text:
Max Immelmann

Max Immelmann (21 September 1890 – 18 June 1916) PLM was the first German World War I flying ace. He was a pioneer in fighter aviation and is often mistakenly credited with the first aerial victory using a synchronized gun, which was in fact achieved on 1 July 1915 by the German ace Kurt Wintgens. He was the first aviator to receive the Pour le Mérite, colloquially known as the "Blue Max" in his honour, being awarded it at the same time as Oswald Boelcke. His name has become attached to a common flying tactic, the Immelmann turn, and remains a byword in aviation. He is credited with 15 aerial victories.

Early life
Max Immelmann was born on 21 September 1890, in Dresden, to an industrialist father who died when Max was young. In 1905 he was enrolled in the Dresden Cadet School. He joined the ''Eisenbahnregiment (Railway Regiment) Nr. 2'' in 1911 as an Ensign, in pursuit of a commission.

He left the army in March 1912 to study mechanical engineering in Dresden. He returned to service at the outbreak of war in 1914, as a reserve officer candidate. Assigned to ''Eisenbahnregiment Nr. 1'', he soon transferred to aviation.

Wartime career
When World War I started, Immelmann was called to active service, transferred to the German Army's air arm, Die Fliegertruppe des Deutschen Kaiserreiches (later known as the Luftstreitkräfte) and was sent for pilot training at Johannisthal Air Field in November 1914. He was initially stationed in northern France.

Immelmann served as a pilot with Feldflieger Abteilung (Field Flier Detachment) 10 from February to April 1915, and then in FFA 62 by early May 1915. On several occasions he engaged in combat while flying the L.V.G. two-seaters with which his units were equipped, but never with any success. On 3 June 1915, he was shot down by a French pilot, but managed to land safely behind German lines. Immelmann was decorated with the Iron Cross, Second Class, for preserving his aircraft.

Two very early examples of the Fokker Eindecker fighters were delivered to the unit, one Fokker M.5K/MG production prototype numbered E.3/15 for Oswald Boelcke's use, with Immelmann later in July receiving E.13/15 as a production Fokker E.I for his own use before the end of July. It was with the E.13/15 aircraft, armed with the synchronized lMG 08 Spandau machine gun, that he gained his first confirmed air victory of the war on 1 August 1915, a fortnight after Leutnant Kurt Wintgens obtained the very first confirmed German aerial victory on 15 July 1915 with his own Fokker M.5K/MG production prototype E.5/15 Eindecker, one of five built, following two unconfirmed ones on 1 and 4 July, all before Immelmann: "Like a hawk, I dived ... and fired my machine gun. For a moment, I believed I would fly right into him. I had fired about 60 shots when my gun jammed. That was awkward, for to clear the jam I needed both hands – I had to fly completely without hands ..."

Lieutenant William Reid fought back valiantly, flying with his left hand and firing a pistol with his right. Nonetheless, the 450 bullets fired at him took their effect; Reid suffered four wounds in his left arm, and his airplane's engine quit, causing a crash landing. The unarmed Immelmann landed nearby, and approached Reid; they shook hands and Immelmann said to the British pilot "You are my prisoner" and pulled Reid out of the wreckage and rendered first aid.

Immelmann became one of the first German fighter pilots, quickly building an impressive score of air victories. During September, three more victories followed, and then in October he became solely responsible for the air defense of the city of Lille. Immelmann became known as The Eagle of Lille (Der Adler von Lille).

Immelmann flirted with the position of Germany's leading ace, trading that spot off with Oswald Boelcke, another pioneer ace. Having come second to Boelcke for his sixth victory, he was second to be awarded the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern for this feat. On 15 December, Immelmann shot down his seventh British plane and moved into an unchallenged lead in the competition to be Germany's leading ace.

Immelmann was the first pilot to be awarded the Pour le Mérite, Germany's highest military honour, receiving it on the day of his eighth win, 12 January 1916. The medal became unofficially known as the "Blue Max" in the German Air Service in honor of Immelmann. His medal was presented by Kaiser Wilhelm II on 12 January 1916. Oswald Boelcke received his medal at the same time.

Boelcke scored again two days later. Immelmann would chase him in the ace race for the next four months, drawing even on 13 March at 11 each, losing the lead on the 19th, regaining it on Easter Sunday (23 April) 14 to 13, losing it again forever on 1 May. It was about this time, on 25 April, that Immelmann received a salutary lesson in the improvement of British aircraft. As the German ace described his attack on two Airco DH.2s, "The two worked splendidly together ... and put 11 shots into my machine. The petrol tank, the struts on the fuselage, the undercarriage and the propeller were hit ... It was not a nice business."

On 31 May, Immelmann, Max von Mulzer, and another German pilot attacked a formation of seven British aircraft. Immelmann was flying a two-gun Fokker E.IV, and when he opened fire, the synchronizing gear malfunctioned. A stream of bullets cut off the tip of a propeller blade. The thrashing of the unbalanced air screw nearly shook the aircraft's twin-row Oberursel U.III engine loose from its mounts before he could cut the ignition and glide to a dead-stick landing.

Death
In the late afternoon of 18 June 1916, Immelmann led a flight of four Fokker E.III Eindeckers in search of a flight of eight F.E.2b fighter/reconnaissance aircraft of 25 Squadron Royal Flying Corps over Sallaumines in northern France. The British flight had just crossed the lines near Arras, with the intent of photographing the German infantry and artillery positions within the area, when Immelmann's flight intercepted them. After a long-running fight, scattering the participants over an area of some 30 sqmi, Immelmann brought down one of the enemy aircraft, wounding both the pilot and observer. This was his 16th victory claim, though it went unconfirmed.

At 21:45 that same evening, Immelmann in Fokker E.III, serial 246/16 encountered No. 25 Squadron again, this time near the village of Lens. Immediately, he got off a burst, which hit RFC Lt. J. R. B. Savage, pilot of F.E.2b pusher serial 4909, mortally wounding him. This was his 17th victory claim, though Max Mulzer was later credited with the victory. The second aircraft he closed on was piloted by Second Lieutenant G. R. McCubbin, with Corporal J. H. Waller as gunner/observer.

McCubbin was credited by the British with shooting Immelmann down. On the German side, many had seen Immelmann as invincible and could not conceive the notion that he had fallen to enemy fire. Meanwhile, British authorities awarded McCubbin the Distinguished Service Order and the Distinguished Service Medal and sergeant's stripes for Waller.

The German Air Service at the time said the loss was due to friendly anti-aircraft fire. Others, including Immelmann's brother, believed his aircraft's gun synchronisation, designed to enable his machine gun to fire between the whirling propeller blades without damaging them, had malfunctioned with catastrophic results. Early versions of such gears frequently malfunctioned in this way and this had happened to Immelmann twice before, while testing two- and three-machine gun installations. On each occasion, he had been able to land safely.

McCubbin, in a 1935 interview, said that immediately after Immelmann shot down McCubbin's squadron-mate, the German ace began an Immelmann turn, McCubbin and Waller descended from a greater altitude and opened fire, shooting down Immelmann. Waller pointed out later that the British bullets could have hit Immelmann's propeller.

Damage to the propeller resulting in the loss of one blade could have been the primary cause of the structural failure, evident in accounts of the crash of his aircraft. The resultant vibration of an engine at full throttle spinning half a propeller could have shaken the fragile craft to pieces. At 2,000 metres, the tail was seen to break away from the rest of Immelmann's Fokker. The wings detached or folded, and what remained of the fuselage fell straight down. Immelmann’s body was recovered by the German 6 Armee from the twisted wreckage, lying lifeless over what was left of the surprisingly intact Oberursel engine, sometimes cited as under it. His body was identified by his initials embroidered on his handkerchief.

Immelmann was given a state funeral and buried in his home city of Dresden. His body was later exhumed and cremated in the Dresden-Tolkewitz Crematorium. Immelmann, along with Max Ritter von Mulzer, scored all of his victories flying different types of Eindeckers, becoming one of the most successful pilots in the type.

Grave robbery and desecration
During the night of Sunday 31 January 2021, Max Immelmann's memorial grave in Tolkewitz was robbed and desecrated. The Pöppelmann grave figure "Eagle of Lille", weighing around 100 kilograms, and approximately 180 centimetres in height, was dismantled and taken away by two men using a handcart to transport it to a pick-up truck parked nearby.

A local resident observed the robbery and informed the police, who are also investigating the two suspects in connection with other thefts. The public prosecutor's office in Dresden, which brought charges against the alleged perpetrators, estimated the value of the grave figure at around 50,000 euros. After restoration the figure was returned to Immelmann's grave.

A number of historically significant First World War artefacts have been stolen from the graves of soldiers in the Tolkewitz cemetery during 2021, with a suspicion of possible "theft to order".

Legacy
The present-day Luftwaffe has dubbed Squadron AG-51 the "Immelmann Squadron" in his honour.

