text:
User talk:Sj/Heat

Russell
About - Pierre_Salinger_Syndrome - The Russell affidavit is from a recent suit:   NOT the document circulated in '96, but by the author of the document that was circulated. [posted by 208.199.82.216]

 * You should add informative links like that to the pages in question, not on my talk page! Clarke's FOIAC press release is relevant to the article on TWA Flight 800, for instance.

 * I didn't see the date at the bottom of that affidavit. However, the repetition of the first 17 items in the last page of the affidavit is odd, and familiar; I would appreciate it if you could find a version of the old email that was passed around, so the differences could be observed.  It wouldn't surprise me if this were a copy of that old email, signed by Captain Russell in 2003. +sj+

pitts edit
awww man, why did you have to kill the sutherland part of the pittsford new york page. Its almost true... (SHS) hmmm, strangly familiar......

 * awww, man, why'd you have to go exaggerating facts? I went back to add in a little dig at Sutherland for being the 2d-best school in Pittsford -- and stopped to check the "25th" ranking stats.  Turns out you guys were only 33rd!  That's the kiss of death.  WP can have cute local color (which everyone can recognize as such), but it can't have misleading facts, otherwise people will stop using us as a reference.  +sj+

Nic QP, by Tann
I am mystified at your comment in the Quickpoll, SJ. Why did you suggest that Nico and I "go to arbitration" when there is nothing to arbitrate? I have never been involved with that article, save only as a disinterested observer who saw one user (Nico) mindlessly reverting against the whole 'pedia community - count the number of other contributors he reverted there, there are lots! The only issue at stake is whether we, the Wikipedia community, are prepared to tolerate users who revert, revert, revert to their own point of view. I neither know nor much care about European politics. It is the community who has an issue here, an issue to do with Wikipedia norms and deciding whether we want to put up with endless edit warriors or not.

(OK, since posting the Quickpoll I now have an issue with Nico's personal standards of truth in consequence of his grossly untrue comments about me on various pages, but in the final anlysis, that's not something I plan to worry about.) Best -- Tannin 11:43, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah! That's what seems to be an issue for arbitration... I too am angry with users that waste everyone's time; it just doesn't come across well when the person bringing up a case/poll is so emotional and verbose, since then it looks like a private dispute.  I should go emend my comment to point to RfC, anyway; that's what I meant.  +sj+ 18:22, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

conflict resolution contributions deleted
+sj: I noticed your name on the member advocates page, and think you might be interested in some goings on at a talk page discussing some new bureaucratic proceedure. A few editors are attempting to delete comments at the bottom of this version of that talk page: The edit history reveals a typical string of complaints by some usual suspects claiming they don't take people seriously if they don't know them. Where I come from, we assess written works on the merits of its content, not on our individual likes or dislikes for the author.

At any rate, the policy discussed there seems to infer an emerging politic in which users are supposed to beg other users to rush to their defense when challenged. This seems childish and generally unrelated to the goal of creating an accurate encyclopedia, but it is worth a try. Would you be so kind as to review the comments that have been deleted and use your reputation to advocate for their retention by posting the GFDL licensed comments under your user nameas a second-hand contribution? I would do that, but this is my first edit as user:doorman, so I doubt I would find much appreciation among a crowd that claims to be an open group but that aggressively attempts to discredit new faces whose work encourages some element of self-examination. Doorman 22:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172: In need of community support
I'm in need of community support. --172

 * I don't really know who you are, so I can't tell if your "vote" at RfC/172 was made in good faith or not (in most other cases, I do know). If it was, I'm guessing you don't understand what this conflict is about. VV 11:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Any advice would be much-appreciated. As of now, I have no idea how to avoid this problem. 172 12:42, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; I'll take it (see ). BTW, should I write a note on my user page explaining why I'll be avoiding meta discussions? 172 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it was somewhat successful. +sj

blankfaze: Falcon K. and RfA
Not a reason for removal;
 * Sure it is. "Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship."  The "current voting" (1/5/1, no activity in two days) made it clear that there would be no consensus to grant adminship.

In conclusion, I'm not going to fight you on this. Have it there if it's that important to you. But it doesn't really belong there, according to me, the numerous people (including numerous admins) I asked beforehand on IRC, and...

Genital Integrity, VfD
Never move a whole page by CNP. Use templates to avoid the problem. [smile] TIA, yr colleague, Jerzy(t) 22:07, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
 * Whew! I sure hope we can get you to run our admin boot-camp when we set one up; it seems as though you were born to it. +sj +  09:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--Jerzy(t) 06:31, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Tnx, 1st & foremost for your continued civility while (in hindsight, quite properly) holding firm against my pretty strong pushing. (And of course tnx for info too obvious and numerous to enumerate.) I withdraw my pushy request, as it's now clear the problem was not in what seemed the obvious area.

[Drops a handul of hair in the wastebasket!] Your comments welcome if your interest is not already exceeded. [smile] --Jerzy(t) 19:20, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring those two discussion pages. I'll try to do some more clean-up tonight. By the way, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the deletion process. Thanks. Rossami

Issuance of apology
After a long and hard period of penitence, I feel I must formally retract this statement:

<< notice of general violation message >>

This message was way out of bounds for an average wikipedian, and it was also just plain stupid, as well as patently idiosyncratic. I feel I should have stepped back and looked at the bigger picture far more in advance before responding. I have subsequently ceased that "general violation" crap.

As a measure of full disclosure, I have nominated myself for adminship, which requires a larger margin of tolerance than what you observed from me. I offer you an opportunity to respond to that request. Consequently, if you feel that this offer of an apology is inopportune or illegitimate, then I will respect that. If IMeowbot is still active here, I will offer a similar apology to him/her. Denelson83 06:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Thank you for the heads up, and for the disclosure.  I don't know enough about your other contributions to weigh in on your RfA, but certainly would not oppose your adminship on the basis of our last interaction. +sj  +

title: User talk:Sj/Heat


text:
Quinidine

Quinidine is a class IA antiarrhythmic agent used to treat heart rhythm disturbances. It is a diastereomer of antimalarial agent quinine, originally derived from the bark of the cinchona tree. The drug causes increased action potential duration, as well as a prolonged QT interval. As of 2019, its IV formulation is no longer being manufactured for use in the United States.

Medical uses
Quinidine is occasionally used as a class I antiarrhythmic agent to prevent ventricular arrhythmias, particularly in Brugada Syndrome, although its safety in this indication is uncertain.

It reduces the recurrence of atrial fibrillation after patients undergo cardioversion, but it has proarrhythmic effects and trials suggest that it may lead to an overall increased mortality in these patients.

Quinidine is also used to treat short QT syndrome.

Eli Lilly has discontinued manufacture of parenteral quinidine gluconate in the US, and its future availability in many countries is uncertain.

Other uses
There is one study supporting the use of a novel combination of dextromethorphan and low dose quinidine in alleviating symptoms of easy laughing and crying (pseudobulbar affect); these are a type of rather severe uncontrollable behaviors which can be present in various neurological pathologies such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and multiple sclerosis. The dose of quinidine (10 mg two times daily) is about 1/40th of a relatively low antiarrhythmic dose (400 mg, twice or 3 times daily, as an example; antiarrhythmic doses can sometimes exceed 1500 mg/day). The authors did not observe significant safety risks using the low quinidine dose, but urged caution and also pointed out that quinidine interacts with a large number of other medications in dangerous or unpredictable ways. Interestingly, a meta analysis was published referencing only that one study.

Although intravenous quinidine is sometimes used to treat Plasmodium falciparum malaria, the future availability of this agent is uncertain.

Side effects
Quinidine is an inhibitor of the cytochrome P450 enzyme 2D6, and can lead to increased blood levels of lidocaine, beta blockers, opioids, and some antidepressants. Quinidine also inhibits the transport protein P-glycoprotein and so can cause some peripherally acting drugs such as loperamide to have central nervous system side effects, such as respiratory depression, if the two drugs are coadministered.

Quinidine can cause thrombocytopenia, granulomatous hepatitis, myasthenia gravis, and torsades de pointes (dangerous heart rhythm), and has been largely phased out in favor of other antiarrhythmics. Torsades can occur after the first dose. Quinidine-induced thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) is mediated by the immune system, and may lead to thrombocytic purpura.

Quinidine intoxication can lead to a collection of symptoms collectively known as cinchonism, with tinnitus (ringing in the ears) being among the most characteristic and common symptoms of this toxicity syndrome.

Pharmacodynamics
Quinidine acts as a blocker of voltage-gated sodium channels. Inhibition of the Nav1.5 channel is specifically involved in its antiarrhythmic effects as a class I antiarrhythmic agent. Quinidine also blocks certain voltage-gated potassium channels (e.g., Kv1.4, Kv4.2, hERG, among others), acts as an antimuscarinic and alpha-1 blocker, and is an antimalarial.

Mechanism of action
Like all other class I antiarrhythmic agents, quinidine primarily works by blocking the fast inward sodium current (INa). Quinidine's effect on INa is known as a 'use dependent block'. This means at higher heart rates, the block increases, while at lower heart rates, the block decreases. The effect of blocking the fast inward sodium current causes the phase 0 depolarization of the cardiac action potential to decrease (decreased Vmax). It seems still efficacious as an IV antimalarial against Plasmodium falciparum. This electrolyte dependent agent also increases action potentials and prolongs the QT interval. Quinidine also blocks the slowly inactivating, tetrodotoxin-sensitive Na current, the slow inward calcium current (ICa), the rapid (IKr) and slow (IKs) components of the delayed potassium rectifier current, the inward potassium rectifier current (IKI), the ATP-sensitive potassium channel (IK ATP ) and Ito.

At micromolar concentrations, quinidine inhibits Na+/K+-ATPase by binding to the same receptor sites as the digitalis glycosides such as ouabain.

The effect of quinidine on the ion channels is to prolong the cardiac action potential, thereby prolonging the QT interval on the surface ECG.

Other ECG effects include a wide notched P wave, wide QRS complex, depressed ST segment, and U waves. These are the results of both slowed depolarization and repolarization.

