text:
Col (game)

Col is a pencil and paper game, specifically a map-coloring game, involving the shading of areas in a line drawing according to the rules of graph coloring. With each move, the graph must remain proper (no two areas of the same colour may touch), and a player who cannot make a legal move loses. The game was described and analysed by John Conway, who attributed it to Colin Vout, in On Numbers and Games.

Example game
In the following game, the first of the two players is using red, and the second is using blue. The last move in each image is shown brighter than the other areas.

The starting graph:

The first player may colour any of the areas to begin. However, the region around the outside of the graph is not included as an area for this game.

After the first move:

The second player now colours a white cell. As no areas are currently blue, any white cell is allowed.

Two moves in:

At this point, the requirement that the graph be proper comes into effect, as a red area must be made which does not touch the existing one:

Once the third region is coloured:

Note that areas only count as touching if they share edges, not if they only share vertices, so this move is legal.

The game continues, players moving alternately, until one player cannot make a move. This player loses. A possible continuation of the game is as follows (with each move numbered for clarity):

Game over:

In this outcome, the blue player has lost.

Snort
Snort, invented by Simon P. Norton, uses a similar partisan assignment of two colors, but with the anticlassical constraint: neighboring regions are not allowed to be given different colors. Coloring the regions is explained as assigning fields to bulls and cows, where neighboring fields may not contain cattle of the opposite sex, lest they be distracted from their grazing.

Deciding the outcome in Snort is PSPACE-complete on general graphs. This is proven by reducing partizan node Kayles, which is PSPACE-complete, to a game of Snort.

Analysis
The value of a Col position is always either a number or a number plus star This makes the game relatively simple compared with Snort, which features a much greater variety of values.

title: Col (game)


text: Category:Vienna Circle

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

title: Category:Vienna Circle


text:
Tim Collins (British Army officer)

Colonel Timothy Thomas Cyril Collins (born 30 April 1960) is a retired Northern Irish military officer in the British Army. He is best known for his role in the Iraq War in 2003, and his eve-of-battle speech, which President George W. Bush had displayed on the White House's Oval Office. He is chairman (and co-founder) of intelligence-based security services company Horus Global. Collins unsuccessfully stood for the Ulster Unionist Party in the seat of North Down in the 2024 United Kingdom general election.

Early life
Collins was born and raised in Belfast, Northern Ireland, where he grew up during The Troubles. He was educated at the Royal Belfast Academical Institution before attending Queen's University of Belfast, where he gained a degree in economics.

Military career
After graduating from university, Collins was accepted into the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, from where he was commissioned into the Royal Signals as a second lieutenant on a short service commission on 2 October 1981. He was promoted to lieutenant with seniority from 7 April 1982. He transferred to the Royal Irish Rangers on 18 October 1982. He switched to a full commission on 22 October 1984, and was promoted captain on 7 October 1985.

He passed selection into the SAS in 1988, going on to serve 2 operational tours with the Regiment and 1 tour at HQ Special Forces in York barracks London

He was promoted major on 30 September 1992, and lieutenant-colonel on 30 June 1999. Collins was appointed commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment in 2001. For a tour of duty in Northern Ireland between October 2001 and March 2002, he was awarded the Queen's Commendation for Valuable Service on 29 October 2002. It was in the capacity of 1 R Irish's commanding officer that he rose to prominence while serving in Iraq.

On 31 October 2003 he was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire, for his service in Iraq and was invested on 7 April 2004. Collins was promoted to colonel and moved to the General Staff on 30 June 2003.

He set up the Peace Support College in Sarajevo before becoming DACOS Training at HQ Land Command until his retirement.

Eve-of-battle speech
As Lieutenant Colonel (Commanding Officer) of the 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment of the British Army, Collins gave a rousing eve-of-battle speech to his troops in Kuwait on Wednesday 19 March 2003. The speech was extemporised, and was recorded in shorthand by a single journalist, Sarah Oliver. No recording or film of the speech exists, Collins told the BBC.

Speech excerpt
We go to Iraq to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.

There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.

Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves.

It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.

The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam. He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.

It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the Mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.

The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.

If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.

[Regarding the use by Saddam of chemical or biological weapons] It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.

As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.

Our business now is north.

In popular culture
The "Mark of Cain" line from the speech inspired the title of the 2007 Film4 Productions drama The Mark of Cain. In the film a commanding officer makes a speech based on Collins' to his men.

The last episode of the 2008 television series 10 Days to War features a version of the speech performed by Kenneth Branagh as Collins.

Accusations of detainee mistreatment
In 2003, Collins was accused by Major Re Biastre of the US Army's 402nd Civil Affairs Battalion of mistreating Iraqi detainees. In Biastre's allegations, he stated that he had never seen any of the alleged mistreatment personally, but had instead overheard them being discussed by British and American military personnel. The Royal Military Police (RMP) opened an investigation into Biastre's claims, during which it found that Biastre had been verbally reprimanded by Collins and made to stand at attention for 45 minutes for distributing sweets to Iraqi children against explicit orders not to do so. The allegations were denounced by USMC Major Stan Coerr, who stated in an interview that "I didn’t see any of these incidents and I don’t for a second believe them. The fact is that this whole thing was started by an incompetent officer lashing out at someone who embarrassed him in front of his troops." Several Royal Irish Regiment soldiers who had served under Collins signed testimonies supporting his refutations of Biastre's allegations. In September 2003, the Ministry of Defence announced that the RMP investigation had concluded that Collins was innocent of all charges and would not be prosecuted. Collins subsequently sued the Sunday Mirror in the High Court of Northern Ireland for libel over their reporting of the allegations, winning a substantial amount of undisclosed damages from them. After Collins' court victory, his solicitor Ernie Telford stated that the allegations "have caused immense distress to my client, his wife and children."

Post-military career
He officially left the British Army on 5 August 2004.

Media appearances
Since leaving the Army, Collins' views on the Iraq conflict and other military issues have been widely sought. In 2007, Collins was host of a three-part documentary called "Ships That Changed the World" for BBC Northern Ireland. In December 2008 – during an interview on the BBC's Today programme, Collins said that, when he left in 2004, the British Army was already undermanned for existing commitments. In February 2011 Tim Collins appeared on the BBC news programme Panorama in a special entitled 'Forgotten Heroes'. In the documentary, Collins meets veterans struggling to cope with civilian life and sleeps rough on the streets of Brighton with another former soldier.

Politics
Collins has been approached by both the Conservative Party and the Ulster Unionist Party to run for Parliament, and confirmed in January 2024 that he will run for the Ulster Unionist Party in the 2024 United Kingdom general election. During the 2005 Ulster Unionist leadership election he was cited by a number of prominent Ulster Unionists as an outside figure who would make a good leader, but Collins declined as he felt he had "no experience of politics." Collins is a signatory of the founding statement of principles of the Henry Jackson Society, which advocates a pro-active approach to the spread of liberal democracy through the world. He has recently been critical of the Iraq war: "the UK and US pour blood and treasure into overseas campaigns which seem to have no ending and no goal ... Clearly I was naive".

In December 2011, it was revealed that Collins was approached to stand as an elected police and crime commissioner for the Conservative Party in Kent and originally was standing, however he later dropped out of the race. In August 2014, Collins was one of 200 public figures who were signatories to a letter to The Guardian opposing Scottish independence in the run-up to September's referendum on that issue.

In January 2024, Collins confirmed that he will run for the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) in the 2024 United Kingdom general election. He said that it was the right time to for a new career path, and he chose to run for the UUP because their views and values are compatible with his own. The Democratic Unionist Party previously asked Collins to run for them but he turned down the offer. He contested the North Down constituency and made controversial statements regarding the cost of insuring his Rolls-Royce. He finished third with 15.6% of the vote, and attributed his loss to voters being more interested in "potholes and hedges" than international affairs.

Business career
Collins is chairman of specialist security company, Horus Global.

title: Tim Collins (British Army officer)


text:
Honolulu Stadium

Honolulu Stadium was a multi-purpose stadium located in the Moiliili district of Honolulu, Hawai'i, at the corner of King and Isenberg Streets. Opened in 1926, it was the primary sports venue in Hawaii preceding Aloha Stadium. During its final years, the stadium could hold about 25,000 fans; it was demolished in 1976. A public park, Old Stadium Park, now occupies the location. A plaque at the corner of King and Isenberg commemorates the stadium. Some of the property wall that stood behind the stands on the west end still remains.

Description
The stadium was bounded by King Street (north, third base); Isenberg Street (east, left field); Citron Street and Date Street (south, right field); and Makahiki Way (west, first base). It was catty-corner to, and replaced, Mo'ili'ili Field as the venue of choice for the University of Hawaii's athletic teams. Mo'ili'ili Field stood on the northeast corner of King and Isenberg, and was also bounded by South Beretania Street to the north and east. It still exists, in the form of "Mo'ili'ili Neighborhood Park", which has two ballfields within it.

In the baseball configuration, home plate was in the northwest corner; the third base line ran along King, and left field seating was bounded on the east by Isenberg. Field dimensions mentioned in local newspapers varied somewhat, but the consensus appears to be: left field 325 ft, right field 305 ft, and center field 430 ft. The football field ran parallel to the third base line, but away from the infield; the west end zone was near the first base line and the gridiron ran east-southeast, through right field and center field. The sideline seating for football was in right field and along the third base line.

