text:
Talk:Mean value theorem

The first and only constructive proof of the MVT
Using the flawed mainstream calculus and a patch I, John Gabriel, introduced to prove it:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLZG1pNlVIX2RTR0E

Using the first and only rigorous formulation of calculus in human history:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLblJNLWJUeGxqV0E

2601:646:8B82:E709:EC2A:A37E:89CF:63E5 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear John, Wikipedia should be a source of (widely) accepted knowledge, not a platform to spread revolutionary ideas. Limits and infinitesimals are totally accepted in mathematics. That's why your "new formulation of calculus" is very misleading for someone who is not a professional mathematician. From a mathematicians point of view, your approach just looks wrong and informal.

Kegelkugel (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Your comments are unsubstantiated assertions. I am a professional mathematician and quite possibly the greatest mathematician today. That limits and infinitesimals are accepted in mainstream mathematics does not mean that these are valid concepts.
 * www.academia.edu/98758410/Was_Newtons_and_Leibnizs_method_of_setting_h_0_valid_The_answer_is_YES
 * My approach may "look wrong" to ignorant people like you, but once again the problem is your bad perspective or lack of it. 64.99.242.121 (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not a professional mathematician of any kind. 81.230.146.243 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your approach is wrong. 84.216.157.21 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Limits and infinitesimals are not generally accepted outside of mainstream academia. There are no real mathematicians in mainstream academia, only mythmaticians. To someone not in mainstream academia, the new calculus makes perfect sense. That's something you can't say about mainstream calculus whose results are generally correct, but the formulation is flawed. As for accepted knowledge, it is delusional to think that only it should be published. If one is not part of the academic cabal, the chances of publishing anything are zero. My ideas are not revolutionary, they are common sense. So common sense in fact, that most with a high school education can learn the new calculus without taking a lifetime of learning.

All this aside, you cannot refute that my constructive proof of the MVT was never realised by anyone before me. It hasn't been published anywhere because I am generally not liked by stupid people in the mainstream. That's a loss for future real mathematicians. 2601:646:8B82:E709:2D34:EBFE:E7A6:6A34 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Proof of MVT is wrong.
The section has:

''Define g(x) = f(x) − rx, where r is a constant. Since f is continuous on [a, b] and differentiable on (a, b), the same is true for g. We now want to choose r so that g satisfies the conditions of Rolle's theorem. ''

You can't just choose an r so that g satisfies the conditions of Rolle's theorem, because:

a. f(b) is not necessarily equal to f(a) in the MVT.

b. By choosing r in the way you do to "satisfy" Rolle's theorem, that is, f(a)-ra=f(b)-rb,  you are in fact using the very c you set out to prove exists. Hint: you can't use c in your proof because that's what you need to prove.

Big Fail! You have been failing since the inception of Wikipedia. Mythmaticians the last 400 years have failed. I will not give you the answer because you are dishonest, ignorant and incompetent. J-O-H-N Gabriel - discoverer of the new calculus. 116.252.221.146 (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 * The c in the proof is from the function g, not f.
 * We define g such that it gives it a c, and this c is then used to prove the MVT for f. 84.216.157.141 (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"You can't just choose an r so that g satisfies the conditions of Rolle's theorem, because:

a. f(b) is not necessarily equal to f(a) in the MVT."

No one said it has to be, g(x) is NOT f(x). We define g(x) to be this function such that g(a) = g(b), and r is arbitrary, we have not made a statement yet of its purpose beforehand. Assuming any property we want from it is not circular, as long as it is a well defined property. Assuming a property in a matter that f'(c)=(f(b)-f(a))/(b-a) would be circular, since I am considering f(x) to be a general function, so this couldn't just be a definition, but would adding a specific property I never proved, of f(x).

"b. By choosing r in the way you do to "satisfy" Rolle's theorem, that is, f(a)-ra=f(b)-rb,  you are in fact using the very c you set out to prove exists. Hint: you can't use c in your proof because that's what you need to prove. "

Wrong. What we are trying to prove is that there is a c in between interval [a,b] such that f'(c)=(f(b)-f(a))/(b-a). Remember, we have said no property of r, there is not said one thing of r in the statement. We have not yet stated its purpose, this is how we DEFINE g(x) and r, and yet not limit f(x) in any way. Whether or not it is well defined is a different topic. And it is as will be shown below.

The idea is I have my functions f(x) which I can not make any definitions on besides the original statement, otherwise would not be general. I define some arbitrary function, g(x), such that g(x)=f(x)-rx for r. Of course, I don't know r, and so can add an arbitrary condition on g(x) such that I can now choose an r. That is, let g(a) = g(b). There is no mention of g(x) in the MVT statement, this is how we define g(x) by definition, which will satisfy the property irrelevant of f(x). For this to be the case, I then am able to derive r. Again, these properties is how it is defined, and makes no claim of the nature of f(x) in any statement. From this, I derive r = (f(b)-f(a))/(b-a) which is always well defined since b=/=a and regardless of my function f(x), will find g(a) = g(b). Whenever I plug in x=a or x=b, will necessarily, based off of this definition of g(x) and r, get g(a) = g(b).

So there is nothing wrong here, as I can define some random g(x), however I want, as long as the definition is always applicable for any f(x)(THEN I would be assuming a property of f(x) for g(x) to then apply) in terms of some r, and these are definitions, not assumptions on the nature of f(x).

________________________________________

Your comments are noted as flawed. You haven't refuted anything that I've said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.92.105.191 (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Help! MVT for Integration?
Hi, can anyone here help me out? I'm looking for applications of the MVT for integration? It's certainly easy to understand, but why do it? Why do we have the theorem? THANKS! -TN

You won't find anything like that here. Try the new calculus of John Gabriel. There is no separate theorem for integration, only a variant of the mean value theorem which has never been understood the last 400 years. 116.252.221.146 (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 * https://www.stumblingrobot.com/2015/10/23/application-of-the-mean-value-theorem-for-integrals/
 * https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2275527/application-of-mvt-for-integrals
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/24340031
 * Just some examples. 84.216.157.141 (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Picture
This mvt things badly needs a picture to clear things up.

Name
The agreed policy is that all words in a species' official common name should be capitalised, other than those following a hyphen if they refer to a part of the animal: "Bald Eagle", "Red-necked Phalarope", "Wilson's Storm-Petrel".

The biology convention appears to be applicable to math as well. Pizza Puzzle

 * ...and were the mean value theorem an animal, I'd agree with you. -- The Anome 14:13 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, so much for logic...do you have some conventional ruling which you feel somehow overrids that and the convention that proper names should be capitalized? How is it easier to read Joseph-Louis LaGrange; instead of simply LaGrange. Students of the Mean Value Thoerem do not need to be on a first name basis with Joe. Pizza Puzzle

Image text
Shouldn't the theorem text in the image be cropped? The theorem is stated in the article, and in greater detail. Dysprosia 11:42, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The illustration says "there exist", where evidently it means "there exists". Could someone correct this? -- I don't know what software created the illustration. Thanks. Michael Hardy 00:22, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Calculus table move
I moved the calculus table down to the See also section. Both the table and diagram wouldn't fit side by side at many window sizes, and there wasn't room for it right under the main picture or in any other section. Besides this, it makes sense in see also — it is, after all, a list of related links. Deco 02:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Generalization
'Twould be nice to have something in here about how the MVT generalizes to a function f:Rn --> Rm... -GTBacchus 23:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The section on divided differences in the article

 * moved to Talk:Mean value theorem (divided differences) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Cauchy's mean value theorem
Hello, I'm french and my english is really too bad but I think, there is an error in this theorem : if you divide by g(b) - g(a), necessary, you must have $$g(b) \ne g(a)$$.

