text:
Das Rheingold

Das Rheingold (The Rhinegold), WWV 86A, is the first of the four epic music dramas that constitute Richard Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen (English: The Ring of the Nibelung). It was performed, as a single opera, at the National Theatre Munich on 22 September 1869, and received its first performance as part of the Ring cycle at the Bayreuth Festspielhaus, on 13 August 1876.

Wagner wrote the Ring librettos in reverse order, so that Das Rheingold was the last of the texts to be written; it was, however, the first to be set to music. The score was completed in 1854, but Wagner was unwilling to sanction its performance until the whole cycle was complete; he worked intermittently on this music until 1874. The 1869 Munich premiere of Das Rheingold was staged, much against Wagner's wishes, on the orders of his patron, King Ludwig II of Bavaria. Following its 1876 Bayreuth premiere, the Ring cycle was introduced into the worldwide repertory, with performances in all the main opera houses, in which it has remained a regular and popular fixture.

In his 1851 essay Opera and Drama, Wagner had set out new principles as to how music dramas should be constructed, under which the conventional forms of opera (arias, ensembles, choruses) were rejected. Rather than providing word-settings, the music would interpret the text emotionally, reflecting the feelings and moods behind the work, by using a system of recurring leitmotifs to represent people, ideas and situations. Das Rheingold was Wagner's first work that adopted these principles, and his most rigid adherence to them, despite a few deviations – the Rhinemaidens frequently sing in ensemble.

As the "preliminary evening" within the cycle, Das Rheingold gives the background to the events that drive the main dramas of the cycle. It recounts Alberich's theft of the Rhine gold after his renunciation of love; his fashioning of the all-powerful ring from the gold and his enslavement of the Nibelungs; Wotan's seizure of the gold and the ring, to pay his debt to the giants who have built his fortress Valhalla; Alberich's curse on the ring and its possessors; Erda's warning to Wotan to forsake the ring; the early manifestation of the curse's power after Wotan yields the ring to the giants; and the gods' uneasy entry into Valhalla, under the shadow of their impending doom.

Background and context
Having completed his opera Lohengrin in April 1848, Richard Wagner chose as his next subject Siegfried, the legendary hero of Germanic myth. In October of that year he prepared a prose outline for Siegfried's Death, which during the following months he developed into a full libretto. After his flight from Dresden and relocation in Switzerland, he continued to develop and expand his Siegfried project, having decided meantime that a single work would not suffice for his purposes; in his enlarged concept, Siegfried's Death would be the culmination of a series of musical dramas incorporating a network of myths from his sources and imagination, each telling a stage of the story. In 1851 he outlined his purpose in his essay "A Communication to My Friends": "I propose to produce my myth in three complete dramas, preceded by a lengthy prelude (Vorspiel)." Each of these dramas would, he said, constitute an independent whole, but would not be performed separately. "At a specially-appointed Festival, I propose, some future time, to produce those three dramas with their prelude, in the course of three days and a fore-evening.

In accordance with this scheme, Siegfried's Death, much revised from its original form, eventually became Götterdämmerung (The Twilight of the Gods). It was preceded by the story of Siegfried's youth, Young Siegfried, later renamed Siegfried, itself preceded by Die Walküre (The Valkyrie). Finally, to these three works Wagner added a prologue which he named Das Rheingold.

Synopsis
Prelude

Scene 1
At the bottom of the Rhine, the three Rhinemaidens, Woglinde, Wellgunde, and Floßhilde, play together. Alberich, a Nibelung dwarf, appears from a deep chasm and tries to woo them. The maidens mock his advances and he grows angry – he chases them, but they elude, tease and humiliate him. A sudden ray of sunshine pierces the depths, to reveal the Rhinegold. The maidens rejoice in the gold's gleam. Alberich asks what it is. They explain that the gold, which their father has ordered them to guard, can be made into a magic ring which gives power to rule the world, if its bearer first renounces love. The maidens think they have nothing to fear from the lustful dwarf, but Alberich, embittered by their mockery, curses love, seizes the gold and returns to his chasm, leaving them screaming in dismay.

Orchestral interlude

Scene 2
Wotan, ruler of the gods, is asleep on a mountaintop, with a magnificent castle behind him. His wife, Fricka, wakes Wotan, who salutes their new home. Fricka reminds him of his promise to the giants Fasolt and Fafner, who built the castle, that he would give them Fricka's sister Freia, the goddess of youth and beauty, as payment. Fricka is worried for her sister, but Wotan trusts that Loge, the cunning demigod of fire, will find an alternative payment.

Freia enters in a panic, followed by Fasolt and Fafner. Fasolt demands that Freia be given up. He points out that Wotan's authority is sustained by the treaties carved into his spear, including his contract with the giants, which Wotan therefore cannot violate. Donner, god of thunder, and Froh, god of sunshine, arrive to defend Freia, but Wotan cannot permit the use of force to break the agreement. Hoping that Loge will arrive with the alternative payment he has promised, Wotan tries to stall.

When Loge arrives, his initial report is discouraging: nothing is more valuable to men than love, so there is apparently no possible alternative payment besides Freia. Loge was able to find only one instance where someone willingly gave up love for something else: Alberich the Nibelung has renounced love, stolen the Rhine gold, and made a powerful magic ring out of it. A discussion of the ring and its powers ensues, and everyone finds good reasons for wanting to own it. Fafner makes a counter-offer: the giants will accept the Nibelung's treasure in payment, instead of Freia. When Wotan tries to haggle, the giants depart, taking Freia with them as hostage and threatening to keep her forever unless the gods ransom her by obtaining and giving them the Nibelung's gold by the end of the day.

Freia's golden apples had kept the gods eternally young, but in her absence they begin to age and weaken. In order to redeem Freia, Wotan resolves to travel with Loge to Alberich's subterranean kingdom to obtain the gold.

Orchestral interlude – Abstieg nach Nibelheim (Descent into Nibelheim)

Scene 3
In Nibelheim, Alberich has enslaved the rest of the Nibelung dwarves with the power of the ring. He has forced his brother Mime, a skillful smith, to create a magic helmet, the Tarnhelm. Alberich demonstrates the Tarnhelm's power by making himself invisible, the better to torment his subjects.

Wotan and Loge arrive and happen upon Mime, who tells them of the dwarves' misery under Alberich's rule. Alberich returns, driving his slaves to pile up a huge mound of gold. He boasts to the visitors about his plans to conquer the world using the power of the ring. Loge asks how he can protect himself against a thief while he sleeps. Alberich replies the Tarnhelm will hide him, by allowing him to turn invisible or change his form. Loge expresses doubt and requests a demonstration. Alberich complies by transforming himself into a giant snake; Loge acts suitably impressed, and then asks whether Alberich can also reduce his size, which would be very useful for hiding. Alberich transforms himself into a toad. Wotan and Loge seize him, tie his hands, and drag him up to the surface.

Orchestral Interlude - Aufstieg von Nibelheim (Ascent from Nibelheim)

Scene 4
Back on the mountaintop, Wotan and Loge force Alberich to exchange his wealth for his freedom. He summons the Nibelungen, who bring up the hoard of gold. He then asks for the return of the Tarnhelm, but Loge says that it is part of his ransom. Alberich still hopes he can keep the ring, but Wotan demands it, and when Alberich refuses, Wotan tears it from Alberich's hand and puts it on his own finger. Crushed by his loss, Alberich lays a curse on the ring: until it returns to him, it will inspire restless jealousy in those who own it, and murderous envy in those who do not, thus condemning all the possessors of the ring.

The gods reconvene. Fasolt and Fafner return with Freia. Fasolt, reluctant to release her, insists that the gold be piled high enough to hide her from view. Wotan is forced to relinquish the Tarnhelm, to help cover Freia completely. However, Fasolt spots a remaining crack in the gold, through which one of Freia's eyes can be seen. Loge says that there is no more gold, but Fafner, who has noticed the ring on Wotan's finger, demands that Wotan add it to the pile, to block the crack. Loge protests that the ring belongs to the Rheinmaidens, and Wotan angrily declares that he intends to keep it for his own. As the giants seize Freia and start to leave, Erda, the earth goddess, appears and warns Wotan of impending doom, urging him to give up the cursed ring. Troubled, Wotan calls the giants back and surrenders the ring. The giants release Freia and begin dividing the treasure, but they quarrel over the ring itself. Fafner clubs Fasolt to death. Wotan, horrified, realizes that Alberich's curse has terrible power.

