text:
Talk:Climate change/Archive 2

2019 - See housekeeping note at the top of Archive 1. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thread started November 24, 2002
''2 Potential Effects Many public policy organizations and government officials are concerned that the current warming has the potential for harm to the environment and agriculture.'' This is a matter of considerable controversy, with environmentalist groups typically emphasizing the possible dangers and groups close to industry questioning the climate models and consequences of global warming.

''Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may change; some species may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may spread. ''

Another cause of great concern is sea level rise.

''As the climate gets hotter, evaporation will increase. This will cause heavier rainfall and more erosion. Many people think that it could result in more extreme weather as global warming progresses.''

''Global warming can also have other, less obvious effects. The North Atlantic drift, for instance, is driven by temperature changes.'' It seems as though it is diminishing as the climate grows warmer, and this means that areas like Scandinavia and Britain that are warmed by the drift might face a colder climate in spite of the general global warming.

However, global warming can also have positive effects, since higher temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations improve the ecosystems' productivity. Satellite data shows that the productivity of the Northern Hemisphere has increased since 1982.

''On the other hand, an increase in the total amount of biomass produced is not necessarily all good, since biodiversity can still decrease even though a small number of species are flourishing. Similarly, from the human economic viewpoint, an increase in total biomass but a decrease in crop harvests would be a net disadvantage. In addition, IPCC models predict that higher CO2 concentrations would only spur growth of flora up to a point; after that, though greenhouse effects and warming would continue there would be no compensatory increase in growth.''

Thread started November 26, 2002
I started the long, slow process of revising this article. I'm trying not to endorse the IPCC-environmentalist-Democratic Party point of view -- or to condemn it. Of course, I admit it's hard to be unbiased. That's why I pretty much left it alone for the last 6 months.

Axelboldt, please watch this article and jump in if I make any mistakes -- which I'm sure to do, if only due to ignorance or carelessness. --Ed Poor

Thread started January 24, 2003 (Ed started)
Mav and others, I've been trying to bring balance to this article since 2001, and it's been very difficult. There are claims and counterclaims, and no one seems to want to listen to anyone else.

There are scientific controversies about:
 * 1) what to include in the temperature record
 * 2) what does temperature correlate with
 * 3) what is the optimum averaged temperature

...not to mention the political and economic maneuvering! --Uncle Ed

 * @Ed-
 * you added
 * Opponents maintain that it's the other way around, claiming that the overwhelming majority of scientists either dismiss global warming altogether or merely consider it "unproven"

 * Can you cite a source for this claim? Furthermore, it doesn't just matter if they say so, there should be actual arguments/numbers in the source in question. :Eloquence 19:44 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * Feel free to delete or edit anything which I, in my haste, have overstated or have forgotten the source for. The last thing I want is an edit war over my favorite scientific issue ^_^ --Ed

 * The login problems seem to be getting worse.. Come on, Ed, you know how NPOV and research works, you can't just rewrite stuff and expect other people to do your homework. Re: the Tim Wirth thing, what's the context for the quote? When did he say that? Exact reference? Did he refer to a specific theory? I note that an expanded version reads "the theory of global warming" and not just "the theory, but all the websites that cite it seem to cite just that sentence. Given the ambiguity in this case, why give it so much prominence? --Eloquence 20:01 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Thread started January 24, 2003 (Slrubenstein started)
I deleted this paragraph because it seems off-topic:
 * The belief that global warming is caused chiefly by emissions of carbon dioxide and other other "greenhouse gases" is promoted by environmentalist organizations and supported by most Western journalists. Some politicians, such as Tim Wirth, have admitted ulterior motives for using the global warming issue.

The second paragraph rightly points out that this is a contentious issue; the opening section provides links to two different articles that cover the debate and criticisms of global warming models. The above paragraph if anything belongs in one of those articles.

Although I did not delete it, I do nonetheless object to the second paragraph on the controversy -- it provides no faxtual information on the number of scientists who take one side or another. I followed the two links and discovered that neither article backs up this claim either. I suggest we replace the article with a mention that there is debate over the models, and wait until someone does some real research. Data I would find meaningful, for example, would be a survey of relevant scholarly (meaning peer-reviewed) journal articles on climatology, physical geography, whatever. It is possible that national associations of geographers or climatologists or meteorologists have surveyed their own membership. But if the data is not out there, why try fudging it. This is an encyclopedia, after all.... Slrubenstein

 * Thank you for deleting that paragraph. The second one should go to - at least until we get the numbers you call for. Among biologists, environmental and atmospheric scientists, there is very little doubt that CO2 affects climate. Ice core data from the past 200,000 years prove a correlation between CO2 concentration and whether or not the earth in a glacial or interglacial epoch. Furthermore, from laboratory work we know that CO2 is able to store radiant energy (sic it is a greenhouse gas). Most scientists are able to connect the dots. --mav 20:36 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think polling figures is a reasonable way to present approval or disapproval. Science is not decided by majority vote; the correct way to present the article is to outline the scientific arguments made, who makes them, and what issues there are disagreements over. If we lack the knowledge to spell out these disagreements, then we ought to wait for someone who can. Otherwise we're doing the issue a disservice. Graft

 * Graft, you are making a categorical error, mistaking one sort of question for another. If one wanted to know whether global warming is occuring or not, you would be right that it is not a matter to be resolved by polling.  But we are not discussing that specific question here, we are discussing a different question, what proportion of scientists support or oppose particular theories of global warming, on the other hand, the only way to find the answer is a poll.  The article makes this claim (you may argue that the claim is not appropriate for this article, which is exactly what I argued if you read what I wrote above; I propose that it be moved to another article on the "controversy" or "debate").  But this is an important question for anyone interested in politics, and polling is the best way to get at an answer. Slrubenstein

 * Blech. You're right, on re-reading what you wrote, mea culpa. But, I stand by my original statement. I don't see why we would want to present polling data at all. Beneath all this debate there is some actual science going on, and it very rarely gets touched upon. I think we should say, fuck the polling data, or at least relegate it to the bottom of the midden heap that is global warming and deal with the science first. As it is, the science only gets touched on very casually, very late in the text. Graft
 * I think I'm just agreeing with you again. Maybe I just like arguing. Graft

 * Well, for what it is worth, it is more interesting arguig with you than with many others here. Look, I agree with you as far as this article goes: an article on global warning should acknowledge a political controversy, provide a link, and then stick entirely to the science.  I think there should, however, be a linked article on the political controversy.  And since many political opponents claim that scientists are divided, it would be very useful to have statistics on the position of scientists.  It would not be enough to quote a scientist saying "all scientists agree" because that is not objective data (even if it may be accurate).  A poll conducted by a professional organization of its membership, or a survey of the past five years' worth of articles in peer-reviewed publications, or of abstracts of papers presented at annual national professional association meetings, would be acceptable.  I too am arguing, but not against you -- I am arguing against Ed Poor who has inserted quantitative and quantifiable claims in this article.  I think you and I agree that such calims are not appropriate to this article.  I am further arguing that even in an article on the political controversy, these claims must be supported by objective evidence. Slrubenstein

 * The whole global warming thing is a hoax, and "warmers" have used statistical manipulation (i.e., lied) to bolster their arguments. There's been hardly any warming to speak of, and it's been completely benign. It's not caused by carbon dioxide: there's no correlation at all there! It's driven 99% by solar activity.
 * I don't know what agenda the "warmers" really have, but I wish Wikipedia contributors would stick to reporting facts and evidence and statements -- and stop ignoring/deleting whatever contradicts their pet theories. --Uncle Ed 16:50 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

 * @Ed, I deleted a paragraph so perhaps you are indirectly addressing me.  I did not delete it because it contradicted some pet theory of mine.  I deleted it for substantive reasons which I explained in this talk page. Slrubenstein

