text:
Talk:Piston valve

Piston valves are also used in most steam locomotives.

Not quite sure how to handle this. The valves used in a steam locomotive are very similar in principle to those used in brass instruments, so there's something to be said for dealing with both in a single article. Andrewa 00:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge proposal (2 January 2006 NetherlandishYankee)
oppose: I agree with Andrewa. The piston valve in a brass instrument is but an example of a piston valve. Although the author of this article clearly had this specific application in mind, I propose that a more reasonable resolution is that the article be broadened to discuss piston valves in general. Notice that this article is appropriately marked as a stub. The external links have good information about the nature and function of a piston valve. Someone should endeavor to bring that information into this article.--Jcoman 21:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

neutral: If it was deemed a merge then it'd be for a section move only. As correctly noted above, a piston valve is not exclusive to brass instruments, but I don't see a problem with merging the appropriate section into brass instruments and leaving this page for someone to add the necessary steam (and other) related use to. I'd point out that rotary valve also has material that would need to be merged, for the sake of consistency if nothing else. — Graibeard 05:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

oppose. Merge some of the content if that is seen to be helpful, but leave the more general article applying to all piston valves. There were once linear-acting valves used at the chimney bases of some open hearth furnaces, but I don't know whether they were called piston valves. I think they were called after their inventor, as were the rotary valves which replaced them. Watch this space! Andrewa 01:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I have removed the merge notice. There seems no support for the proposal, and its basis has been removed by the latest edits. Andrewa 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Update to the brass instrument data
As well as providing some information on steam engines, I've also made some additions and corrections to the information on brass instruments. Andrewa 01:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

yeah, shouldn't there be a bit about Brass valves needing some sort of lubrication, like valve oil?

Steam engines
This section was seriously inaccurate, so I have re-written it. I have left the bit about James Watt but I think that is inaccurate too. I think James Watt used plug-cock valves in his engines but I don't know a lot about such early engines so I will leave that to someone else. 82.21.65.109 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence about Curtis Lo since there is no reference provided (which is not acceptable in a scholarly work) and an internet search did not turn up anything except copies of what was here. Please replace it if you can provide a reference. User:MaltaGC 19:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Spud guns
Perhaps I'm prejudiced, but do we really want spud guns as the first item? I'd put it last. 82.21.65.109 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No objections received, so I have made the change. Biscuittin 14:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Machine configurations template
I don't think this template is appropriate for this article. Most of the machines listed don't use piston valves. Biscuittin 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Two articles
We have two articles, piston valve and piston valves. Should they be merged? Biscuittin (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It's a mess. Something needs doing. Globbet (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I've renamed piston valves to piston valve, so at least the disambiguatioon is clearer. Article's still a mess - no introduction, drops straight into lap & lead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just an image
I don't want to mess with the article, so I add my image suggestion here, use it if you think it's valuable. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Trompette - premier piston - montage perspective.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Trompette - premier piston - montage perspective.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 18, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-10-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Visual explanations of some types of piston valve link not working — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.7.243 (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Piston valve


text: Template:Discworld

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

title: Template:Discworld


text: User talk:201.224.105.199

title: User talk:201.224.105.199


text: Category:Airports in Kenya

title: Category:Airports in Kenya


text:
Talk:Rome: Total Realism

Status of RTR:PE
As of April 7, 2007 it was considered "official" by the designers. "In other news, we are proud to announce that Rome: Total Realism is officially adopting the fan-made modification, Platinum Edition, as an official version of RTR." (http://www.rometotalrealism.org/).

NPOV
This article reads like an advertisement for the mod from a gaming web site, and is not "encyclopedic" in anyway. If someone could take out the FAQ and remove the useless extra commentary and replace with a simple list of changes the mod has over the original game, that would be much more suited. 69.232.225.167

 * Agreed. I'll work on it. —Simetrical (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's much improved now. Some additions to consider: RTR history, and its relationship to IR and MA. —Simetrical (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know if Total Realism 6.0 works with Rome:Total War 1.5? I've got the Gold edition...--84.217.124.231 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * RTR Gold uses 1.2 edition. Try Platinum which uses 1.5 and is much better than Gold.Lucius Domitius 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you get Platinum? The page this article links to seems kind of out-of-date, and 1.2 isn't on the Total War website anymore.
 * have you tried via File Sharing apllications? - 80.98.211.195 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you actually buy rome:total realism or just download it? 'cause on the other page it has a box with the pic on.
 * pretty sure that box is just a render by someone bored enough to make boxart. 66.215.20.28 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Changes
There is scant reference to the changes to the Roman factions. The whole principle of the original game is changed by removing the Senate and the three separate Roman houses to replace them with one single faction. The Senate is no longer able to set objectives which give direction and challenges to the campaign when playing a Roman faction. The intrigue in keeping the Senate sweet whilst courting popularity with the people has gone, and that is a massive reduction in functionality.

It may please the wargamers and the historical pedants, but the mod makes the game one dimensional. I say this as someone who is fascinated with Roman history. However, the makers of t

New Political map
Btw, the page needs a new political map, as the current is from the stone-age 5.3

Yep, I agree. This one is much better. http://lazarus.elte.hu/~hzsolt/terkep/rtw/rtw_political_trm60.png
 * What about this one? http://lazarus.elte.hu/~hzsolt/terkep/rtw/political_rtr70.png It's unofficial but still illustrates the vastly expanded scope of the upcoming RTR VII —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.248.133 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the official site?
I do not understand one important thing. Is rometotalwar.org the official site, or is rometotalwar.com the official site. the .com site seems to be

?
Can some one tell me which mod is better Europa Barbarorum or Rome total realism???
 * Don't download either of them, it is totally unprofessional how they handle installation techniques, they don't warn you about any data loss, they are vague about some program deleting certain files. If you don't understand what they are really saying you are scr*wed. They tell you to simply make a copy of the Data file in your Rome: Total War file, AFTER you have installed the mod. How immature is that? I strongly advice you never to download any of those mods and never ever never install them. Mallerd 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the advice, i posted that message a long time ago in the time after ive tried both mods and i think there brilliant, however i felt EB was the best but it crashed at the year 242BC everytime (very annoying) so now im playing realism and ive got no problems with it. King Alaric 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've downloaded both EB and XGM and I've never had any problems whatsoever with the installation. SpartanGlory1983 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983

Marius Reforms
Are there any marius reforms in the game i just passed 103BC surly they should have come in around 106 or 107??? I WANT THE COOL LEGIONS lol King Alaric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.81.182 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to have an Imperial Palace in two cities in Italy (Rome+other) Kranyak (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User Mods
I added this little part and also updated the RTR PE version as well. Xelnanga 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability and focus
I think that this article does conform to the standard of notability required for Wikipedia. I have found several reviews (mostly of the old RTR 6.0 version) online.     Based on these, I feel that the notability warning should be removed. I am unsure if these would be appropriate for the external links section or not. I also feel that the article focuses on a single version of the mod rather than the project as a whole. I think that future edits of this page should take this into account. --Ptolomy of Epirus (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

 * If you have found websites establishing notability, please include them in the article and help to clean this page up. There are many gaming review sites that have talked about RTR but nobody has bothered to challenge the notability tag.  Someone needs to take the time to do some work on this page. Ace blazer (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rome: Total Realism. 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/20081021114858/http://pcgamingcenter.ugo.com/?cur=rome-total-war-game-mod to http://pcgamingcenter.ugo.com/?cur=rome-total-war-game-mod

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

About the recent edits
Most of the content in the article was not sourced and the only plausible explanation for much of it was WP:OR criticism by game users which are certainly not proper reliable sources for the matter. The excruciating details of the additions made by the mod are also not particularly important from the perspective of anyone but users of the mod; for most readers a short and simple summary is more than enough and it fits better with typical content guidelines (for another example of this, see the main article on Rome: Total War; or the very good article on another mod for the same game, Europa Barbarorum). If any new content is to be added; it first and foremost needs proper sources (not just opinions from users of the game). A good start would be for someone to track down the reviews from the various mentioned sources and add that information. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Dead Link
The link at the bottom ( http://www.rometotalrealism.org/ ) leads to some blog about video games that does not contain anything about the mod. I assume that the domain owners have changed. I found https://www.moddb.com/mods/rome-total-realism as an alternative, but as I am not sure whether this is official or not, I did not edit the article. Another promising link would be the twcenter forum entry https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?559467-Rome-Total-Realism-Platinum-Edition-v2-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.40.174 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rome: Total Realism


text:
Talk:Five Civilized Tribes

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Broustay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Colonists' slavery customs
many Western customs (including the ownership of plantations and slaves)
 * Actually slavery was not a custom of most of the western people. There were no slavery in most parts of Europe. Western people in America were an exeption to have slavery. 193.65.112.51 00:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Indians had slaves long before the arrival of Europeans, but it was Western Europeans who instituted black slavery in the Americas. OKtag 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, I changed it to "black slaves".

