text:
Talk:Gallurese

Untitled
moved from User talk:Gianfranco page Dear Gianfranco. No doubt about the fact that the "pure standard corsican" in not spoken in Sardinia. I was only writing about these facts:
 * Gallurese has been usually considered as a sardinian dialect (or a diasystem if you want) basically for geographic reasons (sometimes also for political reasons from non-gallurese sardinian linguists). But under this aspect, of corse it is a sardinian dialect. And naturally gallurese people is a sardinian people.
 * But analising the language, Gallurese (a dialect that I know) is in fact much more similar to southern corsican dialects (as I have heard, read and . Looking from italian we could say that it presents the same grammatical structure of italian (or corsican, many linguists says that also corsican is a italian dialect connected with tuscan). Of course, it doesn't present the last 2 centuries of french pronunciation- and word-influences and is full of sardinian terms. Only in the island of La Maddalena the dialect is relatively pure as it was southern corsican of the 18th century. But many people of Gallura, despite great similarities, looks just now at Corsica as a foreign french-speaking region. As a result of a pure linguistic analisys, gallurese is a dialect of the corsican group.
 * Sardinian is a different language, with another grammars, another rules. Gallurese people says "saldu"(sardinian) to call other sardinian languages (partic. logudorese) spoken at 10km distance villages. Also if many words of Gallurese derives from Logudorese (in Gallura logudorese was spoken in the middle-age), in fact they are two different languages.

If I speak gallurese in southern Corsica (I've tried this!), people understand me at all and think that I'm speaking a different corsican dialect (with a strange pronunciation). If I speak it in Logudoro, they perheaps understand me, but they immediately recognise me as a gallurese-speaker. It the other way a gallurese do not always understand a sardinian from Nuoro. There is a progressive mutation of the languages between Sardinia, Corsica and Tuscany. Sardinian language is hardly conservative, ancient, latin-based and historically influenced from spanish and catalan. Southern corsican derives probably from the dialect spoken all over the island before italian and french hard influences (dialect of Bastia presents now very similarities to tuscan) and before french domination, standard-italian has been for centuries the cultural language of the island). However i can give you a first little list of links about gallurese (in english and italian):
 * http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=COI
 * http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=SDN
 * http://web.tiscali.it/consultagallurese/index.html
 * http://web.tiscali.it/consultagallurese/attivita.htm
 * http://www.infosardinia.it/linguasarda.htm
 * http://www.legambientegallura.com/lo_stazzo.htm
 * http://www.sardiniapoint.it/33.html
 * http://www.unionesarda.it/unione/2000/21-10-00/GALLURA/OLB03/A05.html
 * http://www.surfspot.it/NUR/nur_lingua.htm

I need a little bit time more to give you some bibliography. Thanks for debate. DCh

 * Caro Dch,
 * thank you for your kind answer.

First of all I have to specify, since my note sounded perhaps quite hard to you and this was not in my intentions: as you might have seen, recently some "funny" people was adding Corsican language to any article regarding Sardinia, Sardinian language or every village of northern Sardinia, probably due to a personal vision of history, geography and who knows what else. So I was stressing a certain general correctness on the point, given that this alleged corsican "wide" influence seemed to imply that Sardinia had perhaps been under some corsican domination, somehow. I was getting quite... inchiettu to revert all those many addings and the request of proofs was an attempt to stop these addings if not accompanied by some explaination, nothing personal. :-)

The point is indeed an interesting question, like your notes are really interesting.

When I first "discovered" Sardinia and its many treasures, I was certainly caught by some rapture by this archaic language, and I still am, so the chance of knowing more is always very important to me. Me too, I am able to understand Corsican via the limited notions I have on Gallurese: no doubt that the two idioms are in some elements similar and quite evidently they are reciprocally influenced, the proof being in our similar practical experience (I am not able to speak it, though).

The point is perhaps the classification: your analysis is correct, except for the point of Gallurese in Corsican group (on a merely academical point of view), and what you say is true, Gallurese seems more a relative to Corsican and Italian than Sardinian, but why then it is (scholastically) included in the Sardinian family?

More than a mere matter of geography, noted that "music" is not all, I dare suppose that something else still keeps this language there, and I'd like to advance some ideas. We should perhaps verify the occasions of contact between the idioms, for the first, so we could need a little history to help us. Let's say that we could recognise that, before phoenicians, the presumed Paleosardinian (the language of Nuragici) should have been quite harmonically spread all over the island. Of course, it's true that we can say this also because there is no proof of the eventual contrary, as there isn't any in favour.

Phoenicians came and invaded the island, only two main areas remained frank from their control (and their influence), the 2 classically independent areas of Sardinia: Gallura and Barbagia. Here the contact with surrounding areas is broken, supposedly. So there should locally remain the influences of Balari that came from Spain, probably with protoiberic influences. Then Rome came, and defeated Balari, Rome was in Gallura too, as it was in Barbagia. Maybe we could presume that when Latin entered, only some part of the idiom was different, so the difference could have came later, but when?

The greatest difference could be in the age of Giudicati, could be Pisa. The quality of the presence of Pisa. Starting from the defeat of arab pirate Musetto, 1000-1050, Pisa is in the northern Giudicato with the sole "disturb" of Genoa (Doria), then it will remain there as the main dominator. As you know, we know most of medieval sardinian history thanks to the Pisan liber fondachi, the registry of paid taxes, which is so detailed to let us assume that Pisan presence was not a slight theoretical influence by far.

From this point perhaps the languages begin to part, along time producing what lets you now summarise that there is some Italian and some Tuscan in gallurese. But what happened to Corsica, of which we know so little? The institution of a common Regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae (1297) does not allow us to consider that particular relationships were established between the islands just as an effect of this institution, being the main action of Aragona, at that time, the first conquer of Giudicati, mainly Arborea, and it took quite a century or something more. Pisans remained in Sardinia for a while, as their romanic architecture and some of their idioms.

Is the Tuscan ingredient of Gallurese coming from there? In this case, a tuscan influence would have affected a Sardinian version, resulting in a modified Sardinian version (then it still is a Sardinian version). It would consequently be classified as a Sardinian language for a genetical reason.

But: we were considering Sardinian as if Corsicans could modify it, this was the hypothesis. Wait a minute, why not the contrary? Why not a Sardinian influence on Corsican? Yes, Gallurese is "different" from the rest of Sardinian language, but the reason for this difference is really corsican influence? or could it be perhaps that Corsican has been influenced by Sardinian?

Or could it be eventually that they both were influenced by the same factors, received in their own territories separately and with different actions, finally producing not so distant results? I dont't know where Corsica started from, but I can imagine from history that external influences could consent this hypothesis.

Sardinia has a wider population, and in its history has been more subject to foreign influences than Corsica. Invasions and taxes would probably have caused an eventual movement in the direction of the minor island, less probably the other way. Also, the little distance between Corsica and Tyrrhenic (tuscan) islands would let us suppose more frequent practical contacts, while in Sardinia these contacts were more decisive on a point of local administration.

Contacts between the two islands were again intense in 17th century, when France entered in commercial relationship with Sardinia, provoking (not completely unintentionally) a certain contraband in the Bocche; the need of using a common jargon on the coast is of evident relevance. Its diffusion however is not so wide, presumedly.

Besides there is still another question: all the authors directly include gallurese among sardinian versions and never mention corsican, which is not I hope only for simple chauvinism. There are besides enough polemics and differences among the authors, but we just cannot find one proposing this, eventually as a provocation. Alghero's Catalan, apart from the fact that we know very well its origins and its historical reasons, is not included even if in time it changed, a little at least, from the pure Catalan that today we know, still a mere geographical reason doesn't produce its inclusion in Sardinian.

Wikipedia is not a research field, so we cannot develop but a gnosiologic debate, consequently we cannot stop at question marks, if possible. I am re-reading some texts by Blasco Ferrer (apart from his undoubted deep competence, I like him because, differently from the ordinary italian academical habit, he quotes and explains very correctly very objectively the theories that oppose his owns, without a partisan slashing criticism - it is therefore a complete source). I will try to investigate there, in the time it will take, while I have already asked my Sardinian friends to let me know some more.

By now I think you could start adding notes about La Maddalena in the Sardinian language page.