In the same way, if you divide by g'(c), you must have $$g'(x) \ne 0$$ for all x in ]a ; b[. HB in wikipedia.fr
 * You are right, fixed! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should also be mentioned that as a consequence the geometric form of the theorem must allow for an exception when $$f'(x)=g'(x)=0$$ for some x: in this case the conclusion of Cauchy's theorem is satisfied for $$c=x$$, but no tangent is (probably) defined at this singular point of the parametric curve. As an example take $$(f(x),g(x))=(x^3,x^2+1)$$ on the interval [-1,1]. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Integrable?
The word "integrable" links to the article on integration - but the word "integrable" does not occur in the linked article. If anyone knows of an article in which the term "integrable" is defined, maybe you should link to that instead.

 * The word appears in both Riemann integral and Lebesgue integration
 * "integrable" deserves its own short article in a dictionary/encyclopedia. Could you please review this and consider to create the article? Currently there is a disambiguation page for integrability.
 * IMHO meaning of "integrable" is this:
 * Integrable function $f$ is a function that
 * is suitable for integration (for example, measurable) and
 * the integral of $f$ (over its domain) is well-defined (the integral "exists") and finite
 * The meaning of both conditions depends on the particular integral under consideration, see for example Riemann integral and Lebesgue integration. The first condition is sometimes neglected (by mistake or by agreement), sometimes implicitly implied by the existence of the integral.
 * There is also a more general notion of "locally integrable" function, where the second condition is required only for suitable (IMHO compact) subdomains of the domain of $f$
 * 90.180.192.165 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Error
The example given in the introductory section appears to be totally wrong (or I'm just not getting it). Currently it states: This theorem can be understood concretely by applying it to motion: if a car travels one hundred miles in one hour, so that its average speed during that time was 50 miles per hour, then at some time its instantaneous speed must have been exactly 120 miles per hour. Does it not actually mean that "its average speed during that time was 100 mph", and "at some time its instantaneous speed must have been exactly 100 mph"? I came here to discover what the MVT is, so I'm no expert, but I was pretty sure I got it before this example was given, tossing me back into doubt and despair. Is this in need of correction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.140.175 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 * You were victim of a vandalised version of this article, now corrected. Always be aware that this can happen before you believe what you read. Also please add questions at the end of a talk page. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Confused remark
The article says:
 * Only continuity of ƒ, not differentiability, is needed at the endpoints of the interval I and therefore superfluous if I is open

That doesn't make sense. "Superfluous if I is open" means the theorem is true on open intervals. What is the statement of the theorem on open intervals? There isn't any. The fraction (ƒ(b) − ƒ(a))/(b − a) relies on the endpoints a and b. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, different proposition. But the remark remains confused as it stands.  I will edit further. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The slight generalization.
Does anyone know of a reference (or a least a proof) of the Mean Value theorem in the case that we allow infinite derivatives. I haven't thought about this much but it seems to me that one can construct functions that have an infinite derivative on very "large" sets. I checked a few of my introductory analysis texts, and did a few google searches but I haven't had any luck finding this statement. Before I did anymore leg work, I thought someone here might know. Thenub314 (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi. I don't really understand your question. Is it related to a specific part of the article? I didn't see it. Is your question about the very classical formula at the head of the article? In this case I think it is wrong. Or about the integral formulas? --Bdmy (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I figured out how to prove the statement I was after, which is effectively the same as the usual proof. I was referring to the sentence: The mean value theorem is still valid in a slightly more general setting. One only needs to assume that f : [a, b] → R is continuous on [a, b], and that for every x in (a, b) the limit

 * $$\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}$$

exists as a finite number or equals +∞ or −∞.

 * Well, I missed that sentence when I read rapidly through the article. In the meantime I realized just what you say, that (for example) Rolle's theorem is clear if the derivative exists in the extended sense, simply because the derivative can't be $$+\infty$$ or $$-\infty$$ where the function assumes a maximal value. When I said it was probably wrong, I had in mind trivial examples with half-derivatives with opposite infinite values on each side.  But just as you, I don't have a reference to give.  The case of Cantor function that you mention is not clear to me, because there are many points where the derivative does not exist in the previous sense.  I don't know if there is a function having this extended derivative everywhere and infinite on an uncountable set. --Bdmy (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is, it is not the cantor function, but a related function which has infinite derivative on an uncountable set. There is a construction in Boas & Boas "A Primer of real functions" (pp 164-165).  He uses it to give an example where you have two functions with everywhere equal (not necessarily finite) derivatives, that do not differ by a constant.Thenub314 (talk)

Which bothered me momentarily when I started thinking about a function on [0,1] whose derivative is positive or +∞, and it is +∞ on the Cantor set. But you get very odd behavior allowing functions whose derivative is infinite, the sum and difference of such functions may no longer have derivatives at every point etc. But I believe the statement is correct, at least I have a (trivial) proof of it. But it would still be nice to have a reference, since it is not so standard to allow the function to have infinite derivatives. Most likely it is an exercise somewhere. Thenub314 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The following generalization is not true: The mean value theorem is still valid in a slightly more general setting. One only needs to assume that f : [a, b] → R is continuous on [a, b], and that for every x in (a, b) the limit

 * $$\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}$$

exists as a finite number or equals +∞ or −∞. If finite, that limit equals f' (x). The limit cannot be infinite. Take for example the following function on interval [0, 1]

\begin{align} f(x) & = 0 \qquad & 0 \le x < 0.5 \\ f(x) & = 2x-1 \qquad & 0.5 \le x \le 1 \\ \end{align} $$ According to the theorem, there should be c such that f' (c) = 1. There isn't any, f' (x) equals to 0, 2, and +∞ only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.165.70 (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi. In your example the required limit does not exist at x = 0.5 and it does not show that the generalization is not true. --Bdmy (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Vector-valued generalization
I'm very tried, so maybe I'm asking a stupid question, but I thought that the mean-value theorem is false for a vector-valued function. In fact, I added a counterexample a couple of days ago. (I think I'm just missing something trivial, but just can't figure what it is.) -- Taku (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Note that the vecor-valued generalization claimed is NOT an exact analog of the MVT for real-valued functions. I have added a proof for the version claimed, so it should be easier to understand now. To prove the estimation if Df is bounded one needs that the norm of an integral of a vector-valued function is less than or equal to the integral of the norm of that function, but I felt this isn't the right place to provide a proof of that fact. If required it can be added of course.--Chris Barista (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Never mind. I've made the generalization an independent section and now there are proofs for all claims in that section. I also tried to provide some intuition why the mean value theorem in its usual form doesn't apply to vector-valued functions.--Chris Barista (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 * First of all, the short explanation you put is very nice: if you can explain, then that's much better than a mere counterexample. Second, I'm still not sure about the vector-valued version. Isn't that version essentially the same as the fundamental theorem of calculus, written in a compact form for multi-variables. This is not surprising since we're assuming that a function is continuously differentiable. The point of the mean value theorem, as I understand, is that it applies to the case (i) when the function isn't differentiable, and (ii) the derivative actually attains a value so that the equation is satisfied. This point is much more than technicality. The theorem is often used to prove that the continuos differentiability or differentiability in a tricky setting. If you can apply the FTC, the FTC is usually better since one can obtain a better estimate. (Ok, we should stress this point in the article.) -- Taku (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with proof?
Unless I'm very much mistaken, the proof of the First mean value theorem for integration given in this article doesn't actually prove what it claims. The statement it's claiming to prove is:
 * ... there exists a number x in (a, b) such that...

And what it actually proves is:
 * ... there exists x in [ a, b ] such that...