Oklahoma Land Run
The Oklahma land run was on october 22, 1992!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!hahaha! The people that went in before the run were called "Sooners" the Oklahoma University name for its sports teams. I do not know whether the run opened up the whole state of Oklahoma or just the northern part which was called Oklahoma Territory. The southern part was called Indian Territory. Russ Singleton An Okie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.8.255.201 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

social exclusion
the relocation is a notorious naked social exclusion. any other similar cases? Jackzhp 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya
"Cherokee" should redirect to Anivuia. It seems discriminatory to refer to some group as "a people" rather than "a nation" or "tribe" also.

To me it would read: The Anivuia, known by their neighbors as Chilukibi or "Cherokee", were a people with a well-developed world-view which included an integrated account of religion and society.

This has the advantage of representing a people without immediate reference to the forced placement of the historically "white" representation of indigenous people. This article is rife with such things, as are many of the articles on indigenous groups in the so-called "Americas". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euanthes (talk • contribs) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye, it probably should, but not a lot of people know the name Anivuia, while the word Cherokee is almost universally recognized. Wiki appeals to the masses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.21.87 (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies on the article about Five Civilized Tribes
I have (and have had ever since I first encountered the article six months ago) several problems with the first paragraph, which I have attempted to remedy, and have had both attempts reverted completely within 12 hours of my attempt to fix them. My probems are as follows: A)the term "Native American" as that term refers to anyone born in America, not just the aboriginal Americans (not to mention I know several people of aboriginal descent who find that term offensive), but I have left this alone to focus on my next problem. B) The way "civilized" is defined in this paragraph, it reads more like a political speech than an encyclopedia article. Civilized, in its most basic form, means that the culture resides in clusters that can be called cities, and because they know how to farm, not all the members are needed to procure food, as is often the case in hunter-gatherer tribes, some people are free to pursue other pursuits to advance knowledge of the whole group. This is what a civilization is, and because these five tribes, among many others throughout the Americas (hence why they are also called The Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma, but since I couldn't find a quick source for this, I'll let this one go), met this basic criteria, they were deemed civilized. Lastly, C) I have a problem with the term "white settlers" since not all the first immigrants were "white" per se. I offered two links, one to a site from a university that had a basic explanation of what civilization was, and one to the homepage for the intertribal council's homepage, and the explanation offered with the reversion (as far as I could understand) was that these were inapproprate citations, and I don't understand why.  Yes, I am new, but I would like to see articles here be as accurate as possible.  Many of the facts I know I don't know how to cite because they are text referances, not web ones, and I am not sure how to cite these sources, or if they would be acceptable.  Can someone please help me fix my problems with the article, and let me know what I have done wrong and how I could improve? Swatfoot (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't know if I can address all your questions at once, so I'll limit my initial response to what I had proplems with.

 * First, "Native Americans" is the current accepted term for what used to be called "American Indians". This usage is explained in the article Native Americans in the United States. Any person born in the USA is a "native American", but not a "Native American"! Given the USA's constant changing of terms for ethnic groups, especially in the age of Political Correctness, there will propbably be a new term for this people group at some point in the near future. For the long term, trying to get a term widely used in Wikipedia changed in one article is a very inefficient way to accomplish your goal, as so many other articles use the term. If you have a problem with "Native Americans"'s usage, I suggest you take up the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. This way, any decisions or changes taken there will affect a wide range of articles on Wikipedia, not just one.

 * Second, the "The Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma" seems to me to be a misleading term, especially since, if I recall correctly, they were called "The Five Civilized Tribes" while still in the southeastern USA (an area I have lived in at various times). I have no problem with the term being applied to the group after they moved to Oklahoma, but it seems silly to call them that when the lived in Georgia, Tennessee, and so on.

 * Third, I couldn't tell you exactly why the other editor reverted your sources, other than to say the sources were probably not considered reliable, objective, or neutral. One major requirement on Wikipeida is that all sources be from verifiable, reliable published sources. "Published" in this context meaning having some sort of editorial control, but it can be print or internet. The main page regarding these policies is WP:Attribution. Please take a look at it and the other pages referenced there. If you still have questions at that point, feel free to ask, and we'll try to point you to an answer. - BillCJ (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Native American is a widly accepted (if inaccurate) term for the aboriginal Americans (one that is already changing, incidentally), which is why I've left this alone in my attempts to edit. Secondly, since I couldn't confirm or refute what I had learned back in my Oklahoma History class quickly, I dropped the part about them being "of Oklahoma." All I found was the homepage of the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, where one can see that at least some of the tribes have added the appelation "of Oklahoma" to their tribe name.

The main problem I want to see fixed is the problem with the apparent mis-understanding of why these tribes are called "civilized." As I have stated before, the way it is defined on the page makes the first paragraph look like a political soapbox for some aboriginal Americans, but yet Wikapedia is a source many people trust for the truth (hence how I accidentally came across this article initially. I was at the library in a foreign country, and I was asking if they had any children's books with stories from or about one or more of the five civilized tribes, and they handed me a printout of that article so I could 'learn' about the tribes). There is a good explanation of what a civilization is at the University of Richmond. The pages were originally created by students for a course they were in, and are maintained by a professer there. Although it talks about Greek and Roman civilization primarily, the definition still applies (Afterall, the word 'civilization' comes from the latin civis meaning citizen, or person who lives in a town). Some definitions I have seen state that the development of writing is an important criteria in being considered 'civilized,' but not all definitions include this, including the definition provided at Encarta. Any one of the definitions found there could be used to describe these tribes. The one singularly uniting criteria that most of the definitions I have encountered have is the fact that the people are organized into towns, ergo they are setteled down primarily into one place, ergo they need a reliable means to procure food, which would quickly run out if they just went out to hunt and gather what was available on the landscape, ergo they know how to farm. I could go into a detailed explanation of how the tribes learned to farm while they were still hunter-gatherers, but I don't think that is necessary. I am a bit cautious to attempt to correct the gross inaccuracy in the article (and there are others in later paragraphs, but minor in comparison to this one, IMNSHO) as I am not convinced it is likely to stay fixed. It has been wrong for at least six months, afterall. Thank you for your quick reply to my initial inquiry. They were helpful, and I will look into how and what to cite in more detail. I still do not completely understand how to even include external links into articles, as they do not appear as I expect when I type what I think the help screen said was the proper way to do it. If you could help me organize the information I have gathered into an "acceptable" way to improve this article, I would also be most grateful. I made an edit on another article on here, and when I went back to check the next day, it too had been modified, but only to make it mesh into the article more smoothly. That delighted me, and I am not sure how to effect that here (to create something that gets smoothed over, rather than getting yanked out in its entirety) Swatfoot (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

An addendum to my previous post. I found an explanation of what civilization is here on Wikapaedia. I would like to point out that that page states, among other things, that "civilization" was not used to mean "not savage" until the 18th century, which I believe (though haven't verrified yet) is after these tribes were deemed "The Five Civilized Tribes" if they were indeed called that before their removal to Oklahoma. Even if they weren't, they likely would have been labeled as civilized or not by the people who first encountered them before this revision in the definition, and therefore became the "Five Civilized Tribes" simpily because they were the five tribes involved in the Trail of Tears. Swatfoot (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Native Americans refer to the original people of North America at the year of discovery: 1492. Native American is highly accurate as is the term Europen American accurately discribes the former term white American (i.e. European Americans like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, JFK, Marilyn Monroe, Donald Trump, Pat Tillman, Dolly Parton, Walt Disney, Don Johnson etc...) Native American is not used to describe European Americans whether born or emmigrated on/in North America or any other emmigrated race from the old world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.197.54 (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted change
I reverted the change to: The Chickasaws were one of the "Five Civilized Tribes" who sold their country to be moved to the Indian Territory from The Chickasaws were one of the "Five Civilized Tribes" who were forcibly removed to the Indian Territory

