text:
Talk:The Fronde

Split
I advocate that the article be split into two, with the Fronde being discussed here, but the Franco-Spanish War being discussed elsewhere ('elsewhere' being Franco-Spanish War (1653), which is now a redirect to Fronde). Although obviously connected, the civil conflict cannot be combined with the foreign conflict so carelessly. Bastin 12:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Support. Sounds good to me - they are two pretty distinct topics. Funnyhat 16:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The best way is this standard method, which I'll initiate:
 * Cut and paste the section Franco-Spanish War (1653) as an independent article under that heading. Include any references from here that pertain. (Done.)
 * Provide the new article with a concise opening summary linking Fronde as its general context. (To do.)
 * Return to Fronde and concentrate the subsection somewhat with a heading Main article Franco-Spanish War (1653). (To do.)
 * Enrich the new article with further detail and references. (To do.)

The reason? The Franco-Spanish War (1653) is the outcome of those earlier episodes, the Fronde parlementaire and the Fronde des Nobles. Its limitations are shaped by those earlier events. The three episodes are one phenomenon, which had the effect of discrediting "freedoms" in the old feudal sense in France, (rather than the "new" personal sense) and set the stage for absolutism.

Dividing information into chunks that are too small has the effect of losing information. Making new articles in this manner preserves context.

The changes I've made have created an overlap of text that is only temporary. The section here needs to be condensed (not too much I hope), and the new article needs to be enriched. Nothing has been lost.--Wetman 01:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support to remove the section on Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659). Fronde is a part in a way but this is not encyclopedic --Akrasia25 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Who was Fighting and Why?
The opening paragraph doesn't tell who was fighting who or why they were fighting? It may be buried elsewhere in the article but as the next section jumps straight into detail I didn't follow up.

A good opening should summarise the main issues.

--Gramscis cousin (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

--done--Akrasia25 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've cut a few bits out which were subjective/irrelevant/bad English so if anyone has any problems with my edit then feel free to take me to task over them. JacobJHWard (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Looks good, thanks. Ratagonia (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

 * There's a whole lot of subjectivity remaining in this article.

 * Pazouzou (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What "anarchy"?
In the section "The Franco-Spanish War (1653–1659)" it is currently stated "The whole country, wearied of anarchy and disgusted with the princes [...]".

I suggest this should be changed as the state of the country neither matches the definition of the article for Anarchy nor Anarchism.

Probably something along the lines of "The whole country, wearied of bad ledership, lack of governmental coordination and disgusted with the princes [...]".

85.225.176.180 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox needed
This article needs an infobox; the lead doesn't even say who won the conflict! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 * An infobox is not a substitute for text. I shall make it clear in the opening summary that the absolute monarchy "won'.--Wetman (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:THE
It seems to me that the Fronde is a clear case where "the" is needed, like The Holocaust per WP:THE. I guess we could have the English article, but it seems more sensible to stick with the French and add "La" instead. Does anyone have any comments? I've tried a move but it's blocked so a request move discussion will be needed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No comments? —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Support La--Akrasia25 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

 * After consulting various sources (ie Dalin's "The Fronde" I now support 'The') Seems like English historians use the English article --Akrasia25 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I think there's an analogy with The Troubles too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  (t · c)  buidhe  04:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Fronde → The Fronde – Per my earlier comment, now several years old, above. This seems a pretty clear case of WP:THE ("official or commonly used proper name") as the works already cited in the article attest, eg The Fronde: A French Revolution, 1648-1652 or, more recently 1652: The Cardinal, the Prince, and the Crisis of the Fronde. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to be me.--Akrasia25 (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:THE. Starting an article title with "The" is discouraged. This doesn't seem any different to me than any other war that is commonly started with the definite article, such as The War of 1812 or The Spanish–American War. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Starting an article with "the" is not discouraged where it is appropriate to do so, as WP:THE makes clear. "Fronde" is simply a French noun and "the" serves an obvious function is distinguishing the historical event from its other uses - the comparison is not the War of 1812 but the Holocaust. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust is an interesting example. But in that particular case, I can see why the article title would be at "The Holocaust" because in English "a holocaust" has become a generic term for a genocide. In contrast, "a fronde" is not an English term for anything, so the definite article is not needed in this title. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Support - WP:THE is surely applicable here - cf (e.g.) The Anarchy. Ingratis (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fronde which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Fronde


text:
Talk:Angolan Civil War

Sudanese involvement?
Sudan had supported the Zaireans during the Shaba invasions. The Shaba invasions had Angolan Civil War veterans in it. Did Sudan provide support during the Angolan civil War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.17.101.129 (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Section on ethnic groups?
During the civil war, all sides were primarily supported by one of the three largest ethnic groups in the country. For example, the Mbundus who mostly lived on the coastal areas and larger cities supported the MPLA and the mostly rural, less wealthy Obimbundus supported UNITA. While the Civil War was not motivated by ethnic hatred, there was definitely a wealth inequality between the groups that the article doesn't go into as much detail as it could.

