text:
Talk:R.U.R.

Adaptations
I added a reference to the BBC Radio 3 dramatisation from 1989. Available commercially, but someone deleted it. Curious as the lost BBC versions are noted, and the commercially available Hollywood Theater of the Ear version —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelis4 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was me, and it was a mistake. I somehow thought that you were deleting that material instead of adding it.  I've reverted my deletion, with my apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by JohnCD. Just closing this to remove the tag. Mkativerata (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

R.U.R. (Rossum& → R.U.R. — Or possibly to Rossum's Universal Robots. But it seems that the "shortform (longform)" representation found in some sources is intended to communicate two names (or a title and a subtitle), not one. Kotniski (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose move - It's really more of a title and subtitle, but they almost always go together. Take a look, for instance, at the Internet Broadway Database listing for the play here, or these listings on Amazon. We have a redirect from R.U.R. already, and there's no need for the "(play)" disambiguator -- and, as far as I know, no one ever refers to the play as "Rossum's Universal Robots", so that would be an inappropriate title.  Where it is now is just fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting why you posted those links - they seem to support my position, that "(Rossum's Universal Robots)" is not part of the play's title - it's just an explanatory tag or subtitle, which is sometimes given, and sometimes not. And since it could equally well expand the title of the film as the play, it wouldn't be a good disambiguator even if Wikipedia did that kind of disambiguation for abbreviations.--Kotniski (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted them because, except in situations where a shortened title is needed (such as on the title of an anthology of several plays), in English, they are always together. It's not a disambiguator, it's part of the title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They are always together except when they're not, certainly. But clearly as a title and subtitle, not as a title that includes a parenthetical. Sorry, I now realize that the film title just redirects to here, so I'm amending the proposal to move to simply R.U.R. (and to move the (hardly needed) page RUR to RUR (disambiguation)).--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need for these changes. In English, both parts of the title go together. I continue to oppose an unnecessary move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As is clear from the links, they are not "parts of the title" - the title is "R.U.R.", and the expanded form is a subtitle, which sometimes (but not always) accompanies the title. Our present article title is therefore somewhat misleading. --Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, exactly the opposite is clear from the links. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Support. It looks to me like the parenthetical is a subtitle, not part of the actual title.  See the 1939 movie poster or the second link on Amazon.  Powers T 12:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also the 1935 Czech movie poster and the fact that the Czech Wikipedia article is titled just "R.U.R.". Powers T 12:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia shouldn't include subtitles in its article names, especially not if they can be mistaken for disambiguators. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 *  Neutral pointers to this discussion have been posted on the talk pages of these WikiProjects: Science fiction, Theater, Czech Republic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 * FWIW, Ghits data: "Capek R.U.R. +'Rossum's Universal Robots'" 362,000 versus "Capek R.U.R. -'Rossum's Universal Robots'" 182,000, which means that they don't go together as invariably as I stated above, but the full English title "R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)" is used 2:1 over the abbreviated title "R.U.R.". (And, yes, I agree that "R.U.R." is the full original Czech title.  It is not, however, the full English title of the play.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, after a bit of consideration, as long as the bolded title in the lede gives the full title "R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)", it doesn't much matter if the article title is the same -- "R.U.R." is fine. (I take as precedent Dr. Strangelove.) So I withdraw my objection and support the requested move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly support long overdue, in fact. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  14:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Factual inaccuracy re: subtitle
Has anyone verified that the original subtitle of R.U.R. is Czech, as the article suggests? I'm pretty sure that, in the Czech original, the subtitle was in English as "Rossum's Universal Robots" (which ties into the thematic importance of Americanism, Fordism, etc.). I have a 1940 copy of the Czech original in front of me in which this is the case - it's not a first edition but I suspect the first edition would be the same. This claim should either be verified with a footnote or modified. Sindinero (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, since the project gutenberg Czech text linked to in the article also has 'Rossum's Universal Robots' (in English) as the subtitle, I went ahead and changed it, since this is an important aspect of the play and the previous version of this paragraph was mistaken and I can find no citation or Czech edition of the play that has the subtitle in Czech. Sindinero (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great catch, and very interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept that the original English subtitle was "Rossum's Universal Robots". My understanding, however, is that the original title more properly translates contextually as “Rossum’s Universal Worker” or ““Rossum’s Universal Labourer”. The article entry on the origin of the word supports this view as does the story itself - Rossum produced biological creatures to operate his factory, not mechanial 'robots'. The Russian word for worker,‘rabotnik’ comes very close and is almost identical to the English word 'robot.' Mark Evans, 05 September 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.5.187 (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Cites for all of these claims, please. I think you're confusing later usage with Rossum's initial usage. but, in any case, we're going to require citations from reliable sources to support these claims, if they're ever going to see the light of ay in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Carl's Jr. robot advert.
The robot in the current Carl's Jr. robot TV advertisement has R U R on its upper left torso. I haven't examined the video closely to see if it's visible in the ad, I spotted it about two weeks ago on a "life size" cardboard standup of the robot at a Carl's Jr. restaurant. I did a google for it and came up with zilch, apparently nobody out there has noticed this, or if they have they are incurious as to what the letters might mean, or if they are curious they have no clue it's an homage to this play. Bizzybody (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot, Act II
The description of Act II includes the statement "In secret, Helena burns the formula required to create Robots." In this same paragraph, it references both the original (human) Helena, and an experimental Robot Helena. Which Helena burns the formula? Depending on which it was, the story is very different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.166.202 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Family tradition
In my family tradition, I used to hear from my grand dad Antonin (the teacher who was in a very close family relation to father of Čapek siblings Helena, Karel & Josef),it was the painter and co-author of some Karel's works, Karel's brother Josef who actually coined the word robot and the name R.U.R.

So the idea to use the Czech word 'robota' meaning forced labour of servants, slaves etc esp in Middle Ages comes from Josef rather than from RUR author Karel who it is often attributed to.

Karel himself was in favour of other words such as 'automaton' etc etc.

The root of the word 'robota' (in Czech grammatically of feminine genus) is pan-Slavonic and it is still alive in Czech as well as Russian, for instance, where it is used in the word robotat translating 'to work' and it belongs to one of the most frequent&popular verbs in this prime Slavonic language nowadays.

To cut this short: the idea to name fictious (for how long any more?) beings with humane features comes most likely from Josef, Karel's brother and its root is one of the most popular ones in Slavonic languages these days.

Hope this may be of some help to understand how this all came about - maybe for you, Robots of the Future too!!! --Capekm (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting story, but, unfortunately, completely unusable on Wikipedia, because it is not verifiable, is not supported by a citation from a reliable source and would be considered to be original research. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But the article itself does state that the word originated with Josef, not Karel, based on a RS...Sindinero (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct, my mistake. It looks like Capekm's family tradition turns out to be verifiable!  Mazel tov! Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I accept your objection I cannot find a written article by my granddad from Police on the Metuje - or Metau - this is a Czech/German border area, a topic covered by Karel and regrettably by the Munich conference later on. I am but a Wikimemeber of no standing and I do not dare to discuss such basic matters such verifiability of an entry. To my mind we do not spam Wikipedia if there is a memory - the tradition - left somewhere withing talk. In this case it turned out to comply with this condition, so the better. To get information seems to be harder than to obliterate it - in most cases. Thank you for commenting - I have a lot to learn on the niceties how this most perfect sourcce of quality and independent information works. I beg your patience, dear Wikicolleagues.--Capekm (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"In other languages"
I deleted this section again. It said: "The book was influential early in the history of its publication.[citation needed] It was translated into the Ottoman Turkish language (Turkish written in Arabic script) as early as 1922 and was printed and published by the state press. [14]" I did so for these reasons:

 * The only "other language" discussed is Turkish. The section as is basically says "It was translated into Turkish", which, by itsef, without discussion of other languages, is not particluarly encyclopedically interesting
 * Although it says that the book was influential, there are no citations provided to support this. The words are clearly there as a pro forma introduction to the Turkish publication information, in order to present an encyclopedic rationale.  Without sourcing, however, it's just empty verbiage.

What this means is that factual content of the section is that the book was translated into Turkish. While this would be a significant fact in and of itself in the Turkish Wikipedia, in the English Wikipedia it is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In other languages
1.Please try to ask yourself the following question: "Am I being a racist?" You mention the additional entry "In other languages" do not include any other language than Turkish and jump to the conclusion that it must be deleted. However, if you see the necessity for additional languages, the rational thing is to try to add one or two yourself. Please try to contribute; it's everyone's major responsibility.