Donner summons a thunderstorm to clear the air, after which Froh creates a rainbow bridge that stretches to the gate of the castle. Wotan leads the gods across the bridge to the castle, which he names Valhalla. Loge does not follow; he says in an aside that he is tempted to destroy the complacent gods by fire – he will think it over. Far below, the Rhinemaidens mourn the loss of their gold and condemn the gods as false and cowardly.

Text, sources, characters
Because Wagner developed his Ring scheme in reverse chronological order, the "poem" (libretto) for Das Rheingold was the last of the four to be written. He finished his prose plan for the work in March 1852, and on 15 September began writing the full libretto, which he completed on 3 November. In February 1853, at the Hotel Baur au Lac in Zürich, Wagner read the whole Ring text to an invited audience, after which all four parts were published in a private edition limited to 50 copies. The text was not published commercially until 1863. Of the principal sources that Wagner used in creating the Ring cycle, the Scandinavian Eddas – the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda – provided most of the material for Das Rheingold. These are poems and texts from 12th and 13th-century Iceland, which relate the doings of various Norse gods. Among these stories, a magic ring and a hoard of gold held by the dwarf Andvari (Wagner's Alberich) are stolen by the gods Odin (Wotan) and Loki (Loge) and used to redeem a debt to two brothers. One of these, Fafnir, kills his brother and turns himself into a dragon to guard the gold. The Eddas also introduce the gods Thor (Donner), Frey (Froh) and the goddesses Frigg (Fricka) and Freyja (Freia). The idea of Erda, the earth mother, may have been derived from the character Jord (meaning "Earth"), who appears in the Eddas as the mother of Thor.

A few Rhinegold characters originate from outside the Eddas. Mime appears in the Thidriks saga, as a human smith rather than as an enslaved Nibelung. The three Rhinemaidens do not appear in any of the sagas and are substantially Wagner's own invention; he also provided their individual names Woglinde, Wellgunde and Floßhilde. In his analysis of The Ring Deryck Cooke suggests the Rhinemaidens' origin may be in the Nibelungenlied, where three water sprites tease the characters Hagen and Gunther. Wagner may also have been influenced by the Rhine-based German legend of Lorelei, who lures fishermen on to the rocks by her singing, and by the Greek Hesperides myth in which three maidens guard a golden treasure.

Robert Jacobs, in his biography of the composer, observes that the "Nibelung Myth" on which Wagner based his entire Ring story was "very much a personal creation", the result of Wagner's "brilliant manipulation" of his sources. In the Rheingold text, Wagner used his imaginative powers to adapt, change and distort the stories and characters from the sagas. J.K. Holman, in his "Listener's Guide and Concordance" (2001), cites the Alberich character as typifying Wagner's ability to "consolidate selected aspects from diverse stories to create ... vivid, consistent and psychologically compelling portrait[s]". While some characters' importance is enhanced in Wagner's version, others, such as Donner, Froh, and Freia, who are major figures in the sagas, are reduced by Wagner to roles of largely passive impotence.

Wagner originally conceived the first scene of Das Rheingold as a prologue to the three scenes that follow it. As such, the structure replicates that of Götterdämmerung, and also that of the full Ring cycle.

Composition
As early as 1840, in his novella "A Pilgrimage to Beethoven", Wagner had anticipated a form of lyric drama in which the standard operatic divisions would disappear. In early 1851 he published his book-length essay Opera and Drama, in which he expounded his emerging ideas around the concept of Gesamtkunstwerk – "total work of art". In the new kind of musical drama, he wrote, the traditional operatic norms of chorus, arias and vocal numbers would have no part. The vocal line would, in Gutman's words, "interpret the text emotionally through artificially calculated juxtapositions of rhythm, accent, pitch and key relationships". The orchestra, as well as providing the instrumental colour appropriate to each stage situation, would use a system of leitmotifs, each representing musically a person, an idea or a situation. Wagner termed these "motifs of reminiscence and presentiment", which carry intense emotional experience through music rather than words. According to Jacobs, they should "permeate the entire tissue of the music drama". The Rheingold score is structured around many such motifs; analysts have used different principles in determining the total number. Holman counts 42, while Roger Scruton, in his 2017 philosophical analysis of the Ring, numbers them at 53.

Apart from some early sketches in 1850, relating to Siegfried's Death, Wagner composed the Ring music in its proper sequence. Thus, Das Rheingold was his first attempt to adopt the principles set out in Opera and Drama. According to his memoirs, Wagner's first inspiration for the music came to him in a half-dream, on 4 September 1853, while he was in Spezia in Italy. He records a feeling of "sinking in swiftly flowing water. The rushing sound formed itself in my brain into a musical sound, the chord of E flat major, which continually re-echoed in broken forms ... I at once recognised that the orchestral overture to the Rheingold, which must long have lain latent within me, though it had been unable to find definite form, had at last been revealed to me". Some authorities (for example Millington et al., 1992) have disputed the validity of this tale, which Nikolaus Bacht refers to as an "acoustic hallucination".

After an extended tour, Wagner was back in Zürich by late October and began writing down the Rheingold music on 1 November. He finished the first draft in mid-January 1854, and by the end of May had completed the full orchestral score. According to Holman, the result was "a stunning break from Wagner's earlier musical output" In the three years following his completion of the Rheingold score, Wagner wrote the music for Die Walküre, and for the first two acts of Siegfried. At that point, in 1857, he set Siegfried aside in order to work on Tristan und Isolde, and did not return to the Ring project for 12 years.

Premiere, Munich, 22 September 1869
Long before Das Rheingold was ready for performance, Wagner conducted excerpts of the music from scenes 1, 2 and 4, at a concert in Vienna on 26 December 1862. The work remained unstaged, but by 1869 Wagner's principal financial sponsor, King Ludwig of Bavaria, was pressing for an early performance in Munich. Wagner wanted to wait until the cycle was completed, when he would stage the work himself; also, his return to Munich would likely have precipitated a scandal, in view of his, at the time, affair with the married Cosima von Bülow. Wagner was horrified at the idea of his work being presented in accordance with Ludwig's eccentric tastes. However, Ludwig, who possessed the copyright, was insistent that Rheingold be produced at the Munich Hofoper without further delay. Wagner did all he could to sabotage this production, fixed for August 1869, and persuaded the appointed conductor, Hans Richter to stand down after a troublesome dress rehearsal. Ludwig was unmoved; he denounced Wagner, sacked Richter, appointed another conductor, Franz Wüllner, and rescheduled the premiere for 22 September. Wagner was refused admission to the rehearsals at the theatre, and returned, angry and defeated, to his home in Tribschen.

Accounts differ as to the success or otherwise of the Munich premiere. Osborne maintains that the performance was successful, as does Holman, while Oliver Hilmes in his biography of Cosima describes it as "an artistic disaster". Cosima's diary entries for 24 and 27 September note that the performance was portrayed in the Munich press as a succès d'estime, or otherwise as "a lavishly decorated, boring work". Gutman maintains that much of the adverse comment on the Munich premiere derives from later Bayreuth propaganda, and concludes that, "in many ways, these Munich performances surpassed the level of the first Bayreuth festival". As to the public's reaction, the audience's main interest was in the novel scenery and stage effects; Wagner's new approach to composition largely passed them by.

Bayreuth premiere, 13 August 1876
In 1876, with the Bayreuth Festspielhaus built, Wagner was ready to stage the first Bayreuth Festival with his own production of the now complete Ring cycle, beginning with a performance of Das Rheingold on 13 August. This event was preceded by months of preparation in which Wagner was deeply engaged; according to witnesses, he was "director, producer, coach, conductor, singer, actor, stage manager, stage hand and prompter". He searched Europe for the finest orchestral players, and selected a largely new cast of singers – of the Munich cast, only Heinrich Vogl (Loge) was engaged, although Richter, deposed as conductor in Munich, was given the baton in Bayreuth.