Elimination
The elimination half-life of oral quinidine is 6 to 8 hours, and it is eliminated by the cytochrome P450 system in the liver. About 20% is excreted unchanged via the kidneys.

History
The effects of cinchona bark (the botanical source from which quinidine is extracted) had been commented on long before the understanding of cardiac physiology arose. Jean-Baptiste de Sénac, in his 1749 work on the anatomy, function, and diseases of the heart, had this to say:

"'Long and rebellious palpitations have ceded to this febrifuge'." "'Of all the stomachic remedies, the one whose effects have appeared to me the most constant and the most prompt in many cases is quinquina [Peruvian bark] mixed with a little rhubarb.'"

Sénac subsequently became physician to Louis XV of France, a counselor of the state, and superintendent of the mineral waters and medicinals in France. As a result of his influence, throughout the 19th century, quinine was used to augment digitalis therapy. It was described as das Opium des Herzens (the opium of the heart).

However, the use of quinidine to treat arrhythmia really only came into its own because a physician listened to the astute observation of one of his patients. In 1912, Karel Frederik Wenckebach saw a man with atrial fibrillation. He was a Dutch merchant, used to good order in his affairs. He would like to have good order in his heart business, also, and asked, "why there were heart specialists if they could not abolish this very disagreeable phenomenon ... he knew himself how to get rid of his attacks. As I did not believe him, he promised to come back next morning with a regular pulse, and he did."

The man had found by chance that when he took one gram of quinine during an attack, it reliably halted it in 25 minutes; otherwise it would last for two to 14 days. Wenckebach often tried quinine again, but he succeeded in only one other patient.

He made passing mention of it in his book on cardiac arrhythmias published in 1914. Four years later, Walter von Frey of Berlin reported in a leading Viennese medical journal that quinidine was the most effective of the four principal cinchona alkaloids in controlling atrial arrhythmias.

Chemistry
Quinidine-based ligands are used in AD-mix-β for Sharpless asymmetric dihydroxylation.

Veterinary use
Quinidine sulfate is used in the treatment of atrial fibrillation in horses.

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

title: Quinidine


text:
John of Montfort

John of Montfort (Yann Moñforzh, Jean de Montfort) (1295 – 26 September 1345, Château d'Hennebont), sometimes known as John IV of Brittany, and 6th Earl of Richmond from 1341 to his death. He was the son of Arthur II, Duke of Brittany and his second wife, Yolande de Dreux. He contested the inheritance of the Duchy of Brittany by his niece, Joan of Penthièvre, which led to the War of the Breton Succession, which in turn evolved into being part of the Hundred Years' War between England and France. John's patron in his quest was King Edward III of England. He died in 1345, 19 years before the end of the war, and the victory of his son John IV over Joan of Penthièvre and her husband, Charles of Blois.

Biography
John of Montfort was born in 1295, the only son to Arthur II of Brittany and his second wife Yolande of Dreux. In 1322 he inherited from his mother the title of count of Montfort-l'Amaury, and in 1329 he married Joanna of Flanders in Chartres. Joanna was the daughter of Louis I, Count of Nevers, and Joan, Countess of Rethel. They had:
 * John IV, Duke of Brittany (1339–1399), married (1) Mary of Waltham (1344–1362), daughter of King Edward III of England, in 1361 in Oxfordshire; (2) Joan Holland (1350–1384) in 1366 in London; (3) Joan of Navarre (1370–1437), daughter of King Charles II of Navarre, in 1386 in Saillé-près-Guérande.
 * Joan of Brittany, Baroness of Drayton (1341–1402), married before 21 October 1385 to Ralph Basset, 3rd Baron Basset of Drayton

Succession to Duke John III
On 30 April 1341, John III, Duke of Brittany, died without a male heir. His half-brother, John of Montfort, was a candidate for the succession, which was also claimed by Joan of Penthièvre, niece of John III and wife of Charles of Blois, himself a nephew of the Philip VI, King of France. The King was, of course, favourable to his nephew.

The Duchy of Brittany historically had a "semi-Salic" mode of inheritance; male primogeniture was followed unless no direct male descendants remained. At that point the closest female descendant inherited as duchess, with her husband serving as duke by "right of representation". The position of John of Montfort was legally founded on the belief that a brother (even a half-brother) was a closer heir than a beneficiary niece, and that the Salic form of inheritance adopted by the Kingdom of France should be followed. This argument was based on the fact that since 1297 Brittany had been a duché-pairie ("member and part of the crown"), and that the legislation of the suzerain kingdom should therefore be applied. Challenges to the Salic law of the Franks had historically been rejected for the Kingdom of France, allowing Philip V to gain the throne in 1316, and Philip VI most recently. This made Edward III's support of John of Montfort quite ironic, in that the argument for Edward III to inherit the Kingdom of France was based on the opposing philosophy that the crown should be able to descend through a female line.

A civil war, termed the War of the Breton Succession, then began and lasted 23 years. This conflict was also called La guerre de deux Jeanne, after the French names of the two duchesses in competition: Jeanne de Penthièvre and Jeanne de Flanders, wife of John of Montfort.

Early stages of the War (1341)
After the funeral of John III, Charles of Blois returned to the Court of France and John of Montfort returned to his Breton estate in Guérande. Then, incited by his wife (according to tradition), he went with a small army to Nantes where he was well received by the inhabitants who swore their loyalty. John then went to Limoges where he managed to obtain the ducal treasury. John returned to Nantes and was recognised as Duke in May 1341 by an assembly composed of members of the towns and minor nobles, but shunned by the major vassals with the exception of Hervé VII, Count of Léon. Thanks to the ducal treasury, he recruited mercenaries which allowed him to perform in June and July a 'great ride in Brittany' (as described by Arthur de la Borderie) and take control of the duchy. John first gained Rennes, then Vannes and the places surrounding the Château de Suscinio, Auray, Hennebont, and then Quimperlé. Having failed to take the domains of Rohan, he submitted Quimper and Brest before descending to Carhaix, and then went back northward and captured Saint-Brieuc, Lamballe, Jugon, Dinan, Dol-de-Bretagne, and returned to Nantes via Ploërmel.

Always accompanied by Hervé VII of Léon, John obtained the submission, if not the support, of some of the major nobles who possessed several of these strongholds and had been loyal to Charles of Blois. However it would probably require getting Josselin, or the support of the high secular clergy and great lords, or more, to control the domains of the Penthièvres and the House of Rohan, which represented about two-thirds of Brittany. John also went to England and met with Edward III of England in Windsor, who promised him military assistance and invested him with the Honour of Richmond.

Charles of Blois then made an appeal to Philip VI, who summoned John of Montfort to a Court of Peers session in Conflans in September 1341. In this context by the judgment of Conflans, the Duchy of Brittany was attributed to Charles of Blois. Philip VI agreed to receive l'hommage lige of Charles of Blois on behalf of his wife, and confiscated from John of Montfort the French lands of the County of Montfort-l'Amaury, as well as the Viscounty of Limoges that he held more unduly.

In October 1341, Charles of Blois and John II, Duke of Normandy (later King of France), put together an army and penetrated into Brittany. They managed to retrieve a number of strongholds which had been lost, including Nantes, which relented on 21 November 1341 after three weeks of siege. John of Montfort was captured and imprisoned in the Louvre in Paris. Despite the change of camp of Hervé VII de Leon (due to criticisms from John regarding his handling of the siege of Nantes), Joanna, the wife of John of Montfort, continued the armed struggle supported by his allies.

Subsequent stages of the War (1342–1345)
After a winter break that ended on 15 April 1342, Charles of Blois resumed the fight and regained a large part of Brittany between May and September 1342. King Edward III of England decided to intervene on behalf of the House of Montfort. Charles de Blois failed to take Hennebont, which was defended by Joanna of Flanders, while Robert III of Artois was mortally wounded besieging Vannes in vain leading an English contingent. In January 1343, through Pope Clement VI, a truce was signed at Malestroit to bring peace and the liberation of John of Montfort. The latter was released in September 1343 and retired to England 27 March 1345. His return to the struggle with reinforcements provided by King Edward III of England put an end to the truce. John of Montfort unsuccessfully laid siege to Quimper, then fell ill and died in Hennebont on 26 September 1345.

Tomb of John of Monfort
He was buried in the convent of the Dominicans of Quimperlé where his tomb, which had already been desecrated, was found again in December 1883. His remains are now in the Church of Sainte-Croix de Quimperlé.

title: John of Montfort


text:
Charles, Duke of Brittany

Charles of Blois-Châtillon (1319 – 29 September 1364), nicknamed "the Saint", was the legalist Duke of Brittany from 1341 until his death, via his marriage to Joan, Duchess of Brittany and Countess of Penthièvre, holding the title against the claims of John of Montfort. The cause of his possible canonization was the subject of a good deal of political maneuvering on the part of his cousin, Charles V of France, who endorsed it, and his rival, Montfort, who opposed it. The cause fell dormant after Pope Gregory XI left Avignon in 1376, but was revived in 1894. Charles of Blois was beatified in 1904.

Biography
Charles was born in Blois, the son of Guy de Châtillon, count of Blois, by Margaret of Valois, a sister of King Philip VI of France. A devout ascetic from an early age, he showed interest in religious books but was forbidden from reading them by his father, as they did not seem appropriate to his position as a knight. As he grew older, Charles took piety to the extreme of mortifying his own flesh. It is said that he placed pebbles in his shoes, slept on straw instead of a bed, confessed every night in fear of sleeping in a state of sin, and wore a cilice under his armor in battle. He was nevertheless an accomplished military leader, who inspired loyalty by his religious fervour.

Marriage
On 4 June 1337 in Paris, he married Joan the Lame, heiress and niece of John III, Duke of Brittany.

Breton War of Succession
Together, Charles and his wife, Joan of Penthièvre, fought the House of Montfort in the Breton War of Succession (1341–1364), with the support of the crown of France. Despite his piety, Charles did not hesitate in ordering the massacre of 1,400 civilians after the siege of Quimper as well as the massacre of thousands after the siege of Guerande. After initial successes, Charles was taken prisoner by the English in 1347. His official captor was Thomas Dagworth.