2.Please refer to the Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers which suggest to all of us, but particularly to those more experienced, the following among other things:

(i)If a newcomer seems to have made a small mistake (e.g., forgetting to put book titles in italics), try to correct it yourself: do not slam the newcomer. Remember, this is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is in a sense each person's responsibility to edit, rather than to criticize or supervise others. If you use bad manners or swear at newcomers, they may decide not to contribute to the encyclopedia again.

(ii)If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out things that they've done correctly or well.

I do not wish to add more suggestions, you can see the whole by yourself.

3.My remark on the influence of the book speaks for itself and may even not need a citation: The book was translated into Ottoman Turkish, Turkish in Arabic script, in a short time after it was published, a language into which not many translations of 20th century literay works are made in the 20's !

4.You suggest that the Turkish translation of a book needs mentioning only in the Turkish version of Wikipedia. Your idea is flawed in at least points:

(i)All versions are Wikipedia are destined for humanity and if you say French version is for French people, Turkish version is for Turkish people, etc. then the whole concept of Wikipedia will collapse. Everyone has a right to refer to any version of Wikipedia they prefer and not any one of us can deprive others from knowledge.

(ii)If we follow your rules to not refer to/explain/give information on translations other than English (for books written in a language other than English), then do you realize that more than half of the entries in Wikipedia on relevant subjects will have to be reduced in length or deleted completely?

Regards, THEWISEOLDTURK (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Frankly, I stopped reading your response after your first sentence.  Don't pull the "racist" card to justify your bad editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you be objective - my editing might be "bad" for you, but you are not justified in any of your explanations. I suggest you read my explanations. This is not a tug-of-war we're playing here for edits. I believe you are not justified in your reasons for deletion of my added information; you should not deprive Wikipedia users of any information that might be useful.

Again I suggest you to read my explanations for your reasons and please kindly refer to the Wikipedia guidelines I referred to already: Not any one of us is here to supervise or criticize other contributors; if my edit is not "good" for you, please try to improve it. Please contribute in a positive way.

To date, I have contributed to the English, Turkish and French versions of Wikipedia by not only editing but also by creating new articles (entries); and I am new here, only 2-months old. I try to be positive, factual, kind and polite. I again refer you to the Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers which is written as a guideline for all users of Wikipedia.

Rgds, THEWISEOLDTURK (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of terms in description?
RE this sentence: "Unlike the modern usage of the term, these creatures are closer to the modern idea of cyborgs or even clones, as they can be mistaken for humans and can think for themselves." Wouldn't that make them androids rather than cyborgs?SLEPhoto (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"Save the Robots"
Hello. I have updated the page with a new musical adaptation of R.U.R.. There are at least 2 outside references to the musical's existence on 2 different websites within Wikipedia parameters of acceptance. Plenty of pages list items "scheduled to be released" or "debut" or "set for release" "premiere", so I don't understand the difference. The updated adaptation will be added to this page either way whether it's now and then change to reflect past tense after or just after the first performance. ie, "Jersey Boys is an upcoming 2014 American musical biography drama..." Best. NaturalWon (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)NaturalWon

 * I removed it per WP:PROMO and WP:CRYSTAL, and you edit warred to keep it in. If you don't understand aomething, then it might be a good idea to actually listen when a seasoned editor tells you something, instead of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum, as you did.  You've now been templated for edit-warring, and for using Wikipedia as a promotional medium, and I restored sourced information about a previous production that you removed, as well as the word "debut" since it obviously is not its debut. BMK (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand you spell erroneously when you are unnecessarily unprofessional. Since YOU know nothing about this musical or checked it's sources that were linked, this musical has a completely new book, not LOOSELY based, and it adapts R.U.R.'s characters and story, therefore it is a debut and completely new work unto itself apart from a previous show written by different authors. Please explain "tantrum"? Still not answered per inquiry asking PROMO, CRYSTAL difference from, "Jersey Boys is an upcoming 2014 American musical biography drama..." . Actually, YOU have been templated for Edit-warring. Again, this is a NEW book and NEW author. NaturalWon (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)NaturalOne

 * It's obviously not by "different authors", but a re-written version of the previous show. That show was written by "Ed Katz, Rob Susman, George Tsalikis and Clark Render", while this version, according the NYMF, has "Book by E. Ether; Music by Rob Susman; Lyrics by Clark Render". With two of the four authors the same these are obviously related, but our readers won't know that, because you -- for the fourth time - reverted my version (which included all the previous information and your new information) before I could add the current authors.  So we're lying to our readers when we say it's a "debut", because "developmental readings" are, by definition, not official performances, but part of the working process, and, in any case, some version of this piece has been done before. (I work in the theatre, so don't try to sandbag me, I've been doing it for longer than you've been alive.) You clearly want it to say "debut" because that's much better promotionally, which, I surmise, is the only reason you're interested in having this entry in the article.  That's why I templated you, because you're not here to improve the encyclopedia, you're here for promotion only. BMK (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And, ah, don't know what you mean by saying that I've been templated for edit-warring - there's no such template on my talk page, but there is one on yours, put there by Regents Park, an admin. BMK (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows what's going on here. This is what was in the article before NaturalWon edited it today:

 * An electro-rock musical, Save The Robots, written by Ed Katz, Rob Susman, George Tsalikis and Clark Render, loosely based on R.U.R., and featuring and the music of 80's rock band Hagatha, premiered at the Players Theatre in Manhattan, New York City on 11 May 2012.

Here is what NaturalWon changed it to:

 * An electro-rock musical, Save The Robots, will debut in Developmental Readings at the New York Musical Theatre Festival July 2014, based on R.U.R., and featuring the music of 80's NYC art-rock band Hagatha. The show is an updated musical adaptation of R.U.R. with most of the same characters and plot details.

Here is the compromise version I came up with:

 * An electro-rock musical, Save The Robots, written by Ed Katz, Rob Susman, George Tsalikis and Clark Render, loosely based on R.U.R., featuring the music of the 1980s New York City art-rock band Hagatha, premiered at the Players Theatre in Manhattan, New York City on May 11, 2012. The play is schedule to be in developmental readings at the New York Musical Theatre Festival in July 2014.

As I mentioned above, I was about to go in and add the current authors to this, when I found that NaturalWon had reverted again. Here is his current version:

 * An electro-rock musical, Save The Robots is based on R.U.R., featuring the music of the 1980s New York City art-rock band Hagatha. The book-musical is scheduled to be in developmental readings at the New York Musical Theatre Festival in July 2014.

I'll let others judge which is the most appropriate for an encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If NaturalWon would stop blindly reverting, this version could be a suitable compromise - if he's really here to contribute and not just to promote this production:
 * An electro-rock musical, Save The Robots, written by Ed Katz, Rob Susman, George Tsalikis and Clark Render, loosely based on R.U.R., featuring the music of the 1980s New York City art-rock band Hagatha, premiered at the Players Theatre in Manhattan, New York City on May 11, 2012. A new version of the play, more closely based on R.U.R., with book by E. Ether, music by Rob Susman, and lyrics by Clark Render, is scheduled to be in developmental readings at the New York Musical Theatre Festival in July 2014.
 * That keeps the mention of the obviously related previous production, and makes it clear that the new one is revamped and more tightly based on Capek's piece. The WP:CRYSTAL/WP:PROMO aspect is minimized. BMK (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on R.U.R.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131223084729/http://www.booksplendour.com.au/capek/rur.htm to http://www.booksplendour.com.au/capek/rur.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"However"
"R.U.R. is a 1920 science fiction play by the Czech writer Karel Čapek. R.U.R. stands for Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti (Rossum's Universal Robots).[1] However, the English phrase "Rossum's Universal Robots" had been used as the subtitle in the Czech original.[2]" I'm not sure what is meant by having the "however" in this sentence. --Khajidha (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Anglocentric
Okay, being anglocentric in the English Wikipedia is unavoidable, and in science fiction topics even more than in others, but still this is undue: In 1920 Central Europe it surely introduced the new word rather to German and French, and thence to English, not directly (see etymology in the Wikitionary) — besides, of course, to Czech, from which it derives as a neologism. Might be good to re-check the source in this regard, and, if needed, complement this statement with sourced conformation of this point.

Also: Are we sure it didn’t meet success also in Asia and South America? Did it please discerning thespians much more in Chicago or L.A. than in Buenos Aires or Tokio? (Ditto concerning sources.)

