text:
Talk:Farang

Farang
we heard that "farang" means 'longnose' and was applied to all caucasians. then because of the many french in indochine, their country 'france' was called 'farangset' = 'land of the longnose'. ตาน้ำ (dtaa nam) = spring, natural fountain; mouth of a spring; subterranean course of water--Scyriacus (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find it at the moment, but I have read in different places that the word Farang dates back much farther then the 17th century and that it comes from other words. Francais -> Farangset is just a coincidence. I will see if I can find it again. Also kee nok refers more to someone being stinchy. Bird shit is white! Hence it is used more to refer to a white foreigner being stinchy. Thais themselves will say Kee niauw. Waerth 13:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kee nok seems to have a range of meanings; I've updated the article to reflect that. Markalexander100 03:18, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * "Farang ta nam khao" Th: ฝรั่งตาน้ำข้าว) means blue-eyed farang, according to my wife. The Thai language is one that has had trouble distinguishing blue from green. The default word for Blue was recently สีน้ำเงิน literally, the colour of silver, a poetical reference to the silvery sheen of the deep blue sea. It now means Navy Blue, and the default word is now สีฟ้า literally, the colour of the sky, acording to Blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawyilee (talk • contribs) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Farang
When Siam first open its door to trade with Europeans in Ayutthaya period, a land was given to the Portuguese merchants to conduct their business at "Baan Faraang" (Guava Village, these is a common naming conventions of village to name the locale by what ever is in abundance there) Thus the Europeans are referred to as Farangs ever since. I'll put this in to the article if nobody would dispute it.

 * Can you give a reference? Markalexander100 00:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I haven't got anything on my hands at the moment, but if you can read Thai, check out high school history text books, (it's been a while since I've seen one of those) --Bobbagum 11:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I've added it to the article, giving them as alternative explanations. I suspect they're both just best guesses.  Markalexander100 02:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that it's actually derived from the Persian word mentioned here, which is in turn derived from a similar-sounding Arabic word derived from "Frank"(i.e. the Franks).

 * There was a discussion back in 1993/1994 in usenet-newsgroup "soc.culture.thai" about Origin of the word "Farang". That discussion is still available under  and . --hdamm 11:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

George A. Sioris in his 1998 article, PHAULKON, THE GREEK FIRST COUNSELLOR AT THE COURT OF SIAM: AN APPRAISAL, says "1688, Jan - The French soldiers become increasingly unpopular with the Thais due to their display of racist and insolent attitudes. Anti-foreign organizations are born and the religious prejudices of the people are likewise aroused. It should be noted that the term used by Thais until today for western foreigners is farang, an abbreviation of the original farangse - the Thai word for the French (Francais in French). The term farang had a negative connotation until after World War II." Posted by Pawyilee (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * As the diskussion is still going on, I'd like to cite from my post above Mr. Gwyn Williams, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University what he wrote back in March 1994 in the usenet grout soc.culture.thai:

"ORIGIN OF THE WORD 'FARANG'" A wide-spread belief in Thailand is that the word "farang" (Caucasian) is derived from the French word "francais". This derivation is implausible on phonetic and historical grounds. It is in fact a popular misconception. It is true, however, that these words have the same ultimate source. The word is attested in various forms in languages in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. It is clear that the word orginated as "Frank" in Europe and spread eastwards along Muslim trade routes. Thai most likely borrowed the word from influential Muslim Persian or Indian traders in the 17th century or even earlier. The Persian word was "farangg". The term probably was used to refer to early Portuguese traders and subsequently to all Europeans (ie., non-Muslims). It is possible that the Thai word "farangset" ("French") is a blend of the word "farang" and the French word "francais", ie., "farangset" is actually derived from "farang", not vice versa. Certainly, the word "farang" existed prior to, and independently of, "farangset". Mr. Gwyn Williams Department of Linguistics Faculty of Liberal Arts Thammasat University                        March 26, 1994
 * If you're interested in the rest of the conversation, it is here and here --hdamm (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with both positions: "farang" existed prior to, and independently of, "farangset"; amongst Muslims, the Franks had already given it a bad odor; then the "farangset" in the time of Narai really made it stink. (Rev. comment) Pawyilee (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Frankly, I'm surprised nothing is said about what it means to be perfectly frank. Pawyilee (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Alanboatman (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I am inclined to believe that Farang is from the persian 'farangi', 'foreigners'and spread eastwards along Muslim trade routes. I also believe that this may have originally come from the old greek 'hoi barrangoi'. This word refered to ' traders that provide security for their part in the bargain' and refered specifically to Vikings. Vikings during the 9th and 10th century travelled up the rivers of Eastern Europe both for trade, pirating and mercinary activities to the Black and Caspian Seas. They were so respected as fiersome warriors (as well as traders) that they were invited to form an elite guard (Palace Guard)for the Basilus of Bysantium in Constantinople. This was on the grounds that they were less likely to be embroiled in the internal politics of the state and hence trustworthy. The Swedes refered to themselves as 'Varrangjar' or 'Varrangi' from the greek, while the Danes and Norwegians prefered 'Vikingr'. Hence the name for the elite troops of Byzantium as the Varangian Guard. Other persian and arab traders they met and did business with probably also refered to them as 'varangi' or 'farangi'. Since the Franks looked very similar (ethnically similar) and were the only other 'white northern folk' to be present in the area at the time both the Franks and the Varangjar were probably termed Ferengi - traders (with weapons).

Hence the Malay, Khmer, Thai, Lao, Hindi derivations of the Persian adaption of both Varagis and Franks.Alanboatman (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Maan farang and mhak farang
Maan farang (potatoes) and mhak farang (chewing gum) with the word farang refer to something imported. Since there are different Maan (another potato type) and Mhak (chewing stuff) in Thailand before, so when the potatoes and chewing gums were introduced in Thailand, they're assigned the name "farang." - User:Manop

literature and films
Sounds like an advertisement for Christopher Moore to me? His books are from the perspective of a foreigner living in Thailand. This article is about a Thai word for people like that, not about the people themselves, nor about their perspectives. Any resistance to removing this section? maxsch (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Keenok
ขี้นกสร้อยนกเขาทะเลข้างตะเภา PAINTED SWEETLIPS Diagramma pictum ลักษณะ ทั่วไป : เป็นปลาทะเล ที่มีขนาดค่อนข้างใหญ่ ลำตัวค่อนข้างยาว ด้านบน แบน ข้าง สันหลัง โค้ง นูน ท้องแบน เรียบ ปาก เล็ก มี ริม ปาก หนา มี ฟัน ขนาดเล็ก บน ขากรรไกร ทั้งสอง ข้าง ใต้ คาง มี รูพรุน 6 รู เกล็ด มี ขนาดเล็ก ปกคลุม ตลอด ลำตัว และ หัว สี ลำตัว จะ เปลี่ยนแปลง ไป ตาม ขนาด อายุ ของ ปลา คือ ปลา ขนาดเล็ก ลำตัว มี สี ขาว ส่วนหัว ด้านบน สี เหลือง และ มี แถบ สีน้ำตาล ปน ดำ 5 แถบ พาด ไป ตาม ความ ยาว ลำตัว เมื่อ มี ขนาดใหญ่ ขึ้น แถบ สี จะ จางหาย ไป และ มี จุด สีน้ำตาล ปน ดำปรา กฎ ขึ้นมา แทน และ จุด สี จะ จางหาย ไป เมื่อ ปลา อายุ มากขึ้น ถิ่น อาศัย : อาศัย อยู่ ตาม หน้า ดิน หรือ แนว ปะการัง พบ ทั่วไป บริเวณ ชาย ฝั่งทะเล ทั้ง อ่าวไทย และ ทะเล อัน ดามัน อาหาร : กิน ปลา และ สัตว์น้ำ ที่ อาศัย อยู่ ตาม หน้า ดิน และ แนว ปะการัง ขนาด : ความ ยาว ประมาณ 35-45 ซ. ม. แต่ เคย พบ ว่า บาง ตัว มี ความ ยาว ถึง 60 ซ. ม. ประโยชน์ : เนื้อ ใช้ ปรุงอาหาร

http://www.amonline.net.au/FISHES/fishfacts/fish/dpictum.htm Painted Sweetlips Diagramma pictum (Thunberg, 1792) Painted Sweetlips Above and below: Painted Sweetlips at a depth of 22 m, Maewo Island, Asanvari Bay, Vanuatu, July 2003. Photo: E. Schlögl. View larger image. Painted Sweetlips Photo: E. Schlögl. View larger image. Painted Sweetlips A Painted Sweetlips at a depth of 30 m, Maewo Island, Asanvari Bay, Vanuatu, July 2003. Photo: E. Schlögl. View larger image.

Adult Painted Sweetlips are blue-grey with yellow to golden spots on the head, body and fins. The spots on the head often form lines.

It grows to about 1 m in length, but is common to 45 cm.

The species occurs in tropical waters of the Indo-West and Central Pacific. It is found in coastal and sandy reef areas in depths to 80 m.

It is not known from Australian waters.

The Painted Sweetlips feeds on bottom-dwelling invertebrates and small fishes.