He stayed nine years as prisoner in the Kingdom of England. During that time, he used to visit English graveyards, where he prayed and recited Psalm 130, much to the chagrin of his own squire. When Charles asked the squire to take part in the prayer, the younger man refused, saying that the men who were buried at the English graveyards had killed his parents and friends and burned their houses.

Charles was released against a ransom of about half a million écus in 1356. Upon returning to France, he decided to travel barefoot in winter from La Roche-Derrien to Tréguier Cathedral out of devotion to Saint Ivo of Kermartin. When the common people heard of his plan, they placed straw and blankets on the street, but Charles promptly took another way. His feet became so sore that he could not walk for 15 weeks. He then resumed the war against the Montforts.

Charles was eventually killed in combat during the Battle of Auray in 1364, which with the second treaty of Guerande in 1381 determined the end of the Breton War of Succession as a victory for the Montforts.

Family
By his marriage to Joan the Lame, Countess of Penthièvre, he had five children:
 * John I, Count of Penthièvre (1340–1404) and Viscount of Limoges.
 * Guy
 * Henry (d. 1400)
 * Marie of Blois, Duchess of Anjou (1345–1404), Lady of Guise, married in 1360 to Louis I, Duke of Anjou
 * Margaret of Blois, Countess of Angoulême, married in 1351 to Charles de la Cerda (d. 1354), the Count of Angoulême and Constable of France.

According to Froissart's Chronicles, Charles also had an illegitimate child, John of Blois, who died in the Battle of Auray. However, considering Charles' extreme piety, historian Johan Huizinga regarded it unlikely that Charles actually had a child born outside marriage and that Jean Froissart was probably mistaken in identifying John as Charles' son.

Veneration
Charles was buried at Guingamp, where the Franciscans actively promoted his unapproved cult as saint and martyr. Such variety of ex votos bedecked his tomb, that in 1368 Duke John IV of Brittany persuaded Pope Urban V to issue a bull directing the Breton bishops to stop this. But the bishops failed to enforce it.

Nonetheless, his family successfully lobbied for his canonization as a Saint of the Roman Catholic church for his devotion to religion. Bending to pressure from Charles V of France, Pope Urban authorized a commission to study the matter. Urban died December 1370 to be succeeded by Pope Gregory XI. The commission held its first meeting in Angers in September 1371, and forwarded its report to Avignon the following January. Gregory appointed three cardinals to review the matter. The Pope returned to Italy in September 1376, arriving in Rome in November 1377; he died the following March. Gregory was succeeded in Avignon by Clement VII, but the documents were probably in Rome with Pope Urban VI. There appears to be no record of further activity regarding Charles' cause for canonization at this time. In 1454, Charles' grandson urged his relatives to continue to advocate for his recognition.

The process was re-opened in 1894, and on 14 December 1904, Charles de Châtillon was beatified as Blessed Charles of Blois. His feast Day is 30 September.

title: Charles, Duke of Brittany


text:
John IV, Duke of Brittany

John IV the Conqueror KG (in Breton Yann IV, in French Jean IV, and traditionally in English sources both John of Montfort and John V) (1339 – 1 November 1399), was Duke of Brittany and Count of Montfort from 1345 until his death and 7th Earl of Richmond from 1372 until his death.

Ordinal number
He was the son of John of Montfort and Joanna of Flanders. His father claimed the title Duke of Brittany, but was largely unable to enforce his claim for more than a brief period. Because his father's claim to the title was disputed, with only the English king recognising it, the subject of this article is often numbered in French sources as "John IV" and his father as simply "John of Montfort" (Jean de Montfort), while in English sources he is known as "John V". However, the epithet of "The Conqueror" makes his identity unambiguous.

Conquest
The first part of his rule was tainted by the Breton War of Succession, fought by his father against his cousin Joanna of Penthièvre and her husband Charles of Blois. With French military support Charles was able to control most of Brittany. After his father's death, John's mother Joanne attempted to continue the war in the name of her baby son. She became known as "Jeanne la Flamme" (Fiery Joanna) for her fiery personality. However, she was eventually forced to retreat with her son to England to ask for the aid of Edward III. She was later declared insane and imprisoned in Tickhill Castle in 1343. John and his sister Joan of Brittany were taken into the King's household afterwards.

John returned to Brittany to enforce his claim, with English help. In 1364, John won a decisive victory against the House of Blois in the Battle of Auray, with the support of the English army led by John Chandos. His rival Charles was killed in the battle and Charles's widow Joanna was forced to sign the Treaty Guérande on 12 April 1365. In the terms of the treaty, Joanna gave up her rights to Brittany and recognized John as sole master of the duchy.

Power struggles
Having achieved victory with English support (and having married into the English royal family), Duke John IV was constrained to confirm several English barons in positions of power within Brittany, especially as controllers of strategically important strongholds in the environs of the port of Brest, which gave the English military access to the peninsula, and which took revenue from Brittany to the English crown. This English power-base in Brittany was resented by the Breton aristocrats and the French monarchy, as was John's use of English advisers. However, John IV declared himself a vassal to king Charles V of France, not to Edward III of England. Nevertheless, this gesture did not placate his critics, who saw the presence of rogue English troops and lords as destabilizing. Faced with the defiance of the Breton nobility, John IV was unable to muster military support against King Charles V, who took the opportunity to exert pressure over Brittany. Without local support, in 1373, he was once more forced into exile to England.

However, King Charles V made the mistake of attempting to completely adjoin the duchy of Brittany to France. Bertrand de Guesclin was sent to make the duchy submit to the French king by force of arms in 1378. The Breton barons revolted against the takeover and invited Duke John IV back from exile in 1379. He landed in Dinard and took control of the duchy once more with the support of local barons. An English army under Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester, landed at Calais and marched towards Nantes to take control of the city. However, John IV subsequently reconciled with the new French king, Charles VI of France, and paid off the English troops to avoid a confrontation. He ruled his duchy thereafter in peace with the French and English crowns for over a decade, maintaining contact with both, but minimizing open links to England. Between 1380 and 1385, John IV built the Château de l'Hermine (Castle of Hermine) in Vannes, which became a defensive fortress and dwelling for the Dukes of Brittany. He built it in order to benefit from the central position of the city of Vannes in his duchy. In 1397, Duke John IV finally managed to extricate Brest from English control by using diplomatic pressure and financial inducements.

Clisson affair
In 1392 an attempt was made to kill Olivier V de Clisson, the Constable of France, in Paris who was an old enemy of the duke's. The attacker, Pierre de Craon, fled to Brittany. John was assumed to be behind the plot, and Charles VI took the opportunity to attack Brittany once more. Accompanied by the Constable, he marched on Brittany, but before he reached the duchy the king was seized with madness. Relatives of Charles VI blamed Clisson, and instituted legal proceedings against him to undermine his political position. Stripped of his status as Constable, Clisson now took refuge in Brittany himself, and was reconciled with John (1397), becoming a close adviser to the duke.

English knighthood
John IV was knighted by King Edward III between 1375 and 1376 as a member of the Order of the Garter. He is believed to be the only Duke of Brittany to have attained this English honour.

Marriages
Duke John IV married three times:
 * 1) Mary of England (1344–1362), daughter of King Edward III and Philippa of Hainault.
 * 2) Lady Joan Holland (1350–1384), daughter of Thomas Holland, 1st Earl of Kent and Joan of Kent, in London, in May 1366.
 * 3) Joan of Navarre (1370–1437), daughter of King Charles II of Navarre and Joan of Valois, at Saillé-près-Guérande, near Nantes, on 2 October 1386.

Joan of Navarre was the mother of all of John's children. After his death, she served as Regent to their son, John V, Duke of Brittany, and eventually married King Henry IV of England.

Children

 * Jeanne of Brittany (Nantes, 12 August 1387 – 7 December 1388).
 * Isabelle of Brittany (October 1388 – December 1388).
 * John V, Duke of Brittany (Château de l'Hermine, near Vannes, Morbihan, 24 December 1389 – manoir de La Touche, near Nantes on 29 August 1442).
 * Marie of Brittany (Nantes, 18 February 1391 – 18 December 1446), Lady of La Guerche, married at the Château de l'Hermine on 26 June 1398 John I of Alençon.
 * Marguerite of Brittany (1392 – 13 April 1428), Lady of Guillac, married on 26 June 1407, Alain IX, Viscount of Rohan and Count of Porhoët (d. 1462)
 * Arthur III, Duke of Brittany (Château de Succinio, 24 August 1393 – Nantes, 26 December 1458).
 * Gilles of Brittany (1394 – Cosne-sur-Loire, 19 July 1412, Bourges ), Lord of Chantocé and Ingrande.
 * Richard of Brittany (1395 – Château de Clisson 2 June 1438), Count of Benon, Étampes, and Mantes, married at the Château de Blois, Loir-et-Cher on 29 August 1423 Margaret d'Orléans, Countess of Vertus, daughter of Louis of Valois, Duke of Orléans.
 * Blanche of Brittany (1397 – bef. 1419), married at Nantes on 26 June 1407 John IV, Count of Armagnac.

title: John IV, Duke of Brittany


text:
Usucaption

Usucaption (usucapio), also known as acquisitive prescription, is a concept found in civil law systems and has its origin in the Roman law of property.

Usucaption is a method by which ownership of property (i.e. title to the property) can be gained by possession of it beyond the lapse of a certain period of time (acquiescence). While usucaption has been compared with adverse possession, the true effect of usucaption is to remedy defects in title of lands that are without encumbrance on them.

Background to usucaption
The necessity for usucaption arose in Roman law with the divide between res mancipi and res nec mancipi. Res mancipi required elaborate and inconvenient formal methods of conveyance to transfer title (a formal mancipatio ceremony, or in iure cessio). Res nec manicipi could be transferred by traditio (delivery) or in iure cessio.

