text:
The Three Doctors (Doctor Who)

The Three Doctors is the first serial of the tenth season of the British science fiction television series Doctor Who, first broadcast in four weekly parts on BBC1 from 30 December 1972 to 20 January 1973.

In the serial, the solar engineer Omega (Stephen Thorne), the creator of the experiments that allowed the Time Lords to travel in time, seeks revenge on the Time Lords after he was left for dead in a universe made of antimatter. The Time Lords recruit the time travellers the First Doctor (William Hartnell), the Second Doctor (Patrick Troughton), and the Third Doctor (Jon Pertwee) for help when Omega drains power throughout the universe, threatening all of existence.

The serial opened the tenth anniversary year of the series, and features the first three Doctors all appearing in the same serial. This makes it the first Doctor Who story in which an earlier incarnation of the Doctor returns to the show. It was also Hartnell's last appearance as the First Doctor prior to his death in 1975.

Plot
A superluminal signal is sent to Earth, carrying with it an energy blob that seems intent on capturing the Doctor, but has already mysteriously abducted two individuals; a local game warden, and scientific researcher Dr. Tyler. The homeworld of the Time Lords is also under siege; they are trapped themselves, with universal energy being drained through a black hole, threatening to unravel the fabric of time and space. Desperate to send help, the Time Lords do the unthinkable, breaking the First Law of Time by recruiting a previous incarnation of the Doctor from his own past. As the Second Doctor and the present Third Doctor cannot cope with each other's personalities, the Time Lords attempt to retrieve the First Doctor to "keep them in order", but he is trapped in a "time eddy", unable to fully materialise, communicating through a viewscreen.

The Doctors investigate, while UNIT headquarters faces an attack by shapeless blob-like creatures. The First Doctor assists both Doctors by correctly surmising that the energy blob is a bridge to another universe. The Third Doctor attempts to go alone, but Jo is abruptly abducted with him. The Second Doctor later allows the TARDIS with himself, the Brigadier, and Benton inside, to be taken by the creature, although this causes UNIT HQ to be stolen as well. As Jo, the Third Doctor, and Dr. Tyler, whom they discover there, assess their situation in this mystery universe made of antimatter, they are accosted by more of the shapeless creatures and taken to an unfamiliar location. When they arrive, they meet the legendary Time Lord Omega, a solar engineer who created the supernova method that powers Time Lord civilisation, but which also supposedly killed him. Omega seeks revenge on the Time Lords, whom he assumes left him stranded alone for centuries in his universe, of which he explains that he willed into existence. Assuming he has been deceived once again by the Time Lords after discovering the Second Doctor and correctly deducing his identity, Omega imprisons both Doctors, Jo, Benton, and Tyler. After the two Doctors help everyone escape through both of their own wills, Omega discovers the getaway, and challenges the Third Doctor to a battle of minds.

The Second Doctor convinces Omega to stop, appealing to his desire to escape. Now calmer, Omega explains further to the two that he shaped this reality within the black hole both with his willpower and the power of its singularity. However, due to this, his will is the only support keeping this reality stable. He cannot freely leave without releasing control, but releasing control would collapse the antimatter universe instantly, annihilating everything in it. As he describes it, he is the "...Atlas of [his] world...". Because of this, Omega's intention is for the Doctors to take his place maintaining this reality. As he prepares to leave with the Doctors' help, they are horrified to discover that the extremely prolonged exposure to the singularity has destroyed Omega's physical body; his will also maintains his essence and he will cease to exist if he leaves. Suffering a nervous breakdown from the shock, Omega now seeks to destroy all creation.

Taking advantage of his neurosis, the two Doctors escape back to the TARDIS with all of the abductees. With the help of the First, the Second and Third Doctors devise a way to defeat Omega. The two meet with Omega again, claiming they can give him his freedom. Omega, though, retorts that he cannot be freed, and demands that they share his exile. The Doctors agree, on the condition that all of his abductees are sent safely back to Earth. Once done, the two present Omega with the TARDIS' force field generator. In a rage at this paltry offer, Omega knocks it over and the Second Doctor's recorder falls out (having fallen into it earlier during the transference to Omega's universe, thus accidentally remaining unconverted normal matter), annihilating everything it meets in the antimatter universe in a flash, creating a new source of energy, and returning the Doctors in the TARDIS, UNIT HQ, and all of its stolen structures and objects, to their proper places in the normal universe. With the Time Lords' power restored, they return the First and Second Doctors to their respective time periods.

Forlorn, The Doctor reflects on the recent events, and explains to Jo that death was the only freedom anyone could offer Omega. Out of forgiveness, the Time Lords then send the Third Doctor a new dematerialisation circuit for the TARDIS and restore his knowledge of how to travel through space and time.

Production
Working titles for this story included The Black Hole. The script was originally supposed to feature all three Doctors equally, but William Hartnell was too ill to be able to play the full role as envisioned. He was, therefore, reduced to a pre-recorded cameo role, appearing only on the TARDIS's scanner and the space-time viewer of the Time Lords. It would be the last time he played the Doctor and his last acting role before his death in 1975. Hartnell's scenes were filmed at BBC's Ealing Studios.

The only time that all three Doctors appeared together was in promotional photos for the story. One session of these took place in October 1972 at a photo studio in Battersea - this produced the image that was used for the cover of the Radio Times magazine to promote the story.

The production team also planned for Frazer Hines to reprise his role of Jamie McCrimmon alongside the Second Doctor; however, Hines was not available, due to his work on the soap opera Emmerdale Farm. Much of the role originally intended for Jamie was reassigned to Sergeant Benton.

Casting notes
The Chancellor is portrayed by Clyde Pollitt, who had also played one of the Time Lords who tried and exiled the Second Doctor. Barry Letts states in the DVD commentary that this was intentional, as he meant for this to be the same character. Similarly, Graham Leaman reappears as a Time Lord, having been seen in the same role in Colony in Space (1971) discussing the Master's activities and the Time Lords' use of the exiled Doctor as an agent. The same DVD commentary and the on-screen production captions note that the unavailability of actor Richard Franklin led to a shifting of the roles by the UNIT supporting cast. Sergeant Benton took on the majority of the role written for Captain Yates and a new character, Corporal Palmer, took on most of the lines originally written for Benton.

Reception
Patrick Mulkern of Radio Times wrote that The Three Doctors "may not be the greatest story ever told" but it ended the Doctor's exile on Earth and brought back Troughton, though unfortunately Hartnell was not able to do much. The A.V. Club reviewer Christopher Bahn summarised that the serial "has some good ideas in it, but they're treated with such an unambitious lack of imagination that there's not enough actually happening here for the story to be offensively bad—just boring". He felt the "most enjoyable part" was the "comic squabbling" between Pertwee and Troughton, and also called the Brigadier a "saving grace". DVD Talk's Ian Jane gave the serial three out of five stars, noting that it was "slightly silly" and the production designs and special effects were "definitely not the best that the series has had to offer". He also felt that the story was wrapped up too quickly and was "fairly predictable". However, he praised Pertwee and Troughton's interplay, the fact that Jo was given more to do, and Stephen Thorne's performance as Omega. Alisdair Wilkins of io9 picked The Three Doctors as the worst Doctor Who story of the classic series, feeling that the Second Doctor and the Brigadier were written as too comical, the story had too much padding, and that Omega was a "shouting, one-dimensional villain".

Broadcast
The serial was repeated on BBC2 in November 1981, daily (Monday–Thursday) (23 November 1981 to 26 November 1981) at 17:40 as part of "The Five Faces of Doctor Who". The four episodes achieved ratings of 5.0, 4.5, 5.7 and 5.8 million viewers respectively.

In print
A novelisation of this serial, written by Terrance Dicks, was published by Target Books in November 1975.

The novelisation provides a rationale for Omega's realm to be a quarry: Over the millennia, Omega has become weary of the mental effort required to generate a verdant landscape and now makes do with rock and soil. The Second Doctor is referred to throughout as Doctor Two. In the book, Mr Ollis is renamed Mr Hollis. It is stated that Omega is only the second Time Lord that the Doctor has come up against as an adversary, the first being The Master.

Home media
The Three Doctors was released twice on VHS, first in August 1991 and thereafter remastered and re-released in 2002 as part of the WHSmith's The Time Lord Collection boxed set. It was released on DVD in the UK in November 2003 as part of the Doctor Who 40th Anniversary Celebration releases, representing the Jon Pertwee years. Some copies came in a box set housing a limited edition Corgi model of "Bessie", the Third Doctor's vintage roadster. A special edition of the DVD, with new bonus features, was released in the UK on 13 February 2012 in the third of the ongoing Revisitations DVD box sets with additional bonus features. In 2019, The Three Doctors was released as part of the Season Ten Boxed Set Blu-Ray collection. The story and its special features occupy one disc in the set, and include features from previous releases and specially-made content.

Tales of the TARDIS
A special edition of the episode aired on BBC iPlayer on 1 November 2023, in the spin-off Tales of the TARDIS.

title: The Three Doctors (Doctor Who)


text:
OpenGL++

OpenGL++ was a graphics library written in C++ that supported object-oriented data structures on top of the OpenGL 3D graphics system. The project started as the result of a partnership between SGI, IBM and Intel, and later, Digital Equipment Corporation. It was intended to provide a higher level API than the "bare metal" support of OpenGL, as well as being an implementation for Java3D. Work on OpenGL++ ended when SGI decided to partner with Microsoft instead, leading to the Fahrenheit project, which also died.

Background
The vast majority of applications using 3D systems describe the objects in their "world" in a data structure known as a scene graph. A scene graph is normally organized as some sort of a tree data structure, with the nodes representing objects, and the edges their relationship to other objects in the world. For instance, a table might be represented by a single "table" object with several edges connecting its parts together, the table top, legs, etc.

