-maker, charges the defendants, with others unknown, with an unlawful conspiracy, by wrongful and indirect means, to impoverish said Horne and to deprive and hinder him, from his said art and trade and getting his support thereby, and that, in pursuance of said unlawful combination, they did unlawfully and indirectly hinder and prevent, &c. and greatly impoverish him.

If the fact of depriving Jeremiah Horne of the profits of his business, by whatever means it might be done, would be unlawful and criminal, a combination to compass that object would be an unlawful conspiracy, and it would be unnecessary to state the means. Such seems to have been the view of the court in The King v. Eccles, 3 Doug. 337, though the case is so briefly reported, that the reasons, on which it rests, are not very obvious. The case seems to have gone on the ground, that the means were matter of evidence, and not of averment; and that after verdict, it was to be presumed, that the means contemplated and used were such as to render the combination unlawful and constitute a conspiracy.

Suppose a baker in a small village had the exclusive custom of his neighborhood, and was making large profits by the sale of his bread. Supposing a number of those neighbors, believing the price of his bread too high, should propose to him to reduce his prices, or if he did not, that they would introduce another baker; and on his refusal, such other baker should, under their encouragement, set up a rival establishment, and sell his bread at lower prices; the effect would be to diminish the profit of the former baker, and to the same extent to impoverish him. And it might be said and proved, that the purpose of the associates was to diminish his profits, and thus impoverish him, though the ultimate and laudable object of the combination was to reduce the cost of bread to themselves and their neighbors. The same thing may be said of all competition in every branch of trade and industry; and yet it is through that competition, that the best interests of trade and industry are promoted. It is scarcely necessary to allude to the familiar instances of opposition lines of conveyance, rival hotels, and the thousand other instances, where each strives to gain custom to himself, by ingenious improvements, by increased industry, and by all the means by which he may lessen the price of commodities, and thereby diminish the profits of others.

We think, therefore, that associations may be entered into, the object of which is to adopt measures that may have a tendency to impoverish another, that is, to diminish his gains and profits, and yet so far from being criminal or unlawful, the object may be highly meritorious and public spirited. The legality of such an association will therefore depend upon the means to be used for its accomplishment. If it is to be carried into effect by fair or honorable and lawful means, it is, to say the least, innocent; if by falsehood or force, it may be stamped with the character of conspiracy. It follows as a necessary consequence, that if criminal and indictable, it is so by reason of the criminal means intended to be employed for its accomplishment; and as a further legal consequence, that as the criminality will depend on the means, those means must be stated in the indictment. If the same rule were to prevail in criminal, which holds in civil proceedings—that a case defectively stated may be aided by a verdict—then a court might presume, after verdict, that the indictment was supported by proof of criminal or unlawful means to effect the object. But it is an established rule in criminal cases, that the indictment must state a complete indictable offence, and cannot be aided by the proof offered at the trial."

Significance
Shaw's landmark opinion in favor of labor was incongruous with his politics and other jurisprudence. Shaw wrote his opinion in Hunt just one week after he decided another landmark labor case, Farwell v. Boston & Worcester R.R. Corp. In that case, Shaw upheld the fellow-servant rule by deciding that a railroad company could not be held liable when a mistake by an employee operating a rail switch caused an injury to another employee. As the outcome in Farwell would suggest, Shaw was not ordinarily considered a friend of labor. Walter Nelles wrote that, "The constituency to which [Shaw] was keenest comprised State Street and Beacon Hill, the bankers, the textile manufacturers, the railway builders." Nelles theorized that Shaw was more concerned with tariff protection than with labor concerns, and that his decision in Hunt was a product of strategic consideration. Nelles notes that in 1842, in the middle of a depression, labor unrest in the textile mills that drove much of Boston's economy was very unlikely. However, Whigs like Shaw may have been concerned that agitating the working class would help bring the Democratic party to power in the election of 1844. Whigs worried that the Democrats would abolish the tariffs protecting the weakened textile industry. Shaw's decision in Hunt, therefore, may have been motivated by a desire to placate Boston's working class.

Whatever Shaw's motivation, his opinion in Hunt provided a clear statement that labor combinations which used legal means to achieve legal ends were lawful.