And here: Do we know which? Tuvalkin (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The Word robot was hardly 'new'. It's the common Russian word for 'work'. 86.87.191.180 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Nutrient bath.
I read RUR forty years ago. I remember a nutrient bath, but none of this factory business. Is that from a film adaptation? If so, say so. Athanasius V (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 * I just finished reading it for the first time. Every scene is at the factory. —Tamfang (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Image correct??
In the section 'Čapek's conception of robots' is an image captioned "U.S. WPA Federal Theatre Project poster for the production by the Marionette Theatre, New York, 1939". It's shown here:

But there's another image here: which names Remo Bufano (no WP page) as director. It looks like that the artist for that one was Charles Verschuuren (no WP page), a NY magazine illustrator.

(Remo Bufano had been a mime with the Washington Square Players 20 years earlier. Is it possible he directed another production of RUR at the same location?)

I've tried =at length= to source the name of the artist of the first image, to no avail... (there are thousands of WPA images.)

Clearly it WAS associated with the Marionette Theater... also hard to find info on.

Furthermore, it *seems* (from the limited info in the article) that the Swedish Cottage Marionette Theatre (NYC Central Park) was not hosting performances until 1947.

Any help with ID'ing this stuff or locating/navigating the details would be much appreciated!Twang (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:R.U.R.


text:
Talk:Bank of England

Reaction in the City
It was very popular with the City of London, showing a sign of the new government's desire for a strong economy. Following the announcement the FTSE 100 Index leapt rapidly. The pound reached its highest level against the Deutsche mark since Sterling's exit from the ERM.

These remarks don't hold up when viewing the data. The FTSE didn't move a significant amount given the volatility of the period. The move in May (2.7%) was smaller than the previous April (4.4%) or the subsequent move in June (3.7%) (Bloomberg). These moves are about 1 standard deviation, i.e. not unusual. Similarly for the pound/mark rate. There appears to be no reaction in May, the peak was reached in the end of July (a reaction to US rates news), and subsequently moved sideways/down. I suggest that at best the reaction "In the City" was mixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.109.220 (talk • contribs). on 17 May 2006.

The Bank of England was apparently created in 1694 due to King William III defaulting on his Tally sticks?
I noticed this fact isn't in the article, despite being able to find many sources for the claim. 110.174.171.123 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 * I believe it was a bit more complex than that, but you are right, the disastrous finances of the crown in the years leading to the creation of the BoE are not well summarized in the article. Currently it is simply like "The king wanted to build a fleet and needed to raise money", rather than "The king had been overspending dramatically and all attempts at refinancing had failed completely, leading to total lack of credibility". The role of goldsmiths, the invention of government bonds, the national lottery, and yes, tally sticks, should all be mentioned. The problem is that an accurate account of events would not sound very honorable, and someone might want to come in and tone it down. If you have good sources, please do try. Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bank of England


text:
Talk:Royal Society

Oldest Society in the world?
Even though the article refers to the Encylopedia Brittanica, it does not seem to be true.

According to the article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Sciences_Leopoldina , this society seems to be older - if we agree that 1652 was before 1660.

Maybe, the statement should be changed. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotwie (talk • contribs) 09:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It could be that it only became German Academy of Sciences (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften) in February 2008. The Royal Society article very clearly specifies that it is the oldest "national scientific institution in the world".
 * The article you link to very clearly states: "In November 2007, German science minister Annette Schavan announced the renaming of the Leopoldina to "German Academy of Sciences" (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften), and said that "due to its international prestige, the Leopoldina is predestined to represent Germany within the circle of international academies." Karsten Jedlitschka says that the Academy was named the first national science Academy in Germany in February of 2008."--ServeDotty (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also: "Founded on January 1, 1652, based on academic models in Italy, it was originally named the Academia Naturae Curiosorum until 1687 when Emperor Leopold I raised it to an academy and named it after himself". Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Heinrich Oldenburg, the First Secretary of the Royal Society, was of course German (from Bremen), and who, according to the Royal Society's own records - and to the later delight of the Paris scientific circles - was inspired by his time spent at the Montmor Academy and Paris' "salons" of philosophical debate, to help establish something similar back in England. The individuals Chapelain, Thevenot, Cassini, Du Hamel, Fontenelle all wrote about this, mostly disparately, and often decades later. Not to mentioned the historian Colbert. Only one counter-argument is offered, that of Hooke's, which essentially amounts to "we all hated Oldenburg anyways!". Hooke writes: "I will not say, that Mr Oldenburg did rather inspire the French to follow the English, or, at least, did help them, and hinder us. But ’tis well known who were the principal men that began and promoted that design, both in this city and in Oxford ; and that a long while before Mr Oldensburg came into England. And not only these Philosophick Meetings were before Mr Oldenburg came from Paris; but the Society itself was begun before he came hither; and those who then knew Mr Oldenburg, Understood well enough how little he himself knew of philosophic matters.’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Oh and there's much more.

 * 1530 - "Establishment of Collège Royal (now Collège de France) was established by King Francis I of France, modeled after the Collegium Trilingue in Louvain, at the urging of Guillaume Budé, for the advancement of learning by providing free lectures to the public on, among other subjects, philosophy, mathematics, and medicine."

 * 1551 - Founding of the Collegio Romano as a Jesuit university, many of whose teachers and students were active scientists during the Scientific Revolution.

 * 1603 - The Accademia dei Lincei (Academy of Lynxes) founded in Rome as a scientific society.

 * 1620 - Johann Valentin Andreae proposes a model scientific society with scientific work as a collective enterprise

 * 1626 - Francis Bacon’s "New Atlantis" describes a fictionalized institution for collaborative scientific research.

 * 1630 - Founding of the Bureau d’Adresse in France, a national clearinghouse for information, goods, and services in Paris that offered weekly conferences to the public on scientific issues. [emphasis mine].

 * 1653 - First meetings of the Montmor Academy in Paris, an early French scientific society, named after its meeting place, the home of H.L. Habert de Montmor.

 * 1657 - Founding of the Accademia del Cimento (Academy of Experiments) in Florence, an early scientific society, founded by students of Galileo, Giovanni Alfonso Borelli and Vincenzo Viviani.

 * 1662 - Establishment, by royal charter, of the Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, the oldest of today’s (i.e. still extant) scientific societies, and the appointment of Robert Hooke (1635–1702) as Curator of Experiments, charged with conducting experiments at the Society’s weekly meetings

 * Source: Applebaum, W. (ed). (2000). Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution: From Copernicus to Newton, Routledge, NY. (p. xxii)

 * - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 * It remains the oldest national scientific academy, founded and chartered by the king. Unlike say the Collège de France, it has stayed with its original role, and indeed played a significant role in establishing the idea of a national academy of the sciences, now found in most countries. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 * It would've been nice if you'd actually read my objections to using this phraseology, even better if you addressed them. They are:
 * (1) It is an anachronism to talk about a "national" anything in mid-17th century Europe, the 'Academia Naturae Curiosorum' is clearly identical in purpose and scope, but there was no German "nation" in 1652. Schweinfurt was an Imperial city of the Holy Roman Empire. Nevertheless, it is still proudly touted by Germans as "the oldest permanently existing natural-scientific academy in the world" - note the absence of the word "national". A similar problem of historical anachronism arises in the case of the Accademia dei Lincei. Founded in the Papal States in 1603, so, clearly an earlier "national scientific academy" than the Royal Society, right? Hang on though, do the Papal States still even exist? In a manner of speaking... but does it matter? More puzzlingly, were they a nation? They were certainly a State, but a nation?
 * (2) Considering this, and all the historical details I have cited above, isn't it a kind of petty - if not misleading, I mean we're talking about a gap of a whole great big six years between the found of the English Royal Society and the French one - point-scoring, nationalistic-type factoid/trivia question? Surely it doesn't belong at the very beginning of the lede of an encyclopedia article?
 * Just my 2 cents, no hard feelings. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Academy of Lynxes disappeared between 1650 and the 19th century. I don't know about the others, but I think what we are discussing here is the oldest continuously existing scientific academy. As for the lead, the article for the Leopoldina does say it has a claim to be the oldest. I don't see why that is a problem. It is an interesting fact about it. LastDodo (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets do some more. The Collège de France, Bureau d’Adresse and Collegio Romano are not scientific societies any more than the Royal College of Physicians is. Johann Valentin Andreae and Francis Bacon's proposals were just proposals. The Montmor Academy and the Accademia del Cimento, did not make it to the end of the 17th century. As for Henry Oldenburg, even if he had set up the society entirely by himself, there had been no Invisible College, and he had got the entire idea from Europe, that would not change this debate, as we are not debating who or why, but when. That leaves only the Leopoldina, which was temporarily dissolved after WWII by the GDR.

