text:
Synagogue

A synagogue, also called a shul or a temple, is a place of worship for Jews and Samaritans. It has a place for prayer (the main sanctuary and sometimes smaller chapels) where Jews attend religious services or special ceremonies such as weddings, bar and bat mitzvahs, choir performances, and children's plays. They also have rooms for study, social halls, administrative and charitable offices, classrooms for religious and Hebrew studies, and many places to sit and congregate. They often display commemorative, historic, or modern artwork alongside items of Jewish historical significance or history about the synagogue itself.

Synagogues are consecrated spaces used for Jewish prayer, study, assembly, and reading of the Torah (read in its entirety once a year, or in some synagogues on a triennial cycle, in weekly Torah portions during religious services). However, a synagogue is not always necessary for Jewish worship, due to adaptations during times of Jewish persecution in countries and regions that banned Judaism, frequently destroying and/or reappropriating synagogues into churches or even government buildings. Halakha (Jewish law from the Mishnah – the "Oral Torah") states that communal Jewish worship can be carried out wherever a minyan, a group of at least 10 Jewish adults, is assembled, often (but not necessarily) led by a rabbi. Worship can also happen alone or with fewer than ten people, but certain prayers are considered by halakha as solely communal; these can be recited only by a minyan. In terms of its specific ritual and liturgical functions, the synagogue does not replace the symbol of the long-destroyed Temple in Jerusalem.

Any Jew or group of Jews can build a synagogue. Synagogues have been constructed by ancient Jewish leaders, by wealthy patrons, as part of a wide range of human institutions including secular educational institutions, governments, and hotels, by the entire Jewish community of living in a particular village or region, or by sub-groups of Jewish people arrayed according to occupation, ethnicity (e.g., the Sephardic, Yemenite, Romaniote or Persian Jews of a town), style of religious observance (e.g., Reform or Orthodox synagogue), or by the followers of a particular rabbi, such as the shtiebelekh (שטיבעלעך, singular שטיבל shtibl) of Hasidic Judaism.

Terminology
The Hebrew term is  (בית כנסת) or "house of assembly" The Koine Greek-derived word synagogue (συναγωγή) also means "assembly" and is commonly used in English, with its earliest mention in the 1st century Theodotos inscription in Jerusalem. Ashkenazi Jews have traditionally used the Yiddish term  (from the Greek schola, which is also the source of the English "school") in everyday speech, and many continue to do so in English.

Sephardi Jews and Romaniote Jews generally use the term kal (from the Hebrew qahal "community"). Spanish and Portuguese Jews call the synagogue an esnoga and Portuguese Jews may call it a sinagoga. Persian Jews and some Karaite Jews also use the term kenesa, which is derived from Aramaic, and some Mizrahi Jews use kenis or qnis.

History
In the earliest period, Jewish communal worship primarily revolved around the Temple in Jerusalem, serving as a central focal point and significant symbol for the entire Jewish nation. As such, it was the destination for Jews making pilgrimages during the three major annual festivals commanded by the Torah: Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot. There are several known cases of Jewish communities in Egypt with their own temples, such as the Temple at Elephantine established by refugees from the Kingdom of Judah during the Twenty-seventh Dynasty of Egypt, and a few centuries later, the Temple of Onias in the Heliopolite Nome.

The first synagogues emerged in the Jewish diaspora, several centuries before their introduction to the Land of Israel. Evidence points to their existence as early as the Hellenistic period, notably in Alexandria, Ptolemaic Egypt, the world's foremost Greek-speaking city at the time. There, the first proseukhái (singular προσευχή proseukhē) were built to provide a place for communal prayer and reading and studying the Torah. Alexandrian Jews also made a Koine Greek translation of the Torah, the Septuagint. The earliest archaeological evidence for the existence of synagogues is stone dedication inscriptions from the third century BCE prove that proseukhái existed by that date. Philo and Josephus mention lavishly-adorned synagogues in Alexandria and in Antioch, respectively.

More than a dozen Second Temple period synagogues in use by Jews and Samaritans have been identified by archaeologists in Israel and other countries of the Hellenistic world. Following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, who is often credited with reformulating Judaism for the post-Temple era, advocated for the establishment of individual houses of worship since the Temple was no longer accessible.

It has been theorized that the synagogue became a place of worship in the region upon the destruction of the Second Temple during the First Jewish–Roman War; however, others speculate that there had been places of prayer, apart from the Temple, during the Hellenistic period. The popularization of prayer over sacrifice during the years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE had prepared the Jews for life in the diaspora, where prayer would serve as the focus of Jewish worship.

Despite the certain existence of synagogue-like spaces prior to the First Jewish–Roman War, the synagogue emerged as a focal point for Jewish worship upon the destruction of the Temple. For Jews living in the wake of the Revolt, the synagogue functioned as a "portable system of worship". Within the synagogue, Jews worshipped by way of prayer rather than sacrifices, which had previously served as the main form of worship within the Second Temple.

Second Temple period
In 1995, Howard Clark Kee argued that synagogues were not a developed feature of Jewish life prior to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE). Kee interpreted his findings as evidence that the mentions of synagogues in the New Testament, including Jesus's visitations of synagogues in various Jewish settlements in Israel, were anachronistic. However, by 2018, Mordechai Aviam reported that there were now at least nine synagogues excavated known to pre-date the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, including in Magdala, Gamla, Masada, Herodium, Modi‘in (Kh. Umm el-‘Umdan), Qiryat Sepher (Kh. Bad ‘Issa), and Kh. Diab. Aviam concluded that he thought almost every Jewish settlement at the time, whether it was a polis or a village, had a synagogue.

 * Gamla – a synagogue was discovered near the city gate at Gamla, a site in the Golan northeast of the Sea of Galilee. This city was destroyed by the Roman army in 67 CE and was never rebuilt.
 * Masada – a synagogue was discovered on the western side of Masada, just south of the palace complex at the northern end of the site. One of the unique finds at this synagogue was a group of 14 scrolls, which included biblical, sectarian, and apocryphal documents.
 * Herodium – a synagogue from the 1st century was discovered in Herod's palace fortress at Herodium.
 * Magdala – also known as the Migdal Synagogue, this synagogue was discovered in 2009. One of the unique features of this synagogue, which is located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, is an intricately carved stone block that was found in the center of the main room.
 * Modi'in – Discovered between Modi'in and Latrun is the oldest synagogue within modern Israel that has been found to date, built during the second century BCE. It includes three rooms and a nearby mikve.

Talmudic period
During Late antiquity (third to seventh century CE), literary sources attest to the existence of a large number of synagogues across the Roman-Byzantine and Sasanian Empires. Archaeological evidence indicates the presence of synagogues in at least thirteen places across the diaspora, spanning from Dura-Europos in Syria to Elche in Hispania (modern-day Spain). An especially sizable and monumental synagogue dating from this period is the Sardis Synagogue. Additionally, many inscriptions pertaining to synagogues and their officials have been discovered.

In the Land of Israel, late antiquity witnessed a significant increase in synagogue construction, in Galilee and Golan in the north and the southern hills of Judea, in the south. Each synagogue was constructed according to the means and religious customs of the local community. Notable examples include Capernaum, Bar'am, Beth Alpha, Maoz Haim, Meroth and Nabratein in the north, and Eshtemoa, Susya, Anim, and Maon in the south.

Middle Ages
Rabbi and philosopher Maimonides (1138–1204) described the various customs in his day with respect to local synagogues: "Synagogues and houses of study must be treated with respect. They are swept and sprinkled [with water] to lay the dust. In Spain and the Maghreb, in Babylonia and in the Holy Land, it is customary to kindle lamps in the synagogues and to spread mats on the floor upon which the worshippers sit. In the lands of Edom (Christendom), they sit in synagogues upon chairs [or benches]."

Name and history
The Samaritan house of worship is also called a synagogue. During the third and second centuries BCE, the Hellenistic period, the Greek word used in the Diaspora by Samaritans and Jews was the same, proseukhē, plural προσευχαί prosukhái); a third or fourth century inscription uses a similar term, εὑκτήριον euktērion.

The oldest Samaritan synagogue discovered so far is from Delos in the Aegean Islands, with an inscription dated between 250 and 175 BCE, while most Samaritan synagogues excavated in the wider Land of Israel and ancient Samaria in particular, were built in the fourth to seventh centuries at the very end of the Roman Empire and throughout the Byzantine period.