The top version seems controversial; needs citations. It's pretty widely acknowledged that the removal to Indian Territory was under duress. -- phoebe / (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

 * All deracinations are under duress; however, compared to the Cherokee and Seminole removals there were no armies sent to forcibly remove the Chickasaw. The Chickasaw moved at their own cognizance. There was no great loss of life by their removal because of their competence. Rob (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated link, was nativeamericans.com, now nps.gov
I replaced the dead link www.nativeamericans.com/FiveCivilizedTribes.htm (see Wayback Machine snapshot) with www.nps.gov/archive/ocmu/Tribes.htm which was probably its source. It has the same text and pictures. The NPS link is itself an archive of some articles once under the Ocmulgee National Monument site, which no longer has the same kind of articles: www.nps.gov/ocmu/historyculture/. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Civil War
The Wikipedia article "Native Americans in the American Civil War" states that the Muscogee/Creek fought on the Confederate side, and that many Seminoles did as well. This article says the opposite. Anybody have any info on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of Five Civilized Tribes by census
Where I can ge this info?--Kaiyr (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Five Civilized Tribes. 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/20141112052916/http://anpa.ualr.edu:80/digital_library/Additional%20Texts%20-%20Yuchi%20.htm to http://anpa.ualr.edu/digital_library/Additional%20Texts%20-%20Yuchi%20.htm

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 04:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Title
The title isn't "Five 'Civilized' Tribes", so why is civilized in scare quotes in the lede? 216.8.186.81 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fear of being labeled "culturally insensitive" (politically incorrect) run amok. 2600:1006:B10B:A99E:DDF:6999:A965:B6F6 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The scare quotes have been removed per WP:SCAREQUOTES.--JayJasper (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Five Civilized Tribes. 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/20120213170748/http://anpa.ualr.edu/digital_library/Additional%20Texts%20-%20Yuchi%20.htm to http://anpa.ualr.edu/digital_library/Additional%20Texts%20-%20Yuchi%20.htm

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) 09:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Copy problem
The text at this page on the Univeristy of Arkansas Library Research Guides is almost word for word the same as the Terminology and usage section of this article (and includes text that was recently removed from that section). The Wayback Machine does not show any history for the U of Ark page, so I cannot tell how old it is. The U of Ark page does not acknowledge Wikipedia. The Terminology and usage section in its current form has been in the article for more than four years, and the core of the third paragraph has been there for more than 10 years, so I think the U of Ark page is copied from Wikipedia. Does anyone see anything different? - Donald Albury 18:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We think alike. I noticed the same thing, and checked the webarchive as you did; there is now 1 capture that I added to the archive, but it's dated today, of course. I've spoken by phone to staff at UARK, and am waiting for a reply to my email explaining the situation and possible copyvio issues. I, too, suspect the UARK page is copied from Wikipedia. Carlstak (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I received this rather terse reply from a person at UARK:

 * "If you would check you will notice that the page is no longer available. I wrote that material in the late 1990s while working on my history masters. I only have a paper copy and have no idea where it is at this time. I don’t have the time or the interest in pursuing this."

 * The page has been taken down, but the respondent seems to have the misimpression that because it's no longer online, there is no copyvio problem. As far as I can see, since she's effectively washing her hands of the issue, we must remove the Terminology and usage section. Carlstak (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 * As that person is claiming authorship of the material, I agree that we should remove it. - Donald Albury 17:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the section, but now I'm wondering if I should revdel yet, which would involve going back ten years to remove all of it. I suspect there may be objections to the deletion. In any case, someone may wish to rewrite the section using the recently added citations. - Donald Albury 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Donald. It looks like I'll have some time for the next day or two, I'll see what I can come up with. Carlstak (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've listed this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 January 30 for some input on revdel. - Donald Albury 17:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I've restored the "Terminology and usage" section with rewritten text and the same sources, with a cite of the UARK page at the end, attributed to "staff". I hope it is suitable. I saw right after I published the edit that Old Person had pinged us minutes before. Carlstak (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Five Tribes of the Mississippian Culture
Now I can address what first attracted my attention. The last sentence of the Terminology and usage section is, "An alternative term in use is the Five Tribes of the Mississippian Culture." I wondered where that phrase came from. There are several extant tribes besides the five that once were part of the Mississippian culture (the five tribes are primarily descended from people who lived in the area of the South Appalachian Mississippian culture). The Mississippian culture is conventionally said to have ended about 1600, so I'm not sure it is proper to say that the five tribes are of that culture. I've been looking for a reliable source for usage of that term. I think we can eliminate the U of Ark page as a source, as they seem to have gotten it from Wikipedia. So far, the only other mention of the "Five Tribes of the Mississippian" that I have found is this, a recent announcement of an exhibit of works by artists of the five tribes. There is at least the possibility that the term was innovated in Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 22:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh. I searched high and low and came to the same conclusion. Carlstak (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Allow an oldperson to interject their two cents. The term Five Civilized tribes, dates back to the mid 19th Century as I recall. It refers to the tribes that made peace with the white settlers, gave up their land, took up farming and practices that the whites felt non threatening. The South, especially in the Mississippi valley was awash with various tribes, most of whom perished from the diseases brought by the whites, starting with DeSoto and his expedition. Regions like Southern Arkanas and Northern Louisiana were depopulated before white settlers drifted in The same is true of Virginia. Those   that did survive, eventually adopted white man ways and thus were considered Civilized, more appropriately would be the term Anglo-Christianized, which did not save them from the avariciousness of the white, not even adopting white man dress, plantations, printing press and slaves would save them.
 * About the only thing being "civilized" spared them was from annhilation.
 * As regards Copyvio. It seems that the University of Arkansas did indeed copy info from Wikipedia and not vice versa. I have experience with that. Many years ago I put up information on the internet, readily accessible to all, and that was my purpose. No intention of copyright as I wanted everyone to have access. Well this info has been copied many times and seems to be a popular source for family blogs, etc. So much so that when I posted some of it on WP it looked like I was engaged in copying (if not copyvio) but copying other information.
 * My final comment is this. The article is important and fulfills the need of an Encylopedia, as providing a source of valid and viable information to the general public. That after all is the purpose of an encylopedia, not an instrument tuned to the needs of Academia, scientists and researchers. Good information for all to access. I am personally repulsed by the need of persons, living, who seek to use WP to promote their own personality and/or financial interests, such as politicians, artists, musicians, athletes and the like. My opinion is that this article is indeed a worthy article, more worthy than say some article about a living individual who might be notable or notorious today, but gone like the will of the wisp in a few years. And as far as copy vio goes, which came first the chicken or the egg? Is the world a better place with this article accessible to students and the general public? Yes. Will WP be sued for copyvio? Apparently not.
 * Oh and the reason that there are only Five Civilized tribes. Well intentional an unintentional genocide took care of that, With tribes like the Saponi of SW Virginia, and for that matter the many tribes of the Cheseake Bay going the way of the Dodo bird. If I recall correctly the only tribe that has survived in the Chesapeake Bay area is the Nansemond, and that is because they early on became Christianized and intermarried with the English settlersOldperson (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping only works at the time you sign the post. When you edited the above ping it didn't do anything because you didn't sign the post again. I removed the Terminology and usage section because someone had claimed authorship (and therefore, copyright) of the material, whether on not I thought that valid. I remain convinced that the material originated in Wikipedia, but copyright infringement cases can be messy, and it was easier to remove the material, especially as Carlstak has created a new version of the section. My original concern was with the phrase "Five Tribes of the Mississippian Culture", which appears to be a neologism, not supported by reliable sources, and in any case, an anachronism and a misrepresentation of the extent of the Mississippian Culture. As to appropriation of copyrighted material on the Internet, I release everything in my blogs and web site under a Creative Commons license so that it can be freely copied (with attribution, I hope), but I delete material without a free license that has been copied into Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 13:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 * The term Five Tribes of the Mississippian Culture is historically wrong and is not supported by sources. Read more about the Mississippian culture at its article and sources. It influenced peoples throughout the Midwest and South, before most of the historic tribes in question had coalesced. While it was extensive, and there were Mississippian culture chiefdoms throughout the South, its major center was at Cahokia, east of the Mississippi River in southwest Illinois. Today the Choctaw are believed most likely to be descendants of the indigenous peoples of the Mississippian culture in this area. The Cherokee by their own oral history migrated into the South from northern areas; they are an Iroquoian-speaking people, related more to the Iroquoian tribes of south of the Great Lakes, than to the Muskogean-language tribes of the Southeast. The Seminole emerged in a process of ethnogenesis in the late eighteenth century, based in part on Creek members but developing their own culture.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The Five Civilized Tribes (make a new topic)
Am exercising the ability to edit my own point- I was trying to get a better idea of what our intentions are in this article. Each of the tribes' own histories is quite complex, both before and after Removal.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm an eighth Cherokee, a small part Choctaw, and a smattering of others, or so I understand. I know that American Indians don't love it when white people try to speak on their behalf and tell everyone what's what about Native peoples, or what they should be called. For example, not all Indians want to be called "Native Americans", and resent it when zealots of other groups try to enforce what they consider politically incorrect—to these American Indians it's just more of the neocolonialist "white man knows best" mentality. Academia may consider the term "Five Civilized Tribes" outdated and offensive, as well as some tribal members, but the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes is still active, and just had a quarterly meeting on October 6–8, 2021, so an article about the term and its history is not inappropriate. To be clear, I rewrote the Five Civilized Tribes section, so I am capable of adhering to a neutral-point-of-view concerning the matter.;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that's a good point. From the Oklahoma Historical Atlas article, it's not clear that there is a consensus about "Civilized" being ethnocentric as applied to those five tribes anyway. Maybe he was just trying to suggest that now at least European Americans have officially recognized that all the tribes had their cultures and civilization, even if it differed from theirs. We can decide how we want to use that cite. Your point of noting the Inter-Tribal Council using "Five Civilized Tribes" is a good one. It's up to them to decide what terms they want to use. I'm interested in learning more about what they have worked on together. Parkwells (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I've been aware of the lack of consensus among American Indians about using the term "Native American". Additionally, my subscription to Indian Country Today since at least 2016, has taught me their practice of indicating a person's tribal affiliation (if they are enrolled), in parentheses immediately after their names. Is this one you agree with? Also have worked to identify specific indigenous languages and nations in WP articles, if known, rather than the general "Native American"... So, working on it.Parkwells (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Other issues about Chickasaw
Carlstak, I did not have the chance to add more sources to the material about the Chickasaw and their language, and the French & Indian War before you reverted my additions. If we are going to write about the cultures and languages of these tribes, which should probably be basic to each section, I think we should state their traditional languages before noting that some members also spoke French or English. Yes, they learned other languages as they were trading with colonists who spoke those. In addition, while the Chickasaw tribal website may credit them with helping the US become an English-speaking country (after helping the British gain victory in the French & Indian War), for readers of this article, some expanded explanation of Britain's victory and French cessions, and effect on future US might be useful. That's all I was trying to do.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with you rewrtiting portions of the text, Parkwells, as you generally seem to know your stuff, but you shouldn't change it so that it no longer aligns with given sources, without removing those sources and replacing them with ones that support your own text. You've been on WP for quite awhile, so surely you know that asserted facts should be reliably sourced, and if they aren't, that they may be challenged and removed. Other editors shouldn't have to do the work required to back up your changes. Carlstak (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 * You're quite right and I did not mean to be so hasty.Parkwells (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 * No worries, I know you do good work.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes on sources