The degree of Hunt's impact is a matter of some debate. Levy notes that in the forty years after Hunt was decided, the case served as the authoritative statement of the law on labor combinations. However, as favorable as Hunt was for labor unions, its holding still left the door open for courts to convict strikers by declaring certain labor activity criminal, or by holding the purpose of a strike to be an unlawful interference with private enterprise. Also, Witte notes that there were limited opportunities to apply Hunt until the end of the Civil War. Witte was able to find only three conspiracy cases brought anywhere in the United States between 1842 and 1863.

However, between 1863 and 1880 the pace of conspiracy indictments picked up again. At least fifteen cases were brought during that time. Despite Hunt's softening of the conspiracy doctrine, convictions were still obtained and harsh sentences imposed. For instance, in 1869, members of a mine committee in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, were found guilty of conspiracy, sentenced to jail for thirty days and heavily fined. Prosecutions in this period led to labor efforts to gain relief through legislation. In 1869, Pennsylvania passed a statute declaring labor unions legal if formed for "mutual aid, benefit, and protection" and when convictions continued to be obtained, passed another law in 1872 providing that laborers could collectively refuse to work for any employer. The need for such legislation suggests that Hunt, while beneficial for labor, was hardly a guarantee that workers would be able to organize without fear of legal repercussion.

title: Commonwealth v. Hunt


text: User talk:70.21.20.71

title: User talk:70.21.20.71


text:
File:Fireandwater albumcover.jpg

Summary
Cover to Free's 'Fire And Water' album by Mike Sida

title: File:Fireandwater albumcover.jpg


text:
Heidrun oil field

The Heidrun oil field is an oil and gas field discovered in 1985 in the Norwegian sector of the Norwegian Sea, named after the goat Heiðrún from Norse mythology.

The field lies 175 km north of Kristiansund. It has produced oil and gas since October 1995. In 2013, it produced 65,000 bbl of oil per day and 760 million cubic meters of natural gas. The crude oil is characterized as being naphthenic with 25.0 API (0.9043 g/cm3), 0.52% sulfur, and a high TAN (Total Acid Number) of 2.90.

The Heidrun field is located on Haltenbanken in the Norwegian Sea at a depth of 350 m. The field has been developed with gas and water injection, using a floating concrete tension leg platform, installed over a subsea template with 58 well slots. The northern part of the field is developed with subsea facilities.

Geology
The Cimmerian structure is a southwest-plunging horst block on the southwest flank of the Nordland ridge formed in the Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous. Production is from Jurassic Fangst Group sandstones with the Upper Jurassic Spekk Formation shales being the petroleum source and Cretaceous shales forming the seal.

title: Heidrun oil field


text:
St Columb

St Columb may refer to:
 * Columba or St Columb of Scotland
 * St Columb's Cathedral, Derry, Northern Ireland
 * St Columb's College, Derry, Northern Ireland
 * Columba the Virgin or Saint Columba the Virgin or St Columb of Cornwall
 * St Columb Canal, in Cornwall, England
 * St Columb Major, town in Cornwall, England
 * St Columb Minor, village in Cornwall, England
 * St Columb Road, village in Cornwall, England
 * St Columb Porth, Cornwall, seaside village in Cornwall
 * Lady Dona St Columb, a character in Frenchman's Creek by Daphne du Maurier
 * The Monastery of St Columb, a book by Regina Maria Roche

title: St Columb


text:
Jack Broughton

John "Jack" Broughton (c. 1703 – 8 January 1789) was an English bare-knuckle boxer. He was the first person to codify a set of boxing rules; prior to this the "rules" that existed were very loosely defined and tended to vary from contest to contest. His seven rules were widely used in boxing for nearly century, until they were replaced by the London Prize Ring rules in 1838. Pierce Egan characterised Broughton as the "Father of the English School of Boxing".

Early life
John Broughton was born c. 1703 to unknown parents, possibly in London, though one early-20th-century history of boxing claims that he was a farmer's son from Baunton, Gloucestershire. Apprentice records show that Broughton was apprenticed to a Thames waterman in May 1723. On 1 August 1730, Broughton won the annual Doggett's Coat and Badge rowing race among watermen who had completed their apprenticeship within the previous year. At the time, he was noted as working on the shore near Hungerford Market in London.