Key to high performance in 3D applications is deciding what objects in the world are actually visible given the current camera position and direction. For instance, objects behind the camera do not have to be drawn. Quick traversal of the scene graph is essential to making this "culling" operation occur quickly.

Scene graphs were generally left to the developer to implement, and it was all too common to see poor examples that led to poor performance. SGI had worked on a number of projects that were intended to help the developer produce a high-quality scene graph, but none of these had become widely used for a variety of reasons. Open Inventor was one such example, and was intended to simplify building the scene graph, but the results were not necessarily very high performance. OpenGL Performer was a similar project that was intended to produce high-speed scenes and support very large numbers of objects in the "world", but was not particularly easy to use.

Cosmo3D
The Inventor and Performer teams had already realized that there was no particular reason the two systems could not be combined into one, offering both ease-of-development and high-performance. This led to the Cosmo3D system, basically, a standardized high-performance scene graph that sat on top of OpenGL. Cosmo3D introduced a new file format that could be used to store entire scenes and all the data needed to reconstruct them, the VRML format that is still in use.

SGI produced a number of products that used Cosmo3D. Among these were a variety of VRML tools, and a large model visualization system for CAD purposes called OpenGL Optimizer. Oddly, Cosmo Code, a VRML authoring tool, was produced by a different division and did not use the Cosmo scene graph at all.

Cosmo's scene graph was by no means a unique solution at the time, and a number of other graphics companies were working on similar ideas at about this time.

OpenGL++
At the 20–21 August 1996 meeting of the OpenGL Architecture Review Board (ARB), SGI floated the idea of a new standardized scene graph similar to Cosmo3D but with the express intent of being based on "standard" OpenGL. There was some interest in the concept, so at the 9–10 December 1996 meeting the group presented the first draft of the OpenGL++ concept. A follow-up meeting during 17–19 February 1997 demonstrated that there was considerable interest from most parties, with the exception of Microsoft and Sun, although there were concerns as to whether or not the ARB was the right body to support such an effort without diluting their primary job of supporting OpenGL. Development continued throughout 1997 including several distributions of the API. However, the ARB notes "There's been lots of work, but relatively little communication."

While the work on OpenGL++ continued, Sun and SGI had also been working on a 3D standard suitable for Java. These efforts eventually broke down, and Sun went on to release Java3D. SGI suggested their Cosmo work was a sample Java3D implementation, and as this work evolved into OpenGL++ these plans moved with it. During the definition of OpenGL++, Sun stated that they were not interested in working on the effort as they were focussed on their Java3D work. Comparatively, Java3D spans two layers of the 3D stack, the scene graph and the visual interface and its widgets.

By late 1997 SGI appeared to be fully committed to the OGL++ effort. They had stated that the existing Cosmo work would be abandoned and that Open Inventor, Performer and OpenGL Optimizer would be re-written to be hosted on top of OGL++. As OGL++ was intended to be a cleaned up and more flexible version of Cosmo3D, most of the Cosmo3D team started work on OGL++ and a lot of the effort was aimed at a specification and implementation that could deliver on the promise of a truly powerful yet generic scene graph.

At the end
At the March 1998 ARB meeting, to everyone's surprise, SGI presented Fahrenheit, an entirely new project. The ARB notes from that meeting note "SGI felt it was critical to work together with Microsoft, which had not been moving in compatible directions, to be able to build value-added products in the Windows environment. Fahrenheit is a large step in that direction." OpenGL++ was abandoned.

The project appears to have been a victim of SGI's shifting priorities through this period, changing directions in order to partner with larger companies. When these companies exited the 3D space to focus on other product niches, SGI was left as the only supporter of the project, exactly what they were trying to avoid. Eventually, the only other company with a 3D focus was Microsoft, and the Fahrenheit project started and ended shortly after the OpenGL++ efforts.

Today, no such standardized scene graph exists, and SGI has all but exited the API world. SGI has released the earlier Open Inventor code into open source, but the source to OGL++ was never completed to any satisfactory degree. No finalized specification exists and, as with OpenGL, the spec and idea behind such an open platform would have been what lent it its lasting value, not a single implementation of a scene graph idea.

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

title: OpenGL++


text:
HMS Nottingham (D91)

HMS Nottingham was a batch two Type 42 destroyer of the Royal Navy, named after the city of Nottingham, England. She was launched on 18 February 1980, and commissioned on 8 April 1983 as the sixth warship to bear the name.

Her commanding officer at commissioning was Commander Nigel Essenhigh (in his first major command role) who went on to become First Sea Lord.

On her first cruise to Oporto, Portugal and then Gibraltar the destroyer lost two sailors to a drowning incident while on shore leave visiting a beach in Oporto.

In November 2000, Nottingham completed a major refit, which was intended to extend her operational life to 2012, although she was later placed in reserve and decommissioned on 11 February 2010.

2002 grounding
On 7 July 2002, Nottingham ran aground on the submerged but well-charted Wolf Rock near Lord Howe Island, 370 mi off the coast of Australia causing £26 million worth of damage. A 160 ft hole was torn down the side of the vessel from bow to bridge, flooding five of her compartments and nearly causing her to sink. HMNZS Te Mana and HMNZS Endeavour provided relief for the crew for approximately 2–3 weeks.

The accident happened in poor weather after a set of manoeuvres to allow a sailor with an emergency medical condition to be evacuated to Lord Howe Island. The captain, Commander Richard Farrington, had been ashore having dinner with the island's marine services manager thanking him for the assistance rendered to his crewman. Farrington had just returned and at the time of the incident the Executive Officer (XO), Lt Commander John Lea, was in-charge of the vessel. Nottingham ran aground on Wolf Rock owing to a navigational error and the vessel immediately went into damage control mode. Commander Farrington returned to the bridge whereby he took command and controlled the breached compartments.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) salvage department (SALMO) was contacted and assisted with logistics through local marine expert Graeme Mackenzie. The SALMO team, assisted by Nottingham's crew, stabilized her at sea making her ready for the journey into Newcastle.

On 6 August, Nottingham set out on her journey to the port of Newcastle, north of Sydney, towed stern-first because of the damage to her bow. In Newcastle, her Sea Dart missiles were removed and further repairs were carried out. Royal Navy personnel, Operations Manager Mr Graeme Mackenzie, RN Commander Anthony Holberry and SALMO Mr James Ward took charge of the shore-side recovery programme without incident.

It was not clear whether it was economic to repair her, but Nottingham had recently undergone major modifications to her radar and other electronics, and it was determined that it would be less expensive to return her to the UK and repair her than to bring another Type 42 destroyer up to her new specification.

After arriving in Sydney on 15 October, the damaged ship was lifted on board the heavy lifting vessel MV Swan and welded to her deck for transport. On 28 October, Nottingham left Sydney harbour on board MV Swan for the journey back to the UK. By 9 December, she had arrived at Portsmouth Harbour for repairs at Fleet Support Limited. The destroyer HMS Glasgow (D88) was temporarily reactivated to cover for Nottingham while she was being repaired.

On 7 July 2003, the anniversary of the collision, Nottingham was refloated. In April 2004 she sailed again following the £39m repair and refit. The ship returned to duty in July 2004.

On 23 August 2004, Nottingham met SAS Mendi, a Valour-class frigate of the South African Navy at the site where the troopship SS Mendi was sunk during the First World War. The crew laid wreaths in remembrance to those who died in service for their country.

Disposal
In April 2008, she was placed in a state of "extended readiness" at Portsmouth. With her crew dispersed, she did not sail again before being decommissioned on 11 February 2010. She was put up for auction on 28 March 2011, which resulted in her sale for scrap to Leyal Ship Recycling. She was towed out of Portsmouth en route to Turkey on 19 October 2011.

Affiliations

 * The Mercian Regiment
 * No. 8 Squadron RAF
 * No. 56(R) Squadron RAF
 * 307 (South Nottinghamshire Hussars Yeomanry RHA) Battery, 100 (Yeomanry) Regiment, Royal Artillery
 * Worshipful Company of Saddlers
 * City of Nottingham

title: HMS Nottingham (D91)


text:
Kanjut Sar

Kanjut Sar (کنجت سر), or Kunjudh Sar as pronounced in Wakhi, is a mountain located between Shimshal Valley, and Hisper valley part of the Karakoram mountain range. The name Kunjudh Sar in Wakhi means "that which overlooks Kunjudh", or "above Kunjudh", while Khujudh is the Wakhi name for Central Hunza. It is the 28th-highest mountain in the world. According to many residents of Shimshal, Kanjut Sar is the name of the adjacent peak Yukshin Gardan Sar, and vice versa. In Shimshal village, the original namings are widely accepted and used, as opposed to what is recognised internationally.

Kanjut Sar consists of two peaks:
 * Kanjut Sar I at 7760 m.
 * Kanjut Sar II, to the southeast of I, at 6831 m.

Kanjut Sar I was first climbed in 1959 by Camillo Pellissier, member of an Italian expedition directed by Guido Monzino. Between 4 and 6 August 1981, seven Japanese climbers of the same expedition climbed to the top. In 2010, a Russian–American expedition attempted to climb on the Eastern Ridge of Kanjut Sar and reached 7450 m, but turned back in bad weather.

The first ascent of Kanjut Sar II was achieved by a Swiss team in 1985. Expedition leader Toni Spirig, Ueli Stahel and Richie Ott finally carried it out in alpine style after several attempts. The climbers reached the summit on July 10. The ascent route led over the north-west side.

