text:
Oceania Football Confederation

The Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) is one of the six continental confederations of international association football. The OFC has 13 members, 11 of which are full members and two which are associate members not affiliated with FIFA. It promotes the game in Oceania and allows the member nations to qualify for the FIFA World Cup.

OFC is predominantly made up of island nations where association football is not the most popular sport, with low GDP and low population meaning very little money is generated by the OFC nations. The OFC has little influence in the wider football world, either in terms of international competition or as a source of players for high-profile club competitions. OFC is the only confederation to have not had at least one international title, the best result being Australia making the final of the 1997 FIFA Confederations Cup.

In 2006, the OFC's then largest and most successful nation, Australia, left for a second time to join the Asian Football Confederation, leaving New Zealand as the largest federation within the OFC.

The President of OFC is Lambert Maltock since April 2018. The Vice Presidents are Thierry Ariiotima, Kapi Natto John and Lord Ve'ehala while Franck Castillo is the General Secretary. The confederation is headquartered in Auckland, New Zealand.

History
The confederation formed in 1966, as a result of Australia and New Zealand's failed attempts to join the Asian Football Confederation (AFC). The founding OFC members were the following:
 * the Australian Soccer Federation (from 2005: Football Australia)
 * New Zealand Soccer (subsequently New Zealand Football)
 * the Fiji Football Association
 * the Papua New Guinea Football Association

Australia resigned as an OFC member in 1972 to again pursue membership with the AFC, but rejoined the OFC in 1978. Their men's national team (nicknamed the Socceroos) became the first Oceanians to play at a FIFA World Cup in 1974, being drawn in the same group as Chile, East Germany and West Germany. They failed to score a goal, but were still competitive in all three of their matches. New Zealand's national team the All Whites played in their first World Cup eight years later. At the 1982 tournament they suffered heavier defeats than Australia previously had.

Chinese Taipei was an OFC member from 1975 to 1989. In 1996, FIFA confirmed OFC as a full confederation and granted it a seat on the FIFA executive. In 1998 the OFC unveiled a new logo and an official magazine, entitled The Wave. Australia meanwhile lost several inter-confederation World Cup playoffs; first to Scotland in 1985, then Argentina in 1993 and then Iran in 1997.

Australia's national team were long considered the biggest challenge in Oceania. There were many highly uncompetitive matches involving them, particularly in the 1990s and 2000s. Their June 1997 second round qualification games for the 1998 FIFA World Cup included a 13–0 defeat of the Solomon Islands. The following year they defeated the Cook Islands 16–0 at the 1998 OFC Nations Cup, while at the 2000 OFC Nations Cup they defeated them 17–0. The uncompetitive results escalated in April 2001, during the first round of OFC qualifiers for the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Australia beat Tonga 22–0, following this result up with a 31–0 win over American Samoa and an 11–0 win over Samoa. The American Samoa game became the largest international victory in the history of the sport (breaking the previous record set in the Tonga game), while Archie Thompson also broke the record for most goals in an international match, scoring 13.

Australia's record-breaking form in the early stages of qualifying ultimately couldn't be replicated in their inter-confederation playoff against Uruguay later that year. For the first leg, the Socceroos managed to defeat the South Americans 1–0 in front of a Melbourne crowd of 84,656, but they were overwhelmed 3–0 in the away leg. The away leg was marred by an incident at Montevideo's airport prior to the game itself, where the Australian players were spat on, punched and abused by a mob of Uruguayan fans. On 24 May 2004, New Caledonia became the 12th member of the OFC.

Australia reached another inter-confederation playoff against Uruguay in 2005. Both sides won a game each over the two legs, which led to Australia finally ending their World Cup drought through a dramatic penalty shootout in Sydney. The Socceroos were granted increased security for the first away leg, as a response to the 2001 airport incident, and in the second leg the Uruguayan team were heavily booed while their national anthem played. In the 2006 FIFA World Cup, Australia were eliminated by Italy during the Round of 16. Their 3–1 group stage victory against Japan remains the only time a team representing OFC has won at the tournament. Australia left the OFC again that same year and joined the Asian Football Confederation.

In 2008, an associate member, the Northern Mariana Islands Football Association, also left the OFC and in 2009 joined the AFC as an associate member. In late 2009, the Palau Football Association, geographically a part of Oceania but with no official ties to the OFC, also applied for the same status with the AFC as the Northern Mariana Islands association but was not successful. New Zealand ended their own World Cup drought in 2009 when they defeated Bahrain to qualify for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The tournament coincidentally also featured Australia, who were now representing the AFC. New Zealand were the only unbeaten team at the tournament, despite failing to advance past the group stage. With Australia's absence, New Zealand now have a regular presence in World Cup inter-confederation playoffs. They were convincingly defeated by Mexico over two legs in 2013, and narrowly missed out to Peru in 2017 and Costa Rica in 2022.

Criticism
Throughout its history, there have been numerous calls to either merge the OFC and AFC, or dissolve the OFC and have its members join the AFC, in order to form an Asia-Pacific Football Confederation.

The calls grew louder in 2003 when FIFA reversed a decision to grant Oceania an automatic spot at the World Cup. Australia's lack of World Cup participation prior to 2006 has been blamed by many on the OFC qualification process, with football writer Matthew Hall stating in 2003, "For World Cup qualification, the Socceroos will win games by cricket scores and then face a sudden-death play-off against a desperate, battle-hardened opponent given a second, or even third, life."

Current leaders
Source:

Current members
OFC is made up of 11 full member associations and 2 associate members. Those two are associate members of the OFC, but are not FIFA members.

Possible future members

 * Autonomous Region of Bougainville: The Autonomous Region of Bougainville is set to gain full independence from Papua New Guinea by 2027. The president of the Bougainville Football Federation, Justin Helele, expressed the association's desire to join FIFA and, presumably, the OFC. FIFA has already begun funding projects in the territory. The Melanesian region has also participated in OFC projects and has received funding from the confederation since at least 2012. That year the OFC began youth football programs. The next year, the OFC helped fund the creation of a football academy in Bougainville.
 * 🇫🇲 Federated States of Micronesia: The Federated States of Micronesia were announced as new associate members of the OFC following the 2006 Extraordinary Congress. It is unclear when they were removed from the association. In 2010 the Federated States of Micronesia Football Association submitted an application to the East Asian Football Federation in hopes of taking the steps to join FIFA. However, the application was not successful. In 2017 Englishman Paul Watson who was connected to the association said, "I think it's starting to look like Micronesia is best off looking to Oceania rather than Asia. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't get into OFC within the next year or two, but it'll all depend on the people inside the organization." The FSMFA reformed in 2023 and identified gaining membership in the AFC or OFC and FIFA as a main priority. In a July 2023 interview with the Daily Mirror, association President Brian Southwick stated that the goal was to join the OFC because of the level of competition and proximity to other members.
 * 🇲🇭 Marshall Islands: The Marshall Islands Soccer Association was created in 2020. The organization's goal is to join the regional and world governing bodies "in the coming years." The association has indicated that the nation may field a first-ever Marshall Islands national soccer team at the 2023 Micronesian Games hosted by the country.
 * 🇳🇷 Nauru: Nauru is one of the few fully-sovereign nations that is not a member of FIFA or a regional confederation. The Nauru Soccer Federation has reportedly applied for membership in both the OFC and FIFA but was denied. In 2009 the Nauruan Minister of Sport Rayong Itsimaera indicated that there were challenges preventing them from joining both bodies, presumably the lack of a league system and a preference for Australian rules football by the population. Nauru has been participating in some OFC initiatives since at least 2020. In 2023 the federation was relaunched under the auspices of the Nauru Olympic Committee with the stated purpose of fielding a national team and joining the OFC and FIFA.
 * 🇳🇺 Niue: Niue is a former associate member of the OFC. Following the Niue Island Soccer Association's removal from the OFC and its subsequent disbandment in 2021, an OFC official indicated that they were aware of the formation of the new Niue Football Association and encourages its application for associate membership.
 * 🇵🇼 Palau: The Palau Football Association has been a member of the OFC in the past, being announced as a new member at the organization's 2006 Extraordinary Congress, alongside the Federated States of Micronesia. In 2009 the association asked to join the East Asian Football Federation, a sub-regional body under the Asian Football Confederation.