As an adult, Broughton stood 180 cm and weighed 14 st. His first fights may have been against other watermen in London, with one story claiming that he beat another man following a dispute. A promotion for one of Broughton's fights in 1750 claimed that he had gone undefeated for 24 years, placing his first fights c. 1726.

Fighting career

By 1730, Broughton was competing in professional prizefights advertised in London newspapers. He frequently appeared as a fighter at the amphitheatres of Thomas Sibblis, who had taken over James Figg's venue in 1731, and James Stokes. He fought semi-regular matches with recurring opponents, such as a series of four fights against pipe-maker Thomas Allen between 1730 and 1734 and three matches against coachman George Stephenson starting in 1738, one of which Paul Whitehead satirised in his 1744 mock-epic poem "The Gymnasiad".

Broughton opened an amphitheatre in Oxford Road and began staging fights on 13 March 1743, when, for an entrance fee of a shilling or less, patrons were able to watch a display of boxing between several competitors. Broughton envisaged a venue in which boxing matches as well as fights with weapons such as short swords, quarterstaffs, and cudgels would only take place between skilled combatants, although he also hosted bouts of animal blood sport, including bear-baiting. On 16 August 1743, he drew up the first standard set of rules for the sport, stipulating that a round would last until a fighter went down with a 30-second interval between rounds. The rules were applied widely in boxing until they were replaced by the London Prize Ring rules in 1838.

Broughton was a King's Body Guard of the Yeoman of the Guard and probably accompanied George II to Hanover in 1743 during the War of the Austrian Succession.

In 1747, Broughton opened a school in Haymarket where men could learn boxing while wearing an early form of boxing glove called "mufflers" to protect against injury, possibly making the activity more attractive to wealthy customers. Some historians credit Broughton as the inventor of boxing gloves because of his use of mufflers, though their use in professional bouts would not become widespread until the late 19th century.

On 11 April 1750, Broughton fought Jack Slack, a Norfolk butcher, following a personal dispute between the men. Two minutes into the fight, Slack threw a blinding punch, and after 14 minutes Broughton retired from the bout because he was unable to see. The Duke of Cumberland, Broughton's patron at the time was said to have lost £10,000 on the match. Broughton permanently retired from boxing following his defeat, though he continued to operate his amphitheatre until 1753 or 1754, after which he ran an antiques business.

Later life and death
Broughton continued to teach boxing until 1787, when he was in his eighties. He was married to a woman named Elizabeth, who was approximately 20 years his junior.

In December 1768, Broughton was involved in hiring ruffians to be sent to Brentford on behalf of Sir William Beauchamp-Proctor, who was standing for parliament. A riot broke out on 8 December, though it is uncertain whether the gang Broughton hired was intended to incite the riot or preserve order. Two men, one of whom was hired by Broughton, were subsequently found guilty of murder, though both were later granted a reprieve.

He died on 8 January 1789 at his house at Walcot Place, Lambeth, and left a sum of £7,000 to his niece. He was interred at Westminster Abbey and requested to have the epitaph "Champion of England" carved on his headstone, but the dean of the church objected, and left a blank space. In 1988, Broughton's request was fulfilled with the qualification "Pugilist" also added to the line.

Legacy

Broughton appeared in 18th century art and literature. He was the subject of portraits by John Ellys and John Hamilton Mortimer, and also served as a model for John Michael Rysbrack's statue of Hercules. In literature, Paul Whitehead satirised one of Broughton's bouts against George Stephenson in the 1744 mock-epic poem "The Gymnasiad", and William Hazlitt's 1822 essay "The Fight" references of one of the fights between Broughton and Stephenson. Henry Fielding also alluded to Broughton's boxing academy and lampooned the invention of "muffler" boxing gloves in several of his writings, including the 1749 novel The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling.

Broughton was one of the original inductees of the International Boxing Hall of Fame, inducted as a pioneer of the sport.

title: Jack Broughton


text:
Roy Rogers (disambiguation)

Roy Rogers (1911-1998) was a famous singing cowboy actor.