Promotion record and regimental assignments

 * Cadet, Dresden Cadet School, 1905–1912
 * Fähnrich mit Portepee (Swordknot Ensign), Eisenbahn-Regiment Nr 2 (2nd Railway Regiment), 4 April 1911
 * Pilot in training, Aviation Replacements Section, 12 November 1914 – 31 March 1915; received Imperial German Pilot's Badge
 * Assigned, FA (Flieger-Abteilung) 10, Die Fliegertruppen des deutschen Kaiserreiches (Flying Section 10, Imperial German Flying Corps), February – 28 April 1915
 * Assigned, FA 62, 28 April 1915–1916
 * Leutnant (Second Lieutenant), Royal Saxony Army Reserves, 14 July 1915
 * ("Full") Oberleutnant, Royal Saxon Army (active list), April 1916

Orders and medals
 Kingdom of Saxony
 * Military Order of St. Henry, Knight Commander, 30 March 1916, after his 12th and 13th victories
 * Military Order of St. Henry, Knight, 21 September 1915
 * Albert Order, Knight's Cross with Swords
 * Silver Friedrich August Medal, "For Gallantry in the Face of the Enemy", 15 July 1915

 Kingdom of Prussia / German Empire
 * Pour le Mérite, 12 January 1916, after his eighth victory
 * Iron Cross, First Class, 1 August 1915, after his first victory
 * Iron Cross, Second Class, 3 June 1915, after flying a successful reconnaissance mission with Lt. von Teubern (observer)
 * Royal House Order of Hohenzollern, Knight's Cross with Swords, November 1915

Miscellaneous German
 * Hanseatic Cross (Hamburg), 15 March 1916, after flying aerial defense for the Mayor of Hamburg

 * Military Merit Order(Bavaria), Fourth Class, ca. 6–12 December 1915

Other
 * The Turkish War Medal of 1915 (Ottoman Empire), April/May 1916
 * Imtiyaz Medal in Silver (Ottoman Empire), April/May 1916

Fokker Eindecker
Immelmann will forever be associated with the Fokker Eindecker, Germany's first fighter aircraft, and the first such aircraft to be armed with a machine gun synchronised to fire forward, through the propeller arc. Immelmann, along with Oswald Boelcke and other pilots, was one of the main exponents of the Fokker Eindecker, resulting in the Fokker Scourge which inflicted heavy losses upon British and French aircrews during 1915.

Initially, Immelmann shared the same E.3/15 machine with Oswald Boelcke, but late in the summer of 1915 would receive his own machine, bearing the IdFlieg serial number E.13/15 on its fuselage. Both the E.3/15 machine earlier shared with Boelcke, and his own E.13/15 aircraft, both used to secure Immelmann's first five victories between them each had a seven-cylinder 80 horsepower Oberursel U.0 rotary engine for their power. According to Immelmann, the later E.13/15 aircraft was retired and shipped off to Berlin for display at the Zeughaus Museum, in March 1916, but was wrecked in the first bombing raids of the Royal Air Force in 1940, during World War II.

The Immelmann turn
This refers to two quite different aerobatic maneuvers. The first of these is the one now known as an "Immelmann" (also frequently spelled "Immelman", in literature and media).
 * 1) A half loop followed by a half roll on top, used to rapidly reverse the direction of flight. This maneuver may not have been practical in the primitive, underpowered fighters of 1915–1916, and its connection with the German fighter ace is doubtful.
 * 2) During World War I, an "Immelmann turn" was actually a sharp rudder turn off a vertical zoom climb (almost to a full stall) or modified chandelle followed by a steep dive. Immelmann may very well have originated this maneuver, or at least used it in combat, although this cannot be authenticated.

title: Max Immelmann


text:
Elzevir

Elzevir may refer to:

Places

 * Elzevir, Ontario, a township in Hastings County
 * Elzévir is a street that runs through the 3rd arrondissement of Paris. (See: 1, 2)
 * Elzevir Lake, lake in the Moira River and Lake Ontario drainage basins in Tweed, Hastings County, Ontario, Canada
 * Elzevir Creek, creek in the Moira River and Lake Ontario drainage basins in Tweed, Hastings County in Central Ontario, Canada

People

 * A pen name of Walter Murdoch
 * The House of Elzevir, a celebrated family of Dutch booksellers, publishers, and printers of the 17th and early 18th centuries:
 * Abraham Elzevir (two by this name, father and son, 1592–1652), Dutch printer
 * Bonaventure Elzevir
 * Daniel Elzevir (published Richard Simon's work)

 * Isaac Elzevir (1596–1651), Dutch publisher and printer who began printing with one of the earliest printing press in the city of Leyden in the year 1617

 * Lodewijk Elzevir (c. 1540–1617), originally Lodewijk or Louis Elsevier or Elzevier, was a Dutch printer
 * Louis Elzevir (3 by this name, first was Lodewijk, then his son and grandson)

Characters

 * Elzevir the Dollmaker from the video game Blood Omen: The Legacy of Kain

Other

 * DTL Elzevir, a typeface by Christoffel van Dijck

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

title: Elzevir


text:
Talk:Gödel numbering

Moved
Should this article more properly be moved to "Gödel number", or are the numbers better known by the "phonetic" form?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have both this and Goedel number just redirect to Gödel's incompleteness theorem? -- John Owens 11:15 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Note that the exact form of the Gödel number encoding is unimportant: there just needs to be a 1:1 mapping between local statements and manipulable expressions such as integers. You can do clever stuff with arithmetic, or you can just follow Chaikin and use Lisp S-expressions -- The Anome 23:48 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

John - you may well be right. But in defense of a separate article, I thought there could be a place for a slightly less formal article on this topic. Gödel lite, as it were. I personally struggled to grasp the technical side of the argument (as expert readers can no doubt tell(!)), and I hoped that other people like me might appreciate a practical demo along these lines. Anome - A paragraph along these lines at the end could be a good idea. I guess it's worth pointing out the difference between a single instantiation like this, and the mathematician's quest for a general exposition. Wikid 06:24 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Another thought - we could re-name this page Gödel numbers - demonstration, and link to it from the Gödel's incompleteness theorem article, while redirecting Gödel number to the main article as John suggests. I'll leave that decision to the meta-mind. Wikid 08:33 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Anome is correct, there are a number (infinite?) of different mappings that are possible for use in Gödel's proof. I believe Gödel's original numbering system, however, used prime numbers taken to different powers to differentiate between variables, sentential variables and predicate variables. The mapping currently demonstrated in the article only works for encoding symbols and formulas but not sequences of formulas, a necessary characteristic for Gödel's proof. --128.253.167.158 18:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Godel's original used only 7 elementary operators and assigned primes, squared primes, and cubed primes to the 3 variables u listed respectively above - at least according to E. Nagel in Gödel's Proof, which is where you probably got your info. from in the first place. I actually have Godel's original paper onhand but have never really read more than the introduction. It uses a lot of outdated terminology and symbolism.

 * Anyway, the numbering method used in this wiki article is capable of coding sequences of formulae, so I'm not sure why you thought otherwise. Why did you? Because it isn't explicitly stated? Nortexoid 08:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What the article explicitly states is that

 * A Gödel numbering can be interpreted as an encoding in which a number is assigned to each symbol of a mathematical notation, after which a sequence of natural numbers can then represent a sequence of strings [of symbols].

yet in every example given, it is a sequence of symbols that the final sequence of numbers represents. So it is a little confusing… Included in Godel’s class of formulas are sequences of formulas too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.51.192 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Gödel numbering
What does the DA before GN is idiomatic mean ?

I have put the
 * In mathematics and computer science

at the start of the article because I thought you deleted my previous edit because it was to specific. What is formal number theory ? I am not sure what fields of study to use in the introduction. I know Gödel numbers are used in the proof of the incompleteness result and in computability theory. So I think it is perhaps best to use mathematical logic and theoretical computer science. More specific terms are probably useless in an introduction as most people dont know what they refer to.MathMartin 14:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Formal number theory is essentially propositional logic with peano arithmetic and/or any extension thereof. The domain is the natural numbers (or (0 and) the positive integers). It is also known as simply 'arithmetic' - i.e., theories closed under addition and multiplication in which the naturals can be constructed.

 * GN cannot be performed in all of mathematics or computer science. It doesn't make any sense to say "In mathematics and computer science, GN is..." because you cannot perform GN in numerous branches of mathematics - i.e. you cannot perform GN in the theory of real closed fields because you cannot define the naturals. I am reverting again to formal number theory, and I hope I have made myself clear as to why. If not, we'll need to talk about it in the article's discussion page. I don't see why we should need to, though.

 * The thing about the DA before GN was a mistake. I meant the indefinite article, not the definite article (DA), which is the word 'a'. It is more idiomatic to say "...is called a GN." vs. "...is called GN.". Cheers, Nortexoid 05:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Formal number theory may be the correct term to use, but the term is too specific. Most people will have no idea what you are talking about (e.g. myself). So I think it is better, even if slightly incorrect, to use more generic fields like mathematics and computer science. The first sentence should serve as a introduction for the reader, and set the context for the rest of the page. After reading the first sentence most readers, even non-mathematicians (remember this is wikipedia and not mathworld) should have a rough idea what we are going to talk about. As I wrote in my edit summary I have no intention to start an edit war, so I will leave the article as is.I just wanted to voice my concerns. MathMartin 06:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The term is actually not specific at all, though it is accurate. It is not as general as mathematics, but it is far more informative. If I said, "what subject do you think formal number theory falls in?" to a non-mathematician, I'm sure they'd be able to respond "mathematics". So it is more specific and informative than 'mathematics' while obviously implying the subject matter to be mathematics. There is a fine line between targeting a broader audience and being as accurate as possible without being overly specific. I think 'formal number theory' is a happy medium. If I were to consider a runner-up, it would be your previously proposed 'mathematical logic'. Both seem fine to me. I used 'formal number theory' because it is popular in the literature (see Kleene, Mathematical Logic, 1967). Nortexoid 07:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Negation
$$\forall$$x, ¬R(v,x) Can also be interpeted to mean "The negation of a proposition of type v can be proved", yielding: x=(0,1,¬, ask) R(0,0)=¬0 = ask 1 R(1,1)=(¬0)0 = ask 0 R(1,0)=0 R(0,1)=1 Hackwrench 04:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC) (Still flawed, but have to include $$\infty$$, shiftleft, shiftright, and $$\forall$$

I'm trying to figure out why certain pages aren't rendering a TOC Hackwrench 04:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Requesting equivalent statement for Intentionally blank page
I do not know much in the way of number theory, but it appears that Godel numbering is what is needed to construct a mathematical equivalent to the usage of the phrase "This page intentionally blank" on blank pages. It is self-refuting, in that it falsifies itself by its very existence on the page in question. — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-12-4 17:47

Injective map
Shouldn't Gödel mapping be defined as an injective mapping? Though injectiveness is implied by the fact that reference is made to the mapping's inverse (which doesn't exist for non-injective maps), I think injectiveness should be stated explicitly.