Distinguishing elements
The elements which distinguish Samaritan synagogues from contemporary Jewish ones are:
 * Alphabet: the use of the Samaritan script
 * Orthography. When the Samaritan script is used, there are some Hebrew words which would be spelled in a way typical only for the Samaritan Pentateuch, for instance, "forever" is written instead of . When Greek is the language used in inscriptions, typically, Samaritans may contract two Hebrew words into one, such har "mountain" and Gerizim becoming Άργαρίζειν. This is an archaic practice that was primarily maintained by Samaritans.
 * Orientation: the façade, or entrance of the Samaritan synagogue, is typically facing towards Mount Gerizim, which is the most holy site to Samaritans, while Jewish synagogues would be oriented towards Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.
 * Decoration: the mosaic floor and other architectural elements or artifacts are sometimes decorated with typical symbols. As the Samaritans have historically adhered more strictly to the commandment forbidding the creation of any "graven image", they would not use any depictions of man or beast. Representations of the signs of the zodiac, of human figures or even Greek deities such as the god Helios, as seen in Byzantine-period Jewish synagogues, would be unimaginable in Samaritan buildings of any period.

 * A representation of Mount Gerizim is a clear indication of Samaritan identity. On the other hand, although the existence of a Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim is both mentioned by Josephus and confirmed by archaeological excavation at its summit, the temple's early destruction in the second century BCE led to its memory disappearing from Samaritan tradition. No temple-related items would be found in Samaritan synagogue depictions. Religious implements, such as are also known from ancient Jewish synagogue mosaics (the temple menorah, shofar, showbread table, trumpets, incense shovels, and specifically the façade of what looks like a temple or a Torah shrine) are also present in Samaritan ones, but the objects are always related to the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant within the Tabernacle, or the Torah shrine in the synagogue itself. Samaritans believe that at the end of time, the Tabernacle and its utensils will be recovered from the place they were buried on Mount Gerizim, and as such play an important role in Samaritan beliefs. Since the same artists, such as mosaicists, worked for all ethno-religious communities of the time, some depictions might be identical in Samaritan and Jewish synagogues, Christian churches, and pagan temples, but their significance would differ.

 * Missing from Samaritan synagogue floors would be images often found in Jewish ones: the lulav (palm-branch) and etrog (citron fruit) have a different ritual use by Samaritans celebrating Sukkot and do not appear on mosaic floors.

 * Mikvehs near the synagogue after 70 CE: Jews abandoned the habit of building mikvehs next to their houses of worship after the 70 CE destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, but Samaritans continued with the practice.

Archaeological finds
Ancient Samaritan synagogues are mentioned by literary sources or have been found by archaeologists in the Diaspora, in the wider Holy Land, and specifically in Samaria.

Diaspora

 * Delos Synagogue: a Samaritan inscription has been dated to between 250 and 175 BCE.
 * Rome and Tarsus: ancient literature offers hints that Samaritan synagogues may have existed in these cities between the fourth and sixth centuries CE.
 * Thessaloniki and Syracuse: short inscriptions found there and using the Samaritan and Greek alphabet may originate from Samaritan synagogues.

The wider Holy Land

 * Synagogue of Salbit (now Sha'alvim), excavated by Eleazar Sukenik in 1949 northwest of Jerusalem. It was about 8 by 15.5 m in size, was two stories tall, and was oriented towards Mount Gerizim. Two mosaics remain, one atop the other; one contained the Samaritan version of the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15:18. It was probably built in the 4th or 5th century and destroyed in the 5th or 6th.
 * The synagogue at Tell Qasile, which was built at the beginning of the seventh century.
 * Synagogue A at Beisan was a room added to an existing building in the late 6th or early 7th century and served as a Samaritan synagogue. Beisan is famous for Synagogue B, the Beth Alpha synagogue, which faced Jerusalem and was not a Samaritan synagogue.

Samaria

 * El-Khirbe synagogue, discovered c. 3 km from Sebaste, was built in the 4th century CE and remained in use into the Early Islamic period, with a break during the late 5th–early 6th century
 * Khirbet Samara synagogue, c. 20 km northwest of Nablus and built in the 4th century CE
 * Zur Natan synagogue, c. 29 km west of Nablus and built in the 5th century CE

Christianity
In the New Testament, the word appears 56 times, mostly in the Synoptic Gospels, but also in the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation. It is used in the sense of 'assembly' in the Epistle of James. Alternatively, the epistle of James (in Greek, clearly Ἰάκωβος or יעקב, anglicized to Jacob) refers to a place of assembly that was indeed Jewish, with Jacob ben Joseph perhaps an elder there. The specific word in James (Jacob) 2:2 could easily be rendered "synagogue", from the Greek συναγωγὴν.

During the first Christian centuries, Jewish Christians are hypothesized to have used houses of worship known in academic literature as synagogue-churches. Scholars have claimed to have identified such houses of worship of the Jews who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah in Jerusalem and Nazareth.

Architectural design

There is no set blueprint for synagogues and the architectural shapes and interior designs of synagogues vary greatly. In fact, the influence from other local religious buildings can often be seen in synagogue arches, domes and towers.

Historically, synagogues were built in the prevailing architectural style of their time and place. Thus, the synagogue in Kaifeng, China, looked very like Chinese temples of that region and era, with its outer wall and open garden in which several buildings were arranged. The styles of the earliest synagogues resembled the temples of other cults of the Eastern Roman Empire. The surviving synagogues of medieval Spain are embellished with mudéjar plasterwork. The surviving medieval synagogues in Budapest and Prague are typical Gothic structures.

With the emancipation of Jews in Western European countries in the 19th century—which not only enabled Jews to enter fields of enterprise from which they were formerly barred, but gave them the right to build synagogues without needing special permissions—synagogue architecture blossomed. Large Jewish communities wished to show not only their wealth but also their newly acquired status as citizens by constructing magnificent synagogues. These were built across Western Europe and in the United States in all of the historicist or revival styles then in fashion. Thus there were Neoclassical,Renaissance Revival architecture, Neo-Byzantine, Romanesque Revival, Moorish Revival, Gothic Revival, and Greek Revival. There are Egyptian Revival synagogues and even one Mayan Revival synagogue. In the 19th century and early 20th century heyday of historicist architecture, however, most historicist synagogues, even the most magnificent ones, did not attempt a pure style, or even any particular style, and are best described as eclectic.

In the post-war era, synagogue architecture abandoned historicist styles for modernism.

Bimah (platform)
All synagogues contain a Bimah, a large, raised, reader's platform (called teḇah (reading dais) by Sephardim), where the Torah scroll is placed to be read. In Sephardi synagogues and traditional Ashkenazi synagogues it is also used as the prayer leader's reading desk.

Table or lectern
In Ashkenazi synagogues, the Torah was read on a reader's table located in the center of the room, while the leader of the prayer service, the hazzan, stood at his own lectern or table, facing the Ark. In Sephardic synagogues, the table for reading the Torah (reading dais) was commonly placed at the opposite side of the room from the Torah Ark, leaving the center of the floor empty for the use of a ceremonial procession carrying the Torah between the Ark and the reading table. Most contemporary synagogues feature a lectern for the rabbi.

Torah Ark
The Torah Ark, called in Hebrew Aron Kodesh or 'holy chest' , and alternatively called the heikhal— or 'temple' by Sephardic Jews, is a cabinet in which the Torah scrolls are kept.

The ark in a synagogue is almost always positioned in such a way such that those who face it are facing towards Jerusalem. Thus, sanctuary seating plans in the Western world generally face east, while those east of Israel face west. Sanctuaries in Israel face towards Jerusalem. Occasionally synagogues face other directions for structural reasons; in such cases, some individuals might turn to face Jerusalem when standing for prayers, but the congregation as a whole does not.

The Ark is reminiscent of the Ark of the Covenant, which held the tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments. This is the holiest spot in a synagogue, equivalent to the Holy of Holies. The Ark is often closed with an ornate curtain, the parochet, which hangs outside or inside the ark doors.

Eternal Light
Other traditional features include a continually lit lamp or lantern, usually electric in contemporary synagogues, called the ner tamid, the "Eternal Light", used as a way to honor the Divine Presence.

Inner decoration
A synagogue may be decorated with artwork, but in the Rabbinic and Orthodox tradition, three-dimensional sculptures and depictions of the human body are not allowed as these are considered akin to idolatry.

Seating
Originally, synagogues were made devoid of much furniture, the Jewish congregants in Spain, the Maghreb (North Africa), Babylonia, the Land of Israel and Yemen having a custom to sit upon the floor, which had been strewn with mats and cushions, rather than upon chairs or benches. In other European towns and cities, however, Jewish congregants would sit upon chairs and benches. Today, the custom has spread in all places to sit upon chairs and benches.

Until the 19th century, in an Ashkenazi synagogue, all seats most often faced the Torah Ark. In a Sephardic synagogue, seats were usually arranged around the perimeter of the sanctuary, but when the worshipers stood up to pray, everyone faced the Ark.

Special seats
Many current synagogues have an elaborate chair named for the prophet Elijah, which is only sat upon during the ceremony of Brit milah.