The remaining form of conveyance was traditio. This was an informal conveyance which only required the intention to transfer and delivery of the property. If res mancipi were transferred by traditio, full ownership would not pass and the recipient would become a bonitary owner.

Therefore, another form of conveyance was required that did not necessitate a ceremony or appearance before the praetor. Because Rome was becoming mercantile, it was simply inconvenient to perform a formal conveyance simply because property was classed as res mancipi. There might also be a demand to transfer property in private between the transferring parties, such as in the establishment of fideicommissa (Roman trusts).

The need for establishing ownership by means other than conveyance was also a result of the practical defect of a system of ownership based on valid transfer. Title to property could be challenged under this system, because it depended on the good title of the person from whom you acquired the property and so on. If any person's title in the chain were challenged successfully, then this would defeat any title derived from it. This defect required a means of establishing ownership that was not contingent upon a chain of title but could be established independently.

The Roman Law of Usucapio
However, if a bonitary owner kept the res (property) in his possession for a certain amount of time (two years for land, one year for chattels) his title would become full title and he could assert himself as dominus.

Usucaption was the solution that emerged to address the defects of Roman ownership. It required five elements:

 * 1) Uninterrupted possession of the property for the requisite period (one year for chattels, two years for land);
 * 2) The property was capable of being owned. Not a free man for example;
 * 3) Good faith. For example, a buyer might purchase a slave (categorised as res mancipi) in good faith but find twelve months on that the vendor did not himself have good title to that slave;
 * 4) Iusta causa. A proper ground for acquiring the property, e.g. showing that the acquirer paid for the property.
 * 5) The property must not have been stolen any time or taken by force.

This largely ameliorated the problems experienced by conveyance as a means of establishing ownership, but could still yield harsh results. A purchaser of res mancipi could be on his way to successfully usucaping the property (e.g. 11 months in possession) but would lose his claim to it if his possession was challenged before the period of usucaption by someone who could establish title.

Usucaption was altered by the Actio Publiciana (see Gaius 4.36 ) which gave scope in the vindicatio (the action for property) for a fictitious usucaption. Such a situation would only arise where the claimant's possession of the property had been interrupted before the period required to usucape it had elapsed. The Actio Publiciana made provision for the possessor of the property to be taken to have usucaped it successfully, if he could show that he would have usucaped the property had his possession of it not been interrupted. In this way usucaption became the dominant form of establishing ownership in Rome.

In Rabbinic Judaism
In orthodox Jewish law, the right of usucaption is defined in a compendium of Oral Laws compiled in 189 CE, known as the Mishnah (Baba Bathra 3:1-ff.). The general scope of the law formerly provided for the right of possession of property in the absence of a legal deed or title, if, after three years of occupancy, no protest or counter-claim had been made to the same property.

"Title by usucaption to houses, cisterns, trenches, vaults, dovecots, bath-houses, olive-presses, irrigated fields, and slaves, and aught that brings constant gain, is secured by occupation during three completed years; title by usucaption to unirrigated fields [is secured by occupation during] three years and they need not be completed."

If a dispute had arisen over property within this three-year time-frame, the property is assumed to belong to the person who challenges the claim of the illegal tenant, particularly, when the other is publicly known to have originally possessed the land or house. In such cases, if so-and-so "A" claimed that so-and-so "B" wrongfully took possession of his property, but so-and-so "B" retorted, "Yes, it was formerly yours, but you sold it to me," or "Yes, it was formerly yours, but I received it from you as a gift," - if "A" is known to have once possessed the property, he is assumed to be the rightful owner of the property, and it is the duty of "B" to show proof that "A" either sold it to him, or gave it to him as a gift. The absence of proof renders "B"'s hold of the property null and void.

A squatter who fences in the property, or who locks it up, or who refurbishes it, or who has the keys to the property delivered unto him, are all signs of legal conveyance and is assumed to be the rightful owner, even in the absence of a legal deed. After three years of occupancy the squatter cannot be evicted from the property, unless the original owner can show proof or bring witnesses who testify to the effect that the property is still vested in his name, and that no transaction, conveyance or sale was made between him and the squatter, even though he held it for three years or more, in which case the squatter is forcibly evicted from the property and the court replevins the estate to its rightful owner. The application of this law is similar to what was found in ancient Roman law, under rei vindicatio.

Three years was considered the least amount of time needed for a rei vindicatio to happen, meaning, one year being the time needed for the discovery of the illegal occupant, another year being the time needed to notify the original owner about his property being taken, and another year being the time needed for him to return to the Land of Israel from a far-away country, such as Spain, in order to evict the occupant. The protest must be made before at least two competent witnesses and submitted in a court of law against another's wrongful occupation of his property within the three-year allotted period, in which case the squatter's assumed right to the said property is automatically canceled, unless he can provide proof of purchase. The squatter who fails to provide a legal deed of purchase, or who lost his deed of purchase, forfeits his hold of the property. The language of protestation by the rightful owner is such, or to the effect of such: "So-and-so, who is making use of my courtyard or my field, is a thief." The person who protests another man's wrongful hold of his property must be known by others to be the rightful owner of that property, and if not, the squatter is able to say, "I take no heed to his protestations."

The Jewish custom in Jerusalem during Ottoman rule over Palestine was that wherever it was widely known by the public that a fellow Jew had been deprived of his property under the land tenure laws known as Mülk (where Jewish-owned land was given by the Ottoman conqueror to Muslims, or Khuraj lands given to Christians and taxed, in exchange for Muslim protection, which same lands became private or allodial land, held in absolute ownership), the usurping occupant was divested of his property and the property returned to its rightful owner, even if the owner could not show proof of purchase.

title: Usucaption


text:
Philippe de La Hire

Philippe de La Hire (or Lahire, La Hyre or Phillipe de La Hire) (18 March 1640 – 21 April 1718) was a French painter, mathematician, astronomer, and architect. According to Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle he was an "academy unto himself".

He was born in Paris, the son of Laurent de La Hire, a distinguished artist and Marguerite Coquin. In 1660, he moved to Venice for four years to study painting. Upon his return to Paris, he became a disciple of Girard Desargues from whom he learned geometrical perspective and was received as a master painter on 4 August 1670. His paintings have sometimes been confused with those of his son, Jean Nicolas de La Hire, who was a doctor but also a painter.

He also began to study science and showed an aptitude for mathematics. He was taught by the French Jesuit theologian, mathematician, physicist and controversialist Honoré Fabri and became part of a circle formed by Fabri which included Giovanni Domenico Cassini, Claude François Milliet Dechales, Christiaan Huygens and his brother Constantijn, Gottfried Leibniz, René Descartes and Marin Mersenne. He became a member of French Academy of Sciences in 1678, upon the death of Jacques Buot, and subsequently became active as an astronomer, calculating tables of the movements of the Sun, Moon, and planets and designing contrivances for aiming aerial telescopes. From 1679–1682 he made several observations and measurements of the French coastline, and in 1683 aided in mapping France by extending the Paris meridian to the north. In 1683 La Hire assumed the chair of mathematics at the Collège Royal. From 1687 onwards he taught at the Académie d’architecture.

La Hire wrote on graphical methods, 1673; on conic sections, 1685; a treatise on epicycloids, 1694; one on roulettes, 1702; and, lastly, another on conchoids, 1708. His works on conic sections and epicycloids were based on the teaching of Desargues, of whom he was the favourite pupil. He also translated the essay of Manuel Moschopulus on magic squares, and collected many of the theorems on them which were previously known; this was published in 1705. He also published a set of astronomical tables in 1702. La Hire's work also extended to descriptive zoology, the study of respiration, and physiological optics.

Two of his sons were also notable for their scientific achievements: Gabriel-Philippe de La Hire, (1677–1719), mathematician, and Jean-Nicolas de La Hire (1685–1727), botanist.

Mons La Hire, a mountain on the Moon, is named for him.

On 19 December 1699, he presented ‘Expériences et observations sur les corps qui frottent l’un contre l’autre’ (Experiments and observations on bodies that slide against each other) at the Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris, where he proposed what are now commonly known as Amontons’ laws of friction after Guillaume Amontons.

Selected works
Unless otherwise stated La Hire's works are in French.
 * Nouvelle méthode en géométrie pour les sections des superficies coniques et cylindriques (1673) (New geometrical method for the sections of conical and cylindrical areas)
 * Nouveaux éléments des sections coniques: Les lieux géométriques: Les constructions ou effections des équations (1679)
 * La gnomonique ou l'Art de faire des cadrans au soleil (1682) (Gnomonics or the Art of making sundials.)
 * Sectiones conicæ (1685) (Conic sections.)
 * Tables du Soleil et de la Lune (1687) (Tables of the Sun and of the Moon)
 * L'ecole des arpenteurs (1689; on line: 4th ed., 1732)
 * Traité de mecanique: ou l'on explique tout ce qui est nécessaire dans la pratique des arts, & les propriétés des corps pesants lesquelles ont un plus grand usage dans la physique (1695)
 * Planisphère céleste (1705)
 * "Des conchoïdes en général". In: Histoire de l'Académie royale des sciences, p. 32 of the memoirs section (1708)
 * Tabulæ astronomicæ Ludovici Magni iussu et munificentia exaratæ et in lucem editæ (1727)
 * Tables astronomiques dressées et mises en lumiere par les ordres et par la magnificence de Louis le Grand (1735)
 * Tables astronomiques dressées et mises en lumiere par les ordres et par la magnificence de Louis le Grand (1735)

title: Philippe de La Hire


text:
John V, Duke of Brittany

John V, sometimes numbered as VI, (24 December 1389 – 29 August 1442) bynamed John the Wise (Yann ar Fur; Jean le Sage), was Duke of Brittany and Count of Montfort from 1399 to his death. His rule coincided with the height of the Hundred Years' War between England and France. John's reversals in that conflict, as well as in other internal struggles in France, served to strengthen his duchy and to maintain its independence.