Informal proof doesn't make sense
I don't understand the formal account of the proof. Surely the first statement in fact means simply "v cannot be proved"? Where does this "type" thing come into it?

Then does not the next statement say "it cannot be proved that v cannot be proved"? Which doesn't condense into anything, I don't see how the "v" can disappear out of the equation. It seems to say nothing more than that "v" is undefined, which seems reasonable, since we didn't define it (although just because a statement says something doesn't make it true).

82.41.211.70 22:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)A.W.

I agree--the sketch here doesn't seem correct. I don't believe you can construct the required sentence using the R defined here--you need a statement form that describes self-unprovability, not just provability. The proof sketch in Godel's incompleteness theorem is more accurate. --Rictus 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a proof of the undecidability theorem here anyway. This article is linked from several articles on computation theory, and anyone following the links is going to be horribly confused as the discussion gets into needless detail on Gödel's own application and says nothing about the connection between numberings and programming languages. Gazpacho 08:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusing
I'm not convinced that the   notice is helpful, nor that this article belongs in Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification which is the result of this tag.

Certainly the subject is a confusing one, particularly to non-specialists. Even many specialists are still trying to figure out exactly what the consequences are, both for Mathematics and for Formal logic. I'm not familiar with the consequences for computing, I even wonder whether that's at least partly an urban myth, based on the (misleading IMO) connections to Alan Turing and Turing machines.

But if the subject is a newsy and confusing one on which many are already misinformed before they come here, that's not the fault of the article.

What are the specific ways in which the article can be improved? Bear in mind that if it were to make this subject look simple to a non-specialist, that would be very good evidence that the article was then inaccurate. Andrewa 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The tag was removed without comment here. Either someone agrees with me, or they feel that the confusing material has been removed.

Please, if you tag an article, give us some idea why you are tagging it. Andrewa 04:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition
The current definition (without the vandalism) is nonsense. Does anybody have a definition that satisfies these characteristics? I would remove the Definition section and replace it with a discussion of the various specific settings where the phrase is used. CMummert 20:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct
 * More general than just formulas of an effective first-order language
 * Used in print
 * I agree with Carl here. As far as I'm aware, there is no agreed abstract definition of what a Gödel numbering is in general, mainly because the need for such a definition has never been felt. Ordinarily one doesn't treat Gödel numberings in general, so why bother to define them in general? That's not to say someone hasn't published a general definition of "Gödel numbering", but unless that definition is in common use (which it certainly isn't), it shouldn't be presented here as the default. --Trovatore 03:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

History
It may be helpful to relate the history for the Gödel numbering concept for the readers, such as its use in Georg Cantor's transfinite numbers, in Gödel's theorems, and in Church's expositions. --Ancheta Wis 06:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that Christine Ladd-Franklin, in 1881, presaged the concept. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Example
Ok, let's use base-4 mapping: 'x' => 0, 'n' => n 1s, '+' => 2, '=' => 3 The formula F(x)=x+1 will be encoded by sequence 0, 2, 1 or number 1204 or in decimal notation= 1*42+ 2*41 + 0*40 = 16 + 8 = 2410=#F. Here #F is the number of the form F(x). The statements are derived by inserting constant numbers instead of x in the form. For instance #F(1) would be 25 and #F(2) would be 1*43+2*42+ 1*41 + 1*40. Generally, the number of the statement for constant n will be

$$\#F(n)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{4^i} + 2*4^n + 1*4^{n+1} $$.

Now, I want to get the Gödel number for the statement F(n=#F). However, the equation

$$\#F(\#F)=g=\sum_{i=0}^{g-1}{4^i} + 2*4^g + 1*4^{g+1} $$

have no solutions in natural numbers! So, the Gödel number depends on encoding and may be irrational or not exist if encoding is wrong. What is the proper encoding? Getting the number I want to decode it and look at the statement F(#F). --Javalenok 16:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebecca Goldstein (2005), Incompleteness ISBN 0-393-05169-2 uses base 10: pp.172-3

--Ancheta Wis 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give the Gödel number G=#F(#F) for F(x)=~x? The [] tells that the Gödel number for the Gödel sentence is 'precisely defined'. How do they derive it if the provability predicate P is not known? --Javalenok 10:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

From a non-expert
I am a music theorist with an interest in logical systems. From a layperson's perspective our English page is woefully inadequate on this topic. "Goedel lite" is not very helpful even if the mapping concept is properly conveyed. For more useful articles on this topic, see the German and Chinese versions.

68.19.242.28 07:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you read those languages? Can you convey to other editors what might be useful to add? The essential idea of mapping concepts to counting numbers is already in the article. --Ancheta Wis 10:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we could appeal to the relevant Wikipedia embassies to give us, perhaps not a complete translation, but some idea of what the content of the other articles is. I'm not inclined to, but it's an idea. Hmmm, German, English, Chinese, formal logic, music... an interesting combination. Andrewa 04:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * By Chinese, I assume you mean the article at 哥德尔数. There's also one at Gödel號數 in Cantonese, but it's very short. Andrewa 03:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The German article at Gödelnummer is also short, but it does look in some (not all) ways a better article than ours. Ours rambles and speculates. The German article, by comparison, has only the following sections:

 * Formal definition
 * Example
 * Gödel numbering of zahlentheoretischen Aussagen (which Babelfish translates as pay-theoretical statements but I think may mean well-formed formulas or number theory proofs or something like that - that's what should be there)
 * Gödel numbering of Turing machines
 * Example
 * see also

I speak no German to mention, but even I can tell it's not a perfect article in German. But food for thought, and they do have the advantage that much of Gödel's work on this was originally published in German. Andrewa 04:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Add Simple Example(s)
Why not add a simple example or two near the beginning. Assign numbers to symbols as in one of the comments below and do a formula-to-number and a number-to formula example.

~reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.244.207 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I fear that this would just look silly. The whole idea of Gödel numbers is fairly esoteric. You need to know quite a lot of mathematics before you'd have the slightest clue that they were useful. The things that they are used to prove seem nonsensical to the uninitiated.

 * I'm not trying to be elitist here. But you wouldn't try to define just intonation in a way that would make sense to someone who doesn't know what a musical scale is. I feel that some of the edits to this article, while I hope well-intentioned, are equally misguided.

 * The problem is, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are fascinating to the uninitiated, so we do need to do our best. But we musn't stray into inaccuracy for the sake of simplicity. It's not a simple topic.

 * My advice is, be aware that many who do come here do not have the understanding needed to make sense of what they read, but will acquire it, and among those who struggle hardest at this may be the next Einstein or Heisenberg, both of whom struggled famously with the tensor calculus that undergirded their most famous work. So for the sake of these strugglers, I commend all those struggling with this article. Andrewa 04:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Very different meaning?
Current article reads There is a very different meaning of the term Gödel numbering relating to numberings of the class of computable functions. I think (if this is true) that we should find this meaning and include it in the article. Andrewa 04:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I followed the links you highlighted and discovered that the keyword assignment occurs in the all of the supposedly 'different' meanings. What was intriguing to me was the idea that a 'computation' might be replaced by an 'assignment' in the sense of a telephone switchboard operator, who would physically connect a conductive plug into a socket. Thus we will have come full circle in the history of computing hardware where telephone operators were replaced by computerized telephone switches, right back to a condition where selection of one element from a set of answers is a 'computation'; the difficulty is that you need a 'recognizer' to figure out how to make the selection. That's probably the reason there was no citation for the statements made in the linked articles. The statements don't stand up. There is no current theory of recognition for such a recognizer of an answer in some requested computation. If you already knew the answer, you wouldn't need to ask the question. If you didn't know the answer and the telephone switch connected to a wrong number you still would be stuck; we would still have the Wikipedia conundrum -- how do you know an answer is right, unless you already know the answer?

 * To follow-up with the encoding analogy, a telephone number is a code for a person. Dial the number and talk to the person. We do not yet have a technology to connect remotely with another person without that code. There are technologies such as the content-addressable memory where the name of a 'person' connects you right to the 'person' without the code, but the idea has been around for over 30 years with no commercial product in sight, for the moment. --Ancheta Wis 09:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I don't think any of that has much to do with Gödel numbering. The only use I know of these numbers is to establish that things such as solutions to the halting problem don't exist. They have no practical application, only this theoretical use in indirect proof. The general approach is to establish a contradiction by assuming that something does exist, and then showing that this means that it both does and doesn't have a Gödel number. I fear that these other applications aren't Gödel numbers at all. Happy to be proved wrong, that means I learn something. Andrewa 02:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on this I am commenting out said statement in the article. --Ancheta Wis 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Another different meaning
There's an article at Gödel numbering for sequences which has only one principle author, no links to other languages, no talk page yet, notes which give some sources (but nothing online unless you read Hungarian) but no other citations, and reads to me very much like original research. It may be the cause of some of the confusion here. Other comments? Andrewa 04:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. My heart warmed as I read the article, which is clear, easy to read, has citations, and uses standard concepts such as the integer sequence. What came to mind immediately is a useful coding system promulgated by AT& T Research [online encyclopedia of integer sequences] which shows clearly that codes, of which a Gödel code (a redirect to this article) is an example, are arbitrary in spite of being well defined. My inclination is to let the article live in peace in the encyclopedia. We need more like it, in my opinion. --Ancheta Wis 09:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a poster for the OEIS, which has over 130,000 sequences at the moment. See the article: On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences --Ancheta Wis 09:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm familiar with OEIS. But what has this to do with Gödel numbering? Andrewa 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Only Gödel's use of natural numbers as a code, and the use of the codes of OEIS to denote sequences of natural numbers. --Ancheta Wis 10:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * OK. I'm unconvinced, but I don't intend to take it any further. Mainly I just wanted some other people to have a look at the issues I raised. Glad you like the article. Andrewa 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Infinity
Note that K is infinite in ordinary maths. For instance, there are infinitely many Mathieu functions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The example presented there is about base-K numbers. That does not make sense unless K is finite. There are other examples that would work with an infinite number of basic symbols. For example, the one originally used by Gödel and presented in the first section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to Gödel numbering?
This article is currently called Gödel number, but it seems to be completely about Gödel numbering. A Gödel number is only defined based on an overall Gödel numbering and the fact that a statement has Gödel number 258 is completely meaningless without knowing the Gödel numbering used. Any objections to moving the article? Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Alright, done. — sligocki (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Examples of practical applications?
Its very curious to postulate mappings of mathematical statements/objects to numbers, and then to not exclude the possibility of manipulations of equations/statements to correspond to functions on the numbers,... but Id love to see real practical examples of this (the wiki page is more like: hey we can encode, and in theory we can do operations on the encoding,...)