In ancient synagogues, a special chair placed on the wall facing Jerusalem and next to the Torah Shrine was reserved for the prominent members of the congregation and for important guests. Such a stone-carved and inscribed seat was discovered at archaeological excavations in the synagogue at Chorazin in Galilee and dates from the 4th–6th century; another one was discovered at the Delos Synagogue, complete with a footstool.

Removing one's shoes
In Yemen, the Jewish custom was to remove one's shoes immediately prior to entering the synagogue, a custom that had been observed by Jews in other places in earlier times. The same practice of removing one's shoes before entering the synagogue was also largely observed among Jews in Morocco in the early 20th century. On the island of Djerba in Tunisia, Jews still remove their shoes when entering a synagogue. The custom of removing one's shoes is no longer practiced in Israel, the United Kingdom, or the United States, and which custom, as in former times, was dependent upon whether or not the wearer considered it a thing of contempt to stand before God while wearing shoes. In Christian countries, where it was thought not offensive to stand before a king while wearing shoes, it was likewise permitted to do so in a house of prayer. However, in Karaite Judaism, the custom of removing one's shoes prior to entering a synagogue is still observed worldwide.

Gender separation
In Orthodox synagogues, men and women do not sit together. The synagogue features a partition (mechitza) dividing the men's and women's seating areas, or a separate women's section located on a balcony.

Reform Judaism
The German–Jewish Reform movement, which arose in the early 19th century, made many changes to the traditional look of the synagogue, keeping with its desire to simultaneously stay Jewish yet be accepted by the surrounding culture.

The first Reform synagogue, which opened in Hamburg in 1811, introduced changes that made the synagogue look more like a church. These included: the installation of an organ to accompany the prayers (even on Shabbat, when musical instruments are proscribed by halakha), a choir to accompany the hazzan, and vestments for the synagogue rabbi to wear.

In following decades, the central reader's table, the Bimah, was moved to the front of the Reform sanctuary—previously unheard-of in Orthodox synagogues.

Gender separation was also removed.

Synagogue as community center
Synagogues often take on a broader role in modern Jewish communities and may include additional facilities such as a catering hall, kosher kitchen, religious school, library, day care center and a smaller chapel for daily services.

Synagogue offshoots
Since many Orthodox and some non-Orthodox Jews prefer to collect a minyan (a quorum of ten) rather than pray alone, they commonly assemble at pre-arranged times in offices, living rooms, or other spaces when these are more convenient than formal synagogue buildings. A room or building that is used this way can become a dedicated small synagogue or prayer room. Among Ashkenazi Jews they are traditionally called shtiebel (שטיבל, pl. shtiebelekh or shtiebels, Yiddish for "little house"), and are found in Orthodox communities worldwide.

Another type of communal prayer group, favored by some contemporary Jews, is the chavurah (חבורה, pl. chavurot, חבורות), or prayer fellowship. These groups meet at a regular place and time, either in a private home or in a synagogue or other institutional space. In antiquity, the Pharisees lived near each other in chavurot and dined together to ensure that none of the food was unfit for consumption.

List of "great synagogues"
Some synagogues bear the title "Great Synagogue".

Israel

 * The Belz Great Synagogue, Jerusalem
 * The Great Synagogue of Jerusalem

Europe
Ukraine
 * The Kharkiv Choral Synagogue
 * The Great Choral Synagogue (Kyiv), Ukraine

Russia

 * The Moscow Choral Synagogue
 * The Grand Choral Synagogue of St. Petersburg

Poland

 * The Great Synagogues of Warsaw and Łódź, destroyed by Nazis during World War II.
 * The Great Synagogue of Włodawa

Czech Republic

 * The Great Synagogue of Plzeň

Hungary

 * The Dohány Street Synagogue in Budapest, Hungary
 * The Synagogue of Szeged

Austria

 * The Leopoldstädter Tempel of Vienna, destroyed during the "Kristallnacht" pogrom. Served as model for many other important synagogues.

Germany

 * The New Synagogue of Berlin
 * The Old Synagogue (Erfurt)
 * The Old Synagogue (Essen)

Netherlands

 * The Portuguese Synagogue of Amsterdam

Scandinavia

 * The Great Synagogue of Stockholm

France and Belgium

 * The Grand Synagogue of Paris
 * The Great Synagogue of Brussels (also known as the Great Synagogue of Europe)

Italy

 * The Great Synagogue of Florence
 * The Great Synagogue of Rome
 * The Synagogue of Trieste

Romania

 * The Cetate Synagogue of Timișoara,
 * The Fabric Synagogue of Timișoara, Romania
 * The Choral Temple of Bucharest

Serbia

 * The Synagogue of Novi Sad
 * The Synagogue of Subotica

Bosnia and Herzegovina

 * The Synagogue of Sarajevo
 * The Synagogue of Doboj

Bulgaria

 * The Synagogue of Sofia

Turkey (European part)

 * The Grand Synagogue of Edirne

United Kingdom

 * The Great Synagogue of London, destroyed by aerial bombing in the London Blitz in 1941

Tunisia

 * The Great Synagogue of Tunis
 * The El Ghriba synagogue of Djerba

Australia

 * The Great Synagogue of Sydney

Israel

 * The largest synagogue in the world is the Great Beth Midrash Gur, in Jerusalem, Israel, whose main sanctuary seats up to 20,000, and has an area of approximately 7500 m2, while the entire complex has an area of approximately 35000 m2. Construction on the edifice took more than 25 years.
 * Kehilat Kol HaNeshama, a Reform synagogue located in Baka, Jerusalem, is the largest Reform (and largest non-Orthodox) Jewish synagogue in Israel.

Europe

 * The Dohány Street Synagogue in Budapest, Hungary, is the largest synagogue in Europe by square footage and number of seats. It seats 3,000, and has an area of 1200 m2 and height of 26 m (apart from the towers, which are 43 m).
 * The Synagogue of Trieste is the largest synagogue in Western Europe.
 * The Great Synagogue of Rome is one of the greatest in Europe.
 * The Portuguese Synagogue in Amsterdam, also called "Esnoga", was built in 1675. At that time it was the largest synagogue in the world. Apart from the buildings surrounding the synagogue, it has an area of 1008 m2, is 19.5 m high. It was built to accommodate 1,227 men and 440 women.
 * Szeged Synagogue is located in Szeged, Hungary, seats 1,340 and has height of 48.5 m.
 * The Sofia Synagogue is located in Sofia, Bulgaria, seating about 1,200.
 * The Subotica Synagogue is located in Subotica, Serbia, seating more than 900.
 * Great Synagogue (Plzeň) in the Czech Republic is the second-largest synagogue in Europe, and the third-largest in the world.

North America

 * Baron Hirsch Synagogue, an Orthodox synagogue in Memphis, Tennessee, was the largest in the United States at the time of its dedication in 1957, seating 2,200 worshippers with an additional accommodation for 1,000 in its main sanctuary. The synagogue moved in 1988, but the building remains in use as a church.
 * The Satmar synagogue in Kiryas Joel, New York, which is said to seat "several thousand", is also very large.
 * Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar (Rodney Street, Brooklyn) is also said to seat "several thousand".
 * Temple Emanu-El of New York, a Reform Temple, is located in New York City, with an area of 3,523 m2, seating 2,500. It is the largest Reform synagogue in the world.
 * Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar (Hooper Street, Brooklyn) seats between 2,000 and 4,000 congregants.
 * The main sanctuary of Adas Israel Congregation (Washington, D.C.) seats 1,500.
 * Temple Emanu-El (Miami Beach, Florida) located in Miami Beach, Florida, seats approximately 1,400 people.
 * Congregation Shaare Zion, an Orthodox Sephardic synagogue located in Brooklyn, New York, is the largest Syrian Jewish congregation in New York City. It is attended by over 1,000 worshipers on weekends.
 * Beth Tzedec Congregation in Toronto, Ontario, is the largest Conservative synagogue in North America.
 * Temple Israel, a Reform synagogue in Memphis, Tennessee, seats 1,335 to 1,500 people in its main sanctuary. The massive synagogue complex contains over 125,000 sqft on 30 acre.

World's oldest synagogues

 * The earliest evidence for a synagogue is a stone-carved synagogue dedication inscription found in Lower Egypt and dating from the second half of the 3rd century BCE.
 * The oldest Samaritan synagogue, the Delos Synagogue, dates from between 150 and 128 BCE, or earlier and is located on the island of Delos.
 * The synagogue of Dura Europos, a Seleucid city in north eastern Syria, dates from the third century CE. It is unique. The walls were painted with figural scenes from the Tanakh. The paintings included Abraham and Isaac, Moses and Aaron, Solomon, Samuel and Jacob, Elijah and Ezekiel. The synagogue chamber, with its surviving paintings, is reconstructed in the National Museum in Damascus.
 * The Old Synagogue in Erfurt, Germany, parts of which date to c.1100, is the oldest intact synagogue building in Europe. It is now used as a museum of local Jewish history.
 * The Kochangadi Synagogue (1344 CE to 1789 CE) in Kochi in the Kerala, built by the Malabar Jews. It was destroyed by Tipu Sultan in 1789 CE and was never rebuilt. An inscription tablet from this synagogue is the oldest relic from any synagogue in India. Eight other synagogues exist in Kerala though not in active use anymore.

