text:
Talk:Burden of proof (law)

Untitled
The burden of proof rests with the person who wants to change someone's mind. That person must take on the burden of proving something to a person.

A person with a nonstandard theory who wants it to become the standard theory has to convince a lot of people; in that case, he does have the burden of proving it to enough people to get that recognition. If he doesn't care whether it becomes the standard theory, he doesn't have the burden of proof.

For instance, say that someone develops a nonstandard theory that disagrees with a standard theory. Here are the possibilities :

 * The proponents of both don't care to change minds on the other side, so no one takes the time and energy to do so (no one takes the burden of proof).
 * The proponents of only one side want to convince those of the other side, so they take the time and energy to do so (they take the burden of proof).
 * The proponents of both sides want to convinve those of the other side, so both take the time and energy to do so (both sides take on the burden).

12.214.45.9 20:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The legal use is somewhat primary, in that the colloquial use is (I believe) derived from it. In any case, the way you wrote it was fairly non-encyclopedic.  I've tried to put together a kind of rump format for addressing some of the issues you raise.  More effort will probably be needed, but it should be written like an encyclopedia article. VV 09:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * An encyclopedia is not made to sound or look "encyclopedic" (whatever that means). It is made to allow people to learn about various topics.  If a presentation is easy to understand, adding in overblown words and grammar to make it sound falsely academic is abhorrent !  It goes against the purpose and spirit of an encyclopedia.  It is a plague of logorrhoea (see the examples in the article) or pleonasm which makes it unapproachable unless the reader knows legal or logical terminology fairly well and likes slogging through overwordy grammar.  Occam's Razor applies to writing.

 * If you want to say that the legal use was the original use, you can say it regardless of the order of presentation.

 * I only raised one issue (about changing someone's mind) and I assume that you didn't actually read what you replied to on this page. One issue was somehow transformed into "the issues" and was totally obliterated in the article (you weren't "addressing" the issue at all).  It looks like you were angry that I dared change the article and hastily wrote a non sequitur justification.

 * 12.214.45.9 02:06, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * IMO, the version by VV is by far superior to the one promoted by 12.214.45.9. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement, but THAT version should be the starting point for revisions. older ≠ wiser 03:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

expand on "person who claims" notion
The article is good. But I think the general definition of "burden of proof" needs to be expanded. Indeed, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution because of the ASUMPTION of "innocent until proven guilty". (Note other cultures do not make this assumption, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the defense.

As for the general case, we should note the two examples: "I exist" "I don't exist" The article is spot on that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, regardless of how common sense the claim is. One might want to say that the burden of proof lies with the "default" position. However, we are outside the legal context here. The person who claims "I exist" has no more justification above the person who claims "I don't exist" aside from the fallacious support of appeals to popularity and common sense.

I'll let the article progress, and maybe expand on this notion in the future and see what everyone thinks.

Merger
I merged Standard of proof. See Talk:Standard of proof for reference. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that Burden of Proof is NOT the same thing as Standard of Proof. These "standards" discussed in the third section titled "Standard of proof in the United States" describe the standards of proof, meaning how well proof or guilt must be established. Burden of Proof refers to which party is required to make their case (the prosecutor, or the plaintiff, petitioner, and so on). I'm not sure if this problem was caused by the merger? RedWriter (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Shadow of a doubt
I was surprised to find that the level of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not discussed in this article. I am under the impression that it is a higher standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that it is typical to be the required level of certainty for capital cases. But I am a total amateur in this area, and would love for a more informed person to write something here about it (or at least insert a link to a different article). --Keeves 23:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * In American law, there is basically no such burden of proof at the level of "beyond a shadow of a doubt." In the USA, at least, the highest standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Yours, Famspear 19:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"beyond a shadow of a doubt" is colloquial not legal - I would question whether 'doubt' is actually able to cast a shadow as it is not tangible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.217.208 (talk • contribs) 5 December 2006

Although "beyond a shadow of a doubt" has no legal signifigance, the US Supreme Court has recognized that "residual doubt" may play a role in the minds of jurors sitting in a capital case during the penalty phase. See for example ''Lockhart v. McCree 476 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct. 1758 U.S.Ark.,1986.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.53.165 (talk • contribs) on 13 February 2007.