History
The stadium was owned throughout most of its history by Honolulu Stadium, Ltd., a private entity that was incorporated for $150,000 in 1926. As of 1943, the stadium was leased to the University of Hawaii. By the 1960s, Honolulu Stadium had long since reached the end of its useful life. It was made mostly of wood and was frequently attacked by termites, resulting in it being nicknamed "the Termite Palace". In January 1975, the State of Hawaii purchased the stadium for $8.5 million—at that time, the University held a majority of the shares of Honolulu Stadium, Ltd.

The stadium was the longtime home of the University of Hawaii's college football team (then known as the Hawaii Rainbows) from 1926 to 1974, and the minor league baseball Hawaii Islanders of the Pacific Coast League (PCL) from 1961 to 1975. In its final years, the stadium also was home to The Hawaiians of the World Football League (WFL) in 1974 and 1975.

The stadium was the venue for several bowl games: the Poi Bowl (1936–1939, 1945), Pineapple Bowl (1940–1941, 1947–1952), and Hula Bowl (1960–1975). It also hosted high school football, world championship boxing matches, and was used for stock car racing. Track was also run at the stadium; it was the site of Hawaii's first night track meet in 1949.

Famous athletes who competed in Honolulu Stadium include Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth in 1934; Joe DiMaggio, who hit a home run out of the park while playing for a military team in 1944; and Jesse Owens, who outran a horse in an 80-yard dash at the stadium in 1946. Irving Berlin performed at the stadium in 1945, Elvis Presley performed in 1957, and Billy Graham inspired a capacity crowd a year later.

The 1971 Hawaii Rainbows football team hosted the undefeated and top-ranked Nebraska Cornhuskers at the stadium in early December. The defending national champions were fresh off their "Game of the Century" win on Thanksgiving at No. 2 Oklahoma, and defeated the Rainbows, 45–3. Nebraska went on to defeat Alabama in the 1972 Orange Bowl on New Year's Day for a 13–0 season.

In the stadium's final event, the Islanders won their first PCL championship over the Salt Lake Gulls, in six games concluding on September 8, 1975. The stadium was replaced by Aloha Stadium in Halawa, which opened the following week.

title: Honolulu Stadium


text:
Talk:Zwitterion

Definition concern
I don't know about the definition of zwitterion. Other sources claim the definition is an ion with both a negative and positive formal charge somewhere in the structure. I've classified p-Azoxyanisole as a zwitterion based on this definition.

--Edsanville 21:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quinonoid zwitterion
Quinonoid zwitterion is not a typical zwitterion it should therefore not rank with the typical zwitterions rikXL 15:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How's that, then? Ed Sanville 19:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zwitterion definition
I am of the understanding that zwitterion refers only to the form of a molecule with one acidic and and one basic group where positive and negative formal charges are present at the same time, such that the net charge is zero. Therefore, a molecule could only be a zwitterion at its isoelectric point. At other pHs it would be anionic or cationic. The way the article is written now makes it seem like any amphoteric molecule is a zwitterion, when it would only be so at a particular pH, and then only if it had one acidic and one basic moiety. I want to make sure this is an accepted definition before I dive in and rewrite the page; any opinions? Porkchopmcmoose 02:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A buffer always contains a weak acid and conjugate base in equilibrium. A zwitterion on its own could not function as a buffer. e.g CH2(COO-)NH3+, on its own has no buffering ability, but mixed with CH2(COOH)NH3+ or CH2(COO-)NH2, can act as a buffer.

Two concerns: DMacks 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Just because a molecule that has acidic and basic components doesn't mean they both ionize to create a zwitterion. Creating charge or adding/removing proton from some position might destabilize the molecule in some way--for example, destroying aromaticity in 2-pyrrole carboxylic acid. At least in solid state, o-anthranilic acid is a 1:1 mixture of zwitterionic and non-ionic forms.
 * 2) There are zwitterions that are not due to (effectively) intramolecular acid/base chemistry and equilibria, so juggling pH or other titration/solution games has no effect. Nitromethane and acetonitrile N-oxide are some simple cases.

 * I always understood a zwitterion was any species with positive and negative charged groups at a given pH, I didn't appreciate that it had to be only 1 of each. Are you sure this is technically correct? What about something with 2 positive charges and 2 negatives, is this a zwitterion? Aaadddaaammm 23:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, after consultation of a textbook, I'll agree that it has to have no net charge, but can it have many charged groups all cancelling each other out? Ie. is a protein at its pI a zwitterion? Aaadddaaammm 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How should the word "zwitterion" be pronounced?

83.30.188.212 15:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, see:
 * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zwitterion /ˈtswɪtəɹ.aɪən/ and (with audio sample) https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Zwitter

 * Simon de Danser (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dipolar compounds
I added dipolar compounds, but I am not quite sure about the interpretation.

IUPAC Gold Book uses very similar definitions, but it will not be without a reason to use different lemmas. In contrast to ampholytes that are redirected to zwitterionic compounds, suggesting them to be synonym.

Zwitterionic compounds:

"Neutral compounds having formal unit electrical charges of opposite sign."

Dipolar compounds:

"Electrically neutral molecules carrying a positive and a negative charge in one of their major canonical descriptions."

See also: IUPAC Preferred IUPAC Names, Provisional recommendations; pp. 56-71

A more explicit explanation of the difference is desirable. Is there a specialist?--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dipolar compounds are not ions and therefore they cannot be Zwitterions, its not a good idea to put them in the same article.--Azaline Gomberg —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC).
 * I removed the statement because it is leading us off-topic or is redundant to previous sentence. However, http://goldbook.iupac.org/D01753.html defines "dipolar compounds" as "Electrically neutral molecules carrying a positive and a negative charge in one of their major canonical descriptions", and even gives examples that do not have the charges on adjacent positions (cf. some scientists' concern about usage). Can you give us a specific compound you believe to be dipolar but not zwitterionic? One possible confusion is that the definition involves dipole, which according to the technical definition in this case appears to be only actual formal charges, rather than also partial charges in the more general bond polarity sense. DMacks (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The word dipolar compound is used in the context of Cycloadditions for example Ozone in Ozonolysis, whereas Zwitterion is mainly used in the context of Aminoacids at their isoelectric point. --Azaline Gomberg —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC).
 * That's true for common usage (different terms for different contexts, especially when trying to highlight certain reactivity features), but the definitions as written do not seem to make as clear a distinction. For example, O––O+=O looks just as "ionic" as O––N+(CH3)CH3 (which IUPAC lists as an example of a zwitterion).
 * But Ozone has two canonical forms, the negative charge is delocalized on the first and the last O, thats the difference. --Azaline Gomberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.63.104.44 (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * GoldBook def of "dipolar compound" states "In most dipolar compounds the charges are delocalized; however the term is also applied to species where this is not the case." Note that I'm not disagreeing with common usage, and I already did remove the statement about dipoles from the article because it's misleading by common usage (even if technically correct). DMacks (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have prefered two different articles for dipolar compounds and Zwitterions. But thanks for the discussion. --Azaline Gomberg (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Depending on how much can be told about dipolar compounds. Alternatively, the difference could be explained in a separate section.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The resonance structures of ozone represent it's hybridized bonds nature, zwitterions are not hybridized but intermolecular proton exchange causes both isomers (see below).
 * Simon de Danser (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We do have an articles specifically about 1,3-dipole structures and the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition reaction. Both seem a bit sparse. DMacks (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had seen them, but there has to be an overarching article. I do not feel to be the person to do this.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved one sentence to the second paragraph, because 1,2-dipolar compounds and 1,3-dipolar compounds are not really examples, I would say these are rather subclasses. A further possibility would be to move the sentence to the end of the article and additionally give some examples for both kinds of dipolar compounds. But I would not do that because I still think that this article should not include to much about dipolar compounds. But I have to admit that the new version underlines also the difference of the definitions and is much better structured. --Azaline Gomberg (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

definitions
I think, the problem is that there are not clear and generally accepted definitions (or are there?). Zwitterions and dipolar compounds both are neutral and have positive and negative charge. Therefore the article could be named "(neutral) polar compounds". Zwitterions can be seen as dipolar compounds, unless dipolar not only means "with positive and negative charge", but also that the compound has only two charged centers (don't know if all dipolar compounds have only two charged centers). There are zwitterions with more than two; e.g. we have amino acids with multiple amino's.

A useful distinction can be the presence of both acidic and basic groups (ampholytes). Some people consider zwitterion and ampholyte synonym (see Isoelectric point), but ampholytes are only zwitterions at their isoelectric point. By the way, I redirected ampholyte to Amphoterism, originally with this title.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 * There are clear and different definitions. Dipolar compounds can have zwitterionic canonical forms. Dipolar compounds can also have non zwitterionic canonical forms. Zwitterions can not have non zwitterionic canonical forms. Dipolar compounds react in dipolar Cycloadditions.
 * The article should not be named "neutral polar compound" because polar compounds (for example water) are not necessarily dipolar or zwitterionic. I think you should not change or rename the article to quickly. Haste makes waste. Its better to discuss it first. Regards --Azaline Gomberg (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Don't worry, the name was for discussion only. Definitions are arbitrary, by definition. The difference is not so simple as you suggest. Do dipolar compounds without delocalized charges have a canonical form (a resonance nature)? Are zwitterions and zwitterions the same? Therefore I mentioned the ampholyte example. Do 1,2- and 1,3-dipolar compounds have an isoelectric point? Could be a difference.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The key difference is that in dipolar compounds the charges are delocalized. I see no evidence from the Gold Book that both topics should belong in the same page V8rik (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any reference to dipolar compound will simply have to go. From the Gold Book
 * zwitterionic compounds/zwitterions Neutral compounds having formal unit electrical charges of opposite sign. Some chemists restrict the term to compounds with the charges on non-adjacent atoms. Sometimes referred to as inner salts, dipolar ions (a misnomer).
 * dipolar compounds: Electrically neutral molecules carrying a positive and a negative charge in one of their major canonical descriptions. In most dipolar compounds the charges are delocalized No mention of zwitterions.