 * The Paradesi Synagogue is the oldest active synagogue in the Commonwealth of Nations, located in Kochi, Kerala, in India. It was built in 1568 by Paradesi community in the Kingdom of Cochin. Paradesi is a word used in several Indian languages, and the literal meaning of the term is "foreigners", applied to the synagogue because it was historically used by "White Jews", a mixture of Jews of the Middle East, and European exiles. It is also referred to as the Cochin Jewish Synagogue or the Mattancherry Synagogue. The synagogue is located in the quarter of Old Cochin known as Jew Town and is the only one of the eight synagogues in the area still in use.
 * Jew's Court, Steep Hill, Lincoln, England, is arguably the oldest synagogue in Europe in current use.

Oldest synagogues in the United States

 * Congregation Shearith Israel, in New York City, founded in 1654, is the oldest congregation in the United States. Its present building dates from 1897.
 * The Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, is the oldest Jewish house of worship in North America that is still standing. It was built in 1759 for the Jeshuat Israel congregation, which was established in 1658.

Other famous synagogues

 * The Worms Synagogue in Germany, built in 1175 and razed on Kristallnacht in 1938, was painstakingly reconstructed using many of the original stones. It is still in use as a synagogue.
 * The Synagogue of El Transito of Toledo, Spain, was built in 1356 by Samuel ha-Levi, treasurer of King Pedro I of Castile. This is one of the best examples of Mudéjar architecture in Spain. The design of the synagogue recalls the Nasrid style of architecture that was employed during the same period in the decorations of the palace of the Alhambra in Granada as well as the Mosque of Córdoba. Since 1964, this site has hosted a Sephardi museum.
 * The Hurva Synagogue, located in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, was Jerusalem's main Ashkenazi synagogue from the 16th century until 1948, when it was destroyed by the Arab Legion several days after the conquest of the city. After the Six-Day War, an arch was built to mark the spot where the synagogue stood. A complete reconstruction, to plans drawn up by architect Nahum Meltzer, opened in March 2010.
 * The Abdallah Ibn Salam Mosque or Oran, Algeria, built in 1880, but converted into a mosque in 1975 when most Algerian Jews had left the country for France following independence.
 * The Nidhe Israel Synagogue ("Bridgetown Synagogue") of Barbados, located in the capital city of Bridgetown, was first built in 1654. It was destroyed in the hurricane of 1831 and reconstructed in 1833.
 * The Curaçao synagogue or Snoa in Willemstad, Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles was built by Sephardic Portuguese Jews from Amsterdam and Recife, Brazil. It is modeled after the Esnoga in Amsterdam. Congregation Mikvé Israel built this synagogue in 1692; it was reconstructed in 1732.
 * The Bialystoker Synagogue on New York's Lower East Side, is located in a landmark building dating from 1826 that was originally a Methodist Episcopal Church. The building is made of quarry stone mined locally on Pitt Street, Manhattan. It is an example of federal architecture. The ceilings and walls are hand-painted with zodiac frescos, and the sanctuary is illuminated by 40 ft stained glass windows. The bimah and floor-to-ceiling ark are handcarved.
 * The Great Synagogue of Florence, Tempio Maggiore, Florence, 1874–1882, is an example of the magnificent, cathedral-like synagogues built in almost every major European city in the 19th century and early 20th century.
 * Boston's 1920 Vilna Shul is a rare surviving intact Immigrant Era synagogue.
 * The Congregation Or Hatzafon "Light of the North", Fairbanks, Alaska, is the world's northernmost synagogue building.
 * The Görlitz Synagogue in Görlitz, Germany, was built in Jugendstil style between 1909 and 1911. Damaged, but not destroyed, during the Kristallnacht riots, the synagogue was bought by the City Council in 1963. After extensive renovations concluding in late 2020, the main sanctuary (Kuppelsaal with 310 seats) will be reopened for general culture, and the small synagogue (Wochentags-Synagoge, with space for around 45 visitors)

title: Synagogue


text:
Tree (graph theory)

In graph theory, a tree is an undirected graph in which any two vertices are connected by path, or equivalently a connected acyclic undirected graph. A forest is an undirected graph in which any two vertices are connected by path, or equivalently an acyclic undirected graph, or equivalently a disjoint union of trees.

A directed tree, oriented tree, polytree, or singly connected network is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) whose underlying undirected graph is a tree. A polyforest (or directed forest or oriented forest) is a directed acyclic graph whose underlying undirected graph is a forest.

The various kinds of data structures referred to as trees in computer science have underlying graphs that are trees in graph theory, although such data structures are generally rooted trees. A rooted tree may be directed, called a directed rooted tree, either making all its edges point away from the root—in which case it is called an arborescence or out-tree —or making all its edges point towards the root—in which case it is called an anti-arborescence or in-tree. A rooted tree itself has been defined by some authors as a directed graph. A rooted forest is a disjoint union of rooted trees. A rooted forest may be directed, called a directed rooted forest, either making all its edges point away from the root in each rooted tree—in which case it is called a branching or out-forest—or making all its edges point towards the root in each rooted tree—in which case it is called an anti-branching or in-forest.

The term was coined in 1857 by the British mathematician Arthur Cayley.

Tree
A tree is an undirected graph $G$ that satisfies any of the following equivalent conditions: If $G$ has finitely many vertices, say $G$ of them, then the above statements are also equivalent to any of the following conditions: As elsewhere in graph theory, the order-zero graph (graph with no vertices) is generally not considered to be a tree: while it is vacuously connected as a graph (any two vertices can be connected by a path), it is not 0-connected (or even (−1)-connected) in algebraic topology, unlike non-empty trees, and violates the "one more vertex than edges" relation. It may, however, be considered as a forest consisting of zero trees.
 * $G$ is connected and acyclic (contains no cycles).
 * $G$ is acyclic, and a simple cycle is formed if any edge is added to $G$.
 * $G$ is connected, but would become disconnected if any single edge is removed from $G$.
 * $G$ is connected and the complete graph $K3$ is not a minor of $G$.
 * Any two vertices in $n$ can be connected by a unique simple path.
 * $G$ is connected and has $n − 1$ edges.
 * $G$ is connected, and every subgraph of $G$ includes at least one vertex with zero or one incident edges. (That is, $G$ is connected and 1-degenerate.)
 * $G$ has no simple cycles and has $n − 1$ edges.

An (or inner vertex) is a vertex of degree at least 2. Similarly, an (or outer vertex, terminal vertex or leaf) is a vertex of degree 1. A branch vertex in a tree is a vertex of degree at least 3.

An (or series-reduced tree) is a tree in which there is no vertex of degree 2 (enumerated at sequence  in the OEIS).

Forest
A is an undirected acyclic graph or equivalently a disjoint union of trees. Trivially so, each conected component of a forest is a tree. As special cases, the order-zero graph (a forest consisting of zero trees), a single tree, and an edgeless graph, are examples of forests. Since for every tree $V − E = 1$, we can easily count the number of trees that are within a forest by subtracting the difference between total vertices and total edges. $V − E =$ number of trees in a forest.

Polytree
A (or directed tree or oriented tree  or singly connected network ) is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) whose underlying undirected graph is a tree. In other words, if we replace its directed edges with undirected edges, we obtain an undirected graph that is both connected and acyclic.

Some authors restrict the phrase "directed tree" to the case where the edges are all directed towards a particular vertex, or all directed away from a particular vertex (see arborescence).

Polyforest
A (or directed forest or oriented forest) is a directed acyclic graph whose underlying undirected graph is a forest. In other words, if we replace its directed edges with undirected edges, we obtain an undirected graph that is acyclic.

As with directed trees, some authors restrict the phrase "directed forest" to the case where the edges of each connected component are all directed towards a particular vertex, or all directed away from a particular vertex (see branching).

Rooted tree
A is a tree in which one vertex has been designated the root. The edges of a rooted tree can be assigned a natural orientation, either away from or towards the root, in which case the structure becomes a directed rooted tree. When a directed rooted tree has an orientation away from the root, it is called an arborescence or out-tree; when it has an orientation towards the root, it is called an anti-arborescence or in-tree. The tree-order is the partial ordering on the vertices of a tree with $u < v$ if and only if the unique path from the root to $k$ passes through $v$. A rooted tree $u$ that is a subgraph of some graph $T$ is a normal tree if the ends of every $G$-path in $T$ are comparable in this tree-order. Rooted trees, often with an additional structure such as an ordering of the neighbors at each vertex, are a key data structure in computer science; see tree data structure.