Several other sovereign states, associated states, dependencies, and territories in Oceania, including members of the United Nations, have no affiliations to confederations. Some play infrequently while others have been inactive for several years. There are also some which do not have a national team at all.

 * 🇳🇫 norfolk island (external territory of Australia)
 * (overseas territory of the United Kingdom)
 * 🇹🇰 tokelau (dependent territory of New Zealand)
 * 🇼🇫 wallis and futuna (overseas collectivity of France)

Note
Israel entered the FIFA World Cup OFC qualifying tournaments in 1986 and 1990 due to political reasons, though it was never an OFC member.

AFC Members
Three associations are geographically in Oceania but not affiliated with the OFC but are instead members of the Asian Football Confederation:

CONIFA Members
Three CONIFA members are geographically in Oceania but not affiliated with the OFC nor FIFA as they do not meet membership requirements:

 * Hawaiʻi
 * (unconfirmed membership at CONIFA)
 * (unconfirmed membership at CONIFA)

National teams
Men's
 * OFC Men's Nations Cup
 * OFC Men's Olympic Qualifying Tournament
 * OFC U-20 Championship
 * OFC U-17 Championship
 * OFC Futsal Championship
 * OFC Youth Futsal Tournament
 * OFC Beach Soccer Championship

Women's
 * OFC Women's Nations Cup
 * OFC Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournament
 * OFC U-20 Women's Championship
 * OFC U-17 Women's Championship
 * OFC Women's Futsal Cup

League
The OFC Professional League is a region-wide league currently being planned for an inaugural season in 2025 with support from FIFA.

Clubs
Men's
 * OFC Champions League
 * OFC Futsal Champions League

Women's
 * OFC Women's Champions League

Former tournaments
Clubs
 * Oceania Cup Winners' Cup
 * OFC President's Cup

Historical leaders

 * Men's

Major tournament records

 * Legend
 *  – Champion
 *  – Runner-up
 *  – Third place
 *  – Fourth place
 * QF – Quarter-finals (1934–1938, 1954–1970, and 1986–present: knockout round of 8)
 * R2 – Round 2 (1974–1978, second group stage, top 8; 1982: second group stage, top 12; 1986–2022: knockout round of 16)
 * R1 – Round 1 (1930, 1950–1970 and 1986–present: group stage; 1934–1938: knockout round of 16; 1974–1982: first group stage)
 * — Did not qualify
 * — Did not enter / withdrawn / banned / disqualified
 * — Hosts

For each tournament, the flag of the host country and the number of teams in each finals tournament (in brackets) are shown.

FIFA World Cup
Oceania has sent representatives to the FIFA World Cup four times: Australia in 1974 and 2006, and New Zealand in 1982 and 2010. Of these, only Australia in 2006 progressed beyond the first round.

The OFC is the only FIFA confederation that does not have a guaranteed spot in the World Cup finals (a major reason for the Australians leaving the confederation in 2006 to join Asia). Between 1966 and 1982, OFC teams joined the Asian zone qualification tournament, while from 1986 onwards, the winners of the Oceanian zone qualification tournament have to enter the intercontinental play-offs against teams from other confederations in order to gain a spot in the FIFA World Cup.

Beginning in 2026, the OFC will have a guaranteed spot in the FIFA World Cup for the first time in history, result of the competition's expansion from 32 to 48 teams.

OFC play-off record
1970 AFC–OFC Final Round

1974 AFC–OFC Final Round

1986 UEFA–OFC play-off

1990 CONMEBOL–OFC play-off

Israel played in the OFC zone for political reasons.

1994 CONCACAF–OFC play-off

1994 CONMEBOL–OFC play-off

1998 AFC–OFC play-off

2002 CONMEBOL–OFC play-off

2006 CONMEBOL–OFC play-off

2010 AFC–OFC play-off

2014 CONCACAF–OFC play-off

2018 CONMEBOL–OFC play-off

2022 CONCACAF–OFC play-off

OFC Women's Nations Cup
Notes

FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup

 * Notes

FIFA Confederations Cup

 * Notes

title: Oceania Football Confederation


text:
Talk:Intel DX4

I read somewhere that Intel also produced a rare DX4-120MHz processor. Can anyone confirm?

Very unlikely, Crusade. Intel were firmly wedded to their 33MHz bus. They had burned their fingers with the notoriously troublesome 486DX-50 prior to this, and were determined to do nothing too sexy in 486 space by this time, lest they take the gloss of their brand-new (and very expensive) Pentium-66 - which was only marginally faster than a 486DX/4-100. A DX/4-120 would have been a very silly move for Intel. AMD made one, of course, as did Cyrix, but that was pretty much a paper product, as they had their 5x86 happening by that time. Only AMD made 486DX/4-120s in commercial quantities - largely because Intel and Cyrix both had new, bigger chips ready and AMD's K5 was running very late till the K5 arived. It helped keep them afloat. Tannin

 * I just read that a handful of the very last Intel 486s produced were marked as 120. Maybe for OEMs to stave off an order from AMD? Rare oddball one-off parts that nobody has heard of sometimes exist, like the AMD DX4-90. I know what you're saying about Intel & Pentiums.

Yes! I can confirm such a thing existed - my first PC had a 486DX 120Mhz CPU! I bought it here in the UK (second hand, at a computer fair) if that is of any help. Actually, re-reading through the posts above, I can't be 100% certain it wasn't an AMD or Cyrix... but I'm fairly sure it was an Intel... (And for nostalgia's sake.... it had 8mb of RAM, and a 500mb hard drive) pomegranate 21:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've had a pretty good look around and all I can find reference to is the AMD 486DX4/120s. I don't think Intel produced any publicly available 120s. There might have been a paper idea for it, but as previously mentioned they already had bigger and better fish to fry. Pomegranite: Don't forget that AMDs were called 486DX4s whilst Intels were 80486DX4s. Easy to confuse them! Dancraggs 10:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If you increased the bus speed from 33 MHz to 40 MHz, a DX4-100 would run at 120 MHz, if I'm not mistaken. As for stability, YMMV. 205.234.47.97 (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Name of the chip
The name of the chip was NOT 486DX4. It was just "DX4".

So this article should be renamed to "DX4" instead of 486DX4.

Hkultala (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

486DX4=low end Pentium?
I seem to remember reading that the 486DX4 was at least as fast as the original 60MHz Pentiums. Can anyone confirm this? I tried Google but couldn't find anything173.60.95.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

 * On old code which was not optimized for Pentium's dual pipelines, and which did not use FPU, high-clocked 486-based chips could beat low-clocked pentiums. But on Pentium-optimized or FPU code, DX4 had no chance against any Pentiums. --Hkultala (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DX3
I removed the incorrect reference to the "DX3". There never was such an animal by that name, proposed or otherwise. 2.5x 486 chips proposed were Overdrives, never to bear a "DX" moniker. The few sources about this (and the link shown) are dubious at best. DX4 was a trademark, referring to the "DX" tag Intel used for its high end chips, and "4" for the 4th generation, or 486. The 2 in "486 DX2" meant double, but that was pre-trademark legal issues. The DX4 is called just the DX4, no 486. It doesn't refer to the multiplier, as the DX4 was clock tripled. The DX3 would make even less sense. There never was a planned "DX3" at "2.5x" - and all references to this are pure conjecture.

The talk section of the actual 486 article has details on this in-depth. But long and short, there was the clock doubled "80486 DX/2", and then the clock-tripled "Intel DX4". The name "DX3" was never used, allocated, or reserved - as the caption on the linked reference photo conjects. Industry press articles at the time referred to the new naming scheme of "DX4" due to trademark issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.52.196 (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Intel DX4


text:
Alexandre-Théodore-Victor, comte de Lameth

Alexandre-Théodore-Victor, comte de Lameth (20 October 1760 – 18 March 1829) was a French soldier and politician.