Suggestion of removal "desertors"
Hello Wiki users

I was checking into the matters of this war since a recent video, and i came upon a weird statement in the infobox on the actual wikipedia article that "50 000 Cuban soldiers deserted" during this war. It seems rather... Weird since a little over 300 000 Cubans went over there during the whole war, almost 1 out of 5 deserted in Angola ?

The only source for this statement is the following,

''Horowitz, Irving Louis (1995). Cuban Communism/8th Editi. Transaction Publishers. p. 560''

Which after research seems heavily biaised, the statement itself comes from a former Cuban General "56 000" (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1987-06-30-8702250398-story.html), which could (or not) include people trying to escape the military service in Cuba itself and not in Africa, and the name in english i suppose is "Conscientious objector" not desertors in that case.

I was wondering if it was possible to remove the statement from the statistics until it is supported by some other (non biaised) sources, because it feels like just an error or an overestimation or a voluntary mixup by people who doesn't really like the regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.140.196 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of it in the main article either, I think removing it until we can get a better source is a good call. RocketsFallOnRocketFalls (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 * It made its way back into the article, despite beeing flagged "dubious" in the Cuban involvment in Angola article 184.145.223.215 (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed it several times already but someone keeps adding it back. Socialwave597 (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Revert
@Rajanrandvi can you explain why you reverted my edit without an explanation? NorthTension (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I was reverting the cross-wiki POV pusher SpinnerLaserzthe2nd and your edit got caught in the middle of it. Rajanrandvi (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You have been blocked several times on other wikis for edit warring and making socks (which is a huge no no). SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2023
Please change to
 * Malaquias, Assis. Rebels and Robbers: Violence in Post-Colonial Angola, Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 2007
 * Biblinsi (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Angolan Civil War


text:
Alexander Bryan Johnson

Alexander Bryan Johnson (May 29, 1786, Gosport, Hampshire, Eng. — September 9, 1867, Utica, N.Y., U.S.), was a British-born American philosopher and semanticist. He immigrated to the United States as a child and worked as a banker in Utica, New York. He wrote about economics, language, and the nature of knowledge.

Biography
Of Netherlandic and Jewish ancestry, he was born in Gosport, Hampshire, England, United Kingdom and at age 16 he emigrated to the United States, and settled at Utica, where he was a banker for many years. He was admitted to the bar, but never practised.

Johnson died on the 9th of September 1867, at the age of 81, and was buried at Forest Hill Cemetery in Utica.

An inscription on his gravestone reads: THE AUTHOR OF MANY BOOKS A LAWYER BY EDUCATION: A BANKER DURING ACTIVE LIFE: A STUDENT OF PHILOSOPHY ALWAYS

Family
He married Abigail Louisa Smith Adams (1798-1836), daughter of Charles Adams and Sally Smith, niece of William Stephens Smith, and granddaughter of John Adams and Abigail Adams.

His son, Alexander Smith Johnson, was born in Utica in 1817, served as a judge, and died in Nassau, Bahamas, in 1878.

Philosophy
From his youth he had given all his leisure to the study of problems in intellectual philosophy, and especially of the relations between knowledge and language. He attempted to show the ultimate meaning of words, apart from their meaning as related to each other in ordinary definition, and thus to ascertain the nature of human knowledge as it exists independent of the words in which it is expressed.

His 1836 work, A Treatise on Language, was little recognised in his own time, and this remained the case for nearly a century after his death. It can now be seen to have anticipated the thrust of logical positivism, at least in arguing that misunderstandings of how language operates bedevil philosophical questions, and theories of modern linguistics.

Writings
Alexander Bryan Johnson was a prolific writer considering that his primary occupation was banking and finance. He published 10 books over his lifetime and a myriad of political articles and pamphlets regarding the public speeches and lectures he gave. Moses Bagg, a contemporary biographer and colleague of Johnson's reflects, "that a man thrown early into the active, and what with most men would necessarily be the absorbing business of life, should accomplish so much in literature, and accomplish it so well is indeed extraordinary."

"The great and prominent study of his life was language with reference to its meaning in something other than words." Much of Johnsons work was published as reiterations throughout his life. His seminal philosophical work was further revised, compressed and republished under the title Treatise on Language, or the Relation which Words bear to Things in 1836. Johnson's description of The Meaning of Words reads, "Four Ineradicable fallacies are concealed in the structure of language: it identifies what unverbaly are diverse, assimilates what unverbaly are heterogeneous, makes a unit of what unverbaly are multifarious, and transmutes into each other what unverbaly are untransmutable."