The 13 August premiere was an event of international importance, and attracted a distinguished audience which included Kaiser Wilhelm I, Emperor Pedro II of Brazil and numerous representatives of the various European royal houses. King Ludwig, unwilling to face contact with his fellow-royals or the assembled crowd, attended the dress rehearsals incognito, but left Bayreuth before the opening night. Most of Europe's leading composers were also present, including Tchaikovsky, Gounod, Bruckner, Grieg, Saint-Saëns and Wagner's father-in law Franz Liszt, together with a large corps of music critics and opera house managers. The huge influx of visitors overwhelmed the resources of the modest-sized town and caused considerable discomfort to some of the most distinguished of the guests; Tchaikovsky later described his sojourn at Bayreuth as a "struggle for existence".

Despite the careful preparation, the first Bayreuth performance of Das Rheingold was punctuated by several mishaps. Some scene changes were mishandled; at one point a backdrop was prematurely lifted to reveal a number of stagehands and stage machinery; early in scene 4, Franz Betz (as Wotan) mislaid the ring and had to go backstage to look for it; the gas lighting failed repeatedly, plunging the auditorium into darkness. Some innovations worked well – the wheeled machinery used by the Rhinemaidens to simulate swimming was successful, and the quality of the singing pleased even Wagner, who was otherwise in despair and refused to present himself to the audience despite their clamouring for him. The critics made much of the technical shortcomings, which were largely overcome during the course of the festival, although, to Wagner's fury, they failed to acknowledge this fact.

Traditional productions
After the 1876 festival, Das Rheingold was not seen again at Bayreuth for 20 years, until Cosima revived the Ring cycle for the 1896 festival. Meanwhile, opera houses across Europe sought to mount their own productions, the first to do so being the Vienna State Opera, which staged Das Rheingold on 24 January 1878. In April 1878 Das Rheingold was produced in Leipzig, as part of the first full Ring cycle to be staged outside Bayreuth. London followed suit in May 1882, when Rheingold began a cycle at Her Majesty's Theatre, Haymarket, under the baton of Anton Seidl. In the years following the London premiere, Ring cycles were staged in many European capitals. In Budapest on 26 January 1889, the first Hungarian performance of Das Rheingold, conducted by the young Gustav Mahler, was briefly interrupted when the prompt-box caught fire and a number of patrons fled the theatre.

The American premiere of Das Rheingold was given by the New York Metropolitan Opera in January 1889, as a single opera, with Seidl conducting. The production used Carl Emil Doepler's original Bayreuth costume designs, and scenery was imported from Germany. According to The New York Times, "[t]he scenery, costumes and effects were all designed and executed with great art and caused admirable results." Of particular note was the performance of Joseph Beck who sang Alberich: "a fine example of Wagnerian declamatory singing, His delivery of the famous curse of the ring was notably excellent in its distinctness and dramatic force". On 4 March 1889, with largely the January cast, Seidl conducted Das Rheingold to begin the first American Ring cycle. Thereafter, Das Rheingold, either alone or as part of the Ring, became a regular feature of the international opera repertory, being seen in Saint Petersburg (1889), Paris (1901), Buenos Aires (1910), Melbourne (1913),, and Rio de Janeiro (1921), as well many other major venues.

After the 1896 revival, Das Rheingold was being performed regularly at the Bayreuth Festival, although not every year, within a variety of Ring productions. Until the Second World War, under the successive artistic control of Cosima (from 1896 to 1907), her son Siegfried (1908 to 1930) and Siegfried's widow Winifred (1931 to 1943), these productions did not deviate greatly from the stagings devised by Wagner for the 1876 premiere. With few exceptions, this generally conservative, even reverential approach – which extended to all Wagner's operas – tended to be mirrored in performances outside Bayreuth.

New Bayreuth and experimentation
The Bayreuth Festival, suspended after the Second World War, resumed in 1951 under Wieland Wagner, Siegfried's son, who introduced his first Ring cycle in the "New Bayreuth" style. This was the antithesis of all that had been seen at Bayreuth before, as scenery, costumes and traditional gestures were abandoned and replaced by a bare disc, with evocative lighting effects to signify changes of scene or mood. The stark New Bayreuth style dominated most Rheingold and Ring productions worldwide until the 1970s, when a reaction to its bleak austerity produced a number of fresh approaches. The Bayreuth centenary Ring production of 1976, directed by Patrice Chéreau provided a significant landmark in the history of Wagner stagings: "Chéreau's demythologization of the tetralogy entailed an anti-heroic view of the work ... his setting of the action in an industrialized society ... along with occasional 20th century costumes and props, suggested a continuity between Wagner's time and our own". Many of this production's features were highly controversial: the opening of Das Rheingold revealed a vast hydro-electric dam in which the gold is stored, guarded by the Rhinemaidens who were portrayed, in Spotts's words, as "three voluptuous tarts" – a depiction, he says, which "caused a shock from which no one quite recovered". According to The Observer's critic, "I had not experienced in the theatre protest as furious as that which greeted Das Rheingold." Eventually this hostility was overcome; the final performance of this production, in 1980, was followed by an ovation that lasted ninety minutes.

Post-1980s
The iconoclastic centenary Ring was followed by numerous original interpretations, at Bayreuth and elsewhere, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The 1988 festival opened with Harry Kupfer's grim interpretation of Das Rheingold, in which Wotan and the other gods were represented as gangsters in mafioso sunglasses. This entire Ring, says Spotts, was "a parable of how the power-hungry cheat, lie, bully, terrorise and kill to get what they want". In August Everding's Chicago Reingold (which would become part of a full Ring cycle four years later), the Rhinemaidens were attached to elasticated ropes manipulated from the wings, which enabled them to cavort freely through the air, using lip sync to co-ordinate with off-stage singers. Edward Rothstein, writing in The New York Times, found the production "a puzzle ... cluttered with contraptions and conceits" which, he imagined, were visual motifs which would be clarified in later operas. Keith Warner, in his 2004 production for Covent Garden, portrayed, according to Barry Millington's analysis, "the shift from a deistic universe to one controlled by human beings". The dangers of subverted scientific progress were demonstrated in the third Rheingold scene, where Nibelheim was represented as a medical chamber of horrors, replete with vivisections and "unspeakable" genetic experiments.

From the late 1980s a backlash against the tendency towards ever more outlandish interpretations of the Ring cycle led to several new productions in the more traditional manner. Otto Schenk's staging of Das Rheingold, first seen at the New York Met in 1987 and forming the prelude to his full Ring cycle two years later, was described by The New York Times as "charmingly old fashioned", and as "a relief to many beleaguered Wagnerites". James Morris, who sang Wotan in the 1987 production, and James Levine, the original conductor, both returned in 2009 when Schenk brought his Ring cycle back to the Met for a final performance.

Music
Das Rheingold was Wagner's first attempt to write dramatic music in accordance with the principles he had enunciated in Opera and Drama, hence the general absence in the score of conventional operatic "numbers" in the form of arias, ensembles and choruses. Rather than acting as the accompanist to the voices, the orchestra combines with them on equal terms to propel the drama forward. According to Barry Millington's analysis, Das Rheingold represents Wagner's purest application of the Opera and Drama principles, a rigorous stance that he would eventually modify. Even in Rheingold, as Jacobs indicates, Wagner was flexible when the dramatic occasion warranted it; thus, the Rhinemaidens sing in the disavowed ensembles, and there are several instances in which characters sing melodies that appear to be musically independent from the general flow. The music is continuous, with instrumental entr'actes linking the actions of the four discrete scenes.