Are their explicit examples of parts of mathematics that are very well served by a canonical godel numbering which displays how certain manipulations/simplifications are reduced to simple algorithms on the godel numbers of their data?

Perhaps skolemnization, or a sensible numbering on a kind of graphs, with corresponding graph manipulations becoming arithmetical on their numbers?

Without examples its just: lets encode y'all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.175.183 (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving the good faith contribution here. Discussion welcome
03:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There is though a very serious flaw with Godel numbering as it is based on integer factorization. It is impossible to encode the number zero ("0") with the basic theorem of arithmetic used in the encoding as described above.

For example, cyclic or self-referential statements cannot be for one identified easily as this would require solution of the entire sequence of integer numbers obtained for each statement in turn and identification of the closure of a loop (there can indeed be many loops in a logically flawed construct of statements).

Secondly, it is impossible in a straight line, so to speak, to encode an algorithm which in one step produces a result from a single (say) number as input and then the next step is its complete reversal, i.e. from the results of the computation to derive the original input point. The shortcoming arises by the use of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, i.e. prime factorization, in that it does not contain the zero value.

The shortcoming is due to the fact that any number to the power of zero is set to one, by arbitrary definition of the zero power. Logically, the number of multiplications of a number by itself is what is indicated by an integer power. If it is not multiplied at all, say x to the zero power, the result should be zero and not one.

These are just some fundamental direct flaws with the so called Incompleteness Theorems. The other serious flaw is the consideration of "closure" or "independence" of the axioms comprising and axiomatic space to begin with.

! There is though a very serious flaw with Godel numbering as it is based on integer factorization. It is impossible to encode the number zero ("0") with the basic theorem of arithmetic used in the encoding as described above.

For example, cyclic or self-referential statements cannot be for one identified easily as this would require solution of the entire sequence of integer numbers obtained for each statement in turn and identification of the closure of a loop (there can indeed be many loops in a logically flawed construct of statements).

Secondly, it is impossible in a straight line, so to speak, to encode an algorithm which in one step produces a result from a single (say) number as input and then the next step is its complete reversal, i.e. from the results of the computation to derive the original input point. The shortcoming arises by the use of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, i.e. prime factorization, in that it does not contain the zero value.

The shortcoming is due to the fact that any number to the power of zero is set to one, by arbitrary definition of the zero power. Logically, the number of multiplications of a number by itself is what is indicated by an integer power. If it is not multiplied at all, say x to the zero power, the result should be zero and not one.

These are just some fundamental direct flaws with the so called Incompleteness Theorems. The other serious flaw is the consideration of "closure" or "independence" of the axioms comprising and axiomatic space to begin with.

Moved the contribution here. Ancheta Wis   (talk  | contribs) 03:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion welcome

Uniqueness – or not?
The German article Gödelnummer states, in its first sentence, the opposite of. Which is true? ◀ Sebastian 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Both are true: Being a function, a Gödel numbering assigns to every formula a unique natural number (cf. also the English lead). However, there are many such functions (this is meant in ). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now that you wrote this I realize that the second part of the sentence says that clearly. The problem was in the first part, which is obviously meant to state the same more concisely, but leaves an ambiguity, if taken by itself. The root of that ambiguity is in the definition of the lemma: Does the term “Gödel numbering” refer to the general method, or to one particular choice of numbering? The first sentence of the article suggests the latter, but the phrasing “A Gödel numbering” in the section in question suggests the former. This could be mitigated by leaving out the article “A”, which, according to our article, suggests “a general statement about any such thing”. ◀ Sebastian 13:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I hope it is better now. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gödel numbering


text:
Gary Gilmore

Gary Mark Gilmore (born Faye Robert Coffman; December 4, 1940 – January 17, 1977) was an American criminal who gained international attention for demanding the implementation of his death sentence for two murders he had admitted to committing in Utah. After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a new series of death penalty statutes in the 1976 decision Gregg v. Georgia, he became the first person in almost ten years to be executed in the United States. These new statutes avoided the problems under the 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia, which had resulted in earlier death penalty statutes being deemed "cruel and unusual" punishment, and therefore unconstitutional (The Supreme Court had previously ordered all states to commute death sentences to life imprisonment after Furman.). Gilmore was executed by a firing squad in 1977. His life and execution were the subject of the 1979 nonfiction novel The Executioner's Song by Norman Mailer, and 1982 TV film of the novel starring Tommy Lee Jones as Gilmore.

Early life
Gary Mark Gilmore was born in McCamey, Texas, on December 4, 1940, the second of four sons, to Frank and Bessie Gilmore. The other sons were Frank Jr., Gaylen, and the writer and music journalist Mikal Gilmore. Frank Harry Gilmore (c. November 23, 1890, Lincoln, Nebraska – July 31, 1962, Seattle, Washington), an alcoholic con man, had other wives and families, none of whom he supported. On a whim, he married Bessie (née Brown) (August 19, 1913, Provo, Utah – June 29, 1981, Portland, Oregon), a Mormon outcast from Provo, Utah, in Sacramento, California. Gary was born while they were living in Texas under the pseudonym of Coffman to avoid the law. Frank christened his son Faye Robert Coffman, but once they left Texas, Bessie changed it to Gary Mark. This name change proved to be a sore point years later. Frank's mother, Fay, kept the original "Faye Coffman" birth certificate, and when Gary found it two decades later, he assumed he must be either illegitimate or someone else's son. He seized on this as the reason that he and his father never got along; he became very upset and walked out on his mother when she tried to explain the name change to him.

The theme of illegitimacy, real or imagined, was common in the Gilmore family. Frank Sr.'s mother, Fay Gilmore, once told Bessie that Frank Sr.'s father was a famous magician who had passed through Sacramento, where she was living. Bessie researched this at the library and concluded that Frank was the illegitimate son of Harry Houdini. Houdini was only sixteen years old in 1890, the year of Frank Gilmore's birth, and did not begin his career as a magician until the following year. Whether Fay meant that Frank Sr.'s father was someone who would later become known as a famous magician is unknown. Mikal Gilmore, Gary's youngest brother, believes the story to be false, but has stated that both his father and mother believed it. Gary's oldest brother, Frank Jr, was the illegitimate son of Robert Ingram, who was Frank Sr's son from an earlier marriage. Ingram had a brief affair with Bessie shortly after she had married his father. Frank Sr had believed Gary was the illegitimate son.

During Gary's childhood, the family frequently relocated throughout the Western United States, with Frank supporting them by selling fake magazine subscriptions. Gary had a troubled relationship with his father, whom his youngest brother Mikal described as a "cruel and unreasonable man." Frank Gilmore Sr. was strict and quick to anger, and would often whip his sons, Frank Jr., Gary, and Gaylen, with a razor strop, whip, or a belt for little or no reason. Less often, he would beat his wife. He mellowed somewhat with age: Mikal reported that Frank whipped him only once, and never did it again after Mikal told him, "I hate you." In addition, Frank and Bessie would argue loudly and verbally abuse each other. Frank would anger Bessie by calling her crazy, and defame Brigham Young, the second president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as "Bring 'em Young". Bessie would retaliate by calling him a "Cat-licker" [Catholic] and threatening to kill him some night. This abuse continued for years and caused considerable turmoil within the Gilmore family.

In 1952, the Gilmore family settled in Portland, Oregon. As an adolescent, Gary began engaging in petty crime. Although Gilmore had an IQ test score of 133, gained high scores on both aptitude and achievement tests, and showed artistic talent, he dropped out of high school in the ninth grade. He ran away from home with a friend to Texas, returning to Portland after several months.

Crimes
At the age of 14, Gary started a small car theft ring with friends, which resulted in his first arrest. He was released to his father with a warning. Two weeks later, he was back in court on another car theft charge. The court remanded him to the MacLaren Reform School for Boys in Woodburn, Oregon, from which he was released the following year. He was sent to Oregon State Correctional Institution on another car theft charge in 1960 and was released later that year.

In 1961, Frank Sr., Gary's father, was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer; he died at the end of July 1962, while Gary was in Rocky Butte Jail in Portland, facing charges of driving without a license. A jail guard told Gary when his father died. Despite his dysfunctional relationship with his father, Gary was devastated and tried to kill himself by slitting his wrists. After his father died, Gilmore got into more and more trouble, as he became more erratic, and was frequently drunk. He faced assault and armed robbery charges again in 1964 and was given a 15-year prison sentence as a habitual offender and sent to the Oregon State Penitentiary in Salem, Oregon. A prison psychiatrist diagnosed him with antisocial personality disorder with intermittent psychotic decompensation. He was granted conditional release in 1972 to live weekdays in a halfway house in Eugene, Oregon, and study art at a community college. Gilmore never registered and, within a month, he was arrested and convicted of armed robbery.