 * After World War II, Halle became part of East Germany. During this time, the German Democratic Republic shut down all societies, leading the members of the Leopoldina to meet unofficially and in private. Efforts were made to reestablish the Academy, however. An edition of Goethe's 'The Works of Science' began to be edited under the Academy's name in 1947, and lectures started again in 1948. However, the Academy was not officially reopened until 1952.

 * That certainly gives the RS a claim to be the oldest continuously existing scientific society in the world. LastDodo (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With the above in mind, I propose adding a sentence to the lead similar to the one in the Leopoldina article. Copy pasting and altering, it would read something like 'The Royal Society has a claim to be the oldest continuously existing learned society in the world. The validity of the claim depends in part on how certain definitional and historical questions are answered.' Thoughts? LastDodo (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No response, so here is my proposed first paragraph, with a note adapted from the Leopoldina page.

The Royal Society, formally The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, is a learned society and the United Kingdom's national academy of sciences. The society fulfils a number of roles: promoting science and its benefits, recognising excellence in science, supporting outstanding science, providing scientific advice for policy, fostering international and global co-operation, education and public engagement. Founded on 28 November 1660, it was granted a royal charter by King Charles II as The Royal Society. LastDodo (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this, except "national" should be added (this is the claim in the refs), and "The validity of the claim depends in part on how certain definitional and historical questions are answered." should also be in the note (and ideally less Germanicly-worded). As you or someone says above, we really don't want much on this in the lead. England was certainly a nation in the 1660s, and France and the Netherlands. Germany, Austria & the Papal States aren't really considered nations at this date by historians. Tough, but there we are. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm largely in agreement with EnglightenmentNow1792, I'm not sure what that adds. If the Royal Society has a claim to be the oldest cotinuously existing learned society in the world, then it obviously also has a claim to being the oldest continuously existing national learned society in the world, as the latter is a subset of the former. LastDodo (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, with no further pushback, I rewrote the lead as suggested above. LastDodo (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

EnglightenmentNow1792, I see you have added the modifier 'of a nationwide' scope to the claim to be the oldest continuously existing learned society, without discussing it here. So let us discuss it. That makes the claim somewhat weaker and more specific. Do you disagree it has a claim to be the oldest continuously existing learned society in the world? As you rightly pointed out to Johnbod, 'It is an anachronism to talk about a "national" anything in mid-17th century Europe'. LastDodo (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that was nonsense, as I pointed out to him. Better imo to stick with the "weaker" but more certain claim, which I think is what the RS itself claims (they have redone their web-site yet again & I can't see any such claim now on a quick look), than go done the rabbit hole of what a non-national science academy might be. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. EnlightenmentNow1792 made the change, and you are now defending it? So you are both on the same page in thinking the claim should only be that it has a claim to be the oldest continuously existing learned society of a nationwide scope? It seems to me that unless you think it doesn't have a claim to being the oldest continuously existing learned society - period - then that is the what we should put in. And leave out any notion of 'national'. LastDodo (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That the claim has been made is true, so I felt uncomfortable deleting that sourced claim - even though, yes, I believe it to be anachronistic. I felt it was a compromise - unsatisfactory to both parties, but palatable.
 * If you insist on either/or, then I must insist again that anachronistic claims made by primary sources with an obvious CoI, are better off left out. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which source are you referring to? On the RS |own website it makes the claim it is the oldest 'scientific academy in continuous existence' though I suppose that would not be considered reliable on this matter? And putting sources aside for a second, do either of you (or anyone else) personally think the RS does not have a claim to being the oldest? LastDodo (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Primary sources, particularly self-published ones, (i.e., someone's website about themselves, or a business's website) are generally not acceptable sources for use in contested claims.
 * Does it have a claim? Sure, lots of Scotch Whiskys and Irish Whiskeys have a claim to being the oldest in their respective polities, but secondary RSs would be needed to adjudicate the merit of said competing claims.
 * And as the RS listed above state, there are older such societies in Europe. It's just that the polities in which they were founded, no longer exist. (arguably, the same is true for the UK, but that's another debate) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no older continuously existing societies of the same type to my knowledge. And I see you are literally now editing this without discussion as we speak. Perhaps you can tell me why you haven't also edited the Leopoldina article in the same way. All I am asking is this one gets the same treatment. LastDodo (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

What you know is irrelevant (it also happens to be wrong in this particular case, but that doesn't matter). It's what the RS tell us, that matters. You've just gone and added your own personal opinion (No Original Research is a core WP policy) and supported it with a source which absolutely, positively does not meet WP standards. I'm not going to edit war. But please read WP:RS and WP:OR.

Quoting: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see No original research and Neutral point of view).

Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

WP:NOR

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are to the topic of the article, and  the material being presented.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 * So now, thanks to your recent edits LastDodo, this "Good Article" (see Green circle in the top corner) now has two glaring examples of OR and poor sourcing to support said OR. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's keep our hair on and be productive. I don't want to edit war either. I waited quite along time before adding the claim after getting no pushback for it on this Talkpage. I ask again why is it that the equivalent claim in the Leopoldina article is fine, but this one isn't? Is that original research? And if the Physics World article is so terribly inadequate, why is it that a book by an academic historian is not good enough? How about your very own Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution? Would that be good enough? LastDodo (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * the Physics World website is what we call a "self-published source", akin to a blog. This ought to be obvious to you from the way in which the "article" (remember, with self-published sources, there is not necessarily and not usually any editorial control or fact-checking process, so an "article" self-published on a random website is no more a RS than an article on Wikipedia itself) is presented: "PUBLISHING OPINION AND REVIEWS Web life: Trailblazing 02 Mar 2010".
 * As I'm sure you are aware, many claims are made all over the world from various orgs claiming to be "the oldest...[x]" where x is university (there's something like half a dozen claimants in the NE United States to the title of oldest university in North America), football/rugby club, Whiskey, benevolent society, etc.
 * Inserting such a "claim" into the lede of an article is fine, as long as it reliably sourced and is not WP:UNDUE. For example, some group of pineapple aficionados from Corrientes may lay claim to have the oldest pineapple appreciation society in the world, but you wouldn't include that in the lede in the article on Corrientes (or pineapples) unless you could show - through the citation of multiple RSs - that the city was famous for that. If you just found that factoid somewhere, it would be WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. (I just totally made that up btw)
 * So, unless you can provide an array of reliable secondary sources that support your contention that the UK's Royal Society has a "claim" to being the "the world's oldest continuously existing learned society" - and those sources mention this claim not in passing, but in such a way as to not breach WP:UNDUE - in other words, this fact is cited as significant, then it has no place in the lede.
 * At any rate, allow me to save you from wasting your time: you won't find such an array of sources, because they don't exist, due to the fact that such a narrowly-defined claim (both "continuously-existing" and "national" - what does "national" mean? Is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a nation? Even if you argue that it is today, it can't have been in 1660, as it didn't exist, much like "Germany" didn't exist in 1652) - even if it has ever been made by a RS, which I sincerely doubt - would be obviously specious, given the fact that the historical record shows the undisputed fact that the Collège de France was founded in the Latin Quarter (look up why that Quartier bears that name) in Paris in 1530.
 * - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep going on and on about 'national' even though I never included 'national'. It was you that added 'of a national scope'. Such an addition would not only be exceptionally hard to defend, as you point out, it would also weaken the accolade, arguably to the point that it would not be worth including. Now, I note you've written a great deal there, but I still don't see an answer to my question as to why this all applies to the Royal Society but not to the article on the Leopoldina. Perhaps you can enlightenment me. It is also predated by the College de France, and it also only cites one source - the Leopoldina itself! Yet there the claim is, right in the lede. If I delete it can I rely on you coming to my defense on the Talkpage? Perhaps you can also advise as to why the College de France is not mentioned as amongst the oldest Learned societies or why it doesn't even appear on wikipedia's List of learned societies. Quite an omission don't you think! LastDodo (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what's on the Leopoldina or Learned societies article or the List of learned societies page. I've never edited them. Only this one. If you see faults in any articles, you are encouraged, by all means, to go ahead and be bold, and improve them. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting there are faults (but you knew that already). I point them out because if you are right about the College de France, all three of those articles must be wrong as they are (but again, you understand that already, hence the evasion), suggesting that you are not right. Now, the Leopoldina article is what started this very section off, you you probably should have checked it out, as if you had, you would have seen the claim 'The Leopoldina has a claim to be the oldest continuously existing learned society in the world. The validity of the claim depends in part on how certain definitional and historical questions are answered.' It was the basis for the similar claim here. There is no reason for you to be one iota less exercised about that claim than the one here. Are you? LastDodo (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No evasion, just unconcerned ala WP:WHATABOUT. Upon further examination, at your prompting, I agree vis a vis the Leopoldina article, it is also WP:OR unsupported by any WP:RS. The "List of" page is of course poorly sourced and incomplete, as most (if not all) such articles are, and as the first line reads: "This is a partial list of learned societies, grouped by country." [emphasis mine].
 * Removing unsourced claim/s according to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