In a context where trees typically have a root, a tree without any designated root is called a free tree.

A labeled tree is a tree in which each vertex is given a unique label. The vertices of a labeled tree on $G$ vertices (for nonnegative integers $n$) are typically given the labels $1, 2, …, n$. A recursive tree is a labeled rooted tree where the vertex labels respect the tree order (i.e., if $u < v$ for two vertices $n$ and $u$, then the label of $v$ is smaller than the label of $u$).

In a rooted tree, the parent of a vertex $v$ is the vertex connected to $v$ on the path to the root; every vertex has a unique parent, except the root has no parent. A child of a vertex $v$ is a vertex of which $v$ is the parent. An ascendant of a vertex $v$ is any vertex that is either the parent of $v$ or is (recursively) an ascendant of a parent of $v$. A descendant of a vertex $v$ is any vertex that is either a child of $v$ or is (recursively) a descendant of a child of $v$. A sibling to a vertex $v$ is any other vertex on the tree that shares a parent with $v$. A leaf is a vertex with no children. An internal vertex is a vertex that is not a leaf.

The height of a vertex in a rooted tree is the length of the longest downward path to a leaf from that vertex. The height of the tree is the height of the root. The depth of a vertex is the length of the path to its root (root path). The depth of a tree is the maximum depth of any vertex. Depth is commonly needed in the manipulation of the various self-balancing trees, AVL trees in particular. The root has depth zero, leaves have height zero, and a tree with only a single vertex (hence both a root and leaf) has depth and height zero. Conventionally, an empty tree (a tree with no vertices, if such are allowed) has depth and height −1.

A $v$-ary tree (for nonnegative integers $k$) is a rooted tree in which each vertex has at most $k$ children. 2-ary trees are often called binary trees, while 3-ary trees are sometimes called ternary trees.

Ordered tree
An ordered tree (alternatively, plane tree or positional tree ) is a rooted tree in which an ordering is specified for the children of each vertex. This is called a "plane tree" because an ordering of the children is equivalent to an embedding of the tree in the plane, with the root at the top and the children of each vertex lower than that vertex. Given an embedding of a rooted tree in the plane, if one fixes a direction of children, say left to right, then an embedding gives an ordering of the children. Conversely, given an ordered tree, and conventionally drawing the root at the top, then the child vertices in an ordered tree can be drawn left-to-right, yielding an essentially unique planar embedding.

Properties

 * Every tree is a bipartite graph. A graph is bipartite if and only if it contains no cycles of odd length. Since a tree contains no cycles at all, it is bipartite.
 * Every tree with only countably many vertices is a planar graph.
 * Every connected graph G admits a spanning tree, which is a tree that contains every vertex of G and whose edges are edges of G. More specific types spanning trees, existing in every connected finite graph, include depth-first search trees and breadth-first search trees. Generalizing the existence of depth-first-search trees, every connected graph with only countably many vertices has a Trémaux tree. However, some uncountable-order graphs do not have such a tree.
 * Every finite tree with n vertices, with n > 1, has at least two terminal vertices (leaves). This minimal number of leaves is characteristic of path graphs; the maximal number, n − 1, is attained only by star graphs. The number of leaves is at least the maximum vertex degree.
 * For any three vertices in a tree, the three paths between them have exactly one vertex in common. More generally, a vertex in a graph that belongs to three shortest paths among three vertices is called a median of these vertices. Because every three vertices in a tree have a unique median, every tree is a median graph.
 * Every tree has a center consisting of one vertex or two adjacent vertices. The center is the middle vertex or middle two vertices in every longest path. Similarly, every n-vertex tree has a centroid consisting of one vertex or two adjacent vertices. In the first case removal of the vertex splits the tree into subtrees of fewer than n/2 vertices. In the second case, removal of the edge between the two centroidal vertices splits the tree into two subtrees of exactly n/2 vertices.
 * The maximal cliques of a tree are precisely its edges, implying that the class of trees has few cliques.

Labeled trees
Cayley's formula states that there are $nn−2$ trees on $k$ labeled vertices. A classic proof uses Prüfer sequences, which naturally show a stronger result: the number of trees with vertices $1, 2, …, n$ of degrees $d1, d2, …, dn$ respectively, is the multinomial coefficient
 * $${n - 2 \choose d_1 - 1, d_2 - 1, \ldots, d_n - 1}.$$

A more general problem is to count spanning trees in an undirected graph, which is addressed by the matrix tree theorem. (Cayley's formula is the special case of spanning trees in a complete graph.) The similar problem of counting all the subtrees regardless of size is #P-complete in the general case.

Unlabeled trees
Counting the number of unlabeled free trees is a harder problem. No closed formula for the number $t(n)$ of trees with $n$ vertices up to graph isomorphism is known. The first few values of $t(n)$ are
 * 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 23, 47, 106, 235, 551, 1301, 3159, ….

proved the asymptotic estimate
 * $$t(n) \sim C \alpha^n n^{-5/2} \quad\text{as } n\to\infty,$$

with $C ≈ 0.534949606...$ and $α ≈ 2.95576528565...$. Here, the $~$ symbol means that
 * $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{t(n)}{C \alpha^n n^{-5/2} } = 1.$$

This is a consequence of his asymptotic estimate for the number $r(n)$ of unlabeled rooted trees with $n$ vertices:
 * $$r(n) \sim D\alpha^n n^{-3/2} \quad\text{as } n\to\infty,$$

with $D ≈ 0.43992401257...$ and the same $n$ as above (cf., chap. 2.3.4.4 and , chap. VII.5, p. 475).

The first few values of $r(n)$ are
 * 1, 1, 2, 4, 9, 20, 48, 115, 286, 719, 1842, 4766, 12486, 32973, ….

Types of trees

 * A path graph (or linear graph) consists of $α$ vertices arranged in a line, so that vertices $n$ and $i + 1$ are connected by an edge for $i = 1, …, n – 1$.
 * A starlike tree consists of a central vertex called root and several path graphs attached to it. More formally, a tree is starlike if it has exactly one vertex of degree greater than 2.
 * A star tree is a tree which consists of a single internal vertex (and $n – 1$ leaves). In other words, a star tree of order $i$ is a tree of order $n$ with as many leaves as possible.
 * A caterpillar tree is a tree in which all vertices are within distance 1 of a central path subgraph.
 * A lobster tree is a tree in which all vertices are within distance 2 of a central path subgraph.
 * A regular tree of degree $n$ is the infinite tree with $d$ edges at each vertex. These arise as the Cayley graphs of free groups, and in the theory of Tits buildings. In statistical mechanics they are known as Bethe lattices.

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

title: Tree (graph theory)


text:
User talk:24.150.61.63

Old text
Welcome to Wikipedia! May I call you "24" for short? User:Ed Poor

I have no problem with rewrites, they generally improve articles, but I have a big problem with people removing whole articles of relatively uncontroversial stuff that no one else has bothered to define or research at all. Also with people who assume that just because a political party advocates it, it must be somehow biased or wrong.

I am not a "vandal" and don't like that term. I'm getting used to the process here. I am not sure I like serious essays being labelled 'junk' by some golfer or geek.

It's not like I don't have a theory of what I'm doing. Check the entries in the meta defining ethics and NPOV itself. You might see where I'm coming from and why I think certain things are important and others might not be. I want my facts straight, but I don't want to see typo-corrections reversed by a clique of self-appointed gurus. What you need here is a consensus process.

Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative): [list way out of date, deleted, click 'user's contributions'] ... and more, but I think I'll give up trying to list them. Note that the "This user's contributions" link ([here]) actually works, despite the fact that the user has no user name. See also Wikipedia_utilities/Pages_needing_attention.

the user in question: you don't seem too "reluctant", you are reversing careful rewrites without reading them apparently in defiance of protocol.

This one I edited first time without knowing the rules: You are apparently also not distinguishing the generic "Four Pillars" (which may be adopted by any group) from the original FPOTGP as defined by European Green Parties - redirecting one to the other as if they were the same thing.
 * Four Pillars of the Green Party

 * I didn't redirect it - look at the [history]. It was 213.253.39.xxx who did most of the work removing your junk. --Zundark, 2002 Mar 22

If you want to keep playing a game, we'll keep playing a game. I have no problem with rewrites, they generally improve articles, but I have a big problem with people removing whole articles of relatively uncontroversial stuff that no one else has bothered to define or research at all. Also with people who assume that just because a political party advocates it, it must be somehow biased or wrong.

Most of the research comes from National Geographic, on the ape material, although it's hard to quote sources since most of it was TV specials with state of the art information.