Life
Alexandre Lameth was born in Paris on 20 October 1760 and was the youngest child of Marie Thérèse de Broglie. His mother was the sister of the Maréchal de Broglie and a favourite of Marie Antoinette. His other two brothers were, Théodore Lameth (1756–1854), who served in the American war, sat in the Legislative Assembly as deputy from the department of Jura, and became maréchal-de-camp; and Charles Malo François Lameth, who was a popular politician and a hero of the American War of Independence. He served in the American War of Independence as a colonel in the Royal Lorraine Regiment under Rochambeau. He was also a Knight of the Order of Malta like his brother Charles Lameth. Like many other veterans from the American War of Independence, and those among the French Patriot Party, Lameth became friends with Thomas Jefferson. His commitment to moderate constitutional and social reform gathered him respect in the eyes of Jefferson, given his idea for a unicameral, influential legislature. Several American newspapers would publish his speeches of what took place during the National Assembly, and his stances on private property, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, etc. Alexandre-Théodore-Victor was a member of the Society of the Cincinnati from France.

Alexandre Lameth, Adrien Duport, and Barnave were brought together in September 1789 for the first time during the first struggles of the Patriot Party. Despite the odds against them, their political ties strengthened and became a profound friendship that lasted through the turmoil. In the Constituent Assembly they formed a "Triumvirate," which controlled a group of about forty deputies forming the advanced left of the Assembly. He presented a famous report in the Constituent Assembly on the organization of the army, but is better known by his eloquent speech on 28 February 1791, at the Jacobin Club, against Honoré Mirabeau, whose relations with the court were beginning to be suspected, and who was a personal enemy of Lameth. During the next months, as leaders of the Feuillant club, they established their belief that the flight of the King to Varennes was all because of the faulty revolutionary process that prohibited any manner of compromise. They intended to rule out both the Republicans and Democrats, so there would be as much compromise as possible. Their main intention was to end the war as soon as possible while still maintaining the gains of the revolution by passing the Constitution. Their hopes for moderate reform were sullied by the radical turn of the Revolution. He served in the army as maréchal-de-camp under Nicolas Luckner and the Marquis de la Fayette, but was accused of treason on 12 August 1792 for protesting against the Attack on the Tuileries. Once he fled the country, Lameth as well as Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, Bureaux de Pusy, and Latour-Maubourg, former members of the Constituent Assembly, were captured by Austrians. They were held in dungeons for seven years.

After his release, he went into business at Hamburg with his brother Charles and the duc d'Aiguillon, and did not return to France until the Consulate. Under the Empire, he was made prefect successively in several departments, and in 1810 was declared a Baron of the Empire. In 1814, he attached himself to the Bourbons, and under the Restoration was appointed prefect of Somme, deputy for Seine-Inférieure and finally deputy for Seine-et-Oise, in which capacity he was a leader of the Liberal opposition.

He wrote various novels and articles, his two most prominent being: Histoire de l'Assemblée constituante and Mémoires publiés avec introduction et notes par Eugène Welvert. In Histoire de l'Assemblée constituante, he introduced this work by displaying how he did not wish to write a book of biased anecdotes, nor provide a side of the revolution that states he was a main player, even though he was in a position to recall the most prominent events. He wanted to present an accurate, detailed description of the work of the Constituent Assembly.


text:
Cokernel

The cokernel of a linear mapping of vector spaces $f : X → Y$ is the quotient space $Y / im(f)$ of the codomain of $f$ by the image of $f$. The dimension of the cokernel is called the corank of $f$.

Cokernels are dual to the kernels of category theory, hence the name: the kernel is a subobject of the domain (it maps to the domain), while the cokernel is a quotient object of the codomain (it maps from the codomain).

Intuitively, given an equation $f(x) = y$ that one is seeking to solve, the cokernel measures the constraints that $y$ must satisfy for this equation to have a solution – the obstructions to a solution – while the kernel measures the degrees of freedom in a solution, if one exists. This is elaborated in intuition, below.

More generally, the cokernel of a morphism $f : X → Y$ in some category (e.g. a homomorphism between groups or a bounded linear operator between Hilbert spaces) is an object $Q$ and a morphism $q : Y → Q$ such that the composition $q f$ is the zero morphism of the category, and furthermore $q$ is universal with respect to this property. Often the map $q$ is understood, and $Q$ itself is called the cokernel of $f$.

In many situations in abstract algebra, such as for abelian groups, vector spaces or modules, the cokernel of the homomorphism $f : X → Y$ is the quotient of $Y$ by the image of $f$. In topological settings, such as with bounded linear operators between Hilbert spaces, one typically has to take the closure of the image before passing to the quotient.

Formal definition
One can define the cokernel in the general framework of category theory. In order for the definition to make sense the category in question must have zero morphisms. The cokernel of a morphism $f : X → Y$ is defined as the coequalizer of $f$ and the zero morphism $0_{XY} : X → Y$.

Explicitly, this means the following. The cokernel of $f : X → Y$ is an object $Q$ together with a morphism $q : Y → Q$ such that the diagram

commutes. Moreover, the morphism $q$ must be universal for this diagram, i.e. any other such $q′ : Y → Q′$ can be obtained by composing $q$ with a unique morphism $u : Q → Q′$:

As with all universal constructions the cokernel, if it exists, is unique up to a unique isomorphism, or more precisely: if $q : Y → Q$ and $q′ : Y → Q′$ are two cokernels of $f : X → Y$, then there exists a unique isomorphism $u : Q → Q′$ with $q' = u q$.

Like all coequalizers, the cokernel $q : Y → Q$ is necessarily an epimorphism. Conversely an epimorphism is called normal (or conormal) if it is the cokernel of some morphism. A category is called conormal if every epimorphism is normal (e.g. the category of groups is conormal).

Examples
In the category of groups, the cokernel of a group homomorphism $f : G → H$ is the quotient of $H$ by the normal closure of the image of $f$. In the case of abelian groups, since every subgroup is normal, the cokernel is just $H$ modulo the image of $f$:
 * $$\operatorname{coker}(f) = H / \operatorname{im}(f).$$

Special cases
In a preadditive category, it makes sense to add and subtract morphisms. In such a category, the coequalizer of two morphisms $f$ and $g$ (if it exists) is just the cokernel of their difference:

 * $$\operatorname{coeq}(f, g) = \operatorname{coker}(g - f).$$

In an abelian category (a special kind of preadditive category) the image and coimage of a morphism $f$ are given by
 * $$\begin{align}

\operatorname{im}(f) &= \ker(\operatorname{coker} f), \\ \operatorname{coim}(f) &= \operatorname{coker}(\ker f). \end{align}$$

In particular, every abelian category is normal (and conormal as well). That is, every monomorphism $m$ can be written as the kernel of some morphism. Specifically, $m$ is the kernel of its own cokernel:
 * $$m = \ker(\operatorname{coker}(m))$$

Intuition
The cokernel can be thought of as the space of constraints that an equation must satisfy, as the space of obstructions, just as the kernel is the space of solutions.

Formally, one may connect the kernel and the cokernel of a map $T: V → W$ by the exact sequence

 * $$0 \to \ker T \to V \overset T \longrightarrow W \to \operatorname{coker} T \to 0.$$

These can be interpreted thus: given a linear equation $T(v) = w$ to solve,
 * the kernel is the space of solutions to the homogeneous equation $T(v) = 0$, and its dimension is the number of degrees of freedom in solutions to $T(v) = w$, if they exist;
 * the cokernel is the space of constraints on w that must be satisfied if the equation is to have a solution, and its dimension is the number of independent constraints that must be satisfied for the equation to have a solution.

The dimension of the cokernel plus the dimension of the image (the rank) add up to the dimension of the target space, as the dimension of the quotient space $W / T(V)$ is simply the dimension of the space minus the dimension of the image.