 * Note: A precise parallel citation on that U.S. Supreme Court decision is Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S. Ct. 1758, 90 L. Ed. 2d 137 (1986). Yours, Famspear 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've created the "beyond the shadow of a doubt" entry. I hope this is adequite, although the page itself could certainly be worked on piratejosh85

Reasonable Suspicion
This analysis is totally missing the reasonable suspicion standard. If we are putting probable cause as a burden of proof (which seems troublesome to me because we are talking about burden of proof at trial in one instance and burden of proof necessary to conduct an arrest in another) then reasonable suspicion should be included as a level of proof directly below probable cause. I would put in reasonable suspicion because many times it is the level of proof necessary to conduct a seizure or search as a result to probable cause.

For example, reasonable suspicion elevates an encounter between a citizen and a police officer beyond the realm of consensual encounter into the realm of brief investigative stops/searches (Terry stops/frisks). Based on reasonable suspicion an intermediate level of a search and/or seizure under the forth amendment can take place. Then evidence can be obtained that would give the officer probable cause to conduct a costodial arrest.

Without Reasonable Suspicion, there can be no probable cause in this context, because probable cause is necessarily predicated on the evidence that is obtained as a result of reasonable suspicion.

Obviously in other contexts, such as where an officer personally witnesses a crime, his level of suspicion raises to probable cause, skipping reasonable suspicion.

If you are putting probable cause in as a burden of proof, you should also include reasonable suspicion.

-smvans7

 * The section begins with the statement "Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of proof in the U.S. to determine whether a brief investigative stop or search by a police officer ..." The reference to search is incorrect. A Terry stop allows officers to detained a person for iverstigation if the officers have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the defendant was, is, or will be engaged in criminal activity. The officer may also frisk the suspect for weapons if the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that the person may be armed. A Terry stop does not automatically allow an officer to frisk the detainee for weapons and under no circumstances would reasonable suspicion justify a search.

 * Are there available resources to clear up these points and write them into the article? Piratejosh85 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Science And Other Applications example is weak
This example asserts a burden of proof for "unusual" claims. But contradicts him/herself with example from SETI where the author relieves the "unusual" claim of the burden, showing the inherent subjectiveness of the concept "unusual" and its lack of validity in science or logic. Basically, no assertion has any more of a "burden of proof" than any other.

I looked at about 1/2 dozen sites that asserted the Burden of Proof principle was valid. They all used either a criminal legal system analogy (to innocent until proven guilty) or a formal debating contest analogy (score points when your team has the obligation to assert a point, point to the opponent if you fail -- they need not succeed). Argument by Analogy is itself a fallacy. The reason these analogies do not apply is that they are unusual cases where we have an exception to our normal method of finding truth: which is the preponderance of evidence is the criteria (as in civil court). These exceptions are cases where Special Pleading actually IS valid -- the defendant and the defending debators are given an advantage for good reasons. But in the absence of these exceptional cases, Special Pleading is a fallacy. A few fallacy sites list Burden of Proof as a fallacy.

They all should for the following reason: Suppose I propose the hypothesis that a specific type of alcoholic beverage was brewed by pre-columbian indians. There are two possibilities, this drink was brewed, or it was not. Alternatively, I can propose the hypothesis that this alcoholic beverage was not brewed by pre-columbian indians. The two options are the same. As both these hypotheses are assertions about reality, the correct thing to do is to test the assertion by looking at the evidence. Empirically, there are a lot of possible conseqeunces of the test, ranging from no evidence, contradictory evidence, contradicting evidence, weak evidence one way or another, or strong evidence one way or another. Suppose the result was weak evidence for the existence of the beverage. By the burden of proof standard (which other sites apply to any asserter), the correct conclusion to reach about the world depends upon the framing of the question. By the burden of proof standard, one should conclude the beverage was not brewed if one starts with the first hypothesis, and that it was based on the second. The problem gets even worse with the case of no evidence. By the burden of proof standard, in one case no evidence leads to concluding the beverage was brewed, and in the other case that it was not, when the correct conclusion in this situation is that we have no idea.