Roy Rogers may also refer to:

 * Roy Rogers Restaurants, restaurant chain
 * Roy Rogers (drink), a non-alcoholic mixed drink
 * Roy Rogers (basketball), American former NBA basketball player and assistant coach
 * Roy Rogers (guitarist), slide guitarist
 * "Roy Rogers", a song by Elton John from the album Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
 * "Roy Rogers McFreely", an episode of American Dad!

title: Roy Rogers (disambiguation)


text:
User talk:Blurasis

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! Alf 00:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song) article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Hardest Way to Make an Easy Living
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the The Hardest Way to Make an Easy Living article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Zarboki 05:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Blurasis


text:
User talk:PastAsPrologue

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 00:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:PastAsPrologue


text: User:Oblivious/SlashStubs

title: User:Oblivious/SlashStubs


text:
James Pierpont (mathematician)

James P. Pierpont (June 16, 1866 – December 9, 1938) was a Connecticut-born American mathematician.

His father Cornelius Pierpont was a wealthy New Haven businessman. He did undergraduate studies at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, initially in mechanical engineering, but turned to mathematics. He went to Europe after graduating in 1886. He studied in Berlin, and later in Vienna. He prepared his PhD at the University of Vienna under Leopold Gegenbauer and Gustav Ritter von Escherich. His thesis, defended in 1894, is entitled Zur Geschichte der Gleichung fünften Grades bis zum Jahre 1858. After his defense, he returned to New Haven and was appointed as a lecturer at Yale University, where he spent most of his career. In 1898, he became professor.

Initially, his research dealt with Galois theory of equations. The Pierpont primes are named after Pierpont, who introduced them in 1895 in connection with a problem of constructing regular polygons with the use of conic sections. After 1900, he worked in real and complex analysis.

In his textbooks of real analysis, he introduced a definition of the integral analogous to Lebesgue integration. His definition was later criticized by Maurice Fréchet. Finally, in the 1920s, his interest turned to non-Euclidean geometry.

Books

 * 1905: Lectures On The Theory Of Functions Of Real Variables Vol. I, Ginn and Company
 * 1912: Lectures On The Theory Of Functions Of Real Variables Vol. II, Ginn and Company
 * 1914: Functions of a complex variable, Ginn and Company

title: James Pierpont (mathematician)


text:
Chen Tao (UFO religion)

Chen Tao (真道, or "True Way"), also known as the God's Salvation Church, was a UFO religion that originated in Taiwan. It was founded by Hon-Ming Chen, who first associated it with UFOs but later claimed that the group had been misrepresented as a New Age UFO cult. Members later moved to Texas in 1997, where they became notorious for a highly publicized failed millennial prophecy.

History
It was founded by Hon-Ming Chen (陳恆明 born 1955) in Taiwan, who first associated it with UFOs but later claimed that the group had been misrepresented as a New Age UFO cult. It was later known as God's Salvation Church.

Chen was a former professor who claimed to be an atheist until he joined a religious cultivation group that dated back for two generations to the original female founder, Teacher Yu-Hsia Chen. But he broke with the group, headed by the third-generation teacher, in 1993 and created, with another fellow-cultivator, Tao-hung Ma, their own groups. It was later, when he broke with Ma and decided to move to the United States, that new elements, such as the pseudo-scientific information of cosmology and flying saucers, as well as Christian motifs of the prophecy of the end and the great tribulation, etc., were introduced into the group.

In Taiwan, the group was originally officially registered as the Chinese Soul Light Research Association. When the group moved to the United States from Asia, it was registered in the US as God's Salvation Church and first relocated to San Dimas, California. Adherents moved to Garland, Texas, in 1997.

Failed prophecy
The group is best known for a highly publicized, and failed, millennial prophecy. Shortly after moving to Garland in August 1997, Chen predicted that at on March 31, 1998, God would be seen on Channel 18 all across North America.

The group reportedly moved to Garland because the name sounded like "God Land". At the time the group had roughly 140–160 members. Members purchased more than 20 homes in an upper-middle-class south Garland neighborhood. Like their neighbors, these followers were white-collar professionals, some of whom were reportedly wealthy. "They dressed in white, wore cowboy hats and drove luxury cars," according to The Dallas Morning News.