 * In terms of sources, I wanted to recommend that editors identify Opinion pieces, such as Alaina Roberts' article cited in the Lead, as this is not the same as reporting. (I identified it as Opinion in the title.)
 * Also, while a tribal website may seem an appealing source, the Chickasaw one lacked any footnotes or references to sources it had used, which limits the reader's ability to follow up and learn more than is summarized on the site. For instance, it said "Some historians credit the Chickasaw..." - what historians? Do they have articles/books that readers can go to so they can learn more, or compare them to others who might have different opinions? Editors are encouraged to use Reliable Sources as defined by WP, for example, academic works that document their facts.
 * The main articles in WP on these five tribes include numerous sources that reflect contemporary revisions in historians' approaches to Native American history.Parkwells (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Common topics?
Maybe editors should decide if they want to organize tribal summaries by having common topics: e.g., languages, culture, & kinship systems noted (I think each had matrilineal kinship) before discussing etymologies or different histories.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Slaveholding - These tribes bought and held more enslaved African Americans than did others, and some of their major leaders, such as LeFlore, personally owned thousands of acres of plantation land and took up the planter's life even before staying in MS. I think this needs to be discussed in more detail before the Removal section. As noted in the Ryan P. Smith article cited in the Lead, the tribes took their slaves with them, and reconstituted the institution in Indian Territory. Some blacks had freely lived near them in Florida and elsewhere as free people of color, but the tribes also held many slaves. The article is really light on this. Ryan P. Smith's 2018 article for Smithsonian Magazine, cited in the Lead, includes discussion of a contemporary exhibit called Americans at the National Museum of the American Indian that explored this contentious history and a symposium titled Finding Common Ground. I don't think the topic of slaveholding by the tribes can all be delayed until later discussion of Freedmen controversies near the end of the article.Parkwells (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, and if you have the time and the energy, which I'm sure you do, please go for it. What you suggest will improve the article, adding more nuance to its discussion of the subject. I will be happy to assist in whatever way I can, as time allows. I'm always overcommited.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 * The Seminoles held black slaves in more relaxed conditions than did other peoples of the Southeast. Seminoles did not have plantations, but rather allowed their slaves to live in their own villages, and required only a share of the crops they raised. Some authors have compared their condition to that of sharecroppers. I have seen statements that Seminoles held black slaves mainly because they saw the practice as a prestige symbol among whites. Some contemporary whites observed that escape to Florida was attractive to plantation slaves because the Seminoles treated their slaves so leniently. The Alachua Seminoles had Yamassee captives as servants (called "slaves" by some authors) when William Bartram visited them in the 1774. How should we cover the practice of holding captives from other peoples? - Donald Albury 17:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly the article should cover this information as it's part of the history of the subject. A straightforward accounting drawn from academic sources will tamp down any potential negative emotional reactions by romantics.;-)

Abandoned user draft
Please would an interested editor assess the changes made in March 2021 at User:Broustay/Five Civilized Tribes, incorporate what is useful, blank the user page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Five Civilized Tribes


text:
Talk:Euclidean tilings by convex regular polygons

Title
Shouldn't this be "Tilings by regular polygons" or even "Plane tilings by regular polygons"? Melchoir 01:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. Feel free to move/rename this title - I don't know how! (besides copying contents and putting old under delete) Tom Ruen 01:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. Oh, for future reference, check out Merging and moving pages. Melchoir 02:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup and topics not covered
I cleaned up the article and removed the cleanup tag. There are still a number of topics discussed in Grünbaum and Shephard which could perhaps be discussed on this page but aren't yet: Joseph Myers 00:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * More on $$k$$-uniform (and $$k$$-isohedral, $$k$$-isotoxal) tilings, with additional examples and something on the Krötenheerdt tilings; equitransitive tilings.
 * Non-edge-to-edge tilings: equitransitive unilateral tilings by squares; the problem of tiling the plane with exactly one square of each integer edge length.
 * Star polygons, both in the style of Kepler (Grünbaum and Shephard section 2.5, the lists there being incomplete) and as hollow self-intersecting polygons (section 12.3); I shouldn't make the call as to notability of the former, having published regarding them.
 * The duals of the uniform tilings (Laves tilings).
 * Archimedean and uniform colourings of tilings.

This is wrong, but I'm not sure how to fix it
This part: In particular, if three polygons meet at a vertex and one has an odd number of sides, the other two polygons must be the same size. If they are not, they would have to alternate around the first polygon, which is impossible if its number of sides is odd. is correct, but the tilings it makes impossible are uniform (semiregular) tilings.

However, immediately below is a section which says things like "cannot appear in *any* tiling of regular polygons". (Not just uniform tilings).