Due to his violent behavior in prison, Gilmore was transferred in 1975 from Oregon to the federal prison in Marion, Illinois, at the time a maximum security facility.

Gilmore was conditionally paroled in April 1976 and went to Provo, Utah, to live with a distant cousin, Brenda Nicol, who tried to help him find work. Gilmore worked briefly at his uncle Vern Damico's shoe repair shop and then for an insulation company owned by Spencer McGrath, but he soon returned to his previous lifestyle of stealing, drinking, and fighting. Gilmore, then 35, had a relationship with Nicole Barrett Baker (later Nicole Barrett Henry), a 19-year-old who had been married twice before and had two young children. The relationship was at first casual, but soon became intense and strained due to Gilmore's aggressive behavior and pressure from Baker's family to prevent her from seeing him.

Murders
On the evening of July 19, 1976, Gilmore robbed and murdered Max Jensen, a gas station employee in Orem, Utah. The next evening, he robbed and murdered Bennie Bushnell, a motel manager in Provo. Although both men had complied with his demands, he murdered them. The young men were each ordered to lie down and then were shot in the head. Both were students at Brigham Young University; both left widows with infants. While disposing of the .22 caliber pistol used in both killings, Gilmore accidentally shot himself in his right hand, leaving a trail of blood to the service garage where he had left his truck to be repaired prior to murdering Bennie Bushnell. Garage mechanic Michael Simpson witnessed Gilmore hiding the gun in the bushes. Seeing the blood on Gilmore's crudely bandaged right hand when he approached to pay for the repairs to his truck, and hearing on a police scanner of the shooting at the nearby motel, Simpson wrote down Gilmore's license plate number and called the police. Gilmore's cousin, Brenda, turned him in to police shortly after he phoned her asking for bandages and painkillers for the injury to his hand. The Utah State Police apprehended Gilmore as he tried to drive out of Provo, and he gave up without attempting to flee. Although he was charged with the murders of Jensen and Bushnell, the Jensen case was never brought to trial, apparently due to there being no eyewitnesses.

Trial
Gilmore's murder trial began at the Provo courthouse on October 5, 1976, and lasted two days. Peter Arroyo, a motel guest, testified that he saw Gilmore in the motel registration office that night. After taking the money, Gilmore ordered Mr. Bushnell to lie down on the floor and then shot him. Gerald F. Wilkes, an FBI ballistics expert, matched the two shell casings and the bullet that killed Mr. Bushnell to the gun hidden in the bush, and a patrolman testified that he had traced Gilmore's trail of blood to that same bush. Gilmore's two court-appointed lawyers, Michael Esplin and Craig Snyder, made no attempt to cross-examine the majority of the state's witnesses, and rested without calling any witnesses for the defense. Gilmore protested, and the following day asked the judge if he could take the stand in his own defense, perhaps arguing that due to the dissociation and lack of control he felt at the time, he had a good case for insanity. His attorneys presented the findings of four separate psychiatrists, all of whom had said that Gilmore was aware of what he was doing and that he knew it was wrong at the time. While he did have an antisocial personality disorder, which may have been aggravated by drinking and drugs, he did not meet the legal criteria for insanity. Gilmore withdrew his request. During closing statements, Esplin did mention that since Gilmore had accidentally shot himself, he might have accidentally killed Bushnell. Mentioning the lack of witnesses to the shooting, he asked the jury to find Gilmore guilty of second degree murder or even acquit him. On October 7, the jury retired to deliberate and by mid-day, they had returned with a guilty verdict for first degree murder. Later that day, the jury unanimously recommended a death sentence due to the special circumstances of the crime.

Gilmore chose to not pursue habeas corpus relief in federal court. His mother, Bessie, sued for a stay of execution on his behalf. In a five-to-four decision, the US Supreme Court refused to hear his mother's claim. The court's per curiam opinion said that the defendant had waived his rights by not pursuing them. At the time, Utah had two methods of execution—firing squad or hanging. Believing a hanging could be botched, Gilmore chose the former, declaring, "I'd prefer to be shot." The execution was set for November 15 at 8:00 a.m.

Against his expressed wishes, Gilmore received several stays of execution through the efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The last of these occurred just hours before the rescheduled execution date of January 17. That stay was overturned at 7:30 a.m., and the execution was allowed to proceed as planned. At a board of pardons hearing in November 1976, Gilmore said of the efforts by the ACLU and others to prevent his execution: "They always want to get in on the act. I don't think they have ever really done anything effective in their lives. I would like them all—including that group of reverends and rabbis from Salt Lake City—to butt out. This is my life and this is my death. It's been sanctioned by the courts that I die and I accept that."

During the time Gilmore was on death row awaiting his execution, he attempted suicide twice; the first time on November 16 after the first stay was issued, and again one month later on December 16.

Execution
Gilmore was executed on January 17, 1977, at 8:07 a.m. by firing squad at Utah State Prison in Draper, Utah.

The morning before his execution, Gilmore was transported to an abandoned cannery behind the prison, which served as its death house. He was strapped to a chair, with a wall of sandbags placed behind him to trap the bullets. Five local police officers stood concealed behind a curtain with five small holes, through which they aimed their rifles. When asked for any last words, Gilmore simply replied, "Let's do it." The Rev. Thomas Meersman, the Catholic prison chaplain, administered the last rites to Gilmore. After the prison physician cloaked him in a black hood, Gilmore uttered his last words to Meersman: "Dominus vobiscum" (Latin, translation: "The Lord be with you.") Meersman replied, "Et cum spiritu tuo" ("And with your spirit.")

In Utah, firing squads consisted of five volunteer law enforcement officers from the county in which the conviction of the offender took place. The five executioners were equipped with .30-30-caliber rifles and off-the-shelf Winchester 150-grain (9.7 g) SilverTip ammunition. Gilmore was restrained and hooded, and the shots were fired at a distance of 20 ft, aiming at the chest.

Prison officials stated that the firing squad comprised four men with live rounds, and one with a blank, so that the shooters could not be certain as to who fired the fatal shots. However, upon inspecting the clothes worn by his brother Gary at his execution, Mikal Gilmore noted five holes in the shirt. According to his memoir Shot in the Heart, "the state of Utah, apparently, had taken no chances on the morning that it put my brother to death."

Gilmore had requested that some of his organs be donated for transplant purposes. Within hours of the execution, two people received his corneas. His body was sent for autopsy and was cremated later that day. The following day, his ashes were scattered from an airplane over Spanish Fork, Utah.

Representation in the media
As Gilmore was the first person in the United States executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, his story had immense cultural resonance at the time.

Before his execution, the December 11, 1976, episode of NBC's Saturday Night Live (Season 2, Episode 10) featured guest host Candice Bergen and the cast singing a Christmas-themed medley entitled "Let's Kill Gary Gilmore for Christmas." Dressed in winter attire and surrounded by fake snow, the performers sang the medley of familiar Christmas carols with altered lyrics. Lyrics set to "Winter Wonderland" included this line: "In the meadow we can build a snowman / One with Gary Gilmore packed inside / We'll ask him, 'Are you dead yet?' He'll say, 'No, man' / But we'll wait out the frostbite till he dies." A later episode of Saturday Night Live, on October 20, 1979, featured guest host Eric Idle performing impersonations while strapped to a stretcher, assisted by orderlies. With the stretcher standing on end, Idle covered his eyes with a black blindfold and announced it as an impersonation of Gary Gilmore.

The founder of advertising agency Wieden+Kennedy, Dan Wieden, credits the inspiration for his "Just Do It" Nike slogan to Gilmore's last words.

Norman Mailer wrote a novel, The Executioner's Song, based on Gilmore's life; it won the Pulitzer Prize. Notable for its portrayal of Gilmore and the anguish surrounding the murders he committed, the book expressed Mailer's thinking about the national debate over the revival of capital punishment.

Another writer to blend fact with fiction was Colombian writer Rafael Chaparro Madiedo, who featured Gilmore as one of the main characters of his 1992 novel Opio en las Nubes (Opium in the Clouds) which won the National Prize.

In 1982, The Executioner's Song was adapted by Mailer for a television movie of the same name starring Tommy Lee Jones as Gilmore, and co-starring Christine Lahti, Eli Wallach, and Rosanna Arquette. Jones won an Emmy Award for his portrayal of Gilmore.

Artist Matthew Barney's film Cremaster 2 (1999), featured Gilmore as the main character, played by Barney; it was the second of five films in the series The Cremaster Cycle. At the beginning of Cremaster 3, a metamorphosed character corresponding to Gilmore is played by Nesrin Karanouh.

Gary's brother Mikal Gilmore, an American writer and music journalist, wrote a memoir in 1994 entitled Shot in the Heart, detailing his relationship with Gary and their often troubled family, starting with the original Mormon settlers and continuing through to Gary's execution and its aftermath. Shot in the Heart received positive reviews, including a comment by New York Times critic Michiko Kakutani calling the book "Remarkable, astonishing... Shot in the Heart reads like a combination of Brothers Karamazov and a series of Johnny Cash ballads... chilling, heartbreaking, and alarming." In 1994 Shot in the Heart won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award. In 2001, Shot in the Heart became an HBO film starring Giovanni Ribisi as Mikal, Elias Koteas as Gary, Sam Shepard as the brothers' looming father, and Lee Tergesen as Frank Gilmore Jr. The 1977 punk rock single "Gary Gilmore's Eyes" by the band the Adverts was used in the soundtrack of the movie. The song is written from "the point of view of a hospital patient who has received the eyes of Gary Gilmore in a transplant." In 2003, American alternative rock band ArmsBendBack released a song titled "Gary Gilmore's Eyes" as well.