 * For splitting the article you need two conditions. 1. Dipolar compounds are not zwitterions 2. Zwitterions are not dipolar compounds. The first condition is partly not true; the second one in fact not at all, if you take the term literally. Zwitterions have two poles. In fact, you can also call water a dipolar compound! The only difference is that it is a partial charge, but it has an electric dipole moment. So the suggested name "neutral polar compound" is not so bad. The title Zwitterion is not good at all, because it is a misnomer. And again the question, Do dipolar compounds without delocalized charges have a canonical form? The Gold Book definition does not give examples.--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 * If want to make a lasting impact on high profile articles like this one I really suggest you get access to some more literature than just the Gold Book. Your arguments do not convince me. You are confusing resonance and polarity V8rik (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 * No, I am not. For splitting the article, you need more arguments. Zwitterions and dipolar compounds are polar too. Adding compounds with partial charge is more logical, if it is a difference at all. And if it is a difference, it should be mentioned and explained here.
 * H+-O−-H ↔  H-O−-H+
 * Voila, a 1,3-dipolar compound, even nearly meeting the Gold Book definition. Even if you do not agree with this, I will not repeat my remarks above.--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Isocyanide is not a zwitterion to most chemists
The article shows the resonance structures for an isocyanide, but no (or few) self-respecting organic chemist would call that a zwitterion. In fact they would view RNC as a non-example. So I was thinking of replacing this image with a non-controversial example such as glycine at neutral pH.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree and I already stated above, that everything in the article about dipolar compounds does not belong in this article. Regards --Azaline Gomberg (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Smokefoot, how do, as a self-respecting organic chemist, define zwitterions and dipolar compounds?--Wickey-nl (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I was mainly suggesting that we insert glycine while the debate is ongoing. Everyone agrees glycine is an unambiguous zwitterion. (Browser problem).

Related to the debate, here are my opinions: Resonance structures are not zwitterions. In fact resonance structures are not even real, just a concept, so it does not matter what we call them, and this article is about a class of real compounds. At least that is how I see the world.

I also recommend that we remove the image of resonance structures of isocyanide. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I will never call myselve an expert about dipolar compounds and you will certainly know more about it, but as I interpret the Gold Book definition of dipolar compounds it are compounds that can be pictured as structures that meet the definition of zwitterions. And even the term indicates that. Acetonitrile may be a more concrete example, but surely many other can be found. Surely many definitions are used, so one will not be enough. But still I did not see your definitions.--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

 * This IUPAC document is clear (see page 56→). 1,2- and 1,3-dipolar compounds are called zwitterionic compounds and the zwitter-form is mostly even preferred for naming. So, I consider them as a class of zwitterions. A separate article about dipolar compounds is desirable as well, but cannot ban them from this page. And actually, I don't see why a water molecule would not be a zwitterion.--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Water is not a zwitterion. The formula you drew above is wrong. If the H would have a positive charge, it would not bind to the oxygen. As long as the hydrogen has a binding, it has a valence electron and is therefore not positiv. Do you understand it now? The polarity in the water molecule is only based on the difference in electronegativity between H and O.
 * I have read your document. I still think we should seperate it. Simply because it is confusing and its not common usage. The term dipolar compounds is used for compounds reacting in dipolar cycloadditions and zwitterion is used for describing aminoacids. If a wikipedian wants to read something about either of the two topics, he has no need for both definitions. Regards --Azaline Gomberg (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

 * the IUPAC report only states that in the report dipolar compounds are discussed in the same section as zwitterionic compounds, right after the cations but before the radical ions.The report is irrelevant V8rik (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I support V8rik, an established expert on organic chemistry and to Gomberg who makes a good case. Water being zwitterionic, wha?--Smokefoot (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The water molecule fully meet the IUPAC definition. And H+-O−-H ↔  H-O−-H+ is wrong?  A resonance formula does not reflect the exact electronic configuration.  And consider the trihydrogen cation . Here, also a proton is bound without a valence electron.--Wickey-nl (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Article revised
It is clear from the discussion above that a consensus has been reached amongst experienced editors. I add my voice to emphatically deny that dipolar compounds have anything to do with zwitterions. The article has been revised accordingly.

References to isoelectronic point (pI) have been removed because pI says nothing about the zwitterion molecule equilibrium. The isoelectric point for an amino acid, AH, occurs when [A-] = [AH+]. I've added a section to acid dissociation constant which makes this clear. Dubious examples, including sulphonates that are not normally able to be protonated, have also been removed. Petergans (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 * In your definition, dipolar compounds are not zwitterions.

 * Why are in this IUPAC document zwitterions and dipolar compounds put into the same paragraph? Why are dipolar compounds called zwitterionic compounds if they are not zwitterions? Why are there zwitterions without proton transfer? What about Nitrones and betaines? Which source excludes dipolar compounds from zwitterionic compounds? Do dipolar compounds have formal charges and zwitterions not? Are charges in zwitterions real and in dipolar compounds not? Are zwitterions dipoles and dipolar compounds not? Has nitrogen in amino acids another sort of charge than in dipolar compounds? --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * None of your questions above constitutes a definition. The definition of a zwitterion states that it carries real electrical charges; a dipolar compound is one for which a canonical form may be written with formal charges. The consensus between user:Azaline Gomberg, user:v8rik, user:smokefoot and myself is that one can say that dipolar canonical forms are like zwitterions, but that does not mean that they are such. I may add that formal charges are an artefact of valence bond theory and are not used at all in molecular orbital theory of electronic structures.
 * You are the only dissenter and your arguments have been repeatedly descibed as "unconvincing". This discussion should therefore now be closed. Petergans (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Poor arguments and lack of arguments gives poor discussions. Users/pseudo-scientists can easily promote each other to experts.--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit
I removed this: It is characteristic of zwitterions that an electrically charged atom (H+ in this case) is transferred from one part of the molecule to another. It's not necessarily true - check out the structure of the betaine.

Nonsense
The article contains nonsense without sources.

"Though amine oxides are often written as ≡N+O-, they are not zwitterions as they can also be written as uncharged molecules with a dative covalent bond"

Wrong. http://goldbook.iupac.org/A00273.html
 * This source does not call an amine oxide a zwitterion.Petergans (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure which bit you think is wrong, but I think there should be a single covalent bond between the N and the O (as well as the triple bond and the charges). Chris (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"A "dipolar compound", such as a 1,2-dipole or a 1,3-dipole is not a zwitterion."

Wrong. Zwitterion is a general term for any neutral molecule with a positive and a negative electrical charge (by incompetent edits the definition is extended to non-neutral molecules now). See: 1,3-zwitterion; 1,3-zwitterion; 1,4-zwitterion; quinoline–DMAD zwitterion; Cycloaddition mechanism; Phosphorus-containing 1,3-zwitterions; Criegee zwitterion (Criegee zwitterion).

"The distinction lies in the fact that there are formal charges, not electrical charges, on atoms."

Wrong. Amino acids as well as 1,2- and 1,3-dipolars have formal charges (and real charges).

--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Phrases such as "nonsense", "wrong" and "incompetent edits" are not acceptable.