Your links are very interesting, I hade read some already and I'll read the other ones soon, I'll gladly come back on the point. By now I thank you of your notes, and I'll try to find something more to get closer to our target.

A presto :-) -- Gianfranco

To Gianfranco, another list of contributions about the relationship between gallurese and corsican (sorry for the long url):
 * http://groups.google.it/groups?hl=it&threadm=3c62ade2.10605325%40News.CIS.DFN.DE&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DGallurese%2Be%2BSassarese%2B(era%253ARe%253A%2B%255Bit%255D%2BDialetto%2Blombardo)%26hl%3Dit%26btnG%3DCerca%2Bcon%2BGoogle
 * http://www.uniud.it/cip/min_tutelate_scheda.htm
 * http://eiha.crs4.it/cultura/opereWord/lingua/lingua.doc
 * Walther von WARTBURG "La fragmentation linguistique de la Romania", Paris, Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1967.

Saluti, dch Grazie Dch, I was just reading Le Lannou (Patres et paysans de la Sardaigne - a precious document containing a fascinating discovery of Sardinia in the '40s) in these last days and I had found the elements reported in the google's group.

In the net I also found this interesting work of Mauro Maxia that, going toward your position, rather than mine, notably contains a very detailed study on Corsicans in Sardinia:
 * http://interromania.free.fr/media/pdf/maxia/studii_storici_sui_dialetti_della_sardegna.pdf (the introduction is in Gallurese)

I have to admit I haven't finished reading it (it's a hard working period for me), but his conclusion seems to be that both Sassarese and Gallurese should be included in a new group of Sardo-Corsican languages.

Okay, there is a similarity with tuscan (not an extraordinary proximity, however) and this is not discussed. We know why this similarity exists. I personally would add other tyrrhenian similarities, also, and I even remember of a great lesson given to me by a simple young fisherman from Santa Teresa, that explained me that he was better understood in Portugal than in Pisa, underlining me the /g/ and /j/ phonemes that reached Iberia passing by Genoa.

Similarities do exist also with Maremma, sothern Tuscany-northern Latium, with which (Maxia correctly notes) there were no relationships. All this would tend to suggest that a common evolution had interested the areas. So which would be the Darwinism to apply, if it was for similarities? Maxia believes that, in analogy among themselves, all the coastal areas of Tyrrhenian sea should have lived an evolutive moment perhaps at the same time.

But the point is not obviously the similarity, it would not be sufficient to our point. Current central logudorese sardinian is not similar, in phonetics, to medieval logudorese sardinian (cfr. Pittau ), although no one would ever deny (Non vi è chi non veda, Maxia would say) that it is the same language. How much did it change, from what was it changing? What happened in Gallura? From what Gallurese started?

I think that, hearing the pure turning to italian language of both logudorese and gallurese people when they abandon their respective natural idioms, and considering the relevant similarity in the use of their second language, it is fair to consider that the genetical root is common, even if the "musical" result is different; but this is my opinion. In it I cannot see the corsican as suppressing and subsituting sardinian. Yes, an influence is evident. Reciprocally too?

I am not an extremist lover of academical centralisms (and I repel the ipse dixit), but I just cannot avoid thinking at the fact that these elements were known also by those who created the study of Sardinian language and are today reputed the masters of this research. These authors don't dare affirm that corsican is spoken in Sardinia (by Sardinians, obviously).

Now, Dch, how do you think we could render and summarise the different positions? Would we start from a scholastical classification or hould we put all together as a series of interpretations?

In bonora :-))) -- Gianfranco

I agree, but the introduction of "Studi storici" was in northern corsican....!!! :-)))))
 * Ooooooooooooooooooopssssssssss!!! :-|

[A nos bidere su-e custu sidu (sardinian)/Avvidecci su chistu situ (gallurese)/A videcci su quistu situ (southern corsican)/A vedecci su quistu situ(northern corsican)]. dch

Requested move 15 July 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Gallurese. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Gallurese dialect → Gallurese language – Ethnologue, Glottolog, and the Endangered Languages Project (ELP) all consider Gallurese to be a language unto itself rather than a dialect of either Sardinian or Corsican, and I feel the article name should be changed to reflect such. I'm being cautious because per this ANI discussion, someone moved a bunch of pages, including this one, to refer to their subjects as languages. This ended up being controversial, resulting in the page being moved from Gallurese language to Gallurese dialect. However, even at the time of that discussion, Ethnologue, Glottolog, and the ELP considered Gallurese to be a language rather than a dialect. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 * A move to , the original name of the page, could satisfy everyone. Wikipedia does not require appending "language" or "dialect" if there is no ambiguity in the base name. Cf. Arabic, Urdu, Ahirwati and Maay Maay.  —  AjaxSmack  02:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose, though I'm unsure whether there's much controversy over whether Gallurese is a language or a dialect at this point. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if there wasn't/weren't a controversy, I'd favour unadorned ; "language" is superfluous. —  AjaxSmack 16:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

title: Talk:Gallurese


text:
Talk:Munich massacre

Edit request, and a question about conflicting info
In "Surviving Black September members," under "Abu Daoud", it should be clarified that according to the source, the PLO (etc.) were protesting Daoud's arrest--currently it looks like they were protesting France sending him to Algeria before Germany could get him. I have already corrected this on Daoud's article itself, which had the same text. Additionally, here it is implied that France was trying to get him off their hands before Germany could get the correct paperwork in order, but above in the final paragraph of "Alleged German Cover-up", the article states that the Barvarian government intentionally did not act after France asked whether they intended to extradite. Which of these is true? 204.134.245.226 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Torture
This article is light on the mention of torture, which is a critical detail about such an event. The NYT article that mentions beatings also says that one of the victims was castrated alive. 2600:1700:88B0:6090:A1E1:8FD7:2029:F8A2 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is already mentioned in the article, sourced to the NYT, after he was dead. (Hohum @ ) 19:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2024
Correcting Carmel Eilash's death date, he did not die during the memorial of this event. Bllasae (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You are missing a victim
Moshe Weinberg wrestling coach 72.68.204.110 (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: mention controversy around Adidas commemorating the 1972 Munich Olympics

 * What I think should be changed: Add a section to the article, to discuss the longer-term legacy. Within that, mention the ongoing controversy around Adidas commemorating the 1972 Munich Olympic Games - the company chose to do this via launching a new shoe, featuring Bella Hadid as a model. This is causing significant controversy within the Israeli and Jewish communities, due to Hadid's past controversies on her stance on Hamas and Palestinian political violence in general.
 * Why it should be changed: The Munich Massacre has a long legacy, now with commemoration of the Munich Olympics occuring via Adidas' new shoe in 2024. Adidas is a household name in the fashion space and hence their actions and controversies hold significance. The controversy around Adidas' collaboration with a famous yet controversial model, who is perceived by some in the Jewish and Israeli communities as having problematic stances on Palestinian political violence, is an important point to record in the history of the legacy/commemoration of the Munich Massacre. It also ties into the wider discussion around the ongoing Israel-Hamas War.
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Please see this article by the Jewish Chronicle about the ongoing controversy. Please see this article by the Jerusalem Post highlighting a past controversy by Bella Hadid.

Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 11:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Munich massacre


text:
Gamma-ray burst

In gamma-ray astronomy, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are immensely energetic explosions that have been observed in distant galaxies, being the brightest and most extreme explosive events in the entire universe,  as NASA describes the bursts as the "most powerful class of explosions in the universe". They are the most energetic and luminous electromagnetic events since the Big Bang. Gamma-ray bursts can last from ten milliseconds to several hours. After the initial flash of gamma rays, an "afterglow" is emitted, which is longer lived and usually emitted at longer wavelengths (X-ray, ultraviolet, optical, infrared, microwave and radio).

The intense radiation of most observed GRBs is thought to be released during a supernova or superluminous supernova as a high-mass star implodes to form a neutron star or a black hole. A subclass of GRBs appears to originate from the merger of binary neutron stars.