I think this section should be rewritten to say that "burden of proof" has no application outside criminal law.

 * The problem is not that the concept of "burden of proof" isn't used outside of law; it's that the section is not neutral. Instead of explaining a particular "burden of proof" policy in various situations, it should cite others' views of such policies. -- Beland 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another view: I agree that the science examples are weak--the author was clearly attempting some levity. However, it goes to far to assert bias on the author's part. Yes, the concept of proof is used a bit differently, but it is important that the very reason that the American legal system operates under the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty", is that it was informed by the "age or reason" underway when the nation was formed. Indeed, most of the founding fathers forcefully espoused deist religious beliefs, which asserted that while God is real, the only Revelation that can be trusted is the Creation itself--anything else can be forged or confounded.

Ultimately, this all goes back to the writing of Sir Francis Bacon, who first brought the notion of what we would call scientific skepticism to a wide audience. The phrase "burden of proof" today is used mostly in the law, but it is tighly coupled to a phrase of currency in scientific circles "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The assertion of the reality of extraterestrial life can not be clearly supported or refuted with current knowledge, so it simply cannot be defended to those with whose religious views it conflicts. One can CHOOSE to believe this notion or not. But if I were to assert a novel model describing the operation of gravity (as has been recently put forward to explain certain cosmological measurements) this would require more than a cohertent theory--it would require substantial, repeatable, verifiable evidence.

The whole point of which is that, sad though it is to accept, the human mind is NOT the perfect, intelligently designed thinking machine we would like it to be. Our brain takes so many shortcuts and makes so many errors, that after 40,000 years of stumbling, a few people (Like Bacon) started writting down ways we can keep our brains from fooling us. This one event (the rise of scientific thinking) ended the dark ages, brought about the enlightenment, and in the blink of the historical eye, took us to the Moon and back. "Burden of Proof" is simply the law's version of skepticism, and it acknowledges that proof is not an absolute. Just as a challenge to gravitation requires more evidence than see, the notion the aliens could, in theory, exist, a challenge to the plaintiff's life requires more evidence than a challenge to his pocketbook.

Which brings me to a question that I have never seen answered: Does the American legal system consider quality of proof in sentensing? I do not believe so, but in this scientific age, it ought to. For example, a man convicted of murder based solely on a single human testimony might not qualify for the same swift execution as a man who pulls out a machine gun at the mall and winds up splattered with DNA evidence. Both might be guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", but one is case is less refutable than the other, as a flood of recent DNA evidence cases attests.CreggH 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Civil Cases - BOP Not Always Plaintiff's
Maybe too in depth for this otherwise good definition but, there are times in civil matters, following the presentment of a prima facie case by the plaintiff, where the burden of proof may fall on the defendant during trial. This is known as the "burden shifting rule" and is most often seen in civil rights and IRS cases. So, a broad statement claiming that it is the sole responsibility of the plaintiff to provide the BOP, is technically not always true.

Origin of Balance of Probabilities
Does anyone know when BoP passed into English law? I'm to be involved in a hearing soon that hinges on it, and don't want to look like a fool if/when I'm asked whether I understand the principle.James Casey 15:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"
It's true that one's person's thoughts expressed can change anothers, but (correct me if I'm wrong) in the case of reasonable doubt, wouldn't the person have to have had some doubt in their mind in the first place? You can't just automatically change your opinions within a matter of minutes without having some sort of doubt already installed, can you? It's almost hypocritcal, in a way. Have any of you read 12 Angry Men, or seen it in the theater? This story is a prime example of how the transfer of reasonable doubt works in the court system. I'm currently writing an essay for my Literature teacher about reasonable doubt, with the play as the essay's basis. It just seems that the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" will remain an abstract phrase; no one person will ever have the definition proper to fit each of us, not until we all become the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lil WhizKid (talk • contribs) 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Is there something in the article that you think needs to be improved? Oh, and please sign your posts by typing four tildes like this ~  so that we can read who said what, and when. It makes it easier for people who are responding later. Thanks. ElinorD 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not part of this conversation thread, but I did just add an EssayLike tag to this section of the article because upon reading it I was struck with how unsourced and unencyclopedic it was. It reads more like an argument for a certain interpretation of the concept than an objective introduction to various possible interpretations. At the very least, its prose needs to be cleaned up to be written in the third person and broken into cite-able chunks of text. Tollsjo (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Clear and Convincing Evidence (CCE)
Are you sure about the clear and convincing evidence concept? I thought that the BOP of CCE was lower than that of proof by preponderance of evidence (PPE). For example if police believe that a crime is taking place or that there is evidence of a crime in a home to be searched, there would have to be CCE to convince a judge that a search warrant needs to be issued.