His alternative regnal name, John VI, as he is known traditionally in old English sources, comes from English partisan accounting as to who was the rightful duke of Brittany during the War of the Breton Succession (1341–65), which had preceded the rule of his father. Although he faced problems which had lingered from it, his rule as duke was mostly unchallenged. Without significant internal and foreign threats, John V reinforced ducal authority, reformed the military, constructed a coherent method of taxation, and established diplomatic and trade contacts with most of Western Europe.

John V was also a patron of the arts and the Church, and funded the construction of several cathedrals. He is known for creating the "Lycée Lesage" in Vannes.

Life
John V was born on 24 December 1389 at the Château de l'Hermine as the eldest son of John IV, Duke of Brittany, and Joan of Navarre. He became Duke of Brittany in 1399 when he was still a minor upon the death of his father. His mother served as regent in the initial portion of his reign.

Unlike his father, John V inherited the duchy in peace, as the end of the Breton War of Succession and John IV's military conquests in Brittany promised. However, his father's rivals for the duchy, the Pentheiveres, continued to plot against him. Furthermore, John had to secure the peace of the duchy during an unstable period culminating in King Henry V of England's invasion of France.

Early career
He became duke at the age of ten, and began his reign under the tutelage of Duke of Burgundy, Philip the Bold, who was ravaging nearby Jersey and Guernsey. He made peace with the king of France, Charles VI, whose daughter, Joan of France, he married. He also reconciled with the powerful magnate Olivier de Clisson, formerly an enemy of his father. In 1404, he defeated a French force near Brest. A potential conflict with Clisson was averted by the latter's death.

When Henry V invaded France, John was initially allied to the French. However, he missed the Battle of Agincourt. His brother Arthur de Richemont participated, though, and was captured and imprisoned by the English. The confusion in the aftermath of the battle allowed John to seize Saint-Malo which had been annexed by the French. He then adopted a policy of switching between the two parties, English and French. He signed the Treaty of Troyes, which made Henry V heir to France, but he allowed his brother Arthur de Richemont to fight for the French.

Abduction by the Counts of Penthièvre
The Counts of Penthièvre had lost the Breton War of Succession (1341–1364) in which they had claimed the ducal title of Brittany from John's grandfather, John of Montfort. The war ended in 1364 in a military victory for John's father, in which the Penthièvre claimant, Charles of Blois, died. His widow, Joanna, Countess of Penthièvre, was forced to sign the Treaty of Guérande which concluded the conflict. The treaty stated that Penthièvres accepted the Montforts's right to the dukedom, but if they failed to produce a male heir the duchy would revert to the Penthièvres.

Despite the military loss and the diplomatic treaty, the Counts of Penthièvre had not renounced their direct ducal claims to Brittany and continued to pursue them. In 1420, they invited John V to a festival held at Châtonceaux. John came and was arrested. Olivier, Count of Penthièvre and his mother, Margaret de Clisson, then spread rumours of his death and moved him to a new prison each day. John's wife, Joan of France, called upon all the barons of Brittany to respond. They besieged all the castles of the Penthièvre family one by one.

Joan ended the crisis by seizing the dowager countess of Penthièvre and forcing her to free the duke. After the release, the Châtonceaux citadel was completely destroyed and the name changed to Champtoceaux. As a result of this failed imprisonment, Olivier had his county confiscated by the duke and he was forced into exile. In addition, the Montforts declared that the Treaty of Guérande had been broken and that the Penthièvre family no longer had a claim to the throne, even upon the extinction of the Montfort line. This ensured that Anne of Brittany succeeded to the duchy at the end of the century.

Policy in the Hundred Years' War
After the English defeat at the Battle of Baugé, John V ditched his allies by signing a treaty with the Dauphin Charles at Sablé on May 1421. Some of its provisions were that John would abandon his commitments to the English, while Charles would dismiss his councillors who had advised him to support the Penthièvre revolt. Initial Breton military support to Charles proved significant: in the Dauphin's Loire valley campaign in the summer of 1421, the duchy provided more than a third of his army, about the same as the Scots. However, the agreement was soon undermined, as both parties failed to completely fulfill their promises. Furthermore, the release of John's brother Arthur from English captivity, along with subsequent English military successes (particularly at the Siege of Meaux), convinced John to once again reverse his allegiance, by signing the Treaty of Amiens (1423) with England and Burgundy.

The Amiens agreement also proved ephemeral. Brittany and Burgundy had secretly agreed to maintain good relations with each other if any of them abandoned the English. Arthur de Richemont soon defected to the Dauphin, and was made Constable of France. The duke of Brittany was convinced to do the same; by signing the Treaty of Saumur on 7 October 1425, John V once again allied with Charles, to which England responded with a formal declaration of war on 15 January 1426. An English incursion into Breton territory led by Sir Thomas Rempston was subsequently made. After failing to defeat the much smaller English force at the Battle of St. James, and now under threat of a full-scale assault by the English, John V once again reconciled with them by adhering to yet another agreement on 8 September 1427, on which he reaffirmed his support for the Treaty of Troyes and recognised Henry VI of England as king of France. As a gesture of allegiance to the Anglo-French dual monarchy, he sent his younger and favourite son Gilles to England to grow up in Henry's household. Gilles and Henry would become close friends over time. Richemont would remain committed to the Dauphin's cause for the rest of the war, however, though John V's defection in 1427 contributed to the former's expulsion from the French court.

John's allegiance with England had remained fickle and became ambiguous in the early 1430s, especially due to clashes between English and Breton sailors, though relations were kept afloat due to lengthy negotiations and a growing friendship between King Henry VI and the duke's younger son Gilles. Even after the Anglo-Burgundian alliance ended in 1435, he remained formally aligned to the English cause, though in effect adopting a policy of careful neutrality, attempting to become friendly with the French and willing to broker a peace between both parties. However, John took part in the Praguerie revolt in 1440 against Charles VII, and signed a neutrality agreement on 11 July 1440 with the English, by which he promised not to give shelter to England's enemies.

Relations between England and Brittany eventually collapsed due to bad diplomacy and English raids into Breton territory in 1443 and 1449. Consequent political maneuvers resulted in the murder of John V's Anglophile younger son Gilles on 24 April 1450. When a truce between the French and English was arranged at the Treaty of Tours in 1444, Brittany was not listed by the English as an ally. By then, John V had already died, and his son and successor Francis I would subsequently pay homage to Charles VII on 16 March 1446, thereby formally ending any Breton support for the English.

Later life
While captured by the English, John II, Duke of Alençon had sold his fiefdom of Fougères to John V in order to raise the ransom for his release. After Alençon's release, his attempts to recover his territories led to conflict. John surrounded Alençon's fortress during the Siege of Pouancé (1432). Arthur de Richemont, his brother, who accompanied him, induced him to make peace.

Working with Bishop Jean de Malestroit, he began the construction of a new cathedral in Nantes, placing the first stone in April 1434.

He died on 29 August 1442, at the Manoir de la Touche, owned by the Bishop of Nantes.

A statue of the Duke of polychrome wood is in the chapel of Saint-Fiacre in Faouët. His tomb in Tréguier cathedral was destroyed. It was replaced by a new one in the 20th century.

Family
John V married Joan of France, daughter of King Charles VI "the Mad" and his wife Isabeau of Bavaria. By her he had seven children:
 * Anne (1409 – aft. 1415)
 * Isabelle (1411–1442, Auray), married at Redon in 1430 Guy XIV, Count of Laval (d. 1486)
 * Margaret (1412–1421)
 * Francis I, Duke of Brittany (11 May 1414 – 17 July 1450)
 * Catherine (1416 – aft. 1421)
 * Peter II, Duke of Brittany (7 July 1418 – 22 September 1457)
 * Gilles of Brittany (1420 – 24 April 1450), Lord of Chantocé

Succession
John V died in 1442 and was succeeded by his eldest son, Francis, as Duke of Brittany.

title: John V, Duke of Brittany


text:
Rovaniemen maalaiskunta

Rovaniemen maalaiskunta (Rovaniemi landskommun) was a municipality of Finland. It merged with the city of Rovaniemi on January 1, 2006.

It was located in the province of Lapland. The municipality had a population of 21,803 and covered an area of 7915.51 km2 of which 409.06 km² was water. The population density was 2.9 PD/km2.

The municipality surrounded the town of Rovaniemi. In 2004 the two municipalities decided to unite into one municipality. The new municipality was formed on January 1, 2006 with the name Rovaniemen kaupunki (the city of Rovaniemi). The new municipality has a population of approximately 57,000. With an area of 7900 km2 it is the largest city in Finland and Europe.

title: Rovaniemen maalaiskunta


text:
User talk:Sj/Rand

early summarized RNG output
[bizarre note from "J.watkins@grandecom.net" about Infantry (online game), Feb 2004]

A wikicookie from Optim at far right, 19 Feb 2004 (asked for a new one in place of two standard ones, for hidden-link following)

Speaking of OED, I ran across some word that was once used at an Irish university, and documented in print, but a note mentions that it must have fallen out of use, because they asked current students about it and got blank looks... Stan 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neil Warnock
I just noticed that on User:Sj/pages you say you want Neil Warnock deleted/merged now. Why? SimonMayer 13:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * That's confusing, I know. It's b/c it was the 200,000'th art on en; that info should go somewhere. +sj+

title: User talk:Sj/Rand


text:
Elm Park tube station

Elm Park is a London Underground station serving Elm Park in the London Borough of Havering, east London. It is on the District line between and Hornchurch. It is 4 km along the line from the eastern terminus at Upminster and 30 km to in central London where the line divides into numerous branches.

The station was opened on 13 May 1935 by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway on the local electrified tracks between Upminster and Barking that were constructed in 1932. The station is of a similar design to those constructed at and  and was the last infill station to be opened on the eastern extension.

History
The London, Tilbury and Southend Railway constructed a line from Barking to Pitsea through the Elm Park area in 1885, with stations at Dagenham and Hornchurch. The Whitechapel and Bow Railway opened in 1902 and allowed through services of the District Railway to operate to Upminster. The Metropolitan District converted to electric trains in 1905 and services were cut back to East Ham. Delayed by World War I, electrified tracks were extended by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway to Upminster and through services resumed in 1932. The District Railway was incorporated into London Transport in 1933, and became known as the District line.