The sources of most GRBs are billions of light years away from Earth, implying that the explosions are both extremely energetic (a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime) and extremely rare (a few per galaxy per million years ). All observed GRBs have originated from outside the Milky Way galaxy, although a related class of phenomena, soft gamma repeaters, are associated with magnetars within the Milky Way. It has been hypothesized that a gamma-ray burst in the Milky Way, pointing directly towards the Earth, could cause a mass extinction event. The Late Ordovician mass extinction has been hypothesised by some researchers to have occurred as a result of such a gamma-ray burst. Gamma-ray bursts could vaporize anything within its jets at a distance up to 200 light years.

GRBs were first detected in 1967 by the Vela satellites, which had been designed to detect covert nuclear weapons tests; after thorough analysis, this was published in 1973. Following their discovery, hundreds of theoretical models were proposed to explain these bursts, such as collisions between comets and neutron stars. Little information was available to verify these models until the 1997 detection of the first X-ray and optical afterglows and direct measurement of their redshifts using optical spectroscopy, and thus their distances and energy outputs. These discoveries, and subsequent studies of the galaxies and supernovae associated with the bursts, clarified the distance and luminosity of GRBs, definitively placing them in distant galaxies.

History
Gamma-ray bursts were first observed in the late 1960s by the U.S. Vela satellites, which were built to detect gamma radiation pulses emitted by nuclear weapons tested in space. The United States suspected that the Soviet Union might attempt to conduct secret nuclear tests after signing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963. On July 2, 1967, at 14:19 UTC, the Vela 4 and Vela 3 satellites detected a flash of gamma radiation unlike any known nuclear weapons signature. Uncertain what had happened but not considering the matter particularly urgent, the team at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, led by Ray Klebesadel, filed the data away for investigation. As additional Vela satellites were launched with better instruments, the Los Alamos team continued to find inexplicable gamma-ray bursts in their data. By analyzing the different arrival times of the bursts as detected by different satellites, the team was able to determine rough estimates for the sky positions of 16 bursts and definitively rule out a terrestrial or solar origin. Contrary to popular belief, the data was never classified. After thorough analysis, the findings were published in 1973 as an Astrophysical Journal article entitled "Observations of Gamma-Ray Bursts of Cosmic Origin".

Most early hypotheses of gamma-ray bursts posited nearby sources within the Milky Way Galaxy. From 1991, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO) and its Burst and Transient Source Explorer (BATSE) instrument, an extremely sensitive gamma-ray detector, provided data that showed the distribution of GRBs is isotropic – not biased towards any particular direction in space. If the sources were from within our own galaxy, they would be strongly concentrated in or near the galactic plane. The absence of any such pattern in the case of GRBs provided strong evidence that gamma-ray bursts must come from beyond the Milky Way. However, some Milky Way models are still consistent with an isotropic distribution.

Counterpart objects as candidate sources
For decades after the discovery of GRBs, astronomers searched for a counterpart at other wavelengths: i.e., any astronomical object in positional coincidence with a recently observed burst. Astronomers considered many distinct classes of objects, including white dwarfs, pulsars, supernovae, globular clusters, quasars, Seyfert galaxies, and BL Lac objects. All such searches were unsuccessful, and in a few cases particularly well-localized bursts (those whose positions were determined with what was then a high degree of accuracy) could be clearly shown to have no bright objects of any nature consistent with the position derived from the detecting satellites. This suggested an origin of either very faint stars or extremely distant galaxies. Even the most accurate positions contained numerous faint stars and galaxies, and it was widely agreed that final resolution of the origins of cosmic gamma-ray bursts would require both new satellites and faster communication.

Afterglow
Several models for the origin of gamma-ray bursts postulated that the initial burst of gamma rays should be followed by afterglow: slowly fading emission at longer wavelengths created by collisions between the burst ejecta and interstellar gas. Early searches for this afterglow were unsuccessful, largely because it is difficult to observe a burst's position at longer wavelengths immediately after the initial burst. The breakthrough came in February 1997 when the satellite BeppoSAX detected a gamma-ray burst (GRB 970228 ) and when the X-ray camera was pointed towards the direction from which the burst had originated, it detected fading X-ray emission. The William Herschel Telescope identified a fading optical counterpart 20 hours after the burst. Once the GRB faded, deep imaging was able to identify a faint, distant host galaxy at the location of the GRB as pinpointed by the optical afterglow.

Because of the very faint luminosity of this galaxy, its exact distance was not measured for several years. Well after then, another major breakthrough occurred with the next event registered by BeppoSAX, GRB 970508. This event was localized within four hours of its discovery, allowing research teams to begin making observations much sooner than any previous burst. The spectrum of the object revealed a redshift of z = 0.835, placing the burst at a distance of roughly 6 billion light years from Earth. This was the first accurate determination of the distance to a GRB, and together with the discovery of the host galaxy of 970228 proved that GRBs occur in extremely distant galaxies. Within a few months, the controversy about the distance scale ended: GRBs were extragalactic events originating within faint galaxies at enormous distances. The following year, GRB 980425 was followed within a day by a bright supernova (SN 1998bw), coincident in location, indicating a clear connection between GRBs and the deaths of very massive stars. This burst provided the first strong clue about the nature of the systems that produce GRBs.

More recent instruments
BeppoSAX functioned until 2002 and CGRO (with BATSE) was deorbited in 2000. However, the revolution in the study of gamma-ray bursts motivated the development of a number of additional instruments designed specifically to explore the nature of GRBs, especially in the earliest moments following the explosion. The first such mission, HETE-2, was launched in 2000 and functioned until 2006, providing most of the major discoveries during this period. One of the most successful space missions to date, Swift, was launched in 2004 and as of May 2024 is still operational. Swift is equipped with a very sensitive gamma-ray detector as well as on-board X-ray and optical telescopes, which can be rapidly and automatically slewed to observe afterglow emission following a burst. More recently, the Fermi mission was launched carrying the Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor, which detects bursts at a rate of several hundred per year, some of which are bright enough to be observed at extremely high energies with Fermi's Large Area Telescope. Meanwhile, on the ground, numerous optical telescopes have been built or modified to incorporate robotic control software that responds immediately to signals sent through the Gamma-ray Burst Coordinates Network. This allows the telescopes to rapidly repoint towards a GRB, often within seconds of receiving the signal and while the gamma-ray emission itself is still ongoing.

New developments since the 2000s include the recognition of short gamma-ray bursts as a separate class (likely from merging neutron stars and not associated with supernovae), the discovery of extended, erratic flaring activity at X-ray wavelengths lasting for many minutes after most GRBs, and the discovery of the most luminous (GRB 080319B) and the former most distant (GRB 090423) objects in the universe. The most distant known GRB, GRB 090429B, is now the most distant known object in the universe.

In October 2018, astronomers reported that GRB 150101B (detected in 2015) and GW170817, a gravitational wave event detected in 2017 (which has been associated with GRB170817A, a burst detected 1.7 seconds later), may have been produced by the same mechanism – the merger of two neutron stars. The similarities between the two events, in terms of gamma ray, optical, and x-ray emissions, as well as to the nature of the associated host galaxies, are "striking", suggesting the two separate events may both be the result of the merger of neutron stars, and both may be a kilonova, which may be more common in the universe than previously understood, according to the researchers.

The highest energy light observed from a gamma-ray burst was one teraelectronvolt, from GRB 190114C in 2019. (Note, this is about a thousand times lower energy than the highest energy light observed from any source, which is 1.4 petaelectronvolts as of the year 2021. )

The Space Variable Objects Monitor is a small X-ray telescope satellite for studying the explosions of massive stars by analysing the resulting gamma-ray bursts, developed by China National Space Administration (CNSA), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the French Space Agency (CNES), launched on 22 June 2024 (07:00:00 UTC).

Classification
The light curves of gamma-ray bursts are extremely diverse and complex. No two gamma-ray burst light curves are identical, with large variation observed in almost every property: the duration of observable emission can vary from milliseconds to tens of minutes, there can be a single peak or several individual subpulses, and individual peaks can be symmetric or with fast brightening and very slow fading. Some bursts are preceded by a "precursor" event, a weak burst that is then followed (after seconds to minutes of no emission at all) by the much more intense "true" bursting episode. The light curves of some events have extremely chaotic and complicated profiles with almost no discernible patterns.