Obviously the former condition is more restrictive than the latter, so the proof is not actually proving the former statement. Unfortunately, one cannot simply change the closed interval to an open one because the conclusion of the intermediate value theorem, upon which this one is based, refers to a closed interval, not an open one. - dcljr (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 * You're right. I've altered the statement of the theorem to refer to the closed interval rather than the open interval.  I've also modified the proof.  The intermediate value theorem won't do the trick unless the sup and inf are actually attained.  The fact that a continuous function on a closed bounded interval attains its extreme values is a separate result that needs to be mentioned.  We should probably also link to those results. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 * But what is the exact statement of the theorem? Does it refer to a closed interval? open one? (Actually I have never seen this version of mean value theorem outside Wikipedia.) -- Taku (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if I've seen it elsewhere or not. I'll look around........ Michael Hardy (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"M v t" vs. "M-v t": spelling
I believe the correct spelling of this should be the latter, i.e. "mean-value theorem". After all, it's not a very mean theorem ;-) We have a redirect from "m-v t" to "m v t", whereas Wolfram has a redirect from "m v t" to "m-v t". Papppfaffe (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 * You have a point but I have never seen "mean-value theorem". Maybe this isn't a big deal since there is only one mean value theorem, no ambiguity is a possibility. -- Taku (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, according to English compound, hyphens are generally not used for compound adjectives in case no ambiguity is possible. Now the question is of course whether one should think ambiguity is possible here.  Looking at Special:PrefixIndex/mean, the general consensus appears to be "no," so let me rest my case. Papppfaffe (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the spelling should be without the hyphen. I supposed I am influenced by the books I am familiar with, in this case the word mean is being use as a synonym for average, and I do not think it is appropriate to hyphenate average value.  I think more telling than Wolfram is that Spivak, Hughes-Hallet et al, Stewart all opt for the non-hyphenated version. Thenub314 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is beating a dead horse, but just for comparison we have central limit theorem as opposed to "central-limit theorem". -- 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Based on the etymology of the term I've read (source unknown), the Central Limit Theorem is not a theorem about a "central limit", it's a limit theorem that is central, hence the hyphen would be incorrect. - dcljr (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 * In this case I think it's preferable to follow dominant usage in the mathematical community, rather than "correct" usage. I'd only consider correctness a deciding factor if both were prevalent in textbooks and publications. Dcoetzee 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Gauss's mean value theorem
Could someone with more knowledge then me add a section about Gauss's mean value theorem, see Mathworld --ojs (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Isn't it the same as Cauchy's integral formula? (Just make a change of variable to get this from the usual formulation.) In other words, unrelated. -- Taku (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't know if it is the same, I would then like to see the derivation since Gauss's formula is in the complex plane, but Cauchy's in the real plane. --ojs (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Smooth vs. Differentiable
In the header the hypothesis for the theorem is that the function is smooth. However, in the formal statement and the proof, all that is mentioned is differentiability. I've changed the statement in the header. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Last Octagon (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 September 2009
 * The term "smooth" is often used to indicate some amount of differentiability. I think it's more appropriate here in the informal header section (which is just supposed to give a rough idea of the theorem), as it makes the article appeal to a wider audience (people can have a rough intuitive idea of what "smooth" is but might not know "differentiable").  As such, I've put "smooth" back in, but left "differentiable" after it in brackets, so all audiences are catered for... Tcnuk (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * No. The term smooth is the second of two conditions required for differentiability. The first is continuity. Smoothness occurs in an interval where only one tangent line can be constructed at each point (except for inflection points). Differentiability means continuous and smooth. There is no "smooth versus differentiable". 2601:646:8B82:E709:4B5:21D:20FC:91F3 (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 * The problem with this is that 'smooth' is a precise mathematical term meaning that a function is infinitely differentiable, which doesn't have to be the case here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.70 (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Positive feedback
I just wanted to say that as a second semester Calculus student I love the intuitive way the first two paragraphs describe the theorem! This is quite unlike most wikipedia articles about math topics (granted, many topics simply are very hard to explain layman's terms). I think its very good idea to put a rough and potentially incomplete but easy to grasp summary of a topic somewhere near the introduction of an article. -HannesJvV- (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I second that.........I am seeing a few other similar comments in other technical articles discussions within Wiki. Most articles still need 'dumb-down' introductions to be added though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.240.11 (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Picture!
I think that the picture given in the Cauchy's mean value theoram section does not depict a function. Reason? draw a vertical line and it intersects the graph of the function at more than one point! Hope somebody changes this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryamp (talk • contribs) 10:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The picture is generated from two separate functions, f(t) and g(t). If you drew two separate plots, one of t and f(t), and one of t and g(t), you would find that f and g both pass the vertical line test. Strad (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Government of Beijing celebrates the mean value theorem
WTF???

There is no reference to this picture in the text. How does this picture help with the understanding of the Mean value theorem?

Proof of ( * )
I have a question about how did you get the third equality in proving (*) ?

Mohammad 99 (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Role of Lagrange
Notice that in the section 'Generalization for determinants' it is stated 'we get Lagrange's mean value theorem'. In no place in the article is the mean value theorem described as Lagrange's mean value theorem (except for a redirect). Either this should be removed, or the connection to Lagrange should be explained (or the lack of connection). In a lot of textbooks this theorem is indeed named Lagrange's theorem. Wishcow 06:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wishcow (talk • contribs)

Nonexistent reference
I just removed a reference ''"On the second mean value theorem of integral". Mathematics, edited by theMath. Soc., Vol. 1 (1947).'' which does not appear to actually exist. The only google results for it were Wikipedia, and I could not find anything matching it in MathSciNet. 130.60.188.209 (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added a new reference to an article by Hobson in 1909 and accordingly also removed the text claiming "This variant was proved by Hiroshi Okamura in 1947." Since precisely the same formulation was known in 1909 it cannot have been proved by Okamura in 1947, and MathSciNet also turned up no results for Okamura and mean value theorems. There had been a 'citation needed' tag on the claim since 2007 so I think it is high time to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.188.209 (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

First Mean Value Theorem for Definite Integrals: proof is incorrect
In the last paragraph of "First Mean Value Theorem for Definite Integrals" it's claimed that there exists c in the open (!) interval (a,b). The proof uses only c in the closed (!) interval [a,b]. I think, it can be proven for the open interval as well, but don't know how. Can anyone correct this?

Kegelkugel (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, I see the problem too. For now, I have added a note saying the proof is a proof of the weak version. Eventually the proof should be modified to prove the claimed statement (maybe I can do it when I find free time.) Shouldn’t it be hard, right?? —- Taku (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Complex generalisation
Is there really a need to split into the real part and the imaginary part? Isn't it equivalent to just say f'(u)=(f(b)-f(a))/(b-a)? 84.211.101.246 (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Because the mean value theorem requires that we can compare numbers and we can’t compare complex numbers? The complex-valued function version seems to be just a special case of a vector-valued version to me (and I don’t know why you need holomorphic) —- Taku (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure you can compare complex numbers, when the comparison is equality rather than greater-than. And holomorphicity is needed for f' to make sense. It is also needed to distinguish it from a vector-valued function in that it makes sure the u used in the real part is the same as the u used in the complex part. Ultimately, though, you have a complex number f'(u) and you have a complex number (f(b) - f(a))/(b-a), and the article says their real parts are equal and their imaginary parts are equal. I wonder why you can't just say the two complex numbers are equal. MasterHigure (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 * By "compare" I meant inequality since the usual proof of Rolle's theorem (a special case of the mean value theorem) uses inequalities. (I have just noticed there is a discussion of generalization to other fields at Rolle%27s_theorem.) As for holomorphicity, no holomorphicity means the Cauchy–Riemann equations are satisfied; the differentiability is enough for f' to be defined. You said "u used in the real part is the same as the u used in the complex part. " but that's not the statement in the article; the vector you find for the real part is different from one from the imaginary part. (Not surprising since this is exactly the issue for vector-valued functions.) -- Taku (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't notice that u and v were different symbols. That being said: Complex differentiable does actually mean holomorphic (and also analytic). These three terms mean different things, but they are equivalent in the case of complex-valued functions in the complex plane. So yes, holomorphicity is needed if you want the derivative of f to be a single complex number (two real degrees of freedom for the value of the derivative at any given point), as opposed to a real-differentiable vector field in the plane (four real degrees of freedom). MasterHigure (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 * By differentiability, I didn't mean complex-differentiability (which as you said means holomorphic) and for the existence of $$f'$$ when f is viewed as a function in two variables, you don't need complex-differentiability. Having said that, I now understand the difference from the several-var version; you divide by the complex number b-a, which is different from the dot product (so, apparently, holomorphicity is needed). I would love to see the proof, though (so I can see how holomorphicity is used). -- Taku (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Practical application
There was an example in the lede that applied this theorem to average speed and instantaneous speed that was removed at some point

It’s been a while since I did calculus, so I forgot the exact name after I read a news article about average speed trapping (I initially confused it with the midpoint theorem).