As a simple example, consider the map $T: R^{2} → R^{2}$, given by $T(x, y) = (0, y)$. Then for an equation $T(x, y) = (a, b)$ to have a solution, we must have $a = 0$ (one constraint), and in that case the solution space is $(x, b)$, or equivalently, $(0, b) + (x, 0)$, (one degree of freedom). The kernel may be expressed as the subspace $(x, 0) ⊆ V$: the value of $x$ is the freedom in a solution. The cokernel may be expressed via the real valued map $W: (a, b) → (a)$: given a vector $(a, b)$, the value of $a$ is the obstruction to there being a solution.

Additionally, the cokernel can be thought of as something that "detects" surjections in the same way that the kernel "detects" injections. A map is injective if and only if its kernel is trivial, and a map is surjective if and only if its cokernel is trivial, or in other words, if $W = im(T)$.

title: Cokernel


text:
Eileen Blair

Eileen Maud Blair (née O'Shaughnessy, 25 September 1905 – 29 March 1945) was the first wife of George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair). During World War II, she worked for the Censorship Department of the Ministry of Information in London and the Ministry of Food.

She was born in South Shields in the northeast of England. Her mother was Marie O'Shaughnessy and her father was Lawrence O'Shaughnessy, a customs collector. She died at the age of 39 during a hysterectomy.

Education and early life
O'Shaughnessy attended Sunderland Church High School. In the autumn of 1924, she entered St Hugh's College, Oxford, where she studied English. In 1927, she received a higher second-class degree. By choice there followed a succession of jobs 'of no special consequence and with no connection from one to the next', which she held briefly, and which began with work as an assistant mistress at Silchester House, a girls' boarding school in Taplow in the Thames valley, and included being a secretary; a reader for the elderly Dame Elizabeth Cadbury; and the proprietor of an office in Victoria Street, London, for typing and secretarial work. When she closed the office, she took up freelance journalism and sold an occasional feature piece to the Evening News. She helped her brother, Laurence, a thoracic surgeon, by typing, proofreading, and editing his scientific papers and books.

In the autumn of 1934, Eileen enrolled at University College London for a two-year graduate course in educational psychology, leading to a Master of Arts. Eileen was particularly interested in testing intelligence in children "and quite early decided upon that as the subject for the thesis she would be writing". Elizaveta Fen (pen name of Lydia Jackson Jiburtovich), a fellow student who became one of O'Shaughnessy's closest friends, met her for the first time at University College: "She was twenty-eight years old and looked several years younger. She was tall and slender, her shoulders rather broad and high. She had blue eyes and dark brown, naturally wavy hair. George once said that she had 'a cat's face' – and one could see that this was true in a most attractive sense..."

She was very close to her elder brother Laurence O'Shaughnessy, a thoracic surgeon, but even so, in a letter she described her brother as "one of nature's Fascists".

Marriage
Eileen met Eric Blair in the spring of 1935. At the time Blair was living at 77 Parliament Hill in Hampstead, occupying a spare room in the first floor flat of Rosalind Henschel Obermeyer, a niece of the conductor and composer Sir George Henschel and a friend of Mabel Fierz.

Rosalind Obermeyer was taking an advanced course in psychology at University College London; one evening she invited some of her friends and acquaintances to a party. One "was an attractive young woman whom Rosalind did not know especially well, although they often sat next to each other at lectures: her name was Eileen O'Shaughnessy." In her memoirs, Elizaveta Fen recalled that Orwell and his friend and mentor Richard Rees "draped" at the fireplace, looking, she thought, "moth-eaten and prematurely aged."

Blair and O'Shaughnessy married the next year, on 9 June 1936, at St Mary's Church, Wallington, Hertfordshire (as Eric Arthur Blair and Eileen Maud O'Shaughnessy. At this time he was Orwell only in his writing, his friends knew him as Eric or Blair, and he "never quite got around to changing it"). Blair, though a non-practicing member of the Church of England, "was sufficiently a traditionalist to wish to be married in it". They tried to have children, but Eileen did not become pregnant, and they learned later that Orwell was sterile, as he told Rayner Heppenstall, and as Eileen confided to Elizaveta Fen.

Spanish Civil War
Eileen joined Orwell in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. Eileen volunteered for a post in the office of John McNair, the leader of the Independent Labour Party who coordinated the arrival of British volunteers, and with the help of Georges Kopp paid visits to her husband, bringing him English tea, chocolate, and cigars.

Her job was described as a "French-English shorthand typist" for the ILP, but she also organised all logistics for the ILP men at the front, running, as Anna Funder says, "the supply, communications and banking operation for the entire contingent." Eileen also worked in the propaganda department, producing the ILP's newspaper and radio show with Charles Orr.

By June 1937, the political situation had deteriorated and Orwell and Eileen were under threat from Stalinists. Anna Funder believes that the Spanish experience is particularly revealing of Orwell's attempt to erase or minimise the importance of Eileen in his life and work: "Eileen got them both out of Spain by fronting up to the same police prefecture those men had probably been sent from, to get the visas they needed to leave. One biographer eliminates her with the passive voice, writing: 'By now, thanks to the British consulate, their passports were in order.' In Homage, Orwell mentions 'my wife' 37 times but never once names her. No character can come to life without a name. But from a wife, which is a job description, all can be stolen. I wondered what she felt as she typed those pages." After she got their passports in order, she and Orwell escaped from Spain by train, diverted to Banyuls-sur-Mer for a short stay, and returned to England.

Return to England and Second World War
At the start of World War II, Eileen began working in the Censorship Department of the Ministry of Information in London, and stayed during the week with her family in Greenwich. She was the main breadwinner for the Orwells at this time.

Eileen's brother, Laurence, was killed by a bomb during the evacuation from Dunkirk, after which, according to Elizaveta Fen, "her grip on life, which had never been very firm, loosened considerably". She was increasingly unwell from uterine bleeding and left her job at the Ministry of Information in 1941. In December 1941 women were conscripted to work, and she began working at the Ministry of Food.

In June 1944 she and Eric adopted a three-week-old boy they named Richard Horatio. In one of her last letters to Eric, Eileen wrote of arrangements for renting and decorating Barnhill, Jura, the house where Orwell wrote most of Nineteen Eighty-Four, but she died without seeing Barnhill.

Death
Eileen's brother, Laurence O'Shaughnessy, had married Gwen Hunton; Gwen had a property, "Greystone" near Carlton, County Durham, which had been left empty on the death of her maiden aunt. The Blairs stayed there on occasion during 1944 and 1945. Gwen evacuated her children to the location when the "flying-bomb" raids began, and Richard went there when the Blairs had been bombed out of their flat in Maida Vale in June 1944.

In early 1945, Eileen was in very poor health and went to stay there. Joyce Pritchard, the O'Shaughnessys' nanny, said that Eileen had visited Greystone frequently between July 1944 and March 1945.

Eileen had been living with uterine bleeding for many years. In 1945 she booked herself for a hysterectomy with Dr Harvey Evers, against the advice of London doctors, who, because Eileen was anemic, would operate only after a month of blood transfusions. Eileen worried about the cost of staying in a hospital that long.

Eileen died on 29 March 1945 in Newcastle upon Tyne under anesthetic. She was thirty-nine. In the words of the inquest: "Cardiac failure whilst under anaesthetic of ether and chloroform skilfully and properly administered for operation for removal of uterus." At the bottom of the report was a handwritten note, "The deceased was in a very anaemic condition." Harvey Evers did not attend the inquest. No one was charged. Eileen and Richard had been living at Greystone at the time, with Orwell working in Paris as a war correspondent for The Observer. He reached Greystone on Saturday, 31 March.

Eileen is buried in Saint Andrew's and Jesmond Cemetery, West Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Influence on Orwell's writing
Some scholars believe that Eileen had a large influence on Orwell's writing. It is suggested that Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four may have been influenced by one of Eileen's poems, "End of the Century, 1984". The poem was written in 1934, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the school she went to, Sunderland Church High School, and to look ahead 50 years to the school's centenary in 1984.