On July 29, 1990, a Dutch expedition made the second ascent of Kanjut Sar II in alpine style via the south face. Expedition members were Peter Kok, Frank Schmidt, Franck van den Barselaer, Hendrik Freie and Pieter de Kam.

title: Kanjut Sar


text:
Dimensions in Time

Dimensions in Time is a charity special crossover between the British science fiction television series Doctor Who and the soap opera EastEnders. The special was broadcast in two parts on 26 and 27 November 1993 and was filmed on location at Greenwich and the EastEnders Albert Square set.

Dimensions in Time featured all of the surviving actors to have played the Doctor as well as many of the character's companions and several of the EastEnders stars of the time. The special was produced for Children in Need following Doctor Who's cancellation in 1989 and was the only original story broadcast in celebration of the show's 30th anniversary.

Plot
The Rani has opened a hole in time, allowing her access to the Doctor's timeline. She uses this to cycle through the Doctor's lives, causing him and his companions to jump back and forth between past and present incarnations. Her plan is to capture all of the Doctor's selves in a time loop, trapping him in the East End of London; she has already captured the First and Second Doctors. This causes the Fourth Doctor to send a message to his remaining selves, warning them of the Rani's plan:

"Mayday! Mayday! This is an urgent message for all of the Doctors. It's vitally important that you listen carefully to me, for once. Our whole existence is being threatened by a renegade Time Lord known only as the Rani! She hates me. She even hates children! Two of my earlier selves have already been snared in her vicious trap. The grumpy one and the flautist, do you remember? She wants to put us out of action, lock us away in a dreary backwater of London's East End, trapped in a time-loop in perpetuity. Her evil is all around us! I can hear the heart beat of a killer. She's out there somewhere. We must be on our guard and we must stop her before she destroys all of my other selves! Oh... Good luck, my dears!"

The Seventh Doctor and Ace are confused when the TARDIS lands in Greenwich, near the Cutty Sark, thanks to the Rani's attack on the TARDIS. The Doctor finds a newspaper showing the year to be 1973, but before he can make any more conclusions, the Rani causes time to jump. Ace finds herself in Albert Square in 1993 with the Sixth Doctor. Local resident Sanjay tries to sell Ace some new clothes from his stall, and when his wife Gita tells the Sixth Doctor that the clothing is going to be all the rage in 1994, the Rani jumps time again.

The Third Doctor and Mel Bush appear from the time jump, and question an older Pauline Fowler and Kathy Beale on when they are. When Pauline and Kathy reply that it is 2013, another time jump occurs. In 1973, Pauline and Kathy remember the assassination of John F. Kennedy, while Kathy tells off a young Ian Beale. The Sixth Doctor and Susan Foreman appear, but she wonders what has happened to the First Doctor and her other companions Ian Chesterton and Barbara Wright.

After another time jump to 2013, Susan changes into Sarah Jane Smith and after chatting to Sharon Watts she meets up with the Doctor who changed from the Sixth to the Third Doctor. They start to piece together what is happening to them, but the Rani releases her menagerie of specimens, including a Cyberman, Fifi, a Sea Devil, an Ogron and a Time Lord from Gallifrey in the next time jump. In 1993, the Fifth Doctor, Nyssa and Peri are attacked by the Rani's menagerie, and after trying to warn Pat Butcher of the danger, the Rani stops them outside the Queen Vic.

In 1993, after the Fifth Doctor changes to the Third Doctor in the next time jump, along with Nyssa and Peri changing into Liz Shaw, the Rani takes control of Liz's mind. As Mandy Salter tries to stop the Rani, Captain Mike Yates of UNIT arrives in Bessie to save the Third Doctor and take him to the Brigadier who is waiting for them.

After another time jump, the Doctor changes to the Sixth Doctor and after he says goodbye to the Brigadier time jumps again. In 1993, at the Arches, Phil and Grant Mitchell find Romana looking for the Doctor, but they point her to Dr Legg. As Romana walks past the Queen Vic, the Rani captures her in front of Frank Butcher.

Back in 1973, the Third Doctor explains to Victoria who the Rani was and thinks that her control is breaking down, as they return to the TARDIS.

After the Seventh Doctor lands the TARDIS in 1993, Leela escapes from the Rani, after being cloned in the form of Romana. This results in an additional Time Lord brain imprint being left on the computer inside the Rani's TARDIS instead of the human one she needed, which gives the Seventh Doctor, Ace, and K9 the edge needed to rig up a device to overload it, sending the Rani into the time tunnel where she had trapped the First and Second Doctors and freeing the Doctors' other selves from the loop. As the Seventh Doctor and Ace leave in the TARDIS, the Doctor observes "Certainly, I – I mean, we – are difficult to get rid of."

Continuity
The array of aliens summoned to Walford by the Rani included: an Aldeberian (Zog), an Argolin, a biomechanoid dragon, a Cyberman, a Mawdryn mutant, Lord Kiv, a Mogarian, an Ogron, a Plasmaton, the Sandminer robot D84, a Sea Devil, a Stigorax (Fifi), a Tetrap, a Time Lord, a Tractator, a Vanir and a Vervoid.

Cast notes

 * This was the final official appearance of Jon Pertwee as the Third Doctor; Pertwee died three years later.
 * Tom Baker returned to the role of the Fourth Doctor on television for the first time since leaving 12 years previously, though he had recorded links for the video release of the incomplete Shada the year before. Baker would later return to the series in 2013's "The Day of the Doctor" in which he appears as "The Curator".
 * This special marks the first time that Peter Davison returned as the Fifth Doctor. He would later reprise the role in the 2007 mini-episode broadcast for Children in Need, "Time Crash", alongside his future son-in-law David Tennant as the Tenth Doctor; in 2022 as a "Guardian of the Edge" in "The Power of the Doctor"; and in 2023 in "Tales of the TARDIS" alongside Janet Fielding as Tegan.
 * This was the final appearance of Colin Baker as the Sixth Doctor until 2022, when he appeared as a “Guardian of the Edge” to the Thirteenth Doctor alongside the First, Fifth, Seventh and Eighth Doctors, and in 2023 in "Tales of the TARDIS" alongside Nicola Bryant as Peri.
 * This is the last appearance on television of Caroline John as Liz Shaw (John died in 2012) and Deborah Watling as Victoria Waterfield (Watling died in 2017).
 * In February 1993, Sophie Aldred had guest-starred in a two-episode arc on EastEnders as Suzi. She appears in Dimensions in Time as Ace, her character from Doctor Who and the final companion of the classic era. The character would not appear on television again until 2022 in "The Power of the Doctor" as the Thirteenth Doctor's companion alongside former companion Tegan, although Ace would appear in a YouTube video on the official Doctor Who YouTube channel made to promote the Blu-ray re-release of Season 26. Aldred later reprised her role as Ace in Tales of the TARDIS in 2023 alongside Sylvester McCoy as the Doctor.
 * This marked the only time that the Brigadier appeared with the Sixth Doctor on-screen; they also met in the Big Finish audio drama "The Spectre of Lanyon Moor".
 * This marks the most recent on-screen appearances of Carole Ann Ford as Susan Foreman, Nicola Bryant as Peri Brown, Sarah Sutton as Nyssa, Lalla Ward as Romana and Louise Jameson as Leela.
 * This was also the last appearance of Bonnie Langford as Mel Bush until her cameo at the end of "The Power of the Doctor". Langford later guest starred in "The Giggle" and series 14, alongside Ncuti Gatwa as the Doctor.
 * This marked the final appearance of Kate O'Mara as The Rani. O'Mara died in 2014.
 * Samuel West would later play the renegade Time Lord Morbius in the Big Finish audio drama "The Vengeance of Morbius"
 * The Dimensions of Time and 3-Dimensions of Time were the working titles for this story. David Roden convinced producer John Nathan-Turner not to use either title, and instead settled on Dimensions in Time.
 * This was David Roden's first professional script. Roden's original draft featured the Seventh Doctor meeting the Brigadier on route to a UNIT reunion – and becoming involved in a battle with a crashed spacecraft full of Cybermen. The script was entitled Destination: Holocaust, and featured the Seventh Doctor and Brigadier trapped in a burning church, trying to fight off the advancing damaged Cybermen. This original idea, written by David Roden, was vetoed by Nathan-Turner after it became apparent that Children in Need wished for the story to be a crossover with EastEnders. Despite loving the originally proposed script, Nathan-Turner also had concerns about the cost, which would have included several lengthy night-shoots and a much larger special effects budget.
 * Allegedly, Anthony Ainley was approached by Nathan-Turner to play the part of the Master in this story, but he turned it down. Ainley, however, denied this, insisting that if he were asked, he would have had no hesitation in appearing. Michael Gough was later approached to reprise the role of the Celestial Toymaker, and again Nathan-Turner was turned down. Finally, Kate O'Mara was asked if she would like to reprise her role of the Rani – a request to which she agreed. O'Mara was joined by Samuel West, who played her companion Cyrian (named after the original intended actor, Sir Ian McKellen).
 * The special was one of several special 3D programmes the BBC produced at the time, using a 3D system developed by American inventor Terry D. Beard that made use of the Pulfrich effect. The technology required spectacles with one darkened lens and one transparent one; these were sold in shops to the public, with the proceeds going to Children in Need.
 * The Daleks were supposed to appear, but the segment was scrapped after a disagreement with Dalek creator Terry Nation over payments. The Dalek segment would have seen Peter Davison facing up against them again in the streets seen in the 1984 serial Resurrection of the Daleks.
 * All actors and crew gave their services especially for Children in Need, and waived their fees on the condition that Dimensions in Time would never be repeated or sold on home video for profit. For the same reason, the story has and never will be released on DVD or appear as an extra on home video.