 * @Ed, You are the one with the pet conspiracy theory here Ed. See my last post about the correlation between CO2 and temperature. That part has been proven. That does not mean, however, that CO2 been proven to cause the current global warming - all it proves is that CO2 concentrations are high when the planet is warm (as in an interglacial) and low when it is cold (as it is in an 'ice age'). But due to the fact that the thermal properties of CO2 unequivocally indicate that it stores heat, most scientists are able to connect the dots. There is very little controversy, therefore, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it helps to regulate the earth's climate. Venus has a 90% CO2 atmosphere and 900 degree F surface temps BTW. --mav

 * Okay, I don't think Ed usually deserves to be responded to, but this is precisely the kind of thing I am talking about. I have a friend who does this for a living (climate modeling) in the Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences division at MIT. She assures me that global warming is, in fact happening, and though there is controversy over why, everyone in the field can agree that it is happening. My point is that we should NOT stick to repeating silly propaganda and instead outline the points of debate.
 * For example, regarding the claim made by ed that warming (a) hasn't happened and (b) has been caused by solar phenomenon (which is self-contradictory, but anyway), this question has been considered by actual scientific studies, and if we want to write a responsible article, we should see what scientists say about it. (I happen to know, off the top of my head, that solar activity in fact only correlates well with warming trends until about 1950, when they diverge, but anyway). Ideally we should be digging through the relevant journals. For example, this shit gets written about in Science every goddamn week, so it shouldn't be that hard to find articles and references for points of contention.
 * Proposal: We create a Global warming/Temp which will do: (a) purport to show that there is a warming trend, and evidence for and against this and why it is considered reliable, and (b) delineate theories for how to explain a warming trend, if it exists, and why they are considered good or bad. This is what Global warming should do, in any case, rather than rant about the controversy. If someone seconds this, i'll begin sketching an outline for the page (unless someone else wants to just jump into that). Graft

 * Graft, I think we should stick to this article being a discussion of scientifically established facts, and debates among scientists over science. There are already two other pages austensibly devoted to the "controversy" and I think we should just keep that material out of this article and keep feeding it into those other articles (I do think it makes sense for there to be one article on debates over the 'science," and another on debates over policy).  Hopefully, you and Mav and others who are knowledgable will continue to work on this page as you see fit, Slrubenstein

 * Err... I was only proposing a temporary page (Global warming/Temp) so we could work on a totally different article version without throwing this one out the window in the meantime. Eventually, it should replace the current Global warming debacle, but i'd rather start from scratch than have to deal with shifting things around in-place. Also, i'm not especially knowledgable, I just have high standards and some weird complex about "facts". Graft

 * Oh.... Sorry I misunderstood you, of course you make sense. For some reason I thought temp=temperature.  Too much CO2 in my environment, I guess. Slrubenstein

 * Good idea, Graft. Tannin 22:58 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

Offshoot Thread started January 30, 2003
Ed, let's suppose it is a hoax, or at least, the warming hypothesis is wrong. Do you REALLY dare bet on that? Look at Y2K -- nothing happened, and how much money was spent averting what was supposed to be a disaster? Was that a hoax? Were people mistaken? It doesn't matter -- the point is that there was too much risk to ignore it. And here we're dealing with somehting potentially far, far worse than losing a few databases. So far, all the "non-warmers" quite clearly have an agenda to carry on making money. -- Tarquin 23:54 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

 * I didn't say warming hasn't happened (as misquoted above by Graft) but There's been hardly any warming to speak of, so there's no "contradiction" in correlating warming and cooling with variations in solar activity. May I request that contributors read a bit more carefully? Thanks in advance ^_^
 * Although it's getting off-topic, I did take a careful (and professional) look at Y2K. A lot happened, including me finding out at 4 A.M. on Y2K day that another programmer botched a test -- thus leaving a date glitch in a critical piece of financial software -- and I had to call in 2 very unhappy troubleshooters on what should have been a pleasant day off for them. (Needless to say, the doom-and-gloom scenarios of the best-sellers on the prominently-placed book table at Barnes and Noble did not take place. And that is precisely my point: doom-and-gloom predictions have been hyped endlessly, but rarely pan out. Encyclopedia articles should stick to the facts.)
 * --Uncle Ed 17:55 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
 * The biggest difference, Ed, is that the Y2K thing was hyped for commercial and legal reasons despite clear and abundant evidence that in most cases it just wasn't a credible threat. The global warming problem, however, is "anti-hyped" for commercial and legal reason despite clear and abundant evidence that it is a very credible threat indeed.
 * Secondly, it was simplicity itself to test for Y2K problems that were likely to be a direct issue for ordinary users: you simply did a backup and advanced the BIOS clock to any desired date, restarted the system and ran imaginary data through it for however long it took for you to feel confident that your accounts & other programs were OK. (Indirect issues, of course, required that IT people did their homework - notably on the big old iron that banks and similar organisations use, and on PLC based systems.) Small-scale real-world testing for global warming problems, on the other hand, is not possible.
 * Thirdly, the Y2K issue, even if it had been real, did not have the potential to cause genuinely massive problems. At absolute worst case, it threatened to set the wealthier nations back to 1960s technology for a while - in other words, just an inconvienience, measured on the global scale. The global warming problem, in contrast, does threaten truly massive problems, including the extinction of many marginal species, and very nasty effects on human economic activity.
 * Fourthly, the "fix" for the Y2K "problem" was, essentially, to bring forward sales of new computer equipment by a few years, which involved the waste of a good deal of money pre-Y2K, and an industry-wide slump post-Y2K. Despite a severe lack of evidence for any need, most of the industry took a narrow-minded short-term view and cashed in to the maximum extent possible. (And, within a couple of years, many of the major players paid the price for their greed and lack of sensible long-term planning - viz Compaq, HP, & etc.) Y2K, in other words, was essentially a matter of short-term greed exploiting a non-problem to the long-term detriment of the industry. The fix for the global warming problem, in stark contrast, does not require a short-term spending spree, nor does it offer an instant cash bonanza for large corporations. Instead, it requires a re-evaluation of the way in which modern economies account for externalities, and a shifting of the cost burden to more accurately reflect the actual costs to society of some economic activities (the Kyoto carbon credit scheme is one example of this trend). This does not require a massive short-term spending spree, but instead a re-targeting of existing spending to more sensible long-term goals.
 * Fifthly, the bona fides of the relevant experts are very different. In the case of Y2K, the overwhelming majority of people with some claims to expertise in the field were financially motivated to talk the problem up as far as possible - to gain more contract work, higher-priced contracts, more sales volume, and so on. Hardly anyone who had any expertise was financially motivated to downplay the panic. People with knowledge of global climate, however, have only a modest motivation to play up the problem (to stimulate employment in the field), a good motivation to take a balanced and rational view (so as to enhance their professional stature), and an excellent motivation to decry the whole thing as nonsense (because there is any amount of money to be made working for one or another of the host of psudo-scientific energy industry front organisations, provided only that one's conscience can be soothed). So: the Y2K experts stood to gain by saying the problem was serious, and they did. The climate experts don't really stand to gain by saying the problem is serious (at least they don't stand to gain as much as they do by taking the energy industry dollar) and yet they still overwhelmingly support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. When somebody tells me something against his own economic self-interest, I listen.
 * We are not talking lunatic greenies here. We are talking conservative, official scientific bodies. In short, yes. Just the facts. Encyclopedia articles should stick to the facts.
 * Tannin 23:22 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Thread started Feb 4 2003
From beginning of article

 * -- see 'Historical temperature record' and 'Evidence against a warming period' below. The theory that the emission of various greenhouse gases by humans is connected with the observed heating of the Earth's atmosphere in the 20th century -- while politically contentious -- has steadily gained adherents in the scientific community within the past 15 years, to the extent that the US National Academy of Sciences and many other national scientific bodies around the world have strongly endorsed it.