 * Some of the references cited are not about 1,2-dipole or 1,3-dipoles as described in their linked WP articles. Take the first example 1,3-zwitterion This is not a 1,3-dipole, but is a genuine zwitterion because the boron atom is 4-coordinate, so must carry a negative charge. Petergans (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It has a negative charge. Give a source saying it is not a 1,3-dipole. This is an example of mixing the terms zwitterion and 1,3-dipole. Other examples also show the general usage of the term zwitterion--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 * The Gold book says about dipolar molecules: "Electrically neutral molecules carrying a positive and a negative charge in one of their major canonical descriptions". Note that it does not say "ALL of their canonical forms". The effect of this is that there is less than a complete positive charge on any given atom - that's what makes it dipolar. Zwitterions have positive and negative charges in ALL of their canonical descriptions, meaning that there is separation of a unit electrical charge. There's no way to draw them without the charges. Thus, because it also says that zwitterions have separation of a unit charge, dipolar compounds are not zwitterions. QED. Chris (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My answer below.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 * Wickey-nl: Since you're so fond of the gold book, look at . It says Zwitterions are "Neutral compounds having formal unit electrical charges of opposite sign". The important word there is "unit", and I'm suprised it hasn't come up in the previous discussions above. It means one. A complete charge, not a dipole, which is how zwitterions differ from dipoles. Furthermore, it also says "Some chemists restrict the term to compounds with the charges on non-adjacent atoms", which would rule out amine oxides and nitrones and Criegee Zwitterions, but it does not say that this is agreed upon. Therefore, I propose that we remove this bit from the article, or at least rewrite it with this reservation. Chris (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC) again.
 * Regarding unit charges, this is exactly the point I was making when referring to the distinction between electrical and formal charges.
 * The latest revision is not helpful because it confuses formal charges on an amine oxide with unit charges. I regret to have to repeat that the formal charges on an amine oxide are an artefact of Valence Bond theory, quite distinct from, for example, the (unit) electrical charge on a quaternary nitrogen atom. Also they are completely absent from a Molecular Orbital bonding description. I have tried again to clarify the wording in the light of these comments. Petergans (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see your point now. It's quite subtle though - I don't think that people will know that "electrical charges" means unit charges and the distinction from formal charges so you might try to clarify that again(!). Also, I have removed the emphasis on having these charges on atoms, because they are often delocalised. You and I both know that in that the trimethylglycine shown the negative charge is delocalised over the carboxylate, not localised on one of the O atoms. I made some more changes to this effect. Regards, Chris (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source of confusion, between electrical charges as written in a chemical formula and actual charge density on atoms. For example, the ammonium ion carries one positive charge and is written as NH4+, but in reality the charge density varies over the whole molecule. Delocalization is always present and does not impinge on the definition of zwitterion. Petergans (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Gold book definitions are not always unambiguous and especially this is not a strong one. It does not say there has to be exactly one charged major canonical description; in fact there are examples with more. It also does not say they are not zwitterions. Note that zwitterions also are dipolar.--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Gold Book is often simply the only online reference. I certainly do not say they are always good. I think they had some trouble with making an artificial distinction between between zwitterions and dipolar compounds. Clinging to that idea leads to spasmodic adaptations, such as "they tend not to be regarded as zwitterions because they can also be written as uncharged molecules with a dative covalent bond". This is not based on reliable sources.

Nitrogen in amino acids will not have a full unit positive charge, because it will interact with all other atoms, but it has a full unit formal charge. On the other hand, nitrogen in "dipolars" also has a full unit formal charge.

Apart from the fact that the Gold Book does not say that dipolar compounds are not zwitterions and neither the reverse, we can see the general usage in literature, including the Criegee zwitterion. So I propose to distinct:
 * Zwitterions with proton transfer
 * Zwitterions with delocalized electrons
 * Other zwitterions

--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. I am removing zwitterion from my watch list. Petergans (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continuing
Seems like you're getting into an edit war with your fellow editors, Wickey-nl. Don't keep reverting to your version of the article. Until you have unambiguous support on this talk page to make changes, do not edit this article.

Ben (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I have not seen a valid argument for the POV that dipolar compounds are not zwitterions. The Gold Book says:

 * "Some chemists restrict the term to compounds with the charges on non-adjacent atoms."

 * That sounds like: Most chemists include them. Otherwise, it would not make sense in the definition. How different are amino acids, betaines and amine oxides with respect to charges and dipole moments?--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * They are very different, and that is where you reveal your ignorance. In a betaine, an electron is transferred from a nitrogen based atomic orbital to a MO based somewhere else on the molecule. In amine oxides and so forth, the electron is transferred from the nitrogen atomic orbital to a molecular orbital that encompasses both the nitrogen and the oxygen atom. It is not completely lost from the N atom, because the MO has some electron density there. The N atom does not carry a complete positive charge and is not ionic. I am reverting your changes again. Before you change them back I suggest you find a reputable source that unambiguously states that amine oxides, nitrones and anything else you want to put in are zwitterions. Chris (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wickey-nl, I think you need to take a more dispassionate approach. Don't rely on the Gold Book. Take a broad view, see whether on the whole, in the literature, chemists consider dipolar compounds to be a subset of zwitterions or not. Consult several (many) authoritative sources, see if they agree. Do not go out specifically looking for sources that agree with your belief. Try and quantify how much of the literature agrees with you and how much does not. Not an easy task, but give it a shot. Because unless you present a compelling case, other editors will tend to think you're just pushing some sort of agenda.

Ben (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * chemists consider dipolar compounds to be a subset of zwitterions or not. That is exactly the point. I am not interested to put in my POV. If the term is not unambiguous, different opinions may be present. I meant, all compounds are neutral, have positive and negative charge, have a dipole moment and even have the same IUPAC nomenclature (important or not). I gave a number of refs with divers examples. Chris did not give sources that legitimate restriction to one POV.--Wickey-nl (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove your case. Chris is not required to give a source. He also made the point that despite the similarities between zwitterions and dipoles that you mention, dipoles are fundamentally different because their positive and negative charges are linked electronically (i.e. linked via an orbital).

Ben (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I would also point out that just because the gold book does not explicitly rule something out, that something is not automatically true. Find me a reputable source that says that 1,3-dipoles are zwitterions, or vice-versa. Chris (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Pitty that this non-discussion is still based on bluff and and poor arguments. The suggestions of a "sort of agenda" and the only relevant reference in the article, from the generally accepted Gold Book, to be unreliable are the most strong arguments so far.

A meaningless cry about MO's is not convincing. If it were so simple, a definition without dipolar compounds could easily be made. Zwitterion is not about the question from where to where charges go. It is simply about "Neutral compounds having formal unit electrical charges of opposite sign".

In amino acids, three hydrogens and a carbon are sharing electrons with N; in trimethylamine oxide, three carbons and an oxygen are sharing electrons with N. In both cases N donates a lone pair.

You ignore the trimethylamine oxide example in the Gold Book definition. Even in your manipulated definition ylides, etc. are not ruled out (the silly addition "(n.b. not dipoles)" we can ignore, as amino acids are dipoles. The difference with my version is that you change the Gold Book definition into your POV.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reset discussion, focus on reliable sources
This discussion is not getting anywhere because we're attacking each other's logic (right or wrong, it's OR) rather than doing a literature review.

Wickey-nl, I see you've provided links to two books and several journal articles above. Good start, but not as comprehensive a survey as we need for this apparently contentious issue.

The fact that the Gold Book bothers to mention that "Some chemists restrict the term [zwitterion] to compounds with the charges on non-adjacent atoms" suggests it is a view held by a significant proportion of chemists. On its own, the term "some chemists" could in principle mean as few as two. But common sense suggests the Gold Book's authors wouldn't include the "non-adjacent" variant definition unless a significant minority of chemists used it.

So let's see what major textbooks and researchers say on the issue. I'll add to the following table as I check more sources. Definition 1 means the view that dipolar compounds are a kind of zwitterion. Definition 2 refers to the view that dipolar compounds are not zwitterions.

Here are a few Web of Science searches to help us out:

 * topic = 1,3-dipole AND zwitterion
 * topic = dipolar AND zwitterion; page 1 of 2
 * topic = dipolar AND zwitterion; page 2 of 2

Ben (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 * OK, this is the way to explore knowledge. Because I don't have the disposal of a library, I asked for an expert, not for non-experts who only put their POV into the article and overrule in a coalition.

 * If the Gold Book states "Some chemists restrict the term", I assume a substantial number, as reflected in my edit. Not the same as Some chemists do not restrict the term, though. In the last case, the majority would restrict the term (thus say dipolar compounds are not zwitterions). Having said that, I emphesize that other sources are important. If there are not general definitions, we have to do with "ad hoc" citations.

 * E.g. Braida, 2010. I do not have the full text, but added it to your table. Heuschmann, 2003. Zwitterion with delocalized electrons. 1,4-Dipole? not sure. Machiguchi, 2003. 1,4-Zwitterion with delocalized electrons.--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Good, thanks, this is more productive now.

You asked for an expert, and you got three. Chris, Smokefoot and Petergans are all professional chemists. They have PhDs and have taught in universities.

Or do you mean you want the world expert on zwitterion and dipole nomenclature?

Ben (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Not recognizable experts in their edits, but no one can be an expert in everything. A real scientist would not rewrite the article to obscure an important view, without references. He also would consider his view, if there are reasonable arguments. Not ignore arguments. Earlier I suggested to include several definitions, which is ignored. On the contrary, Petergans manipulated the Gold Book definition and put in his own. But I am open for reviews about other sources, as far as they are sincerely.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

They're just using their professional experience to guide their editing. Unless you're an expert yourself, you won't be able to determine whether another editor is an expert just by looking at their edits. These guys feel comfortable interpreting the Gold Book flexibly or ignoring it at times, because they are experts and the Gold Book is a general sort of thing, not to be trusted above all else. Don't say they're not real scientists, because they are. If you're paid by a university to do scientific research and publish it in high-quality, high-impact peer-reviewed journals, you're definitely a scientist. I trust their judgement more than your reliance on synthesis and inference from a handful of source.

Nonetheless, it's obviously better if reliable sources can be cited to support the definitions we give in our articles. That is what I am trying to find.

p.s. At the moment, this article is looking like a good candidate for Lamest edit wars.

Ben (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Let us go back to facts. First, I don't have any connection with IUPAC and because Gold Book definitions are very general and sometimes ambiguous they are suitable for supporting statements rather than for basic source. But if there are no other sources, they may be used. While 1,20 meter is still a measurement in units meter, formal electrical charges are always counted in full units, by definition. There is also no reason at all to distinct zwitterions with full and with partial electron separation, and I have not seen an example of that, in terms of definition. Nor there is a reason to distinct delocalized and non-delocalized electrons.