There is no justification for the claim that it can't appear in *any* tiling. I can't figure out if this is a true claim with no justification, or a false claim that happened because someone confused "any tiling" and "any uniform tiling". Ken Arromdee 18:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure it can all be justified. E.g. for a tiling involving 3.7.42: a triangle with a vertex of this type would have to have another vertex of this type at the other endpoint of the edge shared between the 3 and the 42; consequently the third vertex of the 3 would have to be 3.7.7, which doesn't work. The same reasoning shows 3.8.24, 3.9.18, and 3.10.15 impossible. 4.5.20 is the only vertex type involving 20-5 and 4-5, so if a vertex of this type existed, you'd have to have 4's and 20's alternating around the 5, impossible by the same reasoning as you've blockquoted above, and the same reasoning works for 5.5.10.

 * Changed it to read "cannot appear in any uniform tiling of regular polygons". Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I changed it back to read "cannot appear in any tiling of regular polygons". That statement is true, and is much stronger. Technically, what's true is that those vertex types cannot appear in any edge-to-edge tiling of regular polygons, so I added the phrase "edge-to-edge" at the beginning of that section, since all of these statements apply only in that case. This result can be found in my Ph.D. thesis, but was known long before then. I suspect the first person to state this was Kepler, 1619, in "Harmonice Mundi". The statement you began with, about three polygons meeting at a vertex and one has an odd number of sides, is a very limited argument. As you say, it only eliminates certain uniform tilings, and doesn't apply to the general situation. It's a statement often used for elementary tiling sources that are limiting themselves to the consideration of uniform tilings, but it adds nothing here. It should probably be deleted. Chaveyd (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean?
"3.4.3.12 - not uniform, has two different types of vertices 3.4.3.12 and 3.3.4.3.4"

What is claimed to have these two different types of vertices? If it's the tiling, there isn't only one possible tiling with 3.4.3.12; in fact there's a 2-uniform tiling with 3.4.3.12 and 12.12.3, not 3.3.4.3.4 at all. Similarly with much of the rest of this list.... I would edit it, but I'm not 100% sure I'm right in my guess about what the list is trying to say. 91.105.25.26 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes there are problems with the list as its far from complete. One way it could be considered is as a list of vertex configs which yield a uniform tiling, and explination as to why the other configs do not yield a unifiorm one. It could do with an expansion listing the other tilings which can contain a particular type of vertex. --Salix alba (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe I've cleaned up this rather confusing wording. And, along the way, corrected two errors. When the original editor wrote phrases like " 32.4.12 - not uniform, has two different types of vertices 32.4.12 and 32 ", he presumably meant that trying to build a uniform tiling with the first vertex type forced you to include the second vertex type. Of course once you discard the constraint of "uniform", very little is forced, and there are infinitely many tilings that contain the first vertex. It appears, though, that the original author (Salix alba) meant to include the "simplest" tilings containing that vertex, i.e. to list the 2-uniform tilings that can be constructed using that particular vertex. He admits (above) that his list is incomplete, and I have corrected that. The two corrections are: (1) He lists two 2-uniform tilings using the vertex 32.62; there are three; (2) He listed 3.4.3.12 as requiring the vertex 32.4.3.4, but this actually generates a 3-uniform tiling that also includes the vertex type 36. There are, however, three different 2-uniform tilings that contain that vertex type, and I have listed them all.
 * It's interesting to note that of the four vertex types which can occur in edge-to-edge tilings by regular polygons, but cannot occur in uniform tilings, the next section of this article shows examples of three of them, but does not have the (unique) example of a 2-uniform tiling with vertices of type 3.4.3.12 (an example is shown here). We should probably include a picture of that tiling as well, but it would be best if it were in a format comparable with the others shown there. I'll ask the creator of those tiling drawings if he would be willing to make one more. Chaveyd (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The semiregular tiling 3^2.4.3.4 is said to have symmetry "p4", but it must be "p4g", according to the information on the specific page for that tiling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.147.19.10 (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

How many??
The following proves there are infinitely many tilings made out of regular polygons:

 * A hexagon is always interchangeable with a flat pyramid (6 triangles meeting at a vertex)
 * A dodecagon is always interchangeable with a flat cupola (a hexagon surrounded by squares on each edge and triangles at each vertex)

But, is the following question known:

How many tilings of regular polygons are there that don't contain in them any flat pyramid or flat cupola?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Still infinitely many (even uncountably many), even if you require the polygons to meet edge-to-edge, because you can tile the plane by any sequence of square strips and equilateral triangle strips. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Added Reference link
The references for this page have long included a link to a 1989 paper of mine. Since that source is difficult to access, I have added a direct link from that reference to my web page from which one can download a copy of the paper. I hope doing so this is not a violation of Wikipedia rules. I was not the person who originally added this link (which I'm sure would be a violation), I only added the link from that reference to my page. Chaveyd (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems unproblematic to me but I fixed the formatting. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Some of your 2005 suggestions for things to be covered have been, but most have not. It seems to me that you are correct that we should include sections on:
 * Equitransitive tilings; and
 * Equitransitive unilateral tilings by squares;
 * Tilings by star polygons and by hollow self-intersecting polygons don't really belong here, because this article restricts itself to convex regular polygons. That might be a better addition to the article on Star polygons.
 * Similarly, the dual tilings (Laves tilings) probably don't belong here, but we should certainly link to that article from this one. I'm not sure I'll have the time in the near future to add those sections, but is anyone else willing to do that? Darrah (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I guess I agree with Darrah. Incidentally, I don't have any general sources for the dual k-uniform tilings, but I have generated images, collected here on a userpage: User:Tomruen/uniform_tilings. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euclidean tilings by convex regular polygons. 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/20150630004622/http://www2.math.uu.se/research/pub/Lenngren1.pdf to http://www2.math.uu.se/research/pub/Lenngren1.pdf

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) 07:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sub page for "k-uniform tilings" too?
The section about "Archimedean, uniform or semiregular tilings" have a sub page where it lists those examples, but for the "k-uniform tilings" section all examples are listed here, making it a huge article. Surely this should be improved by a sub-page too? Rixn99 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Dual uniform tilings
Tomruen: credit for my initiative is very kindly appreciated. Also please kindly change your .svg's so they reflect the uniformity. Some of your tilings, for example, are only red and no other color. Thanks for your consideration!

P.S. Please allot a consistent, markedly different, color for every planigon/semiplanigon. When the uniformity is higher than the number of planigons (vertex types), please use darker shades to denote secondary polygons.

Edit: sorry ClueBot NG, but I did not know this was vandalism. Tomruen overwrote my images first. User:Harry Princeton

 * I don't think duals belong in this article. It is already pretty huge. There are already images online here User:Tomruen/uniform_tilings if we have sources to defend them in an article possibly elsewhere. I agree having different colors for each shape is nice, while my SVG are colored by the number of sides alone. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind and quick reply, Tom Ruen. Yes, your page is a very nice reference for duals for most uniform tilings :).

While publishing articles about dual uniform tilings is not necessary, it is suggested that you make User:Tomruen/uniform_tilings more accessible to others. Once upon a time people will be curious about the duals of the uniform tilings. It would benefit Wikipedia articles to either include all dual uniform tilings or none (e.g. Laves tilings). By the way, I have realized the 4 semiplanigons independent of you (and also coined the term). Harry Princeton (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I will only do the duals of the Krotenheerdt tilings in Euclidean tilings by convex regular polygons.