There is controversy over (a) number of adherents in the scientific community, as well as (b) what polls have to do with science. Usually, an encyclopedia article on a scientific subject sticks with what is proved, not what polls indicate. If scientists aren't virtually unanimous about something, then it's too early to call it a "fact". --Uncle Ed 21:35, February 4, 2003

 * The Kyoto Protocol, according to our article on it, has been signed by 184 of the 190 United Nations member states (including the USA) and additionally ratified by 100 countries (including all 15 EU members). Doesn't this mean that "some advocates" (first para, this article) is an understatement? -- Heron 21:52, February 4, 2003

 * Sorry, Heron - that's my bad. It's been signed or ratified by 123 countries, and ratified by 104. So 67 countries have neither signed nor ratified. I'm not clear what that means in practice - it may be that certain dependant countries are signed for by their parent countries, for example. My confusion arose because I assumed that to ratify the treaty you had to first sign it - this is, bizzarely, not the case. Martin 10:05, February 5, 2003

 * Thanks for the correction, Martin. So we will have to dig a little deeper to find out the true proportion of proponents/opponents.  Or perhaps the controversy is too raw for us to make a judgement yet. -- Heron 10:25, February 5, 2003

@@ * There was an error in Kyoto Protocol, which temporarilly confused the debate at this point.

 * @Ed, I think you are a little confused about the relationship between theory and fact in science. Generally, a scientific theory is neither proven nor disproven -- it is a model that generates testable hypotheses.  The hypotheses themselves are not "proven;" they are falsified or confirmed.  But even confirmation does not mean that they are irrefutable facts.  Indeed, for it to be scientific, it must  be refutable.  The paragraph you deleted makes perfect sense and is accurate.  There is a theory that is widely accepted.  An encyclopedia article on global warming must discuss it, and how it is widely accepted.  My point is that NO article on a scientific theory can stick to what has been "proven as fact;" such a claim is not really scientific.

 * In any event, as Mav and Tannin and others have observed, this theory is accepted by virtually all scientists.

 * You once included a paragraph stating that scientists are divided and there is some controversy over how many scientists accept this theory. I deleted that paragraph because there was no evidence backing it up.  I asked you (or someone) to provide evidence if the article is going to make this claim.  And yes, Ed, if you are going to claim that x quantity (virtually all, virtually none, most, some, whatever) scientists accept this theory, a poll of scientists is probably the best evidence.

 * In the absense of such evidence, to state a real fact, that the NAS has endorsed the theory, is still meaningful.

 * You were wrong to delete the above paragraph. It did not claim that virtually all scientists accept the theory, only that many do, and it named one major body of scientists as evidence.  Please stop deleting paragraphs that make reasonable claims backed up with evidence, when all you have to offer in place are unreasonable claims with no evidence.
 * Slrubenstein 22:03, February 4, 2003

 * I agree that the paragraph should not have been deleted. I haven't been devoting to editing this article, because I've got limited time and other issues are higher priority, but I also think that this article seems to rely in some cases on the use of overtly partisan political sources like newsmax.com and columnists for the Washington Times, when this is supposedly an enclopedia article on an ostensibly scientific subject.  soulpatch 22:10, February 4, 2003

Thread started Feb 5, 2003
Two questions for Slrubenstein (but anyone feel free to chime in, if you know the answers): A. what percent of scientists does "virtually all" mean? 80%? 90? 98% B. has anyone conducted a poll? If not, how do we know the percentage of scientists supporting the GW theory? -- Uncle Ed 20:39, February 5, 2003 C. How relevant are such organizational endorsements, in light of the 1975 NAS endorsement of a looming "ice age"? --Uncle Ed Two edits at 20:39 and 20:44, February 5, 2003 (formatted by me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC))

 * Re A, I use the phrase "virtually all" because I do not have any figure. By the way, I am not a climatologist, so I limit my contributions here to deleting claims not backed up by evidence and re-inserting claims that provide evidence.  But I have spoken to some geographers and they tell me that it is virtually all.  Let me repeat something I have said twice already Ed: anyone who is really invested in this article should look for data, and I suggested two forms of data: a poll conducted by a national professional association of its members, or a survey of articles published in peer-reviewed journals.  Ed, you make a specific numerical claim -- what is your evidence?  If this is something you reall care about, look for it.  I personally have other priorities and don't have the time, but this seems to be a priority for you.  I won't dispute any sentence that says "Many scientists disagree" which is a s vague as "Virtually all agree" -- both of these statements are in themselves anecdotal and hard to refute. I give more weight, much more weight, to the claim "virtually all" because people I know, and Wikipeidans in the natural sciences agree with this claim.  I honestly do not know much about your background, Ed, are you a climatologist, or atmospheric scientist, or physical geographer?  If you do, I will accept your claims about your own profession, on good faith.  But if not, I expcet more evidence.
 * Re B, Ed, you have contributed much more to this article than I have. And when you have contributed, you have made much stronger claims than I have.  I therefore assume that you have conducted research in this field, or about it.  Haven't you checked the peer reviewed journals, and newsletters of the professional organizations?  What kind of research have you done?  Slrubenstein 21:10, February 5, 2003

title: Talk:Climate change/Archive 2


text:
Bank of Mexico

The Bank of Mexico (Banco de México), abbreviated BdeM or Banxico, is Mexico's central bank, monetary authority and lender of last resort. The Bank of Mexico is autonomous in exercising its functions, and its main objective is to achieve stability in the purchasing power of the national currency.

Background
Plans for a central bank of Mexico began as early as the Mexican Empire of Agustín de Iturbide with his idea of a Gran Banco del Imperio Mexicano (Grand Bank of the Mexican Empire). This idea was never pursued, instead, credit was generally issued by religious orders or trading guilds. In 1827, Mexico defaulted on a loan from British lenders which made it difficult to find foreign capital and it was forced to rely on local lenders as it had no national bank to lend to it. Instead the government was forced to rely on domestic lenders known as agiotistas (speculators) who specialized in short-term, high-interest loans.

The first formal bank organized by the government was the Banco de Avío which was formed in 1830 during the presidency of Anastasio Bustamante under the direction of the Minister of Interior and Foreign Affairs, Lucas Alamán. The primary purpose of the bank was to stimulate the manufacturing and textile industries. Its success was confined mainly to the latter, but due to ongoing political and military crises the bank was eventually closed in 1842 by President Antonio López de Santa Anna.

The Mexican government had decreed the establishment of a national bank in 1837, which similarly had to close in December, 1841.

Private banking
The first major private bank in Mexico was opened under the period of the Second Mexican Empire in 1864 when the Banco de Londres, México y Sud America (Bank of London, Mexico and South America) opened in Mexico City.

In the 1870s the Banco de Santa Eulalia opened in Chihuahua and the Monte de Piedad, which had functioned as a pawnshop since 1775, expanded its services into banking. Both banks issued their own bank notes and many more banks followed suit in the next decade, including the Banco Nacional Mexicano (Mexican National Bank) in 1882, opened by the administration of President Manuel González.

In 1884 the Banco Nacional Mexicano soon merged with Banco Mercantil Mexicano (Mexican Mercantile Bank) to form the Banco Nacional de México (National Bank of Mexico) which issued notes and was the primary lender to the government. The same year government issued a commercial code that gave it control of the banking sector, including the responsibility of chartering banks and establishing minimum levels of capital. The new code also stipulated that all paper money had to be backed by gold or silver on deposit in the national treasury.