The Garland Police Department, understanding the potential gravity of the situation, coordinated resources, including religious studies professor Lonnie Kliever, and were on stand-by when the international media began arriving in what had previously been an upper-middle-class section of the Dallas suburb. "Its presence unsettled many Garland residents," wrote Adam Szubin in a law enforcement case study.

When the predicted appearance did not occur, the group became confused. "The Chen Tao leader announced that he obviously had misunderstood God's plans, and members quietly returned to their homes," wrote Szubin. Chen offered to be stoned or crucified for the event, but no one took him up on this offer.

Aftermath
Unlike other millennial religious groups, such as Millerites, Chen Tao seems to have effectively fallen apart after its leader's prophecies went unfulfilled. Immediately after the failed prediction, some of the members had to return to Taiwan owing to visa problems; in total, roughly two-thirds abandoned the group. Later the remaining members moved to Lockport, New York. They continued to wear cowboy hats but began stating that a war between China and Taiwan would lead to a nuclear holocaust that would result in much death, but also God's arrival in a "God plane" to save the members. They originally stated that this would occur in 1999 but later revised the date.

Religious studies scholars Stuart A. Wright and Arthur L. Greil traveled to Lockport to interview Master Chen and observe the group post-prophecy.

title: Chen Tao (UFO religion)


text:
School of Law, Trinity College Dublin

The School of Law at Trinity College Dublin is the oldest established law school in Ireland. It teaches law to undergraduate and postgraduate students, as well as conducting legal research and holding conferences.

There are approximately 700 undergraduate students and 150 postgraduate students in the Law School. It publishes the Dublin University Law Journal and the Trinity College Law Review. The Law School is located in House 39 on New Square.

Degrees
It offers five undergraduate degrees. The Bachelor in Laws (LL.B.), Law and French (the LL.B. (ling. franc.)), Law and German (the LL.B. (ling. germ.)), Law and Business (LL.B. Bus) and Law and Political Science (LL.B. Pol. Science) degrees are all four-year honors degree programmes in Law.

The School offers five taught Master in Laws degrees. Applicants who already hold a good honors (II.1) law degree or law related degree, can apply to study for the LL.M. (Master in Laws), Master in International and Comparative Law, Master in International and European Business Law and Master in Intellectual Property Law. All four postgraduate degrees are one-year taught programmes. The School of Law also offers two postgraduate research degree programmes - the M.Litt. or Ph.D., which are conducted by research. Finally, the LL.D. is an honour reserved for outstanding legal academics.

The LL.B.
In the freshman years of the LL.B., students study eight obligatory core law subjects: Mentoring Freshman law students can also choose to take a language course in the university.
 * The Irish Legal System (including Legal Skills)
 * Torts
 * Constitutional law I
 * Criminal law
 * Contract law
 * Administrative Law
 * Private Law Remedies
 * Equity
 * Land law
 * European Union law
 * Constitutional law II

Sophisters (third and fourth year students) choose 60 ECTs (European Credit Transfers) in each of the two years from a wide range of modules including commercial law, tax law, human rights law, corporate governance and criminology. They are also entitled to take a module in a different field under Trinity's Broad Curriculum programme. The marks obtained over the two final years count equally for the final degree grade.

Coursework
Each module generally has three hours of lectures per week throughout the year. There are also seminars attended by groups of approximately twelve students. Freshman modules have four seminars of one hour in length throughout the year. For sophister subjects, the number of seminars varies.

The Law School does not operate in semesters, so the examinations are all at the end of the year, in the May–June period. The only exception is the foundation scholarship exam, which Senior Freshmen may elect to sit in order to win a scholarship. Many subjects allocate part of the grade for a major assignment submitted during the year.