Given that average speed trapping is probably the most common scenario where most people will encounter the application of this theorem, it might be worthwhile referencing this in the article. Park3r (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mean value theorem


text:
Jules Cotard

Jules Cotard (1 June 1840 – 19 August 1889) was a French physician who practiced neurology and psychiatry. He is best known for first describing the Cotard delusion, a patient's delusional belief that they are dead, do not exist or do not have bodily organs.

Education
He studied medicine in Paris and later went on to work as an intern at Hospice de la Salpêtrière, where he worked for, among others, Jean-Martin Charcot.

Career
Cotard became particularly interested in cerebrovascular accidents (commonly known as 'strokes') and their consequences and undertook autopsies to better understand how these affected the brain. In 1869, Cotard left Salpêtrière, and at the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War, he joined an infantry regiment as a regimental surgeon. Cotard moved to the town of Vanves in 1874, where he remained for the last 15 years of his life. He made particular contributions to the understanding of diabetes and delusions. In August 1889, Cotard's daughter contracted diphtheria and he reportedly refused to leave her bedside for 15 days until she recovered. He eventually contracted diphtheria himself and died on 19 August.

In popular culture
Jules Cotard served as the real-life model for the character of Dr. Cottard in the Marcel Proust novel In Search of Lost Time.

In the film Synecdoche, New York, protagonist Caden Cotard is a reference to the Cotard Delusion.

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

title: Jules Cotard


text:
Korab (mountain)

Korab (Maja e Korabit or Mali i Korabit; Голем Кораб) is the highest peak of the eponymous mountain range and the fourth-highest mountain located entirely in the Balkan Peninsula, standing at 2764 m.

Situated on the border between the two countries, Korab is the highest peak of both Albania and North Macedonia and is also one of only two summits in Europe to be the highest point for more than one country. It is also the 18th most prominent mountain peak in Europe and the third on the Balkan Peninsula.

Korab is situated within the Korab-Koritnik Nature Park. It is noted for its rich flora, including species such as Bosnian pine, European beech and alder.

The peak lies next to the Šar Mountains and is part of the national emblem of North Macedonia.

Geography
The Korab range stretches over 40 km in a north–south direction between the lower section of the Black Drin and its tributary the Radika. It is around the border triangle of Albania, North Macedonia and Kosovo, southwest of the Šar Mountains.

The peak is a very rugged mountain massif consisting mainly of shale and limestone of the Paleozoic period with block structures, as well as severely damaged gypsum rocks of Permo Triassic. On the west side, the mountain falls steeply over rock walls. The north side consists of craggy rocks. A kind of double peak, that of Korab II 2751 m is about 150 m northwest of the peak within Albanian territory. On the same ridge are two other peaks rising over 2700 m: Shulani i Radomirës and Korab III. The southeast, stretching from a few rock bands broken by meadows to the summit is easily accessed, and occasionally by shepherds with their flocks of sheep.

In addition to the Korab peak, there are several other, almost equally high elevations. North of the twin peaks are numerous other nameless, almost equally high rock towers. The peak about 2 km to the southwest, Korab-gate (Albanian: Maja e Portës së Korabit; Macedonian: Korapska Mala vrata) reaches 2727 m. A few hundred metres south is another peak, Maja e Moravës, which is only a little lower at 2718 m.

The peaks are occasionally interrupted by radial tectonics in the shape of blocks that end in the Radika valley on North Macedonia's side. Some of these blocks have steep slopes reaching up to 500 m. In its highest part, above 2000 m, the climate is alpine and includes some alpine flora elements.

The mountain is home to the spectacular Korab Falls in the upper valley of the Dlaboka River. In springtime, the waterfall reaches a height of over 130 meters, making it the highest in North Macedonia. The state border intersects the higher peak, Great Korab.

Ascent from the Macedonian side involves entering the Macedonian–Albanian boundary area, for which a special permit is required from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of North Macedonia, although people regularly trek on Korab without it.

The two main passes in the Korab ridge are the Little Korab Gate (2465 m) and Big Korab Gate (2062 m).

The mountain has a number of sub-peaks that are higher than 2000 metres. These include Korab II (unnamed peak) 2756 m, Korab III (unnamed peak) 2724 m, Korab Gates (peak) 2727 m, Maja e Moravës 2718 m, Shulani i Radomirës 2716 m and Small Korab 2683 m.

Climbing
There are no formal restrictions on climbing the mountain from the Albanian side. The area is now safer and more stable than it has been in recent times. It is possible to drive as far as the local village of Radomira, but the local infrastructure is generally not good. A four-wheel drive vehicle with high clearance may be required. There are no accurate and up-to-date maps, local signposting is poor, and hikers may have to overcome the additional problem of aggressive dogs. It is also possible to ascend from the North Macedonia side, starting at the Strezimir border outpost. When approaching from North Macedonia, hikers will be required to report to the border checkpoint and present their passport. An international expedition to climb Mount Korab is organised each September by the mountain club PSD "Korab" in Skopje.

title: Korab (mountain)


text:
Talk:Joseph-Louis Lagrange

Ethnicity ?
Citizenship is not about ethnicity. Italy didn't exist in 1736. Lagrange was born in Turin part of States of Savoy. He should be addressed as Savoyard or Piedmontese (principality of Piedmont). Julius Caesar is addressed as Roman not as Italian.

Otherwise, it should be mentioned that he was of French descent from his father and mother, in particular descendant of Descartes. I added a reference from the french Senate to prove it : https://www.senat.fr/evenement/archives/D30/lagrange.html

Speaking of ethnicity, both parents' last names are French. Lagrange signed his name 'Lagrange', which means 'the barn' in French.

91.168.147.106 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)xxx

Formost mathemetician?
In 1761, Lagrange stood without a rival as the foremost mathematician living.

Greater than Leonhard Euler?

 * Nothing will be gained by a long discussion of mathematical greatness.

