text:
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (United States)

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP or U.S. GAAP or GAAP (USA), pronounced like "gap") is the accounting standard adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and is the default accounting standard used by companies based in the United States.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) publishes and maintains the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC), which is the single source of authoritative nongovernmental U.S. GAAP. The FASB published U.S. GAAP in Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) beginning in 2008.

Sources of GAAP
The FASB Accounting Standards Codification is the source of authoritative GAAP recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities. Rules and interpretive releases of the SEC under authority of federal securities laws are also sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. In addition to the SEC's rules and interpretive releases, the SEC staff issues Staff Accounting Bulletins that represent practices followed by the staff in administering SEC disclosure requirements, and it utilizes SEC Staff Announcements and Observer comments made at Emerging Issues Task Force meetings to publicly announce its views on certain accounting issues for SEC registrants.

Examples of nonauthoritative accounting guidance and literature include the following:
 * Practices that are widely recognized and prevalent either generally or in the industry
 * FASB Concepts Statements
 * American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Issues Papers
 * International Financial Reporting Standards of the International Accounting Standards Board
 * Pronouncements of professional associations or regulatory agencies
 * Technical Information Service Inquiries and Replies included in AICPA Technical Practice Aids
 * Accounting textbooks, handbooks, and articles.

The FASB issues an Accounting Standards Update (Update or ASU) to communicate changes to the FASB Codification, including changes to non-authoritative SEC content. ASUs are not authoritative standards. Each ASU explains:
 * How the FASB has changed U.S. GAAP, including each specific amendment to the FASB Codification
 * Why the FASB decided to change U.S. GAAP and background information related to the change
 * When the changes will be effective and the transition method.

Basic concepts
To achieve basic objectives and implement fundamental qualities, GAAP has four basic assumptions, four basic principles, and five basic constraints.

Assumptions

 * Business Entity: assumes that the business is separate from its owners or other businesses. Revenue and expense should be kept separate from personal expenses.
 * Going Concern: assumes that the business will be in operation indefinitely. This validates the methods of asset capitalization, depreciation, and amortization. Only when liquidation is certain is this assumption not applicable. The business will continue to exist in the unforeseeable future.
 * Monetary Unit principle: assumes a stable currency is going to be the unit of record. The FASB accepts the nominal value of the US dollar as the monetary unit of record unadjusted for inflation.
 * Time-period principle: implies that the economic activities of an enterprise can be divided into artificial time periods.

Principles

 * Historical cost principle: requires companies to account and report assets' and liabilities' acquisition costs rather than fair market value. This principle provides information that is reliable (removing opportunity to provide subjective and potentially biased market values), but not very relevant. Thus there is a trend to use fair values. Most debts and securities are now reported at market values.
 * Revenue recognition principle: holds that companies should record revenue when earned but not when received. The flow of cash does not have any bearing on the recognition of revenue. This is the essence of accrual basis accounting. Conversely, however, losses must be recognized when their occurrence becomes probable, whether or not it has actually occurred. This comports with the constraint of conservatism, yet brings it into conflict with the constraint of consistency, in that reflecting revenues/gains is inconsistent with the way in which losses are reflected.
 * Matching principle: expenses have to be matched with revenues as long as it is reasonable to do so. Expenses are recognized not when the work is performed, or when a product is produced, but when the work or the product actually makes its contribution to revenue. Only if no connection with revenue can be established may cost be charged as expenses to the current period (e.g., office salaries and other administrative expenses). This principle allows greater evaluation of actual profitability and performance (shows how much was spent to earn revenue). Depreciation and Cost of Goods Sold are good examples of application of this principle.
 * Full disclosure principle: Amount and kinds of information disclosed should be decided based on trade-off analysis as a larger amount of information costs more to prepare and use. Information disclosed should be enough to make a judgment while keeping costs reasonable. Information is presented in the main body of financial statements, in the notes or as supplementary information

Constraints

 * Objectivity principle: The company financial statements provided by the accountants should be based on objective evidence.
 * Materiality principle: The significance of an item should be considered when it is reported. An item is considered significant when it would affect the decision of a reasonable individual.
 * Consistency principle: The company uses the same accounting principles and methods from period to period.
 * Conservatism principle: When choosing between two solutions, the one which has the less favorable outcome is the solution which should be chosen (see convention of conservatism)
 * Cost Constraint: The benefits of reporting financial information should justify and be greater than the costs imposed on supplying it.

Required departures from GAAP
Under the AICPA's Code of Professional Ethics under Rule 203 – Accounting Principles, a member must depart from GAAP if following it would lead to a material misstatement on the financial statements, or otherwise be misleading. In the departure, the member must disclose, if practical, the reasons why compliance with the accounting principle would result in a misleading financial statement. Under Rule 203-1 – Departures from Established Accounting Principles, the departures are rare, and usually take place when there is new legislation, the evolution of new forms of business transactions, an unusual degree of materiality, or the existence of conflicting industry practices.

History
Accounting standards are currently set by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and were historically set by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) subject to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations. Auditors took the leading role in developing GAAP for business enterprises.

Standard Setting Prior to the Creation of the FASB
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was created as a result of the Great Depression. At that time there was no organization setting accounting standards. The SEC encouraged the establishment of private standard-setting bodies through the AICPA and later the FASB, believing that the private sector had the proper knowledge, resources, and talents. Currently, the SEC works closely with various private organizations setting GAAP, but does not set GAAP itself.

In 1939, urged by the SEC, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) appointed the Committee on Accounting Procedure (CAP). During 1939 to 1959 CAP issued 51 Accounting Research Bulletins that dealt with a variety of timely accounting problems. However, this problem-by-problem approach failed to develop the much needed structured body of accounting principles. Thus, in 1959, the AICPA created the Accounting Principles Board (APB), whose mission it was to develop an overall conceptual framework. It issued 31 opinions until it was dissolved in 1973.

Realizing the need to reform the APB, leaders in the accounting profession appointed a Study Group on the Establishment of Accounting Principles (commonly known as the Wheat Committee for its chairman Francis Wheat). This group determined that the APB must be dissolved and a new standard-setting structure created.

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
In 1973, the APB was replaced by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) under the supervision of the Financial Accounting Foundation with the Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council serving to advise and provide input on the accounting standards.

After the creation of the FASB, the AICPA established the Accounting Standards Executive Committee (AcSEC). It publishes:
 * Audit and Accounting Guidelines, which summarizes the accounting practices of specific industries (e.g. casinos, colleges, and airlines) and provides specific guidance on matters not addressed by FASB or the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
 * Statements of Position, which provides guidance on financial reporting topics until the FASB or GASB sets standards on the issue.
 * Practice Bulletins, which indicate the AcSEC's views on narrow financial reporting issues not considered by the FASB or the GASB.

In 1984, the FASB created the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF). The mission of the EITF is to "assist the FASB in improving financial reporting through the timely identification, discussion, and resolution of financial accounting issues within the framework of the FASB Accounting Standards Codification."

The FASB currently publishes the following:
 * Accounting Standards Codification, the only source of authoritative nongovernmental U.S. GAAP. In 2009, the Codification superseded the FASB's Statements of Financial Accounting Standards. 168 standards had been issued before the Codification.
 * Concepts Statements, first issued in 1978. They are part of the FASB's conceptual framework project and set forth fundamental objectives and concepts that the FASB use in developing future standards. As they are not part of the Codification, they are not authoritative GAAP. There have been 8 concepts published to date, of which 5 have been superseded.
 * Technical Bulletins or Staff Positions, guidelines on applying standards, interpretations, and opinions. Usually solve some very specific accounting issue that will not have a significant, lasting effect or respond to questions from practitioners.
 * Accounting Standards Updates (ASU), where the FASB issues an ASU to communicate changes to the FASB Codification, including changes to non-authoritative SEC content.
 * Exposure Documents, where the FASB issues Exposure Documents to solicit an ASU to communicate changes to the FASB Codification, including changes to non-authoritative SEC content.

Codification in Accounting – FASB Accounting Standards Codification
Circa 2008, the FASB issued the FASB Accounting Standards Codification, which reorganized the thousands of U.S. GAAP pronouncements into roughly 90 accounting topics.

The Codification is effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. All existing accounting standards documents are superseded as described in FASB Statement No. 168, The FASB Accounting Standards Codification and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. All other accounting literature not included in the Codification is non-authoritative.

The Codification reorganizes the thousands of U.S. GAAP pronouncements into roughly 90 accounting topics and displays all topics using a consistent structure. It also includes relevant Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), guidance that follows the same topical structure in separate sections in the Codification.

To prepare users for the change, the AICPA has provided a number of tools and training resources.

While the Codification does not change GAAP, it introduces a new structure—one that is organized in an easily accessible, user-friendly online research system. The FASB expects that the new system will reduce the amount of time and effort required to research an accounting issue, mitigate the risk of noncompliance with standards through improved usability of the literature, provide accurate information with real-time updates as new standards are released, and assist the FASB with the research efforts required during the standard-setting process.

Other Organizations
Other organizations involved in determining United States accounting standards include:
 * Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Created in 1984, the GASB addresses state and local government reporting issues. Its structure is similar to that of the FASB's, and the FASB and GASB are located together and share resources.
 * Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). Created in 1990, the FASAB addresses federal government financial reporting issues. The FASAB issues federal financial accounting standards and provides guidance to federal reporting entities.