International study
Junior Sophisters may study abroad for their third year on an exchange. Trinity has both Socrates or Erasmus exchanges with European universities and other reciprocal exchange agreements with universities in Canada, Finland and the USA. The Law School has exchange agreements with the following universities:
 * Austria
 * Johannes Kepler University, Linz
 * Belgium
 * Leuven University
 * Canada
 * Osgoode Hall Law School
 * Denmark
 * University of Copenhagen
 * Finland
 * University of Helsinki
 * France
 * Montesquieu University – Bordeaux IV
 * University of Strasbourg University of Strasbourg
 * University of Toulouse
 * Panthéon-Assas University
 * University of Poitiers
 * Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris (Sciences Po)
 * Germany
 * University of Erlangen-Nuremberg
 * Hamburg University
 * Humboldt University, Berlin
 * Mainz University
 * University of Würzburg
 * Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
 * Italy
 * University of Bologna
 * The Netherlands
 * Leiden University
 * Spain
 * University of Granada
 * The United States of America
 * Emory University
 * Washington and Lee University
 * Indiana University Maurer School of Law

The law and language degrees
The degrees in Law and French and Law and German were created in 1993. They are taught in conjunction with Trinity's French and German departments. They are modelled on the LL.B., but also include study of the relevant language and civilisation and the civil and constitutional law of the relevant jurisdiction. It is obligatory for students on these courses to spend their third year on a Socrates exchange, where they study a range of law subjects in a French or German university. The marks obtained abroad count for 35% of a law and language student's degree grade. There are traditionally twelve places every year on each of these courses, however sixteen places were offered on the Law and German programme and thirteen places for Law and French for the academic year 2007–08. It is unclear whether this arrangement is to continue.

Staff
The staff of the Law School includes a number of well-known Irish legal academics and authors of leading textbooks. The current Head of the Law School is Professor Mark Bell. A number of lecturers, including Professor Ivana Bacik and William Binchy are known to the public for their involvement in political campaigns.

Past holders of the Reid Professorship in Criminal Law, currently held by Ivana Bacik, include former Presidents of Ireland, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese.

Student societies
A number of TCD student societies are particularly oriented towards law students. These are the Dublin University Law Society, FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centres) and the local branch of ELSA (European Law Students’ Association). The Law Society publishes student articles in the Trinity College Law Review. Many law students are active in the Hist and Phil and participate in debates and mooting competitions, such as the European Law Moot Court.

title: School of Law, Trinity College Dublin


text:
User:Jkelly

I am a Wikipedia (and Commons) administrator. If you would like to communicate with me, please feel free to use my talk page. I have access to OTRS tickets, and will respond to requests to check permissions.

Edits
I have chosen not to list articles that I have created or contributed to. I am concerned that, for me, it would encourage feelings of ownership (although I did mention a few at my RfA). If you'd like, however, you can see my edit count, or my recent contributions.

 * 2000th edit
 * 3000th edit
 * 2000th edit (Main)
 * 5000th edit
 * 7500th edit
 * 5000th edit (Main)
 * 10000th edit
 * 15000th edit

Trivia
One of my administrative actions received coverage in the New York Times.

Thoughts on Wikipedia
I suppose that I have a couple.

de:User:JKelly el:User:Jkelly es:User:Jkelly fr:User:Jkelly it:User:Jkelly nl:User:Jkelly no:User:Jkelly

title: User:Jkelly


text:
Talk:Shake (software)

Untitled
This page reads as a commercial for shake; can someone make it less glowing?

Fair use rationale for Image:Shake 4.png
Image:Shake 4.png 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Shake and Snow Leopard
Even though its discontinued, does Shake still run on the latest OS? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You can check at http://www.apple.com/support/shake/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdtyler (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Shake 4 ist PPC based. So it will definitely not run on 10.7 Lion.

92.228.8.207 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is 10.7 (and now 10.8) incompatibility confirmed by anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.194.116 (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shake (software). 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 tag to http://www.vfxtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24004&postcount=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930203330/http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/02/07/nothingreal/ to http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/02/07/nothingreal

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) 04:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Cites needed??
To preface, I've been watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy again. I mention this as that's what brought me to this article. In the end credits Shake is mentioned as being used in the film. I had not heard of Shake so I decided to see what I could find out which lead me here. In light of that I don't know how to use this film credit as a source for the claim that Shake was indeed used in the making of the LOTR. It seems to smack of OR which I understand is not accepted, but I know without doubt Shake is in the film credits. I've done some editing here and know of no way to use film credits for a cite. Indeed, it may not be possible to do so. Could someone offer help on this issue? Thanks! THX1136 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Decided to take the time and find a cite. THX1136 (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shake (software)