The next 15 years were turbulent for the banking sector of Mexico. Due to poor management, the Monte de Piedad temporarily closed, reopening without its banking services. The government mismanaged the emission of a new non-silver coin and was forced to hastily recall it. Both of these events caused the public to lose confidence in the banks and paper money.

Porfiriato
In 1897, during the presidency of Porfirio Díaz, Finance Minister José Yves Limantour helped to guide the passing of the Ley de Instituciones de Crédito (Law of Credit Institutions). The new law grouped banks into three categories: issuing banks, mortgage loan banks, and auxiliary development banks. Issuing banks were allowed to circulate banknotes within the state they were issued, but only the Banco Nacional de México and the Banco de Londres y Mexico notes were allowed to circulate nationally. They were also authorized to make short-term loans. Mortgage banks were authorized to make loans collateralized by real estate for periods up to 40 years. The auxiliary development banks were authorized to make loans for periods up to two years for the purpose of financing industrial endeavors such as mining, manufacturing, and agriculture. Nationwide, there were 24 banks with issuing authority, two mortgage banks, and five auxiliary development banks.

In 1908 Limantour issued new reforms to protect the Mexican economy from weaknesses exposed by the US financial crisis of 1907. These reforms prevented emissions banks from opening new branches and required them to convert themselves into auxiliary or mortgage banks. These changes had limited success, and though Limantour predicted a budget surplus for 1911, the collapse of the Porfirian regime and the intensification of the Revolution ground normal banking activity to a halt.

Revolution
In 1911 Francisco I. Madero took power from Díaz. Madero worked to increase the number of banks in the country but he was not trusted by the United States which worked with one of Madero's generals, Victoriano Huerta, to overthrown him in February 1913. When Huerta took power in 1913, he confiscated all of the metal backed banknotes from private issuing banks then issued unbacked banknotes into circulation, crippling the national banking system.

When Huerta was forced from office, the number of banknotes issued multiplied and the population began to lose faith in paper money. As warlords ravaged the country vying for control, they forced banks to make exorbitant loans or they looted them. In 1916 Venustiano Carranza declared that all banks must fully back their banknotes with metal. The 1897 law said that private banks only had to back 33% of the value of their issued notes, consequently all of the private banks were dissolved and their assets seized. That same year Carranza issued his own "unforgeable" notes in May though these lost all value by July of the same year. The banks seized by Carranza weren't returned to their owners until the administration of Álvaro Obregón in 1921.

Foundation
The current constitution of Mexico was signed in 1917. Article 28 of that constitution stipulated that all paper money would be issued by a single bank controlled by the government. But it was not until the end of 1924 that the Ley General de Instituciones de Crédito (General Law of Credit Institutions) was passed which was the legal antecedent for the Banco de México. The law prevented banks from owning stock in other banks and eliminated the stock exemption for banks. Most importantly, the law called for the creation of a central bank.

The Banco de México was created on August 25, 1925, under the direction of Minister of Finance Alberto J. Pani with an official ceremony given on September 1, 1925. It was given exclusive authority to mint coins and print banknotes, a sharp departure from policies of the past. The bank was also given responsibility over exchange rates, interest rates, and monetary regulation. Initially, retail banks even had the option not to partner with Banco de México. The main goals of the Bank at that time were to unify the fractured banking system left behind by the Revolution, create a flexible financial system that could modernize the country, reestablish credit, and renew trust in paper money.

The bank's first years were difficult. Initially only two private banks affiliated themselves with Banco de México, and by 1927, in the midst of the Christero War, the bank exceeded the legal limit of how much it could loan to the government. The unease of the private banking institution was assuaged somewhat when the initial offices of Banco de México were temporarily located in the headquarters of the Banco de Londres y Mexico. The banking interests cemented their relationship with the government by issuing loans to government officials, ensuring that the politicians had a vested interest in the stability of the system.

In 1932, laws were passed that required all private banks to invest their capital in Mexico and associate themselves with Banco de México. The laws also required that Banco de México cease operating as a commercial bank. After passage of this legislation, only three foreign banks remained in the country. These changes and a looser restriction on the issuance of banknotes led to a growing trust in the central bank.

Directors general (1925-1994) and governors (1994- )

 * Alberto Mascareñas Navarro (1925-1932)
 * Agustín Rodríguez Cotera (1932-1935)
 * Gonzalo Robles Fernández (1935)
 * Luis Montes de Oca (1935-1940)
 * Eduardo Villaseñor Ángeles (1940-1946)
 * Carlos Novoa Rouvignac (1946-1952)
 * Rodrigo Gómez Gómez (1952-1970)
 * Ernesto Fernández Hurtado (1970-1976)
 * Gustavo Romero Kolbeck (1976-1982)
 * Carlos Tello Macías (1982)
 * Miguel Mancera Aguayo (1982-1997)
 * Guillermo Ortiz Martínez (1998 - 2009)
 * Agustín Carstens Carstens (2009 - 2017)
 * Alejandro Díaz de León (2017–2021)
 * Victoria Rodríguez Ceja (2022–present)

On December 15, 2009, Agustín Carstens was confirmed by the Senate as the new Governor of the Bank of Mexico with 81 votes in favor and 19 votes against. He assumed office on 1 January 2010.

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

title: Bank of Mexico


text:
Lifeline

Lifeline or Lifelines may refer to:

Support, care, and emergency services

 * Crisis hotline
 * Lifeline (crisis support service), Australia-based, now international
 * National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, United States
 * LifeLine (medical transport), a medical transport service associated with Indiana University Health system
 * Lifeline of Ohio, organ procurement organization
 * Lifeline project, a substance use disorder charity in Manchester
 * Lifeline (safety), a fall protection safety device in the form of an open wire rope fence
 * Life Line Screening, a health screening company in the United States
 * Lifeline utility, in New Zealand, an essential service during major emergencies
 * Lifeline (FCC program), an FCC program for communications services for low-income consumers

Film

 * The Life Line, a 1919 American silent drama film
 * Life Line, a 1935 Hong Kong film
 * Lifeline (film), a 1997 Hong Kong film by Johnny To

Albums

 * Life Line (album), by the George Adams-Don Pullen Quartet, 1981
 * Lifeline (The Answering Machine album) or the title song, 2011
 * Lifeline (Ben Harper album) or the title song, 2007
 * Lifeline (Iris DeMent album), 2004
 * Lifeline (Neal Morse album) or the title song, 2008
 * Lifeline (Pablo Cruise album) or the title song, 1976
 * Lifeline (Phillips, Craig and Dean album), 1994
 * Lifeline (Roy Ayers album) or the title song, 1977
 * Lifeline (EP), by Jesu, or the title song, 2007
 * Lifeline, by RJ Thompson, 2020
 * Lifelines (A-ha album) or the title song (see below), 2002
 * Lifelines (Andrea Corr album), 2011
 * Lifelines (Arild Andersen album) or the title song, 1981
 * Lifelines (I Prevail album) or the title song, 2016
 * Lifelines, a Peter, Paul and Mary album, 1995
 * Lifelines: The Jimi Hendrix Story, 1990

Songs

 * "Lifeline" (Brooke Fraser song), 2003
 * "Lifeline" (Jamiroquai song), 2011
 * "Lifeline" (Papa Roach song), 2009
 * "Lifeline" (Spandau Ballet song), 1982
 * "Lifelines" (song), by A-ha, 2002
 * "Life Line", by 10cc from Bloody Tourists, 1978
 * "Life Line", by Harry Nilsson from The Point!, 1970
 * "Lifeline", by Anastacia from Resurrection, 2014
 * "Lifeline", by Angels & Airwaves from I-Empire, 2007
 * "Lifeline", by CeCe Peniston from Finally, 1992
 * "Lifeline", by Imogen Heap from Sparks, 2014
 * "Lifeline", by LeRoux, 1983
 * "Lifeline", by Justin Jesso which represented Illinois in the American Song Contest