Or there could be CCE enough to petition a judge that a person needs to be involunterily examined (In Florida it's called "Baker Acting" someone).

It should be noted that judges often err on the side of caution in cases like these, nothwithstanding the rights of the accused or target (respondent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reyn562 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Delete last discussion (about CCE); I guess I was wrong.

Science and other applications weak, and also unreferenced
The latter complaint flows from the former. The claims in this section match the misconceptions of amateur retoricicians who attempt to apply burden of proof to ontological discussions rather than anything accepted by mainstream philosophy of science. If I am incorrect on this, can someone put some good references in there? And if not, is there any argument to not nix this section? Mathlaura 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 * From the wiki page on Scientific method

 * "In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):
 * 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
 * 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
 * 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
 * 4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent."

 * This would appear to be in direct contradiction to the information on this page regarding science, especially point 4. I would propose the meaning of this section conform to the standard scientific method, contain a discussion of the discrepancy, or be deleted altogether. FusionKnight (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

agree
This article seems to be all about the law. Science needs to be brought in. See the next comment for first paragraph talk.Piratejosh85 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable Doubt section
This section reads like a term paper, or like lecture notes. It seems to be a synthesis of dictionary definitions to advance a position about reasonable doubt. It may be a correct position, but it seems unencyclopedic to me. cmhTC 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The section is much longer than the article on Reasonable Doubt itself. If the material is to be preserved in any form, it should be in the Reasonable Doubt article rather than in this article. However, the material does seem unencyclopedic. Twinkie eater91 (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
My opinion is that BOP should not be limited to the law in the opening paragraph. The law is not essential to the definition.

Agree
Yea, I agree. I went about trying to rewrite for interdiscipline, but I'm affraid I've just muddled things. Piratejosh85 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reorg.
Not to complain, but this article has just got really messy and is due for makeover. Piratejosh85 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable Suspicion Probable Cause
Although i have contributed to the sections on reasonable suspicion and probable cause these subjects arguably dont belong in an article on burden of proof. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are the standards that must be met to justify a constitutional intrusion. However, they are not the burden of proof. If a defendant challenges evidence obtained from his detention on the grounds that the officer lacked a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity the burden is on the state to show by the preponderance of teh evidence that the standard has beenmet. The burden of proof is not reasonable suspicion but preponderance of the evidence. --Jgard5000 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Jgard5000

Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence is a set of rules that govern criminal trial - it is similar to playing a board game - once you have the board porperly set up there must be some rule about who goes first - in many games you roll dice - the same thing could apply to criminal cases - the defendant and the prosecutor could meet before the judge who flps a coin - or they could play rock paper scissors to determine who goes first - the presumption says the state goes first - in fact it says that the defendant doesn't have to go at all - the defendant can simply sit back and see if hte state can move its case far enough along the board to pass the point of reasonable doubt. Games must have some rule to determine who wins - the POI says that the defendant always wins unless the state can eliminate any reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt - simple as that -

Considerations: Elvis
I believe the asymmetric BOP-levels in the Elvis example (given in the "Considerations"-section) to be wrong. What we have here imho is preexisting evidence (common knowledge) that already lowered the BOP-level. If I knew nothing about Elvis, I would need the exact same amount of evidence to prove either that he's dead or alive. 82.113.121.200 (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I'll try to make it clear that conventional knowledge much be taken into account in a rewrite. Philocentric (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning things up.
I think most of us agree that this article is a bit messy due to diverse applications of burden of proof.