Prelude
The prelude to Das Rheingold consists of an extended (136-bar) chord in E♭ major, which begins almost inaudibly in the lowest register of eight double-basses. The note of B♭ is added by the bassoons and the chord is further embellished as the horns enter with a rising arpeggio to announce the "Nature" motif, outlining the lower partials of an harmonic series with an E♭ fundamental. This is further elaborated in the strings; the lower-register instruments sustain the E♭ note throughout the prelude, while the chord is increasingly enhanced by the orchestra. The "Rhine" motif emerges, representing what Osborne describes as "the calm, majestic course of the river's character The composer Robert Erickson describes the prelude as drone music – "the only well-known drone piece in the concert repertory". Millington suggests that the protracted chord does not simply represent the depths of the Rhine, rather "the birth of the world, the act of creation itself".

First scene
When the prelude reaches its climax the curtain rises and the key shifts to A♭ as Woglinde sings a "greeting to the waters". The first two and last two notes of this short, lilting passage form a falling musical step which, in different guises, will recur throughout the opera, signifying variously the Rhinemaidens' innocence, their joy in the gold and conversely, in the minor key, Alberich's woe at his rejection by the maidens, and his enslavement of the Nibelungs. The first appearance of the gold is signified by a muted horn call in the lower register, played under a shimmer of undulating strings, conveying, says Holman, "the shining, innocent beauty of the Rhinegold in its unfashioned state." The motif for the ring itself first appears in the woodwind, as Wellgunde reveals that a ring fashioned from the gold would confer on its owner the power to win the wealth of the world. This is followed by what is sometimes known as the "renunciation" motif, when Woglinde sings that to fashion such a ring, the owner must first renounce love. Confusion arises because this same motif is used later in the Ring cycle to represent affirmation rather than rejection of love; Roger Scruton suggests the motif would be more appropriately labelled "existential choice". Alberich duly curses love, seizes the gold and departs, to the sounds of the despairing shrieks of the Rhinemaidens.

Second scene
During the first entr'acte, the Ring motif is transformed into the multipart and oft-reiterated "Valhalla" music – four intertwined motifs which represent the majesty of the gods and the extent of Wotan's power. Scene two begins on the mountaintop, in sight of the newly completed castle, where Fricka and Wotan bicker over Wotan's contract with the giants. This duologue is characterised by Fricka's "Love's longing" motif, in which she sighs for a home that will satisfy Wotan and halt his infidelities. Freia's distressed entrance is illustrated by "Love", a fragment that will recur and develop as the Ring cycle unfolds. The Giants' entrance is signified by heavy, stamping music that reflects both their simple nature and their brute strength. The "Golden Apples" motif, of "remarkable beauty" according to Scruton, is sung by Fafner as a threatening reminder to the gods that the loss of Freia means the loss of their youth and vigour; it is later used by Loge to mock the gods for their weakness after Freia's departure with the giants. The "Spear" motif, a rapidly descending scale, represents the moral basis of Wotan's power and the sanctity of the treaties engraved on it. The phrase of five descending notes known as "Woman's Worth", first sung by Loge, is described by Holman as one of the most pervasive and appealing motifs in the entire Ring cycle – he lists 43 occurrences of the motif throughout the cycle. Many of the Ring's characters – Wotan, Froh, Alberich, Fasolt and Erda in Das Rheingold – either sing this phrase or are orchestrally referenced by it.

Third scene
The descent of Wotan and Loge into Nibelheim is represented musically in the second entr'acte, which begins with the "renunciation" and "spear" motifs but is quickly overwhelmed with the insistent, rhythmic 9/8 beat of the Nibelung motif in B♭, briefly foreshadowed in Loge's scene 2 soliloquy. In the climax to the entr'acte this rhythm is hammered out on eighteen anvils. This motif is thereafter used, not just to represent the Nibelungs but also their enslavement in a state of relentless misery. During the scene's opening interaction between Alberich and Mime, the soft, mysterious "Tarnhelm" motif is heard on muted horns; this is later combined with the "serpent" motif as, at Loge's behest, Alberich uses the Tarnhelm to transform himself into a giant snake. The transition back to the mountaintop, following Alberich's entrapment, references a number of motifs, among them Alberich's woe, the ring, renunciation and the Nibelungs' enslavement.

Fourth scene
After Wotan seizes the ring from the captive Alberich, the dwarf's agonised, self-pitying monologue ("Am I now free?") ends with his declamation of the "Curse" motif – "one of the most sinister musical ideas ever to have entered the operatic repertoire", according to Scruton's analysis: "It rises through a half-diminished chord, and then falls through an octave to settle on a murky C major triad, with clarinets in their lowest register over a timpani pedal in F sharp". This motif will recur throughout the cycle; it will be heard later in this scene, when Fafner clubs Fasolt to death over possession of the ring. Tranquil, ascending harmonies introduce the reconvention of the gods and giants. The subsequent dispute over Wotan's reluctance to part with the ring ends with Erda's appearance; her motif is a minor-key variation of the "Nature" motif from the prelude. After her warning she departs to the sounds of the "Downfall" motif, an inversion of Erda's entry that resembles "Woman's Worth". The scene ends with a rapid succession of motifs: "Donner's Call", a horn fanfare by which he summons the thunderstorm; Froh's "Rainbow Bridge" which provides a path for the gods into Valhalla; the "Sword" motif, a C major arpeggio that will become highly significant in later Ring operas, and the haunting "Rhinemaidens' Lament", developed from the falling step which earlier signified the maidens' joy in the gold. Scruton writes of this lament: "And yet, ever sounding in the depths, is the lament of the Rhine-daughters, singing of a natural order that preceded the conscious will that has usurped it. This lament sounds in the unconsciousness of us all, as we pursue our paths to personality, sovereignty and freedom...". These are the last voices that are heard in the opera, "piercing our hearts with sudden longing, melting our bones with nostalgic desire", before the gods, "marching in empty triumph to their doom", enter Valhalla to a thunderous orchestral conclusion, made up from several motifs including "Valhalla", "Rainbow Bridge" and the "Sword".

Orchestral forces
Das Rheingold is scored for the following instrumental forces:

 * Woodwind: Piccolo; 3 flutes; 3 oboes; cor anglais; 3 clarinets; bass clarinet; 3 bassoons
 * Brass: 8 horns (5-8 doubling Wagner Tubas in Bb and F); 3 trumpets; bass trumpet; 2 tenor trombones; bass trombone; contrabass trombone (doubling bass trombone); contrabass tuba
 * Percussion: 2 sets of timpani; cymbals; triangle; gong
 * Strings: 16 first violins; 16 second violins; 12 violas; 12 cellos; 8 double basses; 6 harps (plus a seventh off-stage)
 * Off-stage: 18 anvils of varying sizes (tuned to 3 octaves of F#); hammer

Critical assessment
Although it is sometimes performed independently, Das Rheingold is not generally considered outside the structure of the Ring cycle. However, as Millington points out, it is a substantial work in its own right, and has several characteristics not shared by the other works in the tetralogy. It is comparatively short, with continuous music; no interludes or breaks. The action moves forward relatively swiftly, unencumbered, as Arnold Whittall observes, by the "retarding explanations" – pauses in the action to clarify the context of what is going on – that permeate the later, much longer works. Its lack of the conventional operatic devices (arias, choruses, ensembles) further enable the story to progress briskly.

Since it was written as a prelude to the main events, Das Rheingold is in itself inconclusive, leaving numerous loose ends to be picked up later; its function, as Jacobs says, is "to expound, not to draw conclusions". The fact that most of its characters display decidedly human emotions makes it seem, according to a recent writer, "much more a present-day drama than a remote fable". Nevertheless, Philip Kennicott, writing in The Washington Post describes it as "the hardest of the four installments to love, with its family squabbles, extensive exposition, and the odd, hybrid world Wagner creates, not always comfortably balanced between the mythic and the recognizably human." Certain presumptions are challenged or overturned; John Louis Gaetani, in a 2006 essay, notes that, in Loge's view, the gods are far more culpable than the Nibelungs, and that Wotan, for all his prestige as the ruler of the gods, "does much more evil than Alberich ever dreams of".