Although the poem was written a year before she met Blair, there are some similarities between the futuristic vision of Eileen's poem and that in Nineteen Eighty-Four, including the use of mind control, and the eradication of personal freedom by a police state.

Anna Funder argues that Eileen collaborated with Orwell "in a subtle, indirect way" on Animal Farm. Orwell originally planned to write an essay, but Eileen suggested a fable. They worked on it together in the evenings, and the Orwells' friends can see Eileen's style and humor in the novel.

title: Eileen Blair


text:
Talk:Shapur II

Untitled
This says
 * When King Hormizd II (302-310)

but Hormizd II of Persia says 302-309. Just noticing this slight inconsistency. Someone might want to correct that. -- Timwi 12:36 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * jep, that´s wrong. Shapur II reigned from 309, not 310 (Frye, History of ancient Iran; Camb. History of Iran etc.).

Move this page?
Now Shapur II redirects to Shapur II of Persia. Is there any reason for this? Would not it be better to have the opposite? --Panairjdde 23:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with the Huns?
I read somewhere that Shapur II came into contact with the early Huns arriving from Asia? Can anyone confirm this..?

Jewish Mom?
I never knew this. Where are some references? If this is true, it is ironic considering he persecuted/taxed Christians and Jews.

 * More importantly, Burckhardt (The Age of Constantine the Great) says the Jews participated in the Christian persecution where (among others) 22 bishops were killed. Student7 (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock sculpture?
This article identifies the individuals represented in a Bishapur rock sculpture of a victorious Persian king as Shapur II (mounted), Jovian (supplicating), and Julian (lying dead). But all the other sources I've found about a very similarly described sculpture at the same location identify the figures as people from the previous century: Shapur I, Philip the Arab, and Gordian III, respectively. They also identify the standing figure in the background as Valerian. (Some debate exists with those who switch the identifications of Philip and Valerian, but that's tangential to the issue I'm raising.) There is at least one other similar sculpture at Naqsh-e-Rustam, but it too is said to represent Shapur I's victory, not Shapur II's.  Is there an additional sculpture at Bishapur specifically showing Shapur II over Julian? Or has this article simply misidentified the subjects of a single Bishapur sculpture? (See the Wikipedia article about Shapur I for a reference to a mural of Shapur I's victory at Naqsh-e-Rustam. The Wikipedia article about Naqsh-e-Rustam also refers to a famous Sassanid rock relief at that location of Shapur I's victory over Valerian and Philip the Arab, and it mentions that there is a more elaborate version of this scene at Bishapur.)

Answer to question about the rock sculpture
There is indeed a rock sculpture representing Shapur II's victory over Julian. However, the one I have now found is different from the one described in the Wikipedia article. It is a bas-relief at Taq-i-Bustan, Iran. According to Adrian Murdoch's The Last Pagan, this sculpture represents Shapur II together with the gods Mithras and Ahura-Mazda. Ahura-Mazda is standing on top of a fallen enemy of Shapur, who is "usually identified as Julian." In this sculpture, all the figures are standing; none is mounted. Interestingly, "[the] fact that it is a god standing over the emperor's head suggests that Julian's death is the result of divine intervention." By the way, the fallen emperor appears to wear a beard, one of Julian's distinguishing features in an era of generally clean-shaven men. This lends support to identifying him as Julian.

Fair use rationale for Image:Shapur ii bust.jpg
Image:Shapur ii bust.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate
According to the info box, Shapur was born in 215 CE. Does anyone else find this odd? I am sure he got daily exercise and had a good diet, but I don't believe he lived to 164! We should instead put 'unknown' for his birth date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulgaroctonus (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * :). Apparently he was "born king." Quite unusual. Have changed the dates. I think they are probably correct.Student7 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on Dates
Why is no era given for the dates of events? Is this some new Wikipedia norm that I wasn't aware of? If it weren't for the reference to the Roman Empire, I wouldn't be able to tell which era was being referred to. Has it become a no-no to indicate "AD" or "CE"? I don't understand this. Clarification appreciated. 68.173.255.96 (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

the Great?
I've reverted an undiscussed move- I did check first, there are many more sources that don't use 'the great' than do. Please follow the instructions at WP:RM in the future. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Original research and plagiarism
In response to Yprpyq's edit warring and non usage of page numbers, I would like the page number in Daryaee's book for this sentence, "When Shapur came of age, he led an expedition through Bahrain in revenge, defeating the combined forces of the Arab tribes of "Taghlib", "Bakr bin Wael", and "Abd al-Qays" and advanced temporarily into Al-Yamama in central Najd, the heartland of Arabia.

Pages 16-17 in Daryaee's book, make no mention of Shapur going through Bahrain, no mention of Al-Yamama or of Shapur advancing into the "heartland of Arabia". Whereas this information sounds extremely like what is found on page 136, concerning Ardashir's invasion. Shapur, as per page 16, forced Arab tribes "into the heartland of Arabia", but it make no mention of Shapur and his army advancing there. This is a clear case of original research and may explain why no page numbers are being supplied for the Daryaee source.