Although some light curves can be roughly reproduced using certain simplified models, little progress has been made in understanding the full diversity observed. Many classification schemes have been proposed, but these are often based solely on differences in the appearance of light curves and may not always reflect a true physical difference in the progenitors of the explosions. However, plots of the distribution of the observed duration for a large number of gamma-ray bursts show a clear bimodality, suggesting the existence of two separate populations: a "short" population with an average duration of about 0.3 seconds and a "long" population with an average duration of about 30 seconds. Both distributions are very broad with a significant overlap region in which the identity of a given event is not clear from duration alone. Additional classes beyond this two-tiered system have been proposed on both observational and theoretical grounds.

Short gamma-ray bursts

Events with a duration of less than about two seconds are classified as short gamma-ray bursts. These account for about 30% of gamma-ray bursts, but until 2005, no afterglow had been successfully detected from any short event and little was known about their origins. Since then, several dozen short gamma-ray burst afterglows have been detected and localized, several of which are associated with regions of little or no star formation, such as large elliptical galaxies. This rules out a link to massive stars, confirming that short events are physically distinct from long events. In addition, there has been no association with supernovae.

The true nature of these objects was initially unknown, and the leading hypothesis was that they originated from the mergers of binary neutron stars or a neutron star with a black hole. Such mergers were hypothesized to produce kilonovae, and evidence for a kilonova associated with GRB 130603B was seen. The mean duration of these events of 0.2 seconds suggests (because of causality) a source of very small physical diameter in stellar terms; less than 0.2 light-seconds (about 60,000 km or 37,000 miles – four times the Earth's diameter). The observation of minutes to hours of X-ray flashes after a short gamma-ray burst is consistent with small particles of a primary object like a neutron star initially swallowed by a black hole in less than two seconds, followed by some hours of lesser energy events, as remaining fragments of tidally disrupted neutron star material (no longer neutronium) remain in orbit to spiral into the black hole, over a longer period of time. A small fraction of short gamma-ray bursts are probably produced by giant flares from soft gamma repeaters in nearby galaxies.

The origin of short GRBs in kilonovae was confirmed when short GRB 170817A was detected only 1.7 s after the detection of gravitational wave GW170817, which was a signal from the merger of two neutron stars.

Long gamma-ray bursts

Most observed events (70%) have a duration of greater than two seconds and are classified as long gamma-ray bursts. Because these events constitute the majority of the population and because they tend to have the brightest afterglows, they have been observed in much greater detail than their short counterparts. Almost every well-studied long gamma-ray burst has been linked to a galaxy with rapid star formation, and in many cases to a core-collapse supernova as well, unambiguously associating long GRBs with the deaths of massive stars. Long GRB afterglow observations, at high redshift, are also consistent with the GRB having originated in star-forming regions.

In December 2022, astronomers reported the observation of GRB 211211A, the first evidence of a long GRB produced by a neutron star merger with 51s. GRB 191019A (2019) and GRB 230307A (2023). with around 64s and 35s respectively have been also argued to belong to this class of long GRBs from neutron star mergers.

Ultra-long gamma-ray bursts
These events are at the tail end of the long GRB duration distribution, lasting more than 10,000 seconds. They have been proposed to form a separate class, caused by the collapse of a blue supergiant star, a tidal disruption event or a new-born magnetar. Only a small number have been identified to date, their primary characteristic being their gamma ray emission duration. The most studied ultra-long events include GRB 101225A and GRB 111209A. The low detection rate may be a result of low sensitivity of current detectors to long-duration events, rather than a reflection of their true frequency. A 2013 study, on the other hand, shows that the existing evidence for a separate ultra-long GRB population with a new type of progenitor is inconclusive, and further multi-wavelength observations are needed to draw a firmer conclusion.

Energetics and beaming
Gamma-ray bursts are very bright as observed from Earth despite their typically immense distances. An average long GRB has a bolometric flux comparable to a bright star of our galaxy despite a distance of billions of light years (compared to a few tens of light years for most visible stars). Most of this energy is released in gamma rays, although some GRBs have extremely luminous optical counterparts as well. GRB 080319B, for example, was accompanied by an optical counterpart that peaked at a visible magnitude of 5.8, comparable to that of the dimmest naked-eye stars despite the burst's distance of 7.5 billion light years. This combination of brightness and distance implies an extremely energetic source. Assuming the gamma-ray explosion to be spherical, the energy output of GRB 080319B would be within a factor of two of the rest-mass energy of the Sun (the energy which would be released were the Sun to be converted entirely into radiation).

Gamma-ray bursts are thought to be highly focused explosions, with most of the explosion energy collimated into a narrow jet. The jets of gamma-ray bursts are ultrarelativistic, and are the most relativistic jets in the universe. The matter in gamma-ray burst jets may also become superluminal, or faster than the speed of light in the jet medium, with there also being effects of time reversibility. The approximate angular width of the jet (that is, the degree of spread of the beam) can be estimated directly by observing the achromatic "jet breaks" in afterglow light curves: a time after which the slowly decaying afterglow begins to fade rapidly as the jet slows and can no longer beam its radiation as effectively. Observations suggest significant variation in the jet angle from between 2 and 20 degrees.

Because their energy is strongly focused, the gamma rays emitted by most bursts are expected to miss the Earth and never be detected. When a gamma-ray burst is pointed towards Earth, the focusing of its energy along a relatively narrow beam causes the burst to appear much brighter than it would have been were its energy emitted spherically. The total energy of typical gamma-ray bursts has been estimated at 3 × 1044 J, – which is larger than the total energy (1044 J) of ordinary supernovae (type Ia, Ibc, II), with gamma-ray bursts also being more powerful than the typical supernova. Very bright supernovae have been observed to accompany several of the nearest GRBs. Further support for focusing of the output of GRBs comes from observations of strong asymmetries in the spectra of nearby type Ic supernovae and from radio observations taken long after bursts when their jets are no longer relativistic.

With the discovery of GRB 190114C, astronomers may have been missing half of the total energy that gamma-ray bursts produce, with Konstancja Satalecka, an astrophysicist at the German Electron Synchrotron, stating that "Our measurements show that the energy released in very-high-energy gamma-rays is comparable to the amount radiated at all lower energies taken together".

Short (time duration) GRBs appear to come from a lower-redshift (i.e. less distant) population and are less luminous than long GRBs. The degree of beaming in short bursts has not been accurately measured, but as a population they are likely less collimated than long GRBs or possibly not collimated at all in some cases.

Progenitors
Because of the immense distances of most gamma-ray burst sources from Earth, identification of the progenitors, the systems that produce these explosions, is challenging. The association of some long GRBs with supernovae and the fact that their host galaxies are rapidly star-forming offer very strong evidence that long gamma-ray bursts are associated with massive stars. The most widely accepted mechanism for the origin of long-duration GRBs is the collapsar model, in which the core of an extremely massive, low-metallicity, rapidly rotating star collapses into a black hole in the final stages of its evolution. Matter near the star's core rains down towards the center and swirls into a high-density accretion disk. The infall of this material into a black hole drives a pair of relativistic jets out along the rotational axis, which pummel through the stellar envelope and eventually break through the stellar surface and radiate as gamma rays. Some alternative models replace the black hole with a newly formed magnetar, although most other aspects of the model (the collapse of the core of a massive star and the formation of relativistic jets) are the same.

However, a new model which has gained support and was developed by the Italian astrophysicist Remo Ruffini and other scientists at ICRANet is that of the binary-driven hypernova (BdHN) model. The model succeeds and improves upon both the fireshell model and the induced gravitational collapse (IGC) paradigm suggested before, and explains all aspects of gamma-ray bursts. The model posits long gamma-ray bursts as occurring in binary systems with a carbon–oxygen core and a companion neutron star or a black hole. Furthermore, the energy of GRBs in the model is isotropic instead of collimated. The creators of the model have noted the numerous drawbacks of the standard "fireball" model as motivation for developing the model, such as the markedly different energetics for supernova and gamma-ray bursts, and the fact that the existence of extremely narrow beaming angles have never been observationally corroborated.

The closest analogs within the Milky Way galaxy of the stars producing long gamma-ray bursts are likely the Wolf–Rayet stars, extremely hot and massive stars, which have shed most or all of their hydrogen envelope. Eta Carinae, Apep, and WR 104 have been cited as possible future gamma-ray burst progenitors. It is unclear if any star in the Milky Way has the appropriate characteristics to produce a gamma-ray burst.