 * I am SURE that there is a good deal of scholarly research that has been published on Jane Goodall, Bonobos, and the like. My advice to 24.150.61.63 is this: if you would like to develop or contribute to an article in an encyclopedia (I mean, if it is really important to you and you are serious), why not do a little research rather than just rely on your memory of a TV show or popular magazine?  In general, I would not count on National Geographic specials to be 'state of the art."  Anyway, how would you know -- unless you have done additional research.  And if you have done additional research, please rely on it! SR

24.150.61.63 deleted most of the above, and replaced it with the following:

Zundark sez: Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative):

 * Jane Goodall
 * Bonobo
 * Eco-villages
 * Greens
 * Four Pillars of the Green Party

Also sez: "24.150.61.63 inserting idiosyncratic non-NPOV ecology-related stuff all over the place"

and SR sez: "if it is really important to you and you are serious), why not do a little research rather than just rely on your memory of a TV show or popular magazine? SR" and "I wouldn't rely on National Geographic Specials to be state of the art"

The user in question sez:  *EVEN IF THEY WERE MADE IN 2002*??!? Field researchers won't leave the field because they want to protect their subjects. Unlike you I guess, but fine, let's leave motivations *out*...

I am not a "vandal" and don't like that term. I'm getting used to the process here. I am not sure I like serious essays being labelled 'junk' by some golfer or geek.

The material in question is generally pretty carefully researched - more importantly, I understand it. It is you not me who are deleting far more than you have to - and applying a political bias. If that's for lack of time, fine, I appreciate that and can slow down.

Generally one can tell state of the art information by who quotes it. I doubt that some it is published at all - for instance anthropologists arguing about why some Great Apes are hominids by the classic definition, etc..

Why don't I wait for this to be published somewhere? Because they may all be dead first - you'll note I'm not bothering to type in things about Britney Spears or Chandra Levy that I saw on TV... have a sense of priorities, man: I may get some details wrong, but all told, if wiki readers help prevent an extinction of a misunderstood species... I'm not apologizing for the typos.

That said, there are much less important issues:

The Green Party material you are literally mangling by reversing corrections and explanatory extensions. The definition of a Green Party is controversial and the Global Greens Charter is certainly not a sufficient definition of it. If you bothered to go to globalgreens.org you'd see objections to it, and if you lived through the debate between Greenpeace and Green Parties that seems to always get them confused, you'd realize why that needs a section to discuss "non-violence" versus "harms reduction" and can't be simplified.

Frankly, you don't seem too "reluctant", I'd guess you are reversing careful rewrites and whole articles without reading them apparently in defiance of protocol. [Perhaps they will reappear but if so wiki should say 'this is in rewrite']. I appreciate you guys are working without an editor, but really... there must be a better way to deal than calling people 'vandals'.

It's not like I don't have a theory of what I'm doing. Check the entries in the meta defining ethics and NPOV itself. You might see where I'm coming from and why I think certain things are important and others might not be. I want my facts straight, but I don't want to see typo-corrections reversed by a clique of self-appointed gurus. What you need here is a consensus process.

You also don't seem to realize that ecology is a science and defines facts and consensus theory.

That was a very intelligent comment about "Homonidae" which makes note of the difference between taxonomists and anthropologists (and also primatologists).

Other almost-meaningless details:

I have a big problem with people removing whole articles of relatively uncontroversial stuff that no one else has bothered to define or research at all. Also with people who assume that just because a political party advocates it, it must be somehow biased or wrong.

You have a body, you live in an ecology, and without both you'd be dead. So I kind of resent being told that it's "BIASED" to bring up body and ecology issues in an encyclopedia entry, or quote things (like the origin of female breasts) that are not controversial. Just how long have you dudes been here hacking? - Zundark sez: [Neartic, Neotropic (really we should just delete this stuff before it gets totally out of hand)]

I repeat "ecology is a science and defines facts" including Nearctic and Neotropic as the ecoregional names of the North-Central and South American continents. You are trying to delete the entire science of ecology, Zundark.

That will not work.

 * Actually, I didn't mean we shouldn't have articles on Nearctic and Neotropic. (They do, however, need to be properly written.) I just meant that we should delete all your stuff as the easiest way of dealing with it for now. It would be great if someone would come along and convert all your stuff into something encyclopedic, but I don't see this happening at the moment. --Zundark, 2002 Mar 22
 * I haven't seen Zundark around, so evidently he found an "easier way"...

OK, the term "undo" should not be confused with the term "delete" but I hear whta you are saying. I figured this out myself and went mostly to one-liner stub-type articles. Some, like 'ecology movement', were cut down to that but left senseless. Now the only thing it says is that they became Greens - but the fact that ecology movements still exist or what they believe is gone...

It's not just a question of having articles on Nearctic and Neotropic, these are new scientific names for ecozones that correspond to continents just like Homo Sapiens is the scientific name for humans. So scientists going forward are more likely to refer to Nearctic or Neotropic peoples or species than to North and South American, which are colonial names now going out of style... likewise Europe is now considered ecologically aligned with Russia and North Africa while China/Malay is split off from the rest of Asia.

This is a major shift in how people see the world, and I'm not surprised it is surprising to some. But it's not an attempt to push some personal agenda.

I'm just reporting.

If you want, I can report like a Libertarian or a hardcore Communist, but I'm still going to have to differentiate ecologically-real things like Nearctic from ideologically-made-up things like 'class struggle' or 'property rights'.

That's going to make me sound like a Green. But that's also what makes a scientist sound like a scientist.

I'd just ask you to look at your own motivations, and why something like Four_Pillars you consider so objectionable in its edited form, while Electoral_Reform is not.

 * My listing an article here doesn't mean that I object to it. It just means that the article needs to be checked. Electoral Reform is not listed because I hadn't even noticed it. (However, I'm not going to add it now, because it looks like 64.26.98.xxx and 213.253.39.xxx have dealt with it. You could try doing something useful by moving it to Electoral reform, which is where it should be.) --Zundark, 2002 Mar 22

I'm sure you don't want me digging through every entry to find ideological points of view that don't reflect modern scientific ideas of body and ecology, so we have to find some middle ground here somewhere.

Biosafety has three definitions: one in agriculture, one in medicine, and one in trade. I can't explain the three meanings without some attempt at unifying them, and I can't unify them without some reference to ecology and the body. That's going to make me sound like a Green, because only Greens can do this... unfortunately. Biosafety and biosecurity don't make sense if your brain is addled by ideology. They make perfect sense if you view your self as body wandering around in an ecology.

 * only Greens can do this... unfortunately
 * Biosafety and biosecurity don't make sense if your brain is addled by ideology.

Oh dear, we are now getting into the world of 'only we can see the real truth; you are 'addled by ideology'. Unfortunately, that way lies the tinfoil hat.

You may be the One True Messiah, and we may all be disastrously wrong -- but we don't believe that yet.

Our minds are open, truly: if you can convince us that what you are saying represents the real world, please.

Please, attempt to reason with us with argument, backed up with real-world evidence:generally quoting credible sources helps.

Otherwise, we have no reason not to believe that you are a lone nutter. The Anome

24.150.61.63 (may I call you 24?) I'm a card-carrying Green Party member, and I have to tell you, I really think you're going about making your points in a way that's more likely to get them deleted than listened to. May I suggest Wikipedia policy and  Wikipetiquette for starters? This is an evolving society all its own, and it has developed certain standards of interaction based on the Founding Fathers Larry and Jimbo. ;)

We don't ask you to change your opinions, or even to not include information. However, there's a definite consensus againt including viewpoint as fact, rather than "facts about opinions" as the NPOV has it. Certainly you have your own paradigm through which you view all these events; I might even agree with you on some of it. However, you cannot demand that this encyclopeda adopt your paradigm. It has its own: the attempt to portray a "balanced" summary of the current state of human knowledge.

It also has a fair number of academic and scientific sorts working on it, which means that academic standards on references and scientific rules of evidence are quite often invoked when a point is disputed. Luck to you in future contributions! -- April
 * I agree, April, that 24 can be damaging to his own cause, while Zundark is there like a bull in a china shop at the other end of the teeter-totter. The true NPOV is likely somewhere in between.  Eclecticology
 * somewhere between Natural point of view, and the current French or German mass media view maybe.

24 here: I don't object to a single blessed word of this. In fact I'm very pleased that you're on the case. It shows there is a consensus process here, that it's not unanimous (i.e. always blocked until a dictator shows up), etc.

I'm also pleased that "academic standards on references and scientific rules of evidence are quite often invoked when a point is disputed." That's as it should be.

However, most of the issues with my writing have been with regard to ecology, which is where I made reference to these standards from day one and even went out on a limb to ensure that political material supposedly based on ecological theory was using the right words to describe the right thing in advance of some Green group agreeing on it. In my experience if no one does that we never see it done... if you're a Green Party member, you know how many irrational objections block things.

Now, I don't want to make work for people who don't have a feel for the material, I'm pleasantly surprised at how many people are on the case here, and I'm willing to make a profound and detailed case for why these things are defined as they are - each of them. I'll use the "talk" feature for that as things come up.