This sentence, "The Taghlib tribe was settled in Darayn (a port in Bahrayn) and al-Khaṭṭ; the Abd al-Qays and Tamim were settled in Hajar, and the tribe of Bakr bin Wael was settled in Kerman and the Hanazila in Ramila (vicinity of Ahwaz).", has been copy and pasted from the Daryaee source page 17, which makes it plagiarism, perhaps another reason why there are no page numbers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Persecution
Klueske: Didn't mean it in that way when I said secondary source, wasn't much space left to write on, didn't expect it to get misunderstood thou. Anyways the number of 16.000 Christian martyrs is clearly an exaggeration, or you have anything to say in that matter? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The source used for the 16000 deads claim seems to be a religious source, not written by a historian, therefore, i guess it's unreliable for this topic. This could explain the likely exageration. your thoughts ? Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , The article on Sozomen notes, in the first sentence, he's a historian. An ecclesiastical historian, admittedly, but a historian nevertheless. Please cite sources on the exaggeration, since I'm quite reluctant to accept your word for it. Kleuske (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: What do you mean by that? It's quite clear that it's an exaggeration by simply looking at numbers, just like the numbers that appear for example at Göktürk–Persian wars (first and second) and Battle of Thermopylae. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean: please cite a reliable source that supports that claim. If this writer is known for shameless exaggerations, it should be a breeze to find such a source. I do not accept "it's obvious to me" or "it's quite clear" as a substitute for an actual source that supports that claim. Kleuske (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , An ecclesiastical historian does not mean he's reliable for a death toll, We need a specialized historical source for that.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then cite a bloody source disputing him. The quote is sourced and attributed, is pertinent to the period in question, is near contemporaneous from a quite respected historian. If you have sources disputing that number (or the quote in general), then fine, we can talk. All I see now is two people asking me to take their word that he's unreliable without even trying to back it up with an actual source. Just going "that source is no good" does not suffice. Kleuske (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You say it like it's so easy to find something about a completely irrelevant and unknown religious historian. He's not a respected historian at all, dunno where you're getting that from. What Wikaviani is saying is true, you don't use ecclesiastical historians for this kind of stuff, the exaggerated number of martyrs he lists speak for itself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm getting that from the "Encyclopedia Brittanica", "The Catholic Encyclopedia" and the "New Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge", from the fact that he's been in print since the invention of the printing press, is cited in thing like the Codex Regia, etc. As for not being able to find anything on this "completely irrelevant and unknown religious historian", I suggest you try Google Scholar, which has quite a few results (5.290) on this "completely irrelevant and unknown religious historian" from scholarly sources alone. Kleuske (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, we should ask for other users opinon, if the source is unreliable for this claim, it should be removed, no matter how respectable the author is. Again, according to me, this source is unreliable for a death toll., , , any insight ? Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Translation: "I'm all out of arguments". Kleuske (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, is this being out of argument when we deal with the reliability of a source ? To make it clear, i have no problem with the sentence as far as a reliable source supports it. If some other contributors support you view about this source for a death toll, then it would be perfectly fine. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot just go around and declare sources you don't like "unreliable" without something to back that up. I have asked several times, and I will ask again to cite sources which claim he was unreliable. The mere fact that you think he's unreliable (and not a historian and other niceties) does not mean anything, here. If you want, escalate it to WP:RS/N. Kleuske (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: Encyclopedia Brittanica is not even a reliable source, the other 'sources' seem to religious related ones, which is of no use here. With all due respect, this clearly shows that you don't have much knowledge in this kind of topic. He has some searches in some obscure books, so what? He is still a relatively unknown and irrelevant 'historian' in this topic. You claim he is so prominent and well-known, yet no major academic sources refer to him either. Also putting your text in bold doesn't improve your argument. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Brittanica is not even a reliable source What?! Are you [bleeep] joking? You do realize that competency is required, don't you? Kleuske (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: It's not, go ask an admin, such as Dougweller (who was the one who told me). Yes, competency is required, which is making me wonder why you're still here, other than being immaturely passive-aggressive and not having much knowledge about sources, you're not bringing anything else here. You still haven't been able to show anything that supports your argument about this so called "well-known and respected" religious historian. Just let go, jesus, you're wasting both our times here. HistoryofIran (talk)
 * Please comment, since this claim does surprise me. Please read WP:NPA. Personal attacks are not a valid substitute for an actual argument. Kleuske (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Klueske: You have been hostile and making subtle insults from the start, why don't you read it yourself? Also, as I was about to write as well: Lets pretend Britannica is reliable: the site states that Sozomen was a Christian lawyer writing church history, what can that be of use to exactly? HistoryofIran (talk)
 * It's a near contemporaneous source, quoted verbatim, attributed and highly pertinent to the period in question, from a well-respected historian. Hence it should be in an encyclopedic article. You have failed to provide any argument against that, except ill informed claims without the merest hint of any backup and a personal attack (which I resent). I have no choice than to conclude your attitude here is summarized best by WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which are not encyclopedic virtues. Kleuske (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we should focus on content, not contributors, so, everybody, calm down., i think that you should apply WP:IDONTLIKEIT to yourself because according to me, the source is not reliable for at least two reasons :
 * 1) t's obvious that a christian living at that time had probably a biased POV about the number of christians killed by the Sassanians ( therefore he is not an independent source).
 * 2) Again, he was not a specialized historian for this kind of stuff (death toll) because he studied history of religions.
 * Since this souce is controversial, why don't you bring another source supporting this death toll ?---Wikaviani (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, claims w/o any evidence. If you read the article on the man, you'll find he did not "study religions" he was an ecclesiastical historian. He was not "a specialized historian for this kind of stuff" because those did not exist in the 5th century. If you are willing to dismiss any source with some kind of affiliation to any side of the story, we should dismiss Tacitus, Cassius Dio, osephus and many others aswell, including any Islamic source. The qualification "utter nonsense" is called for, here. Kleuske (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's not, that's a really bad comparison. You srsly comparing Sozomen with Cassius Dio etc? Also you know that just because they're called "Islamic sources" doesn't mean they were written by the Imam that lived in the nearest neighborhood, but that they were written in the Islamic east by actual respected historians, which Sozomen is not. HistoryofIran (talk)
 * And Sozomen wasn't the parish priest next door, but a well-respected historian. Kleuske (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: Now you're just making stuff up. Britannica (which is still unreliable) states that your so called respected historian was a Christian lawyer. We dont use Christian lawyers as a source for historical events, in case you didn't know. Also booho, you started the personal attacks yet you don't see me being focused on that. Treat other people like you want to be treated, whether it's on the internet or rl. I am still waiting for you to come up with a source that agrees with your views that Sozomen is a so called respected and well-known historian. If you can't do that, then I see no reason for your edit to stay. HistoryofIran (talk)
 * That's personal attack #2. Apart from being a lawyer, the man was a historian and wrote a notable work, some of which is quoted here, for good reason. I have asked multiple times for any source that backs up your claim about Sozomen being unreliable, unknown, irrelevant (etc.) and you have failed miserably. I have directed you to Google Scholar, pointed out it has over 5000 results for that name (that's scholarly sources alone), pointed out he's in several notable encyclopedias, and I actually did my homework: this summary (2017), provides a nice overview of works about Sozomen, we got Irfan Shahîd in "Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century": The most extensive and valuable account of the Arabs in ecclesiastical historians is to be found in Sozomen's Historia Ecclesiastica and goes on to call him "this major historian". Kleuske (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I conclude that neither of you have been able to produce one single source disputing Sozomen's standing as a historian, neither of you have produced one single source supporting your claim the quote is unreliable and both of you insist I should prefer your word over that of actual, published, modern historians despite the fact both of you clearly demonstrate a lack of any knowledge of the historic figure. This is disturbing behavior for an encyclopedian. Kleuske (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "you have failed miserably" : i would welcome the eye of an admin about your words, please note that your comment is WP:WINNING ... stop being aggressive and let's focus on content, ok ?
 * "I have directed you to Google Scholar, pointed out it has over 5000 results for that name" : let me see if i got this one straight. So, according to you, a google scholar search on Sozomen with 5000 results makes him reliable for this topic ? you're joking, right ? Then just type "Albert Einstein" on Google scholar and you'll get 1170000 results, this does not make Einstein (who was a great scholar) a reliable source for this topic. Please note that i don't say this guy was not a scholar, i just say that, he's unreliable for this topic, big difference.
 * "This is disturbing behavior for an encyclopedian" : No, we're discussing the reliability of the source (at least this is what i'm trying to do while you keep being aggressive with no reason) this is quite normal, what do you suggest instead ? edit-warring ? Again, if any other user comes up here and says that the source is reliable OR if you provide another source supporting this "16000 death toll", it will be perfectly fine for me.---Wikaviani (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You say "let's focus on content, ok" and subsequently go into a rant about the editor you disagree with. Nice one, that. When your done with discussing the editor, please satisfy my request to cite sources to support your claims, as I have done, instead of making (demonstrably false) claims about the historian in question and maligning other editors (i.e. yours truly). And please take this to WP:ANI. I'm up for a good laugh. Kleuske (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , Do you really know what "rant" means ? if yes, when did i "go into a rant about the editor i disagree with" ? I was polite and respectful from the beginning of this thread, clearly, you cannot say as much. Well, if we cannot find a common ground here, then, ok, i'll take this to the relevant board. Please note what sources qualify as reliable for Wikipedia :
 * The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book) : check (the source is a book, ok)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) : cross (the author is not specialized for this topic)
 * The publisher of the work : check ? (publisher is ok ?)
 * Note that Any of the three can affect reliability
 * More : Context matters : i quote from WP:RS : "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The source is from an ecclesiastical historian from the 5th century, really objective ?
 * And : Age matters : the source we're dealing with is 1600 years old ...
 * "I'm up for a good laugh" : again WP:WINNING and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality ...
 * Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the quote is that of a noted historian, quoted verbatim and properly attributed. It is not used to base a claim on, it's not a reference, so the above is moot. There is, I venture to assert, no dispute that the quote is correct. The dispute, as far as I can see, is that you don't like it. Kleuske (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you really think I'm exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, you should bring this to WP:ANI, since that's disruptive editing. But you don't and you won't. Kleuske (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to see that at last, you calm down and avoid being aggressive. Yes, the source is from a noted historian of religion who is far from being objective and therefore unreliable here. I'll wait for other users to comment, if they don't, then we'll deal with this on the relevant board. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite personal attacks (and yes, calling your opponent "aggressive" is a personal attack) I have never lost my cool. I have cited sources, rebutted blatant falsehoods and replied to each and every claim made. so for the umpteenth time cite sources supporting your claims or "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". Kleuske (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: Right, you have never lost your cool, I agree. Anyways, you have neither cited sources (let alone a source) that supports your view of him being a respected HISTORIAN (I don't care about his works about Jesus and religion etc, they are irrelevant here), nor have you rebutted these so called 'blatant falsehoods'. Also, playing victim by accusing people of personal attacks every second yet while still making them does not count as answering an argument. Do you seriously want me to into detail of your hostile behaviour and indirect/subtle insults toward us? I'm not blind. Sozomen as a source regarding the number of martyrs under Shapur II is simply too exaggerated and unreliable. Why do I feel like I am repeating myself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I "seriously want [you] to into detail of [my] hostile behaviour", preferably at WP:ANI, since I'm getting fed up. I also want you to cite a source supporting up your claims as to the unreliability of that number. As an encore, I'll quote mysef (from above) : Irfan Shahîd in "Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century": The most extensive and valuable account of the Arabs in ecclesiastical historians is to be found in Sozomen's Historia Ecclesiastica and goes on to call him "this major historian". Kleuske (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never lost my cool either, as to the "personal attack", your aggressive behavior is a fact, therefore, this is not a personal attack. When you debate with others, saying that thay "failed miserably" or "go to ANI, i'm up for a good laugh" and other words from you obviously qualify as "aggressive". Again, no comments about users, focus on content. As i said, i'll wait a few hours for other users opinion, if nobody moves, then we'll go to the relevant board. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: First comment towards me in some time without making subtle insults or accusing me of personal attacks, we're making progress. You're showing me a source about Sozomen's view on Christian Arabs (who were mostly pro-Byzantine vassals), what can I use that for in this topic? You know that the Sasanians weren't Arabs, right? His view towards Shapur II and the Sasanians when it comes to their treatment towards Christianity should obviously be taken with discretion, and the numbers are clearly exaggerated (16,000). Tell me, should without any care use Herodotus as a source for everything as well? It's the same case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, pal... I'm dutch. If I wanted to insult you, the insults would not be subtle, let alone so subtle no-one but you can see them. Cite sources. I do not accept your claims without sources. Kleuske (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers 'pal', your ethnicity is really irrelevant in this discussion and looks more like an excuse to not take responsibility for your actions, but alright. What do you want me to cite? 'Bosworth: Sozomen is unreliable lol'? Shapur's persecution of Christians is mentioned in various major academic sources, yet none of them list the numbers of martyrs since we can't know that, and I am quite sure they have stumbled upon Sozomen before if he is so respected as you claim, yet they haven't listed numbers like his exaggerated numbers of 16.000 martyrs. We have to take sources like Sozomen with a pinch of salt when it comes to describing topics such as these, it's simply a fact we editors who are contributing/expanding articles with information know of. Also, you didn't answer my question regarding Herodotus. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I want you to cite a source that supports your claim ("exaggerated number"). How often do you want to hear that? Kleuske (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've said what had to be said, and so has Wikaviani, you ignoring it is not my problem. This seems more and more like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT in my eyes. Also, tell me, should we without any care use Herodotus as a source for everything as well? Go on, answer me, it's exactly the same case with Sozomen, hence why you are avoiding my question. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So you have no sources to cite and are now reduced to playing games and trying to sidetrack the issue. Ok. Kleuske (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting words into my mouth whilst avoiding my questions and completely ignoring what I am saying, very mature and constructive indeed. The Herodotus question is completely related to our Sozomen problem. Also, wasn't it you that was meant to show a source that shows Sozomen can be trusted in this matter? (hint: it was). If you're not interested in continue discussing due to the fact that you're out of arguments then I am restoring the article back to what it was. Two users who have a lot more knowledge in this kind of topic than you have written several long messages regarding this problem, which you have chosen to ignore, whilst trying to cause a provocation and then immediately use the victim card. That is basically the summary of this discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if Sozen is exaggerating or not. I did a search and the only comment on his figures was in "Fides Et Historia" - Volumes 30-31 1998 - Snippet view "The fact that Christians in Persia later neglected the Roman theme, and assured the Persian kings of their loyalty, even reaching a certain ... "From then on, waging war against Rome and persecuting the Christians were to Iran two facets of one struggle, and persecution took place especially in ...  Even the lower figure of 16,000 deaths for the fourth century, estimated by Sozomen, are quite impressive." Anyway, a lot of sources use Sozen and I think we should but of course it has to be attributed. As an aside, Sozen looks more like a personal essay than an encyclopedic article.  Doug Weller  talk 18:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So a third party commented and was in favor of including the (attributed) quote. This is subsequently ignored and we're into a edit-war, laced with personal attacks. I invite both users (for the umpteenth time) to come up with a source that disputes the quote in question as unreliable, provide a source with more accurate figures or drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No response except a revert with an edit summary which is a blatant, baldfaced lie. Kleuske (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Third party also said that the source is a personal essay, not an encyclopedic article. Per WP:WEIGHT we cannot cite this non academic source alone without any counterpart. More, you treated me or "liar" while the source is preserved in the next section this is a personal attack...---Wikaviani (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * He writes the Wikipedia article on Sozomen reads like a personal essay, not the quote. That's a lack of basic reading skills or a blatant, baldfaced lie. Your choice. Kleuske (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with him on that. Kleuske (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you're under WP:CIR, the admin said "As an aside, Sozen looks more like a personal essay than an encyclopedic article." Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Key words: as an aside and a link to the (wrong) article. The addition "than an encyclopedic article" should make it clear. A lack of basic reading skills it is, then. Kleuske (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus ?
, i find quite strange that a user like you, who did not contribute to the extensive thread in the talk page, comes up here to revert a version of the article who is a compromise, i mean, the source was not removed, i just balanced the text by adding a source given by Doug Weller above, per WP:WEIGHT. Also, please keep in mind that i tried to be as precise as possible in my edit summary. The current version is endorsed by a single user : Kleuske, this is not exactly what one would call "consensus". Also, since you have not contributed a single time to the talk page and nevertheless allows yourself to revert to a controversial text, i think you can keep your "advices" for yourself. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I think you should not misrepresent other editors in your edit summaries. Also, please see WP:OWN. Best regards, —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 18:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * : Since you're accusing me of "misrepresenting" other editors, please go ahead and tell me when i did so. If you cannot, then stop your personal attacks.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