Television

 * Lifeline (1978 TV series), a 1978–79 American documentary series
 * Lifeline (2017 TV series), an American science fiction drama series
 * Lifeline (Spanish TV series) (Pulsaciones), a 2017 thriller series
 * Lifelines (TV series), a 1993–1996 Irish chat show
 * "Life Line" (Star Trek Voyager), an episode
 * "Lifeline" (The L Word), an episode
 * "Lifeline" (Stargate Atlantis), an episode
 * Lifeline, a help for answering a question in the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
 * Lifeline, a Belgian WWII resistance group in the 1977 TV series Secret Army

Video games

 * Lifeline (video game), a 2003 action-adventure game
 * Lifeline (2015 video game), a text-based adventure mobile game
 * "Lifeline", a 2014 DLC for the video game State of Decay
 * Lifeline, a playable character in the game Apex Legends

Other arts and entertainment

 * The Lifeline, a 1946 novel by Phyllis Bottome
 * Lifeline (G.I. Joe), a fictional character in the G.I. Joe universe
 * Lifeline Theatre, Chicago, Illinois, United States
 * "Life-Line", a science fiction short story by Robert A. Heinlein
 * The Life Line (painting), an 1884 painting by Winslow Homer
 * Lifelines (literary journal), literary journal of Dartmouth College

Religious and humanitarian missions

 * Life-Line (mission boat), a Baptist missionary boat in Coos Bay, Oregon, United States, 1914–23
 * Lifeline (ship), formerly FRV Clupea, a UK small rescue boat and former fisheries research vessel
 * Lifeline Expedition, a Christian initiative for reconciliation from the Atlantic slave trade
 * Lifeline 3, from Britain to the Gaza Strip in 2006
 * Lifeline Energy formerly Freeplay Foundation, a London-based NGO active in Africa
 * Lifeline Malawi, a Calgary-based charity
 * Lifeline Center for Child Development, a child psychiatry center in Queens, New York, United States

Other uses

 * Lifeline program, a telephone financial-assistance program in the United States
 * Kernmantle rope used for safety in rock climbing
 * In sailing, ropes or netting around the edge of the sailboat to prevent people from falling off the boat
 * Fall arrest a form of fall protection to prevent falling
 * In palmistry, a particular crease in the palm
 * LifeLines, genealogy freeware
 * Lifeline (diving), or tether, a line from the diver to a tender at the surface

title: Lifeline


text:
Butrint

Butrint (Βουθρωτόν and Βουθρωτός, Buthrōtum, Butrint) was an ancient Greek polis and later Roman city and the seat of an early Christian bishopric in Epirus.

Originally a settlement of the Greek tribe of the Chaonians,  it later became part of the state of Epirus and later a Roman colonia and a Byzantine bishopric. It entered into decline in Late Antiquity, before being abandoned during the Middle Ages after a major earthquake flooded most of the city. In modern times it is an archeological site in Vlorë County, Albania, some 14 km south of Sarandë, close to the Greek border. It is located on a hill overlooking the Vivari Channel and is part of the Butrint National Park. Today Bouthrotum is a Latin Catholic titular see and also features the Ali Pasha Castle.

The city is considered one of the most important archaeological sites in Albania. On the strength of the immense wealth of cultural, historical and natural value with a considerable history, Butrint was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1992 and further a National Park in 2000 under the leadership of Auron Tare, its first director.

Prehistory
The earliest archaeological evidence of settled occupation dates to between 10th and 8th centuries BC, although some claim that there is earlier evidence of habitation dating from the 12th century BC.

Ancient Greek period
Excavation at Bouthroton has yielded Proto-Corinthian pottery of the 7th century and then Corinthian and Attic pottery of the 6th century, however there are no indications of a prehistoric settlement. Bouthroton was in a strategically important position due its access to the Straits of Corfu, and its location at the crossroads of mainland Greece and Magna Graecia, the Greek and the "barbarian" worlds. Thus, it became one of the two ancient ports in lower Chaonia, the other being Onchesmos (modern Sarandë).

Bouthroton (modern day Butrint) was originally one of the major centres of the Epirote tribe of the Chaonians, part of the northwestern Greek group of tribes. They had close contacts to the Corinthian colony of Corcyra (modern Corfu). According to the Roman writer Virgil, its legendary founder was the seer Helenus, a son of king Priam of Troy, who had moved West after the fall of Troy with Neoptolemus and his concubine Andromache. Both Virgil and the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus recorded that Aeneas visited Bouthroton after his own escape from the destruction of Troy.

The acropolis was erected on a hill on the bank of a lake Butrint (or lake Bouthrotum). The first extension of the 7th century BC acropolis occurred during the 5th century BC. During the first years of the second Peloponnesian War (413-404 BC) the Corkyreans built fortifications stretching from Ksamil to Buthrotum. Buthrotum being previously an independent city, became subject to nearby Corfu.

By the 4th century BC it had grown in importance and included a theatre, a sanctuary dedicated to Asclepius and an agora. The acropolis of Bouthrotum was protected by three circuit walls. The last and outer wall was erected around 380 BC enclosing and area of 4ha. This 870m-long wall included bastions and five gates. Two of the most important gates were known as Scean and Lion gate. Moreover, the agora, the stoas, the residential zone and the theatre were located in a separate walled area.

Several inscriptions in Buthrotum describe the organization of the Chaonians in the beginning of the 3rd cent. BC. which show that they too had an annual leader called Prostates (Προστάτης Protector). The Greek calendar of Bouthroton appears in the oldest known analog computer, the so-called Antikythera Mechanism (c. 150 to 100 BC).

The theatre is known for the impressive number of inscriptions carved on its stones. Most of them deal with manumissions and give a great amount of details on the city during the Hellenistic era. The names of those slaves were almost exclusively Greek with a few exception of Latin ones which bore Greek family names.

In 228 BC Buthrotum became a Roman protectorate alongside Corfu. In the middle of the second century BC Buthrotum was the centre of an independent state, possibly the "Koinon of the Prasaiboi", as listed in the list of the theorodokoi at the Oracle of Delphi.

Ancient Roman period

In the next century, it became a part of a province of Macedonia. In 44 BC, Caesar designated Buthrotum as a colony to reward soldiers who had fought for him against Pompey. Local landholder Titus Pomponius Atticus objected to his correspondent Cicero who lobbied against the plan in the Senate. As a result, only small numbers of colonists were settled.

In 31 BC, Roman Emperor Augustus fresh from his victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium renewed the plan to make Buthrotum a veterans' colony. New residents expanded the city and the construction included an aqueduct, a Roman bath, houses, a forum complex and a nymphaeum. During that era the size of the town was doubled. A number of new structures were built next to the existing ones especially around the theatre and the temple of Asklepeios.

In the 3rd century AD, an earthquake destroyed a large part of the town, levelling buildings in the suburbs on the Vrina Plain and in the forum of the city centre. Excavations have revealed that city had already been in decline. However, the settlement survived into the late antique era, becoming a major port in the province of Old Epirus. The town of late antiquity included the grand Triconch Palace, the house of a major local notable that was built around 425.

Byzantine and possible Slavic period
The walls of the city were extensively rebuilt, most probably at the end of the 5th century, perhaps by Byzantine Emperor Anastasius. The Ostrogoths under Indulf raided the Ionian coast in 550 and may have attacked Buthrotum. In the end of 6th century groups of Slavs possibly arrived at Buthrotum. Evidence from the excavations shows that importation of commodities, wine and oil from the Eastern Mediterranean continued into the early years of the 7th century when the early Byzantine Empire lost these provinces. During the period of Slavic invasions and population movements in the wider region Butrotum was one of the few cities in Epirus that survived and retained its status as a seat of a bishopric without interruption.