I'd like to propose the following.

Let's make the article for "burden of proof" a short general definition page that links to at least 2 specific and distinct applications of burden of proof; the legal application and the epistemological application. These links can be entitled "legal burden of proof" and "epistemological burden of proof".

I will take on this project and leave all content untouched until after the migration has been successfully completed.

What do you all think? Philocentric (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I say go for it. There's too much of the one and the other in this article to make it flow through a single thread.  When you do the law article, would you please consider editing down to size the section on "beyond a reasonable doubt."  I, and I know others, have long felt this is inappropriately long.  Piratejosh85 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I'll give it a week for more feedback, then make the change. My background is on the philosophy side, so I'll have to let you legal guys take care of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" section. Cheers. Philocentric (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Thinking more about this, I don't know if the best title for the one subdivision is really epistemological. IMHO, that seems too broad.  It seems like the non-legal aspects of the BOP is philisophic and scientific.  If the one is titled law, others should match that level of abstraction. Piratejosh85 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I was actually thinking the same thing. "Philosophic Burden of Proof" does seems to be the better term. Philocentric (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm still planning to get around to that migration. Give me another week. Philocentric (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved!
I hope everyone is happy with the move. Cheers. Philocentric (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great job. Thanks for your effort Piratejosh85 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Just for future reference, splits (and similarly with merges) require certain history attribution procedures to comply with Wikipedia's content licenses (the GFDL and CC-BY-SA). It's really as simple as stating in the edit summary that you are performing a split and providing a proper link to the name of the article the content is being split to when you take out the content, and a similar edit summary when you add the material to the split off page noting where you split the content from with a link back to that article. I have added splitfrom and split-to to this talk page and the split talk page to provide attribution. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidential burden
I recently created a page on evidential burden. As Lord Bingham said in Sheldrake, evidential burden is strictly speaking not a "burden of proof" but rather a burden of raising an issue. Furthermore, the burden of persuasion is also known as the legal burden. If this article describes all burdens in the legal field (which includes both the evidential burden and the burden of persuasion), there is bound to be confusion. Therefore, if there is no objection from other learned editors, I will restrict the coverage of this article to the burden of persuasion and remove references to the evidential burden (but I may add links at the See Also section and other appropriate places). Craddocktm (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Move suggestion
I feel that the distinguishing method used in the title of the article is somewhat out of line compared to other articles under the scope of WikiProject Law, and perhaps Wikipedia at large. As such, I recommend moving the article to the title Burden of Proof (Law). The P in proof can be lower-cased, if that is proper per titular naming. Before taking any action, I wish to first propose here, on the talk page. How does everyone else feel about the idea? KirkCliff2 (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I am not sure about the move. The problem is that there are several burdens at law - and one of them is called "legal burden" which is the subject of this article. That is the way the Courts and lawyers refer to this particular type of burden at law. For example, see the House of Lords decision in Sheldrake v DPP:. The phrase "legal burden" appears numerous times in the judgment.Craddocktm (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mea Culpa
I mistakenly removed two sections, including one I removed before, explaining the Canadian burden of proof concept "air of reality." I failed to notice that the article has been changed with sub captions differentiating between US law and UK law. The part I added to US law is missing citations. I will get that. I will follow the Wikipedia article on "Law" as a template footnote the Harvard bluebook "short-form" citation format for the full names of all cases linking them to the case text on Google Scholar. While I think the better practice would be to link to the website of the court that decided the case, that may not be possible. When trying to explain a legal concept,illustrations from the leading case, or one of them, are much better than trying to explain the concept and the abstract. That necessarily means choosing one jurisdiction over another, but that is not a dealbreaker. Da5id403 (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I put in the two sections below as "other". Bearian (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Burden of Proof Especially Important in Law and Science
I removed the sentence to this effect from the introduction. The caption "Legal Burden of Proof" makes the reference to law redundant and the reference to science irrelevant.