 * As you noticed well, the question is wether or not dipolar compounds are zwitterions. According to the Gold Book definition they are and there is nothing wrong with supporting this with citations in scientific journals.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"There is also no reason at all to distinct zwitterions with full and with partial electron separation, and I have not seen an example of that, in terms of definition. Nor there is a reason to distinct delocalized and non-delocalized electrons." - You want to focus on facts, but these are not facts. They are your opinion.

My opinion differs: I think it is often appropriate to make a distinction between delocalised and localised electrons.

However, neither your opinion nor mine matters to this article. The article needs to take a dispassionate, neutral view. You and I both know that.

Searching for literature/textbook examples of the various common definitions of "zwitterion" and of "dipolar compound" is a better use of our time than debating the issue with our own reasoning and biases. Better still, we spend the time adding new content to this and other articles. I think the best thing to do is say what the Gold Book says: a certain proportion of chemists do exclude dipolar compounds from their definition of zwitterion. Then we can forget all about this tedious debate about a minor point.

Ben (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While you may call it an opinion wether or not dipolar compounds are zwitterions, I did not say the distinction between delocalised and localised electrons is unimportant. That would be foolish. The question is not a minor point, otherwise it wasn't worth a debate. Moreover, the question is about how sources are used and misused. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You specifically said "Nor there is a reason to distinct delocalized and non-delocalized electrons". In response, I said "I think it is often appropriate to make a distinction between delocalised and localised electrons". Now you reply "I did not say the distinction between delocalised and localised electrons is unimportant". So which is it? I'm confused.

I think the whole issue of zwitterion/dipolar compound IS a minor point, and wasn't worth a debate. This debate has been a waste of time. You're the only one who thinks it's a big deal. I'm involved because I don't like editors throwing their weight around, pushing a particular view point too hard. I'm not involved because I care very much about definitions.

You keep accusing other editors of misusing sources, but they're actually just using common sense and experience alongside sources.

Ben (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Read my edits in the context they are written. As far as I can judge, zwitterion is just a loosy term for a neutral compound with positive and negative charges. In this respect, delocalization of electrons is not relevant. In this respect, the whole article is not relevant.

 * If you care about definitions, you should be concerned about the current article. Yes, definitions are misused, because the zwitterion definition is cited selective and the dipolar compound definition is used to "prove" that they are not zwitterions. As long as my arguments are not addressed, the "superior experts" do not have right to speak.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not care about definitions. Understanding and explaining the actual chemistry is much more important.

Experts do have a right to speak, and a right to ignore your concerns. Let's just leave this article alone now.

Ben (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Restore definition
There are no other definitions, so the Gold Book definition can be restored. That is rather clear. The primary definition includes dipolar compounds. Some chemists do not include dipolar compounds (although no definition is given for such case, thus cannot be included into the article. The primary definition is supported by other sources, the secondary definition is not supported by other sources. The nonsense about "Related compounds" is not based on any source.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Just quote the Gold Book directly if you're going to quote it at all. Don't include your own interpretation. Definition 1 clearly has plenty of support in the lit, but just because we haven't found definition 2 clearly stated yet, doesn't mean it isn't there. We haven't looked very hard.

 * Ben (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wickey-nl, you and couple of other editors (for example, PlasmaPhysics) are trying to do the right things by relying on rules that you read, but chemists just do not use the term zwitterion in the way that you interpret the IUPAC book. Zwitterions to a chemist are almost always things like amino-acids with two separate groups.  The German article also takes this position - two functional groups that have opposite charges (ein Molekül mit zwei oder mehreren funktionellen Gruppen, von denen eine positiv und eine andere negativ geladen ist.). Wikipedia is a poor mechanism to change people's ideas, Wikipedia seeks to explain mainstream concepts.  IUPAC is a rule-making body that often deviates from mainstream thought, therefore Wikipedia editors often accept or ignore IUPAC recommendations according to our understanding of mainstream thought. Mainstream journal and textbooks never or rarely refer to dipoles as zwitterions. Informed editors can always find some way of bending a definition, but we are not here to split hairs but to present conventional interpretations.  Anyway, the consensus of the editors is against your views (including those editors that have left this page in exasperation over your ideas). Best wishes,--Smokefoot (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Chris (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

 * If your opinion is a mainstream opinion, you can certainly find a lot of support in literature. Wikipedia as a quasi-scientific encyclopedia is without doubt filled with mainstream thoughts. It is known to be written for about 90 % by young male students and it is maintained by mainly an inbreeding of quasi-scientists and burocrates. Your opinions are true because you are "experts"; you are experts because your opinions are true.--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 * No, Smokefoot and Chris are experts because of their qualifications and experience.
 * Ben (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with "Related Compounds"
The section as it stands is inconsistent with the first reference. The beginning of the sentence reads "Dipolar compounds are usually not classified as zwitterions. For example, amine oxides, which are often written as R3N+O−, are not zwitterions in terms of the definition,[1]" however, upon consulting the source Zwitterionic compounds, although the definition is given one finds thrimethylamine oxide, an amine oxide, as an example of a zwitterion in there. I'm not advocating for or against amine oxides being called zwitterions, which seems to be a controversial subject judging from the talk page, but there is a clear contradiction here. The section proceeds to explain where the distinction is by means of an elaborate argument but without citing any sources. As it stands the section reads somewhat like an opinion piece, trying to disprove a view that the author considers "mistaken", but failing to provide sources except a single source in which the "mistaken" view is held. I have, at least, added failed verification and citation needed tags to the first sentence and to the explanation until this problems are addressed. IgnacioPickering (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The recent edit does not address the problem, it links to a different source which explains what dipolar compounds are, but does not rule whether they are zwitterions or not. I suggest citing a secondary source where the distinction, if there is one, is clearly stated either implicitly or explicitly. It seems to me IUPAC's goldbook implies, in source Zwitterionic compounds thet there is no disctinction or thet, if there is one it is not universally accepted. As a chemist myself I have never referred to amine oxides as zwitterions, so I sympathise, but without a source that states that they aren't and why that is so, the case can't be made that they are not. For what it's worth these are my two cents: No molecule has "unit electric charges located on atoms". If one were to plot the charge density of, for instance, alanine, and integrate it around the protonated basic nitrogen it would probably take some dubious fine tuning to get to a value of +1e. Charge density is always slightly delocalized. I probably agree that amine oxides may have a more delocalized charge density than, say, an aminoacid in its isoelectric point, but: 1) I can't be 100% sure that is indeed the case without a source, and 2) Even if that were the case this is a subtle enough point that I assume IUPAC people realize that and that's why they dumped an amine oxide with the other zwitterions in their definition. I doubt it is very useful to run an electronic structure simulation each time we have to decide if a compound is a zwitterion or just "dipolar". Regarding "canonical structures" pauling himself arguably always thought of bonds as combinations or superpositions of ionic and covalent resonance structures, so if one is strict, according to that definition a protonated amine group has, for instance, at least one canonical structure H2N+-H <-> -H2N H+. IgnacioPickering (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 * It is a little difficult to find an authoritative source stating what something is not. It seems.  So the request at zwitterion asking for a source stating that dipoles are not zwitterions could be difficult to respond to.  Maybe others have some insights? I read a lot of scientific papers and none of them talk about what things are not.  I mean I could say that black is white and then demand that editors find a definitive article states the contrary.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, this is a primary source, so it is perhaps not 100% satisfactory, but at least it's something http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/la00053a006, it is paywalled, but the first page already makes some sort of distinction. My point wasn't whether it is difficult or not to find an authoritative source, my point is that I don't think it's adequate to cite a source implying that it says something when it doesn't, doesn't matter if you know it to be true. I feel that can lead to dark places =P. If this source isn't clear enough perhaps the paragraph on dipolar compounds should be rewritten as to explain that dipolar compounds have separated charges in one or more resonant structures, and to not specifically make the distinction whether they are or are not zwitterions. If one or two sources like this one were found one could make the claim that "they are preferably not referred to as zwitterions" or if conflicting views are found that "usage is not totally consistent" perhaps? IgnacioPickering (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 * For instance, IUPAC's 2004 blue book's "draft" http://old.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract04/BB-prs310305/CompleteDraft.pdf (links to pdf, page 580) lists "as zwitterions" clearly as a way to name amine oxides, I think at least the fact that amine oxides are permitted to be named as zwitterions by the IUPAC should be mentioned, perhaps making it clear that the usage is not common in the literature. IgnacioPickering (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 * A quick search in J chem educ led me to http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed036p336, where individual resonant structures with separated charges are referred to as "zwitterionic", so this "freer" usage is, at least, not unheard of in the literature, probably a little more effort will lead to something more concrete, but I think we can agree that the usage is not exactly clear cut, and trying to separate both concepts so sharply in the article is somewhat misleading. Also, I would like to point out that I'm not argueing about the difference between "dipoles and zwitterions". It's pretty clear to me that not every molecule with a nonzero dipole in a bond should be called a zwitterion, if that were the case all compounds except for strictly pure elemental forms, e.g. N2, O2, Fe(s), would be zwitterions, and that would be silly. The distinction is a subtler one, between compounds with charges sharply separated between atoms far away (e.g. aminoacids, peptides, and lots of other organic compounds), and compounds with very important resonant structures that have separated charges in atoms close to each other (e.g. amine oxides and 1,3 dipolar compounds). I want to stress that your view seems valid to me and I wouldn't have much problem accepting it myself, but that's not the question here, the question is what the term actually means, how it is used in the literature, whether the use is consistent or not, if IUPAC recommends to name them in one way or other, etc. IgnacioPickering (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

User:IgnacioPickering and User:Smokefoot, I've had a stab at reconciling the two concepts. A zwitterion is clearly dipolar. It's as dipolar as it gets. As pointed out above, not all dipoles are zwitterions (obviously). All the sources also clearly state that the resonance structures that are used to describe the charge delocalisation of dipolar molecules are formally given as zwitterions (even though these zwitterionic states don't have physical existence). Note that things like amino acids, at the right pH are demonstrably stable zwitterions with unit charges, as the IUPAC book says. I think the new wording brings the text back to a point where it doesn't go beyond the definition in the source. --Slashme (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

zwitterion
The removed section was irrelevant. The two examples cited merely showed that a zwitterion can itself have isomeric forms. The mean value pKa values cited in this section are also irrelevant as the two values from which they are derived refer to two different degrees of protonation. Petergans (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Isoelectric point
(Lede) For many amino acids, the isoelectric point can be calculated as the mean of the two pKa values of the molecule. For a derivation of this expression see acid dissociation constant.