etymology
Daryaee is not a linguist and his book may have spelling errors. Check out wikitionary and A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary By D. N. Mackenzie. both only mentioned dēwār. and both wār and war do not mean wall in middle persian (pahlavi).GGBarBar (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia can't be cited as a source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 * lmao. did i cited wikipedia? I said go check out them. are you blind? you don't see A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary By D. N. Mackenzie above? you should prove word "war" = wall in middle persian or pahlavi. and use a linguistic source.GGBarBar (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 * You can't just say 'check A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary By D. N. Mackenzie'. What is the source even? What page? Nice one. Also, since you have such a hard time clicking the link yourself, it seems I must do it for you, here you go To keep the Arabs from mounting further attacks Shabuhr II constructed a defensive system which was called war i tazigan ("wall of the Arabs"). Here you go, there is your proof. I'm reverting back to what it was before, revert me and I'll directly report you to an admin for constant removal of sourced information. Also, keep a nice tone, no need to call me blind. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 * dude, you want to abuse reporting system? then go for it. there is nothing such as "war" in middle persian. that's a misspelled in that book. this is my proof: if you don't know anything about persian and middle persian, then just stop acting as an expert. watch your language too. you attacked me first. don't play victim card.GGBarBar (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 * How did I attack you? Show some proof. Also can you not speak so aggressively? We're not in a forum. Also, yes, I will indeed take this to an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * your edit summaries are aggressive and insulting intelligence of another user. go find a linguistic book instead of dropping a history book here. "war" does not exist in middle persian. you say it's correct. then prove it. just browser that D. N. Mackenzie book and find it. even wiktionary does not mention it as an alternative spelling. i am iranian and i speak persian fluently. so stop teaching me about persian and iranian history. either you have a good source for your claims or you just try to stick to daryayee's book as if it's a error-free book. understand it or you need more explanation? yes, call an admin. maybe you can learn some civility.GGBarBar (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