Other influential organizations include the Government Finance Officer's Association (GFOA), American Accounting Association, Institute of Management Accountants, and Financial Executives Institute.

Convergence with International Financial Reporting Standards
In 2006, the FASB began working with the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to reduce or eliminate the differences between U.S. GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), known as the IASB-FASB convergence project. The scope of the overall IASB-FASB convergence project has evolved over time. The IASB and FASB issued converged standards for accounting topics including Business combinations (2008), Consolidation (2011), Fair value measurement (2011), and Revenue recognition (2014). Other convergence projects have been discontinued. As of 2022, the convergence project is coming to an end and no new projects will be added to the agenda.

In 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a preliminary "roadmap" that indicated it was considering whether to adopt or allow domestic issuers to use IFRS instead of U.S. GAAP. In 2010, the SEC expressed their aim to fully adopt International Financial Reporting Standards in the U.S. by 2014. However, standards under IFRS differ considerably from U.S. GAAP, so progress was slow and uncertain. More recently, the SEC has acknowledged that there is no longer a push to move more U.S companies to IFRS, so the two sets of standards will "continue to coexist" for the foreseeable future.


text:
Technical University of Nova Scotia

The Technical University of Nova Scotia (TUNS) was a Canadian university located in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

TUNS was officially founded as the Nova Scotia Technical College on 25 April 1907. On 1 April 1997 it was merged into Dalhousie University. The former TUNS campus is now called the Sexton Campus, in honour of Dr. Frederick Sexton, founding principal of the Nova Scotia Technical College.

History
By the early 20th century, Nova Scotia businesses and industries recognized the growing need for technical education in the province, particularly in light of the coal mining and steel manufacturing boom underway in Industrial Cape Breton. Competing engineering diploma programs were established by four universities in the province but no institution could afford the expense of operating a full engineering program. In 1902, Dalhousie University began offering degrees in mining engineering and it established a faculty three years later, but it was too expensive to maintain.

Following an April 19, 1906 meeting between the Halifax Board of Trade, the Mining Society of Nova Scotia, and four provincial universities, it was agree to request that the Government of Nova Scotia establish a degree-granting technical college. The resulting Technical Education Act received Royal Assent on April 25, 1907 and established both the Nova Scotia Technical College (NSTC) as well as a system of local technical education/vocational training schools throughout the province. Dr. Frederick Henry Sexton was appointed Principal.

NSTC started classes in September 1909 in a new building on Spring Garden Road (presently occupied by the Faculty of Architecture and Planning). This property was former military land that had been vacated with the withdrawal of the Royal Navy and British Army from Halifax in 1906; the provision of the land included a requirement that NSTC include military instruction in its curriculum. Compulsory military training at NSTC ended in 1945. Initially NSTC offered programs in civil engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and mining engineering. In 1947 NSTC began offering chemical engineering and metallurgical engineering. In 1961 the School of Architecture was established (the first and only program in Atlantic Canada). In 1964 NSTC began offering geological engineering followed by industrial engineering in 1965. In 1982 the School of Computer Science was established.

Dr. Sexton served as Principal and Director of Technical Education from 1907 to 1925 when the post was renamed; he continued serving as president from 1925 until 1947. In 1947 the Technical College Act received Royal Assent which removed responsibility for the province's vocational training and education system from the NSTC president. NSTC expanded to include a graduate program, beginning with master's degrees in the 1950s, followed by Doctorate degrees in the 1960s. From 1907 until 1963 the Government of Nova Scotia's Department of Education (and its predecessors) was responsible for the direct funding and operation of NSTC. Similarly the government's Department of Public Works was responsible for maintenance of NSTC buildings and construction of new buildings. A revision to the Nova Scotia Technical College Act in 1963 made the NSTC's Board of Governors responsible for financial affairs. In 1965 the maintenance and construction of buildings was transferred to the NSTC. The 1960s-1990s was a period of significant expansion to the college's campus which saw many buildings constructed to encompass much of the block bounded by Spring Garden Road, Barrington Street, Morris Street and the Halifax Infirmary property to the west (along Queen Street).

The Nova Scotia Technical College was frequently being confused by the public with the Nova Scotia Institute of Technology (NSIT) - now part of the Nova Scotia Community College system - and the NSTC abbreviation was often confused by the public with the Nova Scotia Teachers College; there was also identification issues resulting from the institution's name as a "college" when it was offering university-level instruction. On 3 June 1980, following 40 years of lobbying, the Government of Nova Scotia changed the name of the institution to the Technical University of Nova Scotia (TUNS). The mission of TUNS was described as "contribute to the development of Nova Scotia by providing high quality education, research and community and industry collaboration in architecture, computer science and engineering."

Organisation
During the 1990s, TUNS had the following academic units:

 * School of Architecture
 * School of Computer Science
 * School of Engineering
 * Department of Chemical Engineering
 * Department of Civil Engineering
 * Department of Electrical Engineering
 * Department of Food Science and Technology
 * Department of Geological Engineering
 * Department of Industrial Engineering
 * Department of Mechanical Engineering
 * Department of Metallurgical Engineering
 * Department of Mining Engineering
 * Department of Engineering Physics (final graduating class in 1991)
 * School of Planning

Merger into Dalhousie University
The provincial government forced TUNS to amalgamate with Dalhousie University in April 1997. For several years the former TUNS faculties formed a separate college called Dalhousie University Polytechnic (nicknamed DalTech) but in 2001 the college structure was dissolved and the faculties simply became part of Dalhousie University.

Today, the TUNS campus is known as the Sexton Campus of Dalhousie University. It includes the Faculty of Engineering and the Faculty of Architecture and Planning. The TUNS School of Computer Science was merged with Dalhousie's Computer Science division (which had previously been a part of the Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science) following the 1997 amalgamation to become the Faculty of Computer Science.

In honour of Dr. Sexton, Dalhousie University has named the former TUNS campus the Sexton Campus. There are also two buildings and a prestigious scholarship named after Dr. Sexton.

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

title: Technical University of Nova Scotia


text:
User talk:Sertorius~enwiki

Hi there Sertorius, and welcome to Wikipedia! As a newcomer it might be good to get some pointers on how to style your contributions, like the Naming conventions or the Manual of style. Many questions are answered in the Help section, or just post it at the Village pump. /Mic

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Sertorius. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Sertorius~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sertorius~enwiki


text:
User:Sertorius~enwiki

-

title: User:Sertorius~enwiki


text:
Flour bomb

A flour bomb is a fragile container (e.g. a paper bag) filled with flour for the purpose to be thrown at a person or object to cause an inconvenient and messy stain, called flour bombing. Alternately, sometimes a bucket of flour can be used.

Flour bombs and flour bombing are a classic protest method, along with the throwing of eggs and overripe tomatoes.

The effect of flour bombs is made worse by the inclusion of eggs, or containers of other liquid, making the removal of the resultant mixture difficult.

Notable incidents
Flour bombs saw notable use during the controversial 1981 Springbok Tour at Eden Park in Auckland, New Zealand. In an attempt to disrupt the match, flour bombs, along with flares, leaflets and a parachute-support banner reading "Biko" were dropped into Eden Park from a light plane flying overhead. A New Zealand All Blacks player was felled by one of the flour bombs.

On 19 May 2004, during Prime Minister's Questions, two members of the Fathers 4 Justice organisation threw condoms filled with purple-dyed flour at Tony Blair, in the chamber of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. The event highlighted the poor security methods employed in and around the Houses of Parliament at the time.

Several candidates in the 2017 French Presidential Election, including future president Emmanuel Macron, were hit by flour bombs.

title: Flour bomb


text:
Petroleum geology

Petroleum geology is the study of the origins, occurrence, movement, accumulation, and exploration of hydrocarbon fuels. It refers to the specific set of geological disciplines that are applied to the search for hydrocarbons (oil exploration).

Sedimentary basin analysis
Petroleum geology is principally concerned with the evaluation of seven key elements in sedimentary basins:

 * Source
 * Reservoir
 * Seal
 * Trap
 * Timing
 * Maturation
 * Migration

In general, all these elements must be assessed via a limited 'window' into the subsurface world, provided by one (or possibly more) exploration wells. These wells present only a one-dimensional segment through the Earth, and the skill of inferring three-dimensional characteristics from them is one of the most fundamental in petroleum geology. Recently, the availability of inexpensive, high-quality 3D seismic data (from reflection seismology) and data from various electromagnetic geophysical techniques (such as magnetotellurics) has greatly aided the accuracy of such interpretation. The following section discusses these elements in brief. For a more in-depth treatise, see the second half of this article below.

Evaluation of the source uses the methods of geochemistry to quantify the nature of organic-rich rocks which contain the precursors to hydrocarbons, such that the type and quality of expelled hydrocarbon can be assessed.

The reservoir is a porous and permeable lithological unit or set of units that holds the hydrocarbon reserves. Analysis of reservoirs at the simplest level requires an assessment of their porosity (to calculate the volume of in situ hydrocarbons) and their permeability (to calculate how easily hydrocarbons will flow out of them). Some of the key disciplines used in reservoir analysis are the fields of structural analysis, stratigraphy, sedimentology, and reservoir engineering.

The seal, or cap rock, is a unit with low permeability that impedes the escape of hydrocarbons from the reservoir rock. Common seals include evaporites, chalks and shales. Analysis of seals involves assessment of their thickness and extent, such that their effectiveness can be quantified.