 * $$ \mathrm{pI} = \frac{\mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{a1} + \mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{a2}}{2} $$

The zwitterion, H3N-R-CO2, on the other hand is isomeric with the molecule H2N-R-CO2H Petergans (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Revised version
The revised version of this article makes clear the distinction between the two types of zwitterion and restores the description of the quantitative aspect of zwitterion formation. Petergans (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with making these sorts of distinctions. But WP:V is policy, we can't rely on chemist-editors' WP:OR or proof-by-assertion. Make sure you do not replace, for example, an IUPAC-cited definition with anything less-well-cited (for example, no cite for the definition, uncited claim about chronology of proton transfer in amino acids (and makes an implicit claim that water is required). It's not helpful, and not a good time-investment for others to have to keep tracking that sort of editorial mistake carefully for you. DMacks (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Wholesale reversion (WP:Baby and bathwater) to a previous version is an unaccepable procedure. Furthermore,
 * 1) The Gold-book definition of zwitterion is clearly defective.
 * Neutral compounds having formal unit electrical charges of opposite sign. Some chemists restrict the term to compounds with the charges on non-adjacent atoms. Sometimes referred to as inner salts, dipolar ions (a misnomer). E.g. H3N+CH2C(=O)O− ammonioacetate (glycine), (CH3)3N+–O− trimethylamine oxide.
 * Amine oxides are not zwitterions. The + and - signs in (CH3)3N+–O− refer to a specific canonical form in the valence-bond theory resonance hybrid, not real electrical charges. In zwitterions the electrical charges are real. There are occasions, of which this is one, where the Gold-book definition is defective.
 * 2) Isolectric point is irrelevant: it's a property related to the composition of a mixture of different chemical compouns in a solution. A zwitterion is one isomer of a single chemical compound.
 * 3) Dipolar compounds. The Gold-book definition is clear
 * Electrically neutral molecules carrying a positive and a negative charge in one of their major canonical descriptions.
 * This, too, derives from valence-bond theory and is irrelevant as the electrical charges in a zwitterion are real, not calculated. "Canonical descripions" are specific to VB theory; with MO theory charge density is distributed smoothly over the whole molecule; the charges in a zwitterion molecule are predominately localised.
 * The charges are shown on a zwitterion because the chemical formula H3CNCH2CO2, with 4 bonds and no charge on the N atom and an uncharged carboxylate group, would look very strange. −Petergans (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to claim whatever you want is defective, and I agree with some things looking strange. But that's all WP:OR, which is not allowed. Instead, citing WP:RS is the standard. Bottom line is the WP:BURDEN is yours (that's a wikipedia site policy, regardless of WP essays to the contrary)--you are making multiple new factual claims, some of which are easily contradicted, in addition to removing valid cites leaving uncited (though reasonably correct-looking) content. I'll start from yours, re-add the necessary cites, and then remove/tag the uncited content so you can see what work you have to do if you wish that content to remain... DMacks (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"The value of K cannot be determined experimentally" It is impossible to verify this statement, which is based in the absence of any relevant publication. Various estimates are cited in Splittgerber and Chinander. Petergans (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Cannot" is a positive statement, and the WP:BURDEN (that's a wikipedia policy) is on you to support it with proof, since I dispute that it's definitely true. Evidence of absence ≠ absence of evidence. "It is impossible to verify this statement" pretty well sums up why it is not acceptable to write it in this article, because verifiability is one of our core policies. DMacks (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The proof is that there is no publication in which the value has been determined. Therefore it is a positive statement, like "ghosts do not exist". Petergans (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Ghosts do not exist" is a positive statement that's verifiable and logically/philsophically proveable/supported by various logical/philosopgical arguments, supported by several cited WP:RS at our ghost article. "It hasn't" is not nearly the same as "it can't". Even googling [zwitterion equilibrium] and similiar phrases finds papers that propose ideas and doesn't disprove them as "impossible". DMacks (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

EDTA is not an amino acid; that's why it is not mentioned in the article amino acid. EDTA belongs to the class of molecules known as aminopolycarboxylic acids. Petergans (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And xylene is not a liquid because it is not mentioned in the article liquid.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The aminopolycarboxylic acid article about that class says that glycine is the parent structure (though obviously that is is mono not polycarboxylic). But it includes aspartic acid as an example, which clearly meets the definition (and our article on that chemical agrees), and that chemical I think is unarguably also an amino acid. What is your exact definition of "amino acid", that would include the usual natural and synethetic biochemical ones but exclude EDTA? I note that the Skoog ref explicitly says it behaves as an AA in this context. And it is equivalent to all the structural, chemical, and mathematical details in the AA section of this article, being a treatment of "amine + carboxylic acid ammonium + carboxylate" by eye and also per cited ref. And even in science-pub-for-lay-readers EDTA is specifically called an "amino acid" (not just having similar behavior as one). Please post your ref that it is not, as I have posted several refs that it is and behaves as one in the context here. DMacks (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * EDTA is not mentioned at all in the article amino acid, as clearly stated above. Therefore a link in this article to that one serves no purpose. Petergans (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Alternate article structure

 * Maybe an underlying problem is that the section is titled "Amino acids" but its content is a mis-mosh (technical term:) of "amine/acid" (reasonably explained with math, much better than it was) and side-chain involvement (which is not covered by that math and is only relevant to some AAs). As such, we're forced into a split decision on what is actually in scope of that section. How about instead we make one section about equilibrium cases and the other about permanent (betaine) cases. Then the equilibrium-cases section can have a subsection for amine/acid (the definition of amino acid" being completely irrelevant to the math). No matter how you classify EDTA as a chemical, it's the same situation structurally, mathematically, and per cited ref as an AA, so it goes together. And another equilibrium-cases subsection for others, such as cysteine (it's an "amino acid" but the zwitterion idea is "amine/thiol" so the amine/acid math and structure-analysis is clearly different), arginine (it's an "amino acid" but the zwitterion is "guanidine/acid"), Psilocybin ("amine/phosphoric-acid"), etc.
 * That is:

 * DMacks (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Structure of Anthranilic acid added. For the other examples, we need factual evidence. DFT results may be valid but a calculated structure is not verifiable. I will add a suitable phrase. Is there a citable reference for the B6 structure? If so, please add it to the text. Petergans (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you pasted the wrong DOI for the anthranilic acid structure. But 10.1107/S0108270185004206 is even better (neutron diffraction to actually see the H rather than X-ray that only sees the heavies and relies on using "difference of C–O bond-lengths" to infer protonation sites). It should go into the Anthranilic acid article also. DMacks (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong condensed molecular formula for amino acid
I'm not really familiar with the conventions of these condensed molecular formulas, but an H from the chiral carbon sure seems to be getting dropped somewhere!

The current content is:

The equilibrium is established in two stages. In the first stage, a proton is transferred from the carboxyl group to a water molecule:

Eden hochbaum (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Good catch. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zwitterion


text:
Greg Walden

Gregory Paul Walden (born January 10, 1957) is an American politician who served as the U.S. representative for OR's 2nd congressional district from 1999 to 2021. He is a Republican. Walden is the son of three-term Oregon State Representative Paul E. Walden. In October 2019, Walden announced that he would not run for reelection in 2020.

Early life, education, and career
Walden was born in The Dalles, Oregon, the son of Elizabeth (née McEwen) and Paul Ernest Walden. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree at the University of Oregon in 1981. Before being elected to Congress, Walden owned and ran radio stations.

Political career
Walden served as press secretary and chief of staff to Congressman Denny Smith from 1981 to 1987. He was elected to the Oregon House of Representatives in 1988 and served in the House until 1995, when he was appointed to the Oregon State Senate to fill a vacancy that opened up when Wes Cooley was elected to the U. S. House. Walden rose to the position of assistant majority leader in the Senate and was considering a bid for Oregon Governor in 1994. But upon discovering that the son he and his wife were expecting had a heart defect, Walden decided to not run for governor or seek reelection to the state senate. Their son died soon after birth.