Lagrange Citizenship
The issue of Lagrange's nationality/ethnicity has been discussed at length some years ago (for example here ). First of all, the word "Italian" has nothing to do with the existence of an Italian state, but with the ethnicity. An "Italian nation" has existed at least since the 13th century, and there is general consensus about it. Dante was Italian, Leonardo da Vinci (another famous person who spent the last years of his life in France) Italian, and so on, as much as Luther was German before the birth of a German national state. Back to Lagrange, he was Italian, born in Italy, moved to Germany and finally to France. But the main point is not this, but that the mention of an ethnicity in a biography is regulated by WP:ETHNICITY, a part of the manual of style. In the lead of a biography should be mentioned the ethnicity of a person when he/she became notable, and not the others. In the case of Lagrange this is the Italian one, because when he left Turin for Berlin he was already known without any doubt as one of the most important mathematicians in Europe. Adopting the same criterium, Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel prize for physics born in Genoa, for Wikipedia is not Italian, but American, since he moved to the U.S. before he discovered anything. One can agree or not about this way of defining the ethnicity, and can try to change it (I did some years ago, but without success), but the important thing it is that this is part of a guideline, and as such can be enforced (the last discussion about Lagrange ended with a block of the other person) and spares a lot of discussions and edit warring. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Of course Lagrange became a French citizen, was a senator of the French Empire, and asked for the annexation of his homeland - Piedmont - to the Empire. None contests it. But, as you can read above, there is a Guideline of the manual of Style that should be respected, and this is the only reason why we write here only "Italian". If you are not happy with this guideline, we can open a thread on the Manual of Style discussion page and we can try to change it (I am not happy with it either). Alex2006 (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly you seem to interpret a guideline as a policy. Secondly, when you refer to a guideline, you must not misinterpret it, as it is the case here. In fact MOS:CONTEXTBIO says . Applied here, this means clearly that French citizenship must appear in the first sentence. So, I'll revert you again, as, for the moment, there is a consensus (two against one) against your opinion. D.Lazard (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a long standing description of Lagrange as an Italian in this article, which is in accordance with WP:ETHNICITY. If anybody wishes to change it, he or she must first reach a new general consensus on this matter. Sapphorain (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks a lot for your comment, which shows that this article is still on your watchpage. :-) I propose to all of you to open a joint thread on the Lead Section discussion page to change the WP:OPENPARA guideline, which for sure as it is written now is suboptimal. I tried four year ago but have been plainly ignored, maybe with three people it will be different. 12:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree that the first sentence is in accordance with WP:ETHNICITY. The targets of WP:ETHNICITY and MOS:CONTEXTBIO are the same, and both contain the above quotation. He was from French and Italian descent. During the 26 last years of his life, he was a French citizen, a permanent resident of Paris (France), and occupied positions that are normally reserved to citizens (such as senator). Beside his scientific production (which is not specifically linked to a geographical or ethnical context), it is also notable for activities that are specifically linked to France (Member of the sénat conservateur, member of the founder board of the Bureau des Longitudes, one of the five members of the French commission that has elaborated the metric system (see History of the metric system), etc. So, mentioning only its Italian citizenship (and descent) in the first sentence goes against WP:ETHNICITY but also against WP:NPOV, which is a policy. D.Lazard (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Not mentioning the French-ness of Lagrange in the opening sentence leaves us with an unbalanced summary of who he was. Attic Salt (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To and : I am sorry that none of you read, or maybe understood, what I wrote above. Here the problem is not the "frenchness" of Lagrange (I know the biography of Lagrange quite well, and I knew already what DLazard writes about its activities in France), but a guideline of the manual of style: four year ago I went to ANI for this, and the outcome was clear. Please read the discussion at the ANI (I put the link above, but maybe you did not notice it), and understand the reasons why a double nationality/ethnicity in the lead presently is NOT allowed. The right way to change the lead is a change in the guideline. Why don't we go all four to the manual of style discussion page and try to change this part of the guideline bringing the arguments that DLazard brought here (forgetting please the french descent, since here we are talking about a great - grandparent out of eight, and if we would apply everywhere the same benchmark we would have three - four ethnicities for each American biography's lead, and near Napoleon we should write "Italian" - ;-))? Bye  Alex2006 (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, a guideline is not a policy, and, even in the case of a policy, WP:IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. So your administative arguments are totally irrelevant here. I had a look at the previous discussion. It was not very conclusive, as being not formally closed. Among arguments, in favor of your view, one is relevant: It is against having two citizenships linked by a hyphen. I agree with this. I have thus edited the article by writing "Italian and French", which is an unambiguous and corresponds to article content. Again, there is no rule that can forbid that, and, if there is one, it it worth to ignore it here. By the way, Napoleon was never Italian, it was Corsican and French. D.Lazard (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hallo, ,  since actually I am not happy with this rule too, what do you think if we try to use here my ignored proposal at the manual of style? I edited the article, but feel free to change it if you don't think that it is ok. I think that in such cases there should be a difference between ethnicity and nationality. The acquisition of the French nationality changed the nationality of Lagrange, but not its ethnicity, that's why we use "naturalised". BTW, this de-potentiates also the main objection of the creator of the Ethnicity Rule in ANI, who affirms that one cannot be A and B at the same time. We separate the definitions, ethnic and national. P.S. About Napoleon, a Corsican ethnicity was born (slowly) after the annexation to France: before 1768, Corsica was a region of Italy, and the Corsican were ethnically Italian. You can read the letters of Pasquale Paoli about it, they are very instructive. There is also a lot of good literature in French about the genesis of the Corsican identity: a good introduction is in "La Guide de la Corse", by George Ravis-Giorndani, who is an ethnologist. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Interest in maths when 17
I find it pretty crazy that a guy this intelligent who made such contributions to science only showed interest at 17. This is a clear example of late bloomer Kwiky (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Importance/location on page of the Lagrange character in Arcaea
There is a single-sentence paragraph at the end of the main section on Lagrange's page that states:

"In 2020, mobile rhythm game Arcaea posthumously released a character named after him for the Arcaea Song Contest 2020 Grand Prize."

To me, that seems like an incredibly trivial detail about Lagrange. It has no business being in the main portion of his article. Note that the game in question -- Arcaea -- is not a particularly popular or culturally relevant game, as evidenced by how brief its own Wikipedia article is. It's a stub, despite being a game that was first released more than 6 years ago. Perhaps this fact best belongs in a new section near the bottom of the article, like a "Legacy" or "References in popular culture" section? Regardless, it certainly doesn't belong where it currently is.

I don't feel that I have enough experience to make a change as large as moving this/creating an entirely new section for an article this large and important / about such an important figure. I'm hoping that someone else here better knows where this should go.

Any thoughts? Phatmatt12188 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 * I was looking up Lagrange and that sentence struck me as trivial.
 * Delete it. 74.87.54.86 (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Joseph-Louis Lagrange


text:
Fee tail

In English common law, fee tail or entail, or tailzie in Scots law, is a form of trust, established by deed or settlement, that restricts the sale or inheritance of an estate in real property and prevents that property from being sold, devised by will, or otherwise alienated by the tenant-in-possession, and instead causes it to pass automatically, by operation of law, to an heir determined by the settlement deed. The terms fee tail and tailzie are from Medieval Latin feodum talliatum, which means "cut(-short) fee". Fee tail deeds are in contrast to "fee simple" deeds, possessors of which have an unrestricted title to the property, and are empowered to bequeath or dispose of it as they wish (although it may be subject to the allodial title of a monarch or of a governing body with the power of eminent domain). Equivalent legal concepts exist or formerly existed in many other European countries and elsewhere; in Scots law tailzie was codified in an Act of 1685 which in 1896 was given a short title as an Entail Act.

Most common law jurisdictions have abolished fee tails or greatly restricted their use. They survive in limited form in England and Wales, but have been abolished in Scotland, Ireland, and all but four states of the United States.

Purpose
The fee tail allowed a patriarch to perpetuate his blood-line, family-name, honour and armorials in the persons of a series of powerful and wealthy male descendants. By keeping his estate intact in the hands of one heir alone, in an ideally indefinite and pre-ordained chain of succession, his own wealth, power and family honour would not be dissipated amongst several male lines, as became the case for example in Napoleonic France by operation of the Napoleonic Code which gave each child the legal right to inherit an equal share of the patrimony, where a formerly great landowning family could be reduced in a few generations to a series of small-holders or peasant farmers. It therefore approaches the true corporation which is a legal body or person which does not die and continues in existence and can hold wealth indefinitely.

Indeed, as a form of trust, whilst the individual trustees may die, replacements are appointed and the trust itself continues, ideally indefinitely. In England almost seamless successions were made from patriarch to patriarch, the smoothness of which were often enhanced by baptising the eldest son and heir with his father's Christian name for several generations, for example the FitzWarin family, all named Fulk. Such indefinite inalienable land-holdings were soon seen as restrictive on the optimum productive ability of land, which was often converted to deer-parks or pleasure grounds by the wealthy tenant-in-possession, which was damaging to the nation as a whole, and thus laws against perpetuities were enacted, which restricted entails to a maximum number of lives.