The geological trap is the stratigraphic or structural feature that ensures the juxtaposition of reservoir and seal such that hydrocarbons remain trapped in the subsurface, rather than escaping (due to their natural buoyancy) and being lost.

Analysis of maturation involves assessing the thermal history of the source rock in order to make predictions of the amount and timing of hydrocarbon generation and expulsion.

Finally, careful studies of migration reveal information on how hydrocarbons move from source to reservoir and help quantify the source (or kitchen) of hydrocarbons in a particular area.

Major subdisciplines in petroleum geology
Several major subdisciplines exist in petroleum geology specifically to study the seven key elements discussed above.

Critical moment
The critical moment is the time of the generation, migration, and accumulation of most hydrocarbons in their primary traps. The migration and accumulation of hydrocarbons occur over a short period in relation to geologic time. These processes (generation, migration, and accumulation) occur near the end of a duration of a petroleum system. The duration being the time crucial elements of the petroleum system are being accumulated.

The critical moment is crucial since it is based on the burial history of the source rock when it is at maximum burial depth. This is when most of the hydrocarbons are generated. Approximately 50%-90% petroleum is made and expelled at this point. The next step is the hydrocarbons entering the oil window. The oil window has to do with the source rock being the appropriate maturity, and also being at the right depth for oil exploration. Geoscientists will be need this to gather stratigraphic data of the petroleum system for analysis.

Source rock analysis
In terms of source rock analysis, several facts need to be established. Firstly, the question of whether there actually is any source rock in the area must be answered. Delineation and identification of potential source rocks depends on studies of the local stratigraphy, palaeogeography and sedimentology to determine the likelihood of organic-rich sediments having been deposited in the past.

If the likelihood of there being a source rock is thought to be high, the next matter to address is the state of thermal maturity of the source, and the timing of maturation. Maturation of source rocks (see diagenesis and fossil fuels) depends strongly on temperature, such that the majority of oil generation occurs in the 60 to 120 C range. Gas generation starts at similar temperatures, but may continue up beyond this range, perhaps as high as 200 C. In order to determine the likelihood of oil/gas generation, therefore, the thermal history of the source rock must be calculated. This is performed with a combination of geochemical analysis of the source rock (to determine the type of kerogens present and their maturation characteristics) and basin modelling methods, such as back-stripping, to model the thermal gradient in the sedimentary column.

Geochemical analysis
The mid-twentieth century was when scientists began to seriously study petroleum geochemistry. Geochemistry was originally utilized for surface prospecting for subsurface hydrocarbons. Today geochemistry serves the petroleum industry by helping seek out effective petroleum systems. The use of geochemistry is relatively cost-effective that allows geologists to assess reservoir-related issues. Once oil to source rock correlation is found, petroleum geologists will use this information to render a 3D model of the basin. Now they can assess the timing of generation, migration, and accumulation relative to the trap formation. This aids in the decision-making process on whether further exploration is necessary. Additionally, this can increase recoveries of the petroleum remaining in reservoirs that were initially deemed unrecoverable.

Basin analysis
A full scale basin analysis is usually carried out prior to defining leads and prospects for future drilling. This study tackles the petroleum system and studies source rock (presence and quality); burial history; maturation (timing and volumes); migration and focus; and potential regional seals and major reservoir units (that define carrier beds). All these elements are used to investigate where potential hydrocarbons might migrate towards. Traps and potential leads and prospects are then defined in the area that is likely to have received hydrocarbons.

Exploration stage
Although a basin analysis is usually part of the first study a company conducts prior to moving into an area for future exploration, it is also sometimes conducted during the exploration phase. Exploration geology comprises all the activities and studies necessary for finding new hydrocarbon occurrence. Usually seismic (or 3D seismic) studies are shot, and old exploration data (seismic lines, well logs, reports) are used to expand upon the new studies. Sometimes gravity and magnetic studies are conducted, and oil seeps and spills are mapped to find potential areas for hydrocarbon occurrences. As soon as a significant hydrocarbon occurrence is found by an exploration- or wildcat-well, the appraisal stage starts.

Appraisal stage
The appraisal stage is used to delineate the extent of the discovery. Hydrocarbon reservoir properties, connectivity, hydrocarbon type and gas-oil and oil-water contacts are determined to calculate potential recoverable volumes. This is usually done by drilling more appraisal wells around the initial exploration well. Production tests may also give insight in reservoir pressures and connectivity. Geochemical and petrophysical analysis gives information on the type (viscosity, chemistry, API, carbon content, etc.) of the hydrocarbon and the nature of the reservoir (porosity, permeability, etc.).

Production stage
After a hydrocarbon occurrence has been discovered and appraisal has indicated it is a commercial find, the production stage is initiated. This stage focuses on extracting the hydrocarbons in a controlled way (without damaging the formation, within commercial favorable volumes, etc.). Production wells are drilled and completed in strategic positions. 3D seismic is usually available by this stage to target wells precisely for optimal recovery. Sometimes enhanced recovery (steam injection, pumps, etc.) is used to extract more hydrocarbons or to redevelop abandoned fields.

Reservoir analysis
The existence of a reservoir rock (typically, sandstones and fractured limestones) is determined through a combination of regional studies (i.e. analysis of other wells in the area), stratigraphy and sedimentology (to quantify the pattern and extent of sedimentation) and seismic interpretation. Once a possible hydrocarbon reservoir is identified, the key physical characteristics of a reservoir that are of interest to a hydrocarbon explorationist are its bulk rock volume, net-to-gross ratio, porosity and permeability.

Bulk rock volume, or the gross rock volume of rock above any hydrocarbon-water contact, is determined by mapping and correlating sedimentary packages. The net-to-gross ratio, typically estimated from analogues and wireline logs, is used to calculate the proportion of the sedimentary packages that contains reservoir rocks. The bulk rock volume multiplied by the net-to-gross ratio gives the net rock volume of the reservoir. The net rock volume multiplied by porosity gives the total hydrocarbon pore volume, i.e. the volume within the sedimentary package that fluids (importantly, hydrocarbons and water) can occupy. The summation of these volumes (see STOIIP and GIIP) for a given exploration prospect will allow explorers and commercial analysts to determine whether a prospect is financially viable.

Traditionally, porosity and permeability were determined through the study of drilling samples, analysis of cores obtained from the wellbore, examination of contiguous parts of the reservoir that outcrop at the surface (see e.g. Guerriero et al., 2009, 2011, in references below) and by the technique of formation evaluation using wireline tools passed down the well itself. Modern advances in seismic data acquisition and processing have meant that seismic attributes of subsurface rocks are readily available and can be used to infer physical/sedimentary properties of the rocks themselves.

title: Petroleum geology


text:
Talk:Humpty Dumpty

Finnegans Wake
I have added a section for two appearances of Humpty Dumpty in James Joyce's Finnegans Wake, but an editor reversed it, suggesting that I should instead elaborate on what's already in the article about it. I thought about adding this for two reasons: first, there is already a section for Dumpty in "Through the Looking-Glass", therefore it should be OK to add sections discussing its appearances on other works of literature; and second, the references to Humpty Dumpty in the Finnegans Wake are pretty unique, specially in form. The inclusion of the quotes in the article could lead people searching the text of the Wake to this page and help them better understand the context of Dumpty's appearance in the book. Furthermore, the inclusion of the quotes could also help people interested in Dumpty overall to see its application on the wider idea of the Fall of Man. I would like to add back the section and elaborate on it. What are other editors' ideas about this?

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021
There is a mistake where the century is mentioned. The article states 18 century but writes 1870. 1870 is the 19th century. 148.252.129.177 (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It says "published 1797" in the infobox. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 3 2A05:9CC4:77:B54E:B9EB:3F24:15CD:7D93 (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"Chocadoobie!" Kinder Surprise's andromorphic oviform mascot
The advertisment features an egg-man sitting on a wall (in reference to the nursery rhyme Humpty Dumpty), in which he talks in gibberish, extolling the virtues of purchasing chocolate-covered surprise toys.

At first he says "Kinder, yibol shakey!" and shakes a chocolate egg.

Then, he says "Me unscrabbly!" and rips the chocolate egg open.

He yells "Chocadoobie!" and also yells "Double chocadoobie!" when he opens the egg up.

He claims something in the effect of "Bobswabbo", and opens the yellow capsule inside making a toy come out.

He says "Toy!", and then "Yodel yum and choco scrum with muggy pupwubbo toys! Oh, grubbly!".

The advertisement finally ends with him saying "Me scrobble now" and he then falls off the wall. The advertisement instead of enticing children to purchase brand name chocolate-covered surprise toys, has highly unsettling effects on their behaviour, and after receiving complaints is withdrawn from television scheduling. 49.185.137.168 (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Humpty Dumpty
Who save him 103.152.101.4 (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Balconing Málaga
Its suggest that Humpty Dumtpy is a reference to the traditional balconing in Malaga and the south of Spain. Ricardo Liberal Baztan (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Humpty Dumpty


text:
Hoare logic

Hoare logic (also known as Floyd–Hoare logic or Hoare rules) is a formal system with a set of logical rules for reasoning rigorously about the correctness of computer programs. It was proposed in 1969 by the British computer scientist and logician Tony Hoare, and subsequently refined by Hoare and other researchers. The original ideas were seeded by the work of Robert W. Floyd, who had published a similar system for flowcharts.