The infill station was opened on 13 May 1935. It opened with a passimeter for quick sale of tickets and in the off peak collection of tickets from one side and sale from the other. A ticket collectors position was provided with stable door, now a bin store. A ticket office was also provided to deal with parcels and also had the electrical fuses and switches. Now a shop, switch room, and computer room. The station had central heating supplied by a coal boiler under the booking hall, a coal chute from a street manhole was used to supply coal. The boiler was later converted to gas, all removed when the new ticket office was built opposite for the Underground ticket system.

The station was the last to be opened on an existing London Underground line (rather than as part of an extension or new line) until Wood Lane on the Hammersmith and City line in 2008.

Design
The station is of similar design to Dagenham Heathway and Upney, but the station canopy is supported by one central pillar and the ramp to the ticket hall is much wider. The platforms are arranged on an island layout with station buildings typical of the 1930s. A long sloping walkway connects the platforms with the ticket hall which is on a road bridge over the line and above general street level.

Location
The station is named after the mid-1930s planned community of Elm Park, in which it is situated. It is located on The Broadway in the London Borough of Havering. The immediate area is a busy, compact shopping district surrounded by extensive residential development to the north and south.

Services and connections
The station is in London fare zone 6. The typical off-peak service from the station is twelve District line trains per hour to Upminster and twelve to Earl's Court, of which six continue to Ealing Broadway and six continue to Richmond. At peak periods the number of trains per hour increases to fifteen and some trains continue from Earl's Court to Wimbledon. Services towards central London operate from approximately 05:00 to 23:45 and services to Upminster operate from approximately 06:00 to 01:30. The journey time to Upminster is seven minutes; to Barking is approximately thirteen minutes, and to Tower Hill is approximately 38 minutes.

London Buses routes 165, 252, 365 and 372 serve the station, providing connections to Collier Row, Havering Park, Hornchurch, Lakeside Shopping Centre, Orchard Village, Rainham and Romford.

title: Elm Park tube station


text:
Approximation error

The approximation error in a data value is the discrepancy between an exact value and some approximation to it. This error can be expressed as an absolute error (the numerical amount of the discrepancy) or as a relative error (the absolute error divided by the data value).

An approximation error can occur for a variety of reasons, among them a computing machine precision or measurement error (e.g. the length of a piece of paper is 4.53 cm but the ruler only allows you to estimate it to the nearest 0.1 cm, so you measure it as 4.5 cm).

In the mathematical field of numerical analysis, the numerical stability of an algorithm indicates the extent to which errors in the input of the algorithm will lead to large errors of the output; numerically stable algorithms do not yield a significant error in output when the input is malformed and vice versa.

Formal definition
Given some value v, we say that vapprox approximates v with absolute error ε>0 if

 * $$|v-v_\text{approx}| \leq \varepsilon$$

where the vertical bars denote the absolute value.

We say that vapprox approximates v with relative error η>0 if"v-v_\text{approx}"If v ≠ 0, then
 * $$ \eta = \frac{\epsilon}{|v|}

= \left| \frac{v-v_\text{approx}}{v} \right| = \left| 1 - \frac{v_\text{approx}}{v} \right| $$.

The percent error (an expression of the relative error) is

 * $$\delta = 100\%\times\eta = 100\%\times\left| \frac{v-v_\text{approx}}{v} \right|.$$

An error bound is an upper limit on the relative or absolute size of an approximation error.

Examples
As an example, if the exact value is 50 and the approximation is 49.9, then the absolute error is 0.1 and the relative error is 0.1/50 = 0.002 = 0.2%. As a practical example, when measuring a 6 mL beaker, the value read was 5 mL. The correct reading being 6 mL, this means the percent error in that particular situation is, rounded, 16.7%.

The relative error is often used to compare approximations of numbers of widely differing size; for example, approximating the number 1,000 with an absolute error of 3 is, in most applications, much worse than approximating the number 1,000,000 with an absolute error of 3; in the first case the relative error is 0.003 while in the second it is only 0.000003.

There are two features of relative error that should be kept in mind. First, relative error is undefined when the true value is zero as it appears in the denominator (see below). Second, relative error only makes sense when measured on a ratio scale, (i.e. a scale which has a true meaningful zero), otherwise it is sensitive to the measurement units. For example, when an absolute error in a temperature measurement given in Celsius scale is 1 °C, and the true value is 2 °C, the relative error is 0.5. But if the exact same approximation is made with the Kelvin scale, a 1 K absolute error with the same true value of 275.15 K = 2 °C gives a relative error of 3.63.

Comparison
Statements about relative errors are sensitive to addition of constants, but not to multiplication by constants. For absolute errors, the opposite is true: are sensitive to multiplication by constants, but not to addition of constants.

Polynomial-time approximation of real numbers
We say that a real value v is polynomially computable with absolute error from an input if, for every rational number ε>0, it is possible to compute a rational number vapprox that approximates v with absolute error ε, in time polynomial in the size of the input and the encoding size of ε (which is O(log(1/ε)). Analogously, v is polynomially computable with relative error if, for every rational number η>0, it is possible to compute a rational number vapprox that approximates v with relative error η, in time polynomial in the size of the input and the encoding size of η.

If v is polynomially computable with relative error (by some algorithm called REL), then it is also polynomially computable with absolute error. Proof. Let ε>0 be the desired absolute error. First, use REL with relative error η=1/2; find a rational number r1 such that |v-r1| ≤ |v|/2, and hence |v| ≤ 2 |r1|. If r1=0, then v=0 and we are done. Since REL is polynomial, the encoding length of r1 is polynomial in the input. Now, run REL again with relative error η=ε/(2 |r1|). This yields a rational number r2 that satisfies |v-r2| ≤ ε|v| / (2r1) ≤ ε, so it has absolute error ε as wished.

The reverse implication is usually not true. But, if we assume that some positive lower bound on |v| can be computed in polynomial time, e.g. |v| > b > 0, and v is polynomially computable with absolute error (by some algorithm called ABS), then it is also polynomially computable with relative error, since we can simply call ABS with absolute error ε = η b.

An algorithm that, for every rational number η>0, computes a rational number vapprox that approximates v with relative error η, in time polynomial in the size of the input and 1/η (rather than log(1/η)), is called an FPTAS.

Instruments
In most indicating instruments, the accuracy is guaranteed to a certain percentage of full-scale reading. The limits of these deviations from the specified values are known as limiting errors or guarantee errors.

Generalizations
The definitions can be extended to the case when $$v$$ and $$v_{\text{approx}}$$ are n-dimensional vectors, by replacing the absolute value with an n-norm.

title: Approximation error


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tructivisme

It'll probably help this orphaned article that it gets listed here. Or it gets deleted which doesn't seem a great loss at the moment. --Gauss 12:20, 7 May 2004 (UTC) I wouldn't have listed it here if I had found any evidence that a movement with this title actually exists.--Gauss 12:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and make stub, also add to Pages needing attention. Alcarillo 13:45, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't verify it, and nobody else has. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 06:44, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and stubify it Burgundavia 07:20, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no evidence that this actually exists. Searching on google returns only Wikipedia mirrors. Andris 15:33, May 13, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Francis I, Duke of Brittany

Francis I (in Breton Fransez I, in French François I) (11 May 1414 – 17 July 1450), was Duke of Brittany, Count of Montfort and titular Earl of Richmond, from 29 August 1442 to his death. He was born in Vannes, the son of John V, Duke of Brittany and Joan of France, the daughter of King Charles VI of France.

Family
Francis I was originally engaged to Bonne of Savoy, the daughter of Amadeus VIII, Duke of Savoy, and his wife Mary of Burgundy. She died just before their marriage in 1430, at the age of 15.

Francis I's first marriage was to Yolande of Anjou, daughter of Louis II, Duke of Anjou and Yolande of Aragon; they were married in Nantes in August 1431. Francis and Yolande had a son, Renaud, Count of Montfort. His son Renaud died young and his wife Yolande died in 1440.

Francis' second marriage was to Isabel of Scotland, daughter of James I, King of Scots and Joan Beaufort. He married Isabel at the Château d'Auray on 30 October 1442. Francis and Isabel had two daughters:
 * Margaret of Brittany (1443–1469, Nantes), married Francis II, Duke of Brittany
 * Marie of Brittany (1444–1506), married John II, Viscount of Rohan and Count of Porhoët.

Succession
Francis I died on 17 July 1450 at the Château de l'Hermine, being only 36 years of age. Because he had no surviving male heirs at the time of his death, he was succeeded as Duke of Brittany by his younger brother, Peter II of Brittany.

During his time, the residences of the Dukes of Brittany consisted of: the Château de l'Hermine; the Château de Nantes; the Château de Clisson; and the Château de Suscinio.

title: Francis I, Duke of Brittany


text:
History of youth work

The history of youth work goes back to the birth of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, which was the first time that young men left their own homes and cottage industries to migrate to the big towns. The result of this migration was an emergent youth culture in urban areas, which was responded to by the efforts of local people.

1844–1900
In 1844 the first organisation whose sole aim was to address the needs of young men was founded. The YMCA was set up by George Williams. Williams was from London and his goal was to create an organisation that catered for the spiritual and emotional needs as well as the physical needs of the young men that he saw around him. The delivery of Williams' work was mainly through missionaries working on the streets of London though it wasn't long before the first hostel was founded.

Work with young women however was seen as less important because young women's needs at this time were seen as being centred on homemaking, which were already (supposedly) provided for in the home. This changed in 1878 when youth work pioneer Maude Stanley developed work with young women around the Five Dials area of London. She went on to establish the Girls Club Union.

Later that century in 1883 the Boys' Brigade was founded by William Alexander Smith. He was a teacher and like Williams in 1844 his aim was to provide for the needs of young men that he worked with. His organisation was based more around the military than the YMCA was, though it was still mainly a Christian organisation.