UK Young Academy
The first UK-wide national Young Academy – a network of early career researchers and professionals – was launched in June 2022 and is being run under the auspices of the Royal Society. The initiative, as part of an interdisciplinary collaboration with the Academy of Medical Sciences, British Academy, Learned Society of Wales, Royal Academy of Engineering, Royal Irish Academy, Royal Society of Edinburgh, and the Royal Society, aspires to connect emerging leaders with different knowledge and expertise, and include their voices in local and global policy discussions. 194.81.217.65 (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the above information. Wikipedia relies on reliable, secondary sources to verify its information. Therefore, I will not be added this information at this time. If you would like this information to be added, please supply a source that talks about this (that is secondary and independent). Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

History
You reverted my move of ''One flaw was that there was not enough space for the office staff, which was then approximately eighty. When, for example, the Society organised the British contribution to the International Geophysical Year in 1954, additional facilities had to be found for the staff outside Burlington House'' from the beginning of the "20th century" subtopic to the end of the "19th century" subtopic, presumably because of the year 1954. I object on two grounds:
 * The statement is out of context and obviously a continuation of the last paragraph in the "19th century" subtopic. This is where it used to be.
 * It's out of chronological order with the rest of the subtopic.

I'm taking the liberty of restructuring a bit. What do you think?

Also, the history tells about where the Society is housed, but not much about what it's done. That's too ambitious a project for me to tackle right now, but it needs doing. For example, it should tell what the RS actually contributed to the International Geophysical Year, not just that it had to find larger quarters. (That bit got left out in my attempt to improve the narrative's flow.) YoPienso (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine with that. As you first "reason" explains, you were splitting a topic. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good! Happy editing. YoPienso (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Royal Society


text:
Talk:Union County Magnet High School

March 2003 deletion debate

 * Union County Magnet High School
 * Equally pointless. -- Zoe
 * Why? It's a moderately informative article about an educational institution. It could become very useful for someone looking for a school in the Scotch Plains, NJ area, when the article has grown a bit. -- Oliver P. 03:58 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
 * A great article. Susan Mason
 * the DuPont Manual Magnet High School page has been in existence for nearly a year, how come that wasnt put up for deletion? Iammaxus
 * Note: I am adding this here from old VfD archives.. Outcome was that article was kept.--Milowent • talkblp-r  18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I am adding this here from old VfD archives.. Outcome was that article was kept.--Milowent • talkblp-r  18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

October 2004 deletion debate
For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Union County Magnet High School

Info about school philosophy and classes
Why has all information regarding classes, the ADDA test, AP courses, college credits, the mandatory technology courses, stark electives, etc. been removed from this article? I see it existed in the past, but for some reason has been removed.

This article simply reads like- Intro (with summary of mission statement), Awards, Extracurriculars, Building, Legal Disputes,

Where is the discussion about the school's vocational status, mandatory classes, engineering and technology focus, etc.? I can't believe there's a discussion about the facade of the building but not about the actual quality of education. --74.105.51.151 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Extracurricular Activities needs cleaning up
The extracurriculars section seems very lengthy, taking up more space than any other part of the article. There is information on clubs that appear to have existed for only a year that is no longer relevant. Also, the only reference for this sort of information would be from students, which are not technically legitimate references. There is no real way of finding references for the majority of this extracurricular information, except for some of the few newsworthy events, such as the Relay for Life. --74.105.51.151 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion
Is the opinion of one particular student (e.g., "Boris Pivtorak") important enough to merit discussion on this article? I personally doubt it. --Chinju 01:42 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Superman was once a particular student but you wouldnt doubt placing his opions in an article about his school would you --Iammaxus 01:46 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, but Superman merits an entire article of his own. As far as I am aware, Boris Pivtorak does not. Were he to merit an article of his own, it would be appropriate to discuss his opinion of UCMHS and to link to his article. --Chinju

Yes, but i was implying that one day, Boris may be Superman (or another member of the board of superheroes or whatever it is) and then you will wish you had recorded his opinions and published them publicaly --Iammaxus 01:50 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

At that point, we will add his past publicly voiced opinions about UCMHS to the article, along with notes about the context in which he voiced them. It is not feasible to work on the assumption that every student of UCMHS may someday be Superman, nor does there exist a good method for predicting which ones will eventually mature into Superman. Spiderman, maybe, but certainly not Superman. --Chinju

Magnet has created scholars out of its students
I think we should stress the role that Magnet created to add value to our high school educations.

NPOV
For those of you who wrote the section on UCMHS's legal dispute, I hate to tell you, but it is incredibly one-sided. The writing is slated in UCMHS's favor. It needs a re-write; it makes it seem as if the lawsuits were incredibly frivulous and the districts who were suing were comprised of evil, greedy pigs. Since I highly doubt that this is the case, the section, if not the whole article, needs a re-write. Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs

As the person who wrote that section, yes, it is quite biassed. That section was written last-minute to show how the MHS was worthy of an article. I had hoped that somebody would come through and make it less POV. Knock yourself out. REwhite 18:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Legal Troubles" section would seem a bit more NPOV if placed at the end of the article. At the top it makes it appear as though this is the school's center of focus. Philosophy, etc. should definately have more prevalence.

What is meant by "The disputable selection system, although neutral in every way except for grades in middle school and standardised testing"? What is disputable about the selection system? What is a "neutral" selection system? Is a neutral selection system a good thing or a bad thing? Davost 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality from the point of view of a student
However, Magnet did win all of those cases. What should we do, risk neutrality (which, in fact, we never have) and say that it should have lost? Magnet was legaly founded by the government of Union County and follows each of the rules placed by the government. In fact, holding up magnet is a greater challenge than holding up any other public school. 90% of the students must acheive 70% or higher on the ADDA, which is a test most technologists do not even take untill they begin college.

Assessment as of March 2007
Hello all, and thank you for contributing to this school site. I'm part of the WikiProject_Schools/Assessment team, and, as requested, I'm reviewing this page. I'm currently giving it a grade of Start on the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale and an importance of Mid on this importance scale.

My reasoning is as follows: This reads like a B article but it needs to reference its claims. It could also use work on its neutrality. Adam McCormick 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming on... you have refs. More required. A picture or six? Victuallers 19:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comments
''These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Discontinuation of comments subpages.''

I have assessed this article as C-class and identified the following areas for improvement:  shirulashem     (talk)   19:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article needs inline citations
 * The article needs references

title: Talk:Union County Magnet High School


text:
Talk:Seven Bridges of Königsberg

Date of Euler's publication: 1735 vs. 1736
I was wondering about the date given in this article (1735). In the German wikipedia, the year 1736 is given. A simple google search gives almost twice as many hits for 1736 compared to 1735. However, I cannot investigate this any further. Does anyone bother to check this or do you want to keep 1735? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.20.165 (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a defensible position to retain the start year of 1735. Euler presented the work on solving the bridges of Königsberg problem on August 26, 1735.  The date of the first publication of his proof is a more complex topic.  Alexanderson (2012) gives us an excellent investigation into why the years 1736 and 1741 are both accurate.  In summary, the year 1736 is when Euler's paper was submitted.  The year 1741 was when his work was published.   See the cover image of the publication in Alexanderson (2012) for the proof.
 * Thanks for the question. It's worth discussing and debating to make sure the article reflects accurate information. DutchTreat (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. It's worth discussing and debating to make sure the article reflects accurate information. DutchTreat (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I propose that we change heading paragraph to say "1735 to 1736". Currently, lists only the year 1736 when the paper was submitted (and later published in 1741).  I feel we should capture both the original date the lecture was given in 1735 and the date when the paper was finished to more accurately describe when Euler was working on this problem.   Opinions? - DutchTreat (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm off in the Alps w/o tolerable wp access. let's see, yr msg seems to be abt 14 hrs old. i'll be watching this tk pg abt x1 or x2