Hoare triple
The central feature of Hoare logic is the Hoare triple. A triple describes how the execution of a piece of code changes the state of the computation. A Hoare triple is of the form

 * $$\{P\} C \{Q\}$$

where $$P$$ and $$Q$$ are assertions and $$C$$ is a command. $$P$$ is named the precondition and $$Q$$ the postcondition: when the precondition is met, executing the command establishes the postcondition. Assertions are formulae in predicate logic.

Hoare logic provides axioms and inference rules for all the constructs of a simple imperative programming language. In addition to the rules for the simple language in Hoare's original paper, rules for other language constructs have been developed since then by Hoare and many other researchers. There are rules for concurrency, procedures, jumps, and pointers.

Partial and total correctness
Using standard Hoare logic, only partial correctness can be proven. Total correctness additionally requires termination, which can be proven separately or with an extended version of the While rule. Thus the intuitive reading of a Hoare triple is: Whenever $$P$$ holds of the state before the execution of $$C$$, then $$Q$$ will hold afterwards, or $$C$$ does not terminate. In the latter case, there is no "after", so $$Q$$ can be any statement at all. Indeed, one can choose $$Q$$ to be false to express that $$C$$ does not terminate.

"Termination" here and in the rest of this article is meant in the broader sense that computation will eventually be finished, that is it implies the absence of infinite loops; it does not imply the absence of implementation limit violations (e.g. division by zero) stopping the program prematurely. In his 1969 paper, Hoare used a narrower notion of termination which also entailed the absence of implementation limit violations, and expressed his preference for the broader notion of termination as it keeps assertions implementation-independent:

"Another deficiency in the axioms and rules quoted above is that they give no basis for a proof that a program successfully terminates. Failure to terminate may be due to an infinite loop; or it may be due to violation of an implementation-defined limit, for example, the range of numeric operands, the size of storage, or an operating system time limit. Thus the notation “$P\{Q\}R$” should be interpreted “provided that the program successfully terminates, the properties of its results are described by $R$.” It is fairly easy to adapt the axioms so that they cannot be used to predict the “results” of nonterminating programs; but the actual use of the axioms would now depend on knowledge of many implementation-dependent features, for example, the size and speed of the computer, the range of numbers, and the choice of overflow technique. Apart from proofs of the avoidance of infinite loops, it is probably better to prove the “conditional” correctness of a program and rely on an implementation to give a warning if it has had to abandon execution of the program as a result of violation of an implementation limit."

Empty statement axiom schema
The empty statement rule asserts that the skip statement does not change the state of the program, thus whatever holds true before skip also holds true afterwards.

 * $$\dfrac{}{\{P\}\texttt{skip}\{P\}}$$

Assignment axiom schema
The assignment axiom states that, after the assignment, any predicate that was previously true for the right-hand side of the assignment now holds for the variable. Formally, let $α$ be an assertion in which the variable $β$ is free. Then:

 * $$\dfrac{}{\{P[E/x]\} x := E \{P\}}$$

where $$P[E/x]$$ denotes the assertion $φ$ in which each free occurrence of $α$ has been replaced by the expression $β$.

The assignment axiom scheme means that the truth of $$P[E/x]$$ is equivalent to the after-assignment truth of $φ$. Thus were $$P[E/x]$$ true prior to the assignment, by the assignment axiom, then $P$ would be true subsequent to which. Conversely, were $$P[E/x]$$ false (i.e. $$\neg P[E/x]$$ true) prior to the assignment statement, $x$ must then be false afterwards.

Examples of valid triples include:
 * $$\{ x+1 = 43 \}  y := x + 1   \{ y = 43 \}$$
 * $$\{ x + 1 \leq N \} x := x  + 1  \{ x \leq N \}$$

All preconditions that are not modified by the expression can be carried over to the postcondition. In the first example, assigning $$y:=x+1$$ does not change the fact that $$x+1=43$$, so both statements may appear in the postcondition. Formally, this result is obtained by applying the axiom schema with $P$ being ($$y=43$$ and $$x+1=43$$), which yields $$P[(x+1)/y]$$ being ($$x+1=43$$ and $$x+1=43$$), which can in turn be simplified to the given precondition $$x+1=43$$.

The assignment axiom scheme is equivalent to saying that to find the precondition, first take the post-condition and replace all occurrences of the left-hand side of the assignment with the right-hand side of the assignment. Be careful not to try to do this backwards by following this incorrect way of thinking: $$\{P\} x:=E \{P[E/x]\}$$; this rule leads to nonsensical examples like:
 * $$\{ x = 5 \} x := 3 \{ 3 = 5 \}$$

Another incorrect rule looking tempting at first glance is $$\{P\} x:=E \{P \wedge x=E\}$$; it leads to nonsensical examples like:
 * $$\{ x = 5 \}  x := x + 1   \{ x = 5 \wedge x = x + 1 \}$$

While a given postcondition $x$ uniquely determines the precondition $$P[E/x]$$, the converse is not true. For example:
 * $$\{ 0 \leq y\cdot y \wedge y\cdot y \leq 9 \}  x := y \cdot y   \{ 0 \leq x \wedge x \leq 9 \}$$,
 * $$\{ 0 \leq y\cdot y \wedge y\cdot y \leq 9 \}  x := y \cdot y   \{ 0 \leq x \wedge y\cdot y \leq 9 \}$$,
 * $$\{ 0 \leq y\cdot y \wedge y\cdot y \leq 9 \}  x := y \cdot y   \{ 0 \leq y\cdot y \wedge x \leq 9 \} $$, and
 * $$\{ 0 \leq y\cdot y \wedge y\cdot y \leq 9 \}  x := y \cdot y   \{ 0 \leq y\cdot y \wedge y\cdot y \leq 9 \}$$

are valid instances of the assignment axiom scheme.

The assignment axiom proposed by Hoare does not apply when more than one name may refer to the same stored value. For example,
 * $$\{ y = 3 \}  x := 2   \{ y = 3 \}$$

is wrong if $E$ and $P$ refer to the same variable (aliasing), although it is a proper instance of the assignment axiom scheme (with both $$\{P\}$$ and $$\{P[2/x]\}$$ being $$\{y=3\}$$).

Rule of composition
Hoare's rule of composition applies to sequentially executed programs $P$ and $P$, where $P$ executes prior to $P$ and is written $$S;T$$ ($x$ is called the midcondition):

 * $$\dfrac{\{P\} S \{Q\}\quad,\quad  \{Q\} T \{R\}}{\{P\} S;T \{R\}}$$

For example, consider the following two instances of the assignment axiom:

 * $$\{ x + 1 = 43 \}  y := x + 1   \{ y = 43 \}$$

and

 * $$\{ y = 43 \}  z := y   \{ z = 43 \}$$

By the sequencing rule, one concludes:

 * $$\{ x + 1 = 43 \}  y := x + 1; z := y   \{ z = 43 \}$$

Another example is shown in the right box.

Conditional rule

 * $$\dfrac{\{B \wedge P\} S \{Q\}\quad,\quad \{\neg B \wedge P \} T \{Q\}}{\{P\} \texttt{if}\ B\ \texttt{then}\ S\ \texttt{else}\ T\ \texttt{endif} \{Q\}}$$

The conditional rule states that a postcondition $y$ common to then and else part is also a postcondition of the whole if...endif statement. In the then and the else part, the unnegated and negated condition $a$ can be added to the precondition $b$, respectively. The condition, $a$, must not have side effects. An example is given in the next section.

This rule was not contained in Hoare's original publication. However, since a statement
 * $$\texttt{if}\ B\ \texttt{then}\ S\ \texttt{else}\ T\ \texttt{endif}$$

has the same effect as a one-time loop construct
 * $$\texttt{bool}\ b:=\texttt{true};  \texttt{while}\ B\wedge b\ \texttt{do}\ S; b:=\texttt{false}\ \texttt{done};   b:=\texttt{true};   \texttt{while}\ \neg B\wedge b\ \texttt{do}\ T; b:=\texttt{false}\ \texttt{done}$$

the conditional rule can be derived from the other Hoare rules. In a similar way, rules for other derived program constructs, like for loop, do...until loop, switch, break, continue can be reduced by program transformation to the rules from Hoare's original paper.

Consequence rule

 * $$\dfrac{P_1 \rightarrow P_2\quad  ,\quad   \{P_2\} S \{Q_2\}\quad   ,\quad   Q_2 \rightarrow Q_1}{\{P_1\} S \{Q_1\}}$$

This rule allows to strengthen the precondition $$P_2$$ and/or to weaken the postcondition $$Q_2$$. It is used e.g. to achieve literally identical postconditions for the then and the else part.

For example, a proof of
 * $$\{0 \leq x \leq 15 \}\texttt{if}\ x<15\ \texttt{then}\ x:=x+1\ \texttt{else}\ x:=0\ \texttt{endif} \{0 \leq x \leq 15 \}$$

needs to apply the conditional rule, which in turn requires to prove
 * $$\{0 \leq x \leq 15 \wedge x < 15 \}  x:=x+1   \{ 0 \leq x \leq 15 \}$$,   or simplified
 * $$\{0 \leq x < 15 \}  x:=x+1   \{0 \leq x \leq 15 \}$$

for the then part, and
 * $$\{0 \leq x \leq 15 \wedge x \geq 15\}  x:=0   \{0 \leq x \leq 15\}$$,   or simplified
 * $$\{x=15\}  x:=0   \{0 \leq x \leq 15 \}$$

for the else part.