Still staying within London in 1896 Lily Montagu contacted young Jewish people from Eastern European families in the east end and set up an organisation called Children's Synagogue Services. Montagu went on to become a founder member of the National Organisation of Girls' Clubs (now called UK Youth) and was a key figure in the development of Jewish youth work.

1900–1950
In 1902, in the US, the Woodcraft Indians was set up by Ernest Thompson Seton. Despite the name, the program was created for non-Indian children. At first the group was for boys only, but later it would also include girls. Seton instructed the children in his town in Connecticut in outdoor "Woodcraft" – knowledge and skills of life in the woods – and based much of the group's terminology and structure on the misconceptions about Native Americans that were common in that era. The program spread internationally to become the Woodcraft Movement and many of these programs still exist. Seton's Woodcraft scheme also had a strong influence on later youth programs and organizations, particularly, the Scout Movement.

In 1907 Scouting was founded by Robert Baden-Powell following the success of his book Aids to Scouting. His inspiration for this organisation was his experience during the Siege of Mafeking in the Second Boer War (1899–1902). Like Smith's Boys' Brigade, the organisation was uniformed, being heavily influenced by the military, though it has changed tremendously as a movement since that time. For the first time youth work in the UK was taken out of the streets of London as Scouting was made into a national (and before long international) organisation.

A year later in 1908, Charles Russell began his work with young men on the streets in deprived areas of Manchester, leading to the foundation of the National association of boys' clubs movement.

In 1910 the Girl Guides (and later Girl Scouts in the United States) were founded by Baden-Powell with the aid of his sister Agnes. This was because young women were approaching Scout leaders asking if they would be able to join the organisation, and Baden-Powell responded to this but he felt having girls and boys in the same scout troops would be an unnecessary distraction for both groups.

Contemporaneous with the development of Scouting was the creation of the TUXIS movement in Canada. Originally developed through the YMCA and later governed by the Boys' Work Board, the TUXIS program for boys aged 15 to 17 focused on Christian values, leadership, the outdoors, and camping. The Boys' Work Board also created the Trail Rangers program for boys aged 12 – 14. A parallel program was established for girls, called the Canadian Girls in Training (CGIT).

Later in the 20th century concerns were raised about the number of young people not in membership of youth organisations. This led to the first (unsuccessful) attempt to register all young people in Britain in 1941.

The next approach to develop was that by arts worker Marie Paneth in 1944. She went out onto the streets of London to address issues such as health, family breakdown and poverty in war-torn parts of the city, using a disused air raid shelter as her base. Her aim was to make good, independent citizens for a good community.

During the second world war, leaders were looking for strategies to prevent a World War III – which would probably be fought with nuclear bombs and annihilate humanity. One of the strategies put in place was to set-up youth organisations worldwide and have youth with similar fields of interest organize and participate in youth exchanges. At these events, youth from different countries and cultures would get to know each other, come together around constructive activities and bring back positive experiences to their societies. These youngsters and young adults would eventually become adults in places of responsibilities and in case of a crisis, it was hoped that this civil network would resist war mongering rhetorics, lies and disinformation. Thus, e.g. in 1956, UNESCO's IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources – since called the World Conservation Union, created a youth section, the IYF – International Youth Federation for the Study and Conservation of Nature – renamed to International Youth Federation for Environmental Studies and Conservation. In 1983, because of growing success, regional branches were created s.a. the European branch YEE=Youth Environment Europe.

1950–2000
By 1959 widespread moral panic in the press about teenage delinquency led the British government to look into a national response to catering for the needs of young people. In 1960 a government report known as The Albemarle Report was released, which outlined the need for local government agencies to take on responsibility for providing extracurricular activities for young people. Out of this the statutory sector of the youth service was born. For the first time youth centres and fully paid full-time youth workers made an appearance across the whole of Britain.

Five years later the National Association of Youth Clubs (now UK Youth) published a report called The Unattached about experimental street projects that were taking place up and down the country. It outlined the need for something more than youth centres in certain parts of the country because young people were still being excluded, and it sold tens of thousands of copies.

2000–present
A further government report in 2001 entitled Transforming Youth Work for the first time outlined the statutory responsibility for all local government organisations to provide targeted youth work activities within their region. With targets published in 2003 set on 2001 census information many local authorities were given the push they needed to establish quality services.

title: History of youth work


text:
Talk:1799

Untitled
I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --BozMo 12:22, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

Is the Assy McGee stuff really necessary? This just really seems to point out the poverty of the page's material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.233.99.57 (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars
January 9 – British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger introduces an income tax of two shillings to the pound, to raise funds for Great Britain's war effort in the Napoleonic Wars.

I find this suspect, or at least in severe need of clarification. Napoleon did not come into power until Fall 1799, and the Napoleonic Wars themselves did not begin until 1803, at which time William Pitt the Younger was not Prime Minister. This tax is not mentioned at all in the latter's page during his first premiership. There is no citation provided, can someone show one? I'm not saying this didn't happen, but at least from my understanding of the time period it seems at least highly reductive. If this tax was specifically created to fund war efforts against France, and was in fact instituted 9 Jan 1799, then at the time it was raised to aid in the War of the Second Coalition, which is not considered part of the Napoleonic Wars, because Napoleon had not become Consul yet. I just feel this probably should be reworded.

--129.7.0.24 (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Gilbert Stuart Williamstown Portrait of George Washington.jpg

title: Talk:1799


text:
Talk:1798

Untitled
I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --BozMo 12:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

title: Talk:1798


text:
Talk:1797

Untitled
I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --BozMo 12:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

title: Talk:1797


text:
John O'Farrell (author)

John O'Farrell (born 27 March 1962) is a British author, comedy scriptwriter, and political campaigner. Previously a lead writer for such shows as Spitting Image and Have I Got News for You, he is now best known as a comic author for such books such as The Man Who Forgot His Wife and An Utterly Impartial History of Britain. He is one of a small number of British writers to have achieved best-seller status with both fiction and nonfiction. His books have been translated into around thirty languages and adapted for radio and television.

O'Farrell co-wrote the musical Something Rotten!, which opened on Broadway in April 2015, and co-wrote a Broadway musical of Mrs. Doubtfire which opened on Broadway in December 2021 and in London's West End in May 2023. He wrote the musical Just For One Day based on the story of the 1985 benefit concert Live Aid which had its world premiere at The Old Vic in London on 13 February 2024.

Early life
O'Farrell grew up in Maidenhead, Berkshire, the youngest of three children, attending Courthouse Primary School and then Desborough Comprehensive where he wrote comedy for the school magazine and stood as the Labour candidate in the school's 1979 mock election. His father was a book dealer from Galway, Ireland, whilst his mother was active in Oxfam and Amnesty International. He attended classes at the Redroofs Theatre School and played Christopher Robin in the West End at the age of ten, before appearing in the horror film From Beyond the Grave with Diana Dors and Donald Pleasence. O'Farrell went on to study English and drama at Exeter University.

Scriptwriting career
O'Farrell moved to London in 1985, winning a talent competition at Jongleurs in Battersea, but gave up stand up-comedy in favour of comedy writing. After attending the open meetings for Radio 4's Week Ending he formed a writing partnership with Mark Burton and they soon became lead writers on the show. The duo won the BBC Radio Comedy Writers Bursary, and wrote for a number of radio comedy series, including Little Blighty on the Down, McKay the New and, with Pete Sinclair, A Look Back at the Nineties and Look Back at the Future, in which O'Farrell also performed. The latter series won a British Comedy Award, a Gold Sony Radio Academy Award and a Premios Ondas.

Burton and O'Farrell were commissioned for Spitting Image in 1988 and the following year became two of the lead writers for the show, where they remained for 10 series. O'Farrell is credited with the idea of making John Major permanently grey. They also wrote for Clive Anderson Talks Back, Nick Hancock on Room 101, Murder Most Horrid, and co-wrote some of the "Heads to Heads" for Alas Smith and Jones. In 1993, they left Spitting Image and became the first writers credited for the scripted parts of Have I Got News for You. Again for Hat Trick Productions, they wrote the BBC1 sitcom The Peter Principle starring Jim Broadbent. They also contributed to the screenplay of the Aardman film Chicken Run. It was announced in April 2018 that O'Farrell was co-writing a sequel to Chicken Run.

O’Farrell co-wrote the book for the original stage musical Something Rotten!, which opened on Broadway in April 2015, and for which he was nominated for a Tony Award for Best Book of a Musical with Karey Kirkpatrick as well as a Drama Desk Award and an Outer Circle Critics Award. The show ran for nearly two years on Broadway before going on tour across the United States. It was announced in August 2018 that the same team had been commissioned to write a stage musical of the film Mrs. Doubtfire for Broadway. The stage musical, also titled Mrs. Doubtfire premiered at the 5th Avenue Theatre in Seattle, Washington and opened on Broadway at the Stephen Sondheim Theater in December 2021. It opened at Manchester Opera House in September 2022 and transferred to the Shaftesbury Theatre, in London's West End in May 2023. On 2 October 2023, it was announced that John O'Farrell had written a musical based around Live Aid which was to have its world premiere at The Old Vic in London on 13 February 2024, following previews from 26 January, running until 30 March. The production was directed by Luke Shepard and produced with Bob Geldof and Band Aid's permission. Ten per cent of ticket prices were donated to the Band Aid Trust for their continuing work in Africa.

Literary career
In 1998, O'Farrell published Things Can Only Get Better: Eighteen Miserable Years in the Life of a Labour Supporter. The book became a number-one best-seller, and was nominated for the George Orwell Award and the Channel 4 Political Awards. The popularity of the book led O'Farrell to be invited to address the 1999 Labour Party conference. The memoir was adapted for BBC Radio 4 starring Jack Dee and Doon Mackichan. In September 2010, it was listed by The Economist as Britain's third best-selling political memoir since 1998, after books by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

In 1999, O'Farrell began a weekly satirical column in The Independent, soon switching to The Guardian where he remained until 2005. Three collections of his columns have been published; Global Village Idiot, I Blame the Scapegoats and I Have A Bream.

In 2000, O'Farrell published his first novel, The Best a Man Can Get, which was the best-selling debut novel in 2002 and eventually sold half a million copies. It was dramatised for BBC Radio 4 starring Mark Heap and Tamsin Greig. The novel later was optioned by Paramount Pictures. Two further novels followed, This Is Your Life and May Contain Nuts, the latter of which was nominated for the Bollinger Everyman Wodehouse Prize and adapted for ITV by his former co-writer Mark Burton and starred Shirley Henderson and Darren Boyd.

In 2007, he returned to non-fiction with the publication of An Utterly Impartial History of Britain, or 2000 Years of Upper Class Idiots in Charge which was BBC Radio 4's Book of the Week and went on to sell over 250,000 copies. This was followed in October 2009 by An Utterly Exasperated History of Modern Britain, or Sixty Years of Making the Same Stupid Mistakes as Always.

His fourth novel, The Man Who Forgot His Wife, was published in March 2012 and was nominated for the Bollinger Wodehouse Award for comic fiction.

O'Farrell has contributed short stories and non-fiction pieces to a number of charity collections: Nick Hornby's Speaking with the Angel, Magic, Mums, Dads and Being British edited by Gordon Brown. He also contributed a story for The Anniversary, a collection of short stories published as part of the Quick Reads Initiative.

In November 2015, he published his fifth novel There's Only Two David Beckhams described as a football fantasy set at the Qatar World Cup in 2022, which earned him his third nomination for the Wodehouse Award.

In September 2017, he published ''Things Can Only Get Worse? Twenty Confusing Years in the Life of a Labour Supporter'' - the sequel to his first political memoir, picking up where the original left off, from the New Labour landslide of 1997 following the journey over two decades up to Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and Theresa May's snap election of 2017. The memoir was shortlisted for the 2017 Parliamentary Book Awards for 'Best book by a non-Parliamentarian' and was adapted for serialisation on BBC Radio 4. In March 2024, he published his sixth novel Family Politics, described by Alistair Campbell as 'the funniest book about politics I have ever read'.

O'Farrell has sold over 1 million books in the UK, and his novels have been translated into over 30 languages, including a Japanese manga edition of The Best a Man Can Get.

Broadcasting
O'Farrell has appeared on such programmes as Newsnight Review, Question Time, Grumpy Old Men. and Have I Got News for You, the only guest previously to have worked on the show's production team. He has written and presented a number of TV and radio documentaries such as Losing My Maidenhead and Paranoid Parenting for BBC1, and Dreaming of Toad Hall Turn Over Your Papers Now and The Grand Masquerade for Radio 4. After O'Farrell's radio programme The Grand Masquerade on the Kit Williams 1979 treasure hunt book, the golden hare resurfaced, 20 years after it had disappeared.

In 2013, he was chosen by BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour as the man to put the feminist case against the launch of a new Men's Rights Party. He appeared in Pointless Celebrities in 2016 and 2019 and captained the Exeter Alumni team on University Challenge in December 2012. Other TV appearances and radio broadcasts, include Crime Team, What the Papers Say, The News Quiz, Heresy, Quote Unquote, The Wright Stuff, The Daily Politics, What the Dickens, The 11 O'Clock Show, We've Been Here Before, Clive Anderson's Chat Room and Loose Ends. In January 2020, he teamed up with comedian Angela Barnes to create a new podcast called 'We Are History' which looks at funny, quirky or interesting stories from British and world history.

Internet
In September 2006, O'Farrell launched Britain's first daily news satire website, NewsBiscuit, to create a new outlet for British comedy on the internet. The site also develops new writing using a submissions board where readers can rate each other's material and suggest rewrites or edits. A collection of some of the best stories was published in 2008 as Isle of Wight to Get Ceefax. A number of the writers have gone on to write for BBC Radio or publish books after developing their material on NewsBiscuit. In June 2021, he announced on Twitter that he was giving the site to the team of editors who had effectively been running the site for the previous few years.

Politics
For many years O'Farrell has been a member of the Labour Party. He stood as a paper candidate for Labour in his home town of Maidenhead (the constituency of now former Prime Minister Theresa May) during the 2001 general election, which was the subject of the BBC documentary Losing My Maidenhead. During the 2005 general election his comic emails to Labour members raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for the party's election campaign. In April 2007, he conducted the first ever interview of a serving Prime Minister on the internet when he spoke to Tony Blair. He has written jokes for Prime Ministers Blair and Gordon Brown, as well as other senior Labour figures.

He successfully campaigned for a new state secondary school to be opened in Lambeth, the Lambeth Academy, and became the chair of governors from its opening in 2004 until 2012. He also sat on the board of the United Learning Trust, and is an outspoken supporter of state education. In September 2012, he became Writer in Residence at Burlington Danes Academy in northwest London through the literacy charity First Story.

In February 2013, O'Farrell was selected as the Labour candidate in the Eastleigh by-election which was caused by the resignation of Chris Huhne. He became the target of a campaign by the Daily Mail and other Conservative-supporting newspapers who used extracts or jokes from O'Farrell's books to claim that he was unsuitable for office. as David Cameron attempted to embarrass the Labour leader Ed Miliband by reading out extracts of Things Can Only Get Better during Prime Minister's Question Time. O'Farrell slightly increased Labour's share of the vote, but finished fourth. He announced that he was not intending to stand for Parliament in 2015. On the death of Margaret Thatcher, O'Farrell led calls for Labour supporters to put their hatred behind them, and to donate to those who suffered under her rule. His political and education campaigns are chronicled in his memoir Things Can Only Get Worse.

Personal life
O'Farrell is married with two grown-up children, who both attended Lambeth Academy. He and his family live in Clapham in South London and holiday in West Cork. He holds British and Irish passports. O'Farrell met his wife Jackie when she worked in BBC Radio Comedy. She was the production assistant who had to sit on stage beside Humphrey Lyttelton during I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, and O'Farrell joked "I married the lovely Samantha!" He does much of his writing at the London Library.

He supports Fulham F.C. and revealed in the club fanzine that the characters in each of his novels are named after players from a particular Fulham team.

Fiction

 * The Best a Man Can Get (2000) (2002, Broadway Books, ISBN 0-7679-0714-0) (2001, Black Swan, ISBN 0-552-99844-3) (2001, Broadway Books, ISBN 0-7679-0713-2) (2000, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-60084-4)
 * This Is Your Life (2002) (2004, Grove Press, ISBN 0-8021-4134-X) (2003, Black Swan, ISBN 0-552-99849-4) (2002, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-60098-4)
 * May Contain Nuts (2 May 2005) (2005, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-60608-7)
 * The Man Who Forgot His Wife (16 March 2012) (2012, Doubleday, ISBN 978-0-385-60610-3 (11 October 2012) Black Swan ISBN 978-0-552-77163-4
 * A History of Capitalism According to the Jubilee Line (2013, Penguin, ISBN 978-1-846-14634-3)
 * There's Only Two David Beckhams (2015, Black Swan, ISBN 978-1-784-16139-2)
 * Family Politics (2024, Doubleday, ISBN 978-0-8575-2977-0)

Non-fiction

 * Things Can Only Get Worse?: Twenty Confusing Years in the Life of a Labour Supporter (2017, Doubleday, ISBN 978-0-857-52474-4)
 * An Utterly Exasperated History of Modern Britain: or Sixty Years of Making the Same Stupid Mistakes as Always (22 October 2009) (2009, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-61622-8)
 * An Utterly Impartial History of Britain — Or 2000 Years of Upper Class Idiots In Charge (22 October 2007) (2007, Doubleday, ISBN 978-0-385-61198-5)
 * I Have a Bream (February 2007) (2007, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-61088-2)
 * I Blame the Scapegoats (2003) (2004, Black Swan, ISBN 0-552-77194-5) (2003, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-60674-5)
 * Global Village Idiot (2001) (2004, Grove Press, ISBN 0-8021-4038-6) (2002, Corgi, ISBN 0-552-99964-4) (2001, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-60293-6)
 * Things Can Only Get Better: Eighteen Miserable Years in the Life of a Labour Supporter, 1979–1997 (1998) (1998, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-41059-X) (1999, Black Swan, ISBN 0-552-99803-6)

title: John O'Farrell (author)


text:
Talk:1796

Untitled
I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --BozMo 12:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

you forgod the ships — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.103.50.136 (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2005 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.historydata.com/chronologies/1796.html
 * In 1796 on 2011-05-25 01:59:37, 404 Not Found
 * In 1796 on 2011-06-01 22:05:22, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1796. 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/20111127114349/http://www.wearsideonline.com/sunderland_wearmouth_bridge.html to http://www.wearsideonline.com/Sunderland_Wearmouth_Bridge.html

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) 20:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1796. 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/20070728145219/http://www.historydata.com/chronologies/1796.html to http://www.historydata.com/chronologies/1796.html

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) 03:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:1796


text:
Talk:1795

Untitled
I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --BozMo 12:25, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

title: Talk:1795


text:
Talk:1794

Untitled
I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --BozMo 12:25, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

In the undated section I removed a piece about the Rebels destroying the Death Star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.222.27 (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:1794


text:
Talk:1793

Untitled
I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --BozMo 12:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

Format

 * [ See: Talk:1750. -Wikid77 14:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ]

title: Talk:1793


text:
Talk:1792

Untitled
I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --BozMo 12:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

Louis XVI's Death
Should there be, or is there a reason for there not being, a date for the death of King Lois the XVI of France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.180.87 (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:1792


text:
Talk:1791

Untitled
I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --BozMo 12:28, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

Please note also this is a rare page with ongoing events. I propose to delete this? --BozMo 12:28, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:1791


text:
Talk:1790

Untitled
I have made some year layout proposals which would affect a significant proportion of the year pages: an example of proposed style is 1850. It is detailed on my talk page.

If no-one flags where I have put the discussion on my talk page that they object in a month I will start making everything consistent. It may take some time... --BozMo 12:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

title: Talk:1790