Walden was tapped as campaign manager for Cooley's reelection bid, but after Cooley was caught in several lies about his military service, Walden was one of many Republicans who called on Cooley to drop out of the race. Walden went as far as to announce he was running for the 2nd District seat as an independent. But he served as the Oregon chairman of Bob Dole's presidential campaign, and touted his "strong Republican credentials", implying that he would serve as a Republican if elected. Walden's candidacy led to fears that the Democrats could take advantage of a split in the Republican vote and take a seat they hadn't held since 1981. This ended when Cooley's predecessor, Bob Smith, was called out of retirement.

Smith did not run for reelection in 1998. Walden easily won the Republican primary and the November general election. His district contains some liberal-leaning communities such as Ashland and his hometown, Hood River, but most of it leans heavily Republican, and Walden has been reelected ten times without serious difficulty, never receiving less than 60% of the vote except in 2018, when he received 56%. In 2002, he defeated Democrat Peter Buckley, who later became a member of the Oregon House of Representatives. In 2006, Walden defeated Democratic nominee Carol Voisin, and in 2008 he won a sixth term with 70% of the vote over Democrat Noah Lemas and Pacific Green Tristin Mock. After Senator Gordon Smith's defeat in the 2008 elections, Walden became the only Republican representing Oregon in Congress.

On October 28, 2019, Walden announced that he would not run for reelection. He disagreed with President Donald Trump over Trump's attempts to finance his border wall project and backed sanctioning Russia despite Trump's resistance. He voted to end the 35-day government shutdown and spoke up about the global warming crisis, but supported Trump in the Ukraine quid pro quo scandal.

Party leadership
House Speaker John Boehner chose Walden to be chairman of the House Majority Transition Committee. He served as chairman of the House Republican leadership through most of 2010.

After the 2012 elections, Walden became chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee. In July 2014, he announced he would seek a second term as chair, arguing he would help provide continuity in a changing leadership team after the defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. He served a second term, the traditional limit for holders of the office, ending in 2016.

Committee assignments

 * Committee on Energy and Commerce
 * Subcommittee on Communications and Technology (Chairman)
 * Subcommittee on Energy and Power

From 2010 to 2011, Walden gave up his seat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce at Republican leadership's request so that Parker Griffith, who had recently switched parties, could take his spot.

Walden founded the Small Brewers Caucus and the Digital Television Caucus; as of 2007, he was a member of 39 congressional caucuses.

Walden was also a member of the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership, the Congressional Cement Caucus and the Congressional Western Caucus.

Sponsored legislation
The following is an incomplete list of legislation Walden has introduced into the House of Representatives.
 * Central Oregon Jobs and Water Security Act (H.R. 2640; 113th Congress), a land-use and water bill related to the Crooked River in Oregon and the Bowman Dam. H.R. 2640 would modify features of the Crooked River Project in central Oregon, near Prineville, and prioritize how water from the project is allocated. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law in December 2014.
 * Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2013 (H.R. 3675; 113th Congress), a bill that would make a number of changes to procedures that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) follows in its rule-making processes. The FCC would have to act in more transparently and accept public input on regulations. Walden said the bill was written in response, among other things, to a proposed FCC study on the newspaper editorial boards' decisions. Walden argued that "Americans deserve greater... transparency and accountability from their government," particularly because "an item as controversial as this study made it all the way through the FCC without so much as a commission vote." He called the study dangerous because it threatened the papers' free speech and freedom of the press rights.
 * Hermiston Reversionary Interest Release Act (H.R. 3366; 113th Congress), a bill that would release the interest of the United States in some land being used for Oregon State University's Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Hermiston, Oregon. This would enable the center to relocate without its land being returned to the federal government. The Bureau of Land Management opposed the bill and it died in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
 * STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (H.R. 4572; 113th Congress), a bill related to the regulation of satellite broadcasting.

Malheur Wildlife Refuge
Walden, whose district office includes the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, said that although one militant was killed and another wounded in the armed occupation of the refuge, "We can all be grateful that today has ended peacefully, and that this situation is finally over. Now, life in Harney County can begin to return to normal and the community can begin the long process of healing." He complained about allegedly poor federal forest and land management policies during the occupation, and said he would like to see changes to those policies: "We need to foster a more cooperative spirit between the federal agencies and the people who call areas like Harney County home." On June 27, 2018, Walden pleaded for a pardon for Dwight and Steven Hammond, who repeatedly committed arson and threatened federal refuge workers over an 18-year period, saying that the original trial's federal judge, Michael Robert Hogan, said that the mandatory sentence would "shock the conscious [sic]". On July 10, Trump pardoned both men, commuting their sentences to time served. Steven had been scheduled to be released on June 29, 2019, and Dwight on February 13, 2020.

Personal life
Walden and his wife, Mylene, live in Hood River with their son Anthony. They are members of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and participate in local civic groups such as the Rotary Club and the Chamber of Commerce.

Walden was a licensed amateur (ham) radio operator, W7EQI.

On January 31, 2007, Walden sold Columbia Gorge Broadcasting, which runs five stations in the eastern Columbia River Gorge, to Bicoastal Columbia River LLC in order to avoid any conflict of interest that might arise with his congressional duties.

Walden is an Episcopalian. He is a board member for American Edge, a lobbying organization for the technology industry.

title: Greg Walden


text:
Geneva Public Transport

Geneva Public Transport (Transports publics genevois, TPG) operates most of the public transportation system in canton of Geneva, Switzerland, including the city of Geneva. The agency's head office is in Grand-Lancy, Lancy.

The TPG operates trams, trolleybuses and buses for the canton of Geneva and also serves some regions in neighbouring France. Local rail services are provided by the CFF (Swiss Federal Railways) and the SNCF, and passenger ferries across the lake by the Mouettes Genevoises Navigation. The TPG shares a common fare system (Unireso) with these services and some in neighbouring France so that a single ticket can be used for any public transport within its zones and times of validity.

Timeline
The TPG is the successor organization to the Compagnie Genevoise des Tramways Électriques (Geneva Electric Tramway Company), or CGTE, which operated trams throughout the canton and parts of neighbouring France from 1900 until 1 January 1977.

In December 2003, the TPG began road-testing a 24 m, double-articulated, mega-trolleybus manufactured by Hess and Vossloh Kiepe. The bus can carry 150 passengers. It entered passenger service in January 2004 on line 10 to the airport. This vehicle was created by adding a middle section to a trolleybus that was originally a single-articulated, 18 m vehicle. In 2005–06, TPG purchased ten all-new double-articulated trolleybuses from Hess, length 24.7 m, and they are numbered 781-790. As of late 2006, TPG's fleet included 92 trolleybuses, all articulated (of which eleven were double-articulated).

As of 27 April 2008, the TPG network includes 6 tramway routes, 38 cantonal bus routes, 15 intercantonal (Canton of Vaud) and international (France) bus routes and 12 nighttime bus routes.

In December 2010, Line 18 opened, from Avanchet to Coutance; it was extended as far as CERN in May 2011, closed in December 2011 and replaced by Line 14. In December 2012, the tramway was again split into line 14 (Meyrin-Gravière – P+R Bernex) and line 18 (CERN – Carouge).

Tramway Cornavin - Onex - Bernex (TCOB)
Construction started in November 2008 and finished in December 2011. Line 14 originally ran from P+R Bernex to Meyrin-Gravière or CERN, but has since then been split into Line 14 (P+R Bernex – Meyrin-Gravière) and Line 18 (Carouge – CERN) in December 2012.

title: Geneva Public Transport


text: Talk:I. M. Pei

title: Talk:I. M. Pei


text:
Frank B. Willis

Frank Bartlett Willis (December 28, 1871 – March 30, 1928) was an American politician and lawyer. He was a Republican from Ohio. He served as the 47th governor of Ohio from 1915 to 1917, then served as a U.S. Senator from Ohio from 1921 until his death in 1928.

Biography
Born on a farm near the hamlet of Lewis Center, Ohio, Willis was the son of a Civil War veteran, Vermont-born J.B. Willis and his wife Lavinia A. (Buell). Willis graduated from Ohio Northern University in 1894. After teaching at Ohio Northern for twelve years, Willis was admitted to the bar and began practicing law. He served in the Ohio House of Representatives from 1900 to 1904 while teaching at Ohio Northern school of law, and was subsequently elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1910, serving from 1911 to 1915. Elected to the governorship in 1914, he served one two-year term from 1915 to 1917, but was not re-elected, being defeated by James M. Cox, whom he had defeated in 1914. Cox also defeated Willis in 1918.

After placing Warren Harding's name in nomination at the 1920 Republican National Convention, Willis was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1920, replacing Harding, who then resigned his Senate seat to take the presidency, allowing Willis to take his seat early. During his Senate tenure, Willis served as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories and Insular Possessions, which had jurisdiction over territories including Alaska, Hawaii, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, from 1923 to 1928.

Willis wanted to be Ohio's favorite son candidate for the presidency in 1928. He died in office that year at Gray Chapel, Ohio Wesleyan University, in Delaware, Ohio, during a Republican Party event for his candidacy organized by the Delaware County Willis-for-President Club. He was buried at Oak Grove Cemetery.

Legacy
Willis's official papers were donated to and are open for research at the Ohio History Center.