Welsh playwright Dic Edwards dramatised Gilmore's life in his 1995 play Utah Blue.

Other references
Many musicians have explored the Gilmore case. In 1977, the Adverts had a top 20 hit in the UK with the song "Gary Gilmore's Eyes". The lyrics describe an eye donor recipient realizing his new eyes came from the executed murderer. The song was later covered by German punk rock band Die Toten Hosen and a country version of the song was recorded by Dean Schlabowske. In 1978, Los Angeles punk band the Deadbeatz released a song called "Let's Shoot Maria" which featured the chorus, "Gonna finish off what Gary Gilmore started." In 1977, New York City experimental punk band Chain Gang released the song "Gary Gilmore and the Island of Dr. Moreau" as the B-side to their single "Son of Sam" about David Berkowitz. The Police's song "Bring on the Night", from their 1979 album Reggatta de Blanc, speculated on Gary Gilmore's possible feelings on the evening before the execution took place. In 1980, the Judy's released the song "How's Gary?" on their album Wonderful World of Appliances. The song presumably asks Gary Gilmore's mother what's wrong with him, saying that he never comes out to play anymore. The song also inquires about the holes in his vest and why he is wearing a blindfold.

Several playwrights have integrated the Gilmore story into their work in one way or another. The Oakland-based performance artist Monte Cazazza sent out photos of himself in an electric chair on the day of the execution. One of these was mistakenly printed in a Hong Kong newspaper as the real execution. Cazazza was also photographed alongside COUM Transmissions/Throbbing Gristle members Genesis P-Orridge and Cosey Fanni Tutti for the "Gary Gilmore Memorial Society" postcard, in which the three artists posed blindfolded and tied to chairs with loaded guns pointed at them to depict Gilmore's execution. In Christopher Durang's play Beyond Therapy (1983), the character Bruce claims that he "wanted to see Gary Gilmore executed on television."

title: Gary Gilmore


text:
Debt consolidation

Debt consolidation is a form of debt refinancing that entails taking out one loan to pay off many others. This commonly refers to a personal finance process of individuals addressing high consumer debt, but occasionally it can also refer to a country's fiscal approach to consolidate corporate debt or government debt. The process can secure a lower overall interest rate to the entire debt load and provide the convenience of servicing only one loan or debt.

Overview
Debt generally refers to money owed by one party, the debtor, to a second party, the creditor. It is generally subject to repayments of principal and interest. Interest is the fee charged by the creditor to the debtor, generally calculated as a percentage of the principal sum per year known as an interest rate and generally paid periodically at intervals, such as monthly. Debt can be secured with collateral or unsecured.

Although there is variation from country to country and even in regions within country, consumer debt is primarily made up of home loans, credit card debt and car loans. Household debt is the consumer debt of the adults in the household plus the mortgage, if applicable. In many countries, especially the United States and the United Kingdom, student loans can be a significant portion of debt but are usually regulated differently than other debt. The overall debt can reach the point where a debtor is in danger of bankruptcy, insolvency, or other fiscal emergency. Options available to overburdened debtors include credit counseling and personal bankruptcy.

Other consumer options include: Sometimes the solution includes some of each of these tactics.
 * debt settlement, where an individual's debt is negotiated to a lesser interest rate or principal with the creditors to lessen the overall burden;
 * debt relief, where part or whole of an individual debt is forgiven; and
 * debt consolidation, where the individual is able to acquit the current debts by taking out a new loan.

Process
The bulk of the consumer debt, especially that with a high interest, is repaid by a new loan. Most debt consolidation loans are offered from lending institutions and secured as a second mortgage or home equity line of credit. These require the individual to put up a home as collateral and the loan to be less than the equity available.

The overall lower interest rate is an advantage that debt consolidation loan offers to consumers. Lenders have fixed costs to process payments and repayment can spread out over a larger period. However, such consolidation loans have costs: fees, interest, and "points" where one point equals to one percent of the amount borrowed. In some countries, these loans may provide certain tax advantages. Because they are secured, a lender can attempt to seize property if the borrower goes into default.

Personal loans comprise another form of debt consolidation loan. Individuals can issue debtors a personal loan that satisfies the outstanding debt and creates a new one on their own terms. These loans, often unsecured, are based on the personal relationship rather than collateral.

In United States, there are certain companies and private law firms, addressed as debt relief companies and/or debt consolidation companies, that provide professional debt consolidation services. A Consumer can approach them for debt help, and make only one monthly payment to them. This payment will then be disbursed, by these companies, among the various creditors, the consumer is indebted to. Many other countries, alongside United States, also have such professional services for the benefit of consumers, struggling with household debt.

Student loan consolidation
In the United States, student loans which are part of the Federal Direct Student Loan Program are consolidated somewhat differently from in the UK, as federal student loans are guaranteed by the U.S. government.

United States
In a federal student loan consolidation, existing loans are purchased by the Department of Education. Upon consolidation, a fixed interest rate is set based on the then-current interest rate. Reconsolidating does not change that rate. If the student combines loans of different types and rates into one new consolidation loan, a weighted average calculation will establish the appropriate rate based on the then-current interest rates of the different loans being consolidated together. Federal student loan consolidation is often referred to as refinancing, which is incorrect because the loan rates are not changed, merely locked in. Unlike private sector debt consolidation, student loan consolidation does not incur any fees for the borrower; private companies make money on student loan consolidation by reaping subsidies from the federal government.

United Kingdom
In the UK student loan entitlements are guaranteed, and are recovered using a means-tested system from the student's future income. Student loans in the UK can not be included in bankruptcy, but do not affect a person's credit rating because the repayments are deducted from salary at source by employers, similar to income tax and National Insurance contributions. Many students, however, struggle with commercial debt well after their courses have finished.

Australia
Australia's student loan system once allowed 35 years to pay back loans, but currently allows 15. Those seriously delinquent on student loans face arrest at the border.

Japan
In Japan, an increasing number of student loans are in arrears. In response, the nation is taking harsher steps when it comes to lending determinations. In an effort to prevent future defaults, Japan has begun associating loan approvals to academic performance.

title: Debt consolidation


text:
User:N-true

Hello, my name is André and I'm 35 years old and this page is a little outdated. I come from Leipzig where I studied Linguistics and Sinology at the local university. I'm doing my PhD at the University of Zurich about the languages of Burma. My main interests in linguistics include phonetics, phonology and typology, as well as historical linguistics, writing systems, constructed languages (esp. Esperanto and Klingon) and lexicography. I also like movies, science (especially astronomy) and to an extent geography. I collect dictionaries — they sum up to over 700 books in way over 250 different languages. See a map of my dictionary collection here!

For more information about my life, you can read my blog here: http://n-true.livejournal.com/ (but this is now discontinued)

P.S.: I collect the word for the number 47 ("forty-seven") in as many languages as possible. You can see my collection (612 languages so far) here. I do the same with the word for water, for which I have 2,425 languages now (the list is not online, though). In case you know any further translation or if you can correct anything, please leave me a message on my talk page here or as a comment in my LiveJournal. Thank you!

Articles I created

 * 1) User:N-true
 * 2) List of grammatical cases (although wikified by Timwi)
 * 3) Tsez language
 * 4) Bezhta language
 * 5) Babel boxes for Upper Saxon (sxu)
 * 6) Babel boxes for Tsez (ddo-1 & ddo-4)
 * 7) NGC 47
 * 8) Bahing language (although a big part was taken from Bahing)
 * 9) Hinukh language
 * 10) Cohong
 * 11) Omi language
 * 12) Intrative case
 * 13) Jürgen Vogel
 * 14) List of languages by time of extinction
 * 15) Alexander Kibrik

Articles to which I contributed a bigger part

 * List of languages by name (major clean-up)
 * List of linguists (major clean-up)
 * Standard Alphabet by Lepsius (everything but the introduction)
 * Khinalug language (almost everything)

Pictures uploaded by me

 * Marc Okrand (see article on Marc Okrand)

Plans for the future

 * write Toolbox (linguistics) and Shoebox (linguistics)
 * write Frustrative mood
 * rewrite Upper Saxon German
 * clean-up the consonant pages such as voiced velar implosive and add examples
 * expand Avar language
 * expand Baure language
 * expand Belhare language
 * expand Chintang language
 * expand Cohong
 * expand George van Driem (translate from Dutch article!)
 * expand Juan Gonzáles de Mendoza
 * expand Khwarshi language
 * expand Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (translate from German article!)
 * expand Messier 47
 * expand Pirahã language
 * expand Puma language
 * expand World Atlas of Language Structures
 * expand Alexander Kibrik
 * create a few Requested Articles about Linguistics
 * correct all instances of "Devnagari" to Devanagari
 * add IPA to all Thai name articles
 * improve and expand Tsez language

Geek Code
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GH/SS$ d-(--) s: a30>? C++(+++) U-- P L E? W++@ N o? K w+ O- M-- V? PS+@ PE- Y+ PGP- t+++ 5+ X+ R- !tv> b++>+++ DI D- G e+++>++++ h>h- r++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK--

My subpages

 * additional userboxes (on hold)
 * my dictionaries (growing)
 * "Prison" in many languages (obsolete)
 * List of computer related terms in Klingon (in progress)
 * Wiki page of the Automated Similarity Judgment Program (redirected)
 * Middle Egyptian vocabulary from Gardiner's "Egyptian Grammar" (in progress)
 * Maps (just testing)
 * Imperativ of -ern / -eln verbs in German (growing)
 * Gender of the German word "Prospekt" (growing)
 * Map of my dictionary collection (up to date!)
 * Map of all Esperanto events in 2012 (up to date)