On other subjects, I think a bot removed some vandalism. A person asked if it was me. No. I am working on the citation format. I want the name of the case to be directly linked to the Google Scholar webpage with the case.

Does anyone know? I need to actually underline blank spaces as part of the formal way to cite to a case that is final but not yet in print and thus not paginated. It seems Wikipedia keeps deleting them. Does anyone understand the question of what to do about it? Should I go to my personal talk page and try to get help there instead of putting it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da5id403 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Da5id403 (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Statistical proof
Editors may be interested in a section recently added to the article on statistical proof in legal proceedings. This has relevance to this article. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Article restructuring
I have added a section on the "substantial evidence" standard (which is really a standard of review rather than a standard of proof) and have also restructured the article. Please feel free to revert any error that I may have inadvertently introduced. Bwrs (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Grand Jury standard
These are two quotes from the current article; what's verifiable? --Elvey (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 * "Probable cause is ... used by grand juries to determine whether to issue an indictment."

 * "Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is ... the standard of proof used in Grand Jury indictment proceedings (which, unlike civil proceedings, are procedurally unrebuttable)"

Requested move 13 January 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close, no rationale for the proposed move has been given. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal burden of proof → Burden of proof (law) – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 203.109.162.133 (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 203.109.162.133 (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

French
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_de_la_preuve_(droit). --Japarthur (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of footnotes
The footnote for "With respect to the critical facts of a case the defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever.", the reference in the footnote is not a source, but more like a conventional footnote. MBUSHIstory (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burden of proof (law). 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/20131104224306/http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html to http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Moral certitude in canon law
It may be worth adding a section on the burden of proof in Catholic canon law. There is a notion there of "moral certitude" which is distinct from other sorts listed. The following is a quote from Dignitas Connubii (2005), an instruction from the Vatican on marriage nullity process:

"Art. 247 – § 1. In order to declare the nullity of a marriage there is required in the mind of the judge moral certainty of its nullity (cf. can. 1608, § 1). § 2. In order to have the moral certainty necessary by law, a preponderance of the proofs and indications is not sufficient, but it is required that any prudent positive doubt of making an error, in law or in fact, is excluded, even if the mere possibility of the contrary remains."

Nighm (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

51% ?
The section about probable cause talks a lot about this standard corresponding to a threshold probability of 51%. This is strange in that a) the main article on probable cause doesn't mention this threshold and b) if this were correct, it's unclear why "probable cause" and "preponderance of evidence" are different standards (with the section on preponderance of evidence also describing that standard by "more probable than not"). The emphasis on 51% was added in this anonymous edit. Before that, there was only one sentence saying that different courts had used different numerical thresholds.

That change should either be undone, or, if it is correct, there should be an explanation why there are two terms ("probable cause" and "preponderance of evidence") for the same concept of "more probable than not". Joriki (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Probable cause and reasonable suspicion should not be in this article; it looks like the article has been heavily vandalized. Those are terms of art for the factual foundation that a law enforcement officer must develop to proceed with a search or seizure, not standards of proof. For example, this book excerpt explains how probable cause must be proven by the preponderance of the evidence.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Up to this version (October 2011), there were separate sections for "Criminal law standards for detentions, searches, arrests and warrants", "Standards for presenting cases or defenses", "Evidentiary standards of proof" and "Non-legal standards". This edit removed the two section headings "Standards for presenting cases or defenses" and "Evidentiary standards of proof" for no apparent reason, leaving the subsections that had been in the section "Evidentiary standards of proof" under the section heading "Criminal law standards for detentions, searches, arrests and warrants". This led to the entire section being renamed to "Legal standards" in this edit (in contrast to the only other remaining section, "Non-legal standards"). The section was further renamed to "Legal standards for burden of proof" in this edit, and the section on "Non-legal standards" was removed in this edit as "no[t] relevant".