Recording
Live performances of Das Rheingold from Bayreuth and elsewhere were recorded from 1937 onwards, but were not issued for many years. The first studio recording, and the first to be issued commercially, was Georg Solti's 1958 Decca version, part of his complete Ring cycle, 1958–1966, which marked the beginning of a new era in recorded opera. Since then Das Rheingold has been recorded, as part of the cycle, on many occasions, with regular new issues.

title: Das Rheingold


text:
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia,.

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

title: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules


text:
Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Clarification for "ignore all rules"
"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Example:

If disruptive editing (which is a guideline) prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia which does (example exhausting the community's patience), ignore it? Sheep (talk • he/him) 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing never improves Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples of disruptive editing? I have concerns that an editor is engaging in such, but would prefer clarification before I process. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are examples at WP:Disruptive editing. That is the best place to start. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This policy is perfect.
I remember, many years ago, on an unmentionable BADSITE written as a loose parody of this one, there was a template that got put at the top of articles sometimes. It looked like one of our maintenance templates, but instead it just said:

I often find myself wishing we had one of these for Wikipedia. If we did, it would belong on this policy. Twelve words -- and twelve perfect words. What beauty! What simplicity! What power! jp×g 19:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Punk rock as hell, I agree. Dialmayo 12:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Legal Concerns regarding how the policy is laid out
I am not a lawyer, but there are Wikipedia policies with legal considerations. These rules are firmer than the regular policies. There might be needed clarifications. Thank you - Writehydra - talk page 20:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Remember that we only apply this policy in situations where a policy/rule is preventing us from improving an article. A edit that breaks a law would not be an improvement, and so IAR would not apply. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, wouldn't, "Crimes are not permitted on Wikipedia." apply to all articles, policies, guidelines, and so on? I can't think of a way to note this that wouldn't be superfluous. Rjjiii  (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Prevent or hinder
Firmly believe that NEW ver. better reflects the intent of IAR. JLCop (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why. I can sort of see an argument for "hinders" instead of "prevents", because of the slightly different meaning. However my understanding about the consensus for this page is that we want the English, and the logic, very simple. I don't think anyone wants this page to be used for subtle legalistic arguments about relative inconveniences. Switching "improving or maintaining" to "bettering" means you remove "maintaining", which is however vitally important. You would also once again switch to more unusual wording. I prefer plain everyday English wherever possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding "your ability" would also empower the more novice editors, and who knows, maybe the veterans as well.
 * Based on your comments, I would leave it at this:

 * If a rule hinders you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

 * What do you think? @Andrew Lancaster
 * JLCop (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding "your ability to" is a good idea either, based on the same reasoning I mentioned above about keeping the English and the logic simple. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. With just one word different, it shouldn't cause any problems JLCop (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think its better that way. Hinder is less clear than prevent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's the point... It relies on community oversight and consensus to manage potential misuse. JLCop (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew. 'Hinder' and 'better' (as a verb) are relatively uncommon words and the simplicity of this policy is its strength. I'm also not sure that the intention behind switching 'prevents' to 'hinders' is correct. IAR is a safety valve for bad rules or bad applications of rules. Rules like WP:BLP, WP:BRD or WP:COIEDIT make it more difficult to improve the encyclopaedia without preventing it, for good reason, so they shouldn't be ignored for that alone. – Joe (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The intent of IAR is to allow editors the flexibility to improve Wikipedia even when rules might pose obstacles. It is not meant to encourage Reckless Disregard for important policies.
 * If a rule hinders but doesn't completely prevent improvement, editors can assess the situation to determine if ignoring the rule is justifiable. JLCop (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It also empowers editors to improve Wikipedia effectively, even when faced with hindrances, while still adhering to fundamental policies and ethical standards (see also WP:COMMON) JLCop (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It also empowers editors to improve Wikipedia effectively, even when faced with hindrances, while still adhering to fundamental policies and ethical standards (see also WP:COMMON) JLCop (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Trying to cover all of those nuances would turn it into a big complicated page, the opposite of what has been accepted and wanted. . And those are already taken care of by how this policy operates, and interacts with the fuzzy Wikipedia ecosystem. It currently has the strong, brief, simple widely accepted language. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew, Joe, and North. The policy is simple and direct. It serves its intended purpose as written. I don't think the proposed rewrite is an improvement. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The language on this page seems set in stone (and maybe will be, on a statue or two). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that a good argument? Ethereal Whisper (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules


text:
User talk:Gareth Owen

This page unintentionally left non-blank.

WikiProject Rugby union national team Improvement Drive
 For the 2007 Rugby World Cup WikiProject Rugby union is launching an Improvement Drive for national rugby union teams; specifically those participating in the Rugby World Cup. We need your help! Here is what you can do: The World Cup is fast approaching and these articles are going to get a lot more hits during the tournament. It would be great if we could have them at a high standard!
 * Adopt a national rugby union team article and collaborate with other members to improve it.
 * Find, create and upload free images that will help improve these articles.
 * Copy-edit, reference, and expand articles when and where you can.
 * Promote the project and encourage others to join.

For more information see the discussion on the WikiProject Rugby union talk page here. Shudde  talk  05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Babe Zaharias
Hey, thank you for the kind words and encouragement! I like your photos, too, but you might want to check the link from your userpage. Looks like a bot gotcha (by accident). Speaking of photos, I'm still trying to get a good public domain pic of her for the piece. -- LisaSmall T/ C 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

England national rugby union team FAC
I was wondering if you could comment at the England national rugby union team's FAC here. Thanks. - Shudde   talk  09:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gareth
Some Zionist thug is deleting my improvements to the Menachem Begin page. I detailed Begin's involvement in the Deir Yassin Massacre and the shock it elicited from many Jewish thinkers and leaders including Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt and others, which is evidenced by a letter they published to the New York Times in December 1948 calling Begin's party a fascist party, accusing Begin of terrorism, and warning the public not to allow Begin to visit the US and not to give money to his party. But the Zionist hooligans on Wikipedia, true to Zionistic smear and intimidation tactics, want to hide the truth. Since I'm new, I need some help: How can I undo their deletions? How can I complain? Thanks, Firstamend 14:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ethan_Daniel_Davidson.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ethan_Daniel_Davidson.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Nv8200p talk 02:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gram parsons.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Gram parsons.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ato Bolden
I noticed you added the drug allegations to Maurice Greene. I added details of a letter from Ato Bolden concerning Greene to Boldens page, and wondered if you had heard of it? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your unsourced Meta images
Please explain the sources and licenses of the following Meta images: --Jusjih (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) m:Image:Wikilogo7.png
 * 2) m:Image:Wikilogo6.png
 * 3) m:Image:Wikilogo5.png
 * 4) m:Image:Wikilogo4.png
 * 5) m:Image:Wikilogo3.png
 * None was created by me, but each was entered in the 2001 logo competition, (see Logo_suggestions and Logo_suggestions/Humorous_logos) and GFDL licensed as part of that procedure. At the end of that competition, Larry Sanger deleted them because he is a humourless tosser.  I saved them from deletion because they amused me. -- GWO (talk)

NowCommons: Image:Siegfried roy statue.jpg
Image:Siegfried roy statue.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Siegfried & Roy.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * File:Challenger.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Challenger.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brian Moore's Head Looks Uncannily Like London Planetarium
An article that you have been involved in editing, Brian Moore's Head Looks Uncannily Like London Planetarium, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Brian Moore's Head Looks Uncannily Like London Planetarium. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Tuba Player, Whit Friday 2008.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tuba Player, Whit Friday 2008.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Denton brass.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Denton brass.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Gareth Owen
Gareth Owen.

Remember 12 December 2001? Creating your own article on Wikipedia, lol. Sorry if this is an unwelcome reminder, I just thought 'blow me, Vales new loan signing is a Wikipedian', obviously I now see that that isn't the case, but 7 years eh? Where does the time go?--EchetusXe (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In my defence, that was two months before the User: namespace. But yeah, 2001 and seems a long time ago. -- GWO (talk)

Your user page
I found your old user page while checking out some old deleted contributions. I have history merged it, so that all edits are in one place. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 04:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

disaster ?
Hello Gareth, I left a wikipedia theory theses on my page. May be this is a disaster ;) gr. Paul --Paul Conradi (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

disaster II
Hello Gareth, I am a user from Germany. On another user page I found the bonmot "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it's a total disaster" and a link to your page. Is this really from you? It is very true and describes exactly what I try to explain to people who are not familiar with wikipedia. Greetings -- Zigg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.105.17 (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 * It does sound like something I might have coined, but to be completely honest, I can't remember anymore. Sorry ;(

Proposed deletion of Rock and roll.

The article Rock and roll. has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Pointless typo. No reason for period. No articles linked here. No one would add a period in search.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The definition of america is rock and roll

The article The definition of america is rock and roll has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Pointless redirect. Not a phrase in use. No articles link here.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  02:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Rock and roll.
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  03:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of The definition of america is rock and roll
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  03:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Gareth Owen! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Wonder Mike -
 * 2) Leslie Law -
 * 3) Gary Imlach -

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/1919 Black Sox
Since you were an uploader, you may have an opinion, which you are welcome to voice, at Valued picture candidates/1919 Black Sox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:The Point Old Trafford 2010.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:The Point Old Trafford 2010.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Theory and Practice
Gareth, you are sometimes attributed as the source of the statement on your user page: "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it's a total disaster". Is this true, if not, I'd love to know how you came by the statement? --Reagle (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Tamim Iqbal profile picture
Gareth, I have no idea why you changed/added Tamim Iqbal's picture to a completely wrong one! The picture you uploaded was Bangladeshi pace bowler Shafiul Islam's, not Tamim Iqbal's. This is a wrong photo of Tamim Iqbal and please upload the right picture. gromell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromell (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Sorry, genuine case of mistaken identity. -- 87.115.7.165 (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination). --Gwern (contribs) 11:14 4 August 2010 (GMT) 11:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (Using )

File source problem with File:Be good tanya.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Be good tanya.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 * That's not my picture. I uploaded one of that name -- ooh, about 10 years ago -- but someone has overwritten it with a shot of their own. -- GWO (talk)

MfD nomination of User:Gareth Owen/List of everyone who has ever lived
User:Gareth Owen/List of everyone who has ever lived, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gareth Owen/List of everyone who has ever lived and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Gareth Owen/List of everyone who has ever lived during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Roger bresnahan.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Roger bresnahan.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.

 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Siegfried roy statue.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Siegfried roy statue.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Appeal to the great spirit and facia.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Burghley House.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Burghley House.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:Pott Shrig3.jpg
Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as own, amending the information added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the Media by uploader or Presumed self tag(s) if  present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

IF you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log].

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:Pott Shrig2.jpg
Hi, Thank you, for uploading this file.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,

If it's your own work, please include own, amend the information added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the media by uploader or presumed_self tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.

It would also be appreciated if you could "claim" or update the source and licensing on other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log].

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:Pott Shrig1.jpg
Hi, Thank you, for uploading this file.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,

If it's your own work, please include own, amend the information added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the media by uploader or presumed_self tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.

It would also be appreciated if you could "claim" or update the source and licensing on other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log].

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Earned run

The article Earned run has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
 * Not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eric8123 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Your user talk page
Hi Gareth, I found your user talk page while doing some wikiarchaeology. . I have restored all of its earliest surviving revisions from old copies of the Wikipedia database, so they are available to everyone now. Hope you don't mind. Nice Wikimedia Blog profile, by the way! Graham 87 10:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello There
How are you lol? Runningboy21 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaveravel (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Mathematics and Statistics" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_and_Statistics&redirect=no Mathematics and Statistics] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"Mathematics and Statistics" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_and_Statistics&redirect=no Mathematics and Statistics] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gareth Owen


text:
Talk:Reduced instruction set computer

Problems with the lead
The lead presently says: "Reduced instruction set computing, or RISC (pronounced 'risk', /ɹɪsk/), is a CPU design strategy based on the insight that a simplified instruction set provides higher performance when combined with a microprocessor architecture capable of executing those instructions using fewer microprocessor cycles per instruction. A computer based on this strategy is a reduced instruction set computer, also called RISC. The opposing architecture is called complex instruction set computing (CISC)."

There's a few problems here besides the issue raised at Talk:Reduced instruction set computer:
 * To say that RISC is a CPU design strategy could be misunderstood by laypeople as self-contradictory given that a CPU is understood to be a part of a computer, yet the "C" in "RISC" means "computer". A person familiar with the topic would understand that whilst some sources describe RISC as such, its because of the inadequacies of the language in reconciling how the idea was originally framed and how it is framed today. RISC is better described as a type of computer.
 * "Microprocessor architecture" implies that RISC is intrinsically linked to microprocessors. Whilst that's the popular narrative, it's wrong. The first RISC was the IBM 801, and it wasn't a microprocessor.
 * "Microprocessor architecture" is linked to "microarchitecture"; "microarchitecture" is not a contraction of "microprocessor architecture".
 * The use of cycles per instruction (CPI) to mean instruction latency is completely wrong. To speak very generally, CPI is an average of all measured instruction latencies.
 * "Microprocessor cycles per instruction" is meaningless, there's no need to qualify "CPI" with "microprocessor".

I've improved the lead as best I can, but given the complexity of the topic, it's probably still be inadequate. 50504F (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 * , Thank you, those improvements made the lead much better. I agree that RISC not just a "design strategy", but a more-or-less objective type of hardware that can be distinguished from other types of hardware no matter what "design strategy" was used to develop it.
 * I'd like to suggest 2 further improvements:
 * * Alas, the current lead claims RISC has something to do "with a small ... set of instructions," a common misunderstanding that is specifically called out in the reduced instruction set computer section and the reduced instruction set computer section.
 * * I feel that RISC is better described as a type of CPU, rather than a type of computer. In my view, the things that make RISC different than the alternatives (TTA, CISC, DSP, etc.) only affect the CPU and have little or no effect on the other parts of computer architecture -- main memory, I/O, caching, etc. -- or other parts of a physical computer -- the form factor, the power supply, whether it has a single-chip CPU (microprocessor) or a discrete-transistor CPU or something else, etc.
 * --DavidCary (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the lead is in reasonable shape now and I am removing the Technical tag. ~Kvng (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Point of "Use of RISC architectures" section?
This seems like a grab-bag of different RISC architectures with arbitrary categories. Why are gaming systems considered low-end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indolering (talk • contribs) 03:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess the theory is to indicate where RISC is being used, for the benefit of people who think x86 rules the world, but it is, indeed, a not-well-organized grab-bag. It's not particularly up-to-date, with several of the examples no longer applying, and some items just mention instruction sets without giving current examples where it's used.
 * At this point, the currently relevant RISC architectures, as I see it, are:
 * ARM, obviously, from microcontrollers to supercomputers;
 * SPARC, which is still being sold in servers;
 * Power ISA, which is still being sold in servers;
 * perhaps others used in embedded applications. Guy Harris (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed ACE bits
It is a common game to claim (computer X is the first risc) based on some simplified definition of "what is risc?". The book making the claim that ACE is RISC is visible on Google Books here (for me at least, YMMV).

The (relatively short) article in question defines risc in a somewhat hand-waving manner, saying "no one at the time would agree with this definition" which is (top of page 199) essentially of "microcode slows execution, and long pipelines are slow and have interlocks". That is a rough description I could find much to agree with.

Then he attempts to link the two with the arguments that in ACE, "ease of programming had knowingly been sacrificed to speed", followed by sections noting it lacked microprogramming, that it could be simplified using interpreters, and then concluding "We can indeed conclude that the ACE is a RISC machine in the sense of having an architecture heavily influenced by the design of the computer".

None of these statements are part of the definition he posts. This is not surprising, as none of the definitional ideas even existed and would take the better part of a decade to emerge. The fact that it didn't have them is akin to claiming that horse carriages are really ICE automobiles because engines didn't exist at the time and the designers were all interested in speed.

If I sound dismissive, I am. Regardless of Turing's original desires, ACE emerged as a pretty bog-standard drum machine. That is by no means a denigration - it's bog standard because everyone used the concepts he helped develop. But the claim that it is a proto-RISC fails by the author's own definition as no machines of the era had the very features he quotes as definitional.

I'm not averse to new claims for first, but I am rather averse to the sort of hand-waving, wooly-headed argument presented in this article and the claim demands much better support in order to deserve being included here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I've been thinking that it would make sense to merge the CISC page into the RISC page. The problem is that the RISC and CISC page have a lot of overlap and mostly cover the same history and information, so they are largely redundant (when they aren't contradictory). As WP:OVERLAP says, "Remember, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability." This is the case with RISC and CISC.

I'm not saying that CISC is unimportant, of course. But since CISC is essentially defined in opposition to RISC, you can't really discuss one without the other. There isn't a lot to say about CISC independent of RISC. I think that combining the pages would improve both of them. The CISC page is weak on citations so I was looking into improving it, but I realized that I would end up duplicating most of the RISC material and combining the pages would make more sense. KenShirriff (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So would the page still be "Reduced instruction set computer", or would it be something that mentions both RISC and CISC? Guy Harris (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good question. "Reduced Instruction Set Computers and Complex Instruction Set Computers" seems way too wordy but "RISC and CISC" is a bit obscure. I was thinking of adding a section on CISC to the current RISC page. That may make CISC seem less important, though. What do you think? KenShirriff (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That might work. If complex instruction set computer redirects to the new section, boldfacing the first instance of that phrase in that section might suffice;  if it redirects to the article as a whole, boldfacing the first instance of that phrase in the lead might suffice. Guy Harris (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Support and I'd prefer to keep the current title with discussion of both in the lead and redirects from Complex instruction set computer etc. CISC is the less important term and covers a broad variety of processor designs. ~Kvng (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support CISC is a catch-all term for anything which isn't RISC, so it makes sense to put them together. Murray Langton (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that these two articles could maybe even be merged into Instruction_set_architecture with separate headings. Resukalt (User talk) 16:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose CISC and RISC are 2 different stuff. While CISC may be used to identify "non-RISC" ISAs, its still not a sub identity to RISC therefore it having its own page its beneficial to avoid possible confusion of readers. VectorVoyager (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't merge I recommend based on information, I think the two articles should not be merged and left as they are. Happyevengood (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Votes for or against a merge proposal are usually best put in the section containing the proposal, rather than in sections of their own, with votes for saying Support or Merge or something such as that and votes against saying Oppose or Don't merge or something such as that. See Kvng's vote for the proposal as an example.  That way, all the discussion and voting is kept together. Guy Harris (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Vote moved from its own section into the merge proposal section.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  07:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Reduced instruction set computer


text:
Wikipedia:Make omissions explicit

One of Wikipedia's rules to consider:

Please make omissions explicit when creating or editing an article. When writing an article, always aim for completeness. But if for some reason you can't cover a point that should be covered, make that omission explicit. You can do this either by leaving a note on the discussion page or by leaving HTML comments within the text and adding a notice to the bottom about the omissions. This has two purposes: it entices others to contribute, and it alerts non-experts that the article they're reading doesn't yet give the full story.

Don't feel bad if you can't rigorously cover every aspect of some subject. That's why Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia—we work together to achieve what we could not achieve individually. Every aspect that you cover means less work for someone else, plus you may cover something that someone else may not think of, but is nevertheless important to the subject.

Further, if there is a common misunderstanding or otherwise widely-known, but patently false information regarding the topic of a particular article, it is worth including, and clarifying the fact. Don't just leave it out, lest an unknowing editor may add the common misunderstanding into the article, requiring it to be removed (perhaps multiple times).

To-do lists
Add to the top of the talk page of articles for which you can establish some goals, priorities or things to do.

Always leave something undone
The following rule was historically used to help challenge people's preconceptions of what an encyclopedia should be. While in practice it's not something we recommend, it makes for an interesting debating point:
 * Whenever you write a page, never finish it. Always leave something obvious to do: an uncompleted sentence, a question in the text (with a not-too-obscure answer someone can supply), wikied links that are of interest, requests for help from specific other Wikipedians, the beginning of a provocative argument that someone simply must fill in, etc. The purpose of this rule is to encourage others to keep working on the wiki.

The counter-argument is that people need no encouragement to edit articles. They should even think more before editing. Leaving things so that they deliberately seem unfinished just makes the project look amateurish. Articles should, as much as possible, be usable and coherent as a whole despite the fact that they will later be expanded. New To-do lists should be used to point people in the right direction regarding future edits.

In the early days of Wikipedia's formation, when there were far fewer articles (~<20,000) it was (and to some degree still is) considered beneficial to establish for new editors the mindset of incompleteness; to think of Wikipedia as continuously-changing entity rather than a static volume that needs to be made perfect. While now, this seems unnecessary, at the time, it was an important guideline at a time when the concept of wiki was new, and the concept of making an encyclopedia collaboratively was still somewhat in doubt, even by its founders. At that time Recent changes was quite slow by today's standards; it was more common to use Recent Changes as a window into current activity on the Wikipedia, viewing most of the day's edits on a single page. Today, RC goes by impossibly fast, and hence other ways of monitoring article development (Watchlists, Various meta-pages, Community pages, kind notes to other editors, etc.) have taken its place. At that time, making deliberate and obvious errors invited (teased or taunted) others monitoring the RC to make corrections, while today such actions are highly discouraged by WP:HOAX.

See also: Contribute what you know or are willing to learn more about — the two suggestions complement each other

title: Wikipedia:Make omissions explicit


text:
Talk:Aleister Crowley

Racism
Dude was famous for his racism, why no section? The Sausage Grinder (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Opinions on race and gender".--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Intelligence work"
How come a bunch of conspiracy theories about Crowley such as him being a spy living a lie for his whole life and being responsible for the sinking of Lusitania is treated as legimite research here? Martianmister (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 * What makes you think they are a "bunch of conspiracy theories"? Do you have a source for that? Looks like what's in the article is supported by multiple biographies. Skyerise (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would I need a source? There is no source on those biographies' claims, other than their own conjectures. If Crowley was really a spy it would be revealed by the official files years ago, like all those cold war era anti-communist survelliance and phone tapping reports. There is no reason for the British Intelligence to hide the work of someone dead for decades. Martianmister (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The biographies are perfectly good sources and we do not cast doubt on sources without a source that explicitly expresses that doubt. If you want to contest what a source says, you need a source that does so, not just your own opinion. I've reverted your edits and will do so again if you make such changes without a source to support you. Also the use of words like "alleged" and "claim" are not neutral. We don't write like that, see WP:CLAIM. You can say, "according to source", but you can't cast doubt without citing a source that casts that doubt explicitly. Skyerise (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Crowley's intelligence work is literally a claim, with no proof. WP:CLAIM doesn't apply here. Martianmister (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A cited source is all the proof Wikipedia requires. WP:CLAIM always applies. Please also see our Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. If your edit is disputed, the article stays at the status quo until you can show consensus for the change on the talk page. So keep talking and wait for other editors to respond. Don't edit war. If you're right, you'll find a consensus. Skyerise (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Skyerise here, he just beat me to the revert! Come up with some good sources, see WP:RS for guidance on that, and we can have a discussion here. DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which part of my edits were problematic? If anything, they were consistent with the sources themselves. Crowley's intelligence work is an allegation, so it makes more sense to call it "alleged intelligence work". Spence and Churton themselves only "suggest" a link, they themselves admit that they have no proof. Also, tge writing itself is needlessly long, it keeps repeating "did x for british intelligence" over and over. Martianmister (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The part where you violate WP:CLAIM. The "claims" were already qualified with the identities of the writers making them and with the word "suggested". Nothing in the original text alleged anything: it merely reports on the opinions of several writers. What you wrote was, in contrast, a sort of sensationalizing of the content in a manner more worthy of a tabloid than an encyclopedia. Plus, you provided no source which critiqued those writers in that way: the sensationalism of your context reflects your own beliefs about the matter rather than the sourced opinions of others, which is what is being presented in that section. You can contrast sources which hold a different position: you cannot present the matter from your own unsourced perspective. Skyerise (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still named "intelligence work" as if it's an established fact. Martianmister (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Headings are convenient titles; they do not establish anything and they do not require citations. Only the text of the article can do that, and it is accurate. Skyerise (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What about something more neutral like "possible links to intelligence"? Martianmister (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. Skyerise (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aleister Crowley


text:
King's Cross

King's Cross or Kings Cross may refer to:

London

 * King's Cross, London, an area of central London, England
 * King's Cross (building), the memorial to George IV that gave the area its name
 * King's Cross Central, a development of previously semi-derelict land in the King's Cross area
 * London King's Cross railway station, a major London railway terminus
 * King's Cross St Pancras tube station for London Underground lines
 * The location of the King's Cross fire of November 1987
 * King's Cross Thameslink railway station, a former railway station connecting with King's Cross station and King's Cross St Pancras tube station
 * King's Cross (ward), London borough of Camden

Other uses

 * Kings Cross (band), an Australian band
 * King's X, an American rock band
 * "King's Cross" (song), a Pet Shop Boys song from their 1987 album Actually
 * King's Cross Hospital, a hospital in Dundee, Scotland
 * Kings Cross, New South Wales, an area of Sydney, Australia
 * Kings Cross railway station, Sydney, an underground railway station in Sydney
 * Kingscross, Arran, North Ayrshire, see List of United Kingdom locations: Kib-Kin
 * A type of solitaire card game
 * King's Cross station, on the Hogwarts Express railway in Universal Orlando Resort, Florida, U.S.

title: King's Cross


text:
Divisor

In mathematics, a divisor of an integer $$n,$$ also called a factor of $$n,$$ is an integer $$m$$ that may be multiplied by some integer to produce $$n.$$ In this case, one also says that $$n$$ is a multiple of $$m.$$ An integer $$n$$ is divisible or evenly divisible by another integer $$m$$ if $$m$$ is a divisor of $$n$$; this implies dividing $$n$$ by $$m$$ leaves no remainder.

Definition
An integer $$n$$ is divisible by a nonzero integer $$m$$ if there exists an integer $$k$$ such that $$n=km.$$ This is written as
 * $$m\mid n.$$

This may be read as that $$m$$ divides $$n,$$ $$m$$ is a divisor of $$n,$$ $$m$$ is a factor of $$n,$$ or $$n$$ is a multiple of $$m.$$ If $$m$$ does not divide $$n,$$ then the notation is $$m\not\mid n.$$

There are two conventions, distinguished by whether $$m$$ is permitted to be zero:
 * With the convention without an additional constraint on $$m,$$ $$m \mid 0$$ for every integer $$m.$$
 * With the convention that $$m$$ be nonzero, $$m \mid 0$$ for every nonzero integer $$m.$$

General
Divisors can be negative as well as positive, although often the term is restricted to positive divisors. For example, there are six divisors of 4; they are 1, 2, 4, −1, −2, and −4, but only the positive ones (1, 2, and 4) would usually be mentioned.

1 and −1 divide (are divisors of) every integer. Every integer (and its negation) is a divisor of itself. Integers divisible by 2 are called even, and integers not divisible by 2 are called odd.

1, −1, $$n$$ and $$-n$$ are known as the trivial divisors of $$n.$$ A divisor of $$n$$ that is not a trivial divisor is known as a non-trivial divisor (or strict divisor). A nonzero integer with at least one non-trivial divisor is known as a composite number, while the units −1 and 1 and prime numbers have no non-trivial divisors.

There are divisibility rules that allow one to recognize certain divisors of a number from the number's digits.

Examples

 * 7 is a divisor of 42 because $$7\times 6=42,$$ so we can say $$7\mid 42.$$ It can also be said that 42 is divisible by 7, 42 is a multiple of 7, 7 divides 42, or 7 is a factor of 42.
 * The non-trivial divisors of 6 are 2, −2, 3, −3.
 * The positive divisors of 42 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 14, 21, 42.
 * The set of all positive divisors of 60, $$A=\{1,2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,30,60\},$$ partially ordered by divisibility, has the Hasse diagram:

Further notions and facts
There are some elementary rules:
 * If $$a \mid b$$ and $$b \mid c,$$ then $$a \mid c,$$ i.e. divisibility is a transitive relation.
 * If $$a \mid b$$ and $$b \mid a,$$ then $$a = b$$ or $$a = -b.$$
 * If $$a \mid b$$ and $$a \mid c,$$ then $$ a \mid (b + c)$$ holds, as does $$ a \mid (b - c).$$ However, if $$a \mid b$$ and $$c \mid b,$$ then $$(a + c) \mid b$$ does not always hold (e.g. $$2\mid6$$ and $$3 \mid 6$$ but 5 does not divide 6).

If $$a \mid bc,$$ and $$\gcd(a, b) = 1,$$ then $$a \mid c.$$ This is called Euclid's lemma.

If $$p$$ is a prime number and $$p \mid ab$$ then $$p \mid a$$ or $$p \mid b.$$

A positive divisor of $$n$$ that is different from $$n$$ is called a proper divisor or an aliquot part of $$n.$$ A number that does not evenly divide $$n$$ but leaves a remainder is sometimes called an aliquant part of $$n.$$

An integer $$n > 1$$ whose only proper divisor is 1 is called a prime number. Equivalently, a prime number is a positive integer that has exactly two positive factors: 1 and itself.

Any positive divisor of $$n$$ is a product of prime divisors of $$n$$ raised to some power. This is a consequence of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.

A number $$n$$ is said to be perfect if it equals the sum of its proper divisors, deficient if the sum of its proper divisors is less than $$n,$$ and abundant if this sum exceeds $$n.$$

The total number of positive divisors of $$n$$ is a multiplicative function $$d(n),$$ meaning that when two numbers $$m$$ and $$n$$ are relatively prime, then $$d(mn)=d(m)\times d(n).$$ For instance, $$d(42) = 8 = 2 \times 2 \times 2 = d(2) \times d(3) \times d(7)$$; the eight divisors of 42 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 14, 21 and 42. However, the number of positive divisors is not a totally multiplicative function: if the two numbers $$m$$ and $$n$$ share a common divisor, then it might not be true that $$d(mn)=d(m)\times d(n).$$ The sum of the positive divisors of $$n$$ is another multiplicative function $$\sigma (n)$$ (e.g. $$\sigma (42) = 96 = 3 \times 4 \times 8 = \sigma (2) \times \sigma (3) \times \sigma (7) = 1+2+3+6+7+14+21+42$$). Both of these functions are examples of divisor functions.

If the prime factorization of $$n$$ is given by
 * $$ n = p_1^{\nu_1} \, p_2^{\nu_2} \cdots p_k^{\nu_k} $$

then the number of positive divisors of $$n$$ is
 * $$ d(n) = (\nu_1 + 1) (\nu_2 + 1) \cdots (\nu_k + 1), $$

and each of the divisors has the form
 * $$ p_1^{\mu_1} \, p_2^{\mu_2} \cdots p_k^{\mu_k} $$

where $$ 0 \le \mu_i \le \nu_i $$ for each $$1 \le i \le k.$$

For every natural $$n,$$ $$d(n) < 2 \sqrt{n}.$$

Also,
 * $$d(1)+d(2)+ \cdots +d(n) = n \ln n + (2 \gamma -1) n + O(\sqrt{n}),$$

where $$ \gamma $$ is Euler–Mascheroni constant. One interpretation of this result is that a randomly chosen positive integer n has an average number of divisors of about $$\ln n.$$ However, this is a result from the contributions of numbers with "abnormally many" divisors.

Division lattice
In definitions that allow the divisor to be 0, the relation of divisibility turns the set $$\mathbb{N}$$ of non-negative integers into a partially ordered set that is a complete distributive lattice. The largest element of this lattice is 0 and the smallest is 1. The meet operation ∧ is given by the greatest common divisor and the join operation ∨ by the least common multiple. This lattice is isomorphic to the dual of the lattice of subgroups of the infinite cyclic group Z.

title: Divisor