An entail also had the effect of disallowing illegitimate children from inheriting. It created complications for many propertied families, especially from about the late 17th to the early 19th century, leaving many individuals wealthy in land but heavily in debt, often due to annuities chargeable on the estate payable to the patriarch's widow and younger children, where the patriarch was swayed by sentiment not to establish a strict concentration of all his wealth in his heir leaving his other beloved relatives destitute. Frequently in such cases the generosity of the settlor left the entailed estate as an uneconomical enterprise, especially during times when the estate's fluctuating agricultural income had to provide for fixed sum annuities. Such impoverished tenants-in-possession were unable to realise in cash any part of their land or even to offer the property as security for a loan, to pay such annuities, unless sanctioned by private Act of Parliament allowing such sale, which expensive and time-consuming mechanism was frequently resorted to. The beneficial owner (or tenant-in-possession) of the property in fact had only a life interest in it, albeit an absolute right to the income it generated, the legal owners being the trustees of the settlement, with the remainder passing intact to the next successor or heir in law; any purported bequest of the land by the tenant-in-possession was ineffective.

History
Fee tail was established during feudal times by landed gentry to attempt to ensure that the high social standing of the family, as represented by a single patriarch, continued indefinitely. The concentration of the family's wealth into the hands of a single representative was essential to support this process. Unless the heir had himself inherited the personal and intellectual strengths of the original great patriarch, often a great warrior, which alone had brought him from obscurity to greatness, he would soon sink again into obscurity, and required wealth to maintain his social standing. This feature of English gentry and aristocracy differs from the aristocracy which existed in pre-Revolution France, where all sons of a nobleman inherited his title and were thus inescapably members of a separate noble caste in society. Little-known, France then had one of the lowest ratios of noble families to population, in Europe. The accepted rule was however largely compensated by written or notarized wills which allowed fathers to favour, within certain limits, a first-born son. In England, primogeniture provided that an estate would be inherited entirely by the first-born legitimate son of a nobleman and that, accordingly, subsequent sons were born as mere gentlemen and commoners. Without the support of wealth, these younger sons might quickly descend into obscurity, and often did. On this eldest son was concentrated the honour of the family, and to him alone was granted all its wealth to support his role in that regard, by the process of the fee tail.

The effects of English primogeniture and entail have been significant plot details or themes in a number of notable works of English literature. (See some examples cited below.)

Statute of Westminster 1285
The Statute of Westminster II, passed in 1285, created and fixed the form of this estate. The new law was also formally called the statute De Donis Conditionalibus (Concerning Conditional Gifts).

Opponents
Fee tail was never popular with the monarchy, the merchant class and many holders of entailed estates themselves who wished to sell or divide their land.

Abolition
Fee tail as a legal estate in England was abolished by the Law of Property Act 1925.

Continuing use
A fee tail can still exist in England and Wales as an equitable interest, behind a strict settlement; the legal estate is vested in the current 'tenant for life' or other person immediately entitled to the income, but on the basis that any capital money arising must be paid to the settlement trustees. A tenant in tail in possession can bar his fee tail by a simple disentailing deed, which does not now have to be enrolled. A tenant in tail in reversion (i.e., a future interest where the property is subject to prior life interest) needs the consent of the life tenant and any 'special protectors' to vest a reversionary fee simple in himself. Otherwise he can only create a base fee; a base fee only confers a right to the property on its owner, when its creator would have become entitled to it; if its creator dies before he would have received it, the owner of the base fee gets nothing. No new "fees tail" can now be created following the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.

In the US, conservation easements are a form of entail still in use.

Creation
Traditionally, a fee tail was created by a trust established in a deed, often a marriage settlement, or in a will "to A and the heirs of his body". The crucial difference between the words of conveyance and the words that created a fee simple ("to A and his heirs") is that the heirs "in tail" must be the children begotten by the landowner. It was also possible to have "fee tail male", which only sons could inherit, and "fee tail female", which only daughters could inherit; and "fee tail special", which had a further condition of inheritance, usually restricting succession to certain "heirs of the body" and excluding others. Land subject to these conditions was said to be "entailed" or "held in-tail", with the restrictions themselves known as entailments.

Breaking of fee tail
The breaking of a fee tail was simplified by the Fines and Recoveries Act 1833, which allowed the holders of property in tail to file a disentailing assurance freeing them from its conditions; such a document needed to be enrolled. This obviated the previous method of breaking entails, the arcane legal fictions that enabled the system of common recovery.

The requirement that a disentailing assurance should be enrolled was abolished in 1926.

Mortgage of entailed lands
Lending upon security of a mortgage on land in fee tail was risky, since at the death of the tenant-in-possession, his personal estate ceased to have any right to the estate or to the income it generated. The absolute right to the income generated by the estate passed by operation of law to parties who had no legal obligation to the lender, who therefore could not enforce payment of interest on the new tenants-in-possession. The largest estate a possessor in fee tail could convey to someone else was an estate for the term of the grantor's own life. If all went as planned, it was therefore impossible for the succession of patriarchs to lose the land, which was the idea.

Failure of issue
Things did not always go as planned, however. Tenants-in-possession of entailed estates occasionally suffered "failure of issue" – that is, they had no legitimate children surviving them at the time of their deaths. In this situation the entailed land devolved to male cousins, i.e., back up and through the family tree to legitimate male descendants of former tenants-in-possession, or reverted to the last owner in fee simple, if still living. This situation produced complicated litigation and was an incentive for the production and maintenance of detailed and authoritative family pedigrees and supporting records of marriage, births, baptisms etc.

Depending on how the original deed or grant was worded, in the event of there being daughters but no sons, all the sisters might inherit jointly, it might pass to the eldest sister, it might be held in trust until one of them should produce a (legitimate) son, or it might pass to the next male-line relative (an uncle, say, or even a cousin, sometimes very distant). The last possibility, commonly called 'entailment to heirs male', is used in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice; the estate of Longbourn is entailed to a distant male cousin rather than the incumbent's five daughters or their offspring.

Common recovery
In the 15th century, lawyers devised "common recovery", an elaborate legal procedure which used collaborative lawsuits and legal fictions to "bar" a fee tail, that is to say to remove the restrictions of fee tail from land and to enable its conveyance in fee simple. Biancalana's book The Fee Tail and the Common Recovery in Medieval England: 1176–1502 (2001) discusses the procedure and its history at length.

Resettlement
In the 17th and 18th centuries the practice arose whereby when the son came of age (at 21), he and his father acting together could bar the existing fee tail, and could then re-settle the land in fee tail, again on the father for life, then to the son for life and his heirs male successively, but at the same time making provision for annuities chargeable on the estate for the father's widow, daughters and younger sons, and most importantly, and as an incentive for the son to participate in the re-settlement, an income for the son during his father's lifetime. This process effectively evaded the law against perpetuities, as the entail in law had been terminated, but in practice continued. In this way an estate could stay in a family for many generations, yet emerged on re-settlement often fatally weakened, or much more susceptible to agricultural downturns, from the onerous annuities now chargeable on it.

Formedon
Formedon (or form down etc.) was a right of writ exercisable by a holder in fee for claiming property entailed by a lessee beyond the terms of his feoffment. A letter dated 1539 from the Lisle Letters describes the circumstances of its use: I received your ladyship's letter by which ye willed me to speak with my Lady Coffyn for her title in East Haggynton in the county of Devon who had one estate in tail to him and to his heirs of her body begotten; and now he is dead without issue of his body so that the reversion should revert to Mr John Basset and to his heirs so there be no let nor discontinuance of the same made by Sir William Coffyn in his life. Howbeit Mr Richard Coffyn, next heir to Sir William Coffyn, claimeth the same by his uncle's feoffment to him and to his heirs so that the law will put Mr John Basset from his entry and to compel him to take his action of form down which is much dilatory as Mr Basset knoweth

Marquess of Hertford
An English example of a fee tail may be the main estates of the wealthy art collector Richard Seymour-Conway, 4th Marquess of Hertford (d. 1870). His only child was his illegitimate son, Sir Richard Wallace, 1st Baronet, to whom he left as much of his property as he could. The main land holdings and Ragley Hall were inherited by his distant cousin, Francis Seymour, 5th Marquess of Hertford, descended from a younger son of the 1st Marquess who had died in 1794. Most of the 4th Marquess's art collection had been acquired by himself or his father, went to Wallace, and is now the Wallace Collection. Other works were covered by the fee tail, however, and passed to the 5th Marquess.