Johnson was autodidactic by nature and gained proficiency in multiple areas of study. Though philosophy was his most keen subject of interest, much of his intellectual effort was spent in other realms. His primary employment with banking and finance naturally absorbed his analytical attention leading him to publish on an array of financial topics. The collection of his banking related publications includes A Treatise on Banking, 1850, The Philosophy of Joint-Stock Banking, 1851 and Our Monetary Condition, 1864. Johnson was also deeply engaged with politics and even moral philosophy. He prided himself as an upstanding citizen and valued exacting moral judgment. Many of Johnsons published works were structured as guides to the proper moral and intellectual education of young men. His Religion in its Relation to the Present Life, published in 1840, sought to elucidate how proper conduct can benefit ones life and how one could utilize the art of self control.

title: Alexander Bryan Johnson


text:
Samuel Bemis

Dr. Samuel A. Bemis (1793–1881) was one of the earliest photographers in the United States. A small number of his daguerreotypes have survived.

Biography
Bemis was a Boston dentist when in April 1840 he acquired an early camera and became one of the first Americans to take a photograph. His extant daguerreotypes include views of Boston and of the White Mountains of New Hampshire. These images are the earliest known American photographs of natural landscapes.

Bemis's interest in photography began in March 1840 when he attended a series of lectures and demonstration of the daguerreotype process given by François Fauvel-Gouraud, a pupil of Louis-Jacques Mandé Daguerre and an agent for Alphonse Giroux & Cie., sole manufacturers of equipment endorsed by Daguerre. (Daguerre had announced his process in early 1839. Gouraud arrived in New York City on November 23, 1839, there exhibited daguerreotypes in December, and in January lectured in Philadelphia. By March he was lecturing in Boston with Edward Everett Hale among his other students; from there he travelled on to Providence, Rhode Island, and by 1842 was listed as a daguerrean in Buffalo, New York.)

Bemis bought his daguerreotype camera from Gouraud for $51, along with twelve daguerreotype plates (16.5 x 21.6 cm) at $2 each. His total investment was $76 ($ in dollars), a considerable sum. (This is believed to be the first camera sold commercially in the United States.) Four days later, on April 19, 1840, Bemis made his first daguerreotype. His early pictures were taken in Boston. When summer came, he photographed in the White Mountains around Crawford Notch, where he had recently relocated. Bemis was not a masterful technician; his remaining images show inadequate processing of the daguerreotype plates. Bemis actively daguerreotyped until October, 1843, and evidently took up other hobbies. His camera apparatus is on display at the George Eastman House along with the original bill of sale and some of his images.

In New Hampshire, Bemis bought land from innkeeper Abel Crawford, who had pioneered tourism in the White Mountains. This property included most of today's Crawford Notch. Spurned in romance shortly after his move, Bemis built a granite mansion and became an eccentric recluse. At one time called "the Lord of the Valley", Bemis named a lake, mountain, brook, ridge, and other spots in the White Mountains for himself. In an obituary published in 1881, he was described as "not as odd as might be expected, yet sufficiently so to distinguish him from the ordinary run of men." His house, now known as the Notchland Inn, currently operates as a bed-and-breakfast establishment. Bemis is buried beside the house.

Collections of his images

 * George Eastman House (19 plates and his two cameras)
 * Getty Museum (4 plates)

Manuscripts

 * The Bemis papers were recently donated to the Conway Public Library, Conway, NH by Ed Butler and Les Schoof, owners of the Notchland Inn. Read the press release announcing the donation.

title: Samuel Bemis


text:
Talk:Robert Meeropol

Untitled
The second paragraph doesn't make sense. First it says where they stayed during trial and executions, Then later, after several changes in custody, it has them visiting their parents in Sing Sing. IMHO, This tragic story deserves better clarity on this one aspect. Vaoverland 18:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Children's Home
Surely "Hebrew's Children Home" is a typo and should be "Hebrew Children's Home". But I lack a citation for this at all at the moment. The article has no inline references, so it is very hard to know where to look. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone should tell Robert
""To this day, there is no credible evidence that he participated in obtaining or passing on ... the secret of the atomic bomb, the crime for which he was executed."" I think the crime they were actually executed for was espionage and treason... not a specific piece of information. So... settles that then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.73.33.20 (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robert Meeropol


text: File:Lee Jung Hyun II.jpg

title: File:Lee Jung Hyun II.jpg


text:
Category:Wikipedian linguists

Wikipedians who work or have worked in the field of linguistics. This category is for professional linguists; for a general list of Wikipedians who are interested in linguistics, see Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics.

To add yourself to this list, insert the following on your user page:

You might also like to add a userbox to your userpage: User linguist or User linguist-2.

(The academic hood color for linguistics is gold.) (Please post background color suggestions to the talk page for the template .)

title: Category:Wikipedian linguists


text:
Talk:Superstar (disambiguation)

Untitled discussion by Marc pasquin
this article seem to be either a joke or a very biased entry about some local public figure --Marc pasquin 18:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages, style
I have organized the entries a bit, and removed a lot of bells and whistles as per WP:MOSDAB (particulary WP:MOSDAB). Equendil 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Superstar (disambiguation)


text: File:PadreAntonioVieira pregando.jpg

title: File:PadreAntonioVieira pregando.jpg