Frank B. Willis Education Center (formerly Intermediate School and High School) of Delaware City Schools is named in his honor. Willis was married to Allie Dustin, and they had one daughter named Helen.

title: Frank B. Willis


text: User talk:167.21.1.230

title: User talk:167.21.1.230


text: Category:Antiarrhythmic agents

title: Category:Antiarrhythmic agents


text: Category:San Marino

title: Category:San Marino


text:
Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe

Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe is a 1987 novel by American author Fannie Flagg. Set in Alabama, it weaves together the past and the present through the blossoming friendship between Evelyn Couch, a middle-aged housewife, and Ninny Threadgoode, an elderly woman who lives in a nursing home. Every week Evelyn visits Ninny, who recounts stories of her youth in Whistle Stop, Alabama, where her sister-in-law, Idgie, and her friend, Ruth, ran a café. These stories, along with Ninny's friendship, enable Evelyn to begin a new, satisfying life while allowing the people and stories of Ninny's youth to live on. The book explores themes of family, aging, lesbianism, and the dehumanizing effects of racism on both black and white people.

It was adapted as a feature film, Fried Green Tomatoes, which was released in 1991. A television series adaptation was reportedly in development as of 2020, with executive producers Norman Lear and Reba McEntire, who was also to star but the series was abandoned.

Plot
Throughout the novel the narrator and time period change, and chapter headings establish the date and source of the chapter. The narration alternates between the form of the fictional newsletter The Weems Weekly, the Threadgoodes' house in Birmingham, and an omniscient narration. The framing story, set in 1986, presents Evelyn Couch, who goes weekly with her husband to visit his mother in a nursing home. During one visit, Evelyn befriends Ninny Threadgoode, another resident. Ninny tells Evelyn stories of her youth in Whistle Stop in the 1920s and succeeding years. Between subsequent visits, Evelyn begins to adopt aspects of figures in these stories as role models.

Ninny says she was an orphan raised by the Threadgoodes, and that she eventually married one of their sons. She principally talks about the youngest daughter, Imogene "Idgie" Threadgoode, an unrepentant tomboy who became reclusive after her brother, Buddy, was killed on the railway.

Ruth Jamison comes to live with the Threadgoodes while teaching at the Vacation Bible School. Idgie becomes enamored of her and is saddened when Ruth leaves Whistle Stop to marry Frank Bennett. Frank turns out to be a violent, abusive man who often beats Ruth, but she stays with him until her mother's death. Afterward, Ruth sends Idgie a message appealing for help. Idgie, along with several men, rescue her and her son from Bennett. Intimidated by Big George—the Threadgoodes' handyman—Bennett does not resist.

With money from her father, Idgie establishes the Whistle Stop Cafe, with Sipsey (Big George's adoptive mother) and her daughter-in-law Onzell as cooks. Idgie becomes secondary guardian to Ruth's son, Buddy Jr. A gossip columnist refers to him as "Ruth and Idgie's son", indicating recognition of the women's alternative family. Buddy becomes known as 'Stump' after losing an arm in an accident. The café quickly becomes known to hobos all over the US during the Great Depression as a welcoming place to receive a meal. The most recurrent guest is "Smokey Lonesome" Phillips, who secretly loves Ruth. When Ruth dies of cancer, Idgie is heartbroken.

After the railroad yard closes, the cafe (and ultimately the town) ceases operation. Several years later, Idgie and Big George are arrested by the county for Frank Bennett's murder. The case is dismissed when the local minister, repaying Idgie for helping his son, falsely testifies she and Big George were at a three-day revival when Bennett went missing. Bennett's body was never found. It is later revealed that Sipsey killed him when he attempted to kidnap his and Ruth's son. His remains were barbecued by Big George and fed to the detectives investigating Frank's disappearance at the time.

Stump recounts the stories of his guardians to his daughter and granddaughter. Big George's sons, Jasper and Artis, take independent paths: Jasper as a Pullman porter and Artis as a gambler and lady's man. After the decline of Whistle Stop, Idgie and her brother Julian relocated to Florida, where they operated a roadside food stand.

Inspired by these stories, Evelyn starts working outside the home, selling Mary Kay Cosmetics. At Mrs. Threadgoode's urging, she gets treated for negative symptoms of menopause. She also confronts various long-held fears. Evelyn becomes happier. While on vacation, she receives a letter from Mrs. Hartman, a neighbor of Mrs. Threadgoode, telling her of the latter's death and of her having bequeathed various trinkets to Evelyn.

Themes
Although Idgie and Ruth's relationship is not explicitly described as lesbian, every resident both knows about it and accepts it; lesbianism is a theme in the novel.

The novel explores women's aging through the characters of Evelyn and Mrs. Threadgoode. Evelyn goes through menopause and Mrs. Threadgoode deteriorates with age. As the novel follows Sipsey's family, it analyzes the stark challenges they and other African Americans faced in society from the 1920s to the late 1980s. Memories and storytelling are important elements of the novel. The moral justifications of murder and euthanasia are touched upon.

Food is another literary theme in the novel. At the end of the book, Flagg included the recipes served by the cafe (including their signature fried green tomatoes).

Development
The "Whistle Stop Cafe" is loosely based on the Irondale Cafe in Irondale, Alabama, a suburb near Flagg's birthplace. The cafe was bought by Flagg's aunt, Bess Fortenberry, in 1932 and run for four decades by her and two friends. It is still operating and, like the fictional cafe, is known for its fried green tomatoes.

Reception
Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe spent 36 weeks on The New York Times Best Seller List.

Harper Lee praised the book in the publisher's Reader's Guide, saying, "Airplanes and television have removed the Threadgoodes from the Southern scene. Happily for us, Fannie Flagg has preserved a whole community of them in a richly comic, poignant narrative that records the exuberance of their lives, the sadness of their departure. Idgie Threadgoode is a true original: Huckleberry Finn would have tried to marry her!"

Adaptations
Flagg and Carol Sobieski wrote the screenplay for adaptation of the novel as a film, Fried Green Tomatoes, released in 1991. It is directed by Jon Avnet and stars Kathy Bates, Jessica Tandy, Mary Stuart Masterson, Mary-Louise Parker and Cicely Tyson. The film adaptation is a story within a story of Southern female friendship and love.

The film was nominated for two Academy Awards and received an award from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

In October 2020 it was reported that NBC was developing a television series adaptation of the film/novel. The series was to be produced by Universal Television with Norman Lear as executive producer and Jennifer Cecil as writer and executive producer. Reba McEntire was an executive producer and would have a starring role. In 2021 the TV series was dropped.


text: User talk:209.232.151.49

title: User talk:209.232.151.49


text:
Judson Harmon

Judson Harmon (February 3, 1846 – February 22, 1927) was an American Democratic politician from Ohio. He served as United States Attorney General under President Grover Cleveland and later served as the 45th governor of Ohio.

Early life
Harmon was born in Newtown, Ohio and named after Adoniram Judson, the famed American Baptist foreign missionary. His parents were Benjamin Franklin Harmon and Julia Brunson, a native of Olean, New York. His ancestors on both sides of his family were English and included men who served in the colonial wars and the American Revolutionary War, including Cornelius Brooks and his father James Brooks.

Judson was a distant relative of Frances Folsom, the wife of President Grover Cleveland, through her mother Emma Harmon.

Harmon graduated from Denison University in 1866. He graduated from the Cincinnati Law School and was admitted to the bar in 1869. Harmon was elected judge of the Common Pleas Court in 1876 but left months later to run unsuccessfully for the State Senate. He was elected judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati in 1878 and served until he resigned in 1887 to resume the practice of law.

Attorney General
He was appointed Attorney General by President Cleveland on June 8, 1895, upon the elevation of Richard Olney to become United States Secretary of State. Harmon served out the remainder of Cleveland's second term in office. Shortly after his appointment, Harmon urged Congress to fix some of the weaknesses in the Sherman Antitrust Act. Harmon also issued the most explicit statement of what became known as the Harmon doctrine of absolute sovereignty, "the rules, principles and precedents of international law impose no liability or obligation upon the United States" in a case involving a claim by Mexico for damages from diverting the waters of the Rio Grande.

Governor
Harmon was elected as Ohio governor in 1908. In 1910, Harmon was re-elected for a second term as governor, this time defeating future President of the United States Warren G. Harding.

Presidential candidate
In June 1912, Harmon led the Ohio delegation to the Democratic National Convention in Baltimore, Maryland. There, Harmon was nominated as a candidate for the presidency. That was largely as a favorite son of the State of Ohio, Harmon found support from elsewhere and on the first ballot of the Convention, and he received the votes of 148 delegates. However, since no candidate received the necessary two thirds of the votes, balloting continued.

By the time of the 26th ballot, no candidate had yet received the nomination for president and Harmon's support had dwindled to 29 votes, as the Convention tended to coalesce around the two leading candidates: Speaker of the House of Representatives Champ Clark of Missouri and New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson. Balloting continued until the 39th ballot, when the support of William Jennings Bryan helped Wilson obtain the votes necessary to become the nominee.

Retirement
Following the convention, Harmon returned home to Ohio to serve the rest of his term as governor. Accordingly, Harmon left office in January 1913 upon completing this second term.

Family
In 1870 Judson married Olivia Scobey, the daughter of a leading physician in Hamilton. They had three daughters. Harmon and family were residents of Wyoming, OH and lived at 205 Worthington Avenue, located in the city's Village Historic District. He served as Wyoming's third Mayor and was the village's most distinguished public servant.

Legacy
Harmon County, Oklahoma, is named after him.

title: Judson Harmon