However, the assignment rule for the then part requires to choose $b$ as $$0\leq x \leq 15$$; rule application hence yields
 * $$\{0 \leq x+1 \leq 15\}  x:=x+1   \{0 \leq x \leq 15\}$$,   which is logically equivalent to
 * $$\{-1 \leq x < 15\}  x:=x+1   \{0 \leq x \leq 15\}$$.

The consequence rule is needed to strengthen the precondition $$\{-1 \leq x < 15\}$$ obtained from the assignment rule to $$\{0 \leq x < 15\}$$ required for the conditional rule.

Similarly, for the else part, the assignment rule yields
 * $$\{0 \leq 0 \leq 15\}  x:=0   \{0 \leq x \leq 15\}$$,   or equivalently
 * $$\{\texttt{true}\}  x:=0   \{0 \leq x \leq 15\}$$,

hence the consequence rule has to be applied with $$P_1$$ and $$P_2$$ being $$\{x=15\}$$ and $$\{\texttt{true}\}$$, respectively, to strengthen again the precondition. Informally, the effect of the consequence rule is to "forget" that $$\{x=15\}$$ is known at the entry of the else part, since the assignment rule used for the else part doesn't need that information.

While rule

 * $$\dfrac{\{P \wedge B\} S \{P\}}{\{P\} \texttt{while}\ B\ \texttt{do}\ S\ \texttt{done} \{\neg B \wedge P\}}$$

Here $A$ is the loop invariant, which is to be preserved by the loop body $B$. After the loop is finished, this invariant $a$ still holds, and moreover $$\neg B$$ must have caused the loop to end. As in the conditional rule, $S$ must not have side effects.

For example, a proof of
 * $$\{x \leq 10\} \texttt{while}\ x<10\ \texttt{do}\ x:=x+1\ \texttt{done} \{\neg x < 10 \wedge x \leq 10\}$$

by the while rule requires to prove
 * $$\{x \leq 10 \wedge x < 10\}  x := x + 1   \{x \leq 10 \}$$,   or simplified
 * $$\{x < 10\}  x := x + 1   \{x \leq 10 \}$$,

which is easily obtained by the assignment rule. Finally, the postcondition $$\{\neg x <10 \wedge x\leq 10\}$$ can be simplified to $$\{x=10\}$$.

For another example, the while rule can be used to formally verify the following strange program to compute the exact square root $T$ of an arbitrary number $S$—even if $T$ is an integer variable and $Q$ is not a square number:
 * $$\{\texttt{true}\}  \texttt{while}\ x\cdot x \neq a\ \texttt{do}\ \texttt{skip}\ \texttt{done}   \{x \cdot x = a \wedge \texttt{true}\}$$

After applying the while rule with $Q$ being true, it remains to prove
 * $$\{\texttt{true} \wedge x\cdot x \neq a\}  \texttt{skip}   \{\texttt{true}\}$$,

which follows from the skip rule and the consequence rule.

In fact, the strange program is partially correct: if it happened to terminate, it is certain that $B$ must have contained (by chance) the value of $P$'s square root. In all other cases, it will not terminate; therefore it is not totally correct.

While rule for total correctness
If the above ordinary while rule is replaced by the following one, the Hoare calculus can also be used to prove total correctness, i.e. termination as well as partial correctness. Commonly, square brackets are used here instead of curly braces to indicate the different notion of program correctness.

 * $$\dfrac{<\ \text{is a well-founded ordering on the set}\ D\quad,\quad [P \wedge B \wedge t \in D \wedge t = z]  S   [P \wedge t \in D \wedge t < z ]}{[P \wedge t \in D]   \texttt{while}\ B\ \texttt{do}\ S\ \texttt{done}   [\neg B \wedge P \wedge t \in D]}$$

In this rule, in addition to maintaining the loop invariant, one also proves termination by way of an expression $B$, called the loop variant, whose value strictly decreases with respect to a well-founded relation $P$ on some domain set $P$ during each iteration. Since $S$ is well-founded, a strictly decreasing chain of members of $P$ can have only finite length, so $B$ cannot keep decreasing forever. (For example, the usual order $x$ is well-founded on positive integers $$\mathbb{N}$$, but neither on the integers $$\mathbb{Z}$$ nor on positive real numbers $$\mathbb{R}^+$$; all these sets are meant in the mathematical, not in the computing sense, they are all infinite in particular.)

Given the loop invariant $a$, the condition $x$ must imply that $a$ is not a minimal element of $P$, for otherwise the body $x$ could not decrease $a$ any further, i.e. the premise of the rule would be false. (This is one of various notations for total correctness.)

Resuming the first example of the previous section, for a total-correctness proof of
 * $$[x \leq 10]\texttt{while}\ x < 10\ \texttt{do}\ x:=x+1\ \texttt{done} [\neg x < 10 \wedge x \leq 10]$$

the while rule for total correctness can be applied with e.g. $t$ being the non-negative integers with the usual order, and the expression $<$ being $$10 - x$$, which then in turn requires to prove
 * $$[x \leq 10 \wedge x < 10 \wedge 10-x \geq 0 \wedge 10-x = z] x:= x+1 [x \leq 10 \wedge 10-x \geq 0 \wedge 10-x < z]$$

Informally speaking, we have to prove that the distance $$10-x$$ decreases in every loop cycle, while it always remains non-negative; this process can go on only for a finite number of cycles.

The previous proof goal can be simplified to
 * $$[x < 10 \wedge 10-x = z]  x:=x+1   [x \leq 10 \wedge 10-x < z]$$,

which can be proven as follows:
 * $$[x+1 \leq 10 \wedge 10-x-1 < z]  x:=x+1   [x \leq 10 \wedge 10-x < z]$$ is obtained by the assignment rule, and
 * $$[x+1 \leq 10 \wedge 10-x-1 < z]$$ can be strengthened to $$ [x < 10 \wedge 10-x = z]$$ by the consequence rule.

For the second example of the previous section, of course no expression $D$ can be found that is decreased by the empty loop body, hence termination cannot be proved.

title: Hoare logic


text:
Talk:Settlements in Israel

Which settlements in each article?
I think the solution of having an article about Israeli settlements in general and another which is region-specific may be good solution. gidonb 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a total mess (like you said earlier, even though you created this mess). Like I said, I'm not a fan of the word "settlement", but the way you went about this was, to put it one way, POV-pushing. Plus it was without consensus, which is even more regretful. According to NPOV rules, the solution to this lies in "common use", yet you created a new stub that will baffle anyone who come to WP to read about "Israeli settlements" the way most people (even those who oppose the word) know it. Ramallite (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Massa alcheer Ramallite, I think there is also a rule that names on Wikipedia should not be misleading. When referring to all Israeli settlements as if they were outside Israel one is doing excatly that. As I am very sure about this, I suggested to talk it over and even move things back while we are talking, however that did not work out. In the meantime I have restored the redirect mess and asked for an extra opinion on the solution we have reached. Salam 3alakum, gidonb  22:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The ironic thing about this is that extremists on both sides would be happy with the new Israeli settlements stub (as of the time I'm writing this)! One one side, extremists would be glad to read that all Jewish population centers in Eretz Yisrael (including the territories) are considered equal, and on the other side, people would be delighted that Wikipedia considers Israeli towns even within the Green Line as "settlements" (because of the temporary or illegal connotation it implies) :-) Ramallite (talk)  13:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of large Israeli cities being called "settlements" other than way in the past when they were not large cities. This stub makes no sense to me. --Zero 05:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A settlement is any city, town or village, whether Israeli, French or American. I can provide you many links. gidonb 14:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I know what the English word "settlement" means, but this article is about "Israeli settlements" and as far as I know there is no article "X settlements" for any other country X. Can you show me a link that calls Haifa, Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem a "settlement" in modern times?  The silliness of this article is seen by reading it: "Depending on one's definition, most or all the latter are Israeli settlements in the West Bank."  By who's definition is Haifa in the West Bank?  I vote to make this article into a redirect to one on the settlements in the OT.  The ambiguity of the word "settlement" can be disposed of in a single sentence near the beginning of the latter article.  --Zero 21:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree, I believe that every country should have articles about its settlements. Also, the article "Israeli settlement" now opens with the phrase "Israeli settlements" and is extremely misleading, as it deals only with Israeli settlements outside Israel's sovereign territory. The great majority of the Israeli settlements are not in such territories and therefore the article purposefully misleads the reader with marginal information on the topic it claims to cover. The terminology chapter is a slap in the face to all spatial sciences. gidonb 20:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"This should be restricted to the West Bank"
it's not a settlement if it's part of Israel-proper (i.e. excluding West Bank)

This article is extremely misleading. Several articles mistakenly link here because the disambiguation link was removed. There is already an article on the settlements which includes a dispute over terminology. This page should be deleted. -136.159.208.20 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You seem to totally disregard the meaning of the word settlement. gidonb 20:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As the opening line of the real article states, the term is commonly used to refer to communities built by Israeli settlers in areas captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. You may wish this isn't the case, but what you wish is irrelevant. The article is misleading not only because it introduces an ambiguity that only exists in the minds of dogmatic POV-pushers, but because most of the links that connect here were actually intended to link to the "Israeli Settlement" page. I think it should be deleted. If you want to start a All Israeli Communities are Settlements page, make it somewhere else. 161.184.52.227 17:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