I'm in a rush for other reasons - I've been working on this material for a long time, I'm going to lose online access for a while, and I would like to make sure that there's a starting point for genuine experts in each topic to correct, edit, update, etc..

If you know anything about ecology or Green politics, you know that it's a movement of specialists, and that people who can write such articles in plain language are rare. People who can actually write neutrally are even rarer.

Maybe I'm not one of them.

So, here's what I can do: First, I can explain exactly how I define neutral - I already did that in the NPOV article itself, and differentiated a thing called "natural point of view" which pretends not to rely on human adult type socialization. I didn't say I could do it - I said it exists.

I realize there's a bit of a gap when "body and environment concerns" doesn't parse...

Also, I can explain exactly how I see ethical balances between the "neutral" and "natural" view - and what moral foundation they rest on. The "Simple View of Ethics and Morals" was good when I found it - but now it's really the best short guide to the subject anywhere. I encourage you to read it and see if you agree. If not, we should have that discussion before we have this one.

I'd like to help you get to 100,000 articles, hell I could write 10,000 myself, but first you have to trust that I'm at least more right than wrong, and that the way I write these things will bring in more expert helpers than just leaving them blank or incompletely defined.

Maybe it's just me, but i think i don't like 24, his attitude to wikipedia and way of writing (for example in his revision of NPOV). szopen

I did that fairly early on, in response to some outright censorship - some of which is documented above. Last I saw it was reversed. It's not at all clear what is the central arbiter of policy here, since there's no single editor. I'd appreciate a discussion of that.

I don't give a damn who likes me, my writing, or my attitude. However, I am here to cooperate, and there's no point denying that one of the things that I'm here to change is the idea that NPOV always means compromise with socially prevalent errors.

 * We are here to report on society, not to judge what its errors are and certainly not to attempt to change those errors. If you have a political agenda, which is pretty clear to the most casual observer, you may want to consider pushing this agenda in other forums. AxelBoldt

 * all I want to push is you - back into the math which you understand, and out of the politics and philosophy that you don't. Everyone has a political agenda, and mine is reflected in my choice of subjects, and sources, not in advocacy.  Among sane people, the body and its surrounding ecology are real, and mathematics and physics are fantasies that create nuclear weaponry somehow.  In a safe happy world we'd likely abandon the math and physics and spend more time on dance or gardening.  The errors of US or EU society are not the errors of real human society, which they have lost.  Accordingly it is normal that you would see "a political agenda" in something that reduced your own relative power.

I can prove to the satisfaction of any expert that "natural point of view" and "neutral point of view" are not the same thing.

 * That's obvious. Your chosing the same initials NPOV for your unpopular policy is a deliberate attempt to muddy the water. AxelBoldt

 * It's plenty popular with the six billion people on Earth who see themselves as victims of the US mass media and its true believers. Sorry to disappoint, Ax baby, but "natural law" and "natural sciences" preceded "neutral" by a lot.

The baby brother of these arguments is the ones about Eurocentrism, the middle brother is the arguments about dominator culture and mathematics, adn the big brother argument is that someone always knows what's "Natural" better than you do.

So, every new entry to wikipedia is going to change its political and ethical tone. That's life.

So, you don't like me, and maybe I don't like you. Fine. For this to work, you'd have to say *why*, or how you think my work biases wikipedia.

Go ahead. The floor is yours.

You don't like me, i don't like you, at least one thing settled. I am just one of many contributors to wikipedia - i would say one of probabably less important, but officially none here is more or less important. You can safely ignore me (and others). I know one person who is constantly ignoring anything what i (and at least five or six different other persons) am trying to told her.

Why i don't like you? Quite simple.
 * "The "Simple View of Ethics and Morals" was good when I found it - but now it's really the best short guide to the subject anywhere."

I've read it. I must say this entry _is good_. But i would hesitate to call it the best. And definetely i would hesitate to call it the best if i would write it. Moreover, simple conclusion one take from reading that article is that ethics in fact do not exist. I don't like label "most societies consider some acts as bad for society". Most people consider some acts as bad, period.

While much good can be told about simple view of ethics (Although now it is not simple view), i was really confused when i read your contribution to NPOV. Maybe it is because i am not native English speaker - therefore youcould treat me as equivalent of four year child to whom you are trying to explain something - but i considered one point as being direct attack on one person, and, instead of contributing to general policy of wikipedia, being direct answer to some problem which should be discussed elsewhere on talk pages - and last points i understand as you are trying to convince that in fact there is no neutral point of view and one should not care about everything all others write and agreed to.

And others articles are too overloaded with eco-newspeach. I was born in communist country and similar speeches i've read before only before 1989. Eco-this, eco-those, just like pre-1989 everything was class struggle and efect of natural history processes. szopen

actually, I am starting to like you a bit. ;-)

OK, here's what I've done. The stuff you didn't like in NPOV is now in natural point of view where it doesn't pretend to be policy. I should have done that from the start.

Second, I don't deny that you have the right to claim certain things as being morally absolute - including moral relativism if you want - and I don't pretend to understand the actual life of someone ni Poland,, and I sure don't intend to tell you what your body means or what ecology is. Still less its political consequences.

But I hope we dont disagree that we are both breathing, drinking water, etc., and have a certain shared bodily interest in keeping those things going. That there *is* some kind of natural point of view that we share by both being human.

Third, where I draw the line: I'm not responsible for other people's abuses of "eco-speak". I am more careful than most other writers about atton political sciciences, but I cam not going to pretend that I believe that primate extninction isiinction doesn't deeply disgust me etc. - I am going to find references that make a point of that, which are increasingly easy to find.

Fourth, ethics is what we are doing right here right now: hashing out our differences to de-escalate them so they don't lead to bigger conflicts, side-taking, and the like.

So, it exists, but it isn't a matter of me imposing a moral point of view on you. In fact my idea of ethics *is* the Four Pillars and the consensus process that they represent.

It wsa necessary for me to update some of that other material just so that I'd be able to go back and make clear that this is not just a list of four idealistic goals, but the specification of a process tthat I see as scientific and rigorous as mathematics or physics.

Perhaps even strong enough to replace peer review, trust in particle physics, representative democracy, etc., although I'm not claiming anyone is anywhere near that today.

Is that like Marx or Hegel and the end of history? Yes. Do I share the willingness to take shortcuts by violence? Not at the moment. But talk to me after a Great Ape is extincted in the wild, and see what I say then. Everybody can change their mind about life and their place in it.

In general, I write articles that strongly understate and even conflict directly with my view on something - you can tell my politics from *what I write aboout* rather than *how I write about it*.

I think that's the socially acceptable way to proceed... don't you?

BTWI like the "Orange Alternative" and I wish it was here at the moment...;-)

This is to thank TheAnome, AxelBoldt, szopen and Ed Poor for recent exchanges, all of which have been enlightening. And of course for the articles which get better as a result of your critiques.

Hello, I've been accused of being a paranoid turkey before, and maybe I'm due for it again--but are you sure you want your complete (apparently static) IP address as your login? I'm assuming you must be quite confident you have an unbreachable system, and if so, kudos to you. I certainly wouldn't dare it. Best, Koyaanis Qatsi

I simply don't care about most snooping type breaches, nothing of value here that I don't already share to best of my ability, and I'm choosing namelessness not for some made-up ideas about "security" or "anoynimity" but simply because I consider reputations themselves hazardous to bodily health of this planet and its creatures. If I'm hacked or hunted down for what I write, fine, that's at least sharing bodily risk with hundreds of other folks who put their lives on their line to discover and share various types of truth.

If I'm going to state flatly that I believe that people who believe in a long list of scientific dogmata are going to die violently for those beliefs, then moral accountability requires me to make myself available to be killed by the believers - this is easily enough done by revealing an IP number for traces... I am absolutely committed to sharing all information regarding body risk... if some poor fellow like Axel Boldt thinks that his particle physics foundation ontology is the absolute truth and will remain the foundation ontology of all future societies, fine, let him come kill me as obstacle to his dominator culture. Likewise, if Unabombers don't want the non-violent competition, or think I'm enabling gollums, they can unabomb me too with a little work. Fine.

Arrogant? Sure. I didn't reveal this IP as a matter of policy. But I am not scared by it. Why shouldn't you guys all know what the NSA always knows?

 * 24, you are taking life way to seriously - calm down, enjoy the ride, have fun. We live in an open and arguably free society in which anyone can do bodily harm to anybody else if they are determined enough. So what? Why write your hands off about it? --maveric149, Wednesday, April 3, 2002

 * I tried to redirect "fun" to wikipedia which ought to be non-controversial

 * I don't know who "we" are, or why "we" will always live in this "open and arguably free society". Personally I expect to move from this relatively low level of risk to much higher levels over my lifetime, and developing habits of disclosure related to bodily harm is a sound strategy if one wishes to face down killers on their own turf, which I do.  I type so fast that it's no skin off my nose to explain myself.