Because of the scarcity of sources, it is difficult to assess whether Buthrotos was controlled by Slavs or Byzantines between the 7th to 10th centuries. Byzantine written sources of that time mention that Saint Elias of Enna was detained as a spy in Bouthrotos, while Arsenios of Corfu (876–953) noted the marine wealth of the town. The Grand Basilica of Buthrotum was built during the first half of the 6th century on the northeast side of the settlement. Other monuments include the Acropolic Basilica (4th century), the Triconch Palace (6th century), the Baptistery with a large, complex mosaic (6th century), the Lake Gate church (9th century) and the Baptistery church (9th century). Colonization by the Byzantine authorities seems to coincide during the reign of Leo VI (886–912). Imperial administrators of that time possibly governed the region from the "oikos" (οίκος, residence) from Vrina plain rather than from the citadel. Archaeological records become stronger in the 10th century.

The inventories of bishoprics from the 10th to 12th centuries identify the bishop of Butrint as subject to the metropolitan bishopric of Nafpaktos, the ecclesiastical province that took the name of the old provincial capital of Nicopolis. Arab traveller Muhammad al-Idrisi noted in the 12th century that Buthrotum is a densely populated city with a number of markets.

It remained an outpost of the Byzantine empire fending off assaults from the Normans until 1204 when following the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantine Empire fragmented, Buthrotum falling to the breakaway Despotate of Epirus. In the following centuries, the area was a site of conflict between the Byzantines, the Angevins of southern Italy, and the Venetians.

Between Angevins, Byzantine Empire and Despotate of Epirus
The fortifications were probably strengthened by Byzantine Emperor Michael I.

In 1267, Charles of Anjou took control of both Butrint and Corfu, leading to further restorations of the walls and the Grand Basilica. In 1274, Byzantine forces re-entered Butrint, an act which caused conflict between the Byzantines and the Despotate of Epirus, because Despot Nikephoros considered the site to be his domain. Despite deep religious differences between the Catholic Charles of Anjou and the staunchly Orthodox Nikephoros, the two allied against Byzantine Emperor Michael, and together drove the Byzantines from the area in 1278. Then, pressed by Charles, Nikephoros ultimately ended up recognizing Charles' rights to all the town that Michael II had awarded to Manfred of Hohenstaufen as part of his wife Helen's dowry, as Charles was his successor, thus ceding to him Butrint as well as the entire Acroceraunian Coast from Vlora to Butrint.

As part of the Angevin Regnum Albaniae
From 1284 Byzantine Emperor Andronikos II was in control of most of today's Albania and Angevin control on the Balkan mainland was limited to Butrinto, the later formed a single administrative unit together with nearby Corfu. In the 14th century the site shared a similar fate with Corfu. Butrint remained under Angevin rule until 1386, with only two other interruptions: in 1306, and in 1313–1331. In 1305-1306 it was controlled by the Despot of Epirus, Thomas I Komnenos Doukas. Butrint became Catholic after it was conquered by the Angevins, and remained so throughout the fourteenth century.

Hodges argues that the "episodic" defensive investment in Butrint as a town during this period demonstrates that it still possessed an active urban population, although not one urban dwelling had been identified at the time of writing. Hodges argues this indicates that dwellings were concentrated on the slopes of the northern citadel. The Orthodox Bishopric was transferred to nearby Glyki in 1337 or 1338. The town was reduced in size during the end of the 14th century, due to the tumultuous unrest in the region.

Between Venice and the Ottoman Empire
The dogal Republic of Venice purchased the area including Corfu from the Angevins in 1386; however, the Venetian merchants were principally interested in Corfu and Butrinto once again declined.

By 1572 the wars between Venice and the Ottoman Empire had left Butrinto ruinous and the acropolis was abandoned, while at the order of Domenico Foscarini, the Venetian commander of Corfu, the administration of Butrinto and its environs was shifted to a small triangular fortress associated with the extensive fish weirs. The area was lightly settled afterwards, occasionally being seized by the Ottoman Turks, in 1655 and 1718, before being recaptured by the Venetians. Its fisheries were a vital contributor to the supply of Corfu, and olive growing together with cattle and timber were the principal economic activities.

The Treaty of Campo Formio of 1797 split between France and Austria the territory of the Republic of Venice, which France had just occupied and abolished, and under article 5 of the treaty, Butrinto and the other former Venetian enclaves in Albania came under French sovereignty.

However, in 1799, the local Ottoman Albanian ruler Ali Pasha Tepelena conquered it, and after his death, it officially became a part of the Ottoman Empire until Albania gained its independence in 1912. By that time, the site of the original city had been unoccupied for centuries and was surrounded by malarial marshes. During Ottoman rule in Epirus, the inhabitants of Butrint displayed continuous support for Greek revolutionary activities.

Modern Albania
In 1913, after the end of the First Balkan War, Butrint was ceded to Greece but Italy challenged the decision and in the Treaty of London the region was given to the newly created Albania. As such Butrint was located near the southern border of the newly established Albanian state in a largely Greek-speaking territory. The local Greek population was enraged and created an Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, for six months, before it was reluctantly ceded to Albania, with peace assured by Italian peacekeeping force until 1919. Italy rejected the decision because it didn't want Greece to control both sides of the Straits of Corfu.

Residential bishopric
In the early 6th century, Buthrotum became the seat of a bishopric and new construction included the Buthrotum baptistery, one of the largest such paleochristian buildings of its type, and a basilica. The diocese of Buthrotum was initially a suffragan of the Metropolis of Nicopolis, the metropolitan capital of Epirus Vetus and in the papal sway, but in the 9th and 10th centuries it is listed with the suffragans of Naupaktos, which succeeded ruined Nicopolis as provincial capital and metropolis of the new Byzantine theme of Nicopolis, bringing it in the sway of the Byzantine Patriarchate of Constantinople. After the 14th century, it was under the jurisdiction of the Metropolis of Ioannina. Two of its Byzantine (pre-Eastern Schism) bishops are mentioned in extant documents:
 * Stephanus signed the joint letter of the bishops of Epirus Vetus to Emperor Leo I the Thracian in the aftermath of the killing of Patriarch Proterius of Alexandria in 458
 * Matthaeus signed the synodal letter of the bishops of the province to Pope Hormisdas in 516 concerning the ordination of Metropolitan John of Nicopolis.  It became a Latin Church see under Angevin and Venetian rule.

Latin residential bishopric
A Latin see was established circa 1250 under the Italian name Butrinto, functioning under Angevin and Venetian rule, but suppressed circa 1400. The 6th-century basilica was rebuilt by king Charles I of Naples in 1267.
 * Known Latin bishops
 * Nicola, O.P. (? – 1311.02.15)
 * Nicola, O.P. (1311.05.23 – ?)
 * Nicola da Offida, O.F.M. (? – 1349.06.15)
 * Francesco (? – ?)
 * Arnaldo Simone (? – 1355.02.13)
 * Giacomo, O.P. (1356.10.12 – ?)
 * Lazzarino, O.F.M. (1366.02.09 – ?)

Catholic titular see
Buthrotum is today listed by the Catholic Church as a Latin titular see since the diocese was nominally restored in 1933 as titular bishopric of Buthrotum (Latin) / Butrinto (Curiate Italian) / Butrint (Albanian).

Following titular bishops have been nominated:
 * Louis-Bertrand Tirilly, SS.CC. (1953.11.16 – 1966.06.21) as last Apostolic Vicar of Marquesas Islands
 * George Frendo (7. 7. 2006 – 17. 11. 2016), O.P., Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Tiranë–Durrës (Albania) (7. 7. 2006 – 17. 11. 2016), also Secretary General of Episcopal Conference of Albania (2016.05.05 – ...)
 * Friar Giovanni Salonia, O.F.M. Cap., (10. 2. 2017 – resigned 27. 4. 2017) as Auxiliary Bishop of Archdiocese of Palermo
 * Zdeněk Wasserbauer (* 16. 6. 1965), Auxiliary Bishop of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Prague, since 19. 5. 2018

Archaeological excavations
The first modern archaeological excavations began in 1928 when the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini's Italy sent an expedition to Butrint. The aim was geopolitical rather than scientific, aiming to extend Italian hegemony in the area. The leader was an Italian archaeologist, Luigi Maria Ugolini who despite the political aims of his mission was a good archaeologist. Ugolini died in 1936, but the excavations continued until 1943 and the Second World War. They uncovered the Hellenistic and Roman part of the city including the "Lion Gate" and the "Scaean Gate" (named by Ugolini for the famous gate at Troy mentioned in the Homeric Iliad).

After the communist government of Enver Hoxha took Albania over in 1944, foreign archaeological missions were banned. Albanian archaeologists including Hasan Ceka continued the work. Nikita Khrushchev visited the ruins in 1959 and suggested that Hoxha should turn the area into a submarine base. The Albanian Institute of Archaeology began larger scale excavations in the 1970s. Since 1993 further major excavations have taken place led by the Butrint Foundation in collaboration with the Albanian Institute of Archaeology. Recent excavations in the western defences of the city have revealed evidence of the continued use of the walls, implying the continuation of life in the town. The walls themselves certainly seem to have burnt down in the 9th century, but were subsequently repaired.

After the collapse of the communist regime in 1992, the new democratic government planned various major developments at the site. The same year remains of Butrint were included in the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites. A major political and economic crisis in 1997 and lobbying stopped the airport plan and UNESCO placed it on the List of World Heritage in Danger because of looting, lack of protection, management and conservation. Archaeological missions during 1994–9 uncovered further Roman villas and an early Christian church.

In 2004, archaeological excavations continued under principal investigator, David R. Hernandez.

Climate change means that the site, especially the area of the ancient theatre and Roman forum, can sometimes be covered with water, and a new management plan for both the cultural and natural assets has been implemented.

Directions
The site of Butrint is accessible from Sarandë, along a road first built in 1959 for a visit by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. This road was upgraded during the summer of 2010. The construction was somewhat of an environmental disaster and may yet threaten Butrint's World Heritage Site status. The ancient city is becoming a popular tourist destination, attracting day-trippers from the nearby Greek holiday island of Corfu. Hydrofoils (30 minutes) and ferries (90 minutes) run daily between the New Port in Corfu Town and Saranda. Many visitors from Corfu use chartered coach services to visit Butrint from Sarandë, and additionally, a regular public bus service runs between Sarandë port and Butrint. Others arrive from the Qafe Bote border crossing with Greece near Konispol and cross the Vivari Channel by the cable ferry at Butrint.

Notable locals

 * Saint Therinus, 3rd-century saint
 * Donatus of Euroea, 4th-century saint

Sources and external links

 * GCatholic with incumbent bio links
 * 3D model of Butrint Archaeological Park

General information

 * Butrint National Park
 * The Butrint Foundation
 * Butrinti 2000 International Festival of Theater
 * Photo Albums
 * Visiting Butrint
 * Butrint in Albania

History articles

 * More information on Butrint from The History Channel
 * Rome and Albanian history from Albania.com
 * Albania's Long-lost Roman City, BBC
 * In Pictures: Sights of Butrint, BBC
 * 176 photos from the archeological site of Butrint
 * Coins from Butrint: Numismatic research on archaeological excavation - The British Museum

title: Butrint


text:
Talk:Honey

Use of the term 'raw honey' in UK
In the Honey (England) Regulations 2015 there is no such term as 'raw honey'. The regulations list the terms that csn be used in relation to honey. It is not a term that is legally defined in the UK. Black Mountain Honey in Wales was asked by trading standards to stop using the term 'raw' on its honey labels. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAnnYx7NUE4 89.241.102.49 (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Youtube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, but that really doesn't matter at this point because it is unclear what you want us to do about it. If this article were about the word "honey", there may be some use for adding this information, but encyclopedias are about things, not words. Dictionaries are about words. This is really too specialized to call it a WP:ENGVAR thing, so I really don't know what you want us to do? Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Infusion
There's a variety of beekeeping focused on infusing flavors into honey, such as lemon, lavender, or cinnamon. Basically, different flavors have been introduced, would it be possible to add another section? Purplepeopleperson (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 * I doubt we need an entire section on it. If you have some reliable sources then it would probably fit in the adulteration section just fine. Zaereth (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! What would qualify as a scholarly article for this? Like any of the ones below:
 * https://www.dadant.com/learn/how-to-infuse-your-own-honey/
 * https://manukahoneyusa.com/infuse-your-honey-to-add-unique-flavors/
 * https://www.plumdeluxe.com/blogs/blog/how-to-infuse-honey
 * Let me know, I can keep looking. I would love to contribute to this article. 2601:47:4782:D8B0:70FF:7EDA:7AF6:886B (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The above sources are commercial blog spam and do not meet WP:RS. Also, the proposed content is mainly a recipe concept, falling under WP:NOTHOWTO. Zefr (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but none of those qualify. The first two are promotional (they're selling stuff, and the last thing we need is more spam), and Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. The last is a blog, and blogs are not reliable because anybody can write one. See: WP:Reliable source for what constitutes a suitable citation. Keep in mind, most of the sources in this article are of very high quality, so I'd suggest looking for something of similar caliber. Books are probably the best. A reliable website or even a news article could also work. Keep in mind, we don't want anything promotional. There is already some mention of adding stuff to change the flavor in the adulteration section, and I have a hard time seeing what more needs to be said. Zaereth (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023
In the section "Formation", subsection "By honey bees", in the second paragraph, the end of the sixth sentence reads, " which delivers the liquid to the bee's proventriculus, also called the honey stomach or honey crop." This is incorrect. The proventriculus is part of the digestive tract inbetween the honey stomach(honey crop) and the food stomach, formally called the ventriculus. It acts as a filter between the honey stomach and the ventriculus. Since this is a Honey page and not a Honey bee digestive tract page I suggest removing reference to the proventriculus all together and have that part of the sixth sentence read, " which delivers the liquid to the bee's honey stomach, also called the honey crop." This change, along with the current reading of the seventh sentence conveys the information that nectar is carried in a different place than the bee's true (food) stomach without getting into technical terms such as proventriculus and ventriculus. 128.119.202.187 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