Broadcast

 * Part One was broadcast as part of the 1993 Children in Need telethon. It was introduced by Noel Edmonds in a short live sketch with Jon Pertwee, in character as the Third Doctor.
 * At the end of Part One, viewers were asked to phone in and vote for which EastEnders character would save the Doctor at the start of Part Two. Two versions of the scene were filmed, one featuring Mandy and the non-speaking character Sylvia Weng-Chung and the other featuring Big Ron. The £101,000 raised from phone calls went to Children in Need. The result of the vote was announced prior to the screening of Part Two. The version featuring Mandy was broadcast after it won 56% of the vote.
 * Part Two was broadcast as part of popular UK programme Noel's House Party.

Reception
Dimensions in Time has received almost universally negative reviews and is often highlighted as a particular low point of the Wilderness Years: the period between Doctor Who's 1989 cancellation and the 2005 revival. Criticism has been aimed towards the gimmicky nature of the EastEnders crossover and the 3D effects; Tom Baker's limited involvement; the low-budget nature of the overall production; and the special's confusing relationship with the show's main continuity. Dimensions in Time holds an average fan rating of 4.3/10 on Doctor Who ratings aggregator TheTimeScales.com. Licensed reference book Doctor Who The Handbook: The Second Doctor gave the special a 0/10 and referred to it as "a dreadful travesty of a Doctor Who story".

Dimensions in Time has been likened to the similarly-maligned Star Wars Holiday Special, due to both productions being low-budget TV specials with questionable canonicity in relation to their main series, and due to similar perceptions of overall extremely poor quality.

Ratings
Dimensions in Time achieved viewing figures of 13.8 million viewers for the first part and 13.6 million for the second part, making them two of the most highly watched episodes of Doctor Who ever produced. The highest single audience figure was for Part Four of City of Death, at 16.1 million viewers.

title: Dimensions in Time


text:
Haramosh Peak

Haramosh Peak (ہراموش چوٹی), also known as Haramosh or Peak 58, is a Karakoram range mountain located in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. The total population of the Haramosh Valley is at least 8000. The 7,409-meter Haramosh Peak is situated roughly 65 kilometers (40 miles) to the east of Gilgit, within the south-central part of the Rakaposhi-Haramosh Mountains, which is a subrange of the Karakoram range. This mountain rises steeply above the north bank of the Indus River, just upstream from its confluence with the Gilgit River.

The Haramosh massif consists of two main summits: Haramosh Peak and Haramosh Kutwal Laila Peak. The Haramosh Peak was first successfully climbed in 1958 by an Austrian team comprising Heini Roiss, Stephan Pauer, and Dr. Franz Mandl.

Climbing history
Haramosh was first reconnoitered in 1947 when a Swiss team explored the area. Subsequently, in 1955, a German team investigated a potential northeastern route to the mountain. However, it was in 1957 that Haramosh became the site of a tragic and ill-fated expedition. A team from Oxford University, consisting of Tony Streather, John Emery, Bernard Jillot, and Rae Culbert, attempted to conquer the peak but faced a series of mishaps and misfortunes during their ascent. This expedition led to the loss of Bernard Jillot and Rae Culbert's lives, while Tony Streather and John Emery survived. Emery, however, endured severe frostbite and lost all of his fingers and toes as a result of the ordeal. The epic tale of this expedition is told in Ralph Barker's The Last Blue Mountain.

Haramosh was first climbed on 4 August 1958 by three Austrian mountaineers: Heinrich Roiss, Stefan Pauer and Franz Mandl, via the Haramosh La (a saddle to the northeast) and the East Ridge, roughly the route of the 1957 tragedy.

According to the Himalayan Index, there have been only three more ascents, in 1978 (Japanese, West Ridge), 1979 (unknown party/route), and 1988 (Polish, Southwest Face).

title: Haramosh Peak


text:
Bassam Tibi

Bassam Tibi (بسام طيبي), is a Syrian-born German political scientist and professor of international relations specializing in Islamic studies and Middle Eastern studies. He was born in 1944 in Damascus, Syria to an aristocratic family, and moved to West Germany in 1962, where he later became a naturalized citizen in 1976.

He is known for his analysis of international relations and the introduction of Islam to the study of international conflict and of civilization. Tibi is known for introducing the controversial concept of European Leitkultur, as well as the concept of Euroislam to discussions about integration of Muslim immigrants in European countries. Tibi has done research in Asian and African countries. He publishes in English, German, and Arabic.

Academic career
He studied in Frankfurt am Main under Max Horkheimer, obtaining his Ph.D. there in 1971, and later habilitated in Hamburg, Germany. From 1973 until his retirement in 2009, he was Professor for International Relations at Göttingen University. Parallel to this appointment he was, from 1982 to 2000, at Harvard University in a variety of affiliations, the latest being a 1998 to 2000 stint as The Bosch Fellow. Currently, he is an A.D. White Professor-at-Large at Cornell University. Tibi had eighteen visiting professorships in all continents including fellowships in Princeton University, UC Berkeley, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, and most recently (2010) at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, Washington D.C. Tibi was also a visiting senior fellow at Yale University. After his retirement in 2009, he published Islam's Predicament with Modernity, a book embodying his life's work.

Views
Bassam Tibi's views can be accurately stated by a quote from the German distinguished Professor Walter Reese-Schäfer. This scholar writes on Tibi "Unlike other authors Bassam Tibi bases his views as a scholarly observer on his participation in the matter he deals with", that is he writes as an insider. The views of Bassam Tibi can be best referred to by quoting from his twelve books written and published in English. In his book on Arab Spring "The Shari'a State" (2013) he enlists himself among the other Muslims identified as "enlightened Arab thinkers who are clear about the need for the introduction of democracy into the Arab world". Thus, Bassam Tibi subscribes to the "enlightened Muslim thought". This is a contemporary school of thought in Islamic civilization. In another book on "Islamism and Islam" published by Yale University Press (2010) Bassam Tibi discards the Islamist rejection of democracy (chapter 4) and concludes in the final chapter 9 with a commitment to "civil Islam as an alternative to Islamism".

On Islam
Tibi is a Muslim, but criticizes Islamism and advocates "reforming" Islam. Tibi also suggests that Muslim immigrants should refrain from engaging in religious missionary activities, Dawa.

On Europe
When it comes to Europe, Tibi distinguishes positive and negative elements of European culture. The positive ones are, according to Tibi, enlightenment, pluralism, civil rights and secularization. Tibi argues that there is a need for Europe to defend these values, especially in times of globalization and migration from Muslim countries. On the other hand, Tibi argues that racism is a European invention, and that Europeans must overcome what he calls "Euro-arrogance" and xenophobia to integrate immigrants.

He criticizes European imperialism, arguing that it disrupted and deformed other cultures. Acknowledging that Muslim conquerors also did wrongs, Tibi argues that, unlike the European conquests, Muslim conquests were not driven by any kind of racism.

On Germany
He has criticised the left-green dominated German media for stifling debate about Islam in Germany, leading to ordinary people being afraid to state their opinions. As an example he gives Uwe Tellkamp, who expressed criticism against the German policy of migration and was attacked in mainstream media and painted as a right-extremist. He has also criticised authorities in Germany for not standing up to the large organised Islamic community organisations like the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs and for not supporting liberal Muslims like Seyran Ateş and Necla Kelek.

On Israel
Bassam Tibi has criticized the Likud party of Israel as blocking the peace process. He states that in the 1990s, the Likud adopted the "Three Nos" policy: "'No to the Palestinian State, no to dividing Jerusalem, no to returning Golan Heights to Syria."

According to Tibi, the Likud government of 1996 engaged in provoking Arabs by constructing Har Homa in Arab Jerusalem, and digging a tunnel under the Temple Mount, and thereby exposing Israel to terrorism.

Awards
In 1995 he was decorated by the President of Germany, Roman Herzog, with the Bundesverdienstkreuz, cross of merits first class. In 2003, the Swiss Foundation for European Awareness granted him in Zurich with the annual prize.

Books in English

 * The Crisis of Modern Islam: A Preindustrial Culture in the Scientific-Technological Age. Translated by Judith von Sivers. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1988.
 * Islam and the Cultural Accommodation of Social Change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990.
 * Conflict and War in the Middle East: From Interstate War to New Security, new expanded ed. 1998, published in association with WCFIA/Harvard University.
 * Arab Nationalism. Between Islam and the Nation-State, first ed. 1980, second ed. 1990, third expanded and revised ed. 1997, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
 * The Challenge of Fundamentalism: Political Islam and the New World Disorder. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998; updated edition 2002. ISBN 0-520-23690-4
 * Islam between Culture and Politics. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York Cambridge, Mass: Palgrave, in association with the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, 2001. 2nd edition, 2005. ISBN 1-4039-4990-5
 * Crusade and Jihad: Islam and the Christian World. Wilhelm Goldmann Verlag, München, Random House GmbH, 2001 ISBN 963-13-5238-2
 * Political Islam, World Politics and Europe. Routledge, New York, 2008. ISBN 0-415-43781-4
 * Islam’s Predicament with Modernity: Religious Reform and Cultural Change Routledge, NY and London, 2009, ISBN 978-0-415-48472-5
 * Islamism and Islam. Yale University Press (May 22, 2012)

Articles and book chapters (selection)

 * "Islam and Modern European Ideologies." International Journal of Middle East Studies 18, no. 1 (1986): 15–29.
 * "The European Tradition of Human Rights and Culture of Islam." In Human Rights in Africa Cross Cultural Perspectives, ed. Abdullahi Ahmed An Na`im and Francis M. Deng, 104. Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 1990.
 * "The Simultaneity of the Unsimultaneous - Old Tribes and Imposed Nation-States in the Modern Middle East." In Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East, ed. Philip S. Khoury and Joseph Kostiner, 127–152. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.
 * "Islamic Law/Shari'a, Human Rights, Universal Morality and International Relations." Human Rights Quarterly 16, no. 2 (1994): 277.
 * "The Worldview of Sunni Arab Fundamentalists: Attitudes toward Modern Science and Technology." In Fundamentalisms and Society, ed. Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appelby, 73–102. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
 * "War and Peace in Islam." In Ethics of War and Peace, ed. Terry Nardin, 128–145. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
 * "The Fundamentalist Challenge to the Secular Order in the Middle East." The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 23 (1999): 191–210.
 * "Post-Bipolar Order in Crisis: The Challenge of Politicised Islam." Millennium 29, no. 3 (2000): 843–860.
 * "Europeanizing Islam or the Islamization of Europe," in: Peter Katzenstein, ed., Religion in an Expanding Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
 * "The Totalitarianism of Jihadist Islamism and its Challenge to Europe and to Islam." in: Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2007, 35–54.
 * "A Migration Story: From Muslim Immigrants to European “Citizens of the Heart?“" in: The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs Vol.31 (Winter 2007) 1: 191-210.
 * "Euro-Islamic Religious Pluralism for Europe. An Alternative to Ethnicity and to "Multiculturalism of Fear"," in: The Current, Vol. 11 (Fall 2007) 1: 89-103.
 * "Islamism and Democracy: The Case of the Arab World," in: Leonard Weinberg, ed., Democratic Responses to Terrorism (New York: Routledge, 2008), 41–61.
 * "Religious Extremism or Religionization of Politics? The Ideological Foundations of Political Islam", in: Hillel Frisch and Efraim Inbar, eds, Radical Islam and International Security (New York: Routledge, 2008), Chapter One, pp. 11–37, ISBN 978-0-415-44460-6.
 * "The Return of the Sacred to Politics as a Constitutional Law. The Case of the Shari’atization of Politics in Islamic Civilization", in: Theoria. A Journal of Social and Political Theory, vol. 55 (April 2008), issue 115, pp. 91–119,.
 * "Turkey’s Islamist Danger. Islamists Approach Europe", in: Middle East Quarterly, vol. 16,1 (Winter 2009), pp. 47–54.
 * "Euro-Islam: An Alternative to Islamization and Ethnicity of Fear", in: Zeyno Baran (Ed.), The Other Muslims: Moderate and Secular, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010

title: Bassam Tibi


text:
Joseph Buford Cox

Joseph Buford Cox (1905 – August 10, 2002), was an American inventor and businessman. He invented what is now known as the chipper type chain for chain saws. He based his design on the C-shaped jaws of the larva of the timberman beetle. Cox watched the destructive larvae of the timber beetle (Ergates spiculatus) for many hours. The beetle's cutting action was left and right, side to side, rather than scratching or burrowing straight ahead. Cox adapted this concept to a new chain saw of his own design put into production during the late 1940s.

Joseph and his wife, Alice, founded "The Oregon Saw Chain Co." in 1947. Cox later started a small casting company called OMARK, now known as "Omark Industries". In time, Oregon Saw Chain became a subsidiary of Omark Industries which was in turn acquired in 1985 by Blount, Inc., of Montgomery, Alabama. Blount merged in 1999 with Lehman Brothers Merchant Banking Partners and became known as Blount International, Inc. Today the company is known as Oregon Tool, Inc. Most chainsaws, with the exception of some Stihl saws, use an Oregon chain based on the invention of Joseph Buford Cox.

Joseph Buford Cox only reached the fifth grade in his formal education.

They had no children. Alice Erikson Cox left her fortune to be used by the Willmar Community Area Foundation on behalf of the people of Kandyohi County and Lake Lillian in central Minnesota.

title: Joseph Buford Cox


text:
Talk:Composite video

Illustration
Would it be possible if someone made an illustration or graph of how it is done getting 3 signals (YUV) in one "plug" with only 2 connectors? I'm very curious about that, atleast, but dont nearly have enough background knowledge to do it. anon 10:56, Jun 17, 2010 (UTC)

Noise
''The process of modulating RF with the original video signal, and then demodulating the original signal again in the TV, introduces several losses. This conversion also typically adds noise or interference to the signal as well.'' Other than noise, what are the losses? In theory, one can modulate an ideal carrier, and demodulate it again. The low signal levels of RF (it has to match what one could receive on an antenna) means noise is significant. (You can't escape thermal noise.) Generating a proper vestigial sideband signal is also tricky, but again, it can ideally be done without loss. Spectral errors aren't really losses, either. Gah4 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 * In theory, no problem but in the real world it is an additional two steps and the advice to avoid unnecessary modulation/demodulation when possible is sound. ~Kvng (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

modern day
The article indicates that Modern day devices with analog outputs have typically omitted the modulator option. I suppose, but a very popular modern day device is the HDTV converter, which most often does have RF output. But yes, I suspect that they are less common on DVD players and such than they used to be. Gah4 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

 * I have removed the modern day claims. They were dated and uncited. ~Kvng (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Reference to analog TV tuners
this part: "TV sets sold these days no longer have analog television tuners and cannot accept channel 3/4 from a modulator. But because composite video has a well-established market for both devices that convert it to channel 3/4 outputs, as well as devices that convert things like VGA to composite, it has offered opportunities to repurpose older composite monitors for newer devices."

Is nonsense. Maybe analogue TV tuners don't exist in the author's country anymore. But my brand new sony tv has one.

I assume by "channel 3/4" the writer is referring to north america. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:3595:B7C4:F757:236D (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I have made some improvements ~Kvng (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

AHD
Should AHD be mentioned as an upgrade for Compsite? Having lot of problems finding a spec. https://www.delko.si/en/kamere-in-video-nadzor/ahd-high-definition-standard.html --Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think AHD is required to establish notability first, as indicated by its own article. I don't think that's warranted currently. --Zac67 (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the several competing systems(CVI * TVI) it does seem to be coming out on top, though with so many acronyms and so little data on the protocols themselves I may have missed something.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Modern updated info and real world context
and I have been discussing recent changes to this article on my talk page at User_talk:Kvng. It would be better to have that discussion on this page but maybe too late for that. ~Kvng (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Following on from User talk:Kvng discussion regarding the info box and formats.
 * ``So the reasonable compromise taking a day to think about this would be "analogue successors S-Video & Component" and then another row "digital successors SDI & HDMI" if we are covering all our bases.``
 * I think the info box fields may need to be edited for this change to look clean?
 * My edit also included the following, which I don't think there is much debate from a practical information perspective.
 * Adding D1 4fsc sampling info in MHz. (makes sence on the D1 side with the info below as to what 4fsc is)
 * Adding a luma/chroma decoded full 4fsc example (via ld-analyse, from public domain cvbs-decode demo samples)
 * Added the sampling non-square pixel numbers for "standard" SD NTSC/PAL, IMX stanards, and the 4fsc frame information that they are extracted from, intestingly this info also applys in context to how the above AHD stuff works in the real world, as it took advantage of the extra dead space that could be used visually at cost of more bandwith and VBI area.
 * Clarity of digital sampled waveform (it looks diffrent on a analog scope so DSO or digital store ossiliscope should be defined)
 * I should notate that ld-analyse is the only & a open-source viewing tool, broadcast and consumer users have today for properly inspecting digitally sampled composite or s-video style signals in a true visual manner, better then you would/could on a broadcast CRT video monitor with H/V shift mode, and it gives real world example of viewing 4fsc sampled media by the field/frame or line by line.
 * I think that image should be added and maintained on this page for high educational factor, its essential to add for people who will never touch a CRT let alone a higher end one in years to comming decades, there is also notably a growing world of archives in raw baseband and raw FM format from video tapes to be decoded/viewed by anyone in a fully preserved manner like this.
 * Have been working on a 4fsc page draft as this info should have been added years ago, so getting that all in order math formatting wise and citations. Harry munday (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the disputed revert. I would prefer to continue to work the issues one at a time.
 * WRT #1 in your list above, your changes related to 4fsc removes the definition of the term four times the color subcarrier frequency (4fsc). You also add the acronym a few other places where I assume it is technically correct but may not be necessary or helpful to readers. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 4fsc is the common term, it has 3 correct definitions in context of CVBS signal sampling:
 * English - four times the color sub-carrier frequency
 * In actual frequency 14.2MHz NTSC & 17.3MHz PAL (28msps / 35msps respectively in Analog to Digital sampling hardware terms)
 * In non-square pixel values 910x525 NTSC & 1135x625 PAL
 * I suppose introducing it in English makes the most sense, but it the outer edits cover the visual the math can be worded in better context in relation to the sub-carriers of NTSC 3.58MHz / PAL 4.43MHz.
 * It should also be noted the Composite RF signal can be sampled from 28msps+ (million samples per second) but the image frame is always sampled at 4fsc this is why math and or visual context needs to be presented together or it's just truly obscure to the lay person. Harry munday (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background. I assume you're trying to justify restoring your changes but you haven't addressed my concerns. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am trying to discuss formatting as you cant have one bit of information without the outer really. Harry munday (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What is your formatting proposal? ~Kvng (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Composite video


text:
Distaghil Sar

Disteghil Sar or Distaghil Sar is the highest mountain in the Shimshal Valley, part of the Karakoram mountain range in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. It is the 19th-highest mountain on Earth, the 7th-highest in Pakistan, and the first of the high peaks after Shishapangma to be the tallest independent summit of its own subrange. Disteghil sar is a Wakhi language word suggested by the Wakhi people of Shimshal, meaning "above the inner ranch." The mountain has a 3 km top ridge above 7,400 meters elevation, with three distinct summits: Northwest, 7885 m; Central, 7760 m; and Southeast, 7696m or 7535m.

Climbing history
The first attempt to climb Distaghil Sar was made in 1957 by an English expedition led by Alf Gregory. That team attempted to climb the mountain from the south and the west, they reached 21300 ft but were defeated by bad weather. Unfavourable weather also foiled a 1959 Swiss attempt over the southeast ridge led by Raymond Lambert.

The first successful ascent was made in 1960 by Günther Stärker and Diether Marchart who were part of an Austrian expedition led by Wolfgang Stefan. The expedition climbed the western part of the south face and continued over the southwest ridge to reach the highest summit on 9th June.

The eastern summit is independent of the main, western, summit and about 100m lower; it was first climbed over the east face in 1980 by a Polish expedition which included Tadeusz Piotrowski. All participants of the expedition reached the summit. It was reascended in 1983.

It was more than 20 years before a second successful ascent of the highest, western summit. The Himalayan Index lists another ascent of the peak in 1980 and a Spanish team made an ascent in 1982 by following a route close to the one taken in 1960.

Two attempts over the daunting north face, in 1988 and 1998, were unsuccessful.

An attempt on the north ridge in 2008 was abandoned soon after the party arrived because dramatic changes to the terrain, which had occurred over the previous ten years or so, had resulted in conditions becoming extremely dangerous.

title: Distaghil Sar


text:
Talk:Distaghil Sar

First ascent
First ascent info from:

http://www.travel.web.pk/destinations/mountain_peaks/document_001.asp

RedWolf

Location
On this site: http://climbing.highalpex.com/highest_mountains/pakistan/

Distaghil Sar is listed under Pakistan. The peak is not listed under India here: http://climbing.highalpex.com/highest_mountains/india/

I am changing it until proven otherwise OneGuy 14:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pakistan ranking
I am planning on removing the Pakistan elevation ranking from the infobox per reasons given at Talk:K2. Reply at the K2 talk page or here if there's an objection. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Distaghil Sar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080427142155/http://echidna.rutgers.edu/expeditions/Hispar/Default.htm to http://echidna.rutgers.edu/expeditions/Hispar/Default.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Distaghil Sar


text:
User:Oyo

I'm interested in physiology/nutrition aspects of weight training.

I like a variety of music.

I'm somewhat knowledgeable in economics and philosophy.

title: User:Oyo


text:
User talk:Oyo

Hello Oyo, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 01:05, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oyo


text:
Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 2

Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive1, Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive3

 * Oh, so you're admitting that they call themselves the "Republic of Macedonia" now. Good. --Jiang

 * Ok that just proves you are a troll and nothing more. There is not a single place in my text that I denied they call themselves that. My main objection comes from the PoV that one cannot just call themselves whatever they wish ignoring everyone else. I see you didn't like it much when I called myself Jiang. Why is that? How is what I did different to what FYROM is trying to do? Why should Macedonia be indiferent to what FYROM decides to call itself? Finally, It has been explained to you, that the term FYROM is not disputed, yet the term Macedonia is. Regardless, you keep using the disputed term in places where the undisputed one can be used without causing any confusion. Why do you insist doing it? You are really just changing it without giving any valid reason. That's why I call you a troll. There can be no other reason behind what you are doing, other than craving for attention. Since I am new to this I will need to ask others how people deal with things like that, but I assure you your fun will be over soon. 193.195.0.101 22:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--

FWIW, I'm of Greek heritage and find the current article to be acceptable. The main issue is that many Greeks are unhappy with the term Macedonia being used by non-Greeks in any context, as they see it as an attempt to rewrite history as the "Macedonians" attempt to co-opt Greek history and make it their own (not a completely unfounded fear, as there are some Republic of Macedonia nationalists who claim that Alexander the Great spoke a Slavic language that they term "Macedonian"—despite the fact that no Slavs immigrated to the region until centuries later and overwhelming historical evidence that he spoke Greek). However, it is a fact that this group of people has chosen the name "Macedonians" for themselves. Whether that choice is justifiable or not, it would be unacceptably POV for us to say that their use of the name is illegitimate. All we can do is mention that there are others who think that choice is illegitimate.

As far as FYROM goes, it's really kind of a silly compromise. Nobody on either side particularly likes it (the Republic of Macedonia prefers that name, and Greece would prefer they pick a name that doesn't include the word "Macedonia" at all), and it's kind of odd to refer to a country in terms of what it used to be. Many Greeks solve this by calling the country Skopje, after its capital (many maps published in Greece will show the northern neighbors of Greece as being "Albania, Skopje, and Bulgaria"), but obviously we cannot use that solution.

 * That's odd. You accept calling it "Republic of Macedonia" Which is the name one side is using, but not "Skoje" which is what the other side does. This onesided approach is what probably infuriates me more. Way to be taking sides... 193.195.0.102

So in summary I'm fine with the current way we handle it: mention their constitutional name first, but mention up front that this name is controversial. It will irk some "Macedonians" who would prefer we use their name unqualifiedly (or relegate mention of the dispute to some less prominent portion of the article), and it will irk some Greeks who would prefer we don't "allow" them to use the name, but there's no solution that will satisfy everyone. --Delirium 11:28, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * Of course there is a solution. Use the name both states agreed with and mention that in "FYROM" they use "ROM" as their name but in Greece they use "Skopje". In the end one of those names will prevail. It has to. Until then I can't see why this Encyclopedia needs to take sides. As I have said numerous times, no-one has the right to call themselves whatever they like. I have signed some articles here under different names that I assumed just for the purpose of showing how chaotic and misleading irresponsible naming can be. Funny how everyone proetsed me calling myself "Jiang-with-a-dot" but have no problem with FYROM calling itself whatever it likes regardless if another state considers it (and other states agreed with it) identity theft. I hope at last someone can see the reason in this. 193.195.0.102

The "Macedonians are not the Serbs and the Bulgars in FYROM!! The Macedonians are Greek People for 3000 years !! ---Vergina 12:05, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--

I protected this page because i dont have the energy or mental strength to keep reverting polemic versions done by several users including one childish enough to name himself Jiang-with-a-dot. Aparently discussion is going nowhere so i decided for this. Muriel 17:28, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Could you enlighten everyone WHY you had to revert the page back? The last version was not offensive to anyone. The current version is offensive to Greece. I thought you had to have some idea on the topic before you edit a page, surely. You told me you had no clue about the subgect or the facts. I would expect an admin to abide by the rules and show less bias towards users than anybody else. You are not doing that. 193.195.0.102

 * Now let's also see something interesting from the wikipedia rules:

 * "Admins should not protect pages when they have been involved in the edit war in question (either by actively editing the page or by expressing strong opinions on the talk page). Admin powers are not editor privileges - admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you."

 * Way to go for breaking every single one of those rules, Muriel Gottrop. 193.195.0.101 17:58, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Another sysop weighs in
Let's not fight over this. The country plains wants to call itself "The Republic of Macedonia". Whether anyone else, particularly Greece, will accept or "recognize" that name, is another story.

Is this dispute similar to the Taiwan problem? The government there decided to call itself "The Republic of China", and initially claimed sovereignty over the mainland as well.

Or is it related to the wrangle ovur Cyprus?

I'd like to see some compromises suggested, or at least some reasons given for the various terms - otherwise, I guess we'll have to keep this article protected like the Silesia article. --Uncle Ed 18:25, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Hi Ed, I don't think the country minds calling itself FYROM since it agreed to do so outside its borders under pressure or not. They have tettitorial claimes towards Macedonia, which is a province of Greece since 1914 and has been populated by Greeks for thousands of years now. The issue is complicated and it would take forever to discuss it, but reading the last half of this page may give you a better idea, I suppose. There are two facts. Their constitution calls the country "Republica Macedonija" but they are internationaly recognised under the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". It is very easy to say that anyone has the right to call themselves whatever they like, but apparently Muriam threatened to block me when I called myself "andy" not to mention she doesn't like Jiang-with-a-dot one bit.

 * Anyway, the name was and is under dispute. The solution for the two states (Greece and FYROM) was met and both agreed that the name of the state outside it's borders would be FYROM until another compromise was met. This Encyclopedia claims to have found the compromise and calls it "Republic of Macedonia" which as you see, is one of the disputed names. It only respects ONE side (the FYROM one). The last edit by Jiang-with-a-dot did not offend anyone, yet Muriam chose to revert it to a version that offends Greece and on top of that protect it. Regards, 193.195.0.101 18:41, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * FWIW, it's unrelated to the wrangle over Cyprus: that one's exclusively a Greek-Turkish dispute. This is a dispute over who has claims to the term Macedonia.  Greece claims (an scholars agree) that Alexander the Great and the other ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, participated in Greek culture, and were located originally in Macedon, an area approximately coterminus with the modern Greek region of Macedonia (the northern portion of the country).  Thus they consider it odd that a Slavic country would call itself Macedonia, since the Macedonians were not Slavs, but Greeks.  So Greeks object to the term Republic of Macedonia, the term Macedonian language, and any other terms that attempt to apply Macedonia to Slavic culture, since Slavs didn't immigrate to the region until around the 3rd century AD, well after the decline of the Macedonian Empire.  In short, Greeks see it as an attempt by Slavs to rewrite history and co-opt a portion of the history of Greece as their own.  --Delirium 19:18, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Role of the UN
Somebody wrote that:

 * The UN IS the naming authority. The UN IS the only recognised international authority.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but there are others who do NOT recognize the UN as an authority - let alone the "only" authority.

By the way, there's a movement to MAKE the UN an authority, and we really need an article about that movement, since it relates to the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol. If enough countries were to put their weight behind these two proposals, the UN might emerge as a sort of global goverment.

Right now, however, the UN has no recognized authority whatsoever. The only time people pay attention is when (a) the Security Council votes a unanimous resolution and (b) some country like the US decides to try to enforce it.

Anyway, there is clearly a controversy here. So let's make a description of the controversy part of the article: write about the controvesy, rather than trying to "settle" it. --Uncle Ed 18:32, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I beg to differ, I think the UN has authority over its members, and at least FYROM applied for a membership and got it on the premise of being called FYROM, not ROM. Cheers, 193.195.0.101 18:41, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and courteous reply. The two main disagreements are now clear:
 * 1) whether FYROM has the "right" to call itself the Republic of Macedonia
 * 2) whether the UN has the authority to dictate a settlement of the issue

Perhaps what we Wikipedians should do is NOT take sides on either of these issues but rather DISCUSS in Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia (or both!) the fact that there is a dispute about the name of the government. --Uncle Ed 18:49, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree, I think Jiang-with-a-dot's last edit was doing exactly that. Can you have a look at it and comment on whether it manages just that or not? 193.195.0.101 18:56, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I'm getting way too confused. Are there two different people called "193" and "Jiang-with-a-dot", or what? Maybe I should just take a break... --Uncle Ed 19:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry I thought I made it clear why I created the user Jiang. (with a dot). Didn't I? Anyway, I am refering to this edit: . Thanks, 193.195.0.101 19:12, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't know why I was confused, what do you think? Well, Ed, maybe it's because he had two identities. What do you mean, Uncle? Well, my boy, apparently he was talking to himself? Like you and me? Wow, I thought we were the only ones who did that! No, there others, Eddie. Golly, Uncle Ed! --Uncle Ed 19:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Just to clear the confusion, possession of the article was on the account Jiang-with-a-dot, which was not the account I was on at that time I made the comment, thus I said Jiang-with-a-dot's edit and not "my edit" so you could spot it easier. If I wanted that account to be anonymous I would have used another IP either mine or via a proxy. I used the same IP because I wanted to make a point. I am kinda dissapointed that people didn't get it ;) 193.195.0.101

Not to be biased in my own favor, but I think my last edit does a better job describing the dispute neutrally than the current version:. Thoughts? --Delirium 19:22, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * I ll try to make another example. The following quote is ambiguous:

 * "The FYROM format was a temporary compromise which allowed recognition of Macedonia's independence and statehood while avoiding offending Greece."

Macedonia never became independent of Greece. Of course I am talking about the Greek Province, but why should I bother specifying it if nobody bothers to do so about FYROM. For the vast majority of Greeks, Macedonia is in Greece and partly in the Monastiri/Vitola area. I don't understand why is it bad to use FYROM instead of the ambiguous "Macedonia". It even saves up some bandwidth. Thanks. 193.195.0.101 19:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Now is this article at Macedonia? It should be clear that the Province of Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia are very different. We are not calling it simply "Macedonia". It is the Repulblic of Macedonia. --Jiang 22:43, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Who is we? The above is from the article regarding "Republic of Macedonia". You are using the term "Macedonia" (just that without the FYRO OR RO prefixes) in places where FYROM could have been used to describe the state. Also, I don't see why not use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" instead of just "Republic of Macedonia" since the former is the only non disputed name between all sides. I know I am repeating myself, but I am not sure if you are a troll or have problems understaning the word "disputed". 193.195.0.101 22:55, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think I like Delirium's version just as much as my own version. I won't object if anyone reverts, although my chin might quiver a bit... :-( --Uncle Ed 19:52, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Aha - it looks like sanity is prevailing! Thanks to everyone who is helping to sort this issue out. Give yourselves a pat on each other's back. :) Martin 20:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A relatively minor point: I'm not sure "FYROM" is, technically, disputed. A 1995 Greek-FYROM bilateral agreement was reached in which the country agreed to use FYROM as its international name, at least on a temporary basis, in return for Greece lifting trade sanctions. Thus, officially at least, all countries accept "FYROM" as an undisputed, albeit temporary, name. Or that's my understanding anyway. --Delirium 20:14, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * Current version is reworded (by Jiang) so this isn't an issue anymore. Carry on! --Delirium 20:16, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

If the current edit is the final, it is a very poor attempt by Jiang since it uses the disputed term "Macedonia" in many places were the undisputed term FYROM could have easily been used instead. 193.195.0.101 22:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC) - What was the name of this area before it joined Yugoslavia? Rmhermen 22:47, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

It was part of "Vilayet Kosovo", and was initially named "Vardarska Banovina". Tito called it "Macedonia". 193.195.0.101 22:55, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The name Republic of Macedonia identical to Greek name Makedonia is a Slavs Theater in FYROM. Vergina 23:22, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FYROM is not "Macedonia" and the Turkey is to day also not "Byzant"!! Vergina 23:35, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think we understand the objections now, but we still can't take one side or the other. Even if it is true that the country is misusing the name Macedonia, it's not our place to decide that. We can, of course, report on the dispute. --Delirium 01:14, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

The article as it stands takes a perfectly correct and neutral position on the dispute between Greece and Macedonia over the name of the country. It should not be changed further. It states that the constitutional name of the country is Republic of Macedonia, that it is known internationally as FYROM, and that Greek nationalists object to the use of Macedonian symbols by the Rep of Macedonia government, all which are true. An encyclopaedia does not need to say more than that. Incidentally this dispute was resolved by the 1995 agreement - it is only ultra-nationalists like Vergina who are keeping it alive. Adam 02:37, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, it hasn't been completely resolved: the Greek government continues to informally object to even the name FYROM, since it contains the term Macedonia, and that name is considered a temporary measure, with no permanent solution in sight (Greece absolutely refuses to accept any name containing "Macedonia" as a permanent solution, and FYROM absolutely refuses to accept any name not containing "Macedonia). Greece has been making moves related to the issue as well, including renaming Thessaloniki International Airport to Macedonia International Airport and stepping up publicity of the Vergina finds to counteract the growing association of the adjective "Macedonian" with people from the country in question.  And for their part, a great many residents of the country in question continue to object to the term FYROM, and the government is not altogether happy with it either (they mostly gave in to get the economic sanctions lifted, as the use of Greece's port of Thessaloniki is integral to FYROM's economy). --Delirium 02:44, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yes I guess that is all true, but the fact is that the "temporary" agreement is now eight years old and there seems to be no actual, as opposed to rhetorical, conflict going on. Most of the early 90s crisis was caused by electioneering between Papandreou and Mitsotakis: now that Greece thas a fairly moderate government nationalist rhetoric has died away. Adam 03:09, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also I think the article Vergina Sun is redundant and ought to be deleted: the same topic is covered much better at Vergina. Adam 03:18, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The article actually does take sides and is not neutral. As you mentioned, the two sides reached an agreement in 1995 in which the state is supposed to be called FYROM until a permanent agreement is met. The article does not use that designation when refering to the state. Instead, in many places it uses the disputed term "Macedonia" (without the Former Yugoslav Republic of) which favors the FYROM side, or the disputed term "Republic of Macedonia" to describe the state out of the contxt of its constitution. For example from the article: "The FYROM format was a temporary compromise which allowed recognition of Macedonia's independence and statehood while avoiding offending Greece.", should be changed to "The FYROM format was a temporary compromise which allowed recognition of the state's independence and statehood while avoiding offending Greece.". No one has yet to explain why this bilateral compromise is not used in the article instead of a biased, disputed term. 193.195.0.102 11:09, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The use of the term "Macedonia" by the Republic of Macedonia is opposed by most Greeks, and the article duly notes that. The fact remains, however, that the country's official, legal, constitutional name is Macedonia, and that is what an encyclopaedia must call it. Greeks do not have a right of veto over what the country calls itself, nor over what the rest of the world calls it. Most of the world believes that Macedonia is a geographical region, part of which is the Republic of Macedonia and part of which is the provinces of northern Greece. In 1991 Greece had real grievances against the Skopje government. But the 1995 agreement prevents the Republic of Macedonia using Greek symbols such as the White Tower and the Vergina Sun, and prevents them making claims on Greek terrirory. Greece therefore has no real claims against Macedonia except the name. Devoted friends of Greece (of which I am one - see my articles at my Userpage) need to gently but firmly tell the Greeks that it is now time to get over this reactionary and pointless obsession. Adam 12:07, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The page should aim for NPOV, not (Greek POV) + (Macedonian POV) / 2 Given news usage, I think the page is more or less fine. So, could we please talk about something else. This is really getting old and I don't even care about one side or the other. Daniel Quinlan 12:09, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * The CIA factbook and other sites with diplomacy concerns (like NATO) refer to it as "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (some use lowercase "former")
 * News outlets (BBC, CNN, etc.) mostly call it "Macedonia" except for perhaps Greek sites, the BBC also uses "FYR Macedonia" in one map graphic specifically showing it in relation to neighbor states and the former Yugoslavia.

"NPOV" in this case is to say that the country's name is "Republic of Macedonia" and to say also that this mightily offends the Greeks. Those are both factual statements. Adam 12:22, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How is this neutral since it assumes one side of the argument for the rest of the article? You have still not stated WHY you object to the use of the non disputed name FYROM which has been agreed by both sides and at least officially does not offend anyone. As far as "Republic of Macedonia" being the constitutional name, this has nothing to do with statements the likes of: "Macedonia remained at peace through the violent nationality conflicts...". What is wrong by saying "FYROM remained at peace through the violent nationality conflicts..."? In case you haven't noticed, one side supports that Macedonia is only in Greece, in which case you outright take sides against it by using the disputed name like that. The state itself agreed to this compromise, not to mention they changed their constitution because it was implying territorial claims towards its neighbouring countries.

Forgot to sign ;) 193.195.0.102 13:36, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Wow, I sure I'm ignorant of geography. I kind of vaguely knew that the ancient Greek land of Macedonia might not be exactly the same thing as the modern region that fell out of the back of the truck when Russia unloaded Yugoslavia -- but I had no idea people would fight so much about it!

 * What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet... --Uncle Ed 15:30, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * The region FYROM covers has very little in common with the ancient Macedonian state. And IIRC Yugoslavia was never that close to Russia.

 * What's in a name? I thought I demonstrated this this really well. Didn't I? ;) 193.195.0.102 15:57, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I did a little web browsing, and found this little gem:

 * Macedonia, now known as The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), was once the Kingdom of Macedon, ruled by Alexander the Great (355-325 BC)

Any comments? --Uncle Ed 16:38, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * How about "the above information is wrong" for a comment? :)

 * Any historian will be able to verify for you that Ancient Macedonia shares very little area with FYROM and that Macedonians were not Slavs. So the area covered by FYROM was never the Kingdom of Macedon. A very small part of it (to the south) used to be, but even when the kingdom of Macedon came to streatch up to near India, the area of FYROM (and notably Skoja) was not part of it. Maybe these people copied one of wikipedia's older versions. ;) 193.195.0.102 17:06, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

-- What is with the unilateral renaming? Please move this back, Ed. Rmhermen 17:01, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

I can't see how it is unilateral renaming. Many users commented possitively towards this direction. Check this talk page and the archive. Cheers, 193.195.0.102 17:26, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I have read all the talk. And there is no archive. So far 193 and Vergina want it moved. Approving of the previous version: Adam, Jiang, Delirium, Ed (at various points -before moving), myself although this is the first time I mention it. Rmhermen 17:46, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

 * (I removed my name from this list - I have no opinion on the matter). Martin 19:02, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well there was an archive but something happened to it. Search through the page history and you will see that Jiang made one which now seems to be gone. Adam, and Jiang still haven't commented on how using a disputed name is better than using an undisputed one. Delirium I think has agreed that FYROM is undisputed. 193.195.0.102 18:01, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Just managed to locate the archive here: Hope that helps. 193.195.0.102 18:08, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the archive. Rmhermen 21:19, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

List of Open Issues
''Indicate your preferences with the 3-tilde thing. Note that these issues won't necessarily be decided by voting.

Where the article should be
Note that you can sign more than one option!

 * The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - Uncle Ed, 193.195.0.101,Vergina FearÉIREANN
 * Republic of Macedonia - Uncle Ed ,Rmhermen, Zundark, Jiang, dml, Dori, Daniel Quinlan (my second choice)
 * Macedonia (country) - Daniel Quinlan
 * Republic of Macedonia (with disclaimer in the first sentence) -Delirium, Jiang (it's not necessary to include this option in the poll!) (so no title for the article, Jiang?)(what?? why list ROM twice in this poll? we can settle this after we decide on it)

What the name of the country is

 * The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 193.195.0.101,Vergina, Daniel Quinlan (in certain contexts involving Greece)
 * Republic of Macedonia - Rmhermen (see their constitution), Zundark, Jiang, Dori, Daniel Quinlan (most correct)
 * Macedonia (for short) - Daniel Quinlan
 * It isn't Wikipedia's role to name the country, merely say who says name 'x', who name 'y', where and why - FearÉIREANN, Martin, Jiang

The definitive nomenclature for this country will be agreed following current negotiations at UN level !!!Vergina

I have no idea what the country's name should be, but I've heard 2 different stories about what it officially is: FYROM and ROM. Does anyone know what these guys call themselves, and whether anyone else "recognizes" this name? --Uncle Ed

These guys call themselves "Republika Macedonija" but agreed to be called internationally "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM). 193.195.0.101 19:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Macedonia is a geographical and historical region of the Balkan peninsula (see Macedonia) -- so let's not confuse the name of the REGION with the names of any countries or country parts over which that region extends. It's kind of like China, which includes the communist mainland and the democratic island of Taiwan. It's "one China", but there are two de facto sovereignties. --Uncle Ed 21:11, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How to describe the naming dispute
The little I've heard is that Yugoslavia broke up around 8 years ago. Most of the parts then declared themselves to be "independent countries", but M had a big problem with Greece because of its use of the word Macedonia in its name. There was, I heard, some sort of deal or bargain or "agreement to disagree" whereby mostly they got called "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" -- however, I have no idea whether this means it's their "official name" or what. Any details on the in's and out's of this dispute? --Uncle Ed 18:42, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I think renaming the article without a poll was inappropriate given the dispute. I considered a poll, but given the number of sock puppet accounts that have been created regarding this issue, I felt it was better to look at actual usage, which is usually "Macedonia", plain and simple.  Daniel Quinlan 20:54, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

 * I move the article back to the original location. Sorry, Ed.  I think we need to figure this out first.  Daniel Quinlan 21:03, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

It was agreed that for internal purposes, they could use ROM but for international purposes they would be recognised under FYROM. Greece had genuine concerns as it was proved and ruled by the UN since the constitution of the new state included territotial claims towards Greece. "Makedonia" is a Greek word after all and the historical area is indeed almost entirely within Greece. FYROM was called Vardarska Banovina before 1945, and many claim that it was renamed to "Macedonia" purely to create a foundation for Tito's territorial claims. Cheers. 193.195.0.101 19:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * The language and even the history are immaterial. Greece is not the language police.  Many new countries, provinces, states, etc. are named after ancient locations and people with little or no connection to the new country.  You may personally think the country should be named something else, but your passion for the issue is so great that I wonder if you're able to think about this with any dispassion or neutrality.  Sorry, but it frankly seems like an obsession for a few of the people who have participated in this discussion.  Daniel Quinlan 21:07, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

 * Umm excuse me, but if I let my passion lead me isntead of my logic, I would be asking for them to be renamed to "Skopje" or "Vardarska Banovina". It is obvious you have no idea what the real issue is. Greek nationalists oppose calling the state FYROM. As you see FYROM is the only name I asked to be used. Why? Because IT WAS THE NAME AGREED BY ALL SIDES AND I RESPECT THE AGREEMENT unlike you. I AM biased against "Macedonia" being used anywehre to describe that state. I am Macedonian myself, and I was really shocked when I heard that Macedonians kicked the Kossovo Albanian refuges out of FYROM and into Albania during the Kosovo war. I assure you these "Macedonians" were not the same as my people. Even so. If you DID read anything that I wrote, you would see that I have no objection calling the country FYROM regardless how much I don't like that name. My state, and indirectly me, have agreed to use it, so I have no issue with it being used. But then we have some outsiders who for some reason disregard this agreement, and that is the problem. You, jiang, and adam are the problem. Not me. You are obsessed with using a name that offends one side rather than use the name both sides agreed upon. God knows for what reason. Also if you believe that history and language is immaterial, you should not be editing this encyclopedia since obviously facts don't seem to matter to you. 193.195.0.102 22:25, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 2


text: Talk:Caligula (film)

title: Talk:Caligula (film)


text:
Hokuriku region

The Hokuriku region (北陸地方) is located in the northwestern part of Honshu, the main island of Japan. It lies along the Sea of Japan and is part of the larger Chūbu region. It is almost equivalent to the former Koshi Province and Hokurikudō area in pre-modern Japan.

From the Heian period until the Edo period, the region was a core recipient of population, and grew to be proportionately much larger than it is today, despite the rural character; in modern times, its population has remained consistent, with most urban growth in the 20th century instead taking place in Kanto, Chūkyō, and Kansai. The Hokuriku region is also known for traditional culture that originated from elsewhere that has been long lost along the Taiheiyō Belt.

The Hokuriku region includes the four prefectures of Ishikawa, Fukui, Niigata and Toyama, although Niigata is sometimes included as an addition rather than being one of the core prefectures. It is similar to the following region definitions:

 * Shin'etsu (信越): includes Niigata and Nagano prefectures
 * Kōshin'etsu (甲信越): includes Niigata, Nagano and Yamanashi prefectures
 * Hokushin'etsu region (北信越): includes both the Hokuriku and Shin'etsu regions

Major cities
The major population centers of Hokuriku are:

Of these, Niigata is the largest with a population of over 800,000.
 * Niigata (designated city)
 * Kanazawa, Toyama, Fukui (core cities)
 * Jōetsu, Nagaoka (special cities)

Industries
The main industries in the Hokuriku area include chemicals, medicine, tourism, textiles and textile machinery, heavy machinery, farming, and fishing. Koshihikari, a popular variety of rice is a special product of Hokuriku subregion.

Demographics
Per Japanese census data, Hokuriku subregion has had negative population growth since year 2000.

Climate

The Hokuriku region has the highest volume of snowfall of any inhabited and arable region in the world. This is because dry Siberian air masses, which develop high humidity over the Sea of Japan, are forced upwards when they encounter the mountains of Honshū, causing the humidity to condense as snow.

The long winters and deep snow of this region are depicted in Hokuetsu Seppu, an encyclopedic work of the late Edo period which describes life in the Uonuma district of Niigata Prefecture.

The Hokuriku region is also the setting for Yasunari Kawabata's novel Snow Country.

Tourism
Hokuriku is listed as in Lonely Planet's Best in Travel 2014 – Top 10 Regions. The region has seen an influx of tourists since 2015 as the Hokuriku Shinkansen (formerly Nagano Shinkansen) extended its services from Nagano to Kanazawa, enabling direct bullet train services to the Hokuriku region from Tokyo. When services commenced in March 2015, the travel time from Tokyo to Toyama was reduced to about 2 hours, with Kanazawa an additional 30 minutes away.

title: Hokuriku region