 * the most profound debates about the value of freedom and anoynmity and bodily harm are conducted at http://greenpeace.org - by far the world's most rigorous organization regarding "outing" activists or advocates, researchers or whistle blowers. Do a google.com search on "Greenpeace XXX" where XXX is "etiquette", "anonymous", "anonym", "noms", "freedom and dignity", "bodily harm", "body value", etc.  I don't think anyone that hasn't browsed over there really understands the issues involved in organizing controversial activities online.  And in many places, knowledge is itself very controversial.

24,

Let me try to explain to you about logging in.
 * it is not you who will explain to me, but me who will explain this to you.

It does not provide you with LESS anonymity, but MORE. You can still call yourself '24'. The primary advantage of logging in is that it would provide you with increased anonymity,as your ip number would be fully masked.
 * I've said this before - I don't give a damn who can find my body. I give a damn who insists on witchhunts.  But, whatever...

A secondary advantage is that you make it easier for the people you are trying to persuade... easier to find your comments.
 * I'm not trying to "persuade" anyone. If you can't follow your own conventions, that's not my problem.  And, so far, you show little ability to follow them.

Your 'groupthink' objection to logging in makes no sense to me. Will the act of logging in somehow compromise your individuality? When you log in, will you automatically start to see things my way? I don't think so. Logging in is simple and a very tiny technical matter -- your refusal to log in serves no purpose
 * nonsense. You don't understand "groupthink".  But Larry does, and is propagating it.  whatever.

except to increase people's perception of you as being an immature crank who can safely be ignored.
 * whatever. I accept being ignored.  And I am by no means concerned about being considered a crank, by cranks.

If you wish to have positive influence, you must consider the context of the people you are trying to influence. Some will be hostile to you no mattter what. Others, perhaps, will agree with you no matter what.
 * whatever. I'm not trying to influence anyone.  I had some old research to share.  If you don't want it and my best efforts to share it, fine.  I don't need abuse, I don't need people speculating as to who I am or what I want, I don't need this shit, period.  Certain people are hostile to me because they are hostile to their own body, or this planet, or whatever.

But there's a large group in the middle, who are sincerely waiting to hear what you have to say, and who are willing to follow your arguments over several days or weeks in order to understand. But it is precisely this group who you alienate by refusing to log in. Jimbo Wales
 * no, I alienate people who do not understand online collaboration, like Larry. I'm not interested in having an argument followed over days or weeks - that shouldn't be required if these people are doing their jobs.

I moved the talk from 24's user page. I took the liberty of extracting a few key sentences to form a stub for him. I realize that user's typically create their own user page, and by no means do I intend to imply that I have a "right" to mangle someone's user page. I just thought I'd help him get started.

Kind of like the granny in My Neighbor Totoro who cleaned up the old house when she heard the professor's family was going to moving in. . . Ed Poor

No reason to be sorry for what you have done Ed -- 24 has proven him/her/its-self unable
 * uninterested in some things, perhaps.

to do the simplest of things by themselves (such as follow our guidelines, standards or for creating a user page to act as a central place for others to chat with him/her/it, for example). Thank you for creating and organizing this page for this person. Regards --maveric149, Wednesday, April 10, 2002
 * I'm not interesting in chat. I'm interested in governance, and articles, and whatever talk is required to collaborate on a good article.

OK, I think I see the problem. Wikipedia is not about finding absolute truth. 24, you may be completely, absolutely right, but if everyone does not agree with you then it cannot go into the Wikipedia. I remember seeing this on Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some people would adamantly say there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he resurrected, so they insisted that they were right and that is what should go in the Wikipedia. But, many disagree. So, we have to represent both sides.
 * that title chooses a side. I don't think any of my titles have chosen sides, and I don't think that any of my articles have failed to outline a good set of objections to views presented.  That's quite unlike this Resurrection situation.

He may have resurrected, He may not have, but Wikipedia can't take a stand on the issue, it can only say who believes what. We're here to present facts, not opinions or beliefs. Simply put, Wikipedia's goal is to present the facts from each side fairly and allow the reader to decide from that what to believe. --Chuck Smith
 * who is "everyone"? how do we know if they "agree"?  What is presented here that is anything other than a flat account of what's going on in the field?  Obviously our impressions of that differ.

Again, I would like to urge you all to stop feeding the troll. --Larry Sanger
 * so, your position is what? That there is no value in any of these topics or any of my references?  That these controversial topics can somehow be covered without controversy and argument?  Some of them are a little specialized or a little premature or hard to characterize in terms of an encyclopedia founded by yourself - so what?  Eventually, you must encounter these topics and deal with them.  However, your fanatical commitment to ad hominem argument suggests to me that you have no intent of comprehending any of these topics or the reasons why there might be controversy about them necessarily.  In your entire tenure as editor you did not deal with any of the above topics adequately, and you complain about what?  About your own lack of control maybe?

Even if you don't wish to choose a user name, you could sign what you write in thread mode, it would make it easier to read the discussion. For that matter, why not register "24" or "TwentyFour" as a user name? -- Tarquin I've only just walked in on this, but if your aim is to remain anonymous it's doomed: tales of your exploits have reached MeatballWiki... BTW, this page is TooBiGToEdit, the letters crawl along as I type them in Mozilla like a tired Jessica Fletcher. Maybe split into "Anonymity" and "Content" or something? -- Tarquin
 * I was leaving that for Larry, who seems to wish to discredit me thoroughly, and could do so easily by registering those names. I like to be accomodating.  I don't actually intend to do much more talking on the wiki, as it only seems to put the clique in a more terrified defensive position.

Example
Hey, I was wondering if you could take a look at physical capital and maybe give examples or elaborations as per the confusion cited? I don't think it's a really clear definition to those not familiar with economics. Thanks :)

Jdu22 03:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Contact
Hi, I found a lot of your editing very interesting and it looks like you know about Global Resource Bank? I am interested in developing articles around Ecological Economy and Natural Capital.

lennart_bylund@yahoo.se --Swedenborg 08:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bodily harm
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Bodily harm, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bodily harm
An editor has nominated Bodily harm, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Property damage
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Property damage, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Property damage.  Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Property damage
I have nominated Property damage, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Property damage. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 23:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Tribal Revolution
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is New Tribal Revolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/New Tribal Revolution (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Sacred geometry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sacred geometry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sacred geometry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The most remarkable formula in the world listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The most remarkable formula in the world. Since you had some involvement with the The most remarkable formula in the world redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Four Pillars of the Green Party

The article Four Pillars of the Green Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
 * Fails to cite sources.

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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Earthling for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Earthling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Earthling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Instructional capital

The article Instructional capital has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unsourced since 2007"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Safe trade

The article Safe trade has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:24.150.61.63


text:
User:William Avery

 * Frederick Bligh Bond
 * E. J. H. Corner
 * Arnold Elston
 * William Venn Gough
 * Edmond Halley
 * Pedro Lozano
 * Anton Mosimann
 * Edith Olivier

 * 6 King Street, Bristol
 * 7 and 8 King Street, Bristol
 * 14 and 15 King Street, Bristol
 * 16 King Street, Bristol
 * 32 King Street, Bristol
 * 61 Queen Charlotte Street, Bristol
 * 37 and 39 Jamaica Street, Bristol
 * Buckingham Baptist Chapel
 * Clarks Wood Company warehouse
 * Palace Hotel, Bristol
 * Queen Square House, Bristol
 * Sailors Refuge, Bristol
 * St Peter and St Paul, Bristol
 * Ston Easton Park
 * Trinity Road Library, Bristol
 * Wool Hall, Bristol
 * Wootton Manor

 * Île de Sein

.

 * see-also-check – Helps check for conformity to WP:ALSO
 * taxoboxalyzer – Converts manual taxoboxes to the Automated taxobox system
 * Heber – For checking the images left when draft articles are rejected (incomplete)

How the category tree works - we are all (extinct) fish
Category:Fish > Category:Fish conservation > Category:Fish by conservation status > Category:Extinct fish > Category:Prehistoric fish > Category:Prehistoric fish by geological period > Category:Paleozoic fish > Category:Devonian fish > Category:Devonian bony fish > Category:Elpistostegalians > Category:Stegocephalians > Category:Tetrapods > Category:Evolution of tetrapods > Category:Evolution of mammals > Evolution of primates > Human evolution > Recent African origin of modern humans > Category:Anatomically modern humans > Category:Race (human categorization) > Category:Biological anthropology > Category:Primatology > Category:Primates > Category:Primate taxa > Category:Primate taxonomy > Category:Apes > Category:Homininae > Category:Hominini > Category:Hominina > Category:Humans ...

Talk:Turkey, Talk:Bollocks

title: User:William Avery