P.P.S I have added a section of Krotenheerdt uniform 6 and 7 tilings in your page, if that is helpful :) User:Tomruen/uniform_tilings. Harry Princeton (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I continue to think this article is already much too big to include the duals, but here's an adjusted graphic from the scattered unlabeled one. I grouped rows by sides, and put the unusable orange triangles ones on the bottom. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindly update. I have since revised the image above. Tomruen: 'There are already images online here User:Tomruen/uniform_tilings if we have sources to defend them in an article possibly elsewhere.' It has already been proven for uniform tilings (or the proof remained to be demonstrated); the Conway operator of dual involves connecting the centroids of regular polygons to form new faces around each original vertex (interchange faces and vertices). Such connecting edges are perpendicular bisectors among the shared edges since centroids lie on edge perpendicular bisectors (see the dihedral group), and these shared edges form faces which are planigons/semiplanigons around each shared vertex. This perpendicularity (or orthogonality) perhaps begat 'ortho' in Conway's mind when he invented Conway polyhedron notation (no verifiable source, but the operation's name and behavior is unambiguous), or the superimposition of the dual tiling on the original tiling. In fact, you had used them for Planigon without collaborating with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Princeton (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability
Tomruen, I am not sure if http://probabilitysports.com/tilings.html is a verifiable source for enumerating Euclidean uniform tilings (particularly, 4-uniform and 5-uniform). Indeed, it is a strong source, but I want to be careful, since it's the only one and it is not explicitly published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Princeton (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Non-notability and deletion poll

For the record, here's why some consider Deletion policy to say that non-notability is not a valid reason to delete: they claim that the fact that DP prescribes merging for "such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" and says that deletion is not required means that notability is an invalid reason to delete. However, I and many others feel that since the same page says AFD is the place to go if an article is "not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)", and WP:NOT says "not an indiscriminate collection of information", it is valid to AFD things for non-notability. Also, it could be claimed that there's a difference between something not deserving an article but deserving to be merged, and something not deserving more than a tiny mention in Wikipedia at all. N (t/c) 00:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Battle of Bushy Run

The Battle of Bushy Run was fought on August 5–6, 1763, in western Pennsylvania, between a British column under the command of Colonel Henry Bouquet and a combined force of Delaware, Shawnee, Mingo, and Huron warriors. This action occurred during Pontiac's Rebellion. Though the British suffered serious losses, they routed the tribesmen and successfully relieved the garrison of Fort Pitt.

Battle
In July 1763, a relief column of 500 British soldiers, including the 42nd Highlanders, 60th Royal Americans, and 77th Highlanders, left Carlisle, Pennsylvania, to relieve Fort Pitt, then under siege. Indian scouts observed Bouquet's force marching west along Forbes Road and reported this to the Indians surrounding Fort Pitt. On August 5, at about 1:00 pm, a part of the force besieging Fort Pitt ambushed the British column one mile east of Bushy Run Station, at Edge Hill. The British managed to hold their ground until after sunset, when the natives withdrew. Bouquet ordered a redoubt constructed on Edge Hill, and the British placed their wounded and livestock in the center of the perimeter.

According to one account, the allied tribes attacked in the morning, but were themselves ambushed by the sentries relieved from their evening duty. With the surprise attack of the sentries, from a flank, and a frontal assault by the main British column, the outnumbered Indians fled in a disorganized retreat.

A second account holds that the warriors attacked in the morning and "redoubled their efforts to break the British line." As the tribesmen became bolder, Bouquet realized the combat was nearing a crisis. Determined to lure his attackers close enough to maim them, the British leader deliberately weakened one section of his line. Spotting the gap in the enemy defenses, the native warriors rushed forward. Instead, the British soldiers fired a volley in their faces and "made terrible havock" with the bayonet. The surviving warriors fled and were unable to rally. This account concurs with that written by Richard Cannon in 1845 in the history of the 42nd Highlanders Regiment in which says that the Colonel of the regiment called in his posts as if about to retreat and the Indians believing that they had victory rushed forward from behind their cover becoming fully exposed. They were then instantly charged in the front and in the flank, by two companies of the 42nd Highlanders, and were thrown into confusion and routed.

Having dispersed its attackers, Bouquet's column headed to Bushy Run, a mile along the Forbes road, where there was badly needed water. The battle has since been attributed to the Bushy Run location, despite the main fighting taking place in Edge Hill. Bouquet then marched to the relief of Fort Pitt.

Aftermath
The battle cost the lives of 50 British soldiers, including 29 of the 42nd Highlanders, seven of the 60th Royal Americans, six of the 77th Highlanders, and eight civilians and volunteers. The confederacy of the Delaware, Shawnee, Mingo, and Huron suffered an unknown number of casualties, which includes two prominent Delaware chiefs; estimates by contemporaries placed the total Indian loss at about 60. The warrior Killbuck later told Sir William Johnson that only 110 Indians were engaged. Bouquet estimated he fought an equal number as his own force. One contemporary report claimed 20 Indians were killed and many more wounded. The result of the battle inspired in the British "widespread relief on the frontier", since the Indians had finally been defeated on their own ground, prompting one newspaper to exclaim, "that Indians are no more invulnerable than other Men, when attacked on equal Terms, and especially by British Troops."

The site of the battle is now Bushy Run Battlefield Park.

Printed materials

 * Brumwell, Stephen. Redcoats: The British Soldier and War in the Americas, 1755-1763. NY: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-521-80783-2
 * Nester, William R. "Haughty Conquerors": Amherst and the Great Indian Uprising of 1763. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000. ISBN 0-275-96770-0.
 * Warren and son, Lieut-General Sir Edward Hutton. Colonel Henry Bouquet: A Biographical Sketch. 1911

title: Battle of Bushy Run


text:
User talk:JetForce

Leng Jai Boyz
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. The article you added about the Leng Jai Boyz isn't really appropriate for Wikipedia, as there's no indication that this group is noteworthy. Perhaps the article could be moved to your user page? If not, I suspect that it will be deleted. Pburka 00:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Qwert.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Qwert.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Snout (rummage) 19:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:JetForce


text: User talk:152.121.19.17

title: User talk:152.121.19.17


text: Category:Airports in Kuwait

title: Category:Airports in Kuwait


text:
Talk:Hurricane Edna

Todo
Better intro, more impact, neutral POV. Jdorje 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * How is this POV? I don't see a point of view being flaunted here. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Probably I was talking abou the old text "The hurricane was merciful in every area where Carol was not," which has since been removed. Not quite sure though.  The current text is okay (though the article is really short). — jdorje (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It needs a longer storm history. Surely there's more impact. Are there preps or aftermath? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Deaths
Can we have a deaths-by-state table for direct deaths? Were all deaths in new england? — jdorje (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure they were all in New England but I'll see if they have a count for induvidual states. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * No, I can't find a state-by-state toll. That article linked at the bottom of the page has the toll for Maine (8) but not anyone else. Other states affected include North Carolina, New York, Connectecut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 21:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in opening paragraph
The second sentence says

but then a few sentences later, it says

this source says the wind gusts (not sustained winds) peaked at 120 mph on Martha's Vineyard (which could have happened before landfall). I'm guessing the first sentence is wrong, and in lieu of a list of the three hurricanes, I've removed it. --MillingMachine (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Edna. 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/20061220040916/http://www.pivot.net/~cotterly/edna.htm to http://www.pivot.net/~cotterly/edna.htm

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) 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Edna


text:
Talk:James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth

Exhumed?
Since the National Portrait Gallery wasn't opened until 1856 (in a different building to that currently occupied) it seems that the story about being exhumed to have a portrait painted for the 'National Portrait Gallery' seems unlikely. Was such a portrait painted perhaps for the Royal Collection? Any documented information would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.112.216 (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont know the background but this must be apocryphal. Surely you can't paint a living likeness from a severed head sewn on to a corpse? Particularly if it did take eight axe blows... (shudder) :: Supergolden 13:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Wiki page on the Monmouth Rebellion, "A Yeoman Warder was therefore sent to retrieve the head from London Bridge, the body exhumed, and the surgeon general sent for to sew the head back on. The portrait was done very quickly and still hangs in the royal portrait gallery today". However, I took a quick look at the portrait gallery and there is no portrait of Monmouth dated specifically to 1685 (and a few that have tentative dates prior to his execution). There is, however, a picture listed on the British National Portrait Gallery website cataloged as, "Unknown man, formerly known as James Scott, Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch" which looks like a corpse with a sheet pulled up to his neck. There is no information on when the authorities decided it was not Monmouth, but I would suggest that the story of the posthumous painting and the attribution of NPG 1566 as that picture is apocraphal. Lizbetann 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are right, but the Yeomen Warders of today tell this story to visitors at the Tower of London.--Streona (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

James II and VII?
I would be intrested to know who 'the some' are who recognize James Duke of Monmouth as James II and VII? He may have declared his royal title in England, but to my certain knowledge was never proclaimed as James VII in Scotland. Indeed, he promised Archibald Campbell, eigth earl of Argyll, his leading Scottish ally, that no precipitate or unilateral claim would be made to the royal title. Rcpaterson 23:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Man in the Iron Mask
I recommend this paragraph be removed. There is no attribution, and the Wiki article on Man in the Iron Mask has details that place "Eustache Dauger" in Pignerol during the 1670s, thus making it impossible for it to be Monmouth. Lizbetann 21:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 * a source has now been inserted but it remains an unlikely tale. Dormskirk (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of Scottish Monarch infobox
As he was never actually King of Scotland (see comments above re James II and VII), there is an arguement that the military person infobox be used rather than the Scottish Monarch infobox (which is currently being used). The contrary arguement would be that he was the son of the Monarch. Any views? Dormskirk (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 * military person infobox now used Dormskirk (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Religious stances
I think this needs some clarification, was he a "Protestant" in the sense of his father Charles II, a largely tolerant man... or a "Protestant" in the sense of Oliver Cromwell. Obviously there is quite a bit of difference between the two. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cromwell was quite tolerant of other Protestants and Jews but not Catholics. After the Clarendon Code many Dissenters were quite badly persecuted during Charles II's reign and Charles could have done a lot more to prevent the Popish Plot hysteria since he knew Oates to be a charlatan due to his shrewd questioning of him.--Streona (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you impute greater power to the king than he had. It took a long time to expose Titus Oates as a liar.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Claim to Throne
Was illegitamcy a complete bar to the Throne ? King Athelstan, Hardicanute and William I were all bastards (in fact William was called "William the Bastard|" though not to his face). The Synod of Chelsea held that a monarch could not be "born in adultery". Since neither Charles nor Lucy Walter were married Scott was not born in adultery even if illegitimate. There were numerous other bastards before & since, but I think almost all were actually "born in adultery", including Charles's numerous other natural children.--Streona (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The case of Saxon kings is immaterial. William I obtained the throne by right of conquest.  The extent to which the the English throne was fully hereditary in the early modern period must be questioned.  Henry IV, Edward IV and Henry VII acceded to the throine by right of conquest.  After 1547, it devolved according to Henry VIII's will (with the aid of an Act of Parliament).  Lady Jane Grey took the throne on the basis that Mary and Elizabeth were bastards and the Scottish king was excluded as a foreigner, but Henry's will in fact took effect.  Charles I was executed by the Roundheads.  In the exclsuion crisis, the Whigs were trying to exclude James II (as he became) because he was a Catholic.  That exclusion took effect in 1688, when William III invaded and the army deserted, but William became king partly by right of conquest.  After his death, with Anne being childless, Parliament pursued the same policy, passing over numerous Catholic claimants to give the throne to George I.  The throne was nomally hereditary, but this could be changed by the will of Parliament.  Parliament could ave declared Monmouth legitimate and given him the crown, though I suspect this would have raised the difficulty that Charles II would have eben a bigamist.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions
In searching for this article, I found a horrible one Duke of Monmouth. It was tagged for notability, which was due to its quality. Since there was never more than one Duke of Monmouth, I have converted that peerage article into a redirect to here, as also another article, which was a redirect to it. The only thing that I have merged is two categories, and if I should not have brought these in, I will not dispute their removal. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference to research by Hugh Noel Williams should be deleted as it is outdated. Article states that Williams found Charles II did not arrive in Hague until September 1648. However, William died in 1925. More recent research shows Charles arriving in the Hague no later than July 12 1648 (see Robert Coote, Royal Survivor, Hodder and Stoughton 1999), a full 9 months before Monmouth's birth. I cannot find any modern biographers (Coote, Fraser, etc.) who question whether Charles was Monmouth's father. 71.101.143.28 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

 * it is probably worth keeping if only to show the idea has been considered - and rejected. Dormskirk (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Noble Titles
The list of Monmouth's noble titles excludes Duke of Buccleuch but includes Earl of Dalkeith (both Scottish). Should we list all the Scottish titles associated with Buccleuch that existed in his time, and perhaps separate English and Scottish titles? Duke of Buccleuch has the necessary information. Did Monmouth assume all his wife's subsidiary titles? J S Ayer (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I have now included all titles in the main text and split into the English ones and then the Scottish ones. Dormskirk (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

DNA discussion
I have removed the ref to the webpage of the DNA of the Stewart clan as that is a self-published, unvetted page written by a single author, with no editor, no fact-checking, and not a known previously published author in this line of work. All of that means, it's not a reliable source.Wjhonson (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth. 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/20131212221920/http://www.hertfordshire-genealogy.co.uk/data/places/places-m/moor-park.htm to http://www.hertfordshire-genealogy.co.uk/data/places/places-m/moor-park.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth. 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/20090327165659/http://www.hrp.org.uk/Resources/Prisoners.pdf to http://hrp.org.uk/Resources/Prisoners.pdf

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) 07:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Why Duke of Monmouth?
Are there any RS that cover why Monmouth was chosen for the dukedom? As far as I am aware, there was never such a dukedom previously. It is perhaps more understandable why it has never been revived. But do we know why Charles II chose this, not very significant, market town, to which, as far as I'm aware, neither he nor his son had any connection? I suppose Henry V gave it some lustre, but it still seems an odd choice. The local magnate, Henry Somerset, 1st Duke of Beaufort entertained Charles at Badminton House in 1663, the year of Monmouth's elevation. Any connection? KJP1 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth


text:
Talk:Traditional Nordic dance music

"All four Nordic countries"? I thought there were five Nordic countries. What about Iceland? Erik 14:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, I fixed it. Hedley 20:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have some problems with the title of this page. It seems there is no English translation of the word spelman etc. The most widespread word in English text maybe is the Finnish pelimanni; "pelimanni music" yields 174 google hits. I suppose traditional Nordic dance music is unambiguous, but oh so boring... but if we shouldn't use Wikipedia to market newly invented terms, then maybe this is the best. / Habj 00:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Spelemann
The only correct spelling in Norwegian is "spelemann". Not "spellman" nor "speleman". Noruga 09:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Title Problems?
Writing here a few years later, I'll second the thought that the title of this article is problematic. I have been cruising around quite a number articles on related topics for several months and only today ran into this (very nice) one. Is there anyone available who is knowledgable about how searches work? I think adding "folk" would bring it closer to its audience, perhaps "Nordic Folkdance Music?"Plskmn 20:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Traditional Nordic dance music


text:
Talk:Revenue Act of 1764

The discussion of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton-- by Ashley Person

title: Talk:Revenue Act of 1764


text:
Francis Vere

Sir Francis Vere (1560/61 – 28 August 1609) was a prominent English soldier serving under Queen Elizabeth I fighting mainly in the Low Countries during the Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604) and the Eighty Years' War.

He was a sergeant major-general of English and Scottish troops in 1589, a position he retained during fifteen campaigns fighting the Spanish, with almost unbroken success - most notably at the Battle of Nieuwpoort. He enjoyed excellent relations with the Dutch under Maurice of Nassau, working in close co-operation with them to help secure the country for the cause of independence.

Family and parliament
Francis Vere, born about 1560, was the second son of Geoffrey Vere of Crepping Hall, Essex, a younger son of John de Vere, 15th Earl of Oxford, and Elizabeth Trussell. His mother was Elizabeth Hardekyn (d. December 1615), daughter of Richard Hardekyn (d.1558) of Wotton House near Castle Hedingham. He had three brothers, John Vere (c. 1558 – 1624) of Kirby Hall near Castle Hedingham, Robert Vere (b. 1562), and Sir Horatio Vere (b. 1565), and a sister, Frances Vere (born 1567), who married, as his second wife, the colonial adventurer and author Sir Robert Harcourt (1574/5–1631), of Nuneham on 20 March 1598.

He was elected Member of Parliament for Leominster in 1593.

Vere spent a great deal of time visiting his friend, Sir Julius Caesar in Mitcham in Surrey, on the road from London to Nonsuch Palace. Caesar was on his second marriage to Alice Dent and she had a daughter from a previous marriage – Elizabeth Dent. During these visits he quickly became enamoured with Elizabeth. They fell in love and Caesar consented to a marriage. Since Elizabeth’s sister was also engaged, Caesar arranged a grand wedding for his stepdaughters on 26 October 1607. Vere received a dowry of £2,000 and settled property on her for life. She was 16 and he was 47. They were married for 22 months before his death and there is no record of any children.

Military career
The young Francis Vere first went on active service under Leicester in 1585, and was soon in the thick of the war raging in the Low Countries. At the siege of Sluys he greatly distinguished himself under Sir Roger Williams and Sir Thomas Baskerville.

In 1588 during the Spanish Armada Vere was sent to Vlissingen with 260 men to preempt a Spanish landing. During the action off Calais in August he was responsible for the destruction of the Spanish galleon San Mateo which had run aground between Ostend and Sluis. After this he was then with the largely English garrison of Bergen op Zoom, which delivered itself from the Spanish besiegers led by the Duke of Parma by its own good fighting. Vere as a result of his heroic deeds was Knighted by Lord Willoughby on the field of battle.

Ten Years campaign
In the next year Sir Francis became sergeant major-general of the English and Scottish troops in the Low Countries, and soon afterwards the chief command devolved upon him. He was prominent in the campaign known as the Ten years, spanning from 1588 to 1598 with the Dutch forces under Maurice of Nassau. After assisting in taking Breda he then retook the cities of Zutphen and Deventer, these having been lost five years earlier due to English treachery by Rowland York and William Stanley respectively. He ordered that York (who had died in 1588) be dug up, hanged and gibbeted as a reminder of his treachery. These victories were important in recovering the losses caused by the mistaken confidence which the Earl of Leicester had placed in both Stanley and York.

Vere garnered more rewards and respect from Maurice and the Dutch with his decisive actions in the defeat of Parma, this time during the Siege of Knodsenburg outside Nijmegen in July 1591. Nearly half of the army were English and Scots; twelve English and ten Scots companies were present in this campaign under the command of Vere. Following this Maurice and Vere seized Hulst the same year. At the Siege of Steenwijk in the summer of 1592 Vere lead a force into a breach of the city's wall after a mine has blown - although he along with his brother Horace, Sir Robert Sidney, and a few of their captains were wounded, along with 152 of their men during the assault, the attack was successful and the Spanish surrendered the town. The Anglo-Dutch army then marched to Coevorden and which fell after another successful siege. The city of Geertruidenberg fell the following year, and a Spanish attempt to retake Coevorden was defeated after Vere and Maurice when they marched to the city's relief. They both took to the field again in 1594 and laid siege to Groningen, which was also captured. By this time the Spanish army had been all but pushed out of the Northern provinces and the restoration of the seven provinces was then complete. Step by step these victories helped to secure the country for the cause of independence.

Vere won the reputation of being one of the best English soldiers of the day. His troops acquired a cohesion and a training based on the Dutch model fitting them to face the best Spanish troops, and his camp became the fashionable training-ground of all aspiring English soldiers, amongst others not only his younger brother Horace, but men of such note as Ferdinando (Lord) Fairfax, Gervase Markham and Captain Myles Standish. The future prominent dramatist and poet Ben Jonson served as a volunteer under his command.

In early 1596 he was transferred from the field to take part in the Cádiz expedition to Spain which was to take place in June. Vere and Sir Walter Raleigh quarrelled over leadership but it was agreed that Raleigh would command at sea and Vere was made lord marshal and lieutenant-general of the army. On June 30, Vere's veterans spearheaded the assault on the city and captured it and the outlying forts. The English and Dutch held the place for two weeks during that time Vere received the ransoms of three wealthy prisoners a clergyman who was president of the Casa de Contratacion at Seville and two cavaliers named Don Pedro de Herrera and Don Geronimo de Avalos. The town was then set on fire and the fleet departed on the 5th of July. Vere shared in a considerable amount of booty as well as the popular acclaim that greeted the leaders of the expedition on their return to England.

The following year he was back in the Low Countries and in January 1597 he made an important contribution to the victory of Turnhout, a rare pitched battle against the Spanish 'Tercios'. The English and Dutch cavalry having driven off the Spanish cavalry, then fell upon the disordered Spanish infantry who were then routed with heavy casualties. Vere received a personal note from the Queen congratulating him on the victory, and he was even dramatised in London on the stage. The following year he was entrusted with the negotiation of the treaty whereby the Anglo-Dutch alliance was revised; for himself he obtained the governorship of Brill and the rank of general.

Zaltbommel, Nieuwpoort and Ostend
In May 1599 a Spanish offensive led by Francisco López de Mendoza y Mendoza was launched in the area of Bommelerwaard. A subsequent siege on the town of Zaltbommel by the Spanish was attempted but they had to lift the siege after Vere crossed the river Waal with 6,000 men, and successfully stormed a Spanish position which they called Durango. The Spanish were on the verge of being totally cut off and were defeated in subsequent attempts to regain the initiative. Mendoza retreated and the Spanish army then found itself in chaos: mutinies took effect and as a result further operations by them were suspended for a number of years.

The culminating point of Vere's career came the following year, when on the advice of Oldenbarnevelt, the States General decided to carry the war into the enemy's country. In the Battle of Nieuwpoort (2 July 1600), one of the most desperately contested battles of the age, Maurice of Nassau, with support by Vere, defeated the veteran Spanish troops of the Archduke Albert.

This was followed by the celebrated defence of Ostend from July 1601 when he took command of the garrison. The Spanish were under the command of the Archduke Albrecht. He was severely wounded in the head during a Spanish bombardment in August but returned by the end of the following month after convalescing. In December a Spanish assault on the outlying positions was defeated with nearly a quarter of the attacking force killed wounded or captured. However as the siege dragged on it became apparent that the town was unable to get any reinforcements for some time.

After learning of a Spanish attempt to launch a huge assault - Vere had to rely on a parley stratagem to keep the Spanish from doing so. This he succeeded and at the same time vital repair work was carried out on the defences. During the ruse reinforcements came in and the parley was called off. Vere's plan had worked and when the Spanish assault came on 7 January 1602 the defenders were ready. The attack consisting of some 10,000 Spanish veterans rushed to assault the main bulwarks of Ostend's defences just as the darkness of night set in. Vere directing the defenders made sure the defences were impassable - using his engineers to shore up defences. The Spanish attacked the bulwarks and revelins but were repelled at all points. Just before midnight the Spanish had seized a position known as the Spanish Half Moon but Vere ordered its recovery and an English company subsequently drove the Spanish out who lost 300 men, mostly captured. Vere now ordered a defensive sluice to be opened, through which the water rushed down the ford where the Spanish were still wading across. The huge torrent then hit them and carried many of the assailants away into the sea. Once the waters had subsided Vere ordered a counter attack which drove what was left of the Spanish assailants away taking great plunder in the process. The assault was a costly failure for the Spanish who lost somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 men.

Vere remained for a few months longer, when he was called away by the States General to assume command in the field. Vere's parley in December was met with muted criticism, however the repulse of the assault had overshadowed this. Vere came back to England in March 1602 and was feted for the successful conduct of the siege. English troops kept fighting side by side with the Dutch until the surrender of the garrison in September 1604.

Final campaign and retirement
Vere returned to the Low Countries with more troops in 1602 and with Maurice laid siege to the Spanish garrison at Grave but before that place surrendered he was injured under the right eye. He recovered after six months in Ryswick, was again on active service with the Dutch throughout 1603-04 and continued with the governorship of Brill.

When James I made peace with Spain in 1604, Vere retired from active service and spent the remainder of his days in country life in England, occupying himself with the compilation of his Commentaries of the Divers Pieces of Service that he had taken part in (which remained in manuscript form until 1657; reprinted in Arbers English Garner, 1883).

Death and burial
He died 28 August 1609—soon after the signing of the Twelve Years' Truce which in practice recognized the independence of the United Provinces—and was buried in Westminster Abbey in the chapel of St John the Evangelist. Francis has a large monument of alabaster and black marble showing him lying on a carved rush mattress in civilian dress under a slab on which is laid out his suit of armour. The slab is supported on the shoulders of four life-sized knights in armour who kneel at each corner. The monument seems to have been inspired by that of Count Engelbert II of Nassau-Dillenburg in the church at Breda. The Latin inscription can be translated:

"To Francis Vere, Knight, son of Geoffrey and nephew of John earl of Oxford, governor of Brill and Portsmouth, chief leader of the English forces in Belgium, died 28 August 1609, in the 54th year (sic) of his age. Elizabeth, his wife, in great sadness and sobbing with tears, placed this supreme monument to conjugal faith and love."

title: Francis Vere