The massive-star model probably does not explain all types of gamma-ray burst. There is strong evidence that some short-duration gamma-ray bursts occur in systems with no star formation and no massive stars, such as elliptical galaxies and galaxy halos. The favored hypothesis for the origin of most short gamma-ray bursts is the merger of a binary system consisting of two neutron stars. According to this model, the two stars in a binary slowly spiral towards each other because gravitational radiation releases energy until tidal forces suddenly rip the neutron stars apart and they collapse into a single black hole. The infall of matter into the new black hole produces an accretion disk and releases a burst of energy, analogous to the collapsar model. Numerous other models have also been proposed to explain short gamma-ray bursts, including the merger of a neutron star and a black hole, the accretion-induced collapse of a neutron star, or the evaporation of primordial black holes.

An alternative explanation proposed by Friedwardt Winterberg is that in the course of a gravitational collapse and in reaching the event horizon of a black hole, all matter disintegrates into a burst of gamma radiation.

Tidal disruption events
This class of GRB-like events was first discovered through the detection of Swift J1644+57 (originally classified as GRB 110328A) by the Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission on 28 March 2011. This event had a gamma-ray duration of about 2 days, much longer than even ultra-long GRBs, and was detected in many frequencies for months and years after. It occurred at the center of a small elliptical galaxy at redshift 3.8 billion light years away. This event has been accepted as a tidal disruption event (TDE), where a star wanders too close to a supermassive black hole, shredding the star. In the case of Swift J1644+57, an astrophysical jet traveling at near the speed of light was launched, and lasted roughly 1.5 years before turning off.

Since 2011, only 4 jetted TDEs have been discovered, of which 3 were detected in gamma-rays (including Swift J1644+57). It is estimated that just 1% of all TDEs are jetted events.

Emission mechanisms
The means by which gamma-ray bursts convert energy into radiation remains poorly understood, and as of 2010 there was still no generally accepted model for how this process occurs. Any successful model of GRB emission must explain the physical process for generating gamma-ray emission that matches the observed diversity of light curves, spectra, and other characteristics. Particularly challenging is the need to explain the very high efficiencies that are inferred from some explosions: some gamma-ray bursts may convert as much as half (or more) of the explosion energy into gamma-rays. Early observations of the bright optical counterparts to GRB 990123 and to GRB 080319B, whose optical light curves were extrapolations of the gamma-ray light spectra, have suggested that inverse Compton scattering may be the dominant process in some events. In this model, pre-existing low-energy photons are scattered by relativistic electrons within the explosion, augmenting their energy by a large factor and transforming them into gamma-rays.

The nature of the longer-wavelength afterglow emission (ranging from X-ray through radio) that follows gamma-ray bursts is better understood. Any energy released by the explosion not radiated away in the burst itself takes the form of matter or energy moving outward at nearly the speed of light. As this matter collides with the surrounding interstellar gas, it creates a relativistic shock wave that then propagates forward into interstellar space. A second shock wave, the reverse shock, may propagate back into the ejected matter. Extremely energetic electrons within the shock wave are accelerated by strong local magnetic fields and radiate as synchrotron emission across most of the electromagnetic spectrum. This model has generally been successful in modeling the behavior of many observed afterglows at late times (generally, hours to days after the explosion), although there are difficulties explaining all features of the afterglow very shortly after the gamma-ray burst has occurred.

Rate of occurrence and potential effects on life

Gamma ray bursts can have harmful or destructive effects on life. Considering the universe as a whole, the safest environments for life similar to that on Earth are the lowest density regions in the outskirts of large galaxies. Our knowledge of galaxy types and their distribution suggests that life as we know it can only exist in about 10% of all galaxies. Furthermore, galaxies with a redshift, z, higher than 0.5 are unsuitable for life as we know it, because of their higher rate of GRBs and their stellar compactness.

All GRBs observed to date have occurred well outside the Milky Way galaxy and have been harmless to Earth. However, if a GRB were to occur within the Milky Way within 5,000 to 8,000 light-years and its emission were beamed straight towards Earth, the effects could be harmful and potentially devastating for its ecosystems. Currently, orbiting satellites detect on average approximately one GRB per day. The closest observed GRB as of March 2014 was GRB 980425, located 40 Mpc away (z=0.0085) in an SBc-type dwarf galaxy. GRB 980425 was far less energetic than the average GRB and was associated with the Type Ib supernova SN 1998bw.

Estimating the exact rate at which GRBs occur is difficult; for a galaxy of approximately the same size as the Milky Way, estimates of the expected rate (for long-duration GRBs) can range from one burst every 10,000 years, to one burst every 1,000,000 years. Only a small percentage of these would be beamed towards Earth. Estimates of rate of occurrence of short-duration GRBs are even more uncertain because of the unknown degree of collimation, but are probably comparable.

Since GRBs are thought to involve beamed emission along two jets in opposing directions, only planets in the path of these jets would be subjected to the high energy gamma radiation. A GRB would be able to vaporize anything in its beams out to around 200 light-years.

Although nearby GRBs hitting Earth with a destructive shower of gamma rays are only hypothetical events, high energy processes across the galaxy have been observed to affect the Earth's atmosphere.

Effects on Earth
Earth's atmosphere is very effective at absorbing high energy electromagnetic radiation such as x-rays and gamma rays, so these types of radiation would not reach any dangerous levels at the surface during the burst event itself. The immediate effect on life on Earth from a GRB within a few kiloparsecs would only be a short increase in ultraviolet radiation at ground level, lasting from less than a second to tens of seconds. This ultraviolet radiation could potentially reach dangerous levels depending on the exact nature and distance of the burst, but it seems unlikely to be able to cause a global catastrophe for life on Earth.

The long-term effects from a nearby burst are more dangerous. Gamma rays cause chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving oxygen and nitrogen molecules, creating first nitrogen oxide then nitrogen dioxide gas. The nitrogen oxides cause dangerous effects on three levels. First, they deplete ozone, with models showing a possible global reduction of 25–35%, with as much as 75% in certain locations, an effect that would last for years. This reduction is enough to cause a dangerously elevated UV index at the surface. Secondly, the nitrogen oxides cause photochemical smog, which darkens the sky and blocks out parts of the sunlight spectrum. This would affect photosynthesis, but models show only about a 1% reduction of the total sunlight spectrum, lasting a few years. However, the smog could potentially cause a cooling effect on Earth's climate, producing a "cosmic winter" (similar to an impact winter, but without an impact), but only if it occurs simultaneously with a global climate instability. Thirdly, the elevated nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere would wash out and produce acid rain. Nitric acid is toxic to a variety of organisms, including amphibian life, but models predict that it would not reach levels that would cause a serious global effect. The nitrates might in fact be of benefit to some plants.

All in all, a GRB within a few kiloparsecs, with its energy directed towards Earth, will mostly damage life by raising the UV levels during the burst itself and for a few years thereafter. Models show that the destructive effects of this increase can cause up to 16 times the normal levels of DNA damage. It has proved difficult to assess a reliable evaluation of the consequences of this on the terrestrial ecosystem, because of the uncertainty in biological field and laboratory data.

Hypothetical effects on Earth in the past
There is a very good chance (but no certainty) that at least one lethal GRB took place during the past 5 billion years close enough to Earth as to significantly damage life. There is a 50% chance that such a lethal GRB took place within two kiloparsecs of Earth during the last 500 million years, causing one of the major mass extinction events.

The major Ordovician–Silurian extinction event 450 million years ago may have been caused by a GRB. Estimates suggest that approximately 20–60% of the total phytoplankton biomass in the Ordovician oceans would have perished in a GRB, because the oceans were mostly oligotrophic and clear. The late Ordovician species of trilobites that spent portions of their lives in the plankton layer near the ocean surface were much harder hit than deep-water dwellers, which tended to remain within quite restricted areas. This is in contrast to the usual pattern of extinction events, wherein species with more widely spread populations typically fare better. A possible explanation is that trilobites remaining in deep water would be more shielded from the increased UV radiation associated with a GRB. Also supportive of this hypothesis is the fact that during the late Ordovician, burrowing bivalve species were less likely to go extinct than bivalves that lived on the surface.