The species is related to the Slate Sweetlips (D. labiosum). Another species with yellowish spots is the Gold-spotted Sweetlips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawyilee (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

map
It would be better if the map only highlighted countries with mostly European-descended citizens. Right now it looks like most farang come from China, but a Chinese person would never be thought of as a farang. 68.160.11.155 (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki
Here's a copy of a discussion from my talk page. --hdamm (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't understand why you want to change the th interwiki for Farang.th:ชาวตะวันตก refers to The Westerner, not Farang

--Hercule (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * And what is the difference between "Westerner" and "Farang"? BTW: did you check th:ฝรั่ง? This page has nothing to do with those Farang from our article, its just a disambiguation, and deals with Guave, French and France. So why should we link to it? --hdamm (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * th:Farang is linked with all other wikis Farang named articles. Since there is no specific article for the expression, ฝรั่ง is the best interwiki. It's the page to the name, and show what other acceptations of the word.
 * The Westerner is something else, and the page refers to films, series and newspaper ...
 * --Hercule (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read the linked Thai article then? In the first paragraph "ทำไมถึงเรียกว่าตะวันตก" ("Why it is called West") it is written: ... เรา เรียก ชาวตะวันตก ต่อเมื่อ เขา เป็น คน ฝรั่ง เช่น ชาวยุโรป ชาวอเมริกัน ชาว ออสเตรเลีย ล้วน เรียก ว่า ชาวตะวันตก ("we call westeners Farang, for example Europeans, Americans, Australians - all are called westeners"). Thats in short the contents of Farang, not? BTW, it is also linked in th:ฝรั่ง (in the last line). --hdamm (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, now I know what you mean: the Interwiki link from th:ชาวตะวันตก went to The Westerner. Well, as this Thai article has nothing to do with "The Westerner" but goes about "Inhabitants of the Western World", I changed the Interwiki link accordingly. Sorry for me being so dumb. --hdamm (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you change the th interwiki here, change it also in interwikis of th:ฝรั่ง (de:Farang, en:Farang, fr:Farang,nl:Farang,Фаранг and wuu:法朗 (泰语))), and move th:ฝรั่ง interwikis to th:ชาวตะวันตก ;) (I don't speak thaï.
 * Regards --Hercule (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Heading: 'Farangs in Thailand'
Sounds biased, emotional, prejudicial and racist. "Many farangs...marry...ugly women". I'm a white American and I can understand your rage, and thanks for proving whites are not the only people capable of racism--and opposing mixed-raced marriages is racism. In any case this article is for the meaning and origin of the term, not personal viewpoints. I hope this gets fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.207.171 (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

farang khi nok
"Farang khi nok" (ฝรั่งขี้นก) literally means bird droppings only to illiterate foreigners. For a Royal Institute reference to a native Thai putting on foreign airs, as well as for the fruit and the fish — the two being disambiguated with prefixes meaning tree and water-animal, respectively — see Thai-Language.Com ฝรั่งขี้นก. This links to ขี้ (khee [Falling tone]) definition 2. Khee is a generic term for waste of any kind, including waste of time and wasteful habits. English has such a shitty attitude toward shit and shat that neither terms are in my collegiate dictionary, and that biases definitions of khee. For instance, ขี้ใหม่หมาหอม (khee[F] mai[L] maa[R] haawm[R]) derives from a dog's sensible habit of sniffing fresh waste to assess the animal that dropped it, but in humans means to dog fashion (not "A new broom sweeps clean.") --Pawyilee (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

per Eteymology and related words
Reading the Etymology section on the "Lingua franca" article of wikipedia, I couldnt help but notice there is research pointing to different words in Arabic and Greek. The Etymology sub-section follows:

 * The original Lingua Franca was a mixed language composed mostly (80%) of Italian with a broad vocabulary drawn from Turkish, French, Spanish, Greek and Arabic. It was in use throughout the eastern Mediterranean as the language of commerce and diplomacy in and around the Renaissance era. At that time, Italian speakers dominated seaborne commerce in the port cities of the Ottoman empire. Franca was the Italian word for Frankish. Its usage in the term lingua franca originated from its meaning in Arabic and Greek, dating from before the Crusades and during the Middle Ages, whereby all Western Europeans were called "Franks" or FARANJI in ARABIC and PHRANKOI in GREEK during the times of the late Eastern Roman Empire.[3] The term lingua franca is first recorded in English in 1678.[4]

Maybe someone would like to add, edit, to make the Farang article more complete ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Indo-Persian only Farsi which was the official language of the cour under Mughals, Turks and Afghans. Thus the word Farangi is a Farsi word which was used for the British among Muslims, particularly Afghans inpresent Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. Non-Muslims along with some Indian Muslims are still using the old woprd for a white person i.e. Gora. Muslims also used the term Britanvi i.e. British and this label is nowadays used in Urdu for UK citizen.Moarrikh (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

pfirangi is not Sanskrit
clearly, pfirangi is not Sanskrit. maybe some errors --223.204.34.195 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Mostly nonsense
I can't speak for the portions that deal with Indian and Maldivian language, but everything about the origins of "farang" in Thai is nonsense. The real reason the word farang is used to describe white skinned foreigners is because the flesh of a guava (farang) is very blindingly white. Also this is categorized under "ethnic slurs" but the word is rarely used as a slur and this catgegorization has a lot of foreigners quite upset for no reason, because they believe it is a slur, when in fact light skin is revered in Thailand and light skinned foreigners are usually looked up to, except in those areas where a lot of badly behaved foreigners tend to congregate and sour the opinions of locals toward them (and unfortunately innocent people who do no wrong, guilt by association). However this is mostly restricted to tourist zones and the Issan region. It's completely false to think that you are regarded as being inferior in any way due to having light colored skin. There is a slur for foreign people, but it's never used for people that have light skin, just as "farang" should not be used for those with dark skin, because the word does not mean "foreigner". หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi หมีขั้วโลก. My understanding is that it's not those who coin or use a racial / ethnic epithet who determine whether it's disparaging. Rather, it's the people the epithet is used to describe who decide this. Other epithets not intended to be disparaging were "negro", "Chinaman", and "eskimo". Mon grain de sel (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the clarification and feedback. I guess you are right about that part, but the article is still having some bias or misinformation on the basis that it attempts to explain the origins of the term from a foreign perspective, and I am guessing the sources mainly based their conclusions on speculation rather than actually consulting the local people about why they used this term (today, probably many local people would not know, and except in places heavily saturated with tourists, would not intentionally use the term in a disparaging way... although they might if a "farang" upset them sufficiently, but even then it would be more the other words accompanying like "stupid" or "crazy" that would be the disparaging part, not the "farang" portion). Japanese people are much more aware of the nature of the term "gaijin", but even they mostly don't intend to insult when using it, and foreigners don't seem to generally be offended by it, even publishing their own magazine called "Gaijin" and referring to themselves as such, even though the term means "foreign devil". So it is interesting if people are offended by "farang" but not "gaijin", when the latter was always intended clearly as an insult, while the former was just intended as a means of reference, because in Thai the word "foreigner" wasn't specific enough. I still do not view "negro" as a slur unless it is intended to be one, and it should be reasonable to use it in appropriate ways (also banning the word would cause a lot of problems in the Spanish language). Also funny is that Nestle openly uses the word Eskimo as an ice cream brand in Thailand, and I don't think in Thailand there is general awareness that it could potentially be considered a slur. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Farang. 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/20090303000030/http://rirs3.royin.go.th/dictionary.asp to http://rirs3.royin.go.th/dictionary.asp
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6YpQxWRbF?url=http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/05/black_in_thailand_we_re_treated_better_than_africans_and_boy_do_we_hate.html to http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/05/black_in_thailand_we_re_treated_better_than_africans_and_boy_do_we_hate.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/05/black_in_thailand_we_re_treated_better_than_africans_and_boy_do_we_hate/2/

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) 09:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This article should be re-written.
Hello,

This article is simply horrible. There are many useless repetitions, the grammar is not always correct. Thanks. Cdrk (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do it yourself Vallee01 (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did it myself, feel free to improve my edits if you would like to, the second section of the Lead article grammar is still broken but I will fix that later or maybe you could. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I will finish later.
After a couple of hours of research on google scholar and going to obscure academic site I have found a large amount of information. This article has some pretty big issues, I hope we can fix with more time in common cooperation, there has been fantastic input from different peoples, but its obvious when reading this that large parts of the article has broken grammar. Try to use as extremely direct phrases as possible. "The kingdoms fought" instead "The kingdoms engaged in hostilities".

"Frankish and Muslim relations were broad and diverse, the relationship was somewhat uneasy with many Muslim states waging a counter-crusade or "Jihad" (Holy war in Arabic), against the Crusaders. A large portion of this was not based on religion but instead was based on general territorial disputes. Muslim realms fought wars against each other just as the crusaders.

However there was a general hatred and distrust towards the Crusaders, not due to religious differences, but instead the crusaders had committed a large amount of massacres, and forced conversions against the general population. Even before the Crusader invasion the territories of Syria, Lebanon and Historical Palestine were all majority Christian, with the majority of the Christians belonging to the most common Syriac orthodox church, Armenian church, or the Eastern Orthodox Church, in contrast the Crusaders practiced almost exclusively Catholicism and therefor relations even with Christians was largely unstable."

Vallee01 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 * First and foremost the scope of the article needs to be agreed upon. It was originally exclusively about the Thai use of the word, but was later edited to add stuff about historical uses in several languages, resulting in the current jumbled mess. I suggest it should be reverted back to the original scope, since the term's notability stems from its uses in Thai society. The etymology can be condensed into a single section. If the Persian or other-language words need to be discussed in-depth, they belong in a separate article. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Should this article exist
I have posted a remark about medieval usage of the term Frank here, which mentions this article. It is a strange article. Why does it focus on Persian when the term Frank for western Europeans is used in most languages (including English) when referring to crusaders, and had a lasting effect not only on Persian but also for example on Arabic and Greek. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverting 2018 hijacking
As mentioned two sections above, this article was originally about the Thai term, until it was hijacked by an IP editor in 2018. Unless someone objects, I'm going to revert to the version before that edit. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But I think that raises the question of why WP should have an article about a Thai word.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert without establishing consensus. The section titled "Southeast Asia" has the pre 2018-content as far as I can tell. The lead could make it more clear that "farang" as a Persian word is not in use, but its descendants are. It would also be useful to have more sub-sections. Rather then just "South Asia" and "Southeast Asia", break it down by country or cultural region or simply by language. Wiktionary lists its decedents and each could be more prominently mentioned in the lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In reply to Andrew Lancaster, the answer would be that the term in the Thai context is a well established one, with a significant cultural aspect to it, and is covered in numerous publications. As for Richard-of-Earth's concerns, achieving consensus is what I'm hoping for with this discussion. The Thai term is the primary topic, by a large margin, for any use of the word farang, and the connection to the Persian term and its other derivatives is weak and poorly established. The persian word would be much better covered as a separate topic, if at all. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, Wikipedia would not normally have separate articles for specific word etymologies, no matter how we established. (That would be for wiktionary.) I also don't see any "significant cultural aspect" which goes much further than the etymological one? And the etymological story only seems a tiny bit notable if it is connected to words in other languages? In short, I still don't really see any justification for this article's existence. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the Thai word should be the primary subject. The Persian word is archaic and Thai word is not. I simply feel that reverting to the 2018 version would be deleting sourced content just because you do not like it. You are welcome to rewrite the lead, making it shorter, presenting it as a Thai word but should include that the word derives from the archaic Persian word and that it has doublets in other languages. The section currently titled "Name" should be "Etymology" and then a section about its use in Thai culture followed by sections about its doublets and their use in other cultures. I understand that might seem like a bunch of work, but if your not willing to do it, then it should stay as it is. As for deleting the article, I would be neutral. I have never understood what makes a word significant enough to warrant an article. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, apparently you just need citations and a little more than what would be found in a dictionary. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'll consider a more substantial clean-up effort if/when I have time. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Farang


text:
BMW 3 Series

The BMW 3 Series is a line of compact executive cars manufactured by the German automaker BMW since May 1975. It is the successor to the 02 Series and has been produced in seven generations.

The first generation of the 3 Series was only available as a 2-door saloon; the model range expanded to include a 4-door saloon, 2-door convertible, 2-door coupé, 5-door estate, 5-door liftback ("Gran Turismo") and 3-door hatchback body styles. Since 2013, the coupé and convertible models have been marketed as the 4 Series, styles no longer included in the 3 Series.

The 3 Series is BMW's best-selling model, accounting for around 30% of the BMW brand's annual total car sales, and has won numerous awards throughout its history.

The M version of the 3 series, M3, debuted with the E30 M3 in 1986.

First generation (E21; 1975)
The E21 replaced the 02 Series and was initially available as a 2-door sedan (also described as coupé).

At launch, all models used carburetted 4-cylinder engines; however, fuel-injected models were introduced in late 1975 and 6-cylinder engines were added in 1977. A cabriolet body style – manufactured by Baur – was available from 1978 to 1981.

Second generation (E30; 1982)

On introduction in 1982, the E30 was produced solely in the 2-door sedan body style. Four-door sedan models were introduced in 1983, convertibles were introduced in 1985 and estate ("Touring") models were introduced in 1987.

The E30 was the first 3 Series to be available in wagon and 4-door sedan body styles. It was also the first 3 Series to offer a diesel engine, and all-wheel drive was introduced to the 3 Series range with the 325iX model. The BMW Z1 roadster was based on the E30 platform.

The first BMW M3 was built on the E30 platform. The E30 M3 is powered by the high-revving S14 four-cylinder petrol engine, which produced 175 kW in its final European-only iteration.

Third generation (E36; 1990)
The E36 was sold in the following body styles: sedan, coupé, convertible, wagon (marketed as "Touring"), and hatchback (marketed as "3 Series Compact"). The Compact model, which was smaller than the traditional 4-door sedan version, was powered by the BMW's four-cylinder engines developed during the 1990s.

The E36 was the second 3 Series to be offered in a hatchback body style. It was also the first 3 Series to be available with a 6-speed manual transmission (in the 1996 M3), a 5-speed automatic transmission, and a four-cylinder diesel engine. The multi-link rear suspension was also a significant upgrade compared with previous generations of the 3 Series.

The M3 model is powered by the S50 and S52 straight-six engines. It was sold in coupé, sedan and convertible body styles.

The BMW Z3 roadster and coupe models were based on the E36 platform.

Fourth generation (E46; 1997)

The E46 was sold in the following body styles: sedan, coupé, convertible, wagon (marketed as "Touring"), and hatchback (marketed as "3 Series Compact").

The E46 generation introduced various electronic features to the 3 Series, including satellite navigation, electronic brake-force display, ASC/DSC, rain-sensing wipers, LED tail-lights, and Xenon headlights. All-wheel drive, last available in the E30 3 Series, was reintroduced for the E46. It was available for the 325xi and 330xi sedan/wagon models. The E46 generation came with the M52TU/M54 engines with dual Vanos (variable valve timing) and came with a GM 5 speed Automatic (5L40E), ZF 5 speed Manual (S5-31), Getrag 5 speed Manual (S5D-250G), ZF 6 speed Manual (GS6-37BZ/DZ), and ZF 6-speed Automatic Manual (SMG) (GS6S37BZ).

The M3 version of the E46 was powered by the S54 straight-six engine and was available in coupé and convertible body styles (other than that, it was powered with the M52 or M54 in non-M3 cars). The transmissions available were a 6-speed manual or the 6-speed "SMG-II" sequential manual gearbox.

Fifth generation (E90/E91/E92/E93; 2004)
The fifth generation 3 Series was produced in the sedan, wagon, coupé and cabriolet body styles. Due to the separate model codes for each body style, the term "E9X" is sometimes used to describe this generation of the 3 Series.

In 2006, the 335i became the first 3 Series model to be sold with a turbocharged gasoline engine. The E90 also saw the introduction of run-flat tires to the 3 Series range. Consequently, cars with run flats are not equipped with spare tires.

The E90/E92/E93 M3 was powered by the BMW S65 V8 engine. It was released in 2007 and was produced in sedan, coupe, and cabriolet body styles.

Production of the fifth-generation BMW 3 Series ended in 2013.

Sixth generation (F30/F31/F34/F35; 2011)

The F30/F31/F35 has been produced in the sedan, coupé, convertible, station wagon and 5-door hatchback ("Gran Turismo") body styles. A long-wheelbase sedan is also available in China.

For the F30/F31/F34 series, the coupe and convertible models were produced from the 2013 year until 2014 when they were split from the 3 Series, redesigned, and sold as the BMW 4 Series. A new body style was introduced into the 3 Series range: the 3 Series Gran Turismo, a long-wheelbase hatchback.

In 2016, a plug-in hybrid drivetrain was first used in the 3 Series, in the 330e model. Also in 2016, a 3-cylinder engine was used for the first time in a 3 Series.

The M3 version (designated F80, the first time an M3 has used a separate model designation) was released in 2014 and is powered by the S55 twin-turbo straight-6 engine.

Production ended in 2019 with the end of F31 Touring production in June.

Seventh generation (G20/G21/G28; 2018)
The BMW 3 Series (G20) was unveiled at the 2018 Paris Motor Show on 2 October 2018. The official images of the vehicle were revealed a day prior to its unveiling. The seventh generation of the 3 Series is also offered as a station wagon. The more powerful M3 and M3 Competition variants were delivered globally starting in 2021. The G20 is the first 3 Series generation to bring an M3 Touring to market. Since 2022, it gained a battery electric version exclusive for the Chinese market as the i3, sharing its powertrain with the globally marketed i4. A facelift was revealed in May 2022, and launched in select markets in November 2022, for the 2023 model year.

M versions

The M3 is the most performance oriented version of the 3 Series. It is designed and developed by BMW's in-house motorsport division, BMW M.

M3 models have been derived from the E30, E36, E46, E90/E92/E93, and F30 (designated F80) 3 series and have been marketed with coupé, sedan and convertible body styles. Upgrades over the "standard" 3 Series automobiles include more powerful and responsive engines, improved handling/suspension/braking systems, aerodynamic body enhancements, lightweight components, and interior/exterior accents with the tri-color "M" (Motorsport) emblem.

The last M3 coupé was produced in Germany on 5 July 2013, replaced by the F82/F83 M4 coupé and convertible starting with the 2015 model year, but the M3 name remains in use for the sedan version. The new generation M3 was reintroduced in 2021, codenamed G80 from the 7th generation 3 Series (G20). The M3 represented above (The F80) was powered by a BMW S55 engine producing 431 PS at 7,600 rpm.

In June 2022, BMW revealed the first BMW M3 Touring, codenamed G81. Based on the seventh generation 3 Series, it marks the first time a BMW M Touring model reached the market. The touring version of the M3 contains the same engine and interior setup as the M3 sedan, but extends the roof line to become a wagon.

Awards and recognition
The 3 Series has been on Car and Driver magazine's annual 10 Best list 22 times, from 1992 through 2014, making it the longest-running entry in the list. In their December 2009 issue, Grassroots Motorsports magazine named the BMW 3 Series as the second-most important performance car built during the previous 25 years. In January 2021, the BMW 330e M Sport (M Sport Pro Package) was named Executive Car of the Year by What Car? magazine. What Car? awarded the 3 Series five stars out of five in its review of the car.

The plug-in hybrid version of the car was the UK's best-selling plug-in hybrid car of 2021 having achieved 10,979 new registrations throughout the year, beating the Mercedes A-Class by over 4,000 registrations.

Production and sales
* Figures since 2013 includes the BMW 4 Series

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

title: BMW 3 Series


text:
Isle of Man Football League

The Isle of Man Football League is the senior football league on the Isle of Man and is run by the Isle of Man Football Association. Although the league is affiliated with The Football Association, it does not form a part of the English football league system.

History
The league's representative XI has won the FA Inter-League Cup on two occasions. In 2006 they beat the Cambridgeshire County League XI and qualified for the 2007 UEFA Regions' Cup, being eliminated in the group stage in Czech Republic. They won the Inter-League Cup again in 2013, but again were eliminated in the group stage of the Regions Cup, this time in Slovakia.

Competition
There are 26 clubs in the Isle of Man Football League which are grouped into two divisions: Premier League and Division Two. Each division has 13 clubs and in any given season a club plays each of the others in the same division twice (a double round-robin system), once at their home and once at that of their opponents. This makes for a total of 24 games played each season. Clubs gain three points for a win, one for a draw and none for a defeat. Clubs are ranked by total points, then goal difference, and then goals scored.

Promotion and relegation
A system of promotion and relegation exists between the Premier League and Division Two. At the end of each season the two lowest placed clubs in the Premier League are relegated to Division two, and the top two placed clubs from Division Two are promoted to the Premier League. Each club has a second team in either Combination Division One or Combination Division Two. Promotion and relegation within the combination league is decided by the movement of each club's first team.

Member clubs
The league lined up with the following clubs for the 2023–24 season.

Premier League

 * Ayre United
 * Braddan
 * Corinthians
 * Douglas Royal
 * Laxey
 * Marown
 * Peel
 * Ramsey
 * Rushen United
 * St Johns United
 * St Georges
 * St Marys
 * Union Mills

Division Two

 * Castletown Metropolitan
 * Colby
 * Douglas and District
 * Douglas Athletic (withdrew for 2023–24 season)
 * Douglas HSOB
 * Foxdale
 * Governors Athletic
 * Gymnasium
 * Malew
 * Michael United
 * Onchan
 * Pulrose United
 * Ramsey YCOB

Defunct clubs

 * Douglas Wanderers
 * Northern Athletic A.F.C. (withdrew from season 2010–11)
 * Ronaldsway A.F.C. (withdrew from season 2014–15)

2007–present
In 2007, Division One was renamed the Premier League. Division Two remained unchanged.

title: Isle of Man Football League


text:
Fractional freezing

Fractional freezing is a process used in process engineering and chemistry to separate substances with different melting points. It can be done by partial melting of a solid, for example in zone refining of silicon or metals, or by partial crystallization of a liquid, as in freeze distillation, also called normal freezing or progressive freezing. The initial sample is thus fractionated (separated into fractions).

Partial crystallization can also be achieved by adding a dilute solvent to the mixture, and cooling and concentrating the mixture by evaporating the solvent, a process called solution crystallization. Fractional freezing is generally used to produce ultra-pure solids, or to concentrate heat-sensitive liquids.

Freeze distillation
Freeze distillation is a misnomer, because it is not distillation but rather a process of enriching a solution by partially freezing it and removing frozen material that is poorer in the dissolved material than is the liquid portion left behind. Such enrichment parallels enrichment by true distillation, where the evaporated and re-condensed portion is richer than the liquid portion left behind.

Ethanol and liquid water are completely miscible, but ethanol is practically insoluble in water ice. That means almost pure water ice can be precipitated from a lean ethanol-water mixture by cooling it sufficiently. The precipitation of water ice from the mixture enriches ethanol in the remaining liquid phase. The two phases can then be separated by filtration or decanting. The temperature at which water ice starts to precipitate depends on the ethanol concentration. Consequently, at a given temperature and ethanol concentration, the freezing process will reach an equilibrium at a specific ratio of water ice and enriched ethanol solution with a specific ethanol concentration. The temperatures and mixing ratios of these phase equilibria can be read from the phase diagram of ethanol and water. The maximum enrichment of ethanol in the liquid phase is reached at the eutectic point of ethanol and water, approximately 92.4 weight-% ethanol at -123 °C.

The best-known freeze-distilled beverages are applejack and ice beer. Ice wine is the result of a similar process, but in this case, the freezing happens before the fermentation, and thus it is sugar, not alcohol, that gets concentrated.

Purification of solids
When a pure solid is desired, two possible situations can occur. If the contaminant is soluble in the desired solid, a multiple stage fractional freezing is required, analogous to multistage distillation. If, however, a eutectic system forms (analogous to an azeotrope in distillation), a very pure solid can be recovered, as long as the liquid is not at its eutectic composition (in which case a mixed solid forms, which can be hard to separate) or above its eutectic composition (in which case the undesired solid forms).

Concentration of liquids
When the requirement is to concentrate a liquid phase, fractional freezing can be useful due to its simplicity. Fractional freezing is also used in the production of fruit juice concentrates and other heat-sensitive liquids, as it does not involve heating the liquid (as happens during evaporation).

Desalination
Fractional freezing can be used to desalinate sea water. In a process that naturally occurs with sea ice, frozen salt water, when partially melted, leaves behind ice that is of a much lower salt content. Because sodium chloride lowers the melting point of water, the salt in sea water tends to be forced out of pure water while freezing, called brine rejection. Large lakes of higher salinity water, called polynyas, form in the middle of floes, and the water eventually sinks to the bottom. Likewise, the frozen water with the highest concentration of salt melts first. Either method decreases the salinity of the remaining frozen water, and after multiple runs the results can be drinkable.

Alcoholic beverages

Fractional freezing can be used as a simple method to increase the alcohol concentration in fermented alcoholic beverages, a process sometimes called freeze distillation. Examples are applejack, made from hard cider, and ice beer. In practice, while not able to produce an alcohol concentration comparable to distillation, this technique can achieve some concentration with far less effort than any practical distillation apparatus would require. The danger of fractional freezing of alcoholic beverages is that it does not remove impurities, unlike (heat) distillation. Thus, fractional freezing may increase the ratio of impurities to the total volume of the beverage (though not necessarily the ratio of impurities to the amount of ethanol). This concentration may cause side effects to the drinker, leading to intense hangovers and a condition known as "apple palsy" (although this term has also simply been used to refer to intoxication, especially from applejack. )

Alternative fuels
Fractional freezing is commonly used as a simple method to reduce the gel point of biodiesel and other alternative diesel fuels, whereby esters of higher gel point are removed from esters of lower gel point through cold filtering, or other methods to reduce the subsequent alternative fuel gel point of the fuel blend. This process employs fuel stratification whereby components in the fuel blend develop a higher specific gravity as they approach their respective gel points and thus sink to the bottom of the container, where they can be removed.

title: Fractional freezing


text:
User:Cautious/Editing Polish-related articles

Editing Polish-related articles deals with the problem of frequent edit-wars that plague Polish related topics.

(...)

The Poles were incredibly stupid to insist on a border
which had no ethnographic or historical validity, when there was no chance it could be defended. Adam 13:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) Geez, Adam, i am out of breath. The discussion with you is simply impossible. "incredibly stupid" is sooo inviting. And "no historical validity"? And curzon line has exactly what historical validity? No "ethnogrpahic validity"? And curzon line has? Outside Curzon line before WWII still lived 5 millions POles, and many of the territories outside Curzon lines (including my ancestors home around Grodno and Middle Lithuania) had Polish majority, while in others population was mixed - Poles and Jews prevailed in cities, and others outside. Szopen

I agree that there was no simple ethnic border between Poland and the peoples to the east. But the 1922 border was just whatever the Poles could grab while Russia was too weak to stop them. Yes there were 5 million Poles there, but they were outnumbered by others. Wherever you drew a border there were going to be millions of people on the "wrong" side. The point is not that the Curzon Line was a better or worse border than the 1922 border, but rather that it was an indefensible border in the circumstances of 1944, and the London Poles were stupid to throw away whatever bargaining power they had over the issue of the border, when the real issue was who would hold power in Warsaw. Roosevelt and Churchill might have been willing to stand up to Stalin on that issue, had the London Poles antagonised them so thoroughly with their histrionics over their sacred right to rule over great slabs of Lithuania, Byelorussia and Ukraine. Adam 13:48, 19 Mar 2004

This is outrageous for me, that Churchill and Roosevelt were willing to sacrifice their ally so easy. Moreover, they seemed to be more tough on German borders, then on Polish, probably becasue they assigned more strategic value to Germany. At least Stalin wanted to compensate Poles for territorial looses. Ah, small problem, he paid with somebodys else land. I wouldn't buy a car from any of those guys. Cautious 12:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The statement of the idea that Stalin "wanted to compensate" Poles for anything illustrates a deep misunderstanding of Stalin - whose actions, including the massacres of the captive Polish officer corps in 1940 and against the Polish Home Army after the war, indicate that he would have preferred that Poland ceased to exists. Stalin's "compensation" of Poland with the eastern tertories of Germany was simply an attempt to push his sphere of influence as far westward into the heart of Europe as possible. By shrinking giving eastern Germany territories to Poland he could push the post war Russian sector of Germany westward.

And what were Churchill and Roosevelt supposed to do? Declare war on Stalin? The Poles were incredibly stupid to insist on a border which had no ethnographic or historical validity, when there was no chance it could be defended. Adam 13:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- I don't understand. Are you saying that the Poles should have ceded the territories that had been lost to the Soviet Union's invasion in 1939. Are you saying the Poles should have rewarded Stalin by giving him the land he won by conquest in league with Hitler?

Geez, Adam, i am out of breath. The discussion with you is simply impossible. "incredibly stupid" is sooo inviting.

And "no historical validity"? And curzon line has exactly what historical validity? No "ethnogrpahic validity"? And curzon line has? Outside Curzon line before WWII still lived 5 millions POles, and many of the territories outside Curzon lines (including my ancestors home around Grodno and Middle Lithuania) had Polish majority, while in others population was mixed - Poles and Jews prevailed in cities, and others outside. Szopen

I agree that there was no simple ethnic border between Poland and the peoples to the east. But the 1922 border was just whatever the Poles could grab while Russia was too weak to stop them. Yes there were 5 million Poles there, but they were outnumbered by others. Wherever you drew a border there were going to be millions of people on the "wrong" side. The point is not that the Curzon Line was a better or worse border than the 1922 border, but rather that it was an indefensible border in the circumstances of 1944, and the London Poles were stupid to throw away whatever bargaining power they had over the issue of the border, when the real issue was who would hold power in Warsaw. Roosevelt and Churchill might have been willing to stand up to Stalin on that issue, had the London Poles not antagonised them so thoroughly with their histrionics over their sacred right to rule over great slabs of Lithuania, Byelorussia and Ukraine. Adam 13:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I recorded subject of this discussion on my favourite page: User:Adam Carr/anti-Polish bigot. To the point: Using words stupid referring to Polish veto to accept amputation of the half of the country by genocide regime, is meaningfull. It describe you as person obsessed with anti-Polish bias and bigotry. If you use your criteria, there is a legitimate reason to annex territories of almost every country on the planet. You believe, that you know exactly what Poles should do in complicated circumstances of WW2. Stalin also was convinced that he knows. Polish resistance was also called by Nazis stupid and meaningless. Russians called Polish nationality unreasonable. I am proud to be a person, so many people consider to be difficult to drive. Cautious 14:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Adam et consortes, could you please stop it? It was you who decided that the article should be brief and informative, without too much in-sight into ethnography or history of Poland. If so, then your present discussion is just a waste of time - it won't be included in the article anyway. And calling anyone's national heroes "stupid" certainly does not help in settling down a compromise. So, could we please focus ourselves on the article? There are my questons that still haven't been answered, there are proposals still not discussed.

 * As to Roosevelts plea to reconsider was too unimportant and half-hearted to be important - both in history and in the article. A simple sentence stating that "the new line has been proposed by Stalin and accepted by Churchll and Roosevelt in Teheran and Yalta would do.Halibutt 13:59, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

...their sacred right to rule over great slabs of Lithuania, Byelorussia and Ukraine. You should know, that before Stalin created Polish Peoples Republic, there were never any Poland, that was a pure country. Always included Lithuanians, Belorussians, Ukrainians and Germans, of course Jews. It was one of the values of Poland as a country between different cultures. Hitler and Stalin found the only way to create "clean" Poland. Do you think Poles should look forward such a solution themselves in 1943??? Cautious 14:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of course none of this is going in the article. I conduct these arguments for the sheer pleasure of displaying my anti-Polish bigotry. On which subject see my comment at User:Adam Carr/anti-Polish bigot. Adam 14:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I invite anyone interested to read
History of Poland (1939-1945), People's Republic of Poland, Jan Karski, Wladyslaw Sikorski, Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski, Zofia Kossak-Szczucka, Zegota and Boleslaw Bierut and decide if these are articles written by an anti-Polish bigot. Adam 14:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Mate if anything some of the people who attack you must be the bigots - i think people like them must have maps on the walls of their homes with L'viv and Vilnius crossed out and Lwow and Wilno written in for that seems to be the attitude that drives them. PMA 14:48, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I was in the process of creating a summary of the articles
affected by Polish/anti-Polish (or pro-German/anti-German and pro-Ukrainian/anti-Ukrainian) disputes. Finally, I got pissed off and erased the project. In my opinion of the day®, anything pertaining to Poland ought to be changed only after acceptance by Wiki-"consensus" of 80% or thereabout. ;->
 * --Ruhrjung 15:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The problem is, that Polish history, especially 20 century, were kind of extreme. All those concentration camps, forced migrations, ideologically motivated falsification of the history. Throughout history Poland made a trip from Baltic sea towards Black sea and other way around. Poland had been once multiethnic entity and 10 years later pure ethnically nation. There are plenty of people with fresh wounds and ALL OF THEM WANT TO BE HEARD THROUGH WIKIPEDIA. However, this doesn't mean that we are all stupid. It only means that all this interactive writing of history doesn't make any sense. Cautious 17:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would strongly urge both User:Cautious, User:Nico and others involved in these issues to start trying to present and balance the different existent points of view.

I get sad when I again and again see attempts to provoke people one for different reasons dislikes. I have no problem to understand the mutual dislike, but I think wikipedia suffers from the warfare. I do also think wikipedia offers a road towards the remedy, if it would only be used. The road is NPOV (.Halleluja!.), including the acknoledgement that in many cases there are more than one valid truth.

If different POV:s are outlined in the articles, then I hope it would be easier to address them also in the important initial sentences of the articles.

regards! --Ruhrjung 19:38, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe
I will explain to you stupidity of Polish people, by writing the part of history, you are supposed to know, since you wrote so many articles about Poland. Polish contribution to World War II "In 1941 after an agreement with Stalin, the Soviets released many former Polish citizens, from which a 75,000-strong army was formed in the Middle East under General Wladyslaw Anders, (the so-called Anders' Army). " Soldiers of this army, were the majority of London Poles. They were coming from Poland East of Curzon line and went to England through GULAGs. They just learned, that their colleges were massacred by Stalin in Katyn massacre. They realized, that the approval of Curzon line means: They prefered to have Poland intact, to return to their homes and unite with their families. According to you, this was stupidity. Cautious 15:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) they will be denied return to their homes,
 * 2) their families will be murdered by Stalin's NKVD.

I only want to state that I'm glad you moved this part of your discussion from Talk:Curzon line. It did not belong there.Halibutt 15:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * PMA, i am one of Poles accused of "nationalism" and whatever. If you will track my activity in wikipedia (many years, i think i am here longer than Adam) you would never see me ranting about L'viv and VIlnius except when i was enraged about policy which forced former German names on Polish cities and calling nationalism any attempt to even ARGUE with that, while former Polish cities are called by today's names without any problems from Polish contributors.
 * However, Adam just wrote a sentence which indicate that he indeed has no idea about what he wrote about. 1) Part of Lithuania ruled by Poland before 1939 had strict Polish majority, which voted for incorporating into Poland, and almost no Lithuanian minority (there was much more "Belorussians" there). 2) Polish border was effect of war with soviets started in 1919 more by SOVIETS than by Poles, and was not "everything Poles could grab" since Polish delegation was offered much more and refused to accept, on basis that this would not good for good relationships between two countries (i am almost quoting Polish position in Riga here).
 * Also, it's hard not to understand Poles. Polish borders were guaranteed. Poles were on side of victors. POles were allies. Yet we were treated as mere pawns without right to express our own opinions. As defeated who should accept anything we could do. Even if London Poles would accept Curzon line, this wouldn't change the effects (Soviets had no problems taking power in Czechoslovakia) and wouldn't change outcome of Civil War in Poland
 * I am not calling you "anti-Polish bigot". But i think you are "witch hunter" who decided that any Poles who tries to explain complicated situation in central Europe is Polish chauvinist. Westerners usually know Polish history from eyes of Russians and Germans and take that for truth. Then when presented view from Polish eyes, they call it biased, not noticing that view from R and G is biased too.

Szopen
 * Szopen i know you from other forums and have great respect and like for you - its someone like Cautious (and his previous username AM) that i dislike - especially after he/she tried to frame me for "stealing" their user page a few months ago - such behaviour is unacceptable and trying to call the Polish Corridor article "Polish Pomerania" when that name is almost never used in the wider world is the kind of thing AM did and which i didn't like. PMA 15:37, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I offended you some time ago. It was, when I was complete ignorant about wiki and somebody had stolen my nick. However, I consider some of your German-related edits as POV, although you seem to have good will. Polish corridor should be an article about German propaganda item, related to revisionism of Versailles Treaty. Currently it is complete nonsense. Cautious 18:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * But you have to improve your thinking, your reactions and your behavior. You consider someone having a POV is neither a reason to get upset, nor to get rude. What you ought to do is to edit the article in a way that complemets this someone's POV with other relevant POVs – like your own, for instance.--Ruhrjung 20:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, call me a nitpicker, but the name Polish Pomerania at least was close to the original (Pomeranian voivodship), while Polish corridor is totally unoffcial and non-descriptive. Halibutt 16:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * BTW, indeed when it comes to Polish history listening to both German and Russian versions is not equal to listening both sides of the story.Halibutt 16:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No, but it reflects badly on Wikipedia to try to give the impression that those years under foreigners never existed at all.--Ruhrjung 16:55, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Look at the page history of Poznan to see a remark by another of the Poles like AM/Cautious (the Teutonic scoundrels remark). PMA 17:58, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * This name war is disgusting. What is interesting, Poles doesn't have problems with German names on their own page. However, refering to Polish cities by German names on the international pages is considered wrong. Cautious 18:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Partial explanation is that people like Nico drop there not as often and wecan revert his Warszawa (niem. Warschau once, not twenty times in a row.Halibutt 01:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that this article is no longer called "Adam Carr is an anti-Polish bigot." I think that captured the essential issue here, which is that of the conflict between the historian and the propagandist in writing articles on topics related to Polish history at Wikipedia. (It probably happens in other areas, too, but I am not involved in them.)

I don't claim to be a specialist in Polish history. But I am a professional historian with a wide knowldege of modern European history and a shelf-ful of reference works. None of them are written by Germans or Russians as far as I can see. In fact one of my major sources is articles by Jan Karski, a fine Polish patriot. I am perfectly capable of writing standard encyclopaedia articles on Polish history.

Where there are gaps in my detailed knowledge, I am entirely willing to accept information and correction by people who have that detailed knowledge. Anyone who looks at the Page History of History of Poland (1939-1945) and People's Republic of Poland will see that I worked constructively with Polish contributors to create better articles. There were frequent arguments but they were resolved.

The allegation that I am "anti-Polish" is laughable, which is why I am not as seriously offended by it as I ought to be. I have great admiration and respect for the Polish people and their long struggle for independence and freedom against a succession of oppressors. Why else would I bother writing the articles cited above, and other articles on Polish subjects?

When I said "the Poles" were stupid to take a particular position, I of course meant a particular group of Poles, not the Polish people as a whole. This is obvious in the context of the discussion and to suggest otherwise is just malicious misrepresentation.

It is not the historian's job to simply repeat any country's official history. There is a big difference between admiring Polish patriotism and accepting all the romantic mythology of Polish nationalist history. This is the version of Polish history which is taught in Polish schools, and even universities, and which contributors like Szopen and Cautious reflect, perhaps unconsciously. This is not a problem unique to Poland (it also happens in Russia, Japan, China and the United States, to varying degrees), but it is Poland we are discussing here.

One example of this is the obsession over place-names evident at so many Wikipedia articles. Polish nationalist editors insist that Gdansk has always been called Gdansk and can never be called anything else, even though it was called Danzig, both officially and by most of its inhabitants, for several hundred years. This kind of foolishness doesn't just reflect patriotism, it refelects both national chauvinism and national insecurity.

I am accused of "anti-Polish" bigotry for saying that Poland's 1922 border had no historical or ethnographic validity, and that the Polish government in exile was foolish to insist on retaining it during the negotiations on the postwar frontiers of Poland.

I stand by those statements. But whether I am right or wrong isn't the point. The point is that they are expressions of historical opinion, not judgements on one nation or another. If Szopen or Cautious were arguing with a Ukrainian nationalist, they would be accused of "anti-Ukrainian bigotry" if they suggested that L'viv had ever been anything other than part of the sacred soil of Ukraine. That would be just as foolish as their accusations against me.

Adam 02:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Certainly you are right. Polish pont of view may vary signficantly from Western pont of view. Just take a look on any "Should the Allies fulfl their promises in 1939" discussion...

 * I also agree that it's not hitorians job to simply repeat the "offcial hstory" but rather to ask questons and try to find answers for them. However, note that your statement that the government-in-exile was stupid was not an opinion of hstorian but an opinion of Adam Carr. And if it wasn't you who said that I would surely be offended. Heavily offended, to be precise. It's easy to condemn anyone who is not willing to accept compromise. However, it's much harder to walk in ther shoes and try to see that compromise through their eyes. Even in Poland such statements are often repeated without any deper thought. Rydz-Smigly was stupid to defend the borders instead of the mainland, government-in-exile was stupid to protest against the Allies selling Poland to the Soviets and so on, and so forth. But have you ever asked yourself about other choices they had? Part of the truth is what one of my hot-headed fellow countrymen (was it Szopen?) already said: most of the Polish soldiers were from Eastern Poland and came to the West through Soviet hell, through their prisons, death camps and through their terror. Any "compromise" stating that only the Red side is right would not please them and it's a mirracle that those brave men fought together with their Allied comrades-in-arms even after they knew that they won't be comming home - ever. Do you think they would've remain loyal to the government if they felt that they were betrayed? doubt it.
 * Other thing is that it's easier to assume their stupidity than to realize that the government knew perfectly that nothng can be done and all is lost yet it protested. For me their behaviour in the last years of WWII was similar to that of Jews fighting in Warsaw Ghetto Uprising: they knew they already lost and the last thng they had was ther honour and responsibility. Their pact with Stalin would not change a thing which they knew perfectly well (contrary to the western Allies, who simply did not know Stalins methods). Just take a look at those who decided to save whatever could be saved and returned to Poland. Mikolajczyk anyone?Halibutt 12:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the substance of Halibutt's comments, see my most recent comment at Talk:History of Poland (1939-1945). Here I will just say that his comments are a fine example of what I am talking about. As a Polish patriot he is perfectly entitled to the above views, and I might even agree with him. But this kind of rhetoric is not permissible in a historical article. None of our Polish friends seem to have much understanding of what an encyclopaedia is for. It is not for airing historical grievances in this way. Adam 12:22, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Please note that my comment here are not about what should be included in the article. I'm only trying to explain certain things better so that we could understand each other while discussing the article. If my comments are to be made into an article, they should be shortened to mere two or three sentences and added to Polish government in exile, 1939-1990.Halibutt

Well perhaps you could explain that point (in Polish) to Szopen, Cautious, Space Cadet and Mestwin of Gdansk, all of whom, seem to think an encyclopaedia is a fine place to write manifestoes about the grievances of Poland. Adam 13:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Military strength: wrong perspective
My understanding is that your are completely wrong as a historian. First of all, you perceive everything from perspective of power. This attitude makes sense for history prime military powers. Poland ceased to be a power at the end of 17th century. Despite that fact, Poland still exists. If you take into account military power, one of our enemies could have eliminated us all or could have assimiled us to his culture. Nothing like this happenned, despite the fact, that many tried. Despite the fact, that Poland were defeated many times in last 3 centuries and there were only 2 Polish strategic wins (1920 and 1683), Poland and its culture exists. It is simply becasue your logic doesn't apply to non-primary powers at all. Take a look at Jews and Armenians. If the nation has history longer then 300 years, it is likely that he has ups and downs. i.e Armenians had a point in history, when they were only 50,000, but eventually survived. Poland's strength in around WW2 was that despite all the odds Poles didn't accept and acknowledge their defeat. You can call it stupid, but it works. For Poles, Roosevelt and Churchill were traitors and you cannot convine me that I am wrong, because from POV they were. From Churchill persepctive Poles were stupid, because they were not easy to drive. From Polish perspective, they lacked real leader, that can lead the nation through the hard decisions. More to meritum: your golden mean, of surrendering before Stalin, made no sense. Non-great leader that accepts hard conditions immidiately becomes the traitor and Soviet-puppet. In addition, it would mean there is no more something to bargain. OK, we lost Eastern Poland but we got compensation instead. Otherwise Poland would have had size of Hungary. At the other hand, you seem to accept Soviet propaganda, that POland had no rights to Eastern Poland. Stalin thought otherwise, because he paid Poles to resign from their rights. This is final prove that you are wrong. Cautious 10:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would like to state, that although I wouldn't have used User:Cautious's wordings (above or in the same matter also seen at other talk pages), I do basically agree with the essence of his thoughts on this point. (However, I would have wished that here contributing Poles wouldn't identify so strongly with individual Polish representatives, that they feel personally insulted by assertions like Adam's stupid-remark.) --Ruhrjung 19:38, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone was stupid or offer any other opinions about anything in the article, although I have done so, under provocation, in the Talk pages. What I have done in the article is remove huge amounts of opinion, propaganda and irrelevance, most of it poorly written and showing no understanding of what an encyclopaedia article should be. I will continue to do so. Adam 07:07, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Morgoth

Silmarillion
The Silmarillion in Tolkien's work is an ancient epic that has been published in part in several books, one of which is called The Silmarillion. I edited the intro to make this distinction. Zaslav (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean Tolkien's legendarium. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Morgoth


text:
Lactococcus

Lactococcus is a genus of lactic acid bacteria that were formerly included in the genus Streptococcus Group N1. They are known as homofermenters meaning that they produce a single product, lactic acid in this case, as the major or only product of glucose fermentation. Their homofermentative character can be altered by adjusting environmental conditions such as pH, glucose concentration, and nutrient limitation. They are gram-positive, catalase-negative, non-motile cocci that are found singly, in pairs, or in chains. The genus contains strains known to grow at or below 7˚C.

Twelve species of Lactococcus are currently recognized. They are:
 * Lactococcus allomyrinae
 * Lactococcus carnosus
 * Lactococcus chungangensis
 * Lactococcus cremoris
 * L. cremoris subsp. cremoris
 * L. cremoris subsp. tructae
 * Lactococcus formosensis
 * L. formosensis subsp. bovis
 * L. formosensis subsp. formosensis
 * Lactococcus fujiensis
 * Lactococcus garvieae
 * L. garvieae subsp. garvieae
 * L. garvieae subsp. bovis
 * Lactococcus hircilactis
 * Lactococcus hodotermopsidis
 * Lactococcus insecticola
 * Lactococcus kimchii
 * Lactococcus lactis
 * L. lactis subsp. hordniae
 * L. lactis subsp. lactis
 * Lactococcus laudensis
 * Lactococcus nasutitermitis
 * Lactococcus paracarnosus
 * Lactococcus petauri
 * Lactococcus piscium
 * Lactococcus plantarum
 * Lactococcus protaetiae
 * Lactococcus raffinolactis
 * Lactococcus reticulitermitis
 * Lactococcus taiwanensis
 * Lactococcus termiticola

These organisms are commonly used in the dairy industry in the manufacture of fermented dairy products such as cheeses. They can be used in single-strain starter cultures, or in mixed-strain cultures with other lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus and Streptococcus. Special interest is placed on the study of L. lactis subsp. lactis and L. lactis subsp. cremoris, as they are the strains used as starter cultures in industrial dairy fermentations. Their main purpose in dairy production is the rapid acidification of milk; this causes a drop in the pH of the fermented product, which prevents the growth of spoilage bacteria. The bacteria also play a role in the flavor of the final product. Lactococci are currently being used in the biotechnology industry. They are easily grown at industrial scale on whey-based media. As food-grade bacteria, they are used in the production of foreign proteins that are applied to the food industry.

Diseases
Lactococcosis refers to a group of disorders caused by the bacterium L. garvieae. Most "Lacto" species dwell on the bodies of humans and animals, and while they do not cause serious problems in higher animals, they do cause chronic illnesses in lower animals, particularly fish.

title: Lactococcus


text:
ANIM

ANIM is a file format, used to store digital movies and computer generated animations (hence the ANIM name), and is a variation of the ILBM format, which is a subformat of Interchange File Format.

Anim FileTypes
Known filetypes for Anim into AmigaOS are: Anim1, Anim2, Anim3, Anim5 and Anim7. Anim1 to Anim3 did not support audio. Anim 5 and Anim7 should be able to contain Audio Data, being a complete movie animation file format.

Additions to IFF Standard
In addition to the normal ILBM chunks, ANIM filetype also defines:

 * ANHD (ANimation HeaDer)
 * DLTA - stores changes between frames, with various compression methods supported to make use of the redundancy between frames.

Compression modes:
 * ANIM-0 ILBM BODY (no delta compression)
 * ANIM-1 ILBM XOR
 * ANIM-2 Long Delta mode
 * ANIM-3 Short Delta mode
 * ANIM-4 General Delta mode
 * ANIM-5 Byte Vertical Delta mode (most common)
 * ANIM-6 Stereo Byte Delta mode (stereoscopic frames)
 * ANIM-7 Anim-5 compression using LONG/WORD data
 * ANIM-8 Anim-5 compression using LONG/WORD data
 * ANIM-J Eric Grahams compression format (Sculpt 3D / Sculpt 4D)

It is possible to have several compression modes inside a file.

History
The ANIM IFF format was developed in 1988 at Sparta Inc., a firm based in California, originally for the production of animated video sequences on the Amiga computer, and was used for the first time in Aegis Development's Videoscape and Video Titler programs for the Amiga line of computers. Being very efficient and an official subset of existing Amiga ILBM/IFF standard file format, it became the de facto standard for animation files on the Amiga.

The file format must have these characteristics:

 * Be able to store, and playback, sequences of frames and to minimize both the storage space on disk (through compression) and playback time (through efficient de-compression algorithms).
 * Maintain maximum compatibility with existing IFF formats and to be able to display the initial frame as a normal still IFF picture.

Several compression schemes have been introduced in the ANIM format. Most of these are strictly of historical interest, as the only one currently used is the vertical run length encoded byte encoding developed by Atari software programmer Jim Kent.

Amiga Anim7 format was created in 1992 by programmer Wolfgang Hofer.

A video file format originally created for the Commodore CDTV, and later adapted for the Amiga CD32, was called CDXL and was similar to the ANIM file format.

The ANIM format is supported by at least one current online image editor.

Technical Overview
A minimum Anim file consists of three ILBM interleaved bitmap images. The first bitmap is a full image, necessary for the creation of the "next" frame whilst the other two are "delta" images, calculated as differences from the first one.

The initial frame is a normal run-length-encoded, IFF picture, and this allows a preview of the contents of the file. Subsequent frames are then described by listing only their differences from a previous frame.

While the first frame is displayed, the subsequent frames are loaded into a buffer in graphics memory. The Amiga switches between the screens almost instantaneously while loading further frames using the blitter. Utilising its DMA capabilities, the graphics chipset could access memory without interrupting the CPU. This technique is called double buffering.

To better understand this, suppose one has two screens, called A and B, with the ability to instantly switch the display from one to the other. The initial frame is loaded in to screen A and B. Screen A is displayed. The differences between frame 1 and frame 2 are calculated and altered in screen B, which is then displayed. Then the differences from this and frame 3 are used to alter screen A, which is then displayed, and so on. Note that frame 2 is stored as differences from frame 1, but all other frames are stored as differences from two frames back.

ANIM is an IFF FORM and its chunk structure is as follows:

The initial FORM ILBM can contain all the normal ILBM chunks, such as CRNG, etc. The BODY will normally be a standard run-length-encoded data chunk (but also any other legal compression mode as indicated by the BMHD). If desired, an ANHD chunk can appear here to provide timing data for the first frame. If it is here, the operation field should be =0.

The subsequent FORMs ILBM contain an ANHD, instead of a BMHD, which duplicates some of BMHD and has additional parameters pertaining to the animation frame. The DLTA chunk contains the data for the delta compression modes. If the older XOR compression mode is used, then a BODY chunk will be placed here. In addition, other chunks may be placed in each of these as deemed necessary (and as code is placed in player programs to utilize them). For example, the CMAP chunks to alter the color palette.

A basic assumption in ANIMs is that the size of the bitmap, and the display mode (e.g. HAM) will not change through the animation.

The DLTA chunks are not interleaved bitmap representations, thus the use of the ILBM form is inappropriate for these frames. However, this inconsistency was not noted until there were a number of commercial products either released or close to release which generated/played this format.

Compression methods used in Anim format
Anim format allow five methods of compression: XOR mode, Long Delta mode, Short Delta mode, General Delta mode and Byte Vertical Compression.

Playing ANIM files
Playback of ANIMs will usually require two buffers, as mentioned above, and double-buffering between them. The frame data from the ANIM file is used to modify the hidden frame to the next frame to be shown. When using the XOR mode, the usual run-length-decoding routine can be easily modified to do the exclusive-or operation required. Note that runs of zero bytes, which will be very common, can be ignored, as an exclusive or of any byte value to a byte of zero will not alter the original byte value. The general procedure, for all compression techniques, is to first decode the initial ILBM picture into the hidden buffer and double buffer it into view. Then this picture is copied to the other (now hidden) buffer. At this point each frame is displayed with the same procedure. The next frame is formed in the hidden buffer by applying the DLTA data (or the XOR data from the BODY chunk) and the new frame is double-buffered into view. This process continues to the end of the file.

Influences of ANIM on other Animation filetypes
The Anim standard of Amiga influenced the development of Animated GIF format.

title: ANIM


text:
User:Halibutt/Curzon line

The Curzon line was a boundary line proposed in 1919 by the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, as a border between Poland, to the west, and bolshevik Russia to the east. It lay approximately along the eastern border of the Congress Poland and the border which was established between Prussia and Russia in 1797, after the third partition of Poland. The line separating the German and Union zones of occupation following the defeat of Poland in 1939 followed the Curzon Line in most places. The Line was used in 1945 as the basis for the permanent border between Poland and the Soviet Union.

Origins
Orignally the line was proposed by Grigoriy Chicherin at the beginning of the Polish-Soviet war as Russian counter-proposal to the Foch line. It was modified by lord Curzon and proposed to both sides at the Versailles conference (december 8, 1919.

Initially it started near the sources of Pregola River north of Suwalki, eastwards to Sejny and Grodno, then soutwards along the Bug River to the pre-war border between Russia and Austria-Hungary. The basis for a boundary in the former austrian Galicia was to be the frontline reached by both belligerent armies at the moment of a cease-fire. The line was initially accepted by Russia, but Poland declined. After the Russian counter-attack, at the Spa conference the line was proposed again as a last resort.

It is often said that the Curzon Line represented an ethnic border between Poles to the west and Russians and Ukrainians to the east. This was not the intention when Lord Curzon proposed the line: its origins were diplomatic and historical, not ethnic. Nevertheless it did run along a line which, with some notable anomalies, approximated a division between regions to the west which were mixed, but majority Polish, and regions to the east which were mixed but majority non-Polish. (see Ethnography of eastern Poland).

(map)

Polish-Bolshevik War
During World War I the Allies agreed that an independent Polish state should be formed from territories previously part of the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 said that the eastern border of Poland would be "subsequently determined." The lands lying between Poland and its eastern neighbours were inhabited by a mixed population of Poles, Jews, Lithuanians, Jews, Ukrainians and Belarussians, with no single group being a majority. During the Polish-Soviet War Lord Curzon, on behalf of the Allies, suggested a line running from Grodno through Brest-Litovsk to Lwow, although leaving unclear which side of the proposed border Lwow would be on. A later version of the Line, known as Curzon Line "B", definitely awarded Lwow to Poland (see map).

Because the Russian Empire had collapsed into a state of civil war following the Russian Revolution, there was no recognised Russian government with whom the eastern border of Poland could be negotiated. One of the first acts of the Russian provisional government in 1917 was to publicly denounce the treaties of partitions of Poland. The Bolshevik regime which came to power in October 1917, however, wanted to invade Poland in order to carry the socialist revolution into the heart of Europe, and particularly into Germany. In this circumstances war was inevitable, and broke out in late 1919.

In December 1919, the Allied powers made the following declaration: ''The Principal Allied and Associated Powers, recognising that it is important as soon as possible to put a stop to the existing conditions of political uncertainty in which the Polish nation is placed, and without prejudging the provisions, which must in the future define the eastern frontiers of Poland, hereby declare that they recognise the right of the Polish Government to proceed, according to the conditions previously provided by the Treaty with Poland of June 28, 1919, to organise a regular administration of the territories of the former Russian Empire situated to the West of the line described below [the Curzon Line]. The rights that Poland may be able to establish over the territories situated to the East of the said line are expressly reserved.''

After an initial Polish offensive into Ukraine, which captured Kiev in May 1920, the Bolsheviks gained the advantage and advanced into Poland, and in July the Poles appealed to the Allies to intervene. On 11 July Lord Curzon proposed to the Soviet government a ceasefire along the line which had been suggested the previous year. Polish parliament, after a long discussion, accepted the line because it was seen as a last chance for remaining independent. However, the Soviets, believing they had the upper hand, rejected the proposal, and fighting continued. In August, however, the Soviets were defeated just outside Warsaw and forced to retreat. At the Treaty of Riga in March 1921 the Soviets had to concede a frontier well to the east of the Curzon Line, giving Poland both Lwow and Wilno (today Vilnius). The area around Wilno, called Central Lithuania was the subject of a referendum in 1922, which was followed by its incorporation to Poland according to the wishes of 65% of the voters. The Polish-Soviet border was recognised by the League of Nations in 1923 and confirmed by various Polish-Soviet agreements.

World War II
The terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 provided for the partition of Poland along the line of the San, Vistula and Narew rivers. In September, after the military defeat of Poland, the Soviet Union annexed all territories east of the Curzon Line plus Bialystok and Eastern Galicia. The territories east of this line were incorporated into the Byelorussian and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics after so-called referenda, and hundreds of thousands of Poles and Jews were deported eastwards into the Soviet Union. The new borderline, almost identical to that proposed in 1919 with the notable exception of Bialystok) was dubbed the Border of Peace by both Soviet and German propaganda. However, in July 1941 these territories were seized by Germany in the course of the invasion of the Soviet Union. During the German occupation most of the Jewish population was killed.

In march 1943 Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that the Polish government would have to agree to some compromise with the Soviet Union regarding the eastern border. In 1944 the Soviet armed forces recaptured eastern Poland from the Germans. The Soviets unilaterally declared the former Soviet-German border (approximately the Curzon Line) to be the new frontier between the Soviet Union and Poland. This time, however, Bialystok was retained by Poland. The Polish government-in-exile in London bitterly opposed this action, and at the Teheran and Yalta conferences between Stalin and the western Allies, the allied leaders Roosevelt and Churchill asked Stalin to reconsider, particularly over Lwow, but he refused. The Curzon Line thus became the permanent eastern border of Poland, and was recognised as such by the western Allies in July 1945.

Materaly
Układy o przemieszczeniu ludności są skutkiem zmian granicznych, szczególnie na wschodzie, sięgające swoimi korzeniami okresu po pierwszej wojnie światowej, kiedy to Rada Najwyższa Państw Koalicji w Wersalu, w dniu 8 grudnia 1919 roku określiła prowizorycznie wschodnią granicę Polski między Rosją a Niemcami, zastrzegając sobie prawo do wystąpienia o dalsze przesunięcie tej linii na wschód. W dniu 6 lipca 1920 roku ówczesny premier brytyjski lord G.K. Curzon zaproponował przesunięcie tej linii na południe przez ziemie byłego zaboru austriackiego, aż do południowej granicy Polski. Zaproponowana ostatecznie w dniu 11 lipca 1920 roku granica wschodnia otrzymała miano linii Curzona.

Ostateczny kształt granicy wschodniej został ustalony po zawieszeniu broni między Polską a Rosją bolszewicką w dniu 6 października 1920 roku, a w formie traktatowej wschodnia granica Polski została ustalona na konferencji Ryskiej w dniu 18 marca 1921 r.

Tak ustalona granica wschodnia państwa polskiego przetrwała do wybuchu drugiej wojny światowej. Przed jej formalnym początkiem w dniu 23 sierpnia, a właściwie w nocy na 24 sierpnia został podpisany w Moskwie Pakt Ribbentrop - Małatow, do którego dołączono mapy, na których zostało naniesione rozgraniczenie wpływów Niemiec i Z.S.Z.R. Projekt skorygowano już po włączeniu się Sowietów do wojny, a mianowicie w dniu 28 września 1939 r.

Zasadnicza linia przebiegała od granicy Prus do Bugu pozostawiając Białostockie po stronie sowieckiej, następnie Bugiem i dalej na zachód od Sanu, włączając Lwowskie do strefy sowieckiej. Rozwój zdarzeń w czasie II wojny światowej spowodował w 1941 r. włączenie do "Wielkich Niemiec" Białostockiego i Lwowskiego.

Stan ten trwał zasadniczo do 1943 r., kiedy to działania wojenne umożliwiły koalicji antyhitlerowskiej prowadzenie rozmów na temat układu stref wpływów i granic w Europie powojennej.

Zasadnicze porozumienie Trzech Mocarstw, walczących z Niemcami, w sprawie zmiany granic państwa polskiego po drugiej wojnie światowej, miało miejsce na różnych konferencjach:

* w Teheranie (26 listopada - 1 grudnia 1943 r.), po której nastąpiły rozmowy Edena z przedstawicielami Polski w grudniu 1943 r., a następnie Churchilla 20 stycznia 1944 roku. Stanowisko rządu polskiego w tej sprawie było przedstawione 29 sierpnia 1944 roku w memorandum przesłanym przez Mikołajczyka do Z.S.R.R. W rozmowach tych omówiono konieczność wysiedlenia Niemców z terenów na północy i zachodzie, które tytułem rekompensaty miały być przekazane Polsce z obszarów wydzielonych z Niemiec. 2 listopada 1944 r. Mikołajczyk w burzliwej rozmowie z Churchillem dał wyraz wątpliwościom, jakie nurtowały rząd polski i społeczeństwo związane z koniecznością przesiedlenia około 7 milionów Niemców i wprowadzenia na ich miejsce 5 - 6 milionów Polaków. Problem ten był omawiany przez Churchilla z de Gaullem w Paryżu 11 listopada 1944 r. W tydzień później prezydent Rosvelt w piśmie do Mikołajczyka z dnia 17 listopada 1944 roku wyraził się jak następuje: "Jeżeli w związku z nowymi granicami państwa polskiego rząd i naród polski pragną dokonać przeniesienia mniejszości narodowych z obszaru Polski, rząd Stanów Zjednoczonych nie podniesie żadnego sprzeciwu i w miarę możliwości ułatwi takie przeniesienie". W dniu 15 grudnia 1944 r. przemawiając w Izbie Gmin premier brytyjski bronił koncepcji nowych granic polskich - linii Curzona na wschodzie i lini Odry z Opolszczyzną na zachodzie. - W przemówieniu tym wyraźnie podkreślił konieczność przesiedlenia milionów ludzi ze wschodu na zachód lub północ, z jednoczesnym wysiedleniem Niemców z obszarów przejętych przez Polskę na zachodzie i północy. Jednocześnie podkreślił, że wielkie mocarstwa mogą przeprowadzić tę wymianę ludności, o ile dojdą do porozumienia. - 18 grudnia 1944 roku amerykański sekretarz stanu potwierdził analogiczne stanowisko, wyrażone już wcześniej przez p. prezydenta USA w formie pisemnej 17 listopada 1944 roku. * Ostateczne porozumienie Wielkiej Trójki nastąpiło na Konferencji Krymskiej - (4-11 lutego 1945 r.), w którym to czasie osadnicy niemieccy w krajach okupowanych, a także mieszkańcy terenów właściwej Rzeszy opuszczali swoje siedziby przed zbliżającym się frontem wschodnim. Na Konferencji Krymskiej Trzy Mocarstwa osiągnęły zasadniczą zgodę co do tego, że Polska otrzyma terytoria na północy i na zachodzie.

Układ szczegółowy nie był jeszcze możliwy z dwóch przyczyn: - po pierwsze - nie powstał jeszcze rząd polski - akceptowany przez wszystkie mocarstwa, z czym wiązała się ściśle sprawa granic i ich uznania przez ten rząd, - po drugie przed konferencją mocarstwa zgodziły się na linię Odry, natomiast na konferencji ZSRR wystąpił, by przyjąć linie Odry i Nysy Łużyckiej.

Polska po wyzwoleniu w 1944 roku, jak na wstępie podano, zawarta - w ramach działalności Polskiego Komitetu Wyzwolenia Narodowego - Układy o wzajemnej ewakuacji ludności polskiej i żydowskiej z obszarów tych Republik, a ludności białoruskiej, litewskiej, rosyjskiej, rusińskiej i ukraińskiej z terenów pozostających w granicach państwa polskiego do właściwych republik.

Dobrowolnej ewakuacji do Polski podlegała ludność polska i żydowska, która miała obywatelstwo polskie przed 17 września 1939 roku.

W ramach tych Układów przybyło do Polski z ZSRR około 250 tys. Polaków do kwietnia 1945 r. do czego należy dodać około 300 tys. Polaków uchodźców z terenów objętych mordami Polaków przez Ukraińców, a którzy jako uciekinierzy znaleźli się na obszarach polskich wyzwolonych spod okupacji niemieckiej.

Po bezwarunkowej kapitulacji Niemiec 8 maja 1945 roku i zaprzestaniu działali wojennych, odbyła się w Poczdamie Konferencja Stanów Zjednoczonych, Wielkiej Brytanii i ZSRR w dniach od 17 lipca do dnia 2 sierpnia 1945 r. Na piątym posiedzeniu - 21 lipca rozpoczęto dyskusję nad zachodnią granicą Polski. W dyskusji wzięto pod uwagę masową ucieczkę Niemców z terenów przewidzianych dla Polski, które zresztą znajdowały się już pod jej administracją.

Na terenach tych pozostało już bardzo mało Niemców, jak to się okazało w dalszym ciągu, dyskusji w dniu 22 lipca 1945 r.

Na dzień 24 lipca 1945 r. została zaproszona delegacja polska. Przedstawiła ona, że na terytorium, które Polska miała otrzymać, pozostało jeszcze tylko 1 - 1,5 mln Niemców, po usunięciu których i zasiedleniu tych terenów Polakami ze Wschodu - Polska stała się państwem pozbawionym zasadniczo mniejszości niemieckiej.

Ostatecznie 31 lipca konferencja wyraziła zgodę na tekst Układu Trzech Mocarstw w sprawie uporządkowania problemów narodowościowych przez przeniesienie ludności niemieckiej z Polski, Czechosłowacji i Węgier. Układ nosi datę 2 sierpnia 1945 roku i figuruje w rozdziale XII protokołu i w rozdziale XIII komunikatu, czyli sprawozdania z konferencji.

W wykonaniu tych postanowień 20 listopada 1945 roku Rada Kontroli w Berlinie - jako najwyższy organ sojuszników w okupowanych Niemczech, organ, który działał w miejsce rządu niemieckiego - zatwierdziła plan usunięcia ludności niemieckiej z Austrii, Czechosłowacji, Węgier i Polski.

Aczkolwiek układ poczdamski nie wspominał o Austrii, okupanci jednak postanowili, że Austrię będą musieli jednak opuścić ci Niemcy, którzy przybyli tam z Rzeszy po aneksji w 1938 r. (Reichsdeutche) jak i Niemcy będący uchodźcami z Europy południowo - wschodniej.

Istniejąca granica polsko-niemiecka i skutki jej ukształtowania - są zatem aktami prawa międzynarodowego.

Nieprzestrzeganie prawa międzynarodowego przez władze państwa polskiego, drogą nierealizowania należnej rekompensaty przesiedleńcom zza Buga rozumianej jako ekwiwalent, jest grubym naruszeniem obowiązującym w prawie międzynarodowym zasady, że "Ustawodawstwo wewnętrzne nie maże być sprzeczne z podpisanymi umowami międzynarodowymi".

Dalsze naruszanie tej zasady zmusi nas, Kresowiaków, do złożenia skargi do Komisji Obrony Praw Człowieka i Obywatela przy Radzie Europy w Strasburgu z perspektywą wniesienia skargi do Trybunału Sprawiedliwości w Hadze.

title: User:Halibutt/Curzon line


text:
Liverpool Echo

The Liverpool Echo is a newspaper published by Trinity Mirror North West & North Wales – a subsidiary company of Reach plc and is based in St. Paul's Square, Liverpool, England. It is published Monday through Sunday, and is Liverpool's daily newspaper. Until January 13, 2012, it had a sister morning paper, the Liverpool Daily Post. Between July and December 2022, it had an average daily circulation of 15,395.

Historically, the newspaper was published by the Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Ltd. Its office is in St Paul's Square, Liverpool, having downsized from Old Hall Street in March 2018.

History
In 1879, the Liverpool Echo was published as a cheaper sister paper to the Liverpool Daily Post. From its inception until 1917 the newspaper cost a halfpenny. It is now £1.40p Monday to Friday, £1.80p on Saturday and £1.40p on Sunday.

The limited company expanded internationally and underwent restructuring in 1985, becoming Trinity International Holdings Plc. Prior to this restructuring, the two original newspapers had recently been re-launched in tabloid format.

A special Sunday edition of the Echo was published on 16 April 1989, for reporting on the previous day's Hillsborough disaster, in which 97 Liverpool F.C. fans were fatally injured at the FA Cup semi-final tie in Sheffield. Every single one of the 75,000 copies printed was sold.

In 1999 Trinity merged with Mirror Group Newspapers to become Trinity Mirror, the largest stable of newspapers in the country. In 2018, Trinity Mirror was rebranded as Reach plc.

On 7 January 2014 it was announced that a regular Sunday edition of the paper would be launched. The Sunday Echo is "a seventh day of publication, not an independent product", according to the paper.

In 2008 the paper moved printing from Liverpool to Trinity Mirror Plc, Oldham, Greater Manchester, while journalists remain based at St Paul's Square in Liverpool city centre.

In 2020, editor-in-chief Alistair Machray stood down and was replaced by Maria Breslin.

Criticism has been directed at the Echo for its perceived bias towards local politicians. In 2024, Liam Thorp, the paper's political editor, collaborated on a book titled "Head North: A Rallying Cry for a More Equal Britain" with the metro mayors of Manchester and Liverpool, Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram.

title: Liverpool Echo


text:
Rover 100

The name Rover 100 may refer to one of two different British motor vehicles:

 * Rover P4 100; produced by The Rover Co. Ltd. from 1960–62
 * Rover Metro, at various times also known as the Austin Mini Metro and Rover 100, amongst other names; produced by Austin Rover Group and MG Rover Group from 1980–98

title: Rover 100