to admin who reads this: HistoryofIran reverted correct edit of another user just per per daryaee who is not a linguist and his book could have many misspelled pahlavi (middle persian) terms; plus see his original research in edit summary. he thinks war is correct because it sounds like wall and etc. i restored correct term and he reverted my edit without reading my edit summary. then calling my edits disruptive. ignored our discussion here and reverted again. as you see in the above discussions, he ignores my points and insults me just because i'm newbie.GGBarBar (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 * This seems like damage control to me. Anyways; Yes I reverted his good faith edit and restored the original information (and added a citation which I forgot to do in the first place). Daryaee is one of the most prominent Iranologists there is, him making "probable misspellings" is your own assumption, which is not valid in this case. Also, no, I never said my edit is correct because it sounds like "wall", you're literally putting words in my mouth at this point. Removing sourced information is indeed disruptive. As for the "insult" accusations, I'm not even gonna answer that, it's quite clear who insults who. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 * your Daryaee is iranologist but not a linguist and that term does not exits in middle persian. and misspelled word is not my assumption, i have already provided a reliable pahlavi dictionary which is written by David Neil MacKenzie, a scholar of iranian languages. you can't find such thing like "war = wall" in his book. only "dewar". so my edits are not only correct but also backed up by a linguistic source written by an expert. also wiktionary does not mention your word too. that's your burden to prove "war = wall" in middle persian. as if daryayee and his book are god-like stuff here. you just repeat yourself without find more sources for your claim. just one source which is history book and it's against a work by a linguist. so what would you? trying to convincing admins to ban me? yeah, you already did it. the way you treat new user and people who disagree with you is just awful. reverting their edits and ignoring them? huh? this is a dispute and my points/edits are legit.GGBarBar (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 * That doesn't mean the word is misspelt. Also your source simply states what 'wall' means in Middle Persian, not 'wall of the Arabs', which means it has nothing to do with the context of the information. Also, it's no secret that Daryaee is much more prominent in the academic world compared to MacKenzie. Furthermore, for the second time, wiktionary/wikipedia is not a reliable source. Just gonna ignore the rest of your statement, throwing rude accusations isn't gonna make your case stronger. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 * basically your whole rationale is: i'm right and i love daryayee so "Daryaee is much more prominent in the academic world compared to MacKenzie". illogical and ridiculous response. how did you reach to such conclusion? daryaee or whatever is a historian and mackenzie is a linguist. so obviously mackenzie knows more than daryaee in this field. and you don't get my point why i mentione wiktionary. nobody says wiktionary is a source. my whole point is "dēwār" is the only word you can find for "wall" in middle persian. do you have any other source that support Daryaee's work/claim? where did that "wār" come from? parthian? another source that says that name is correct. you can't drop words just because you see them in a book and you think author of that book is 1000% right. if you can't solve these issues, then ask another editor to come here and solve it. and don't act like a snowflake. how did i insult you? this is not a forum but users like you deserve your own medicine. even your username proves you think you are always right and iranian articles belong to you. you don't own anything here my friend. as i said, i'm iranian and i have come here to contribute to iranian topics. you can go see my edits. do you see any disruptive stuff there? trying to ban/block my account just removes an iranian from editing this project (wikipedia's loss) and as we know the number of iranian users are low. but if you think i was aggressive and harsh, i change my tone.GGBarBar (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gonna let an admin take it from here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like you both violated the 3 revert rule, which may result in blocking both of you, and that you are also both acting aggressively toward one another. Also, GGBarBar, can you please capitalize after a full stop, the absence of which makes your comments difficult to read. Now, it seems to me that there are issues of original research to your argument. You can't take it upon yourself to conclude misspelling — you need to present reliable sources that establish this to be so (lack of mention of the word in a dictionary in and of itself may not count as conclusive proof that it is misspelled elsewhere). Anyway, I'm sure this mystery can be made clear, eventually, but until then, it's best to subscribe to the bold, revert, discuss cycle, rather than continue to aimlessly edit war between the two versions back and fourth. I suggest you both review your dispute resolution resources and go from there. Perhaps launch an RfC. If you end up lacking enough expertise, maybe see if anyone on the Persian Wikipedia can help. For now, please try to interact with one another in a civil manner, because there is simply no reason to treat one another otherwise. El_C 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wut, he just got away with removing sourced information, calling me blind, snowflake and whatnot. I was acting properly the majority of the time, how I am being categorized in the same place as him is beyond me. This is disappointing. Whatever, I'll take it somewhere else then. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Darayee and the and Encyclopaedia Iranica state war i tazigan

 * Qādesiya was likely a garrison town in the network of Sasanian fortifications known as the “Wall of the Arabs” (MPers. war ī tāzīgān; see Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr, p. 43). --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep; This is what a commentary on the translation of the Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr, a Middle Persian text on geography, says; - might as well put the whole quote here since I know some ain't gonna click on the link ;

"'-War I tazjgan: 'Wall / Fortress of the Arabs' Markwart translates it as the 'lake of the Arabs' (Markwart 1932; 14) which he thought stood for the Persian Gulf. From the early Islamic period the name of this gulf was known as (Arabic) Bafrr Faris or Xalfj Faris and by the later Europeans of the sixteenth century as Sino Persico or Sinus Persicus (Bosworth 1997; 84-89). Thus it is surprising that such a well known name for this boundary of water would be the 'Arab Gulf' (During the end of the Qajar Period and the time of Reza Shah the British for the first time called this body of water the Arabian Gulf, and it became a term used from the 1960's as part of Arab nationalist activities). Nyberg had seen this discrepancy and stated that war stood for wall, 'enclosure,' or 'fortress' (Nyberg 1959; 316-326). One can suggest that war was part of the Sasanian wall defense system (Frye 1979; ill 11 : Azamoush l374; 3-15), here standing for the Khandaq I Sabuhr (Morony 1982; 28). This meaning for war can also be found in Vedic vala; Avestan var-; Khotanese vara-, WaxI wii'g (Bailey 1954; 26-28). In the Sasa�ian period (Avestan) Pi1itika /(Middle Persian) Pi1dig which is mentioned in the Wldewdad (V.19) was equated with the Persian Gulf (Bahar 1375; 142-143 : BehzadT1368; 244).'" --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An entire paragraph in boldface is a bit much. I switched it to blockquote. El_C 19:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is a RFC really still neccessary at this point? I mean it's three academic sources vs a dictionary (which is unrelated to the context of the information). This is my laziness and logic speaking. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. I'll give the other party a chance to reply, but if that reply is not substantive enough (in demonstrating that the argument isn't based on original research) or if it isn't forthcoming, I am inclined to switch to status quo ante for the duration of the protection. El_C 20:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Another source that uses War ī tāzīgān. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been 4 days with no response from GGBarBar, in which time they edited two other articles. I believe the article should be restored status quo ante. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

i searched iranica and they use this daryaee's work in several of their articles. i did not find counter argument for this name in english & persian sources. it could be misspelled, a variety/alternative, changed by grammar, or parthian form of "dewar". so i drop my own argument for now unless i find alternative names from other references.GGBarBar (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/qadesiya-battle is written by D. Gershon Lewental, not Daryaee. There isn't a single reference of Daryaee in the source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * “Wall of the Arabs” (MPers. war ī tāzīgān; see Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr, p. 43). my point is iranica uses it and it is a academic source. so i drop my debate for now (as i said above). daryaee or whatever does not matter here. the used term matters. but how "dewar" becoming "war" is unsolved and it is not related to this article. i may ask wiktionary editors about it. i have nothing more to say here. restore your edits.GGBarBar (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing is unsolved, the term is "war" per the various sources, it's quite simple actually. But yes restored the edit will be. Now I can perhaps expand the article in peace. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * it's not simple. just stop acting as if you know everything. you are not a linguist. i said i didn't find any counter arguments in persian and english references so i drop my concern for now unless i find something about it. this is the only simple and solved part of this discussion.GGBarBar (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are having such a hard time grasping something so simple then perhaps Wikipedia is not something for you. I'll stop acting like I know everything when you stop having a immature and toxic attitude. I'm done here, good day- --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sassanid King with Crown.png

title: Talk:Shapur II