per day. you haven't appArently managed to elicit others' interest here yet; i propose you either make it easier for me to review the situation/ issues (ask 4 details if u like), or be bold, or hang fire for 10-14 days until i de-jet lag & can more effectively pretend not to be a bithering, uh blithering, idiot.--90.41.135.153 (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 1 sig but 2 edits Damn. Or rather 3, & still not loggedin. --Jerzy, 2 earlier saves & 00:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The extra problems are not consistent
The "Bridge 8" part speaks about Blue prince wanting to go from his castle to the guesthouse, "Bridge 9" says the Red prince wants to stop the Blue prince from going doing a circuit. 2.64.220.235 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed that.86.44.215.73 (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the solutions to the extra problems contains a mistake
The first problem (8) solution's bridge seems to be in the wrong place. It should be where the tenth bridge is put. If the bridge is where it is shown to be, then the bridge between the orange and white node is not crossed, or if it is, then the orange node is the finishing place. This is clear because the white node is the final resting place so should have an odd number of bridges, while the orange crossover node needs to have an even number, one in, one out. The explanation states that it is required that there be either zero or two nodes of an odd degree. Both the given explanation and my alternative fulfil this criterion. But it seems that both the starting and finishing nodes must be the odd ones. Does someone want to say that I am wrong, or should it be changed? Tsop 10:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its OK, the orange node the Gasthaus is the desired final resting place, not the white node. --Salix alba (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looked at http://www.visi.com/~dethier/activities/problem-solving/konigsburg.htm and http://www.maths.may.ie/images/konig.html. Mark Foskey

 * The question is whether it is possible to walk with a route that crosses each bridge exactly once, and return to the starting point.

I just got a math test back that asked about the Bridges of Konigsberg and got the question wrong because i stated the problem like this. According to my professor, the question does not require that you return to the starting point. i haven't made a trip to the library yet, but the few websites i've checked out seem to pose the question without the "return to the starting point" qualifier. is this an error? (adam) Adam -- Was the question about a circuit or a tour? The "tour" version of the problem does not require return to the starting point; the "circuit" version does.

 * Euler showed that a path of the desired form is possible if and only if there are exactly two nodes (dots in the picture above) that have an odd number of edges touching them. Since the graph corresponding to Königsberg has four such nodes, the path is impossible.

What if there are no such nodes (for example, a triangle of three nodes, three edges)? Shouldn't it be "iff there are either 2 or 0 nodes ..."? Chas zzz brown 07:41 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

 * yup, it should. -- Tarquin 09:43 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

But there is a solution. Your model is simply too small. Try to look for the big picture!

Category removal
I think this shouldn't be in the category of "Localities with numbers in their names". There is no locality named "Seven Bridges of Königsberg". There is only a locality named Königsberg, and it has seven bridges in it. The bridges by themselves are famous because of this problem, but don't constitute a locality.

Discuss. — J I P | Talk 10:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing Image
288px|center

Where is the new image? (Image:7_bridgesID.png) — Xiong (talk) 02:32, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

289px|center

Oh, this is beyond bizarre. Apparently, a 288px thumb is not allowed. 287px is okay; so is 289px.Also, 144px and 500px sizes are okay. WTF?? I swear I saw the image (at 288px) when first I inserted it. — Xiong (talk) 10:07, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Never mind. — Xiong (talk) 02:59, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Attribution
My mother had a small collection of mathematical puzzle-books, and I believe I saw this variation in one of them. I have not seen any of those books for several years, and may not have read the telling of this variation in 30. The diagram and words are my own, though not the idea. I wish I could uncover the source; indeed, upon her death, these books were practically my only inheritance. But they are now unavailable to me, being several thousand miles away. — Xiong (talk) 10:17, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Textbook style
This article, at the moment, seems to me to be more suited to a text book than an encyclopaedia. Specifically, there are problems given (which I have no problem with in this context, since the article is essentially /about/ those problems), but I don't think the answers should be given separately, but rather worked into the explanation of the problems. Also, the tone of the 'solutions' article is exteremely textbooky (it speaks directly to the reader, whereas an encyclopaedia generally uses the neutral voice). Perhaps it should be re-worded, and/or some of the extra problems moved to a Wikibook on Graph Theory? LVC 05:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I ran into this problem with my own edits just now. I started out wanting to make just one substantial change (referring to graph theory as a subfield of combinatorics, rather than topology), but in the process of doing so ended up changing some of the wording. It was hard not to write like a textbook! I hope the revised Sections 1 and 2 are (slightly) more encylopedia-like in tone. That said, I don't know how to integrate problem and solution any more than what is there right now.JLeander 23:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is supposed help people learn or understand about a certain topic, right? So if it's written in a way that is not directed towards the person, it will most likely be harder for that person to understand it. When I read this article I immediatly "got it" because it was written in a way that felt like they were talking to me. Some of the more "encyclopedic" articles that I've read were harder for me to understand because they were using the "neutral voice". The best articles are the easiest to understand. Rsercher (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Phrasing issues
I think that the wording in the most recent version (modified by 12.104.57.3) is less clear than the previous one. In particular, I think the phrase "and is thus the complete opposite of what is required" is not mathematically precise, and misses the point, which is that the existence of any node of odd degree forbids the existence of an Eulerian circuit. Accordingly, I am going to revert to the version modified by Icairns, 09:24, 24 January 2006. I hope this is OK; I am a Wikipedia novice and don't mean to step on any toes.JLeander 05:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

State of the bridges now?
Someone told me once that after the Russians took over the city in 1945, they built a bridge (the joke was that it was to spite Euler) which now makes an Eulerian circuit possible. Can anyone confirm this and/or add details? --Saforrest 02:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that by the time Russians took over the city in 1945 all the bridges had been destroyed. So they built (restored/rebuilt/built anew) not just a single bridge but dozens. According to the corresponding Russian page three of the original bridges still exist. Two bridges were not restored after WWII and a new bridge replaced two other bridges in 1970's. Plus some other bridges have been built nearby (outside the area delimited by the original seven bridges but within the old "Eulerian" borders of Königsberg). Also, the border of the city has changed since Euler's times. So the question of how many bridges are there in Königsberg (Kaliningrad) now is not a simple one. --68.166.234.126 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Here is a link to Google Satellite view of the area today: https://www.google.com/maps/@54.7034274,20.5163074,2217m/data=!3m1!1e3 SlowJog (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the actual state was in 2000, but the article says there were 5 bridges, and the map in that section shows 8. Also, if today's map were to be zoomed out a little more than the one in that section, there would be 9. It isn't clear from the map where the city boundaries are, so it could be that 5 of the bridges are within the city limits. In either case, that section, the image, or both need updating. SlowJog (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There is another story that, post-Euler, the German emperor built an eighth bridge to solve the problem. Whether that detail is true or not, it is true that the Kaiser-Brucke (Imperial Bridge) was built. After its later destruction, a new walking bridge was built in 2005 on the same pillars, called the Jubilee Bridge, and this is clearly visible on the map. 13:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:7B0E:7400:98FB:16F6:E631:C031 (talk)

According to Yandex Maps there is another island partially within administrative borders of today's Kaliningrad, and a total of 11 bridges, making a graph with five nodes of orders 2, 3, 5, 6, 6, thus allowing Euler's path between the westernmost island and the left (southern) bank of Pregolya river exactly once over all 11 bridges. -- 140.101.160.252 (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Variations, Present state sections
The following section is entirely inappropriate, because it's written like a children's textbook or puzzle book instead of an encyclopedia article, and more importantly it has no sources so it's effectively original research. The hiding of the solutions also goes against the spirit of WP:NDT. —Keenan Pepper 18:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

 * No, your deletion is inappropriate. This section has been in the article a long time and adds value to the problem. If you have concerns, edit the section to address them. I don't endorse wholesale deletions on skinny justification. Fix this up to suit yourself and put it back. Okay?

 * I don't question your addition of the "Present state" of the bridges, even though this is totally irrelevant to the classic problem. Play ball. John Reid ° 20:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea where these variations come from, so I have no sources, so I can't write anything verifiable. What do you suggest I do? —Keenan Pepper 20:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

 * There is nothing to verify here. This is an illustration of a problem in graph theory. Are you unable to follow the reasoning? This is like illustrating the topic of Arithmetic with the sum 7 + 11 = 18. It's just a set of facts, that's all. Go ask a combinatorialist -- one you personally trust -- if you disagree. I'm sure you can find one at your local university. Okay?