A case has been made that the 774–775 carbon-14 spike was the result of a short GRB, though a very strong solar flare is another possibility.

GRB candidates in the Milky Way
No gamma-ray bursts from within our own galaxy, the Milky Way, have been observed, and the question of whether one has ever occurred remains unresolved. In light of evolving understanding of gamma-ray bursts and their progenitors, the scientific literature records a growing number of local, past, and future GRB candidates. Long duration GRBs are related to superluminous supernovae, or hypernovae, and most luminous blue variables (LBVs) and rapidly spinning Wolf–Rayet stars are thought to end their life cycles in core-collapse supernovae with an associated long-duration GRB. Knowledge of GRBs, however, is from metal-poor galaxies of former epochs of the universe's evolution, and it is impossible to directly extrapolate to encompass more evolved galaxies and stellar environments with a higher metallicity, such as the Milky Way.

title: Gamma-ray burst


text:
London Marathon

The London Marathon (also known as the TCS London Marathon for sponsorship reasons) is an annual marathon held in London, England. It is the largest marathon in the world, with over 53,700 finishers in 2024, and 840,318 applicants for the 2025 event. Founded by athletes Chris Brasher and John Disley in 1981, it is typically held in April, although it moved to October for 2020, 2021, and 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The largely flat course is set around the River Thames, starting in Blackheath and finishing at The Mall. Hugh Brasher (son of Chris) is the current race director and Nick Bitel its chief executive.

The race has several components: it has a mass race for the public, professional races for men and women long-distance runners, elite level wheelchair races for men and women, plus a 3-mile mini marathon event for under-17 athletes. There is a significant charity running aspect to the marathon, with participants helping to raise over £1 billion since its founding, including £67 million at the 2024 London Marathon which was the highest amount for a single-day fund-raising event.

Since 2006, the elite race has been part of the World Marathon Majors, which includes six of the world's top level marathon races. The London Marathon has seen the marathon world record broken on seven occasions: Khalid Khannouchi broke the men's record in 2002, while women's records have been broken by Grete Waitz (1983), Ingrid Kristiansen (1985), Paula Radcliffe (2002, 2003, 2005) and Mary Jepkosgei Keitany (2017). The current elite course records are held by Kelvin Kiptum (2:01:25 in 2023) and Paula Radcliffe (2:15:25 in 2003). The current wheelchair course records are held by Marcel Hug (1:23:44 in 2023) and Catherine Debrunner (1:38:24 in 2022). The race often has a title sponsorship, it has been branded the "TCS London Marathon" since 2022.

Editions

 * All information from official website.

NOTE: The 2020 race was restricted to elite athletes in able-bodied (30 for each sex) and invited wheelchair athletes.

History
The London Marathon was not the first long-distance running event held in the city, which has a long history of marathon events. The Polytechnic Marathon (also known as the Poly) was first held in 1909.

The current London Marathon was founded in 1981 by Olympic champion and journalist Chris Brasher and athlete John Disley. Shortly after completing the New York City Marathon in November 1979 Brasher wrote an article for The Observer newspaper which began:

To believe this story you must believe that the human race be one joyous family, working together, laughing together, achieving the impossible. Last Sunday, in one of the most trouble-stricken cities in the world, 11,532 men and women from 40 countries in the world, assisted by over a million black, white and yellow people, laughed, cheered and suffered during the greatest folk festival the world has seen.

The first London Marathon was held on 29 March 1981, more than 20,000 applied to run. 6,747 were accepted and 6,255 crossed the finish line on Constitution Hill. The Marathon's popularity has steadily grown since then. As at 2009, 746,635 people have completed the race since its inception. In 2010, 36,549 people crossed the line, the biggest field since the race began. The first wheelchair marathon race was held in 1983 and the event was credited with reducing the stigma surrounding disabled athletes. In 2013 the IPC Athletics Marathon World Cup was held within the London Marathon featuring athletes of both genders in the T42–T46 and T11–T13 categories. In August 2013 it was announced that the event would be staged in London until 2017 and feature athletes in the T11-T12, T13, T42-T44, T43, T45-46, T51-52 and the T53-54 class.

For many years the London and Polytechnic Marathons competed with each other until, in 1996, the latter folded in due to the popularity of the former.

Following the Boston Marathon bombing, organisers of the 2013 London Marathon undertook a review of their security arrangements, despite no specific threats against the event. A 30-second silence was held before the start of the marathon to show respect and support to those affected by the tragedy.

Organisation
The race is currently organised by Hugh Brasher, son of Chris, as race director and Nick Bitel as chief executive. Previously David Bedford and Bitel had overseen a period of great change for the race, including amendments to the course in 2005 which saw the cobbled section by the Tower of London replaced with a flat stretch along the Highway.

Dan Tunstall Pedoe was the medical director of the London Marathon for 25 years between the first one in 1981 until 2005. In 2003, Pedoe was shadowed by Sanjay Sharma from St George's Hospital (University of London) who took over the role in its entirety in 2006. Medical cover is provided by 150 doctors. Also assisting were more than 1,500 volunteers of St. John Ambulance, who organise over 50 first aid posts along the route, and three field hospitals at the finish. St John Ambulance also provide a number of healthcare professions for the event, including nurses, paramedics, ambulances with crews.

The BBC covers the event, devoting rolling coverage for most of the morning. The theme music associated with this coverage, and with the event itself, is called "Main Titles to The Trap", composed by Ron Goodwin for the film The Trap.

There are three separate groups of starters: Elite Women, Wheelchair (Men and Women), and Elite Men followed by Mass Race.

Course
The marathon is run over a largely flat course around the River Thames, and spans 42.195 km.

The route has markers at one mile intervals. Although the race publicity (athlete advice, timing charts and so on) is mile-oriented, the individual timing splits that are available to competitors after the event are kilometre-oriented.

The course begins at three separate points: the 'red start' in southern Greenwich Park on Charlton Way, the 'green start' in St John's Park, and the 'blue start' on Shooter's Hill Road. From these points around Blackheath at 35 m above sea level, south of the River Thames, the route heads east through Charlton. The three courses converge after 4.5 km in Woolwich, close to the Royal Artillery Barracks.

As the runners reach the 10 km, they pass by the Old Royal Naval College and head towards Cutty Sark drydocked in Greenwich. Heading next into Deptford and Surrey Quays/Rotherhithe in the Docklands, and out towards Bermondsey, competitors race along Jamaica Road before reaching the half-way point as they cross Tower Bridge. Running east again along The Highway through Wapping, competitors head up towards Limehouse and into Mudchute in the Isle of Dogs via Westferry Road, before heading into Canary Wharf.

As the route leads away from Canary Wharf into Poplar, competitors run west down Poplar High Street back towards Limehouse and on through Commercial Road. They then move back onto The Highway, onto Lower and Upper Thames Streets. Heading into the final leg of the race, competitors pass The Tower of London on Tower Hill. In the penultimate mile along The Embankment, the London Eye comes into view, before the athletes turn right into Birdcage Walk to complete the final 352 m, catching the sights of Big Ben and Buckingham Palace, and finishing in The Mall alongside St. James's Palace. This final section of the route formed part of the 2012 Olympic Marathon Course.

Since the first marathon, the course has undergone very few route changes. In the first race, the course took a diversion around Southwark Park before re-joining Jamaica Road on the way to Tower Bridge and was routed through St Katherine Docks past the Tower Hotel, en route to the Tower of London and the cobblestoned stretch of road that in later years was carpeted, to help runners prevent injury on the uneven surface. In 1982, the finishing post was moved from Constitution Hill to Westminster Bridge due to construction works. It remained there for twelve years before moving to its present location at The Mall. In 2005, the route around the Isle of Dogs between 22 and 34 km was switched from a clockwise to an anti-clockwise direction, and at 35 km the route was diverted to avoid St Katherine Docks and the cobblestoned area near the Tower of London. In 2008, a suspected gas leak at a pub in Wapping diverted the course, but in 2009 the race followed the same path as in 2007.

Since 2012 mile 21 has become a significant cheer zone with Run Dem Crew transforming the stretch of Commercial Road outside the former Limehouse Town Hall into a street party with music and confetti cannons.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 London Marathon was run on a non-traditional course, consisting of 19.6 laps of length 2.15 km around St James's Park, taking in The Mall, Horse Guards Parade, Birdcage Walk and Buckingham Palace. The final circuit was 1,345 m along the Mall, following the finish line of the traditional London Marathon course.

Results
London is one of the top six world marathons that form the World Marathon Majors competition with a million prize purse. The inaugural marathon had 7,741 entrants, 6,255 of whom completed the race. The first Men's Elite Race in 1981 was tied between American Dick Beardsley and Norwegian Inge Simonsen, who crossed the finish line holding hands in 2 hours, 11 minutes, 48 seconds. The first Women's Elite Race, also in 1981, was won by Briton Joyce Smith in 2:29:57. In 1983, the first wheelchair races took place. Organized by the British Sports Association for the Disabled (BASD), 19 people competed and 17 finished. Gordon Perry of the United Kingdom won the Men's Wheelchair Race, coming in at 3:20:07, and Denise Smith, also of the UK, won the Women's Wheelchair Race in 4:29:03.

World records for marathon running have been set several times. Khalid Khannouchi, representing the United States, set the men's world record in 2:05:38 in 2002. The following year, British runner Paula Radcliffe set the women's world record in 2:15:25 (later briefly downgraded to "world best" by the IAAF as it was achieved in a mixed race, but restored to the title of "world Record" shortly thereafter); in 2017 Mary Keitany of Kenya set a world record of 2:17:01 for an all-women's marathon. Previous women's world records were set in 1983 and 1985 by Grete Waitz and Ingrid Kristiansen respectively, both of Norway. The current men's course record is 2:01:25 set by Kenyan Kelvin Kiptum in 2023. Marcel Hug of Switzerland set the Men's Wheelchair Race course record at 1:26:27 in 2021, and the Women's equivalent was set by Swiss athlete Manuela Schär in 2021, with 1:39:52.

Amateur runners
The race attracts amateur runners who make up the bulk of the thirty thousand or more participants; commonly running in fancy dress for charity causes.

In 2002, Lloyd Scott completed the marathon wearing a deep sea diving suit that weighed a total of 110 lb, with each shoe weighing 24 lb; he also set a record for the slowest London Marathon time. On 19 April 2003, former boxer Michael Watson, who had been told he would never be able to walk again after a fight with Chris Eubank, made headlines by finishing the marathon in six days. In 2006, Sir Steve Redgrave (winner of five consecutive Olympic gold medals) set a new Guinness World Record for money raised through a marathon by collecting £1.8 million in sponsorship. This broke the record set the previous year by the founder of the Oasis Trust, Steve Chalke, who had collected over £1.25 million. In 2011, Chalke raised a new record £2.32 million. The £500 that Claire Squires collected before the race increased to over £1 million after she died having collapsed during the 2012 race.

A small number of runners, known as the "Ever Presents", have completed each of the London Marathons since 1981. When the list was first established in 1995, there were 42. After 2019, their number has shrunk to 10. At the running of the 2019 event, the oldest runner was 85-year old Kenneth Jones, whilst the youngest runner was 60-year-old Chris Finill. They are all male.

Entry
There are multiple ways that runners can enter the London Marathon. The breakdown of places is not publicly shared by the organisation. As of 2023, the available places are generally considered to be distributed approximately as follows:

 * Charity (25,000 )
 * General Ballot (approximately 17,000 (estimated))
 * Good For Age Entry (6,000 )
 * Championship (1,000 )
 * Affiliated Running Clubs (1,515 )
 * Celebrity (100)
 * Elite (100)

As well as a small number of places distributed directly to overseas ballot, tour operators and those deferred from previous editions.

Charity
The majority of runners at the London Marathon do so using a Charity Place. To obtain this, they commit to raising a minimum amount for a registered charitable cause. In contrast to the other World Marathon Majors and other international events, London Marathon has a bigger focus on charity running than other similar events. London Marathon participants have helped to raise over £1 billion since its founding, including £67 million (dated to Apr 24 2024) at the 2024 London Marathon which was the highest amount for a single-day fund-raising event.

General Ballot
In recent years, following the growth in popularity of recreational running, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain a place via the general ballot or lottery. In 2024, success in the ballot is estimated to be below 3%. There have been a number of changes in recent years to address the increase in applications (online applications, removal of multi-ballot entry guarantee etc.). The 2025 event ballot received more than 840,000 applications, exceeding the record of 578,000 previously set by the 2024 ballot.

Good for age
The Good-for-Age entry route is the entry route for the majority of "competitive" runners. The aim of the good-for-age category is to provide places for those who achieve a sufficiently fast age-graded time. Due to a greater number of men meeting the Good-for-age criteria, places were capped at 3,000 entries for each gender to ensure an even gender split. This has led to the reduction in the Good for Age mens times in recent years. There is a 10% difference in the marathon World Record pace, but a 26% difference in the London Marathon Good for Age entry times. London Marathon is now harder to enter for men than Boston.

Mini Marathon
The Virgin Money Giving Mini London Marathon is the sister of The London Marathon. The course is the last 3 mi of the London Marathon and is for under-13s, under-15s and under-17s from all 33 London Boroughs along with 13 teams from ten English regions and three Home Countries: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is also a Mini Wheelchair race on the day. The race doubles as the British Athletics 3mile Championships.

BBC live coverage

The BBC has broadcast live coverage of the London Marathon since its inception in 1981 and has broadcast the race in full since 1984. Originally hosted out-of-vision by David Coleman, more recently the main presenters on BBC One have been Sue Barker, Jonathan Edwards and Gabby Logan. The highlight presenters on BBC Two have been Jonathan Edwards (2007–12), Sonali Shah (2013), and Helen Skelton (2014–15). The commentators for the Marathon on the BBC were David Coleman, Ron Pickering, Brendan Foster, Paul Dickinson, Steve Cram, Andrew Cotter, Stuart Storey, Paula Radcliffe, Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson, Liz McColgan, and Rob Walker.

Theme tune
The theme tune used by the BBC every year is from the film score of The Trap, a 1966 film about a Canadian fur trapper, starring Oliver Reed and Rita Tushingham. The music was written by Ron Goodwin and is performed by the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra.

Sponsorship and marketing
The original sponsors of the London Marathon were Gillette, who sponsored the event from 1981 to 1983. Subsequent sponsors have been Mars (1984–1988), ADT (1989–1992), NutraSweet (1993–1995), and Flora (1996–2009). Virgin Money sponsored the marathon from 2010, after signing a five-year £17m sponsorship deal in 2008. In April 2013, the London Marathon renewed its sponsorship deal with Virgin Money for a further five years and the race changed its name to the Virgin Money London Marathon. In 2021 it was announced that Indian consultancy company Tata Consultancy Services would take over sponsorship of the London Marathon from 2022.

A number of other companies and organisations also use the event for brand identification and marketing, including New Balance, Lucozade Sport, and Fuller's Brewery.

title: London Marathon


text:
Second Council of Constantinople

The Second Council of Constantinople is the fifth of the first seven ecumenical councils recognized by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. It is also recognized by the Old Catholics and others. Protestant opinions and recognition of it are varied. Some Protestants, such as Calvinists, recognize the first four councils, whereas Lutherans and most Anglo-Catholics accept all seven. Constantinople II was convoked by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I under the presidency of Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople. It was held from 5 May to 2 June 553. Participants were overwhelmingly Eastern bishops—only sixteen Western bishops were present, including nine from Illyricum and seven from Africa, but none from Italy—out of the 152 total.

The main work of the council was to confirm the condemnation issued by edict in 551 by the Emperor Justinian against the Three Chapters. These were the Christological writings and ultimately the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428), certain writings against Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas accepted at the Council of Ephesus, written by Theodoret of Cyrrhus (died c. 466), and a letter written against Cyrillianism and the Ephesian Council by Ibas of Edessa (died 457).

The purpose of the condemnation was to make plain that the Great Church, which followed a Chalcedonian creed, was firmly opposed to Nestorianism as supported by the Antiochene school which had either assisted Nestorius, the eponymous heresiarch, or had inspired the teaching for which he was anathematized and exiled. The council also condemned the teaching that Mary could not be rightly called the Mother of God (Theotokos) but only the mother of the man (anthropotokos) or the mother of Christ (Christotokos).

The Second Council of Constantinople is also considered as one of the many attempts by Byzantine Emperors to bring peace in the empire between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian factions of the church which had been in continuous conflict since the times of the Council of Ephesus in AD 431.

Proceedings
The council was presided over by Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople, assisted by the other three eastern patriarchs or their representatives. Pope Vigilius was also invited; but even though he was at this period resident in Constantinople (to avoid the perils of life in Italy, convulsed by the war against the Ostrogoths), he declined to attend, and even issued a document forbidding the council from proceeding without him (his 'First Constitutum'). For more details see Pope Vigilius.

The council, however, proceeded without the pope to condemn the Three Chapters. And during the seventh session of the council, the bishops had Vigilius stricken from the diptychs for his refusal to appear at the council and approve its proceedings, effectively excommunicating him personally but not the rest of the Western Church. Vigilius was then imprisoned in Constantinople by the emperor and his advisors were exiled. After six months, in December 553, he agreed, however, to condemn the Three Chapters, claiming that his hesitation was due to being misled by his advisors. His approval of the council was expressed in two documents, (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople on 8 December 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 February 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate), condemning the Three Chapters, on his own authority and without mention of the council.

In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke communion with Rome. Milan accepted the condemnation only toward the end of the sixth century, whereas Aquileia did not do so until about 700. The rest of the Western Church accepted the decrees of the council, though without great enthusiasm. Though ranked as one of the ecumenical councils, it never attained in the West the status of either Nicaea or Chalcedon.

In Visigothic Spain (Reccared having converted a short time prior) the churches never accepted the council; when news of the later Third Council of Constantinople was communicated to them by Rome it was received as the fifth ecumenical council, not the sixth. Isidore of Seville, in his Chronicle and De Viris Illustribus, judged Justinian a tyrant and persecutor of the orthodox and an admirer of heresy, contrasting him with Facundus of Hermiane and Victor of Tunnuna, who was considered a martyr.

Despite the conflict between the council and the pope, and the inability to reconcile Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, the council still made a significant theological contribution. The canons condemning the Three Chapters were preceded by ten dogmatic canons which defined Chalcedonian Christology with a new precision, bringing out that Christ has two natures, the human and the divine, in one person. The 'two natures' defined at Chalcedon were now clearly interpreted as two sets of attributes possessed by a single person, Christ God, the Second Person of the Trinity. Later Byzantine Christology, as found in Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus, was built upon this basis. It might have proved sufficient, moreover, to bring about the reunion of Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, had it not been for the severance of connections between the two groups that resulted from the Muslim conquests of the next century.

Acts
The original Greek acts of the council are lost, but an old Latin version exists, possibly made for Vigilius, of which there is a critical edition and of which there is now an English translation and commentary, and a modern Greek translation and commentary. It has been alleged (probably falsely) that the original Acts of the Fifth Council had been tampered with in favour of Monothelitism. It used to be argued that the extant acts are incomplete, since they make no mention of the debate over Origenism. However, the solution generally accepted today is that the bishops signed the canons condemning Origenism before the council formally opened. This condemnation was confirmed by Pope Vigilius and the subsequent ecumenical council (third Council of Constantinople) gave its "assent" in its Definition of Faith to the five previous synods, including "... the last, that is the Fifth holy Synod assembled in this place, against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius ..."; its full conciliar authority has only been questioned in modern times.

There is a Syriac account of the council in the Melkite Chronicle of 641.

Also, one of the Acts of the Council at Constantinople, were the Anathemas issued against those who rejected the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Aftermath
Justinian hoped that this would contribute to a reunion between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians in the eastern provinces of the Empire. Various attempts at reconciliation between these parties within the Byzantine Empire were made by many emperors over the four centuries following the Council of Ephesus, none of them successful. Some attempts at reconciliation, such as this one, the condemnation of the Three Chapters and the unprecedented posthumous anathematization of Theodore—who had once been widely esteemed as a pillar of orthodoxy—causing further schisms and heresies to arise in the process, such as the aforementioned schism of the Three Chapters and the emergent semi-monophysite compromises of monoenergism and monotheletism. These propositions assert, respectively, that Christ possessed no human energy but only a divine function or principle of operation (purposefully formulated in an equivocal and vague manner, and promulgated between 610 and 622 by the Emperor Heraclius under the advice of Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople) and that Christ possessed no human will but only a divine will, "will" being understood to mean the desires and appetites in accord with the nature (promulgated in 638 by the same and opposed most notably by Maximus the Confessor).

title: Second Council of Constantinople


text:
Talk:Ontological distinction

Ontological distinction has been redirected to ontology. See: Votes for deletion/Ontological distinction -- Wile E. Heresiarch 05:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Below, user:AxelBoldt accounts for ontological distinction as like the difference between gods and people. Extend this one notch to other agents such as software agents, and the original article should make a little more sense. -- Waveguy

I removed the article for the following reasons:

 * The term "ontological distinction" is used in philosophical discourse, but with a different meaning. An "ontological distinction" is a distinction based on different ways or modes of being. For instance, there is an "ontological distinction between the following two groups: {Bill Clinton, the sun, the Eiffel Tower} and {Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse, the round square}. " (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) or "John did not hesitate to make an ontological distinction between God and the Word" (Google). Non standard idiosyncratic terminology and original research is not welcome in Wikipedia.
 * Even when using the given definition of "An ontological distinction separates multiple processes or states from a single being.", the article is incoherent. For instance, "Cogito ergo sum" is no ontological distinction in this sense. Mind-body dualism is an ontological distinction, but of course it is very different from Cogito ergo sum.
 * it's generally considered to be derived from or justified by cogito ergo sum - Robert Wozniak made the claim that Descartes had made a radical ontological distinction. I agree, but whatever.

 * "What makes a distinction ontological is its claim to truth" is nonsense. A distinction between red cars and green cars is not ontological, even if its truth is claimed. 24 uses "ontological" in all its writings in a non-standard way.
 * as distinct from "operational", or this "red and green cars" distinction which is "ordinary" (i.e. useful in identification or labelling, not useful in operational choices or making other categorical choices - we do not in general group all the red objects on the street, or all the green objects. While we carefully distinguish cars from people if we are intent on anything useful to people.  An ontological distinction is an arbiter of truth in some circumstances, not others.  Nowhere did I say that it was *universal* or *permanent* truth, if that's what you think I said.24

 * The question of whether God exists or not is not an ontological distinction, neither by the common definition of the term nor by using 24's idiosyncratic one.
 * that's quite an idiosyncracy, since it's shared by the entire history of Western thought through The Enlightenment. God's existence or denial thereof was the prime ontological distinction through most of the history of ontology, leading to several famous ontological proofs of God which rely on such distinctions for their validity.  Only by deliberately starting from an agnostic position (i.e. not caring) could you avoid making this ontological distinction which is common to all a/theists.  And saying "it doesn't matter if God exists" is, itself, another ontological distinction.24

 * You don't understand: the question of God's existance is a real one, but it is not an ontological distinction. Read the definition of ontological distinction again. An "ontological distinction" would be the distinction between gods and people. AxelBoldt, Saturday, April 13, 2002

 * The article contains several links to topics that are unrelated to the topic at hand, but contain similar convoluted writings.
 * if you don't like the writing, fine, you don't like the writing. Do you think that this bears much relationship to the comprehension of the topic?  I think the article on ontology is nonsense and fails to make any of the most important distinctions required for practical work on a real representation of the real world suitable for guiding some real world acton.  Likewise, as written, the article you have here is useless as well.24

AxelBoldt, Friday, April 12, 2002
 * To sum up, the whole article is typical 24 trash.
 * you attempt to troll me, but an objective reader can pretty much tell that you don't know what you're talking about on this topic. Considering the most experienced people at ontological distinction are probably Jesuits, why don't I recruit a few of those to come hack at your article?  I expect they'll side with my view not yours.24

 * Go ahead. Your threat attempts all over the place are pathetic. AxelBoldt

Anyway, silly as your ideological position is, you at least provide feedback which is lacking from the less qualified (LDC, Larry, April), of your party.24

 * How is your party doing by the way? Decided on a name yet? How about a decent governance procedure? Many people are waiting to join, you know. AxelBoldt

title: Talk:Ontological distinction