All Israeli communities in the West Bank were built since 1967. Why should I have a problem with such facts? If Wikipedia was a forum I would add my opinion on these settlements. It isn't however. Assigning me false intentions is totally against our policies. I believe you should review your ways of conduct around our encyclopedia. If the policies are not to your liking, try to change them, to adjust yourself or not to participate. gidonb 20:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is an article that deals largely with the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It was recently renamed and now falsely claims to address broader issues than these included in the text. gidonb 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Original Research"
This whole article is original research. Can someone point out to the application of the term "Israeli settlements" in the literature to all the communities in Israel? As pointed out above, this looks like POV-pushing. The information in this article is either trivial, or belongs to a section or article about the geography of Israel. Furthermore, it is easily confused with the informative article on Israeli settlement. I think this entry ought to be a redirect to Israeli settlement.--Doron 06:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. If Gidon cannot get some support for his idiosyncratic position, we should change it as you suggest.  --Zero 08:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is totally ridiculous. I have already placed such sources in the discussion we held before. As a social scientist I am flattered by the label "original research", however as a Wikipedia old-timer I have to note there is nothing original about this data or my common use of the word settlements. I will put a few sources in the article and remove the warning. gidonb 12:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Either you misunderstood my point, or you are avoiding the point I am trying to make.
 * The information in this article is mostly trivial (obviously they are either cities or villages etc., what else could they be? floating platforms? large chunks of cheese?), and whatever is worth noting belongs in the Geography of Israel article.
 * There cannot be two articles with virtually the same name that talk about completely different issues. Given the wide usage as given in the other article, this article, if it must exist, would be better named "Israeli communities". "Israeli settlements" ought to be a redirect to "Israeli settlement".
 * Your link includes only rural settlements, while the article refers to all kinds of communities in Israel, so it hardly resolves the OR issue.--Doron 13:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Doron, you are welcome to make these statements at the other talk page. This is the correct Israeli settlements page, and the non-political and non-original research version. The other one is original research, misleading and POV. I will add more sources and information in this article and sharpen the definitions, as there seems to be some conceptual confusion between settlements, places and communities. I thank you for the constructive part of your criticism. Regards, gidonb 16:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your "source" appears to be a power point presentation, hardly a legitimate citation, and your dogmatic claim to be the sole person capable of NPOV is a performative contradiction. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the term "Israeli settlement" is commonly used in the abstract sense of "community." As you should know (being a "social scientist" of some indefinite sort), words often have different meanings in different contexts, and while "human community" is one sense of the word "settlement," the specific meaning in this context is "recent colonization," and refers exclusively to communities founded by Israeli settlers on land annexed after the Six-Day War. You are well aware of this history, and you are well aware of the various connotation implied by the term. You may disagree with the use of the term, but you can't arbitrarily redefine its meaning without introducing a confusion which works against your stated intent. -161.184.50.102 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have already cited many sources when we had this discussion elsewhere. I will organize this article better and remove the warning, after the concerns have been dealt with. I know the therm settlements is often used in a politicized context. Wikipedia in general has a bias towards anything that is politicized, especially articles of and concepts in the Middle East. If there are many people out there who like to push POV, I do not have to join them. gidonb 17:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many politicized terms in common circulation. You cannot arbitrarily eliminate them without eliminating the subject matter; you cannot arbitrarily redefine their meaning without introducing a new political term with an added level of confusion. You have one source, and it is some random power-point presentation. You have dealt with none of the concerns listed, nor are you capable of doing so given the absurdity of your position. -161.184.50.102 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Its obvious this page falls under both original research and wp:point. And the usage in the correct page, i.e. the other one, is absolutely in conformity with semantics. From OED, a highly respected and authoritive guide to the English language: 6. The act of settling as colonists or new-comers; the act of peopling or colonizing a new country, or of planting a colony. (Cf. sense 14.) 14. a. (Cf. sense 6.) A community of the subjects of a state settled in a new country; a tract of country so settled, a colony, esp. one in its earlier stages. From Merriam-Webster: 3 a : occupation by settlers b : a place or region newly settled. Settle: 2 a : to establish in residence b : to furnish with inhabitants : COLONIZE Encarta: 1. act or state of settling: an act of settling, or the state of being settled 2. act of populating: the act of populating a place with permanent residents or becoming a permanent resident in a place 3. colony: a place that has recently been populated with permanent residentsa And yes: you will find the usage "small community" in the very same dictionaries, but the usage in this context clearly reflects the usage outlined above and in the Israeli settlement article. Trying to establish a completely different meaning to the term than what it actually means is clearly original research, and this article is contrary to WP guidelines. The term "israeli settlements" is not used in this context, and even if it would, would not be worthy of its own encyclopedic entry. Articles such as Spanish Steps or Russian roulette refers to their general meaning, not some Original research attributed to make a WP:POINT --Cybbe 17:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So far I have seen nothing but references that prove what I have written above that the concept settlement is used often in a politicized context. I will bring some more references that underpin the more scientific usage of the word. gidonb 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Some very basic curriculum sources, just to show what a trivial discussion this is :-D A settlement is a place where people live. Settlements come in lots of different sizes. A settlement may be as small as a single house in a remote area or as a large as a mega city (a city with over 10 million residents). http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/urbanrural/settlementtypesrev2.shtml

Most of us live in a settlement, but they are all very different in nature. Some are small villages whilst others are large cities Most of the settlements in Britain have a long history and they grew up in particular places for important reasons. http://www.tavistockcollege.devon.sch.uk/Online%20Curriculum/Depts/Geography/Yr%209%20resources/Year9%20Settlement.enq1a.doc
 * (A not-so-constructive comment: the above remarkably resembles the article!--Doron 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

Some other ones: http://www.schooltrain.info/geography/outandabout/settlement.htm http://www.ofs.edu.sg/course-info/course-descriptions/middle-school/humanities/grade-6/ http://www.kesgrave.suffolk.sch.uk/learningzone/subjects/geography/sform.html

Just tell me how many more articles and definitions of settlements, from class 3 to PhD research you would like to have! ;-D 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me put this as simply as possible: most words have several different meanings. Sometimes we can only understand their meaning when we consider the context in which the word is used. None of your links refer to this context, so the "definition" you have derived from them is nothing but a tautology. The term "Israeli settlement" does not simply mean "Israeli community," but has a very exclusive meaning which refers to "Israeli communities established within the occupied/disputed territories." Anyone with a passing familiarity with recent history is aware of this. You seem to have some tenuous grasp of history, so your arguments are disingenuous at best. -136.159.208.50 19:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between a community and a settlement. A settlement (noun) is a place that people live in, or in other words a community that is place-specific. The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are places that people live in, in a specific geography. As you admittedly break all the Wikipedia rules, I will cease this unfruitful discussion. With my many references, I have shown time and again that this article is NOT original research. The other article is POV and original research and should be renamed. gidonb 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean "cease this unfruitful discussion," although frankly, I don't know what you mean half the time. I certainly don't understand your use of the term "proof." -136.159.208.50 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you can make a constructive comment! gidonb 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

A rather constructive comment:
 * 1) Do you deny that the term "Israeli settlement" (not just "settlement") is most commonly used to refer to what is descrived in "the other article"?
 * 2) Do you deny the possible confusion these two rather different articles with very similar names may cause?
 * 3) Do you object to renaming this article to "Israeli communities" as a compromise?--Doron 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Doron, although all has been covered before, your questions do summarize some of the major problems. My answers:
 * 1) The bias is widespread.
 * 2) The similarity of the names should be resolved. Each article should have a name that is unbiased and indicative of its subject matter, per our policies. In the article Israeli settlement all specificity was recently removed from the title. Now only an "s" differentiates between this article and "Israeli settlements".
 * 3) Israeli communities cannot be even a partial solution since these are much wider entities than settlements, e.g. in the use of business community, Druze community, LGBT community etcetera. Settlements are location specific communities (in sociology terms) or populated places (in geography terms). Such a name changed would tremendously increase the ambiguity, rather than resolve it. Why do you suddenly refer to this proposal as a "compromise"? Your last question leaves me somewhat puzzled. gidonb 05:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I restate that the case for this "original research" claim, that was inserted by a anonymous user who admittedly broke WP policies, was totally refuted. Some more of millions of possible examples: If he wants to keep this tag, this anonymous who made all sorts of unbased accusation at my address (I would be motivated by certain political convictions and I had changed links) should log in and substantiate why he believes that the most common use of settlements in social science is my "original research". gidonb 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/pathfind/humanset/1100.htm United Nations
 * http://www.nyu.edu/pages/metro.studies/course/ New York University
 * http://www.unesco.org/mab/urban/old/Bonnes1.PDF UNESCO
 * http://www.sviva.net/pages/html/modules.php?name=News&file=articleen&sid=180 An Israeli organization (Internal Israeli context)
 * http://latino.sscnet.ucla.edu/challenge/47.htm UCLA
 * http://www.nap.edu/books/0309088623/html/479.html The National Academies Press