 * Meanwhile, you can think how to connect your insertion of bombed and rebuilt bridges with the topic -- which has almost nothing to do with the real city and everything to do with graph theory. You didn't even include a diagram. John Reid ° 06:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

 * It seems like you're trying to score points off me rather than improve the article, but I'll reply anyway. Of course I can understand the problems, and they seem like good problems for teaching graph theory to children, but that's not the point. My point is that including them violates core Wikipedia policies like WP:CITE and WP:NOR. You compare it to using an example of an arithmetic problem for the article on arithmetic, but that comparison is invalid because in this case the topic is not a general concept that could benefit from examples. This article is about one specific, notable problem, and these are related but different problems, with no claim of notability.

 * I think it's absurd to say that a section on the current condition of the seven bridges of Königsberg is inappropriate in an article titled "Seven Bridges of Königsberg". I didn't include a diagram because I couldn't find one with a free license, and my skills as a graphic designer are poor to nonexistant. Anyone is of course welcome to provide one. —Keenan Pepper 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The current condition of which you speak is the current condition of the town. The current condition of the problem is exactly what it has always been since Euler formalized it. This is an article about the problem. There is an article on the town of Kaliningrad; you're welcome to talk about the real bridges there. The variations shown here have long illuminated and extended this topic. They were here before I joined. They are not notable in themselves; they merely explain the notable problem. They may seem childlike to you but I find them appropriate. You are welcome to edit them to raise whatever level of maturity you perceive.

 * I will tolerate your bridges if you tolerate these. It's just that simple. For that matter, if you scribble your bridges in any legible way, I will do my best to diagram them nicely. John Reid ° 09:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Why do you call them "[my] bridges"? They have nothing to do with me personally. The web pages I cited have maps.

 * You haven't responded to my accusation that the variations violate WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Are you arguing that they satisfy those requirements, or that the requirements don't apply in this case? The problem isn't that they're childlike, the problem is that they were just made up by some anonymous person and Wikipedia isn't the place for them. —Keenan Pepper 20:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section on variation adds to the article. I also agree that the style is inappropriate. This is not a quiz-book. I suggest that the references to various Princes thoughts and wants and the rubbing of various bodily parts are removed, and that the solutions are made non-hidden. The information in the section is useful. The current presentation just distracts from that. --Regebro 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * You do not have to cite every word in every article, Keenan. You don't even have to cite a long-winded exposition. You have to be able to support every claim made. It's perfectly acceptable to create original content; just not to advance any original thesis. If you don't say that these variations claim some innovation in graph theory, you need to pack up that citation wagon and move it along.

 * Keenan, your sources disagree about the present state of the bridges in the real city of Kaliningrad. This makes both sources suspect. One reference says, interestingly, the cathedral was on the central island, not the pub. You might need to change a lot of things to make the variations agree with this little historical tidbit. Every classic bridge was named, too, but this would really screw up the article, since the problem has nothing to do with colored edges.

 * You are factually incorrect when you say the variations were "made up by some anon". They were heavily edited by an anon (and many others) but if you actually go back through history, you see they were put in there by the redoubtable Xiong. I've come across this fellow before; he's done interesting things in templatespace. He seems to have had a talent for pissing people off and, as usually happens, got pissed off himself and left the building. I don't see that as any reason to torch his work -- especially since it's not his any longer.

 * They are "your" bridges because you put them there; Euler did not. They have no obvious place in an article on graph theory. Either you understand this or, I suspect, you are not a mathematician. Can you not understand that if Kaliningrad went through an orgy of bridge-building or demolition; if the whole city were destroyed in nuclear holocaust; Köenigsberg would, has, and always will have exactly seven bridges? The only place where bridges can be added or subtracted is in our minds.

 * Regebro, the language is colorful. I like colorful. I don't like long, gray pages with nothing to look at, nothing to stimulate the imagination or make me feel life is potentially worth living. I agree that the solutions don't need to be stuffed into show/hide boxes; I abominate them. It's enough to state the variations, stick in a standard spoiler warning, and copy in the stuff from /key.

 * Your talk about rubbing "body parts" is misleading; there's none of that there. The talk about why the princes and the priest do as they do motivates the variations. Motivation is an important part of decent writing; if you cannot show why there is no point showing how. I agree that the language is overly florid, even rankly overgrown. Prune it. I wouldn't know where to begin without destroying, as the priest fears, the article's Weltanschauung.

 * I suspect that in order to satisfy both of our concerns, you will have to rewrite the variations so as to have engineers building additional bridges, rather than princes; and bombers destroying them. I can't say I think it will improve anything. Anyway, if anybody proposes a rewrite that requires additional maps, please scribble out graphs and I will work them up.

 * Meanwhile, I'm restoring the variations. Anybody can edit but nobody can destroy without cause. We've discussed this enough. John Reid ° 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In the variants problem it is also a correct solution to draw the bridge from red to orange forcing the start and end points of the walk to be blue and white.

Variations
''Removed this copy of article text; see history for old versions. John Reid ° 20:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)''

Third opinion
I found my way here from Third opinion.
 * First, I have to say that I don't know that javascript is appropriate in articles at all. It doesn't work in all browsers, presents difficulty for the sight-impaired, and many folks disable it. Isn't there a policy on such things?
 * I think the Variations section above is pretty cool, well-written, and amusing, but I must admit it fairly screams "original research"!! If it were re-written, perhaps it would be acceptable.
 * Finally, are variations of the problem even notable enough to describe in detail? Reading the article, it doesn't seem like that to me. Maybe this section should be replaced by a short paragraph summarizing the variations, with a link to the solutions as above. That would allow the content to be kept in a fashion, without actually having it so contentiously in the article. -Amatulic 01:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Please explain, in short words, what kind of original research or novel thesis is advanced by the variations. Also, please tell us -- and I assure you, I don't mean to be rude -- if you have any particularly strong math background. I ask because mathematicians are accustomed to hypotheticals and puzzles. When you were in school, did you like word problems?

 * You suggest a rewrite; why don't you attempt one? I never object to editing in general, only to wholesale deletion. Note that I did a bit of rewrite myself; I don't like those show/hide boxes anywhere, never have. Notability is not an issue here; the variations are not the subject of the article, they only illuminate it.

 * In case you're not too familiar with graph theory, let me present a simpler analogy. Reasoning by analogy is always strained but it's simple. Please don't try to argue it back and forth. I only intend this as a gateway to understanding the variations.

 * Let us say I wish to illustrate, with a picture, Pi. My references tell me that this is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. I decide to produce a graphic, so: Image:Nor-demo-1.png. This illustration of Pi is ugly, uninformative, and unmotivated but it is not original research. Not even when the caption is included have we crossed that Rubicon.

 * Let me set up the straw man:

 * That graphic is original research. There is no Kingdom of Nod. Also, I see no citation that establishes the circumference of a 7 km circle colored red with a little checkerboard pattern.

 * This is, of course, an absurd criticism. Of course there is no Nod; it's purely hypothetical. While one might be able to find, by digging, some peer-reviewed journal paper that states π applies to a 7 km circle, it might be difficult; let us say such does not exist. Nonetheless, it is a straightforward calculation. We -- we, here -- are permitted to make this. The stroke and fill of the circle are totally irrelevant; the straw man is simply talking through his hat.

 * Xiong's illustration -- not the abstract diagrams but the map-ish graphic -- is rather cute -- too cute for my taste but not so much I can't bear it. His language, which seems to have survived untouched through history, is droll. To a point I support this; I like colorful writing. To another, it is just too cute. For at least the fourth time in this thread, I'll be happy to see a rewrite. I will bet a dollar to a doughnut that the cuteness is the main motivator of criticism here. I've seen worse in this project. You need to distinguish form from content.

 * I've asked before, I'll ask again: Please go to a person you consider to be a competent graph theorist and ask him if the variations constitute any sort of original research -- any sort at all. Ask him if some claim is being made, some innovation in the field. It looks like a straightforward hypothetical exposition to me -- a word problem. John Reid ° 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As a professional combinatorialist, I agree with John Reid that the "Variations" section does not constitute original research. On the other hand, I don't think it's of much significance. The importance of the Seven Bridges problem is that it is a problem that originated in real life and led in part, thanks to Euler, to the establishment of a distinct branch of mathematics. It's easy to come up with lots of variations on the problem, but I think they are more suitable for a homework assignment in a graph theory course than an encyclopedia article. So I think that this section should probably be omitted, although I don't feel particularly strongly about it. JLeander 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Jeremy. If we've disposed of the NOR objection then all we're left with is a matter of taste. I feel the problem is complete in itself but the article then leaves one unfulfilled; it is an explanation of exactly one special case. When I read through the variations -- or even think about any kind of variations on the problem, bridges built, demolished, or whatever -- this helps me to understand what Euler was driving at.