Earl of Pembroke
Another example was George Herbert, 11th Earl of Pembroke, who died in 1827. He had quarreled with his eldest son, later the 12th Earl, and left his unentailed estate to Sidney Herbert, 1st Baron Herbert of Lea, his son by a second marriage.

Fees tail in fiction
Fees tail figure in the plots of several well known novels and stories, particularly in the 19th century, including:

 * Pride and Prejudice (1813) by Jane Austen
 * Guy Mannering (1815) by Walter Scott – inheritance of an estate goes to an heir of tailzie.
 * Middlemarch (1871–1872) by George Eliot
 * The Belton Estate (1866) and Ralph the Heir (1871) by Anthony Trollope
 * The Master of Ballantrae (1889) by Robert Louis Stevenson
 * Kidnapped (1886) by Robert Louis Stevenson mentions it by implication in a dispute over the House of Shaws that drives the plot
 * The Adventure of the Priory School by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
 * Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh
 * Wideacre by Philippa Gregory
 * The Quincunx by Charles Palliser (written in 1989, but it takes the form of a Dickensian mystery set in early-19th-century England)
 * Downton Abbey by Julian Fellowes (written in 2009–2015, but set in England in the period 1912–1927)
 * To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee (referred to as an "entailment")
 * Wives and Daughters by Elizabeth Gaskell

Pride and Prejudice
Pride and Prejudice contains a particularly thorny example of the kind of problems which could arise through the entailing of property. Mr. Bennet, the father of protagonist Elizabeth Bennet, had only a life interest in the Longbourn estate, the family's home and principal source of income. He had no authority to dictate to whom it should pass upon his death, as it was strictly arranged to be inherited by the next male heir. Had Mr. Bennet fathered a son it would have passed to him, but since he did not it could not pass to any of his five daughters. Instead, the next nearest male heir would inherit the property—Mr. Bennet's cousin, William Collins, a boorish minister in his mid-twenties. The inheritance of the Longbourn property completely excluded the five Bennet daughters, who were thus to lose their home and income upon their father's death. The need for the daughters to make a good marriage to ensure their future security is a key motivation for many episodes in the novel. Many fees tail arose from wills, rather than from marriage settlements which usually made some provision for daughters. Austen was very familiar with the law of entail; her brother, Edward, had inherited similarly entailed estates at Chawton, Godmersham and Winchester from distant cousins under the will of Elizabeth Knight, who died in 1737.

Law professor Maureen B. Collins (2017) cites several other authors debating the accuracy of Austen's depiction of the entailment, including Appel (2013), Treitel (1984), Redmond (1989), and Grover (2014).

Scotland
In Scots law, the word tailzie "comes from the French Word tailier, to cut," implying "cutting the ordinary Line of Succession, and giving the Estate to others than those to whom it would have descended by Law." By the late 18th century it was also known as entail, but the archaic spelling continued in law books. The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (section 50) abolished all feudal tenures including the entail. Today, the doctrines of legitim and jus relictae restrict owners from willing property out of their family when they die with children or have a surviving partner.

A Scottish example of entail is the case of Alfred Douglas-Hamilton, 13th Duke of Hamilton, who in 1895 inherited from the 12th Duke, his fourth cousin, who had attempted to marry his daughter to the heir.

Ireland
In the Republic of Ireland, Section 13 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 largely abolished the fee tail and converted existing fees tail to fees simple. For constitutional reasons, this section is subject to a saving clause which prevents the conversion of fees tail to fees simple where the protector of the settlement is still alive. Therefore, some fees tail still exist in the state.

United States
The fee tail has been abolished in all but four states in the United States: Massachusetts, Maine, Delaware and Rhode Island. However, in the first three states, property can be sold or deeded as any other property would be, with the fee tail only applying in case of death without a will. In Rhode Island, a fee tail is treated as a life estate with remainder in the life tenant's children. New York abolished fee tail in 1782, while many other states within the U.S. never recognized it at all. In most states in the United States, an attempt to create a fee tail results in a fee simple; even in those four states that still allow fee tail, the estate holder may convert his fee tail to a fee simple during his lifetime by executing a deed.

In Louisiana, the common law concept of estates in land never existed. The concept of forced heirship and the marital portion protects force heirs and surviving spouses from total divestment of value of the estate of the decedent, who has a duty to provide for their care.

Fee tail-like restrictions still exist though contractual obligations. For example, owners of inholdings inside public lands may be prevented from selling or giving their land to non-family members. In this case, the restrictions result from an agreement between the government and the land owner, and is not a part of a deed or settlement.

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, fee tail estates were called ordynacja (landed property in fideicommis). Ordynacja was an economic institution for governing of landed property introduced in late 16th century by king Stefan Batory. Ordynacja was abolished by the agricultural reform in the People's Republic of Poland. Ordynat was the title of the principal heir of ordynacja.

According to the rules of ordynacja, which became a statute approved by the Sejm, the estate was not to be divided between the heirs but inherited in full by the eldest son (primogeniture). Women were excluded from inheritance (Salic Law). Ordynacja could not be sold or mortgaged.

Ordynacja was similar to the French law of majorat or German and Scandinavian fideicommis, and succession to such resembles that of British peerages.

Many Polish magnates' fortunes were based on ordynacja, among them those of the Radziwiłłs, Zamoyskis, Czartoryskis, Potockis and Lubomirskis. Most important ordynacja were veritable little principalities. The earliest and most extensive ordynacjas include:
 * Ordynacje Radziwiłłów, created for Mikołaj VII Radziwiłł, Albrecht Radziwiłł and Stanisław Radziwiłł in 1589, centered on Olyka, Nesvizh, and Kletsk
 * Ostrogski Family Fee Tail, created for Janusz Ostrogski in 1609, later inherited by the Zaslawski, Lubomirski and Sanguszko families, centered on Ostroh
 * Ordynacja Zamojska, created for Jan Zamoyski in 1589, centered on Zamość
 * Ordynacja Jarosławska, created for Rafał Jarosławski in 1470, centered on Jarosław
 * Ordynacja Pińczowska, created for Piotr and Zygmunt Gonzaga Myszkowski in 1601, later inherited by the Wielopolski family, centered on Pińczów

Other
Other European legal systems had comparable devices to keep estates together, especially in Spain and Northern European countries like Prussia. They are derived from fideicommissum, a legal institution in Roman law. Unlike most of the English aristocracy, the Prussian junkers supported fees tail, and succeeded in reinstating them in 1853, after they had been abolished in a recent Constitution. In Germany and Austria the Familienfideikommiss was only abolished in 1938, and in Scandinavia they persisted even later – a few old Swedish fees tail still remain in force, though no new ones may be established. For the law of German and Austrian fideicommissa in particular, an 862-page manual by the German legal scholar Philipp Knipschildt, entitled Tractatus de fideicommissis nobilium familiarum – von Stammgütern, was the standard reference work. First published in 1654, this grand systematization of existing legal opinion was frequently reprinted and continued to be consulted until well into the 19th century.

title: Fee tail


text:
American Association for the Abolition of Involuntary Mental Hospitalization

The American Association for the Abolition of Involuntary Mental Hospitalization (AAAIMH) was an organization founded in 1970 by Thomas Szasz, George Alexander, and Erving Goffman for the purpose of abolishing involuntary psychiatric intervention, particularly involuntary commitment. The founding of the AAAIMH was announced by Szasz in 1971 on the American Journal of Public Health and American Journal of Psychiatry. In the Platform Statement of the association, one can read: "Throughout the entire history of psychiatry, involuntary psychiatric interventions, and especially involuntary mental hospitalization, have been regarded as morally and professionally legitimate procedures. No group of physicians, lawyers, or social scientists has ever rejected such interventions as contrary to elementary principles of dignity and liberty and hence as morally and professionally illegitimate. The AAAIMH does."

