text:
Talk:Leg before wicket

Revision
Revised text to add (IMHO) clarity. Added some comment about bat-pad.--Baggie 11:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely better, although maybe not the best it could be yet. So much to do, so little time! dmmaus 22:09, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Add
Please add:
 * 1) The unusual dismissal of Sachin during the falling trajectory.
 * 2) First batsman to be given out using TV replays

¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 18:43, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Playing no stroke to balls outside the off
>> to any ball pitched outside off stump even if the batsmen's legs were also outside off stump - which has been put into place in some measure since 1970.

I thought it was added in the 1980 code. Shall I change it if this is correct ? Tintin 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Mistakes
It isn't true that if the ball is going over the stumps it can't be out. It has to be at the correct height.

It also isn't true that the path the ball would have taken after it hits the batsman doesn't count. It is one of the major factors in making a decision. For example, if the ball hits the batsman in front of leg stump but is going past the leg stump, it isn't out.

Both of those two things should be changed. Cheers.

It is not technically correct to say that the batsman should not be out if the ball pitches outside leg stump. A legal delivery is one that bounces 'no more than twice.' The LBW law only says that the ball must pitch in line or outside off. It does not say that this condition has to be satisfied more than once in the case of a ball pitching twice. (I've now fixed this by using the word 'only,' i.e. the batsman may not be out if the ball only pitches outside leg.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.40.249 (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 * a ball can pitch only once - its first contact with the ground, like a golf ball. It can bounce several times. That is why both words (pitch and bounce) are used. Or perhaps you have better support for your interpretation? Tsinfandel (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The part about cameras and Hawk-Eye not being used officially is outdated and incorrect. Seems to be written in around 2005, when electronic systems were not yet used. Nowadays there is a third umpire deciding "reviewed" situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.46.206 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Semantics
'Cannot' changed to 'should not' which is the term used in the laws of the game. This is not mere semantics, many a batsmen has been given 'out' when the ball has pitched outside leg-stump, been hit with the bat first, going oer the stumps. Franz-kafka 12:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments
(Moved from Sarastro's talk page)

(a) Long before URDS, in the 2002 ICC Champions trophy, the umpire could refer to the third umpire if he had doubts about an lbw. I don't remember remember whether it was used in any other tests/ODIs.
 * I found a ref, but not too sure if it's worth putting in. The article already says that there were trials. Do we need to mention this one in 2002? Open to suggestions. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO we should say when it was first used, and especially as it was tried at the international level itself. Just like we say about the experimental amendments to 1935 and 1970 laws before they were written into the Laws. From a quick check, players were allowed to refer to the 3rd umpire in the 2006 Champions Trophy. Tintin 02:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(b) Looking at http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152418.html, an important change is that it reversed the 1935 amendment. Perhaps it is worth a mention. But in the 1980 code "or on the off side of the Striker's wicket" is back.
 * This is covered: next sentence after this ref: "This meant that any batsman playing a shot could not be out if the ball pitched outside odd stump, in contrast to the 1935 law". Then the 1980 return to 1935 conditions first took place in 1972, which is also covered. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(c) Perhaps a word on how the law is used for reverse sweeps and switch hits.
 * Not sure I can find a source which explicitly links this to the law. There is a note which links off/leg side to the batting stance, but does not mention any shots. Making this link without a source is borderline WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, I think. If anyone has an explicit source, I can add it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.lords.org/latest-news/news-archive/mcc-give-switch-hit-all-clear,1077,NS.html is the most straightforward one that I can find. Tintin 02:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(d) "However, there was a clause in the 1744 laws which gave umpires the power to take action if the batsman was "standing unfair to strike" - From a quick check it seems to refer to fielders, not batsmen - "They are sole judges of all hindrances, crossing ye Players in running, and standing unfair to strike, and in any case of hindrances may order a Notch to be scored." Please check this again. Tintin 02:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source I use explicitly links lbw to this clause, and we have to follow the sources unless a better source contradicts it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll send a mail to BlackJack on whether it is Brodribb's own interpretation or a universally accepted one. If it does refer to lbw, there would be some batsmen given out that way and BJ would know. Tintin 02:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No reply from BlackJack. So will pass for now. Tintin 13:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 * It's good to get Tintin's views because he's a real expert on the laws, far more so than I am. I'm happy to leave him to comment on the history of the LBW law and confine myself to a couple of remarks about the intro and the definition sections. It all reads pretty well, I reckon, but then I rather expect that of your work – you set yourself a very high standard!
 * I think the intro is a bit too detailed (and a bit daunting for non-cricket people), and probably needs to have just the simple definition, an explanation of why such a law is needed, and then a sentence or so to say that what sounds like a very simple law actually is both complex (because of later modifications to the simple rule) and controversial (because of the element of subjectivity in its adjudication). You could quote Brodribb in the intro: "No dismissal has produced so much argument as L.B.W."
 * Then you come to the detailed definition, and here I think you might usefully use bulletpoints to clarify the non-straightforward criteria that are now in the laws: the occasions where pitching off-line and hitting the batsman out-of-line can now produce a dismissal, and the converse side where no dismissal will result.
 * BTW is the Brodribb reference correct at 1995? Maybe that's the edition you have: mine is 1952, so doesn't have modern changes to the laws or modern examples of incidents connected to them. Johnlp (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, trimmed back the lead and took out all the technical stuff. Also added the Brodribb quote. Re the bullets, I'm not too sure about bullets here. I'm not too sure the MOS would approve and I have vague hopes of GA/FA in future. And personally, I don't like 'em! But happy to be persuaded otherwise. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're probably right about bullets, though they do help in lists, which this sort-of is (List of circs in which you can be out LBW, followed by list of circs in which you can't). But maybe it was that I stuttered a bit over the "However" in the first paragraph and the footnotes, and also the bit about appealing and no-balls seemed in a strange order. It could be just a case of re-paragraphing and trying to bring the explanation provided by the footnotes into the text (which would I think help the non-cricket readers). Johnlp (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a proper look at the article yet, but for the "Development of the law" section, you may find "Dates in Cricket History" from the 1978 Wisden useful. (Versions of the article appeared in a number of other Wisden editions over the years, but this is the one that's available online.) See in particular the "EVOLUTION OF THE LAWS OF CRICKET" section, which devotes a subsection to lbw. JH (talk page) 21:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look now, but so far I haven't got beyond the lead, because IMO it needs a lot of work. I've made a few improvements to the wording, but have the following more substantive points:

 * "Following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire will rule a batsman out lbw if the ball would have struck the wicket but was intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat." Suggest: "Following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire will rule a batsman out lbw if the ball would have struck the wicket but was intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat or his hand holding the bat."

 * "However, the laws of cricket only allow a batsman to be given out leg before wicket in a certain set of conditions, which take account of the side of the pitch on which the ball was bowled, and where the batsman is struck in relation to the wickets." The second part of the sentence seems likely to confuse, and this much detail isn't really needed in the lead. How about moving the sentence to the start of the next para and merging it with the following sentence to give: "However, the laws of cricket only allow a batsman to be given out leg before wicket in a certain set of conditions; as a result the leg before wicket law is often described as the most complicated law in cricket, and the one which the general public find the most difficult to understand."

 * "The law arose when prominent batsmen..." I don't think you need "prominent".

 * "The law arose when prominent batsmen began to use their pads to prevent the ball hitting their wicket." I think the law actually predates the use of pads. The law dates from 1774, whereas (apart from one early experimenter) I think pads only came in during the first half of the 19th century.

JH (talk page) 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All these done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One other thought: the claim at the very end of the lead that the use of technology has led to an increase in lbw dismissals needs a citation to support it. There are probably a few other places in the lead where a citation would be a good idea. JH (talk page) 09:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A citation is not needed in the lead as long as one is provided in the main body, which is the case here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Current definition is wrong?
I don't think that the following sentence is correct: "However, the batsman is also lbw if he has not attempted to hit the ball with his bat, it strikes him outside the off stump and would have gone on to hit the wickets". This scenario is already covered by the preceding text. Rather than an "also", I think that what is required is an "except": "However the batsman is not out lbw if the ball strikes him outside the off stump and he has made a genuine attempt to hit the ball (but failed to do so)". What do other people think please?Zin92 (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The two sentences are: "For the batsman to be lbw, the ball must pitch in line with the wickets at either end of the pitch, or on the off side of the stumps. Then the ball must strike any part of the batsman's body, without first touching his bat, in line with the wickets and have been going on to hit the stumps. However, the batsman is also lbw if he has not attempted to hit the ball with his bat, it strikes him outside the off stump and would have gone on to hit the wickets." The first sentence does not refer to the ball striking outside off stump and therefore this is not covered by the preceding text as these are two separate considerations: where it pitches and where it strikes the batsman. And regarding the second sentence, my personal view is that it is better to say when the batsman IS rather than IS NOT lbw: for example, he is not out lbw if he hits the ball, or it would not have struck the stumps, or it is too high, etc. Furthermore, this is how it is covered in the laws. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed but I obviously found it difficult to appreciate the difference between the scenarios described in the second and third sentences. So how about we change them to read: "Then without first touching his bat, the ball must strike any part of the batsman's body in line with the wickets and have been going on to hit the stumps. Or, if he has not attempted to hit the ball with his bat, strike any part of the batsman's body outside the off stump and have being going on to hit the stumps."? To my mind, this makes it easier to appreciate the difference between the two scenarios. Zin92 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you are getting at: the "however" can lead to some confusion. I've altered this, but I think the rest of the wording is better as it currently stands. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ball continuing in a straight line reference is wrong?
It is currently stated that "It is assumed that the ball would have continued in a straight line after hitting the batsman, even if it would have bounced before striking the stumps" and that this is as per reference 3. I don't think that this is an accurate cite of reference 3. There is nothing in reference 3 to the ball continuing in a straight line. What do other people think please?Zin92 (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The law currently states (given in ref 3): "In assessing point (e) in 1 above [the ball would have hit the wicket], it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not." It does not say "straight line" but per close paraphrasing and copyvio, we cannot just copy the text from the laws. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can use "straight line" though because the ball may swing and the umpire will take this into account when assessing where the ball would have gone if it hadn't struck the batsman. Zin92 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are spot on and I have changed this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference
Overall I love the way this is, but any authoritative work on the Laws must surely cite Marylebone Cricket Club, Tom Smith's Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011 ISBN 978-0-297-866441-1.

In addition to Law 36 verbatim, it contains 13 photos and some 3000 words of authoritative commentary that explain how umpires should interpret the Law, and is used by all official umpires and scorers in the UK for their training and for reference; for all I know is used much more widely worldwide.

I'm not saying any of the current text needs to change, only that if the article is to be authoritative it must claim to be informed by this book.

Atconsul (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read this book before, and consulted it in expanding the article, but I can't say that it struck me that anything should be included. The book is more to help umpires than about the law itself, and I think the sourcing of the article is fine. The definitive work on the laws is probably Brodribb, in terms of their evolution and where they came from, as opposed to an umpire's guide. However, if anyone thinks it is important, the title could be added to a "Further reading" section. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 * One who has read it has been been informed by it. 'The definitive work on the laws is probably Brodribb' is a historian's view, not an umpire's. The comment reads as if the main use case supposed for the article is of someone trying to understand how cricket has evolved. I am very interested in that, too, but the main heading LBW should surely inform those who want to know how to play the game now, in fact that may be the most important use case, and for such a use Tom Smith is very important, and Broadribb inconsequential. Atconsul (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is stretching the purpose of an encyclopaedia article: it is not a coaching manual and should be aimed more at the general reader than aspiring players or umpires. It is for everyone, and the majority of readers will not be umpires. But if you think anything is missing, feel free to add it to the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

definition
A couple of details about the definition.

The text now says "]. Alternatively". The "]" is a typo. But alternatively to what? The text should mean alternatively to the specific criterion that it hits him in line with the wickets, but is open to interpretation.

In paraphrasing the Law, I think the text now says that the ball needs to *pitch* although the MCC guidelines are cited discussing the case when it doesn't. The ball doesn't have to pitch, and the only way it matters at all is that if it pitches outside leg it's not out.

One case that catches people out here is that if ball hits the batsman first without pitching, but ouside the line of leg stump, that's always not out.

By the way, on the historic side, the MCC guidance on this stems I believe from the modern re-introduction of leg spin as a weapon in Test cricket, and to the Pakistan legspinner Abdul Qadir's series in England in 1982 in particular. After his appeal against Botham at Lords was turned down when everyone agreed the ball had hit the batsman full toss in front of middle, the umpires were unsure if they were supposed to predict whether the ball was a leg break or a googly, a tremendous feat given that none of the England batsmen could do it. This was a big embarassment to HQ, given also the absence of any assumption of goodwill between the protagonist's administrators, an absence that shook the Establishment when an English umpire was later (1987) asked by the visitors to stand down in his own land (he didn't), and that culminated in the nadir of Faisalabad later in the same year with more or less the same cast of characters.

A lot of unnecessary vexation over the years has been caused by using the textual mode of argumentation, so beloved of the legal profession, to discuss, define and explain LBW. The *definition* is not really that hard if expressed in pictures, or the language of logic, and I dare say this is one of Hawkeye's least problematic programming tasks. The ACO (Association of Cricket Officials) published a Flowchart "LBW-WHY NOT?" for training umpires. Unfortunately this claims copyright ACO, but I can say that EVERY LBW question needs to satisfy exactly 7 tests to be out, except for the special case 'first point of impact outside the line of off stump' which requires the extra, eighth test 'was a genuine attempt made to play the ball with the bat?'

Since algorithms aren't copyright, I believe one can freely express it in one's own presentation, thus:

Atconsul (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I fixed the typo and took out "alternatively". Regarding "pitch", I cannot think of a better word to use, and I think it is accurate enough as a ball that does not bounce on the ground will still bounce on the batsman, so in that sense, it will still pitch. And the term is a "full pitch" too. If it doesn't pitch somewhere, it can't be lbw. In terms of leg side, the article covers this quite thoroughly, and I'm afraid I'm not too clear what you are asking with the rest of your comments. I've never heard the Abdul Qadir story (how he prompted the MCC guidance), and though I have no reason to doubt it, I'm not sure of its relevance to this article. And it would need to be referenced anyway. There is already an explanatory image in the text, and a link to an excellent illustration of the lbw "process". So I'm not sure what point you are making. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 * This is not the sense that practitioners use the word 'pitch' and its derivatives in this context. To pitch means to bounce on the pitch! The phrase "full pitch" means to reach the batsman without pitching. That's how Note 2 (ref 5) uses it "...The ball pitches in line with the wickets if, when bowled, it lands in the area directly between these stumps." That's also the sense in "The MCC guidance states ... strikes the batsman without pitching ... shorter time between the ball pitching and striking the batsman." The ball does NOT need to pitch to be LBW. So now it seems that that the error in the text is an error of interpretation, not of wording, and we get to the text "for the batsman to be adjudged lbw, the ball must pitch in line with the wickets or on the off side of the stumps," which is NOT true. This text does not correctly interpret Law 36.1(b), which also allows for the case when striker intercepts the ball full pitch, i.e. it allows him to be out LBW.
 * To me, this is splitting hairs a touch and not really a big deal. But I've reworded, taking it from the laws (which I just realised have changed url on the MCC website) and hopefully this resolves the issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 * "The umpire must assume that the ball would have continued on the same trajectory after striking the batsman, even if it would have bounced before hitting the stumps." This is where Qadir comes in. He made this Law. The references do exist to back up the case, but I'm not offering them so I am just chatting, but I intended this as an anecdote to back up the point about the full toss (phrase synonymous with full pitch, but not always used interchangeably) LBW, and attempting to illustrate what the words mean, which is what I think in general this article is very good at.
 * I seem to remember that this "interpretation" came rather more recently than that. There was some fuss about yorkers on broken pitches which would turn and miss the stumps, or some such. I don't have any older references to interpretation other than what the MCC provide; perhaps older editions of Tom Smith may have this? But not something I ever remember reading. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 * "In terms of leg side, the article covers this quite thoroughly." Following on the same theme above, the article says "However, he cannot be lbw if the ball pitches on the leg side of the stumps." That is correct. But it is not all there is to say. If the ball hits the batsman first without pitching, but outside the line of leg stump, that's always not out. That is another case to that of the ball pitching outside leg stump.
 * The laws do not explicitly say this, although it is clearly implied. A ref somewhere else may make the point better. I no longer have access to Tom Smith, but again, this may be covered in there if you feel it should be made explicit. I'm inclined to say we are OK as we are. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The law precisely covers this in 36.1.(d). But here the text vs logic problem is writ large: 36.1.(d).(i) covers first impact between the wickets, ,36.1.(d).(ii) covers first impact outside off. What remains is outside leg, so not out LBW. See the flowchart above! Atconsul (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "There is already an explanatory image in the text, and a link to an excellent illustration of the lbw "process". So I'm not sure what point you are making." Well the point I thought I was making is that it isn't as easy to write precisely and authoritatively about the definition of LBW as it seems, but from this exchange the main reason is that we have some definition of terms to nail down first. But even when that is done I think I will still want to make the case that the main heading LBW should surely inform those who want to know how to play the game now. Atconsul (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I say above, I think that would miss the point of an encyclopaedia slightly. If someone wanting to play or umpire is looking here to find things out, cricket has come to a pretty pass!

 * I don't really understand what WikiProject Cricket is about if this is part of the manifesto. Why would anyone want to promote the project if they didn't put participation - in its broadest sense - in cricket centre stage?

 * 'Those who want to know how to play the game now' is a broad use that encompasses the knowledgeable spectator and the curious who want to become knowledgeable. For those that look up LBW, I think such readers outnumber those just browsing or looking for a historical perspective. A coaching manual is different. Early on we have 'In his 1998 survey of cricket laws, Gerald Brodribb states...' which is an excellent jumping-off point. It demands a popular response that demystifies the *practice* of LBW in a way Wikipedia is best-placed to do.

 * Although, as I discuss, the Definition can be improved, I really don't want to add anything, maybe just finesse the structure. Here, the head piece quickly dives into Georgian history. Many readers won't come to the page for history at all. They want to get in, get the facts of LBW now and get out. If that's what they want to do they will come to Wikipedia, not Lords or ICC. If Wikipedia is accurate why go anywhere else? I'd rather they got the facts here than trying to guess them in conversation in the playground, clubhouse or stand, which is what they are doing without Wikipedia, although watching Hawkeye replays will genuinely elevate their understanding. I think this is the most important use case to address and should dictate the main flow. It should be possible to do it on a smart phone whilst standing at a bus stop.Atconsul (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 * That isn't really the way it works here. See WP:NOT, particularly WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTGUIDE. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Already read all this before posting. What is it about my use case that isn't really the way it works here? My reading of the style guides is that they don't encourage anyone to say what audience they *are* writing for or *why*, a major limitation, and one that isn't assessed in the QA which, interestingly, has been done by 'someone with a just-slightly-above-basic understanding of cricket'. What is the point about writing about the definition of LBW without directly addressing the most important use case? When I was a lad and read encyclopedias I didn't do it so that I could use snippets on Mastermind, I did it so that I could learn useful things. I also respect those that use them to learn interesting things. Atconsul (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And, having laboured for a long time trying to write a definition that is both correct, precise and intelligible to non-cricketers, I am very aware that it is not easy to write about. I would love to use some images, but copyright is the usual problem. Hence the suggestion to link to the BBC images for anyone who wants a more visual explanation. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 * And I appreciate both the labour expended and the difficulties encountered. Atconsul (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My last word on this, for we are going round in circles and I suspect neither of us is getting, or will get, the other's point. If you see problems, WP:SOFIXIT or present a concrete sourced wording here for discussion. Please bear in mind this is a Featured article which has been reviewed by several users, including cricket specialists, and any huge changes would need discussing. Otherwise, we are going nowhere fast. I don't particularly want to get into a philosophical debate here, so I will not reply further unless some practical changes are made or discussed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes I fully understand that point of view at least, although I must say I can't find anything that supports your statement that the article has been reviewed by 'cricket specialists' whatever that might entail. Do these specialists include coaches, umpires, administrators, players, journalists and fans?

 * If I were to be bold, I would

 * a) produce and include some graphical content for distribution as open-source,
 * b) combine it with some non-sentence-text expression of the logic of the Definition as I have outlined, probably making more use of bullet-list or other list-style presentation for technical explanatory text there
 * and
 * c) somewhat reorganise the flow so that current-fact-seekers are as well-served as historical/browsing readers (I'm not clear if you do agree that this is the essence of the non-consensus we are discovering).

 * However, I really don't care to invest that much if the result is going to be that someone claims consensus around the position that 'That isn't really the way it works here.' I'm not *that* bold. So over to you and your consensus: are you open to an improvement of the article in that way or would you prefer to stick?

Atconsul (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I like the algorithm approach. Wizzy… ☎ 06:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

lbw?
Leg before wicket (lbw) is one of the ways in which a batsman can be dismissed in the sport of cricket. The basis of the law is that, following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire may rule a batsman out lbw76.218.104.120 (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, bad eyesight i guess, my eyes must have jumped over the explanation.76.218.104.120 (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

DRS and Hawkeye
The article covers the use of Hawkeye in the Desicion Review System (DRS) and also says that is regarded as 100 % accurate. This last part is not the case in actual use. Hawkeye is regarded as having an error and as a result half the diameter of the ball belongs to the umpire during any DRS review.

For example say, following an appeal for a wicket, the umpire calls, "Not out!, the fielding side calls for a review. During the review, Hawkeye clearly shows that the ball would have hit (say) off stump, but half the ball's diameter or less was attempting to occupy the same space as the stump, the umpires original decision of "Not out" will stand.  The reverse situation is also the case if a finger is raised following the appeal.

The article also fails to explain why the LBW law is as complex as it is. It is based on the simple philosophy that the batsman has to stand somewhere. The batsman cannot be out LBW if the ball pitches on the leg side of the stumps because that is where he has to stand to guard his wicket. Similarly, the batsman cannot be out LBW if the ball pitches outside off stump because he has to step in front of the wicket in order to play such a ball (providing that he is genuinely attempting to do so). 86.140.30.40 (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there any reliable sources which say this? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 * It is pointed out by the TV broadcasters every time an LBW decision is referred to the third umpire where the ball passes close to the edge of the stumps one way or the other. Sky Sports would therefore be the reliable source.  The third umpires themselves are thus a secondary source because they regularly apply the rule as given.  The area of half a ball's diameter around the outside of the stumps and just inside the stumps is known as the 'umpire's call' area.  I note that the article on Umpire Decision Review System has a more complex set of rules but they are totally uncited (and now tagged).

 * There was a blunder in a match between South Africa and Pakistan where third umpire Billy Bowden misapplied the rules (I have sufficient faith in Bowden to assume it was a misunderstanding of the rules). Jaques Kallis was given out 'caught' by the on field umpire (Steve Davis if memory serves - obviously not playing snooker that day!). Kallis immediately referred the decision 'upstairs'.  Bowden confirmed that the ball had not touched Kallis's bat but had brushed his pad.  He then observed that Hawkeye showed that the ball would have clipped the leg stump (within the half ball's diameter) had it not been deflected by Kallis's pad and altered the on field umpire's decision to 'out LBW'.  Following the inevitable row, the ICC issued a statement stating that Bowden had (incorrectly) applied the principle that the fielders' appeal covers all forms of dismissal.  The statement went on to state that the on field decision of 'out' only applied to the mode of dismissal actually given by the umpire.  If the third umpire then considers other modes of dismissal, then they must be considered as though a 'not out' on field decision was given as the third umpire is overturning the on field umpire's decision.  The benefit of doubt therefore belongs to the batsman.  In Kallis's case above, the LBW decision should have been a 'not out'.

 * There are those (including myself and one Sir Ian Botham) who believe that the side referring the decision should not lose a referral when the umpire's decision is not overturned because the ball is less than half a ball's diameter into reversing the decision. 86.145.141.55 (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On reflection, and I still don't see any reliable sources directly identified here, perhaps this is an issue for the DRS or Hawkeye articles rather than about the lbw article. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 * "Hawkeye is regarded as having an error and as a result..." The half-ball allowance and the imperfect nature of Hawkeye are not particularly related, so the citations needed do not exist. Even if Hawkeye were so accurate that it didn't need discussing, the half-ball allowance would still pertain. It is there to protect the primacy of the Umpire's judgement and the principle of benefit of doubt to the batsman. If Hawkeye shows that the ball would have just clipped the stump but the Umpire has given it Not Out he is not to be gainsaid, and his decision is correct! In such a case the batsman has always had the benefit of doubt, and good umpires have always supported them in that principle. See the existing citations. It would be good to have access to more source material about the social processes in world cricket administration that have got us here, but they probably don't exist. I for one am happy that we retain the principle that the batsman isn't out because a human umpire is rightly uncertain, for at least three reasons: a) the principles in use in cricket should be largely the same whether played at Test level or in the park, b) batting is hard enough anyway, whatever Angus Fraser and his pals may write, and as the article already cites, DRS wasn't supposed to change the nature of the game and c) umpiring is hard too, and will and should always be needed. By the way, for the reasons stated it's difficult to offload this discussion from the main LBW section Atconsul (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Main page summary
The WP Front Page has "...and wrong lbw decisions have sometimes caused crowd trouble." For some reason the word "wrong" has been added, which is not in the article. In the context in which the rules are not fully understood, a correct lbw could equally have the same effect. Of course, this textual matter won't matter after today. Davidships (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As the person who wrote the main page summary, I'd point out that the word "wrong" was in the article when I scheduled it for today's Ashes-appropriate appearance. It was removed some time later.  I'll update the TFA blurb accordingly. BencherliteTalk 12:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, my fault! Sorry about that, I forgot to update the blurb. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. BencherliteTalk 13:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both Davidships (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hits batsman outside leg on full toss?
The article mentions that (a) the batsman is not out if the ball pitches outside leg and (b) if it strikes the batsman outside off and he or she wasn't offering a stroke. Fine. But what if it strikes the batsman outside leg, without pitching (I.e. on a full toss). One could infer that since neither of the mentioned exceptions are satisfied, it is out. But is that so? I genuinely don t know and It would satisfy my curiosity if the article covered that aspect t... — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been had earlier on the page in the "definition" section. Basically, it was thought that to specifically mention this would make the article clunky, and that the ball striking the batsman was considered the ball "pitching". To answer the question directly, it would be not out.  Harrias  talk 06:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Bat as appendage
From the lead: "intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat. "

The bat is not part of the striker's person. This should be clarified to reflect that the gloves on hands holding the bat are the only part of the batsman on which they can be hit to prevent being correctly given out. I would change it but I can't think of how to write this concisely. Hack (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

 * The wording in the Laws of cricket would cover the point. The words are (slightly altered to avoid copyvio) that the ball must strike, "... the batsman's person, cothing or equipment but not the bat or a hand holding the bat.".  The hand holding the bat is considered to include a glove.  The hand is also considered to only extend as far as the wrist.  86.145.241.183 (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Law 6 was changed a few years ago to suggest any part of a glove worn on a hand holding the bat was the same as striking the ball with a bat. Hack (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear enough in the main body, but I've reworded the lead a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leg before wicket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212233339/http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws-in-action/law-36-in-action/ to http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws-in-action/law-36-in-action/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The usage of capitalization in regards to LBW
Common usage of the LBW rule is to capitalize when referring to the rule, but when referring to scorecard it is not capitalized and reads as lbw. If the discussion is about how many lbws in a game, for example. But most media refers to the rule by the acronym LBW. When writing it out, should it also be capitalized as Leg Before Wicket as is normal with writing out acronyms?

See:

 * https://www.google.com/search?biw=1252&bih=614&ei=0WXqWovAA4P48QWNiJOQAg&q=site%3Aicc-cricket.com+lbw+rule&oq=site%3Aicc-cricket.com+lbw+rule&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10172.11212.0.11488.5.5.0.0.0.0.228.906.2-4.4.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.cslU1Fe7Y5s

vs.

 * https://www.google.com/search?biw=1252&bih=614&ei=NGjqWpSxONTM8wXxmZjYDA&q=site%3Aicc-cricket.com+lbw&oq=site%3Aicc-cricket.com+lbw&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0.0.4860.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.FHvhD4G7vgU

Brett Johnston (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 * From memory, I don't think it's usual to capitalise it when written out in full. I don't think it's worth worrying about too much, though. JH (talk page) 07:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Leg before wicket


text:
Terry Halpin

Terence Aidan (Terry) Halpin (born 1950s) is an Australian computer scientist who is known for his formalization of the [[object–role modeling] notation.

Biography
Born in Australia, Halpin studied at the University of Queensland starting in the 1970s and eventually received a BSc, DipEd, BA, MLitStud and in 1989 a PhD with the thesis "A logical analysis of information systems : static aspects of the data-oriented perspective" under John Staples.

In the 1970s he started working at the University of Queensland at the Key Centre for Software Technology at the Department of Computer Science, which he combined with some work in industry on database modeling.

In the 1990s he moved to industry heading the database research at multiple software companies, including Visio Corporation. When this company was acquired by Microsoft he became Program Manager in Database Modeling, and worked on the "conceptual and logical database modeling technology in Microsoft Visio for Enterprise Architects".

In the new millennium back in academia he was Professor at Neumont University, focusing on "business rules approach to informatics". In 2009 he switched back to industry becoming a Principal Scientist at LogicBlox, and became a part-time Professor at INTI International University in Malaysia.

Halpin is a member of IFIP WG 8.1 (Design and Evaluation of Information Systems). He has been editor for multiple academic journals. And he several workshops and conferences on modeling both industry and academia.

Work
Halpin's research interest is in the field of "conceptual modeling and conceptual query technology for information systems, using a business rules approach".

Object-role modeling
With his doctoral thesis Halpin (1989) formalized object-role modeling (ORM), a "method for designing and querying database models at the conceptual level, where the application is described in terms easily understood by non-technical users".

Publications
Halpin has authored several books and over 150 technical papers. A selection of books:
 * 1978. Inductive and Practical Reasoning. With Rod Girle, Corinne Miller & Geoff Williams. Rotecoge,
 * 1981. Deductive Logic, 2nd edn. With Rod Girle. Logiqpress.
 * 1989. Conceptual Schema and Relational Database Design. With G.M. Nijssen. Prentice Hall, Sydney. ISBN 978-0-13-167263-5
 * 2001. Information Modeling and Relational Databases: From Conceptual Analysis to Logical Design. Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 1-55860-672-6.
 * 2001. Unified Modeling Language: Systems Analysis, Design and Development Issues. With Keng Siau (editors). ISBN 978-1-930708-05-1
 * 2003. Database Modeling with Microsoft Visio for Enterprise Architects. With Ken Evans, Pat Hallock, & Bill MacLean. Morgan Kaufmann.
 * 2005. Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies. With John Krogstie and Keng Siau (editors).
 * 2008. Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Second Edition. With Tony Morgan. Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 978-0-12-373568-3.

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

title: Terry Halpin


text:
Newton's Cannon

Newton's Cannon (1998) is a science fantasy novel by American writer Gregory Keyes, the first book in his The Age of Unreason series. The protagonist for the novel is Benjamin Franklin; other key characters to the novel are James Franklin – Ben's brother, John Collins – Ben's friend, as well as Adrienne and King Louis XIV – the Sun King.

The Age of Unreason Series
The other three novels of the series are:
 * A Calculus of Angels
 * Empire of Unreason
 * The Shadow of Gods

title: Newton's Cannon


text:
HM Revenue and Customs

His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (commonly HM Revenue and Customs, or HMRC) is a non-ministerial department of the UK Government responsible for the collection of taxes, the payment of some forms of state support, the administration of other regulatory regimes including the national minimum wage and the issuance of national insurance numbers. HMRC was formed by the merger of the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise, which took effect on 18 April 2005. The department's logo is the Tudor Crown enclosed within a circle.

Departmental responsibilities
The department is responsible for the administration and collection of direct taxes including Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and Inheritance Tax (IHT), indirect taxes including Value Added Tax (VAT), excise duties and Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT), and environmental taxes such as Air Passenger Duty and the Climate Change Levy. Other aspects of the department's responsibilities include National Insurance Contributions (NIC), the distribution of Child Benefit and some other forms of state support including the Child Trust Fund, payments of Tax Credits, enforcement of the National Minimum Wage, administering anti-money laundering registrations for Money Service Businesses and collection and publication of the trade-in-goods statistics. Responsibility for the protection of the UK's borders passed to the UK Border Agency within the Home Office on 1 April 2008 and then to UK Border Force and the National Crime Agency in 2013..

Powers of officers
HMRC is a law enforcement agency which has a strong cadre of criminal investigators responsible for investigating Serious Organised Fiscal Crime. This includes all of the previous HMCE criminal work (other than drug trafficking but used to include this up until 2008) such as tobacco, alcohol, and oils smuggling. They have aligned their previous Customs and Excise powers to tackle previous Inland Revenue criminal offences. They are responsible for seizing (or preventing the loss of) billions of stolen pounds of HMG's revenue. Their skills and resources include the full range of intrusive and covert surveillance and they are a senior partner in the Organised Crime Partnership Board.

HMRC criminal investigation officers have wide-ranging powers of arrest, entry, search and detention. HMRC have the power to apply for orders requiring information to be produced; apply for and execute search warrants; make arrests; search suspects and premises following arrest; and recover criminal assets through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

The main power, under section 138 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (as amended by section 114 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) is to arrest anyone who has committed, or whom the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed, any offence under the Customs and Excise Acts as well as related fraud offences.

On 30 June 2006, under the authority of the new Labour home secretary, John Reid, extensive new powers were given to HMRC. Under chairman Sir David Varney, a new Criminal Taxes Unit of senior tax investigators was created to target suspected fraudsters and criminal gangs. To disrupt and clamp down on criminal activity. This HMRC/CTU would pursue suspects in the same way the US Internal Revenue Service caught out Al Capone on tax evasion. These new powers included the ability to impose penalties without needing to prove the guilt of suspected criminals; extra powers to use sophisticated surveillance techniques, and for the first time, to have the same ability as customs officers to monitor suspects and arrest them. On 19 July 2006, the executive chairman of HMRC, Sir David Varney resigned.

HMRC is also listed under parts of the British government which contribute to intelligence collection, analysis and assessment. Their prosecution cases may be co-ordinated with the police or the Crown Prosecution Service.

History
The merger of the Inland Revenue and HM Customs & Excise was announced by then chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown in the budget on 17 March 2004. The name for the new department and its first executive chairman, David Varney, were announced on 9 May 2004. Varney joined the nascent department in September 2004, and staff started moving from Somerset House and New Kings Beam House into HMRC's new headquarters building at 100 Parliament Street in Whitehall on 21 November 2004.

The planned new department was announced formally in the Queen's Speech of 2004 and a bill, the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill, was introduced into the House of Commons on 24 September 2004, and received royal assent as the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 on 7 April 2005. The Act also creates a Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (RCPO) responsible for the prosecution of all Revenue and Customs cases.

The old Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise departments had very different historical bases, internal cultures and legal powers. The merger was described by the Financial Times on 9 July 2004, as "mating the C&E terrier with the IR retriever". For an interim period officers of HMRC are empowered to use existing Inland Revenue powers in relation to matters within the remit of the old Inland Revenue (such as income tax, stamp duty and tax credits) and existing Customs powers in relation to matters within the remit of the old Customs & Excise (such as value added tax and excise duties). However, a major review of the powers required by HMRC was announced at the time of the 2004 pre-budget report on 9 December 2004, covering the suitability of existing powers, new powers that might be required, and consolidating the existing compliance regimes for surcharges, interest, penalties and appeal, which may lead to a single, consolidated enforcement regime for all UK taxes, and a consultation document was published after the 2005 budget on 24 March 2005. Legislation to introduce new information and inspection powers was included in the Finance Act 2008 (Schedule 36). The new consolidated penalty regime was introduced via the Finance Act 2007 (Schedule 24). As part of the spending review on 12 July 2004, Gordon Brown estimated that 12,500 jobs would be lost as result of the merger by March 2008, around 14% of the combined headcount of Customs (then around 23,000) and Inland Revenue (then around 68,000). In addition, 2,500 staff would be redeployed to "front-line" activities. Estimates suggested this may save around £300 million in staff costs, out of a total annual budget of £4 billion.

The total number of job losses included policy functions within the former Inland Revenue and Customs which moved into the Treasury, so that the Treasury became responsible for "strategy and tax policy development" and HMRC took responsibility for "policy maintenance". In addition, certain investigatory functions moved to the new Serious Organised Crime Agency, as well as prosecutions moving to the new Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office.

A further programme of job cuts and office closures was announced on 16 November 2006. Whilst some of the offices closed were in bigger cities where other offices already exist, many were in local, rural areas, where there is no other HMRC presence. Initial proposals indicated that up to 200 offices would close and a further 12,500 jobs lost from 2008 to 2011. In May 2009, staff morale in HMRC was the lowest of 11 government departments surveyed.

In 2013, HMRC began to introduce an update to the PAYE system, which meant it would receive information on tax and employee earnings from employers each month, rather than at the end of a tax year. A trial of the new system began in April 2012, and all employers switched by October 2013.

In 2012, Revenue Scotland was formed and on 1 April 2015 it took HMRC responsibility to collect devolved taxes in Scotland. In 2015 Welsh Revenue Authority was formed and on 1 April 2018 it took HMRC responsibility to collect devolved taxes in Wales.

On 12 November 2015, HMRC proposed to replace local offices with 13 regional centres by 2027.

Governance structure
The board is composed of members of the executive committee and non-executive directors. Its main role is to develop and approve HMRC’s overall strategy, approve final business plans and advise the chief executive on key appointments. It also performs an assurance role and advises on best practice.

The Treasury minister responsible for HMRC is the financial secretary to the Treasury, Nigel Huddleston MP

Chairman
The chairman of HMRC was an executive role until 2008. Mike Clasper served as a non-executive chairman. From August 2012, the post was abolished with a 'lead non-executive director' chairing board meetings instead.

 * Sir David Varney April 2005 – August 2006
 * Paul Gray (acting) September 2006 – February 2007 and (confirmed) February 2007 – November 2007
 * Dave Hartnett CB (acting) 2007 – 31 July 2008
 * Mike Clasper CBE 1 August 2008 – 1 August 2012

Chief Executive
The chief executive is also the first permanent secretary for HMRC and the accounting officer.

 * Dame Lesley Strathie 2008–2011
 * Dame Lin Homer 2012–2016
 * Sir Jon Thompson 2016–2019
 * Sir Jim Harra 2019–present

Executive chair and permanent secretary
 * Sir Edward Troup April 2016 – January 2018

Non-executive board members
Non-executive board members as of November 2019:

 * Mervyn Walker (lead non-executive director)
 * Michael Hearty
 * Simon Ricketts
 * Alice Maynard
 * Juliette Scott
 * Paul Morton
 * Patricia Gallan

Personnel
Source:
 * Permanent secretary
 * Director general
 * Director
 * Deputy director
 * Grade 6
 * Grade 7
 * Senior officer
 * Higher officer
 * Officer
 * Assistant officer
 * Administrative assistant

See civil service grading schemes for details.

Performance
HMRC collected £660 billion for the Treasury in 2018/19. It estimated that total theoretical tax liabilities in that year were £629 billion, but £31 billion was not collected due to the "tax gap", made up of money lost to tax evasion, tax avoidance, error and unpaid tax debts. This equates to a collection rate of 95.3% (up from 92.7% in 2005-6). At the end of March 2009, HMRC was managing 20 million 'open' cases (where the department’s systems identify discrepancies in taxpayer records or are unable to match a return to a record) which could affect around 4.5 million individuals who may have overpaid in total some £1.6 billion of tax and a further 1.5 million individuals who may have underpaid in total some £400 million of tax.

HMRC guidance notes that flexible arrangements can be made, where necessary, to assist individuals and businesses who have unpaid tax debts. Such "Time to Pay arrangements", for example an agreed monthly payment schedule, are based on the debtor's specific financial circumstances and the guidance notes that no "standard" Time to Pay arrangement exists. Interest is payable on a Time to Pay arrangement.

In 2007–08 HMRC overpaid tax credits to the value of £1 billion; at the end of March 2009, HMRC had £4.4 billion of overpayments to be recovered.

Child benefit records misplacement
On 20 November 2007, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, announced that two discs that held the personal details of all families in the United Kingdom claiming child benefit had gone missing. This is thought to affect approximately 25 million individuals and 7.5 million families in the UK. The missing discs include personal details such as name, date of birth, National Insurance number, and bank details.

The then chancellor stated that there was no indication that the details had fallen into criminal hands; however, he urged people to monitor their bank accounts.

IT problems
EDS ran the Inland Revenue's tax and National Insurance system from 1994 to 2004. In 2003, the launch of a new tax credit system led to over-payments of £2 billion to over two million people. EDS later paid £71.25 million in compensation for the disaster. In 2004, the contract was awarded to Capgemini. This contract, also with Fujitsu and BT, was one of the biggest ever IT outsourcing contracts, at a value of £2.6 billion.

In February 2010, HMRC encountered problems following the implementation of their taxes modernisation program called Modernising Pay-as-you-Earn Processes for Customers (MPPC). The IT system was launched in June 2009 and its first real test came in a period known as annual coding. Annual coding issues certain codes to tax payers on a yearly basis. The annual coding process sent out incorrect tax coding notices to some taxpayers and their employers meaning that they would pay too much tax the following year.

Underpayments to ethnic minority claimants
In August 2010, seven HMRC staff were sacked for deliberately underpaying benefits to ethnic-minority claimants. Dave Hartnett, permanent secretary for tax at HMRC, said the department operates a zero-tolerance policy on racial discrimination.

Goldman Sachs deal and surveillance of Osita Mba
The whistleblower Osita Mba revealed to The Guardian that HMRC entered a deal with Goldman Sachs which allowed Goldman Sachs to escape paying £10 million interest on unpaid tax. Following this HMRC used powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) "to examine the belongings, emails, internet search records and phone calls of their own solicitor, Osita Mba, and the phone records of his then wife" to find if he had spoken to the investigations editor of The Guardian, David Leigh.

MPs in the House of Commons public accounts committee praised Osita Mba and called for scrutiny into HMRC's use of RIPA powers in a report. The report said: "We are deeply disappointed by HMRC's handling of whistleblowers. We consider that HMRC's use of powers reserved for tackling serious criminals against Mr Osita Mba was indefensible. HMRC told us that it had changed how it deals with whistleblowers and that it now provides information to its audit and risk committee who can use this to challenge how HMRC handles whistleblowers."

Call waiting times
In September 2015, a report from Citizens Advice highlighted frustration amongst callers to HMRC over long holding times. The report claimed that "thousands" of callers were waiting on average 47 minutes to have their call answered, often at considerable expense to the caller. HMRC alleged that the "unscientific and out-of-date survey of tweets" did "not represent the real picture" but said that 3000 extra staff had been taken on to respond to calls. A June 2015 report from the National Audit Office indicated that the total number of calls answered by HMRC fell from 79% in 2013–14, to 72.5% in 2014–15, however a subsequent report in May 2016 suggested that performance improved following the recruitment drive.

Revenue and Customs Digital Technology Services
Revenue and Customs Digital Technology Services (RCDTS) is a subsidiary of HMRC established in 2015 to provide technical and digital services. The company works exclusively for HMRC and its employees are not civil servants. On 17 January 2022, HMRC announced its intention to wind up the company.

title: HM Revenue and Customs


text:
Operator

Operator may refer to:

Mathematics

 * A symbol indicating a mathematical operation
 * Logical operator or logical connective in mathematical logic
 * Operator (mathematics), mapping that acts on elements of a space to produce elements of another space, e.g.:
 * Linear operator
 * Differential operator
 * Integral operator (disambiguation)
 * Operational calculus

Computers

 * Computer operator, an occupation
 * Operator (computer programming), a type of computer program function
 * Operator (extension), an extension for the Firefox web browser, for reading microformats
 * Operator pattern, a provisioning automation and auto-scaling strategy for Kubernetes
 * Ableton Operator, a software synthesizer developed by Ableton

Science

 * Operator (biology), a segment of DNA regulating the activity of genes
 * Operator (linguistics), a special category including wh- interrogatives
 * Operator (physics), mathematical operators in quantum physics

Music

 * Operator (band), an American hard rock band
 * Operators, a synth pop band led by Dan Boeckner
 * Operator (album), a 2016 album by Mstrkrft
 * "Operator" (Motown song), a 1965 song recorded by Mary Wells and Brenda Holloway
 * "Operator" (That's Not the Way It Feels), a 1972 song by Jim Croce from You Don't Mess Around with Jim
 * "Operator" (Midnight Star song) (1984), a 1984 #1 R&B/electronic dance single
 * "Operator" (A Girl Like Me), a 2008 song by Shiloh
 * "Operator", a 1970 song by the Grateful Dead from American Beauty
 * "Operator", a 1975 song by the Manhattan Transfer from The Manhattan Transfer
 * "Operator", a 1986 song by Little Richard from Lifetime Friend
 * "Operator", a 1993 song by Blue System from Backstreet Dreams
 * "Operator", a 1995 song by Real McCoy from Another Night
 * "Operator", a 1998 song by Miss Papaya from Pink
 * "Operator" (Floy Joy song), a song by British group Floy Joy

Fiction

 * Operator No. 5, a pulp fiction hero from the 1930s
 * Operator, a fictional group in the Ghost in the Shell series
 * Operator (2015 film), a 2015 American action thriller drama film starring Luke Goss
 * Operator (2016 film), a 2016 American comedy-drama film starring Martin Starr and Mae Whitman
 * The Operator (film), a 2000 film
 * The Operator (Marble Hornets), an entity that stalks the main characters in Marble Hornets. It is also known as the Slender Man.
 * Operator (play), a 2005 play by David Williamson

Duties

 * Operator (profession), a professional designation used in various industries, e.g.:
 * Switchboard operator, a occupation at a company offering telephone services
 * Heavy equipment operator, operates heavy equipment used in engineering and construction projects
 * Operator (military), a soldier in a special operations force
 * Operator (law enforcement), a law enforcement officer who has been trained and certified as an operator to serve on a SWAT team

Other uses

 * Operator (sternwheeler), a 1909 ship on the Skeena River
 * Network operator, a phone carrier
 * System operator, commonly abbreviated as sysop
 * Operator grammar, a theory of human language

title: Operator


text:
Llandrinio

Llandrinio is a small village and community in Montgomeryshire, Powys, Wales, close to the Wales-England border. It is situated on the B4393 road which travels from the village of Ford, Shropshire to Lake Vyrnwy. The community, Llandrinio and Arddleen includes Arddlin and a small part of Four Crosses, Powys.

Llandrinio community is home to 1,485 people (2011 census).

The mainly Norman church of St Trunio is a Grade II* listed building.

The village has a village hall and a playing field, which is used by the local cricket team and the junior football teams. The annual carnival has been opened by well-known faces such as actor Ryan Thomas. The River Severn and Offa's Dyke both run through the village. The river is crossed by Llandrinio Bridge which leads to the hamlet of Crew Green, about a mile east of the village and close to English border. The village is also road linked to the towns of Welshpool, Oswestry, Newtown and Shrewsbury.

Governance
An electoral ward in the same name exists. This ward had a population of 2,191 at the 2011 Census.

title: Llandrinio


text:
Talk:2010s

"Tenties" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tenties&redirect=no Tenties] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Collage picture
Why has the collage pictures been removed, like for other decades. Is this a new rule? 81.111.233.1 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See WT:WikiProject Years. Jay  💬 05:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Collage
It appears an RFC on collages on Wikiproject years will be interpreted to also ban collages in decade articles. Users here may wish to participate. User:Koopinator

 * For any editors too lazy to review the RFC, it remained an ongoing discussion and as of February 2024 the result appears to be a weak consensus to keep these collages. Ertal72 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

We should remove Frutiger Aero from the gallery
The gallery on the page is already way too long as it as, and a software aesthetic is not important enough to warrant a mention when the article is already wayyyy to long, especially the gallery. I have never heard that term until the 2020s started, and the term doesn’t even have its own wikipedia page, referencing Windows Aero, which Came out in 2007 and was already on its way out in 2012. FFS, the term doesn’t even appear on google trends towards until after the 2010s are over. @DanGrizzy1203 For all these reasons, it should be removed from the article. -1ctinus📝 🗨  11:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:2010s


text:
User:Toomin

email: toomin at gmail dot com MSN: toomin1@hotmail.com

title: User:Toomin


text:
Erna Solberg

Erna Solberg (born 24 February 1961) is a Norwegian politician and the current Leader of the Opposition. She served as the 35th prime minister of Norway from 2013 to 2021, and has been Leader of the Conservative Party since May 2004.

Solberg was first elected to the Storting in 1989, and served as Minister of Local Government and Regional Development in Bondevik's Second Cabinet from 2001 to 2005. During her tenure, she oversaw the tightening of immigration policy and the preparation of a proposed reform of the administrative divisions of Norway. After the 2005 election, she chaired the Conservative Party parliamentary group until 2013. Solberg has emphasized the social and ideological basis of Conservative policies, though the party also has become visibly more pragmatic.

After winning the September 2013 election, Solberg became prime minister of Norway, the second woman to hold the position, after Gro Harlem Brundtland. Solberg's Cabinet, often informally called the "Blue-Blue Cabinet", was initially a two-party minority government consisting of the Conservative and Progress parties. The cabinet established a formalized cooperation with the Liberal and Christian Democratic parties in the Storting. The government was reelected in the 2017 election and was extended to include the Liberal Party in January 2018. This extended minority coalition is informally called the "Blue-Green cabinet". In May 2018, Solberg surpassed Kåre Willoch to become the longest-serving prime minister of Norway from the Conservative Party. The government was further extended in January 2019 to include the Christian Democratic Party, and thereby secured a majority in Parliament. On 13 September 2021, following the parliamentary election which overturned her government's majority in the Storting, she conceded defeat, leaving it to the Labour Party's Jonas Gahr Støre to form a new government. On 12 October 2021, Solberg and her government tendered their resignations to King Harald V, clearing the way for Støre to form a new government, which was finalised two days later. She then returned to being the Leader of the Opposition.

Early life and education
Solberg was born 24 February 1961 in Bergen in western Norway and grew up in the affluent Kalfaret neighbourhood. Her father, Asbjørn Solberg (1925–1989), worked as a consultant in the Bergen Sporvei, and her mother, Inger Wenche Torgersen (1926–2016), was an office worker. Her parents are both executives. Solberg has two sisters, one older, one younger.

Solberg had some struggles at school, and at the age of 16 was diagnosed with dyslexia. She was nevertheless an active and talkative contributor in class. In her final year as a high-school student in 1979, she was elected to the board of the School Student Union of Norway, and in the same year led the national charity event Operasjon Dagsverk, in which students collected money for Jamaica.

In 1986, she graduated with her cand.mag. degree in sociology, political science, statistics and economics from the University of Bergen. In her final year, she led the Students' League of the Conservative Party in Bergen.

Since 1996 she has been married to Sindre Finnes, a businessman and former Conservative Party politician, with whom she has two children. The family has lived in both Bergen and Oslo.

Local government
Solberg was a deputy member of Bergen city council in the periods 1979–1983 and 1987–1989, the last period on the executive committee. She chaired local and municipal chapters of the Young Conservatives and the Conservative Party.

Parliamentarian
She was first elected to the Storting (Norwegian Parliament) from Hordaland in 1989 and has been re-elected five times. She was also the leader of the national Conservative Women's Association, from 1994 to 1998.

Minister of Local Government and Regional Development
From 2001 to 2005 Solberg served as the Minister of Local Government and Regional Development under Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik. Her alleged tough policies in this department, including a firm stance on asylum policy, earned her the nickname "Jern-Erna" (Norwegian for "Iron Erna") in the media. In fact, numbers show that the Bondevik government, of 2001–2005, actually let in thousands more asylum seekers than the subsequent centre-left Red-Green government, of 2005–2009. In 2003, Solberg proposed introducing Islamic Sharia Councils in Norway after being informed of the existence of such councils in the United Kingdom, and, in 2004, said that she wished to increase immigration to Norway.

As Minister, Solberg instructed the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration to expel Mulla Krekar, being a danger to national security. Later, terrorism charges were filed against Krekar for a death threat he uttered in 2010 against Erna Solberg.

She had Mordechai Vanunu denied political asylum so as not to damage relations with Israel.

Party Leader
She served as deputy leader of the Conservative Party from 2002 to 2004 and, in 2004, she became the party leader.

After losing the 2009 elections, the party realised that a mere promise of tax cuts and a smaller role for the state would not convince voters. Solberg therefore abandoned her rhetoric that had earned her the nickname "Iron Erna" in the past and began to explain that a different approach was needed - instead of cuts, she wanted to reform, instead of dismantling the welfare state, she wanted to manage its structures more efficiently.

In 2011, she published a book called People, Not Billions, which could be better described as a new programme manifesto. She made regular visits to schools, health facilities and smaller municipalities, explaining to all that the goal was not to serve big business but to create conditions for the creation of new jobs, infrastructure development and economic restructuring. Solberg saw her long-term economic goal of moving Norway's economy out of dependence on oil revenues as achievable through traditional right-wing methods of tax cuts, spending reductions and privatisation of state shares in companies. In addition, she promised to maintain free education and free health care.

Prime Minister of Norway (2013–2021)
Solberg became the head of government after winning the general election on 9 September 2013 and was appointed prime minister on 16 October 2013. Solberg is Norway's second female prime minister after Gro Harlem Brundtland.

The Government was re-elected in 2017, making Solberg the country's first conservative leader to win re-election since the 1980s. The centre-right parties were also able to maintain the majority in the Storting.

Erna Solberg has combined numerous national positions as Minister, Parliamentarian and regional politician with a strong commitment to global solutions for development, growth and conflict resolution.

She also negotiated with the Liberals to join the government in 2018. The Liberals officially joined the Solberg Cabinet on 17 January 2018. After the Christian Democrats alliance conflict that lasted from September to November 2018, they eventually negotiated to join the Solberg Cabinet on the grounds of a minor change in the abortion law, something that caused harsh backlash from the public and critics alike. The Christian Democrats officially joined the Cabinet on 22 January 2019.

She faced tensions between the components of her majority, leading to a break with the Progress Party.

She inherited the nickname "Iron Erna", in reference to the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, for her relentless management of the migration crisis in 2015, during which she had tightened reception conditions.

To cope with the fall in oil prices in March 2020, her government adopted a series of measures to support businesses, such as simplifying procedures for temporary layoffs of employees, and tax privileges.

COVID-19 pandemic in Norway
One day after her 60th birthday in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway, Solberg breached national health guidelines by going to a restaurant in Geilo with her husband and 13 family members to celebrate her birthday. The guidelines stated that restaurants only can hold 10 people of the same cohort. In March, she apologised for breaching guidelines and that she didn't think of it properly before being questioned by NRK. She further stated that she should have known better. She was fined 20,000 NOK ($2,352) after a police investigation was conducted.

On 24 September 2021, her government announced a lift for all national major measures, taking effect the day after at 4:00pm, officially reopening the country.

International engagements
As Prime Minister, and former Chair of the Norwegian delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, she has championed transatlantic values and security.

In 2018 she assembled a global High Level Panel on sustainable ocean economy and introduced the topic at the G7 Summit. Her Government supports the World Bank's PROBLUE initiative to prevent marine damage.

From 2016 the Prime Minister has co-chaired the UN Secretary General's Advocacy group for the Sustainable Development Goals. Among the goals, she takes a particular interest in access to quality education for all, in particular girls and children in conflict areas. This was also central in her work as MDG Advocate from 2014 to 2016.

In one her many keynote speeches she stated that there is still a need for traditional aid and humanitarian assistance in marginalised and conflict-ridden areas of the world. The SDGs, however, take a holistic view of global development, and integrate economic, social and environmental factors.

Solberg has shown particular interest in gender issues, such as girl's rights and education. Together with Graça Machel she has expressed the hope that in 2030 no factors such as poverty, gender and cultural beliefs will prevent any of today's ambitious young girls from standing confidently on the world stage.

In 2016, she held a lecture at the International Institute for Strategic Studies The Global Goals in Singapore, addressing a road map to a Sustainable, Fair and More Peaceful Futurethe International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Solberg has secured significant financial support for the Global Partnership for Education and hosted the Global Finance Facility for women's and children's health pledging Conference in Oslo in November 2018. Her firm belief is that investment in education will accelerate progress on all other SDG goals.

In April 2017, she held a speech on globalization and development at Peking University in Beijing.

She was awarded the inaugural Global Citizen World Leader Award in 2018 for her international engagement.

In October 2019, she criticized the unilateral Turkish invasion of the Kurdish areas in Syria, but dismissed calls for suspending Turkey from NATO.

In Solberg's speech to the UN General Assembly in 2019 she advocated for Norway's candidacy for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for 2021–2022. She upheld that UN needs to be strengthened and that the world needs strong multilateral cooperation and institutions to tackle global challenges such as climate change, cyber security and terrorism.

In May 2021, it was reported that Danish Defence Intelligence Service collaborated with National Security Agency to wiretap on fellow EU members and leaders, leading to wide backlash among EU countries and demands for explanation from Danish and American governments. Solberg said that, "It's unacceptable if countries which have close allied co-operation feel the need to spy on one another."

Other news stories
In April 2008, it was revealed that Solberg, as Minister of Local Government and Regional Development in 2004, had rejected a request for asylum in Norway by the Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu. While the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration had been prepared to grant Vanunu asylum, it was then decided that the application could not be accepted because Vanunu's application had been made outside the borders of Norway. An unclassified document revealed that Solberg and the government considered that extraditing Vanunu from Israel could be seen as an action against Israel and thus unfitting to the Norwegian government's traditional position as a friend of Israel and as a political player in the Middle East. Solberg rejected this criticism and defended her decision.

In 2014, she participated at the Agriculture and Food meeting which was held by Sylvi Listhaug where Minister of Transportation Ketil Solvik-Olsen and Minister of Climate and Environment Tine Sundtoft also were present. Later on, the four took a picture which appeared on the Government.no website on 14 March the same year. In April of the same year she criticized European Court over data retention which Telenor Group argued can be used without court proceedings.

In 2017, the Russian Embassy in Oslo had accused Norwegian officials and intelligence of using "false and disconnected anti-Russian rhetoric" and "scaring Norway's population" about a "mythical Russian threat". In response, Prime Minister Solberg said: "This is an example of Russian propaganda that often comes when there's a focus on security policy. There is nothing in this that's new to us."

Solberg has tried to maintain and improve the China–Norway relations, which have been damaged since the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to give the Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo in 2010. In response to his death, caused by organ failure while in government custody on 13 July 2017, Solberg said: "It is with deep grief that I received the news of Liu Xiaobo's passing. Liu Xiaobo was for decades a central voice for human rights and China's further development."

Defeat
In the 2021 election, center-left parties won the majority of seats and Solberg conceded defeat.

Post premiership
On 20 May 2022, it was announced that Solberg was becoming a board member of Global Citizen. Of her entry, she said: "I say yes to this position because Global Citizen is perhaps the organization in the world that has the greatest potential to mobilize people, especially young people around the world, to fight poverty and achieve the UN's sustainability goals".

On 13 November, Solberg announced that she would continue as leader of the Conservative Party and be their candidate for prime minister at the 2025 parliamentary election.

In the 2023 Norwegian local elections, the Conservatives won the most votes under Solberg. It was the first time since 1924 that the Labour Party failed to win the most votes in a national election.

Husband's stock trading controversy
In the run up to the 2023 local elections, media outlets revealed that Solberg's husband Sindre Finnes had been active in the stock market during Solberg's premiership. She claimed to have been unaware of his purchases and had even declared herself impartial in dealing with companies Finnes had stocks in. A full list of the 3600 stock transactions in different companies were released on 15 September, four days after the election, when she also issued a public apology; while the National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime announced that they would consider grounds to open an investigation into the matter. On 3 November, they announced that they would not pursue an investigation into Finnes.

On 7 November 2023, she gave answers to questions during a hearing by the parliament's Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs. On 21 November, the committee put forward further 12 questions. It is estimated that Finnes bought more 112 million Norwegian kroner in stocks while Solberg was a prime minister. The number of transactions, are estimates to be more than three thousand. Media reports indicated that Solberg had a conflict of interest, even if she did not know about every transaction.

On 26 November, E24 reported that some of Solberg's closest advisors at the Office of the Prime Minister did not archive, as required by law, "central emails" with Solberg's husband - about her conflict-of-interest regarding his stock trading. The office's knowledge of the affair and thereby the documents, were kept out of public for more than 10 years.

On 30 November, the Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs sent 13 more questions to the Office of the Prime Minister, which more specifically asks about record keeping.

National honours

 * 🇳🇴 Norway Commander of the Order of St. Olav (2005)
 * 🇳🇴 Norway King Harald V's Jubilee Medal 1991–2016 (2016)

title: Erna Solberg


text:
Talk:Per capita

'''Please see also discussion at Per capita income --''clearcontent'' a.k.a. '''Doktor Who''' 03:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Plurality
per capita seems to mean 'by heads'. Why is the distribution across a plurality?

Pro capite, -NOT- per capita
I studied Latin at High School (5 years), and beside that, as I am currently living in Italy, I can ensure that per capita is a term that is never used. In Italy the proper Latin terms currently used are:
 *  Pro capite
 * reddito pro capite

the latter means income for each head. --Clearcontent 00:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * A quick look at the Oxford English Dictionary confirms that the English usage is definitely 'per capita'. This derives from the Latin 'per' - being the accusative case of 'for' and the Latin 'caput' meaning 'head'. Thus it literally means 'per head'. An important point to consider is that the form of Latin which the English term derives from is 17th century Latin and not Latin as the Romans spoke it. Moreover modern Italian is not directly derived from Vulgate Latin, which was the language spoken by inhabitants of the western Roman Empire. See Vulgate Latin "Vulgate Latin evolved into the Romance languages in about the ninth century and it was from these dialects that modern Italian evolved". See also Italian Language "Italian was first formalised in the first years of the 14th century through the works of Dante Alighieri, who mixed southern Italian (romance) languages, especially Sicilian, with his native Tuscan in his epic poems known collectively as the Commedia". Consequentially the terms 'per capita' and 'pro capit' have entered English and Italian respectively through different routes. There are a great many Latin derived terms which are used today in modern English and that are accepted as English words in their own right. Their forms in modern English are not always direct derivatives of Vulgate Latin.
 * Morgan Leigh 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (Also posted to talk:Per capita income)

Dear Morgan, you must study Latin before talking about it. "Per Capita" is a nonsense in (modern and ancient) Latin language, since it means "per heads" while "per" cannot be used before plurals when used with the meaning of "for each". It is just a misspelled phrase. N.B.: "Pro capite" is not an Italian phrase, it is a Latin phrase used by italians, just like lots of other phrases.
 * Anonymous 05:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC) (Also posted to talk:Per capita income) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.58.4.122 (talk)
 * If you translate literally "per capita" it is "per people" that doesn't mean anything, the right translation of "per person" is "per capitam" with accusative singular that sounds bad. If you think about it in English it is "per diem" "per mensem" "per annum" not in plural from "per dies" "per menses" "per annos" and in italy we use "pro" so we have "per die" "per mense" "per anno". So the English form come from "per capitam" without "m".--Stigni (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The sing. acc. of caput is caput, not capitam. Capitam does not exist.

US per capita section
This section seems POV and non-encyclopedic to me. The points made about the rich skewing the value could be said of any averaged value, and the specific gripes about DC don't seem to be relevant. I would support deleting this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mbarden (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

2-0
Shouldn't there be a reference to the 2-0 rule ? --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Per Capita
Standard Definition and Formula: so we're all on the same page, "Per Capita": is a measure of how much wealth and assets each person has, per head, or per person, measured over or against the national wealth as the standard, or gross domestic product.

Etymology: Cap has two meanings. Head and Capital, so translates to "per person over capital city", in The Roman World.

Over means division in Algebra so a special emphasis on equality by finding the average or mean value.

Blagoja73 (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * New sections go at the bottom. It's not clear what change you are proposing be made to the article here. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I will put new text at the bottom from now.
 * That is per capita the way I always understood it.
 * It is average wealth per person divided by national wealth.
 * It might not make any changes to the page, and that is fine. Blagoja73 (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It just means an average value of something considering the number of people. It's probably most commonly used when talking about wealth, but it doesn't have to be - if I said that a country's annual CO2 emissions were 200 kg per capita, that would also make sense. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Per capita


text:
Generations of Winter

Generations of Winter (in Russian, Московская сага - Moskovskaya Saga) is a novel by the Russian writer Vasily Aksyonov.

Many critics have praised Generations of Winter as a new Doctor Zhivago-style, large-scale Russian novel, which tells the story of a Russian/Georgian family, the Gradovs, struggling to survive in the Stalinist era.

As the Wall Street Journal put it: "Aksyonov has ambitiously set out to challenge Tolstoy on his own ground, creating a gigantic historical novel on the grand pre-revolutionary model."

In late 2004 a television-series based on the novel premiered on Russian television. It has 22 episodes.

title: Generations of Winter


text:
Orthographic map projection

Orthographic projection in cartography has been used since antiquity. Like the stereographic projection and gnomonic projection, orthographic projection is a perspective (or azimuthal) projection in which the sphere is projected onto a tangent plane or secant plane. The point of perspective for the orthographic projection is at infinite distance. It depicts a hemisphere of the globe as it appears from outer space, where the horizon is a great circle. The shapes and areas are distorted, particularly near the edges.

History
The orthographic projection has been known since antiquity, with its cartographic uses being well documented. Hipparchus used the projection in the 2nd century BC to determine the places of star-rise and star-set. In about 14 BC, Roman engineer Marcus Vitruvius Pollio used the projection to construct sundials and to compute sun positions.

Vitruvius also seems to have devised the term orthographic (from the Greek orthos (= “straight”) and graphē (= “drawing”)) for the projection. However, the name analemma, which also meant a sundial showing latitude and longitude, was the common name until François d'Aguilon of Antwerp promoted its present name in 1613.

The earliest surviving maps on the projection appear as crude woodcut drawings of terrestrial globes of 1509 (anonymous), 1533 and 1551 (Johannes Schöner), and 1524 and 1551 (Apian). A highly-refined map, designed by Renaissance polymath Albrecht Dürer and executed by Johannes Stabius, appeared in 1515.

Photographs of the Earth and other planets from spacecraft have inspired renewed interest in the orthographic projection in astronomy and planetary science.

Mathematics
The formulas for the spherical orthographic projection are derived using trigonometry. They are written in terms of longitude (λ) and latitude (φ) on the sphere. Define the radius of the sphere R and the center point (and origin) of the projection (λ0, φ0). The equations for the orthographic projection onto the (x, y) tangent plane reduce to the following:

 * $$\begin{align}

x &= R\,\cos\varphi \sin\left(\lambda - \lambda_0\right) \\ y &= R\big(\cos\varphi_0 \sin\varphi - \sin\varphi_0 \cos\varphi \cos\left(\lambda - \lambda_0\right)\big) \end{align}$$

Latitudes beyond the range of the map should be clipped by calculating the angular distance c from the center of the orthographic projection. This ensures that points on the opposite hemisphere are not plotted:

 * $$\cos c = \sin\varphi_0 \sin\varphi + \cos\varphi_0 \cos\varphi \cos\left(\lambda - \lambda_0\right)\,$$.

The point should be clipped from the map if cos(c) is negative. That is, all points that are included in the mapping satisfy:
 * $$-\frac{\pi}{2} < c < \frac{\pi}{2}$$.

The inverse formulas are given by:

 * $$\begin{align}

\varphi &= \arcsin\left(\cos c \sin\varphi_0 + \frac{y\sin c \cos\varphi_0}{\rho}\right) \\ \lambda &= \lambda_0 + \arctan\left(\frac{x\sin c}{\rho \cos c \cos\varphi_0 - y \sin c \sin\varphi_0}\right) \end{align}$$

where

 * $$\begin{align}

\rho &= \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} \\ c &= \arcsin\frac{\rho}{R} \end{align}$$

For computation of the inverse formulas the use of the two-argument atan2 form of the inverse tangent function (as opposed to atan) is recommended. This ensures that the sign of the orthographic projection as written is correct in all quadrants.

The inverse formulas are particularly useful when trying to project a variable defined on a (λ, φ) grid onto a rectilinear grid in (x, y). Direct application of the orthographic projection yields scattered points in (x, y), which creates problems for plotting and numerical integration. One solution is to start from the (x, y) projection plane and construct the image from the values defined in (λ, φ) by using the inverse formulas of the orthographic projection.

See References for an ellipsoidal version of the orthographic map projection.

Orthographic projections onto cylinders
In a wide sense, all projections with the point of perspective at infinity (and therefore parallel projecting lines) are considered as orthographic, regardless of the surface onto which they are projected. Such projections distort angles and areas close to the poles.

An example of an orthographic projection onto a cylinder is the Lambert cylindrical equal-area projection.

title: Orthographic map projection