 * I agree the variation maps are too cute. The language in which the variations is stated is florid. I will be happy to fix the former if someone will improve the latter.

 * Also, my offer stands to illustrate the "current state", if somebody will express that as a problem. In fact, to show good faith, I'm creating Talk:Seven Bridges of Königsberg/Today. Let's see what we can put together. John Reid ° 03:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The "variations" section is not "original research" in the sense that it is groundbreaking new research or that it is of questionable correctness. It is "original research" and "non-notable" in the Wikipedia sense that no reliable source attests to its significance or relationship to the original topic.  As another writer wrote above, it might be a fine homework problem or whatever, and it illustrates some points in graph theory, but we have no reliable source linking it to the Seven Bridges of Koenigsberg. WP policy demands that we remove it. --Macrakis (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the "Present State" section has an inaccurate assertion: "Rochester Institute of Technology has incorporated the puzzle into the pavement in front of the Gene Polisseni Center, an ice hockey arena that opened in 2014,"  That is not the same puzzle, it is a modification into an easily solved form, which is easily verified by following the link 'supporting' the statement. My preference would by to just delete the claim; if someone here is up to modifying the claim to make it accurate, go for it. Dismalscholar (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

A Solution:
Q: It is possible to walk with a route that crosses each bridge exactly once, and return to the starting point?

A: Yes, if you do it in winter when the rivers are frozen over. (LOL, Am I right or what?)

~Mix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs) 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Puzzle Name
What is general name for puzles in which you have to redraw a figure without picking your pensil off the paper, retrace a line, or folding a piece of the paper?--Anthonynow12 17:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * A topology problem. I dunno if there's a nick-name for it. I Haven't seen many. Though i know how to connect a 3x3 grid with 4 connected lines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs) 06:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

node mistake
the puzzle is possible if the nodes have 0, 2 OR 3 odd nodes, the article only says 0 or 2, i will fix this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.81.58 (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Only 0 or 2. Either you start and end at different vertex (then the endpoints are of odd degree and every vertex is even), or you have a circuit (and then every vertex including the starting point is of even degree). WLior (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 * It is impossible for a network to have 3 odd nodes, or any other odd number for that matter. A simple proof of this is that an odd number of odd nodes would give an odd total number of endpoints, but every segment must have exactly 2 endpoints, so the total must be even. 91.105.48.118 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusing Text
Two of the seven original bridges were destroyed by bombs during World War II. Two others were later demolished and replaced by a modern highway. The three other bridges remain, although only two of them are from Euler's time (one was rebuilt in 1935).[2] Thus, there are now five bridges in Königsberg (modern name Kaliningrad).

In terms of graph theory, two of the nodes now have degree 2, and the other two have degree 3.

Two demolished, two replaced by one, and the remaining three, makes four. The next line says "five", and the next paragraph mentions only four again.--WPaulB (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * (1) If two bridges are replaced by one highway, the highway still has to cross the river in both places so there are still two bridges (which plus the three remaining ones makes five as stated). (2) The "nodes" in the problem are the landmasses, not the bridges. 91.105.48.118 (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In an article about graph theory, telling me that two edges between a pair of nodes can't be replaced by one edge is absurd. It is entirely possible to remove two bridges and replace it with one wider bridge that holds a highway.  That's the essence of flow diagrams, no - weighted edges?  Second, highways have a beginning and end.  It is entirely possible that a highway can start or end on one landmass, and not cross a river twice.  if you want to make this unambiguous, display it on a map. --WPaulB (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Important: the walk need not start and end in the same spot.
Otherwise it is simple to solve the "problem". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.169.217 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I take that back: in the picture as shown, all islands have odd degree. So we should emphasize that the walk need not start and end in the same spot.
 * That is what makes these particular bridges special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.169.217 (talk) 2:17, 1 February 2012

Outdated
It is (as of 26 February 2006) possible to walk the (six or seven) bridges, starting from the northern shore and ending on the island in the middle (the Kneiphof). Double sharp (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The exposition of the problem is not precise enought
"The city of Königsberg in Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia) was set on both sides of the Pregel River, and included two large islands which were connected to each other and the mainland by seven bridges."

We should precise that the exposition of the problem is the map, because if the seven bridges were placed differently, we can find solutions has above :

/---B-C--E---F---\ /              |              \                D                   \               |              / \A-|---G-/

start — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.22.224 (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2013

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Seven Bridges of Königsberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amt.canberra.edu.au/koenigs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked, working - DutchTreat (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote
I added a hatnote that links to the article's own section on present-day, bcz There're reasonably good hints that little need has been found for Hatnotes targeting a section within the same page where a H-N Dab appears, but this improvised extension that so far seems unobjectionable should be harmless. --Jerzy•t 11:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) even tho it seems clear the problem is of much wider interest than the physical bridges, there seems little point in splitting out the p-d info, which will interest many readers (and is of much more value than an abstract diagram in introducing the math topic to students who aren't ready for more complex topology topics),
 * 2) tho our coverage of the problem is a better candidate for primary topic than is the physical bridges, access to the available p-d section should be as easy as possible to those with no interest in the tpl'y problem, whose short name is almost synonymous with it rather than with the architectural features, and
 * 3) it's well established that duplication of content in between articles is generally a bad idea.

History of problem?
Can anyone add a section about the origin & history of the problem? Jonathan Williams (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 * It seems to have originated as a challenge or idle question among people strolling around the streets and bridges of the city at the time... AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 * We got any hint of a ref supporting that? Hard to know where to start in looking for one. --Jerzy•t 16:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ... i guess math geniuses tend to under-document their own idle thots.... --Jerzy•t 16:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 * That's what it says in the 1963 book Life Science Library: Mathematics by David Bergamini: "It had been a tradition among the townspeople that the seven bridges could not all be crossed in a continuous walk without recrossing the route at some point, but no one knew the explanation" (p. 188). It's a very popularizing book, without further references of its own... AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want a slightly more academic source, James R. Newman says the following in his preface to a translation of Euler's writing that was published in the July 1953 issue of Scientific American: "The townsfolk had long amused themselves with this problem: Is it possible to cross the seven bridges in a continuous walk without recrossing any of them?" -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seven Bridges of Königsberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070118135955/http://www.jimloy.com/puzz/konigs.htm to http://www.jimloy.com/puzz/konigs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Bristol Bridges Walk
The bridge problem inspired the Bristol Bridges Walk. Like Konigsberg Bristol spans the two banks of a river and two river islands. The Bristol Bridges walk is an Eulerian cycle crossing all 45 major bridges in the city. It has been the subject of the several articles in newspapers and magazines, and there is a book about the walk. It also featured in several charity events including being the headline event for Bristol Giving Day 2019 (a major event). Is it worth mentioning this somewhere? Fzbristol (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"prefigured the idea of topology"
The title of Euler's article uses the Latin term for topology, 'geometria situs' - that maybe hadn't been fully formalized by this stage, but it's possibly misleading to say it 'prefigured' it, when the terminology was already set up and at least some of the core ideas established? 2.204.255.32 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

present state - highway leads straight over island with no option to leave/enter...
...which means technically island node has a degree of just 1 (with direct path between nodes to the north/south). --2003:DD:E712:EFAF:6D24:484D:C00C:EBDE (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 * There have been a number of changes since Euler's time... AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seven Bridges of Königsberg


text:
Georges Rey

Georges Leon Rey (born 1945) is an American philosopher. He is a professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland.

Biography
Rey received a doctoral degree in philosophy from Harvard University in 1978. His thesis was titled The possibility of psychology: some preliminary issues, and was completed under Hilary Putnam.

His book Contemporary Philosophy of Mind discusses the topic of philosophy of mind. One major focus of Rey's exposition relates to eliminativism and instrumentalism, particularly with respect to the mental states that we are subjectively aware of by way of introspection. Rey is the author of the current article on philosophy of mind at Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Books

title: Georges Rey


text:
Talk:Protagonistas de la Música

Untitled discussion
How's this related to Spanish Operación Triunfo? -- Davidme

The producers of this show said they were inspired to do it after Operacion Triunfo's success.

Antonio Superstahh!! Martin

The first paragraph should be updated regarding whether there was a second version of the show. --Cfailde 10:53, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

title: Talk:Protagonistas de la Música