 * I know the "bias", as you call it, is widespread, the question is what is the most common use of the term "Israeli settlement". If it is your interpretation, then surely you can provide some evidence? Otherwise, Wikipedia is not the place to propagate what you perceive as the "correct" usage.
 * I take it you agree that the current situation with the similarity between the titles is unacceptable.
 * I believe the contents of this article belong in Geography of Israel, I really don't see the point in this article. The only reason I can see why Israeli communities warrant an article is the unique types of communities (kibbutz and moshav), but each already has an article. However, I suggested a compromise, by which this article would remain, but be renamed. That's what I meant by compromise. If "communities" is not good (note, by the way, that "settlement" and "Israel" are both ambiguous), then we should come up with something else ("towns and villages", "population centers", "localities" or even Settlements of Israel). Why do you insist on this problematic title?
 * You are yet to provide a source that refers to the term "Israeli settlement" according to your interpretation. I can read a dictionary and I know what the word "settlement" means. What I am disputing is your usage of the term "Israeli settlement". By analogy, a flea market is not a place where you can by fleas -- if you started an article called flea markets describing such markets that sell fleas (if there were such a thing...), you'd get the same reaction! :) --Doron 07:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume that our postings crossed, since all the publications above use same scientific and extremely common meaning of settlements as I do. I also supplied several sources on Israeli settlements on this page, urban and rural, Jewish and Arab and in all cases inside the green line. Your analogy is thus incorrect. Are you by any chance the anonymous user who made all sorts of highly inappropriate accusations today? gidonb 07:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I went over all of them, and could not find a single instance of the term "Israeli settlement". If I overlooked, please point out where the term "Israeli settlement" appears exactly. And no, I am not that user, and I hope I haven't said anything inappropriate.--Doron 07:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OK sorry for asking. Israeli settlements is used in the ppt document and Arab settlements (inside Israel) in the seviva document. As this is a very common use of the word settlements, I can come up with a zillion additional documents, for any locale. Hence I would appreciate your support of decreasing the extreme ambiguity of the article name israeli settlement, which is biased as it refers to a small minority among the settlements as being the Israeli settlements. Here the problems are far less severe. gidonb 07:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please forgive my thickness, but I can't find a reference to "Israeli settlement" anywhere. The closest I get is the title, which says "Israel - A Settlement Geography".--Doron 08:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ...which, by the way, gives rise to another possible name -- Settlement geography of Israel. And another thing -- I don't see the bias. If you look up "Swedish settlements", "French settlements", etc., you'll mostly find references to colonies, not Stokholm and Paris.--Doron 08:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Its the use of settlements in conjunction with "Israeli", and you using this specific term different from its ordinary use (i.e. see Israeli settlement), that is OR. You have not given a single reference of this being in _general usage_ in this specific context, worthy of a encyclopedic entry. Oh, and by the way, WP:NOT in general, and especially the dictionary part, is the third WP policy this article is in violation of. --Cybbe 18:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I already brought many sources which deal which deal with Israeli settlements, that is settlements in Israel proper. Doron insisted that the word Israeli and settlements will appear together. I have no problem with that request. There are many of these too. gidonb 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If there are so many of them, as you claim, I find it quite astonishing that you could not provide even a single instance in which the term "Israeli settlement" was used the way you perceive it. And just to make sure we don't go over this yet again, I mean "Israeli settlement", not "Israeli" and "settlement" appearing separately in the same document, I mean the actual phrase "Israeli settlement". Of course, to prove your point, you would have to come up with a lot more than just a single instance, you would have to counter the overwhelming amount of literature that uses the term as the rest of us perceive it.
 * But much more importantly, wouldn't Settlement geography of Israel be more appropriate? Do you have any objections to this title?--Doron 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave you many references on Israeli settlements in Israel proper, so your statement above is incorrect. Ok they did not convince you about the need for name change of the artcle "Israeli settlement" so here are just a few direct references to "Israeli settlements". However self-evident, such an understanding does not appear to inform the practical work of designing and expanding Israeli settlements. It is true for Tel Aviv and Jerusalem no less than the development towns in the Negev, and is just as true for the seven Bedouin towns, which are the subject of this study. AND SO ON AND SO ON AND SON The bottom line is that WHEN one wants to talk about the Israeli settlements in the Westbank or the Israeli settelements in the Gazastrip or the Israeli settlements on the Golan Heights one has to be specific. This what about all the better sources do. Wikipedia is ambigious and biased and leads with a bad example that is totally against our policies. 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faessay82606-p10/daniel-byman/should-hezbollah-be-next.html
 * washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050314-090221-6481r.htm
 * doi.wiley.com/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1220(200003/ 04)6:2%3C133::AID-IJPG173%3E3.3.CO;2-1
 * www.feweb.vu.nl/ersa2005/final_papers/50.pdf
 * english.people.com.cn/200207/08/eng20020708_99299.shtml
 * www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/isrlebx.htm
 * w3.bgu.ac.il/bedouin/Monograph-Harvey.doc
 * www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm
 * www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1978.cfm
 * pointask.com/pointask/f_q.php3?qid=15080
 * www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/HAMAS
 * content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/10/716
 * www.aog.usma.edu/Pubs/ASSEMBLY/990506/marcus1.htm
 * At last, the first instances you have given with "Israeli settlement" appearing in them! But surely you understand that this is not enough. Sure, you can find random instances of "Israeli settlement", meaning settlements that are Israeli, but still the term "Israeli settlement" is overwhelmingly used in the sense of settlements in the Occupied Territories.
 * I'll ask again, do you have any objections to renaming it to Settlement geography of Israel?--Doron 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of some change here eventually because the now so common biased use of the concept Israeli settlements neglecting to say that one is talking about Israeli settlements outside Israel proper. I insist however that the name of the article Israeli settlement is the main problem and that this one is far less pressing. I gave only a very a small choice of examples (13) of the proper use of Israeli settlements in the social sciences. There are many more. The quote of the Canadian economist Harvey Lithwick says it all. gidonb 11:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It is original research when you claim "the proper use of" an established term. This article is nothing more than a dictionary entry, and its original research when you try to connote to the term more than just that. It is Original research when you claim "6 million live in IS" etc, as some general used term. No one has ever used the term in that way, except you of course. Its original research when you try to construct an encyclopedic article out of two dictionary definitions (parts of them), and its obvious from your own edits the only reason you disrupt Wikipedia in this way is because you have a problem with the Israeli Settlement article.

 * Well your claims are totally refuted by the evidence I have brought above. Initially I brought tons of evidence that the settlements within in Israel are commonly called settlements. In addition, Doron wanted proof that settlements in Israel are also called Israeli settlements. Then I provided plenty also of that. Therefor your claim that is original research holds no water and labling it as such is abuse of the editing tools provided by our encyclopedia. The irony is that after the evidence provided, the lable itself and not the content of the article is original research. gidonb 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Name change
Now that the claim of "original research" has been totally refuted, there remains a problem of some ambiguity between the scientific use of the word settlement and between a use that has become quite popular in various media. Proposals which overcome this ambiguity (and do not introduce new confusion) will be welcomed. gidonb 06:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * This ambiguity could be eradicated by specifying in the title exactly which of the settlements populated (predominantly) by Israeli citizens the article refers to, namely those contrary to international law. Journalists, academics and politicians critical of Israeli civilian presence beyond the Green Line refer to these houses collectively as illegal settlements, while many Israeli media outlets make no such distinction. As long as no peace deal is brokered, these communities are caught in a legal vacuum and are not legally part of any state. How about renaming the article accordingly then? I propose "Israeli civilian communities outside Israel proper", or something less cumbersome but equally precise. //Big Adamsky 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Cybbe and Doron, the article is still OR as it is currently presented. A tiny minority may refer to Israeli cities as "Israeli settlements," but to present this view as a neutral fact is disingenuous. The scattered evidence provided by Gidonb does not constitute the "scientific use" of the term, and can hardly be called "proof," as anyone with even a sophomoric understanding of scientific methodology could attest. I agree with most of the suggestions offered by other editors. This page could be merged with either Geography of Israel or Israeli settlement, although the claims currently presented should be highly qualified. I don't think this stub really needs to exist, even with a different name. It certainly shouldn't continue to exist with this name, since the site has redirected all links using the plural form of the term away from the main article.

-Gregor Samsa 20:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Gregor, the two articles have different functions. One deals with Israeli settlements in general and the other deals with Israeli settlements which are specifically located outside Israel proper. These settlements have now become so famous that sometimes they are mentioned without some specificity of the geography they are located within. In many if not most cases OUTSIDE Wikipedia the specific geographic area (e.g. West Bank) or general geographic circumstances (e.g. occupied territories, Palestinian territories) are mentioned next to "Israeli settlement" as otherwise the articles may be misunderstood. We took over the practice of the more sloppy authors and this lack of specificity is misleading and against our policies. After all, these settlements are a minority among the Israeli settlements. I suggest that "Israeli settlement" will be renamed as its current title is highly ambiguous if not to say deceptive. I agree with Big Adamsky that renaming is the appropriate route. I hope you are willing to reconsider your POV after giving the issue some additional consideration. gidonb 00:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If not redirected to Israeli settlement, this should be moved to Settlements in Israel and the redirect from here pointed to Israeli settlement. How many other articles are there where the singular title deals with one thing and the plural title with something completely different? At least I hope the proponents for its continued existence at this location will have the decency to go around checking that none of the linked articles are meant to be linking to Israeli settlement. Is that too much to ask? Palmiro | Talk 03:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Palmiro, there is no argument about the fact that several wrong links exist. I suggest that these will be changed, after the article "Israeli settlement" that is now only an "s" away from this title will be disambigued. gidonb 12:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not particularly reassuring, as there is by contrast plenty of argument over what is going to happen to the other article, and on a quick glance the bulk of opinion seems to favour it staying where it is. Palmiro | Talk 13:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Reviewing the talk pages on both sites, I note that this discussion has be going on since late October, when Gidonb, in opposition to all parties, created this stub and redirected dozens of links away from the main article. As far as I can see, Gidonb has failed to find any support for his views, and it is unlikely anyone will convince him that his unilateral actions are misguided. I suggest we put this to a vote. I propose that this article be merged with Geography of Israel, and all links using the term "Israeli settlements" be returned to the main article. A note can also be made in the main article that some people use the term to refer to settlements in Israel. -Gregor Samsa 17:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I never created one single link to this page, unless from a talk page when relevant in our discussion. The rest of your claims, unfortunately, also do not hold water. gidonb 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Effectively you did, since you changed it from a redirect to Israeli settlement into a stub on a different topic, without, as far as I can see, fixing the links to it that were relevant to the original meaning. Palmiro | Talk 18:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between the two. I wrote a stub on Israeli settlements under the name Israeli settlements, which is totally appropriate. I am sure that all wiki's from other articles of which I DID NOT CREATE EVEN ONE will be changed once the name issues are resolved. I will personally write a request to someone with a bot who can change them in two seconds. All this is early since we have not decided yet what our articles are going to look like. When working in a good atmosphere as colleagues and as one community this would have never become an issue. I regret that this discussion is deteriorating and will further stop reacting to false accusations and the like. gidonb 23:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
The requested move was successful. The discussion is archived here. enochlau (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Now that the article has moved and is developing I look forward to the apologies for the disgusting personal attacks on this longtime contributor, which were totally disconnected from any reality and inappropriate per our policies assume good intentions and no personal attacks. As a strict NPOV contributor, I have always had good working relations with all political parties on Wikipedia and hope things will remain this way. gidonb 21:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This article discusses Israeli settlements in general, with Jewish and Arab populations. As I have indicated before, the current title is more ambiguous the previous title Israeli settlements. Few Israeli settlements are outside Israel proper. These settlements are not a focus of this article, but are included in the totals and this article may be useful also to learn about their general models, as far as it resembles the models in Israel proper (political and other specifics - not here). Settlements in Israel therefore is an erroneous title. I have thought this over and propose moving this article to Settlement geography of Israel, which can include all settlements. It also removes some of the ambiguity with the popular (but sloppy) use of "settlements", in the more political context, which this article is not about. Give me a break this time, no politics, or personal attacks. If you really object, please mention it below. gidonb 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How about creating a section in Geography of Israel? (to avoid duplication). -Gregor Samsa 03:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Move to settlement geography of Israel, as explained above

Approve

 * gidonb 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No objection. Palmiro | Talk 12:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Object
Much has already been said. I think that the article is valid if fixed up properly. Currently, it seems more geography oriented but could have more history/bible references inserted to explain why the term settlement is the literal translation of the Hebrew 'hitnachlut' which does refer to the settling of any area (not only in 'disputed territories'). I reverted the redirect since the compromise of moving the contents to Geography of Israel was not even performed yet. I also added a merge template to make the move a bit more official and binding and copied this section to the destination talk page. --Shuki 17:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please continue discussion Talk:Geography of Israel

 * (after conflict) Shuki, please do not revert before a different consensus is reached than the previous one. I have explained the concept with tons of refernces but to no avail. People remain confused about the concepts. I want to move on. Do me a favor this time. The discussions are old and closed. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Agree that this now belongs to the Geography of Israel. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for being reasonable :-/ I was going to ask more wikipedians to come and give their advice. This move was performed steathly and not according to Merging and moving pages. --Shuki 17:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * There were no objections at the time. We all agreed on the issue, after I gave up explaining. Why not just go ahead and write more. If you want to write a new article on hitnachluyut, go ahead. No problem with me, but others get utterly confused. Not everyone swims in social science and there is a lot of resistance since the popular but sloppy use of settlements in the press is so prevalent. gidonb 17:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That's the word I was looking for - sloppy. Now there is no mention of the important biblical term of 'hitnachluyut', especially since Jewish settlement was long ago redirected into Israeli settlement which only describes Jewish residential areas on the West Bank. I suppose that given some time, I could have fixed up this article, Ynhockey had only recently suggested his help. --Shuki 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree but I have to execute the verdict opinion of the community. You are most welcome to write a new article. Perhaps you will do a better job than me persuading that this is NPOV. gidonb 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitnahlut
I am unclear how the following text fits in: ''The Hebrew bible mentions the word 'nahalot' (נחלות) as estates in the land of Israel that were given to various tribes and groups. 'Hitnahlut' (התנחלות), commonly translated as settlements, is the term used to describe the areas actively settled, rather than merely allocated.'' With corrections, it may be of use in some another article. gidonb 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Israeli settlements
here is already an article about the real settlments (those beyond the green line). No one other than Hamas propeganda calls Israeli towns (inside Israel proper) "settlements". This article should be deleted. can anyone explain to me how to list an article for deletion ? Thanks. Zeq 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

PS, this discussion should be reopened. 5 people only participated in it. Now that I left the comment here all the wikistalkers are soon to join in. Zeq 06:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Your assumption that only the Hamas refers to Israeli cities, towns and villages as settlements has been discussed above. Plentiful proof of the opposite has been provided. Also, the old discussion is closed. As the name change increased the ambiguity of this important article, I have proposed another change. gidonb 11:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Zeq that the article is a POV push, I somehow fail to see the point of this article. If the point is to talk about communities in Israel (from kibbutzes to metropolitans), then the article fails to provide any interesting information. But if that is indeed the point, please say so anyway; then I will try to expand the article to mention other important details. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Israeli metropolises
I must agree that the article is totally pointless. And since when Nazareth became metropolis? Mag2k 07:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Since the city and its suburbs grew, according to some researchers (and thus "possibly" in the article). Follow the link to learn more. I am going to move the text to Geography of Israel, which is now largely physical geography and give that article a quality push. BTW, the article is NOT and was NEVER about communities, but about inhabited places (settlements). There is a world of difference between communities and settlements, but users here tend to get confused between basic concepts of geography, sociology and political science. I can respect that, as I have a strong background in all three. Combining the articles will solve the issue. gidonb 08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * OK did all that. I am a little fed up. The text was clear, the references were clear, the researchers who regard Nazareth as a metropolis are clear, so why ask "since when Nazareth became metropolis?". It is referenced and the text did NOT say that Nazareth became a metropolis. Everybody is stuck in his own concepts and that is fine with me. I adjusted everything accordingly. "Totally pointless" is rude. A little more appreciation for each other would be helpful. gidonb 08:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * New location is much better. I've read the arguments, but still think that a town of 60000, hardly could be considered an urban center, even if it is surrounded by some villages. Otherwise and by the same logic you surely should include other cities as Afula and Neanya in the list of metropolises. Which makes the arguments of the researchers look ridiculously. With all the proper respect. Mag2k 09:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually I can see how Nazareth may eventually be called a metropolis - Its surrounding area totals about 220,000 in population (including Nazareth itself), and there are some more nearby villages which may be incorporated into 'Greater Nazareth' once the area grows. The only thing lacking right now is the urban development, which is bound to happen eventually. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 09:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 60,000 is not "a town" by any standard, and 160,000 people do not live in "a few villages", but in other adjacent cities and towns. Further, these are notable researchers in their discipline and their view is shared by many of their colleagues, so it is very important information to include. Netanya and Afula are very different cases. Afula is not a metropolis by any standard. Netanya is part of the Gedera-Hadera conurbation of Tel Aviv, which researchers agree is a metropolis, but not with Netanya as central city. gidonb 09:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Would you list several "adjacent cities and towns" that you consider as a part of the Nazareth metropolis?

 * In Nazareth's immediate vicinity, there are: Nazareth (64,100), Natzrat Ilit (44,000), Migdal HaEmek (24,700), Kfar Kana (16,400), Yafia (15,700), Raina (14,900), Iksal (10,500), Ein Mahl (10,000), Mashhad (6,500), Ilut (6,000). Additionally, close enough to Nazareth (as close as Beersheba's 'metropolis' is to Beersheba itself), there are a number of other towns and villages, such as Daburiya (7,800), Shibli (4,500), Zarzir (5,900), and a few others I forgot. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 10:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think Beersheba is metropolis. Also, geographical vicinity of Natzrat Ilit or Migdal HaEmek doesn't make them satelite cities of Nazareth, due to the lack of cultural, administrative or transportation significance of Nazareth for the population of these cities.Mag2k 11:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Mag2k, be serious for a moment. The multi nuclei-model is a common way of thinking about urban areas since 1945!!! Since the early 70s the more common way. Geography/Regional science is a discipline combining natural and social sciences. It has common definitions and core models, just like other sciences. Have you ever taken a class in geography in high school or beyond? gidonb 11:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Are academic courses in location theory and environmental economics good enough? Despite the arguments of multiple nuclei model I think that calling Nazareth metropolis is ridiculous. I am not going to edit it out of further discuss it. I just stated my opinion. Mag2k 13:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * They sure are good enough. Location theory is taught mostly in economics depts and business schools under the name regional science, which is basically the same thing as geography. Environmental economics is mostly taught in economics and public policy schools under the same name. Is this were you studied them? Together they give an exellent idea of the field: many core models in location theory class and a choice of more specific subject matter in environmental econmics combining well the physical and social dimensions of space. gidonb 13:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I learned it in the framework of my economics studies. Mag2k 14:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That make sense since the professional schools would teach either course, but not both. gidonb 14:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Settlements in Israel


text:
Talk:Blitzkreig

It should of course be Blitzkrieg. There is already such an article.

Sebastjan

title: Talk:Blitzkreig