✅ with thanks. It would help if you can add a more detailed WP:RS ref. Next time, WP:JUSTDOIT. Zefr (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Yeah, you're right. I got that from one of the sources. Can't remember which, because someone came along later and rearranged everything, so not every source is with the information it once supported. I remember thinking, "that's interesting, never heard that word before", and since we had an article I added it in. But in looking deeper into bee anatomy, the two are definitely not the same. The proventriculus serves as a valve between the honey stomach and the food stomach, opening and closing I guess when the bee gets hungry, and prevents it backflow. It also seems to serve a second purpose of filtering pollen from the nectar that passes through it. That would probably be good info to add to the proventriculus article, but I agree, it's not necessary here. Thanks for catching that. Zaereth (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Health properties
I would be interested in reading science-based information about the widely purported health-giving properties of honey. Specifically, that honey contains micronutrients and enzymes that are profoundly health-giving, and that heating honey to any extent destroys these qualities and/or renders honey toxic. I suspect that this is widely-circulated misinformation, but as a individual with limited knowledge of chemistry I cannot find anything to refute this claim. 172.103.198.197 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 * See Apitherapy. Bon courage (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That article discusses bee venom therapy as opposed to honey.  Interesting, though.  The things people will subject themselves to if desperate enough! 172.103.198.197 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no science-based "widely purported health-giving properties of honey" - that is pseudoscience nonsense.
 * The science-based information about the nutrition and medical research on honey is already in the article. 1) The nutrition section shows that honey is only a carbohydrate source, mainly of fructose and glucose, so could contribute to food energy. Its micronutrient content is at a low level universally. The concept that eating enzymes provides health benefits is bogus, as enzymes are proteins, and consumed proteins are broken apart into amino acids by the acid-enzyme environment of the stomach. 2) The medical research section explains the few examples where honey has been shown to have limited anti-disease effects. Other than an illogical use for treating skin burns and a minor effect on treating coughs, honey has no use in conventional medicine.
 * It is just a type of food, and no one food has "widely purported health-giving properties". Zefr (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree. This article already covers what MEDRS sources say about it, which isn't much and what they do say is mostly inconclusive at best. Even some of those I find highly questionable, because a single study or two are really meaningless. To be scientifically sound the results need to be repeatable many times over, and they rarely are. (For example, take the section on antibiotics. Whatever antibacterial properties honey has, I seriously doubt they come from the miniscule amounts of hydrogen peroxide or other trace chemicals it contains, but is derived almost solely from its low water content and hygroscopic nature. (Death by osmosis.) But all sugar is hygroscopic, and has been used as a preservative for hundreds of years.) Everytime one of these studies comes out, especially where there's the slightest chance it can be misinterpreted as some cure, some snake-oil sales people will jump on it. One week it's honey, the next bee stings, then acacia berries, or fish oil, etc... The three biggest money-making scams are miracle weight-loss products, magic foods and potions to cure all ailments, and products that claim to enlarge one's private part. People will believe anything if the hope overrides their good judgment, but we can only accept MEDRS sources for any medical claims, so most of what you find on the internet about it won't be found here. Zaereth (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Archelogical finds of honey still edible after thousands of years...
This may be a myth, that has been persisted by scientific sources and popular science simply referencing older sources. See this article https://irna.fr/Honey-in-the-pyramids.html, which presents some original sources showing that early expeditions found a substance that was thought to be honey, but on later analysis turned out to be natron. 2A00:23C8:B713:FD01:F835:D27C:191D:DB84 (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I believe it is a myth, and have even found sources that trace the myth to its origin. I'll have to go back to the library one of these days to look it up. In short, it arose during the 1920s, during the excavation of King Tut's tomb. The archeologists found a container that was broken open, which contained a powdery substance that they determined was once honey. A newspaper reporter from the NY Times misinterpreted them as saying they found liquid honey that was still edible, and the myth has persisted ever since.

 * The thing is, no one really knows. Foods by their very nature are chemically reactive, which makes long-term storage a problem. (A problem NASA has been trying to solve if we ever intend to send people to Mars or beyond.) I mean, popcorn has been found in Mayan tombs, but no one to my knowledge has ever tried to eat it. When archaeologists find a sealed bottle full of liquid, they don't ever open it. Ever. Some containers have been shown to have honey, but many containers once thought to contain honey have been discovered, through processes like x-ray spectrography, to contain other substances like rancid castor oil or wine. I seriously doubt anyone has ever opened one and said, "Hey, let's try this on a peanutbutter sandwich." However, this has become so engrained in society that we even have sources like the Smithsonian spreading it around, and that's a difficult hurdle to get over. Zaereth (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Honey


text:
Talk:SCSI

How SCSI works
I deleted the section HOW PARALLEL SCSI WORKS due to it conveying no useful information to the reader. At one time, there was a similar section that summarized the various SCSI phases and what happened during each one. However, the uneducated Internet monkeys got to it, deleted the content that was worthwhile and injected irrelevant crap, such as cable signals.

Also, the SCSI command protocol is independent of the bus architecture. The eight phases are the same in all cases, so a title such as HOW PARALLEL SCSI WORKS is just plain wrong.

I am increasingly viewing the making of lucid contributions to Wikipedia as a huge waste of time, in that so much uneducated editing occurs, even in technically arcane subjects. The hacking up of this article by people who think they know SCSI, but evidently don't, is yet another example of the basically flawed premise of Wikipedia. It's referred to as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and therein lies the problem. Anyone can edit anything, whether they know anything or not. In the world of computers, SCSI expertise, as well as a neutral perspective, is a scarce commodity, which is patent in reading this article.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I share your concern about uninformed editors, but I am not sure I agree with u that the section has no useful information to the reader. Perhaps renaming it to HOW SCSI WORKS (yr point being it works the same regardless of the bus) and getting rid of irrelevancies might have been a better approach.  I do think there is useful information in describe the protocol states.  Comment?  Tom94022 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

 * As it was written, HOW PARALLEL SCSI WORKS conveyed no useful information. A section titled HOW SCSI WORKS could be useful if written by one who is truly an expert on the subject.  There was such a section at one time that summarized the eight protocol states without injecting a lot of drivel.  I may search through the history and see if I can resurrect it, but, as I said above, this whole Wikipedia thing is taking on an odiousness in my mind.  The doctrine of (mostly) unrestricted editing access has resulted in many non-NPV edits, and in many cases, introduction of totally wrong information.  I don't see anyone trying to get a handle on this problem, and I am tired of seeing my edits steamrollered by punks with limited knowledge and even more limited writing skills.

 * Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Move SCSI to Parallel SCSI
Since there's also a comprehensive Parallel SCSI page, I'd like to move most of this page's Parallel SCSI section there and just keep a summary. IMHO this page should focus on SCSI in general. Any objections? Zac67 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At the same time I suggest the SCSI and SCSI sections should be merged with subsections for each of the SCSI embodiments, linked to more exhaustive articles. Tom94022 (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Outdated
The SCSI Express stuff and SBC-4 are some obvious lacunae. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Link rot
Myusernamewastoosimilar-apparently (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC) myusernamewastoosimilar-apparently 15-04-2019. Hi. Sorry if i've got it wrong. I'm new to this. The link in refererence 15 in the article is dead.(hxxp://h30097.www3.hp.com/docs/base_doc/DOCUMENTATION/V40F_HTML/MAN/MAN7/0003____.HTM) There's not even a redirect from HP as it doesen't get reached. Probably other dead links too. I don't have an alternative link for reference 15. So what happens?

 * Link rot is quite frequent unfortunately. Have you tried the [http:archive.org Wayback Machine]? --Zac67 (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No timeframe for usage
I came here wanting to know whether SCSI is obsolete or still in use, but found hardly anything. I'd say any addition on this matter would be welcome. Cheers. --uKER (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * SCSI is more popular than ever, see SCSI. If you refer to Parallel SCSI (SPI), I've just added some text to its decline to SCSI. --Zac67 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * SAS is certainly a current and viable interface but "more popular than ever" is not so clear. I'd like to see a RS on, for example, a ratio today of SATA/SAS HDD/SSD versus say ATA/P-SCSI HDD in the 1990s.  I'll look for something and then maybe we can add text to the article.  Tom94022 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I wasn't refering to SAS (alone), but to the SCSI family in general. I've searched for a source but couldn't find a usable one. --Zac67 (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 * AFAIK most of the serialized versions of SCSI use SAS or SATA drives (HDD or SSD) behind a converter/controller. If you want to say something along the lines of "the SCSI protocol in a serialized form such as SAS has replaced parallel SCSI in current applications," I don't think anyone could object.  Tom94022 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:SCSI