Wikipedians I know or have met in real-life

 * Blahma — a Czech esperantist whom I met on several ISos.
 * 🇯🇵 Brangseng0 — a linguist from Japan, working on languages of Northern Burma.
 * 🇺🇸 Chuck SMITH — an American esperantist, who's omnipresent on every IS. ;)
 * 🇲🇾 Cmglee — a Chinese friend of Timwi's, whom I met in Cambridge.
 * Conny — he had a talk on Wikipedia at the Leipzig Bookfair 2008.
 * 🇩🇪 Daniel Krauße — a fellow linguist I met on a conference in Leiden.
 * Franczeska — a japanophile Wikipedian from Leipzig.
 * 🇺🇸 Goulo — another American esperantist whom I met during an IS.
 * 🇩🇪 Haspelmath — a linguist who works in the same institute as I do.
 * Herr-Schlauschlau — a fellow student of linguistics from my university.
 * 🇺🇸 IanMaddieson — a famous linguist I met during a conference.
 * 🇩🇪 Janwo — a linguist who worked in the same institute as I still do.
 * 🇩🇪 Junesun — an esperantist who knows quite many languages.
 * 🇨🇭 Kevinbaet — a linguistics colleague in Zurich.
 * 🇩🇪 Klaus Schmidt — a fellow student of linguistics.
 * Klingon83 — someone from my university.
 * 🇧🇪 Lieven — a Klingon teacher.
 * 🇩🇪 LogosHelen — a linguist, esperantist, Dr. Who fan and friend of mine.
 * 🇩🇪 Lupíro — an Esperantist I know.
 * 🇦🇷 Marcoscramer — a German esperantist, also known from several ISos.
 * 🇮🇱 Michael%Sappir — a fellow linguistics student from my university.
 * Newydd — a colleague who shared office with me at the MPI.
 * 🇺🇸 Nick Kalivoda — an Esperantist from Athens, Georgia, whom I met on an IS.
 * 🇺🇸 Ohala — a famous US phonetician.
 * 🇩🇪 Paul Ebermann — another German esperantist from an IS.
 * 🇺🇸 Piraha1 — the linguist who wrote so much on the Pirahã language.
 * 🇩🇪 pne — a language geek whom I got to know through LiveJournal as well.
 * 🇩🇪 Promb — a linguistics student from Münster.
 * 🇭🇺 Ralesk — I know him through LiveJournal and met im in Budapest, once.
 * 🇫🇷 Rgyalrongskad — a French linguist working on Sino-Tibetan languages mostly.
 * 🇩🇪 Robert Weemeyer — one of the "greatest" Esperantist in the world. ;)
 * Showmaster — a guy from my former high school.
 * 🇩🇪 Sinatra — a (euro)linguist from Germany.
 * 🇨🇦 Sonjaaa — Canadian esperantist and inventor of Toki Pona.
 * Spottedowl — a friend of Timwi, also met him in Cambridge.
 * Stephan Schneider — German esperantist and folksprakist (or however you call it).
 * Sven Siegmund — khoisanist and one of my office-mates from the MPI.
 * Thogo — studied linguistics at the University of Leipzig with me.
 * Timur Maisak — a Russian linguist.
 * 🇩🇪 Timwi — a good friend, who lives in Cambridge now.
 * 🇺🇸 Trwier — a linguist colleague from the MPI.
 * Uwe Gille — a German Wikipedian and veterinary anatomist.
 * 🇳🇴 Verdlanco — a Norwegian esperantist whom I first met during the IJK in Lesjöfors, Sweden.
 * 🇸🇪 Zrajm — a fellow Klingonist from Sweden.
 * Zwenngraw — a phonetician and colleague from the MPI.

People with Wikipedia articles that I know or have met in real-life (the people, not the articles)
Note: The flags merely show the flag of the country by the time of these people's birth, not their political affiliation! The little asterisk stands for mutual acquaintance.
 * Alexandra Aikhenvald, linguist
 * Artemis Alexiadou, linguist (Flag of Greece (1828-1978).svg)
 * Anthony Aristar, linguist (🇿🇦)
 * Mark Aronoff, linguist (🇨🇦)
 * Peter Baláž, esperantist *
 * Hugo Egon Balder, actor (🇩🇪)
 * Russ Ballard, musician
 * Ben Becker, actor (🇩🇪)
 * Lea-Marie Becker aka LEA, singer (🇩🇪)
 * Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis (🇦🇷)
 * Eckhard Bick, linguist and esperantist (🇩🇪)*
 * Balthasar Bickel, linguist (🇨🇭)*
 * Detlev Blanke†, esperantist *
 * Paul Boersma, linguist (🇳🇱)
 * Christophe Boesch†, primatologist (🇨🇭)
 * David Bradley, linguist (🇺🇸)
 * Lyle Campbell, linguist (🇺🇸)
 * Bernard Comrie, linguist (🇬🇧)*
 * Bruce Darnell, model (🇺🇸)
 * Gérard Diffloth, linguist (🇫🇷)
 * George van Driem, linguist (🇳🇱)
 * Matthew Dryer, linguist (🇺🇸)
 * Bret Easton Ellis, author (🇺🇸)
 * Nicholas Evans, linguist (🇺🇸)
 * Daniel Everett, linguist (🇺🇸)
 * Hans-Werner Fischer-Elfert, egyptologist (🇩🇪)*
 * Herbert W. Franke†, sci-fi author (🇦🇹)
 * Michael Giacchino, composer (🇺🇸)
 * Cliff Goddard, linguist (🇦🇺)
 * Russell Gray, evolutionary biologist (🇳🇿)*
 * Peter Grünberg†, physicist
 * Gregor Gysi, politician
 * Claude Hagège, linguist (🇹🇳)
 * Martin Haspelmath, linguist (🇩🇪)*
 * Monica Heller, linguistic anthropologist (🇨🇦)
 * Kim J. Henriksen, singer (🇩🇰)*
 * Jean-Jacques Hublin, anthropologist (🇫🇷)
 * Larry Hyman, linguist (🇺🇸)
 * Guillaume Jacques, linguist (🇫🇷)
 * Kristjan Järvi, conductor
 * Jimmy Kelly, singer (🇪🇸)
 * Burkhard Jung, politician (🇩🇪)
 * Martin Klebba, actor and stuntman (🇺🇸)
 * Michael Kretschmer, politician
 * Manfred Krifka, linguist (🇩🇪)
 * Sebastian Krumbiegel, singer
 * Tobias Künzel, singer
 * Jean-Marc Leclercq, singer (🇫🇷)
 * Benny Lewis, polyglot and author (🇮🇪)*
 * Ian Maddieson, linguist (🇺🇸)
 * Susanne Maria Michaelis, linguist (🇩🇪)*
 * Oliver Masucci, actor (🇩🇪)
 * Marianne Mithun, linguist (🇺🇸)
 * Michael Mittermeier, comedian (🇩🇪)
 * Ulrike Mosel, linguist *
 * Carol Myers-Scotton, linguist (🇺🇸)
 * Andris Nelsons, conductor
 * Johanna Nichols, linguist (🇺🇸)*
 * John Ohala†, linguist (🇺🇸)
 * Marc Okrand, linguist (🇺🇸)*
 * Svante Pääbo, geneticist (🇸🇪)
 * Leena Peisa, musician (🇫🇮)
 * Martin Petzold†, tenor
 * Don Rosa, comic illustrator (🇺🇸)
 * Malcolm Ross, linguist
 * Bernd Ruf, conductor (🇩🇪)
 * Laurent Sagart, sinologist (🇫🇷)
 * Alicja Sakaguchi, interlinguist (🇵🇱)*
 * David Scott aka The Kiffness, musician (🇿🇦)
 * Bastian Sick, language purist (🇩🇪)
 * Paul Sidwell, linguist (🇦🇺)*
 * Anna Siewierska†, linguist (🇵🇱)
 * Richard Simcott, polyglot *
 * Per K. Sørensen, tibetologist (🇩🇰)*
 * Thant Myint-U, historian (🇺🇸)
 * Michael Tomasello, psychologist (🇺🇸)
 * Krisztina Tóth, table tennis player (🇭🇺)*
 * Kevin Tuite, linguist (🇺🇸)
 * Edward Vajda, linguist (🇺🇸)*
 * Jürgen Vogel, actor (🇩🇪)
 * Bertil Wennergren, esperantist (🇸🇪)*
 * Søren Wichmann, linguist (🇩🇰)*
 * Yanjaa Wintersoul, memory athlete (🇲🇳)*

title: User:N-true


text:
Talk:Barbary Wars

XYZ Affair
The XYZ Affair and "millions for defense" happened during the Adams administration and led to the U.S. French Naval War (1798-1800), which is different than the Barbary Wars. Kauffner (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

General overview of the Barbary Wars
This page served as a general overview of the Barbary wars with links to each war as well as the Barbary corsairs and other topics for the longest time with no perceived problems, let alone actual problems.. Many pages link to Barbary wars e.g. Captain Smith served in the Barbary Wars. Both wars involved basically the same things. There is no need for a redirect, and no need to fix what wasn't broke. I do a lot of writing about this era -- now I have to go through dozens of pages and fix links(?) and indicate and link to both wars in one sentence. e.g. Captain Smith served in the First Barbary War and the Second Barbary War. No thanks. This page with its many links to other pages suited readers and editors just fine. -- Gwillhickers 16:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

How exactly did America have victory when the barbary countries declared victory

Libyan kid 543 (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Was Tunis really part of the Barbary Wars ?
Tunis is seldomly mentioned as a belligerent in the articles and usually just lumped as part of the ottoman empire in north africa. I also found this extract from the book of french historian Henry Durant in 1858, Notice sur la régence de Tunis, page 16: "Tunis, in general, did not indulge in piracy like Algiers: if later, it also had some corsairs, it was only to defend itself against the Christians, more barbarians at that time than the Africans, since the piracy was still a trade among Cypriots, Catalans, Sicilians, Venetians, Pisans and Genoese."