Board chairman of the association was Thomas Szasz. The association provided legal help to psychiatric patients and published a journal, The Abolitionist. The organisation was dissolved in 1980.


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

Signups open for The Core Contest
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Former finnish SOF soldier and serial entrepreneur Janne Lehtonen
There is a draft for the person in question (Janne Lehtonen).

Janne has served 10+ years in the finnish Navy's special operation forces. He was notably one of the first-ever operator in the unit, along side his fellow collegues of the reality TV programme Erikoisjoukot.

He is also a firefighter, paramedic and serial entrepreneur. I hope someone views this draft of notable Finnish person!

82.197.27.70 (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I've also contributed to the draft, by adding more specific information and reformated the text a bit. I think that he's notable enough, as he's literally the first SOF soldier of his country! 2001:999:705:5E4:4811:BCBE:7564:29B7 (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As the Draft was being declined, I added more specific information from his SOF times, including where he worked, and what he has acchieved. I'd say that his career as a soldier plays more important role in the Wiki... 2001:999:705:5E4:1405:1186:D4C:AF17 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Enough more info added, ready for another check! 2001:999:705:5E4:68B9:5498:CDE0:8412 (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Huge updating has been made to the draft article, according to his notability as an special forces operator, but with an upcoming book as well. All the information is referenced well enough as well!
 * Could somebody review it plz?
 * 2001:999:58C:BDA5:D56D:36F5:D00F:A1EB (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, more specific information have been added for now, to make him more notable. For example, he's more specific a Sergeant of the Navy, and that he currently writes a book with WSOY, making him an author as well. There are also a bunch of references to check the information from! 85.76.86.8 (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Added info that he has post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. 2001:999:58C:BDA5:A58D:936B:9E7C:FFED (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Nationality discussion at Talk:Snow Patrol
There is a discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Snow Patrol regarding a controversial change in the band's nationality, which may be of interest to project members. The discussion is titled Change Snow Patrol from Scottish Rock Band to Northern Irish Rock Band. Thanks. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sam Yagan request: Excelerate Labs and IAC information
Hello, I have an open edit request on the article about Sam Yagan at Talk:Sam_Yagan. This is to add information about some of Yagan's previous companies. I made this request on behalf of Yagan through my work at Corazon Capital. Thank you for considering. CBCorazon (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Philip of Sweden
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philip of Sweden that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 01:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Awesome Kong
Awesome Kong has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster  (trout me!)  07:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:James V of Scotland
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:James V of Scotland that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Isaac Charles Parker
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Isaac Charles Parker that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 16:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ghibran
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ghibran that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Madonna
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madonna that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 11:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Juozapas Albinas Herbačiauskas
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Juozapas Albinas Herbačiauskas that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 11:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mary Fletcher
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mary Fletcher that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ivory (wrestler)
Ivory (wrestler) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster  (trout me!)  11:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Where in the article to put citations for archival material by the subject
I came across archival material written by the subject of the Renée Vivien article. I want to include in the article, but am unsure whether to put it under another subsection under Works or in the Further reading section. I am curious how others have handled this & what examples exist.

Here is the citation I plan to use. Peaceray (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Filip Turek (racing driver)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Filip Turek (racing driver) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Seeking to improve buZ blurr
Hey folks, since writing BuZ blurr I've made some edits to it and am wondering what else could be improved in order to make it a B-class or Good Article.

One thing I know is missing is more media, though it's near impossible to find copyright-free material of his. Anything else that is missing or could be improved? Sonovawolf (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Orlando Figes article
There is a content dispute on Talk:Orlando Figes that could use the input of people who know BLP policy! The Orlando Figes of 2010 is the subject, with one side preferring to excise it or at least minimise its coverage, and the other thinking that it is relevant content requiring full coverage. There are quite a few policy-based claims that have been made including some that regular BLP-ers might have more insight on like Who is a low-profile individual.

For extra fun, the subject of the article (Orlando Figes) is also participating! So you can wiki-meet a famous academic if you come along. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning up biographical article for Geoffrey von Maltzahn
Hi, I'm Lindy from the Flagship Pioneering communications team, and I've started to look into cleaning up the biography for one of the firm's partners, Geoffrey von Maltzahn. As my User page explains, I have a financial conflict of interest with his Wikipedia article, so I am making requests for editors to review. To begin bringing the page back to Wikipedia standards, removing anything promotional, I've made an initial request for removal of the Awards section. As editors here are familiar with biographies and the standards for them, I hope someone can look at this request and also potentially offer other suggestions for cleanup. Lindy D at Flagship (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

POV/length check for NZ historian
The article Erik Olssen has gotten significant contributions from someone who has been in contact with the author and seems to be a big fan. A lot of material has been trimmed, but I'm not sure the remaining material reads neutrally or doesn't have some excess detail. I've read it too many times, and was wondering if anyone with more familiarity with how biographies are supposed to read would be willing to skim it and point out any glaring problems. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Awards section - table, prose, or list?
The list of awards at Andrew Michael Hurley is a table. Looking at other articles on authors, almost all I found had the awards as a prose section or a bulleted list, the exception being a table created by the same editor as this one, at Damon Galgut. A table seems unnecessarily complex. Any thoughts? I have queried the table at Talk:Andrew Michael Hurley, and would welcome input from others. Pam D  07:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Michael Cusack (animator)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Michael Cusack (animator) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 12:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Joe Rice
Joe Rice has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Jutish
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jutish that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. PK2 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red July 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Requested move at Talk:Tony Kemp (baseball)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tony Kemp (baseball) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Please review my article about William Jay Schieffelin
Hello members of WikiProject Biography,

I would like to get your opinion on how best to structure my article about William Jay Schieffelin.

In my opinion, the article is unconventionally, but appropriately structured. Therefore, I like the article and would prefer to leave it as it is.

But I am also open to your suggestions for improvement and could change the article.

So, check out my article!

Thanks, and best regards, Michael   MichaelScheufele (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Anthony Pollard
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anthony Pollard that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 07:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move of
An editor has requested that be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You  are invited to participate in the move discussion. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:James House (singer)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:James House (singer) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Alert re: Edward “Ted” Jones Edit Request
Hello – posting here in the hopes of having an editor review an edit request on Edward “Ted” Jones’ Talk page in response to the request for additional citations for verification. Please note that I proposed these edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Edward Jones Investments and I am aware of the COI guidelines. Thanks for your time. Jon Gray (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Umberto I of Italy
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Umberto I of Italy that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Marc Benioff COI edit requests
Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Marc Benioff. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mary McLeod Bethune
Mary McLeod Bethune has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for TISM
TISM has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:María José Rienda Contreras
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:María José Rienda Contreras that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rafiullah (cricketer)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rafiullah (cricketer) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 11:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Francis, Duke of Guise
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Francis, Duke of Guise that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   22:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ismail Kemal
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ismail Kemal that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   22:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Robbie Moore (MP)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robbie Moore (MP) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   22:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rafiullah (cricketer)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rafiullah (cricketer) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   22:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lady Henry Somerset
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lady Henry Somerset that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   22:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Thomas Crooks
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thomas Crooks that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   22:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Café Filho
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Café Filho that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography