text:
Paul D. Harkins

Paul Donal Harkins (May 15, 1904 – August 21, 1984) was a career officer in the United States Army and attained the rank of general. He is most notable for having served during World War II as deputy chief of staff for operations in George S. Patton Jr.'s commands, and as the first Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) commander, a post he held from 1962 to 1964.

Early life
Harkins was born in Boston, Massachusetts on May 15, 1904, the second of five children of newspaper editor Edward Francis Harkins and May E. Kelly. He decided early on a military career, and enlisted in the Massachusetts National Guard's 110th Cavalry Regiment in 1922, rising to the rank of sergeant and learning skills including horseback riding and polo. While in the National Guard, he took a competitive exam for an appointment to the United States Military Academy and received an appointment, becoming a cadet in 1925. While at West Point, Harkins continued to play polo, becoming captain of the team. He graduated in 1929 and was assigned to the cavalry branch.

Initial assignments
Assigned initially to the 7th Cavalry Regiment at Fort Bliss, Harkins continued to hone his horsemanship and play polo. In 1933, he completed the Cavalry School's equitation course at Fort Riley, after which he remained there for several years as an instructor. Beginning in 1939, he commanded F Troop, 3rd Cavalry Regiment at Fort Myer, serving under regimental commander George S. Patton, Jr. In 1941, he graduated from the United States Army Command and General Staff College.

World War II
During the period immediately prior to U.S. entry into World War II, Harkins participated in large-scale exercises, including the Louisiana and Pine Camp maneuvers. He then served with the 1st Cavalry Brigade at Fort Bliss.

In January 1942, Harkins was assigned to the 2nd Armored Division at Fort Benning, serving again under Patton, who was the division commander. In August 1942, Harkins became deputy chief of staff of Patton's Western Task Force, which was preparing for the invasion of North Africa. He took part in the assault landing at Fedhala Beach on November 8.

Harkins followed Patton when Patton became commander of the Seventh Army. As deputy chief of staff, Harkins played a major role in planning the Allied invasion of Sicily and in July 1943 he took part in the initial landings and combat at Gela.

Harkins was then named deputy chief of staff for Third Army, serving under Patton and chief of staff General Hobart R. Gay. While in that capacity, Harkins earned the nickname "Ramrod" for his determination to fulfill Patton's desire to always keep Third Army moving during combat in France. When asked by a fellow officer who asked him "how the devil our G.I.s can remain so cheerful at the front under these frightful conditions?" Harkins is said to have replied, "Well the Old Man knows that as long as they are winning and moving forward they will remain happy and their morale will be high".

Harkins was present with Patton at the famous command and staff meeting called by General Dwight D. Eisenhower to discuss the Allied response to the German attack in the Ardennes which became known as the Battle of the Bulge, in which Patton promised that Third Army could be ready to disengage his troops from their current eastward attack and move north approximately 100 mi to counter-attack in three days. This maneuver seemed impossible to those who were present, but was successfully executed once Patton received the go-ahead.

Harkins remained in Germany after the war and took part in the occupation of Bavaria, transferring to Fifteenth Army when Patton was assigned as commander of that unit. Harkins escorted Mrs. Patton back to the United States following Patton's death in December 1945.

West Point cheating scandal
From 1946 to 1951, Harkins served as deputy Commandant of Cadets at West Point and then as commandant. On April 2, 1951, he was informed by a first class cadet that a classmate had told him that a group of cadets, mainly among the football team, were involved in an academic cheating ring.

Harkins had made it plain that he felt that the nationally ranked football team was not in line with his vision of the USMA. In a controversial decision, he asked cadets to gather information about the cheating. A formal inquiry was held and ninety cadets were dismissed from the academy. Some had not participated in the cheating, but knew of it and had not reported it, which was considered a breach of the Cadet Honor Code ("A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do").

The head coach for Army at that time, Earl "Red" Blaik, felt that Harkins was "a black and white man with no shades of gray" and accused him of bias. Blaik's son was one of the cadets who knew of the cheating, but had not acted.

Korean War
In 1951, Harkins was to head the Plans Division of the Army staff's directorate of Operations and Training (G3) and in 1952 he was promoted to brigadier general. In April 1953, he was assigned as chief of staff for Eighth Army in South Korea, serving under commander Maxwell D. Taylor and receiving a promotion to major general. In December 1953, Harkins took command of the 45th Infantry Division. When the 45th returned to the United States, Harkins took command of the 24th Infantry Division.

In 1954, Harkins was again assigned to the Army G-3 directorate, this time working in the International Affairs division as Director of Military Assistance Advisory Groups which included activities and missions in 42 countries. In July 1956, he was assigned as the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations and training, G-3.

Post-Korean War
Harkins was promoted to lieutenant general in 1957 and assigned as commander of NATO's Allied Land Forces, Southeastern Europe, with headquarters in İzmir, Turkey. In addition to efforts to modernize NATO's communications infrastructure, Harkins also endeavored to improve relations between Turkey and Greece.

In 1960, Harkins went to Hawaii for assignment as deputy commander of US Army, Pacific. In April 1961, he was selected to command a joint task force deployed initially to Okinawa and then the Philippines in anticipation of deployment into Laos. Events in Laos did not require Harkins' task force to be used and he resumed his duties at USARPAC.

Vietnam
In January 1962, Harkins was promoted to general as commander of Military Assistance Command—Vietnam, the successor unit to Military Assistance Advisory Group—Vietnam; this change came as part of the initial U.S. troop buildup which escalated into the Vietnam War. Harkins appeared on the cover of Time magazine, (What it Takes to Win, May 11, 1962), where he was described as "look(ing) every inch the professional soldier". The article detailed the commitment of the United States to stay in Vietnam, even if it took a decade, quoting then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy from November 1962, "We are going to win in Vietnam. We will remain until we do."

Controversy
At the beginning of his command of MACV, Harkins and his staff had repeatedly expressed optimism about the course of the war. Members of the U.S. press nicknamed him "General Blimp" (after the cartoon character Colonel Blimp) because of their belief that he inflated the success of U.S and South Vietnamese military activities. As violence continued to escalate, many reporters began to perceive that what they were seeing in the field and being told confidentially by officers such as Lieutenant Colonel John Paul Vann did not match the information released by Harkins and his staff and they concluded that Harkins was being misinformed by his staff or untruthful. The Battle of Ap Bac in particular seriously affected many of the reporters' view of Harkins' credibility. When details of the battle emerged that differed from the Army's official version, it became a very serious matter, and press reports of it embarrassed the Kennedy administration.

Harkins was described by Neil Sheehan as an "American General with a swagger stick and cigarette holder...who would not deign to soil his suntans and street shoes in a rice paddy to find out what was going on was prattling about having trapped the Viet Cong". ("Suntans" was the nickname for the Army's khaki-colored tropical uniform.) New York Times Vietnam correspondent David Halberstam became so angry with Harkins he refused to shake his hand at a Fourth of July celebration, hosted at the US Embassy, Saigon. When the hosts called for a toast to Harkins, Halberstam shouted "Paul D. Harkins should be court-martialed and shot!", in contrast to his compatriots, who complied with the toast.

Mark Moyar, an associate professor at the U.S. Marine Corps University feels that Halberstam and Sheehan, along with other reporters, "horribly tarnished the reputations of some very fine Americans, including General Harkins". Moyar writes that others, such as John Mecklin (then on leave from Time as Public Affairs officer for the US embassy) observed Harkins living a "Spartan" life in Saigon and traveling "daily" by small plane around the country to gather and evaluate information from South Vietnamese and American troops. Moyar observes that, while Harkins was not a "creative or brilliant strategist", he was a "superb motivational and technical coach, which was what the situation most demanded".

Time magazine correspondent Lee Griggs and Mecklin parodied the general in song at one time for saying the war was "well in hand". Sung to the tune of the Christian hymn Jesus Loves Me, the verse went:

We are winning, this I know, General Harkins tells me so. In the mountains, things are rough, In the Delta, mighty tough, But the V.C. will soon go, General Harkins tells me so.

Griggs recalls the General overheard this and "did not smile".

Harkins' comment to his replacement, General Westmoreland
As he described in a later interview with historian Michael MacLear, when General William Westmoreland replaced Harkins in 1964, Westmoreland recalled that he got varying readings on the situation from Harkins, whose favorite poet was Kipling; when veering from optimism to pessimism Harkins would "constantly" quote a version of line from a Kipling poem for him:

The end of the fight is a tombstone white With the name of the late deceased. And the epitaph drear, a fool lies here Who tried to hustle the East.

Said Westmoreland: "I'm very fond of Kipling because he's a soldier's poet," but he confessed, "I didn't take it quite to heart." The reason given by MacLear being that neither Kipling nor even MacArthur – no one in the history of war – had ever known the mobility and firepower that Westmoreland had been promised by Secretary of Defense McNamara, and was shortly to command.

When Harkins left in June 1964, there were between 11,200 and 16,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson raised the levels to 500,000 men under Westmoreland by 1968.

Retirement
Harkins retired after returning from Vietnam, and was an advisor for the American Security Council Foundation. He and his wife later resided in Dallas, Texas, where he studied art and became an accomplished painter.

Harkins wrote a book on General George S. Patton Jr. and the Third Army, 1969's When the Third Cracked Europe: The Story of Patton's Incredible Army. Harkins was also a technical consultant for the 1970 film Patton, and was portrayed by actor Lee Patterson in the made-for-TV sequel The Last Days of Patton, broadcast the year after his death.

Death and burial
Harkins died in Dallas on August 21, 1984. He is buried at the United States Military Academy Post Cemetery in West Point, Orange County, New York, in Section IX, Row A, Grave 053.

Family
In 1933, Harkins married Elizabeth Mae Conner. They were the parents of a daughter, Virginia. Virginia Harkins married West Point graduate Leslie D. Carter Jr., the son of Major General Leslie D. Carter.

Awards
Note – not a complete list

 * U.S. decorations and awards

 * Foreign decorations and awards

In addition, he received foreign decorations from Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the U.S.S.R., and South Korea.

title: Paul D. Harkins


text:
The Doberman Gang

The Doberman Gang is a 1972 film about a talented animal trainer who prepares a pack of six Doberman Pinschers to commit a bank robbery at the behest of a ruthless heist planner. The six dogs were all named after famous bank robbers. Their names were Dillinger (John Dillinger), Bonnie (Bonnie Parker), Clyde (Clyde Barrow), Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, and Ma Barker.

The film's score was the first to be composed by Alan Silvestri, who found later success with the soundtracks for more notable films such as the Back to the Future trilogy and Forrest Gump.

The film was shot completely on location in Simi Valley, California.

Plot
Three bank robbers – Eddie, Jojo and Sammy - plan what they think is a perfect bank heist. As they exit the bank one of them throws the money in the trunk of what looks like their car but is just identical. Dejected, the leader of the crew, Eddie, muses that the human factor is what goes wrong with his plans and that what he needs is robots – something that he can control and that will follow orders exactly. The three part ways, and Eddie is left to come up with his next plan. Eddie finds his inspiration as he watches some Doberman Pinschers chase off a couple of boys who were chasing some boys who were trying to rob a junkyard. He poses as a journalist doing a story about trained military dogs, and he convinces an Air Force dog handler named Barney to work with him in a dog training business. At the same time, Eddie reconnects with Jojo and Sammy to come up with a plan to rob a payroll from a bank, including building a replica of the bank.

When Barney is discharged from the Air Force, he comes to work with Eddie and is surprised when Eddie has Dobermans for Barney to train instead of German Shepherds, which is what Barney is accustomed to training. Barney, unaware that Eddie is planning to use the dogs in his heist, reluctantly agrees to train the six Dobermans, to which Eddie bestows the names of famous bank robbers (Dillinger, Bonnie, Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson and Ma Barker). They are accompanied by a bulldog that Eddie names J. Edgar, after J. Edgar Hoover. As Barney trains the dogs, he becomes suspicious and figures out the bank robbery plot on his own. Barney confronts Eddie, who tells Barney that he is free to leave and not to worry about the dogs. Eddie reveals that if Barney leaves, he’ll kill the dogs. Barney has also become close with Eddie’s girlfriend, June, and she convinces Barney to stay and finish the job. Eddie outlines the specifics of the plan to Barney, which, if successful, will net the crew $600,000 if all of the dogs come back successfully. For his part Barney wants half of the take, but he agrees to a one-fourth share after some convincing by Sammy. June is left out of the arrangement but gets a promise from Eddie to receive $15,000 out of his share. June realizes that Eddie sees her as disposable, and she and Barney get even closer behind Eddie’s back.

On the day of the bank robbery, all six dogs do exactly what they are trained to do and enter the bank one at a time, lying down and waiting for the command to start the robbery. Dillinger is the last to enter and carries the note giving the instructions to the tellers. Just before he’s supposed to blow the dog whistles corresponding to each dog, Barney has second thoughts (because June, looking for a bigger share, tells him the dogs will be killed afterwards to get rid of evidence) and leaves the command post across the street. Eddie and June are left to finish the operation and blow the whistles. While Sammy and Jojo head back to the training ranch, sprinkling dirt from the ranch along the way as a sort of trail of breadcrumbs, June picks up where Barney left off. The operation goes off exactly as planned, and the dogs collect the money and head home. One of the Dobermans is hit by a car, and another dog collects that dog’s saddlebag and continues on its way. Another dog is distracted by a standard poodle in a backyard and stops to make friends with it. Eddie connect with Sammy and Jojo at the ranch, but June goes to a different spot and blows the whistles again, giving the command to the dogs to attack the bank robbers. She blows the whistles again, and the dogs collect the bags of money and run to June’s location, where she hopes to get the money, but the dogs will not let her have it. They're not robots—only Barney had any feeling for them, so they feel no connection to anyone else. She tries to get the whistles to signal to the dogs one more time, but J. Edgar takes the whistles and runs off as the Dobermans follow him. June runs after the dogs but can’t catch them. As June watches, J. Edgar and the five remaining Dobermans run into a valley carrying the bags of money.

Cast

 * Byron Mabe as Eddie Newton
 * Hal Reed as Barney Greer
 * Julie Parrish as June
 * Simmy Bow as Sammy
 * JoJo D'Amore as Jojo
 * John Tull as pet shop owner
 * Jay Paxton as bank manager

Reception
Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune gave the film 3 stars out of 4, likening it to "sort of a canine 'Bonnie and Clyde' in quality as well as content," and wrote that although "the film runs out of creative gas after the robbery and settles for a stupid ending, the robbery and its planning provide generous portions of laughs and tension." Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "Low in budget but high in imaginativeness, it's an amusing, well-crafted diversion." John Raisbeck of The Monthly Film Bulletin wrote that the film "hovers uncertainly between straight thriller and comedy, and although some sequences are played quite overtly for laughs ... the comic element elsewhere seems to be trickling in unintentionally."

Sequels and remakes
The Doberman Gang was followed by three sequels: The Daring Dobermans (1973), The Amazing Dobermans (1976) and Alex and the Doberman Gang (1980). The first two films were released on manufacture-on-demand DVD-R discs as part of the Warner Archive Collection from 35mm optical sound release prints in 2010, while the original's out-of-print 1986 videocassette release from CBS/Fox's Key Video label used superior quality magnetic soundtrack elements from Lorimar Productions, whose film library they were issuing on video at the time.

In 2003 it was reported that producers Dean Devlin and Charles Segars obtained the film rights in hopes of creating a remake, with Byron Chudnow acting as executive producer. In October 2010 it was announced that producer Darren Reagan of 11eleven Entertainment, along with Cesar Millan, was developing the remake.

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

title: The Doberman Gang


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision

Frankly, I'm surprised that a temporary de-sysopping is on the table in the first place. Given that the issue present is community confidence, I can't see how that remedy would solve anything. Either an administrator has community confidence, or he doesn't. A temporary desysopping would be a purely punitive measure. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Consider that we have lots of other good admins and lots more editors willing to be promoted who would do well. When a bad admin is identified, warned, and continues to unapologetically misuse those abilities, those abilities should be removed straight-away. A "re-affirmation" is just a waste of time. Obviously, he will not be re-affirmed - who are we fooling? ArbCom needs to show that they have the will to remove admin powers straight-away. Anything else makes this body unnecessary for dealing with problem admins - we could just develop a community process of re-evaluating admins. That idea fails, for whatever reasons, but largely because people want problem admins to come through ArbCom. Short version: remove his admin status directly and set a specific minimum time period during which he cannot re-apply based on the severity of his transgressions. Do this for every problem admin that reaches this stage. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * While I appreciate all the compliments, I dont think either of you knows much of anything about the specific case. IAC, Im looking for some direct AC treatment of my first point: an improper application of WP:3RR means that all blocks were improper, and my self-unblocks were not improper. Though my self-unblockings were certainly a hasty reaction, and certainly may have pissed some people off, is it in interest of WP to shaft an eloquent, npov-devoted, third-year contributor with somewhere around 20K edits merely on the basis of inflated claims kind of "abuse"? Anyone who's read T:VW it knows theres no basis in there for any sanction, and the seminal impropriety issue was the original and improper block on me, as well as the lack of Assume good faith in the manner in which it was reflexively re-applied. There are also outstanding and related philosophy/bias issues (T:VW, ethnocentrism WP:"IAR", basic fairness - even WP:TFD) that are contentious enough that one can be reasonably suspicious of "rules-lawyering" for sake of personal sentiment. Certainly the system of ruling-by-vote (with only limited discussion of the actual findings and how each AC views them) only encourages such lack of openness, and effectively means that individual points by the case parties will go unattended in any direct way. Ideally, the AC would respond with findings for each separate claim, and this would expose the thinking process of the AC. Not doing so gives an appearance of unity, but also hides any internal disagreements. This is just my point of view, and others are free too see things differently. Sincerely, -St|eve 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It should hardly be necessary to rehash Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence, but you reverted 12 times, and three separate admins saw fit to block you for this 3RR violation, yet you continue to state that these blocks were "improper". It appears that if you had to do it all over again, you would.

 * In its findings of fact, could the Arbitration Committee address the issue of whether the 3RR blocks were properly or improperly applied? I don't think it would suit either side to leave this important point unresolved. -- Curps 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

1
I believe that it's essential that admin misconduct is taken very seriously by the ArbCom because this is an issue that affects the entire community. It's nearly two months after the incident that lead to arbitration and Stevertigo begins his statement with "While I appreciate all the compliments, I dont think either of you knows much of anything about the specific case." This is almost identical to the sarcastic and dismissive response Stevertigo gave in his RfC. In this entire process, there has never been any acknowledgement of misconduct other than perhaps the unblocking was a "hasty reaction" or such. I have no reason to believe that such behavior wouldn't occur again.

In my opinion, the proper remedy would be to de-sysop Stevertigo and allow him to apply for adminship through RfA at any time. Thus, he'll regain adminship when/if the community decides that it's regained trust. Carbonite | Talk 03:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Stevevertigo says While I appreciate all the compliments, I dont think either of you knows much of anything about the specific case. One of the two people he is addressing is the very admin (User:Mackensen) that he placed a retaliatory block on (!) and the other (User:Netoholic) provided evidence at Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence, as did Mackensen.  Unbelievable. -- Curps 03:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Im sorry, but was the case filed on the basis of my smarty-pants attitude or on my actual actions in the context when they were made? Mackensen was in the process of reflexively re-blocking me (based on an assumption that the original block was properly imposed), and Netholic is someone whom Ive crossed horns with in the past regarding his deletion tendencies toward certain templates. They do indeed come out of the woodwork. Feels like Im in the Thriller video. "It's an issue that effects the entire community" is a bit of a lark, considering how big WP has gotten. -St|eve 16:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Admin misconduct is an issue that affects the entire community. We have serious problems if admins aren't trusted by the community as a whole (I'm not talking about a few trolls here or there). The case was filed because you violated numerous policies and misused admin powers in order to gain an advantage in a dispute. The fact that you're not taking it seriously and would prefer to blame everyone but yourself makes it even worse. I would not expect "an eloquent, npov-devoted, third-year contributor with somewhere around 20K edits" to act in this manner. Carbonite | Talk 16:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've already requested above that the Arbitration Committee issue a finding of fact regarding whether or not the 3RR blocks against Stevertigo were proper or improper. I hope you will agree this is a key point to be resolved. -- Curps 16:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In case the Arbitration Committee isn't following this talk page discussion, I've now left a message at User talk:Fred Bauder asking for a finding of fact to be issued to resolve this important point. -- Curps 16:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In the interest of fairness (since Fred Bauder is only one member of the Arb Committee, and possibly more "hawkish" than some of the others), I'm now leaving the same message at the talk pages of the other Arb Committee members who have edited the proposed decision page so far. -- Curps 17:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The finding of fact was that Stevertigo was edit warring and got blocked for a 3RR violation. I don't think it matters whether there was an actual 3RR violation; even if there wasn't it was likely a close question (and for others to decide) Fred Bauder 17:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, see the discussion above. Stevertigo stands by his action (unblocking himself) on the grounds that the initial 3RR blocks against him were improper, so unblocking himself was not improper. I think it speaks to the heart of the case, and based on his message to my talk page I think Stevertigo himself would like it resolved one way or the other. -- Curps 17:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It is wrong to use admin powers to unblock yourself. It doesn't matter if the block was fair or not, valid or not, appropriate or not. Admins must not use powers to their own advantage. Non admins have to go to the mailing list if they believe they are blocked unfairly. Admins must do the same. I am sure that I have the community behind me on that one, and the overwhelming majority or admins. If we rule on whether the 3RR block was right or wrong in the first place we will be sending a message that it's ok to unblock yourself if you feel justified in doing so, and that is not a message I want to send. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Is it morally wrong, procedurally wrong, an ethical violation, or a technical matter? "Wrong" can refer to anything from war crimes (part of the seminal issue discussion) to 2+3=4. Apologies if I havent read any recent fine print regarding self-unblocking, but I can think of at least one case where self-unblocking is not a case for blocking, banning, etc., namely if I block and then unblock myself. That fact at the very least shows that the issue is not one that can be decided by simplistic absolutes, but requires some degree of care for the detail of particular cases. Im sorry if this means that you might have to spend more time, read more material, and write more expositively about your views on matters. That said I nevertheless greatly appreciate your writing more expositively now, although I dislike the prospect of being made an example of simply because a due care for facts and detail "is not a message you want to send." -St|eve 19:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. "Non admins have to go to the mailing list" - the mailing list was out that day, coincidentally enough. Sincerely -St|eve 20:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's morally wrong. It states "I am better than non admins" which leads the community to believe that admins set themselves above others. Admin powers are there to serve the community. Yeah if you block yourself then unblock yourself that would probably be OK - it depends (it has been argued that admins blocking themselves is itself an abuse of admin powers, but it's not the sort of abuse that get's the community in a tizz). But that's not what happened here so it's irrelevent. Let's stick to the facts of this case. You were blocked by another admin. You undid that block and that was wrong and you know it. You are not being made an example of because I don't want to take due care for facts and detail. You are being made an example of because you abused your admin powers by using them in such a way that you have no authority to use them. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 21:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I... certainly have been holding to an entirely different notion of "morality." The closest thing to a wiki-applicable principle I could even come up with was "civility", and I was self-absorbed enough to sort of quote myself in what has been (for about two years now) pgph 2 of that policy ("We cannot expect..." etc.) But I digress. I will eagerly await for your treatment for this principle of wikimorality at... well Morality. IAC, WATS, I certainly dont want to tell you how to do your job. Peace,-St|eve 22:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. "you are being made an example of" is a common faux pas of corrective institutions, which tend to rely on the notion that it can enforce some kind of justice (more principles!) via a slippery slope of increasingly authoritarian measures. Maybe it can actually work in the virtual/wiki world, who knows?

(losing indent) Actually I'm not trying to enforce "Justice". I'm trying to make you see that your actions were wrong. I've always argued that admins are human and should be allowed to make mistakes. That is why I voted for a temp de-admining rather than throwing you to the wolves at RFA (which is what i think it would be). But the thing is - instead of making sarcastic comments, you'd really be much better off admitting that you did make a mistake, apologise for it, and look big. You do not have community support in this. The RFC has made that very clear don't you think. You need to rethink your approach. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah I see -- this is an educational process. I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise. I have already apologised BTW, so Im a bit unclear on how much that will have a positive bearing. Should I be more profuse? Where? IRC?? To whom should I apologise? Those who's blocks I undid? (That would seem a bit odd, as an unblock doesnt seem to be quite as much a personal offense as the block itself, which IMHO is exacerbated by the fact that the original block had some... problems.) Is there a penalty for an improperly placed block?
 * As for the RFC, AIUI, much of bad energy apparently came from people quickly and one-sidedly complaining on IRC, which, as Catherine put it (on my talk) "has always been toxic." "Wolves" as you say. I dont generally fear the buzz, but I do think officers in positions such as yours should be reasonable, though those who are willing to be direct and responsive (and not merely dictatorial) are much less vulnerable to this criticism. Thanks.-St|eve 23:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * For reference, here is the link to the archived 3RR report. Carbonite | Talk 17:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this better? Fred Bauder 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC):

1) while in the course of an edit war at  during which he violated the Three revert rule (Reverts are in history at August 5 and 6, see )
 * Abuses by Stevertigo

Its certianly short. -St|eve 19:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

2
I am quite disappointed to see that temporary desysopping with automatic reinstatement of powers is even being considered. This is the by far the worst case of abuse of administrative powers I've seen in my short time on Wikipedia. Under other circumstances I might favor leniency, but the chronic nature of this abuse (little things before; I remember being surpised by his protection of the mathematical constant "articles" and his lack of apology when this was pointed out) suggests that these problems are not an isolated incident. Far more worrisome, however, is the lack of contrition and the lack of understanding over why these issues are problematic. To date, I don't believe I've seen a true apology from Steve, such as that he realizes he was over the line and will not do it again. In his RfC, he suggests that the problems are with the policies and not with him ("It would seem that there are problems with certain policies and how they are enforced...") and in his statement he suggests that he only technically violated policies for more important purposes. The only process for removing adminship from someone is through an Arbitration Committee case. From time to time people propose processes for de-adminship, but in general people feel that the Arbitration Committee can handle any problematic administrators. People's standard for adminship already seems to be tightening; I know that I would be even more hesitant to support a candidate and more likely to oppose if I realize that even administrators who abuse their powers to this degree can remain administrators. It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut case: extensive abuse of administrative powers despite being warned many times by different editors, blocking out of spite (TBSDY, Mackensen), refusal to accept blame, and no indication that he will act any differently in the future. Requests for comment/Stevertigo shows a very strong, united community consensus; rarely have I seen so many in agreement with no one disagreeing or suggesting that we are overreacting. The Arbitration Committee cannot have failed to notice the impressive number of editors supporting the RfC, including very many longtime and well-respected Wikipedians. If, in the face of such clear-cut evidence and such community support, the Arbitration Committee is not willing to desysop Stevertigo or at least let a community discussion decide, how can it be effective in dealing with problematic administrators? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, the purpose of the Arbcom isnt merely to issue punitives -- it's primary duty is to enforce corrective measures, which include a review of lesser policies as they reflect or conflict with our core principles. This can be done in the "findings of fact" process. Second, Im a bit skeptical about anyone with a "short time on Wikipedia" claiming that someone such as myself has been a "worst abuser". For one, I was among the first to support the 3RR idea, and actually remember the context in which it came about --relative to other policies/practices in use. In an original interpretation of its meaning, 1) it was never intended as a punitive measuse, but rather as a protection of pages 2) it was never intended to be enforced in a manner which shows favoritism to a party or majority - simply to enforce a protection 3) Blocking is a last resort wheras temporary page protection is preferred, because it forces discussion.

 * Noone chose to intevene with mediation or arbitration on the dispute at Talk:Vietnam War. Ed came in briefly, but I had to call him on what I percieved to be a POV interpretation of a statement. I admit being sarcastic, but he apparently couldnt take it and he left. ( Of course, as a last resort, after losing much of the argument, my varied opposition typically claimed "this is the not the place for discussion on the rights or wrongs." This despite holding to writing the article in accord with plainly US-centrist/localist interpretations of that history. Like an old edit war at IPF, this was largely a struggle between writing styles which either elevated the human element and favored the term "independence" and one which was deferential to detached, US-centered realpolitik-based words and concepts. Fie.

 * You can say "Stevertigo is the worst ever" all you want to. That doesnt make it the least bit true, and it doesnt change the fact that there is an extreme disparity between the usefulness of someone intervening helpfully in a dispute (which did not happen) and voting in favor of a complaint on RFC in support of a one-sided interpretation of 3RR! ((CJK has for some reason even "archived" *all the discussion at T:VW. Tjive, though reasonable, chose not to correct any misstatements by others, and all of my opponents in the dispute showed clues as to a right-wing ideological bias, and often resorted to pejoratives, calling me "Stalinist" etc. All of this was ignored in the original block, which again was unilateral and was suspect of a bias. Wikien was down.))

 * ATS, Im quite happy to offer an apology, and In fact I have already apologised to TBSDY, for one. But this works both ways: an improper block is a violation of the rules, is it not? The tendency to claim situational-infallibility is quite universal, and Ive only continued this to get the facts out, so that others, by coming to admit *their culpability, would allow me to admit mine, and not simply tuck tail and run. Arbcom cases are not decided as popularity contests, or at least they shouldnt be. Of course, Im "a troll" for even arguing the point. -St|eve 21:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This case isn't about your 3RR violation. I repeat: This case isn't about your 3RR violation. You've spent paragraph after paragraph, here, there and everywhere proclaiming the evils of the 3RR rule and its misapplication, but this is NOT what this case is about. This case is about what happened after you were blocked by Geni for violating the 3RR. Even if the original block was 100% wrong, you don't unblock yourself. Even assuming that particular part of the blocking policy was unfamiliar, you certainly don't unblock yourself after being re-blocked and warned by multiple admins. I don't want to say "Stevertigo is the worst ever", but you do need to say "I really messed up on that one." Carbonite | Talk 21:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

When Stevertigo applies for confirmation as an administrator he can take that opportunity to apologize and explain. I probably will not vote one way or the other as I haven't followed his work closely. Those who do edit in the same areas or who have closely watched his behavior as a general matter (as opposed to one incident) can offer input regarding administrative status. We have demonstrated one incident, not a general pattern of abuse. POV editing is not a measure of general worth, in fact, I don't see much value in anyone who does not have strong points of view about vital issues. Fred Bauder 21:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your responsiveness, and want to make it clear that I dont hold a preference for either of the proposed punitive measures. I also want to make it clear that my comments here have been directed only at questions of process. Since this process is now applied to me personally, im naturally a bit interested in the subject. So, while I understand the Arbcom's limited capacity for treating matters with perfect depth, I also share Theresa Knott's concerns that one of the two proposed remedies appears to contradict the rather valid observation above that reviewers have "closely watch[] [my] behaviour in a general manner." The other, though limited, is at least more definitive. IAC, I have tried to be brief in limiting my concerns to understanding the process used here, and I do apologise if some of my comments have appeared to be disrespectful. Sincerely, -St|eve 22:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ommision of fact
WP:RFAR/SV#FoF>3RR is incorrect when it states that 3RR was "correctly applied." The block of CJK by Michael Snow was 24 hours after Geni's block on me. -St|eve 19:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." - he was blocked for 24 hours, and so were you. Even if what you say is true, I fail to see how your treatment was anything but equitable. →Raul654 19:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They were not applied at the same time. That is not equitable, and blocking admins gave no impression of concern or knowledge of a proper application of the block. After blocking me, Geni could have easily pressed the 'back' button and blocked party 2. Though he should have, he did not. Now, putting aside my case for a moment, what duties does the Arbcom have in changing policy to correct the above oversight? With appreciation for your responsiveness, -St|eve 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Geni and Michael Snow addressed that issue at Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence and Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence. If more clarifications are needed, you could ask them directly. -- Curps 01:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, they both said "they didnt know" because it "wasnt reported at WP:AN/3RR." Their statements actually confirm the nature of my complaint, that they did not act in accord with WP:3RR. Personally, I think that if an admin takes it upon themselves to answer a complaint, they should follow the correct steps. This means that Geni should have actually gauged the situation at the dispute page in question. And, had he known proper policy, he would have listed all parties that were in violation of 3RR and blocked them equally. Instead, he respond in what appears to be a reflexive manner to the complaint at WP:AN/I-3RR, and did so outside of the rules in 3RR.

 * Did he take the position of the complainees (CJK, Tjive) without even looking at the history? Did he simply forget how 3RR is properly applied? Did he assume that I would make a counter-complaint? Did he assume another admin would come and rectify the situation? Did he assume I would email the list? (The list was out). All of that may not matter to some here, but they matter to a party (me) who had been 1) improperly blocked, and 2) has long held the priviledge of adminship (WP:AGF?) and 3) understands the nature of 3RR, how it came to be, and how its properly applied. ATS I'll admit to making the mistake of assuming that the admins in question would act properly, and not merely 'as best as they could.' The "I didnt have time" excuse doesnt cut it. Maybe the Arbcom disagrees--maybe not. Nuf Said. -St|eve 03:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

A lack of responsivenessness

 * Its been several days since I posted the last message above, and there is still no response. I would like some arbitrator to bring these notes to the attention of all the other active arbitrators, as Im not certain if any discussion of the above points is taking place, or if some arbitrators have chosen to dispense with the formality and burden of being dutifully responsive to this discussion. I do indeed AGF, but this goes all ways, and responsiveness does indeed go a long way toward establishing that F. -St|eve 21:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We are discussing your case on the Arbcom mailing list, but not with respect to the subject you raise. Fred Bauder 00:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. I was not aware of that, nor of how much discussion is going on —I could imagine it as either minimal or massive amounts of discussion. Naturally some questions come to mind regarding how issues specific to the "subject [I] raise" are raised on a closed list, but I will save those for a more appropriate time.-St|eve 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In light of the deadlock and the delay I am forgoing my automatic recusal from this case (as it began before my appointment) to help it along. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Stevertigo to be reaffirmed as an administrator"
"reaffirmed" is misused here; does not agree with the text. Wbfl 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see Fred Bauder 12:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * well, still wrong, but i guess that's to be expected when a bunch of wikipedia "admins" get together and play town council w/o the dais. he is to be axed and immediately renominated, apparently. or you can call it the confirmation process, in which he might be unsuccessful. the unknown result is the whole point; he might be confirmed/affirmed, he might not be. regardless, is wikipedia so desperate for power-hungry cretins that a man year must be spent on this traveshamockery? sad. edit counts! bleh. admins will be the death of wikipedia. yeah, that's a personal attack. break out the whips and chains and parking tickets, ye desperate hall-monitor types. the thin clueless line. anybody who clamors to be an admin should be barred for life, starting with the totally out of control, disconnected subject of all this wasted debate. Wbfl 14:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Later date?
From the first new proposed remedy:

 * Steververtigo will have his admin powers removed. if he wishes to reapply for admin powers at a later date...

Why not simply 'at any time'? Or if the ArbCom wants things to "cool off", specify a particular interval. Intent isn't 100% clear here, and could be 'cast up about' in any subsequent RfA. ("This isn't 'later' enough", etc.) All moot if you don't pass it, of course. Alai 05:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

He can reapply the day the ac case closes as far as I am concerned. The "later" meant any time after that. I'll change the wording to your version. Thanks. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo placed on administrative probation
There appear to be two ways of reading this. 1 the person is liekly to lose thier adminship if there is a serious problem. If that is the case all admins should automaticaly be on probabtion. 2 the person is more likely to be a problem and needs watching I don't want to be in a position where there is a formal reason for me not to trust my fellow admins.Geni 16:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There needs to be an array of remedies for administrators short of desysopping. Taking the position that we either ignore indiscretions or permanently desysop administrators gives little flexibility. Probation means that if they continue doing whatever got them in trouble we have a quick procedure which allows a re-examination of the case. It is also limited and after the probation period they go back to the usual status. Fred Bauder 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? You want to give admins the extra task of watching someone with admin powers who you have basicaly announced can't be trusted. I don't recall that being on the list of admin tasks.
 * In reality you pretty much have a binary choice:
 * You do not remove Stevertigo's adminship. This strengthens acuastions of a cabal and suggests you've pretty much removed the one method by which admins can be held accountable.
 * You de admin Stevertigo. This establishes the presedent that the actions of one night can lose you your adminship regardless of years of otherwise good work(you could have avoided this by makeing some form of finding of fact based on netaholics claims but you chose not to).

 * your only other options are tempory suspension of adminship powers. This makes you look indescisive (A case with a very short evidence page takeing over two months doesn't help with this impression) further more it is still not going to look good to those who want more admin acounterbility it also makes very little sense on the front of decideing if someone should be an admin or not. Fianaly you could suspened him from wikipedia completely for a period but since Stevertigo appears to have few problems as an editor this can make no sense.Geni 01:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * We have every option except treating the matter as one that is black or white. That is not an option. Fred Bauder 02:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * That is an option. You may not want it to be but with the communities blunt rejection of your last attempt to find a grey option it may be one you have to take. In the end you will either remove Stevertigos adminship or you will not. You can suround the choice with whatever you like but in the end that is the choice you must make. I don't enevy you that descission since a way you are right. It isn't a black and white descission. It is a black and black one.Geni 02:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo is not where he is (a cliff) because of "the actions of one night"; he denied and continues to deny that what he did was an abomination. that is why he's where he is, and that's obvious when reading the history of this joke with the following question foremost in mind: is Stevertigo fit to wield admin power at wikipedia? of course not. read his pounds of reactions to this. this process has stalled because of the asinine premise that being an admin is a birthright. "no big deal" to elevate somebody to admin power? then it shouldn't be a big deal to zap 'em when they demonstrate the remarkable lack of respect/awareness Stevertigo did/does, even when he was passed wake-up clues under the table by his admin cronies. the evidence essentially guarantees that he will misfire in the same way again. this whole process is club members worrying about their precious futures in a world where admins are clobbered over the head for naturally acquired, intrinsic nasty behavior (e.g., threats, big talk, database button-pushing, atty-tude). clobber him and be done with it. may the rest of you follow. this joint needs admin term limits, not hand wringing and policy stabbing at the beheading of an obviously loutish admincentric. edit counts! wooohoooo! that's what you get. spectacle. Wbfl 10:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The whole reason I added my evidence section, which seems to have been largely ignored, was to show this wasn't just "the actions of one night". Stevertigo has used his adminstrator access improperly for a long time. -- Netoholic @ 15:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed?
Is this case closed now? There are six votes to close (no oppose votes), with the first vote made over two days ago. Didn't know whether it's just lag time or if something was still being discussed privately. Carbonite | Talk 13:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:82.35.38.163

title: User talk:82.35.38.163


text:
2007 Rugby World Cup – Africa qualification

In qualifying for the 2007 Rugby World Cup, there is one place available for African teams, and one place in the repechage. In the group rounds, there are three points awarded for a win, two for a draw, and one for a loss. There are no bonus points awarded.

Round 1a
Two groups of three teams each, winners of each group playoff for one place in Africa Round 1b.

Round 1b
Two groups of three teams each, winners of each group qualify for Africa Round 2, second placed teams playoff for the remaining place in Africa Round 2.

Round 2
Two groups of three teams each, winners of each group qualify for Africa Round 3.

Round 3
Playoff of the winners of each group in Round 2, winner qualifies for World Cup as Africa 1, Runner up advances to the Repechage Round as Africa 2, to play Europe 4.

Northern Pool
Senegal advance to playoff.

Final Standings

Southern Pool
Zambia advance to playoff.

Final Standings

Playoff
Winner advances to Round 1b (Senegal)

Senegal win 35–20 on aggregate

Pool A
Ivory Coast qualifies to Round 2, Zimbabwe advance to playoff.

Final Standings

Pool B
Kenya qualifies to Round 2, Uganda advance to playoff.

Final Standings

Playoff
Winner advances to Round 2 (Uganda)

Uganda win 36–31 on aggregate

Round 2
Home AND Away basis.

Pool 1
Winner (Namibia) qualifies to Round 3.

Final Standings

Pool 2
Winner (Morocco) qualifies to Round 3.

Final Standings

Round 3 – 2006
''Winner (Namibia) qualifies direct to RWC 2007 as Africa 1. Runner up (Morocco) advances to the Repechage Round as Africa 2, to play Europe 4, the winner playing Americas 4 for Repechage 1.''

Namibia win 52–15 on aggregate


text:
Borrisokane

Borrisokane is a town in County Tipperary, Ireland. It is 15 km north of Nenagh, at the junction of the N52 and N65 roads. At the 2022 census, it had a population of 1,117. The Ballyfinboy River flows through the town on its way to Lough Derg, 12 km to the west. It is also a civil parish in the historical barony of Ormond Lower and an Ecclesiastical parish in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Killaloe.

History
During the Norman invasion of Ireland, the area now known as Borrisokane was the property of the O'Carrolls of Ely who claimed to be descendants of the Clan or Cian or the Cianacht. The O’Kennedys were another significant ruling family, owning tower houses in the surrounding townlands.

During the Cromwellian Plantation, Arthur Annesley, 1st Earl of Anglesey, the Earl of Cork and the Earl of Arran were among those granted lands at Borrisokane. Arran hill, a townland of Borrisokane, is thought likely to be named after the latter.

Local population changes throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have underlined the great social and economic challenges that Ireland as a nation itself faced during these times. The population of the parish in 1831 was 2,634 and in 1841, it had risen to 3,175. Due to reasons of famine and emigration, this number has fallen steadily to 1,145 today.

During the War of Independence, and the Civil War which followed, Borrisokane was witness to local hostilities. On 26 June 1920 about 200 IRA volunteers attacked an RIC barracks at Borrisokane, currently the town's Garda Station. The attack was unsuccessful, but the building was so badly damaged that it was evacuated the next day. One Volunteer was killed in the action, and a plaque commemorates him today as Micheál Ó Cinnéide, Uncle of the former Government Minister Michael O'Kennedy.

The Modreeny Ambush took place on the 3 June 1921, during the Irish War of Independence. The ambush was an attack on an RIC and Black and Tan patrol en route to the local Petty Sessions in Borrisokane Courthouse. It was committed by a Flying Column led by Sean Gaynor at Kylebeg Cross, between Borrisokane and Cloughjordan and resulted in the deaths of four RIC/ Black and Tan members. Later that same day, a branch of the Munster and Leinster Bank was robbed of £2,000. Borrisokane Courthouse and its jail were also burned.

Local industry
Situated as it is in the Great Plain of Lower Ormond, much of the land around Borrisokane is well suited to farm production. As such, the area has a strong agricultural history which continues to this day.

During the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, Borrisokane was an important centre for wheat production. There was an active mill in the town, which was operational from 1810 until about 1940, the mill was demolished in April 2010, an event which caused some local anger. Beside the site of the mill there is a lane known as 'Brewers Lane' suggesting there was previously a brewery here.

Culture
In his poem, The Faerie Queene, Edmund Spenser is said to have referred to the local hill of Knockshegowna. Knockshegowna (Irish: Cnoc Sí Úna) translated literally means 'The Hill of Fairy Una'. In Spenser's poem, Úna, the personification of the "True Church" travels with the Redcrosse Knight (who represents England), whom she has recruited to save her parents' castle from a dragon.

Knockshegowna Hill and its supposed fairies is also the subject of Richard D'Alton Williams' poem The Fairies of Knockshegowna and The Legend of Knockshegowna by Thomas Crofton Croker.

In 1930, the David Clarke Memorial Hall was opened in Borrisokane, dedicated to the memory of the town's then most prominent Landlord, David Clarke. The Hall is still used today for the staging of musical and theatrical productions and is also the location of the towns cineclub.

2009 saw the opening of Tess Burkes. It has since established itself as a popular live music venue attracting up-and-coming bands from all over the country.

The book Stella Days: The Life and Times of a Rural Irish Cinema was written by Michael Doorley. It is based on the true story of how Borrisokane's small cinema came to being in the 1950s. In 2011 Stella Days, the movie based on the book, was released. Filming, however, took place in the town of Fethard rather than Borrisokane. The movie was shown to an invited audience in the Clarke Memorial Hall on 24 March 2012. The film stars American actor Martin Sheen, whose mother comes from Borrisokane.

Town Park
A public park on both sides of the Ballyfinboy river. The park was created and financed by the townspeople rather than the council.

Borrisokane forest
Borrisokane forest extends northwards from the R445 road to Portumna and from Lough Derg to the County Offaly border. The forest consists of several small, widely dispersed areas of woodland. Coillte manages the forest which includes amongst others Sopwell woods and Knockanacree woods near Cloghjordan.

Sport
Borrisokane FC is based at the Community Sports Grounds. Playing in red and black shirts, sponsored by The Green Bar public house, the club fields multiple teams at both youth and senior levels.

In March 2016 the 1st XI, under the management of Matty Power, secured the Division 1 League championship losing just one game all season and finishing in style with an 8-1 demolition of Ballymacky.

The Borrisokane GAA club is based at Páirc Gairnéir and their colours are green and white. In 2010 they won the Tipperary Intermediate Hurling Championship and were unlucky to lose out in the Munster Intermediate Hurling Championship. In 2009, Borrisokane won the inaugural North Tipperary Junior C Hurling Championship.

The Borrisokane Athletic Club caters for athletes from age 8 to senior. Athletes from this small town club have travelled the world representing their country and can boast over 100 National titles throughout its 30 years. Most recently the club's success has come from the senior ladies who were crowned National League Champions in 2008.

Cycling in the town is on one of the North Tipperary Cycle Routes. This 65 km route starts at Banba Square, Nenagh and is listed as a half-day cycle.

Horse Racing: races associated with the Ormond Hunt pack were first held at Borrisokane on the farm of John Reddan at Kylenagoona, near Borrisokane in the year 1863. Meetings were held annually in June, July and August, with particularly keen competition for the Borrisokane Plate. Racing continued up until the early 1900s when it moved closer to the town. A song, 'The Kylenagoona Races' was composed in reference to Borrisokane's local horse racing.

The town and district are today home to a number of well-known equestrian personalities including former Irish champion jockey turned racehorse trainer Charlie Swan, who lives in nearby Cloughjordan.

Buildings of note
Whilst there are other buildings of architectural interest in and around Borrisokane, the following are featured in 'An Introduction To The Architectural Heritage Of North Tipperary' and on the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage website

 * Semi-detached houses with integral arch, Main Street (c. 1800): Pair of semi-detached three-storey houses with integral carriage arch.
 * Water Mill, Mill Street (c. 1810): Two four-storey blocks. (Demolished 30 April 2010 )
 * Church of Ireland church, Main St. (1812) Single-cell Board of First Fruits church.
 * Former miller's house, Mill Street (c. 1815): Three bay two-storey house attached to the mill.
 * Kylepark Agricultural School, Kyletombrickane (c. 1843): An agricultural school founded on his estate at Kyle Park, Borrisokane by Thomas George Stoney
 * The Terrace, Nenagh Rd. (c. 1815) Two pairs of semi-detached houses and a detached house, two storeys over basement with outbuildings and yards. Listed as protected structures by Tipperary County Council (RPS Refs S425 to S429).
 * Old Church Centre, Mill Street (1839): Cruciform plan gable-fronted former church.
 * Borrisokane Courthouse and College (c. 1850): Former Workhouse and courtyards.
 * Methodist Chapel, Main Street (1868): Gable fronted single cell church.
 * David Clarke Hall, Mill Street (c. 1930): Gable-fronted memorial hall. Briefly converted to the Stella cinema during the 1950s and 1960s.

People

 * Sir Henry Givens Burgess (1859–1937), Irish railway executive and politician (lived at Finnoe House)
 * Frank Corcoran (born 1944), Irish composer (born and lived at Killavalla House)
 * James Doorley, assistant director, policy and advocacy at the National Youth Council of Ireland
 * Eugene Esmonde (1909–1942), recipient of the Victoria Cross for his efforts during World War II (lived at Drominagh)
 * Séamus Gardiner (1894–1976), former President of the GAA
 * Capt. Sir Alan Hillgarth (1899–1978), British-born novelist and intelligence agent (lived at Gortnalougha)
 * David Hogan (born 1988) a professional snooker player.
 * Rex Ingram (1892–1950), film director, lived at The Old Rectory
 * John McKenna (hurler) (born 1938) hurling player from Borrisokane.
 * Áine Minogue (born 1977), harpist, born in Borrisokane, now living in the US
 * Michaela Morkan (born 1990), camogie player and student attended Borrisokane Community College where she was female sportsperson of the year in 2008.
 * Greg Starr (born 1976), Leader and overall winner of the 2013 series of Operation Transformation, TV and Lifestyle show. Former member of the Irish Air Corps,
 * Andrew Robinson Stoney (1747-1810), politician, philanderer and true life basis for Barry Lyndon.
 * Charlie Swan (born 1968), Racehorse trainer and former Champion Jockey (born and still lives at Modreeney)
 * Frederick Trench, 1st Baron Ashtown (1755–1840), Anglo-Irish politician, lived at Sopwell Hall
 * John Francis Waller (1810–1894), poet and editor
 * Thomas'Tommy' Guilfoyle (c1910 -1985), long distance cyclist. Traditional singer and dancer.
 * Jack O'Meara (1900-1972), reputed to be the very last long-distance stock drover in Ireland. Long after rail and road trucks had displaced his fellow drovers, Jack continued to ply his trade until his death in a traffic accident in 1972. He is estimated to have droved in excess 500 thousand miles throughout his long career.

title: Borrisokane


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bentley badge and hood ornament-BW.jpg

Image:Bentley badge and hood ornament-BW.jpg
I really like the way this looks. The black and white makes it look dramatic and reduces the glare off of the hood, but I provide both for your judgement (please specify which you are voting for). The color version was nominated here (the B&W version was introduced only at the end). The picture was taken by User:Rdsmith4. Raven4x4x 02:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. - Broken S 16:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I like both pictures alot, but I like the color best. The wings blend into the hood slightly on the black and white, and the color looks more "modern". --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 04:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer the black and white version. It's just so sleek and smooth and sharp looking. It must be the artist in me. ;) The color version is just "eh" but the BW version just screams "Style!".PiccoloNamek 09:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Users may wish to consider this past nomination. Enochlau 23:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Reflections huh? I think the reflections are what make it look so cool.PiccoloNamek 03:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I did last time. Cropping uncomfortable. Enochlau 10:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Though I hate voting this way, I'm uncomfortable with the photographer's reflection (in the lower left) and the pedestrian (in the lower right). I prefer the black and white version because it minimizes these distractions and brings out the excellent metallic sheen of the photo, but not enough to convince me to vote to support. CapeCodEph 08:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I gotta agre with the other comments. Its just a bit unsettling to look at.  Cool...but the reflection is too distracting. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞  02:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Well, I like it. The Black and white one, that is.PiccoloNamek 04:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the black and white version. The reflections are much less distracting in that one. DO'Иeil
 * Support B&W version it destroys the distractions of the colour version while enhancing the dramatic and beautiful sheen Tekana (O.o) Talk 16:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support B&W Glaurung 06:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support B&W — ceejayoz ★ 12:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support for the black and white one! --Loopy 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support color version. Metal is shiny. Neutralitytalk 13:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ( + ) Support B/W only. Much more classy --Fir0002 02:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support B&W. I think both would be dramatically improved if the photo were taken without the reflection of the building/man on the hood, although the current B&W very surprisingly makes that less notcieable. Is access to the car, uh, not a problem :)? Could you take the photo again with a clear background? enceph  alon  12:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, sadly, I don't own a Bentley! I took the photo at a car show in Indianapolis during the US Grand Prix this summer, so it can't really be recreated. If I go to any similar events in the future, I'll have my camera in hand, of course. — Dan | Talk 23:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support B&W ONLY I agree with Capecodeph, as in the colour actually detracts from the photo by diverting your attention to the reflection. With the B&W they are less defined and more like shadow. I also think the general shadows look more defined and the reflections less. —Vanderdecken ℘ζξ 19:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluorescent Black

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — J I P | Talk 11:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Fluorescent Black
Unsigned band by article's admission MacRusgail 16:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsigned band = non-notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --Apyule 07:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: Talk:Bight (geography)

title: Talk:Bight (geography)


text: User:Martin.Budden/TestTemplate

title: User:Martin.Budden/TestTemplate


text:
My Super Sweet 16

My Super Sweet 16 is an American reality television series documenting the lives of teenagers, usually in the United States, Canada and United Kingdom, generally with wealthy parents who throw lavish, excessive and expensive coming-of-age celebrations. Parties include the quinceañera, the sweet 16, and other birthdays including a My Super Sweet 21 (which was broadcast during MTV's spring break party) and My Super Swag 18. The show aired on MTV from January 18, 2005, to September 11, 2017. The opening theme is "Sweet Sixteen" sung by Hilary Duff.

Spin-offs
The series had two spin-offs, Exiled and The Real Deal, which both ended their run by 2010. The show has also covered a number of celebrity coming of age parties. Bow Wow, Sean Kingston, Aly & AJ, Chris Brown, Soulja Boy and Teyana Taylor have all had their parties featured on the show. A United Kingdom version of the program was also produced, as was a Spanish version entitled Quiero mis quinces or Super Dulces 16.

MTV launched a spinoff in 2008 titled Exiled, involving the parents of some prior participants on My Super Sweet 16 "exiling" their teens to remote countries in order to see if their "sweet sixteener" will survive the harsh conditions. In 2009, MTV announced their newest addition to the franchise, My Super Psycho Sweet 16, a horror movie based on the concept of the show, which was aired on October 23, 2009 and followed by two sequels: Part 2 (2010) and Part 3 (2012).

In March 2010, MTV International commissioned Maverick TV in the UK to make a new, international version of the Super Sweet franchise. 10 episodes were produced, with interested parties encouraged to go to the casting website. The brand was also extended to include people having birthdays aged 13–24.

Reception
In retrospect, Bustle identified "the main 14 elements [or tropes] which happened in most episodes which made it the supernova of a show that it truly is", including:
 * "birthday tantrum[s]" ("the birthday boy or girl would be crying, screaming, stomping, or complaining about the fact that it's their birthday and they'll do what they want")
 * the birthday boy or girl's "constant belligerence" against their parents in demanding more money
 * "excessively decadent outfits"
 * the party planner who is "tasked with organizing these unachievable birthday parties"
 * overrunning the party budget
 * "the obligatory party fight" when uninvited guests turn up
 * large, expensive cars as birthday gifts
 * a musical celebrity guest performing at the party

Bobcat Goldthwait noted that watching the My Super Sweet 16 marathon inspired him to write his controversial film God Bless America. Prior to attaining stardom in film, Jennifer Lawrence made her on-screen acting debut in an advertisement for the series depicting a fictional scenario (she never appeared in the series proper).

Criticism
English satirist Charlie Brooker gave a light-hearted criticism of the show on BBC4's Screenwipe, calling it "a stonehearted exposé of everything that's wrong with our faltering so-called civilization." He describes the protagonists by saying that "Each episode follows an unbelievably spoiled rich and tiny sod as they prepare to throw a despicably opulent coming of age party for themselves and their squealing shitcake friends." He said the show "might be an Al-Qaeda recruitment film." However, he added that "that's exactly how the show wants you to feel - it's even more efficient at creating instant hate figures than Big Brother, and that's saying something."

One teenager (Audrey Reyes) is seen screaming at her mother and saying she "hates" her after having received a new Lexus SC430, costing US$67,000, that was not on the day of the party. However, after the episode aired, she apologized for the tantrum.

In popular culture
The hip-hop artist Common made a reference to the show, as well as Exiled, in a line from his single "The Game". "Watching Sweet Sixteen, bitchin'-ass rich kids, who, don't know, in life, that, you gotta go the distance".

In the film Bratz, a character, named Meredith, throws a super sweet 16 party and has MTV film it.

In the film Disaster Movie, the protagonist Will throws a super sweet 16 party.

The show was also parodied on an episode of Comedy Central's South Park ("Hell on Earth 2006") broadcast on October 25, 2006. Satan was intent on throwing an over-the-top Halloween bash. His behavior reflected that of the sweet 16ers, preparing for their coming-of-age birthdays. In the end, when Satan realizes his folly, the audience then considers the sweet 16ers to be "worse than Satan." Trey Parker further commented, "I can say.....every single girl that has been on that show, My Super Sweet 16, is evil. Is an evil, horrible person. It's just that simple."

In 2016, on the occasion of his 60th birthday, US actor Bryan Cranston (known for his role as Walter White in Breaking Bad) was featured in a parody titled "My Super Sweet 60" for the Jimmy Kimmel Live! show, with Kimmel as a party planner, and various guest stars, including musician Sisqo.

The show was parodied in the fourth season of Robot Chicken, in a sketch titled "Annie's Super Sweet 16". The segment follows the format of the show, with the episode featuring Annie Warbucks from the Little Orphan Annie comic strip. On the sister channel Tr3s, the show Quiero Mis Quinces showcases the Latin American traditions of planning a quinceañera. More recently, the 2020 reboot of Animaniacs referenced it in a song.

Broadcast
In June 2018, it was announced that the series will stream on Hulu. It also currently airs on MTV Teen on the Pluto TV service. TeenNick also began airing the series in July 2019.

title: My Super Sweet 16


text:
Sfeçël

Sfeçël (in Albanian) or Svećnje (in Serbian) is a village in the municipality of Podujevo, Kosovo.

title: Sfeçël


text:
Early completion

Early completion is a property of some classes of asynchronous circuit. It means that the output of a circuit may be available as soon as sufficient inputs have arrived to allow it to be determined. For example, if all of the inputs to a mux have arrived, and all are the same, but the select line has not yet arrived, the circuit can still produce an output. Since all the inputs are identical, the select line is irrelevant.

Example: an asynchronous ripple-carry adder
A ripple carry adder is a simple adder circuit, but slow because the carry signal has to propagate through each stage of the adder:

This diagram shows a 5-bit ripple carry adder in action. There is a five-stage long carry path, so every time two numbers are added with this adder, it needs to wait for the carry to propagate through all five stages.

By switching to dual-rail signalling for the carry bit, it can have each stage signal its carry out as soon as it knows. If both inputs to a stage are 1, then the carry out will be 1 no matter what the carry in is. If both inputs are 0, then the carry out will be zero. This early completion cuts down on the maximum length of the carry chain in most cases:

Two of the carry-out bits can be known as soon as input arrives, for the input shown in the picture. This means that the maximum carry chain length is three, not five. If it uses dual-rail signalling for inputs and outputs, it can indicate completion as soon as all the carry chains have completed.

On average, an n-bit asynchronous ripple carry adder will finish in O(log n) time. By extending this approach to carry look-ahead adders, it is possible to add in O(log log n) time.

title: Early completion


text:
Taizhou

Taizhou may refer to either of two cities in eastern China:

 * Taizhou, Jiangsu, located on the Yangtze River, 200 km northwest of Shanghai
 * Taizhou, Zhejiang, located along the East China Sea, 285 km south of Shanghai

title: Taizhou


text:
Maximus the Greek

Maximus the Greek, also known as Maximos the Greek or Maksim Grek (Μάξιμος ὁ Γραικός; Максим Грек; c. 1475), was a Greek monk, publicist, writer, scholar, and translator active in Russia. He is also called Maximos the Hagiorite (Μάξιμος ὁ Ἁγιορίτης), as well as Maximus the Philosopher. His signature was Maximus Grecus Lakedaimon (l it. Maximus the Greek of, and originating from, Lakedaimonia) and his family origins were probably from Mystras, a location in Laconia, which was the geographical site of Ancient Sparta in the Peloponnese.

Early years
Maximus was born Michael Trivolis (Μιχαήλ Τριβώλης, Михаил Триволис) c. 1475 in Arta, then in the Ottoman Empire, the scion of a noble Greek family with ties to the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople,    and originating from Sparta. Both Maximus's parents were Christian Greeks; his mother was Irene and his father, Manuel, was a voivode. Irene and Manuel left Constantinople together for Arta and the latter may have been a Byzantine military governor of Arta before the city fell to the Ottomans in 1449.

Demetrios Trivolis, Manuel's brother and Maximus's uncle, was a Greek scribe who self-identified as "a Peloponnesian from Sparta" (Πελοποννήσιος εκ Σπάρτης). In 1461–1462, Demetrios reproduced a manuscript of Plato's Timaeus while in Corfu and in 1465, he copied Plotinus's Enneads while in Crete;    after his completion of Plato's work, Demetrius wrote the following note: "Η βίβλος ἥδε ἐγράφη δι᾿οἰκείας χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Δημητρίου Τριβώλη Πελοποννησίου ἐκ Σπάρτης τὰς διατριβὰς ποιοῦντος ἐν Κερκυραίων νήσῳ · μετὰ τὴν τῆς ἡμετέρας πατρίδος ἅλωσιν" which translates as: "The present book was written by my own hand of Demetrios Trivolis Peloponnesian from Sparta who made these works in the island of the Kerkyreans after the fall of our fatherland" (referencing the fall of his native Laconia to the Ottomans). In another note, Demetrios writes: "κάλλιστον βιβλίον εμόν εστι κτήμα Δημητρίου Τριβώλη Πελοποννησίου εκ Σπαρτης. επριαμην δε και τουτο μετα την εμης πατριδος αλωσιν της Λακεδαιμονος της ποτ' ευδαιμονος." which translates as: "This most beautiful book of mine is property of Demetrios Trivolis Peloponnesian from Sparta. I bought it after the fall of our fatherland Lacedaemonia, which was once fortunate." The Trivolis family was later associated with the Palaiologos dynasty in Mystras.

Maximus studied on the island of Corfu under the supervision of John Moschos and John Lascaris and later went with Lascaris to Florence (in 1492 or 1493 ) and continued his studies in Bologna, Florence, Ferrara, Milan, Padua, and Venice. While in Italy, he studied ancient languages, as well as ecclesiastic and philosophic works (especially Neoplatonism). He knew prominent figures of the Renaissance era such as the Venetian printer Aldus Manutius and made the acquaintance of scholars Angelo Poliziano, Marsilio Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, Scipio Callerges, and Fonteguerri. Maximus was also greatly influenced by the preachings of the fiery Dominican priest and reformer Girolamo Savonarola whose ashes he gathered in 1498.

Career
In 1504 (according to other accounts, 1505 or early 1506 ), Maximus left the Dominican monastery of St. Mark and went to Mount Athos where he took monastic vows at the Monastery of Vatopedi in 1507. In 1515, Grand Prince Vasili III asked the abbot of the monastery to send him a certain monk by the name of Savva to translate a number of religious texts. Savva was so old that the abbot decided to send the energetic Maximus instead, though he had no knowledge of the Church Slavonic language. Nevertheless, the monks vouched for him, and he went to Moscow, where he was met with great honor. Upon arriving in Moscow in 1518, Maximus headed the movement of religious reform. In 1518, Maximus met Prince Kurbskii, who later wrote about Maximus and his time in Moscow in Skazanie o Maksime Filosofe ("The Tale of Maxim the Philosopher"). In this work, Kurbskii describes a meeting between Maximus and Vasili III whereupon Maximus was astonished at the countless multitudes of Greek books displayed at Vasili III's court. Maximus assured the prince that he had never seen so many Greek works in Greece itself. This testimony is the earliest known reference of a collection of ancient manuscripts belonging to the Russian tsars which has never been found, also referred to as The Lost Library of the Moscow Tsars. This lost library later became a favorite research topic of early 20th century Russian archaeologist Ignatius Stelletskii.

Assignment to Moscow
Maximus's first major work in Russia was a translation of the Psalter together with the Russian translators (including the scholar Dmitry Gerasimov) and scriveners, which would be solemnly approved by the Russian clergy and the grand prince himself. After Vasili III rejected his request to go home, Maximus continued to work on translations and correcting the books for divine service. Observing the "defects" and injustices of Muscovite life, which seemed to him in direct opposition to his Christian ideals, Maximus began to expose them and criticize the authorities, attracting different people with similar views, such as Ivan Bersen-Beklemishev, Vassian Patrikeyev, and others. With regards to the question of monastic estates, which had already divided the Russian clergy into two antagonistic camps (the Possessors and the Non-Possessors), Maximus took sides with Nilus of Sors and his startsy, who headed the Non-Possessors camp. This would make him one of the worst enemies of the Josephites, who stood for the right of the monasteries to own land. Maximus and his followers discussed freely the shortcomings of Russia's internal and foreign policies, criticized the lifestyle of the Russian clergy, exploitation of peasants, and the system of supporting local authorities by "milking" the peasants (the so-called кормление, or kormleniye).

Imprisonment
Maximus's relations with Vassian Patrikeyev, Ivan Bersen-Beklemishev, and Turkish ambassador Skinder, Metropolitan Daniel's hostility towards him, and Greek's own negative attitude towards Vasili III's intention to divorce Solomonia Saburova decided his fate. A sobor in 1525 accused Maximus of nonconformism and heresy based on his views and translations of ecclesiastic books, disregarding his incomplete knowledge of Russian and obvious mistakes on the part of the Russian scriveners (his improper use of the imperfect tense was used to imply that he no longer believed the Holy Spirit was the Third Person of the Trinity but only had been temporarily). He was then exiled to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery and placed in a dungeon without the right to take communion or correspond. Maximus's "irritating" behavior at the monastery, newly discovered mistakes in his translations, and old suspicions of his unscrupulous relations with the now dead Turkish ambassador were all used against him once again at a new sobor in 1531. Worn out by the harsh conditions of his imprisonment, Maximus acknowledged some minor mistakes in his translations and excessive wine drinking. Finally, the sobor banned him from receiving communion and exiled him to the Otroch Monastery in Tver, where he would spend his next twenty years. The Patriarch of Antioch, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Patriarch of Jerusalem all attempted to negotiate Maximus's release with the Russian authorities, but to no avail. He himself pleaded with Ivan the Terrible ((r. 1547 – 1584)) and Metropolitan Macarius for his freedom. Moscow was afraid of Maximus's ability to expose wrongdoings and criticize the powers that be and, therefore, was reluctant to let him go. In 1551 (or 1553 according to other accounts), Maximus was transferred to the Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra at the solicitation of some boyars and Hegumen Artemiy of the lavra. That same year, according to some accounts, the tsar is said to have visited Maximus during his pilgrimage to Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery; Maximus is described as having advised the ruler to take care of the families of soldiers who died in the conquest of Kazan instead of merely praying for the dead. In 1554, Maximus was invited to join a sobor, which would deal with the heresy of Matvei Bashkin, but he refused, being wary of getting entangled in this case.

Death
Maximus died in 1556 in Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra, Sergiyev Posad. He is buried in the Refectory Church in the Lavra.

Legacy
Maximus played an important role in shaping Russian Christian tradition; he left a voluminous body of original writings and translations into Russian Church Slavonic. He spent a great deal of energy and ink in his efforts to prove his innocence and Orthodoxy. He interpreted and explained for his Muscovite readers a large number of points of ancient and Biblical history, Orthodox Church practice and teachings, and features of the contemporary world outside of Muscovy. For example, he was the first to bring the discovery of the New World to the attention of Muscovite readers. He is considered a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church, which commemorates him on 21 January.

title: Maximus the Greek


text:
The Sceptical Chymist

The Sceptical Chymist: or Chymico-Physical Doubts & Paradoxes is the title of a book by Robert Boyle, published in London in 1661. In the form of a dialogue, the Sceptical Chymist presented Boyle's hypothesis that matter consisted of corpuscles and clusters of corpuscles in motion and that every phenomenon was the result of collisions of particles in motion. Boyle also objected to the definitions of elemental bodies propounded by Aristotle and by Paracelsus, instead defining elements as "perfectly unmingled bodies" (see below). For these reasons Robert Boyle has sometimes been called the founder of modern chemistry.

Contents
The first part of the book begins with 5 friends (Carneades the host and the Skeptic, Philoponus the Chymist, Themistius the Aristotelian, Eleutherius the impartial Judge, and an unnamed narrator) meeting in Carneades's garden and chatting about the constituents of mixed bodies. In part one, Carneades (Boyle) lays out four propositions to the gathering, which sets the foundation for the rest of the book. They are as follows:

 * Proposition I.
 * It seems not absurd to conceive that at the first production of mixt bodies, the universal matter whereof they among other parts of the universe consisted, was actually divided into little particles of several sizes and shapes variously moved.

 * Proposition II.
 * Neither is it impossible that of these minute particles divers of the smallest and neighboring ones were here and there associated into minute masses or clusters, and did by their coalitions constitute great store of such little primary concretions or masses as were not easily dissipable into such particles as composed them.

 * Proposition III.
 * I shall not peremptorily deny, that from most such mixt bodies as partake either of animals or vegetable nature, there may by the help of the fire be actually obtained a determinate number (whether three, four, or five, or fewer or more) of substances, worthy of differing denominations.

 * Proposition IV.
 * It may likewise be granted, that those distinct substances, which concretes generally either afford or are made up of, may without very much inconvenience be called the elements or principles of them.

Major themes
Boyle first argued that fire is not a universal and sufficient analyzer of dividing all bodies into their elements, contrary to Jean Beguin and Joseph Duchesne. To prove this he turned for support to Jan Baptist van Helmont whose Alkahest was reputed to be a universal analyzer.

Boyle rejected the Aristotelian theory of the four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) and also the three principles (salt, sulfur, and mercury) proposed by Paracelsus. After discussing the classical elements and chemical principles in the first five parts of the book, in the sixth part Boyle defines chemical element in a manner that approaches more closely to the modern concept:
 * I now mean by Elements, as those Chymists that speak plainest do by their Principles, certain Primitive and Simple, or perfectly unmingled bodies; which not being made of any other bodies, or of one another, are the Ingredients of all those call'd perfectly mixt Bodies are immediately compounded, and into which they are ultimately resolved.

However, Boyle denied that any known material substances correspond to such "perfectly unmingled bodies." In his view, all known materials were compounds, even such substances as gold, silver, lead, sulfur, and carbon.

Influence
According to E. J. Dijksterhuis, "After the appearance of The Sceptical Chymist Aristotle’s doctrine of the four elements as well as Paracelsus’ theory of the three principia gradually passes into disuse."

The book's influence can be discerned in Nicholas Brady's reference to "jarring seeds" in his Ode to St. Cecilia (set by Henry Purcell in 1691, well before Daniel Bernoulli's kinetic theory):

 * Soul of the World! Inspir'd by thee,
 * The jarring Seeds of Matter did agree,
 * Thou didst the scatter'd Atoms bind,
 * Which, by thy Laws of true proportion join'd,
 * Made up of various Parts one perfect Harmony.

Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn references The Sceptical Chymist in the eleventh chapter of his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, while discussing his views on the historiography of science.

Cultural references
The Sceptical Chymist is referenced in the novel Quicksilver.

title: The Sceptical Chymist


text: User talk:80.178.71.212

title: User talk:80.178.71.212