From french "Tunis, en général, ne se livrait pas comme Alger à la piraterie: si plus tard elle eut aussi quelques corsaires, ce ne fut que pour se défendre contre les chrétiens, plus barbares à cette époque que les Africains, puisque la piraterie était encore un métier chez les Cypriotes, les Catalans, les Siciliens, les Vénitiens, les Pisans et les Génois."

If so I would like to remove it as a belligerent in this conlict.

Mistakes
The page is full of minor mistakes, but one of them is unbelievable. "The main purpose of their attacks was to capture European slaves for the Arab slave market in North Africa." There was NO single European slave in Europe. The correct phrase is: "To enslave Europeans". They weren't slaves as the Africans who were bought and brought to Americas. So the phrase is a major mistake. It gives the impression that they captured slaves, they did not. They enslaved people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.100.152 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 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) 02:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Tunisian flag till 1831.svg

Why is Morocco listed as a belligerent
Morocco signed a treaty of friendship with the US in 1784 and never waged war with the US (treaty is officially unbroken). 82.41.110.187 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Death count
There were 54 people killed in the sinking of the USS Philadelphia alone, so the overall count of “45” is completely laughable. 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:E6B (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Flag of Tunisia
I am confused why the wrong flag of Tunisia continues to be used. Even the name of the file is labeled as the Tripoli flag in contrary to the one I added which is the true flag of Tunis. 184.145.1.59 (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

February 2024
what part of my edit summary about seeking consensus for the result didn't you understand? I know for a fact that there is at least one editor who disagrees with you, so I suggest you refrain from edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 * You can’t disagree with facts. Disagreeing with facts just makes you wrong.  The conflict ultimately ended in 1815 with the pirates being defeated which makes the Barbary Wars a US victory.  Read the wiki article on second Barbary war if you doubt me  Jab1998 (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. M.Bitton (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So if someone says the Allies did not win World War Two, do we need to negotiate with that person? They’re clearly wrong in such a statement.  If you disagree with facts you are just wrong.  “Opinions ” which run contrary to historical facts should not carry any weight.  Read the second Barbary war article or do a quick google search if you doubt that the conflict ultimately ended as a US victory  Jab1998 (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't waste my time with edit warriors. You have now been reported. M.Bitton (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The First Barbary War did not end in a US victory, as there was still ransom being paid (being called ransom and not tribute). FIREYSUNSET (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop sabotaging the results section
This article has read “US victory” in the results section for years. As a history teacher with a masters degree in history I can confirm this is accurate. Read the wiki page on the second Barbary war if you doubt me. The conflict ultimately ended with the US defeating the pirates once and for all in 1815. Stop sabotaging the article Jab1998 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 * It was the British that did so, and even so, the barbary attacks and tribute did not end until the french conquest in 1830, the US did win in the second barbary war, but did not defeat Algiers "once and for all", i'm opposed to your change. Nourerrahmane (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The British were not involved in the second Barbary war. The second Barbary war was intended to end piracy of US ships.  It was not a war to end all piracy in the region.  This article is about specifically the conflict between the us and Barbary pirates, not Barbary piracy as a whole.  Ultimately the US won this conflict once and for all in 1815 and the piracy issue ended, for the US at least  Jab1998 (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * well, again, it's up to consensus, i think i said my part Nourerrahmane (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They were not, but this article is about the barbary wars, and not the second barbary war. Again, the US did not defeat the Algiers once and for all and did not conclude the barbary wars, it was the british who did in the anglo dutch expedition of 1816, even there we can't talk about "ending barbary piracy or slavery", the rest are just your assumptions that i don't feel obliged to share. Nourerrahmane (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s about the US-Barbary wars not Barbary piracy as a whole. The US victory in the second Barbary war ended the US-Barbary conflict, therefore the conflict ultimately ended as an American victory.  Sure Barbary pirates continued to be a problem for Europeans and Britain bombarded them in 1816 but that is irrelevant since this article is about the period of conflict between the US and the pirate  Jab1998 (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean US participation was over right ?  Nourerrahmane (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This entire page is just about US-Barbary war. Not Barbary piracy as a whole.  That’s why Britain isn’t listed as a combatant  Jab1998 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In case you're still not convinced . However, according to the three sources, it's clear that 1815 marks the end of US participation and not the barbary wars as a whole, so britain and the nertherlands need to be listed, and a section about the bombardement of 1816 should be added. @M.Bitton your opinion ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you were making an article about all conflict involving barbary pirates then yes. This article however has always been strictly about the US-Barbary conflict.   Jab1998 (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not it's not, it's about the "Barbary wars". One more thing, numerous sources indicate that the barbary wars actually started in 1785 and was declared by Algiers and not the tripolitan war, so we're talking about a series of 3 seperate wars, where the US was defeated in 2 of them or the 1st one at least, this can't be ignored especially with the time lapse between each one of them, their results should be added in the infobox since this article is about the 3 of them. I suggest you don't bludgeone the process with your repeated answers and not edit war. Nourerrahmane (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes the “Barbary wars” between the US and the pirates. This article has always been about the US-Barbary conflict not the Barbary piracy issue as a whole.  Kinda like how the war on terror article is about the US led campaign against terrorists and it is not about all campaigns from all nations against all terrorist organizations.  Regarding 1785, technically they declared war against the US but the US did not engage in combat and opted to just pay tribute because the US lacked a proper navy.  In a war there needs to be combat between two opposing forces and this didn’t start until Thomas Jefferson’s presidency  Jab1998 (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The US completely won the 1815 war and also won a temporary victory the 1801-1805 war. The goal of the 1801-1805 war was to end tribute payments amd attacks on US shipping.  The war ended American tribute but attacks eventually resumed thus leading to the 1815 war.  The 1785 “war” didn’t actually see the us engaging in combat  Jab1998 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Either way, this article again has always been about just the conflict between Barbary pirates and the US and that conflict ultimately ended in 1815 with the US defeating the pirates. Sure they continued to fight Europeans but that is irrelevant as far as this article is concerned.  Hence by Britain is not in the combatants section  Jab1998 (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dey of Algiers declared war on the US, their were US casualties and US asked for a peace treaty which was signed and payed large tribute, the 1st barbary war is definately not a US victory the war with Algiers was a victory for the US, British and Dutch navies per sources, with 1815 marking the end of US participation. Again per sources, the only irrelevent thing here are your replies since they contradict sources, i guess i won't reply to those repeated replies of yours, my point here is clear and it's up for other editors to participate per WP:concensus. Nourerrahmane (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here’s a source for you:
 * https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars
 * its from the US State Department’s history page. It lists the 1801-1805 and 1815 wars as American victories.  It also notes that no American ships were seized after 1815.  This article is about the US-Barbary Conflict and not all conflicts involving Barbary pirates.  Similar to how the war on terror page is about the US led campaign of counter terrorism and is not about all counter terror campaigns undergone by all nations against all terrorist organizations  Jab1998 (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When I say “this article” after making the point about no ship seizures post 1815, I mean this wiki article Jab1998 (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't care about US point of view, i care about scholarly sources, per WP:RS and many sources affirm this was not a US victory, and i don't know why you're trying to feed us your silly comparisons with terrorism, the barbary states were organized states which had effective and internationally recognized governments with a clear foreign policy, you don't need to throw your political bias in history related articles per WP:NEUTRAL. Nourerrahmane (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not a silly comparison it’s a spot on comparison. By the way, the source I put mentions the 1785 “war” and notes the US was unable to fight back because Congress would not fund a navy so the US negotiated a treaty instead.  You can’t have a war if one side isn’t fighting  Jab1998 (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not showing political bias. I’m showing a dedication to historical facts.  Again for the one millionth time; this article is about the US-Barbary conflict.  It is not about all conflicts involving Barbary pirates or a history of piracy in the region  Jab1998 (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe this comparison will sit better with you. The Cold War article is about the specific Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union from 1945 to 1991.  It is not about all cold wars and periods of heightened tension that ever existed between nations.  Just like how this article is about the American-Barbary conflict and not all conflicts that happen to involve Barbary pirates attacking ships  Jab1998 (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems awfully awkward that you are trying to fall under the stereotype that many Europeans have of the United States where many Americans insist that other countries played no role or were irrelevant in World War II, but applying that mentality towards historical events. The Second Barbary War had Britain and the Netherlands as co-belligerents FIREYSUNSET (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * According to Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they identify as the winner of the Battle of Borodino. Most scholarly sources do not identify them as the winner. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * unfortunately, they reverted your edit. Clearly, they are only here to impose their POV through an edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s about preventing sabotage Jab1998 (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Britain isn’t even listed in the combatants section. You are right that there was conflict involving Barbary pirates and Europeans after the 1815 US war.  However this page is strictly about the US-Barbary conflict which started under Thomas Jefferson and ended in 1815.  This page is not about all conflicts involving Barbary pirates.  As far as the US-Barbary conflict is concerned, it ultimately ended in 1815.   The US won the 1815 war, therefore the US ultimately won the Barbary wars conflict that this article is about  Jab1998 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You deserve to be blocked again, indefinitely, if you make any more ultranationalistic edits. I will monitor every single edit your account makes. I will make sure to report you immediately if there is any ultranationalist behavior. Pretty much everyone else here has basically repeated what I told you in November 2023 ad nauseam. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Barbary Wars