 * I agree that the subsections that were originally in the section "Criminal law standards for detentions, searches, arrests and warrants" don't belong in this article, which defines "burden of proof" as a burden at trial. The problem extends beyond this article; the main article on reasonable suspicion calls reasonable suspicion a "legal standard of proof" and links that to "legal burden of proof", which redirects here. Perhaps there should be an article on "legal standards" that is more general than this one? Joriki (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Two points about the book excerpt you linked to:
 * After stating that a 1925 decision linked probable cause to preponderance of evidence (and equating this with >50%), the book goes on to state that a 1983 decision "weakened the degree of certainty necessary for a finding of probable cause". That would suggest that the 51% statement in the article is wrong.
 * The book says "Preponderance of the evidence is, however, a much tougher level of proof than the reasonable suspicion burden", which makes reasonable suspicion sound like a type of burden of proof. I'm not saying that it is, just that this article doesn't seem to be alone in blurring the distinction.
 * Joriki (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Planning to revert back to last good version on 14 February 2019 due to heavy vandalism over past 20 months
Whomever rewrote this in terms of "duty" clearly has no comprehension of the difference between a duty and an obligation. They need to go read some of the writings of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. This article has been heavily vandalized over the past 20 months; entire sections have been deleted by vandals and no one noticed at the time. I propose to revert to the last good version on 14 February 2019. Any objections?

Gibberish
I think it is possible to conclude - beyond reasonable doubt - that this article is pitifully weak. It is obscure in expression, and (as far as one can tell given how badly written it is) inaccurate. Burraron (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

“Standard of proof” versus “burden of proof”
These are different things and I think should be treated separately, though perhaps in the same article. The terms are not interchangeable. The present article is largely about the standard of proof. It talks a bit about the burden of proof towards the end

The standard of proof is the degree of certainty with which a proposition must be demonstrated: how certain it must be. The burden of proof is the question of who must adduce evidence of the relevant proposition to the relevant standard.

In most cases the burden falls on the prosecution or plaintiff - being the person making the existential claim. But there are circumstances where it may shift to the defendant.

For example, the case of the duck-shooting accident: it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that each of Person A and Person B discharged a gun in the direction of Victim X, believing him to be a duck. Victim X was hit once. It is found, beyond reasonable doubt that one of Person A or Person B was responsible, but as the bullet was not recovered, and there is no evidence as to which of the shooters it was.

A conventional analysis would say that neither shooter can be proved beyond reasonable doubt (or even more likely than not) to have fired the accurate bullet, and that both should be acquitted. I believe the court here may reverse the usual burden of proof and invite each defendant to prove — to what standard it is not clear — it was not her. If neither can, then both will be convicted. ElectricRay (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Business law
English 111.125.221.107 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Full view of the subject
Hello User:Melbguy05. In what way do you think the section discussing the Australian civil proof standard does not provide a full view of the subject? What suggestions for improvement do you have? Jack4576 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For starters, the introduction has no information on the balance of probabilities. The introduction should say in Australia the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Quote Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66 "The ordinary standard of proof required of a party who bears the onus in civil litigation in this country is proof on the balance of probabilities."
 * The section incorrectly states that "in Australia, the terms Briginshaw standard, civil standard, and balance of probabilities all refer to the same thing". From the Federal Court of Australia - Full Court "The so-called Briginshaw test does not create any third standard of proof between the civil and the criminal. The standard of proof remains the same, that is proof on the balance of probabilities." a quote from Qantas Airways Limited v Gama [2008] FCAFC 69. Melbguy05 (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. -because- the Briginshaw standard is -synonymous- with the balance of probabilities; when judges discuss the ‘briginshaw standard’ they are not discussing a this standard, they are discussing the balance of probabilities/civil standard/Briginshaw standard
 * Is this clear? Jack4576 (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jack4576 and @Melbguy05 what’s going on here? Can I help? — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jack4576 I actually have no idea what’s going on in this article and haven’t reviewed the history properly. I can see you and MG are reverting each other. I’m not an admin and have no authority over anyone but I’d encourage both of you to stop editing this for a bit and let’s work out the issue together so as not to cause an edit war. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate your third opinion here User:MaxnaCarta
 * My view is that because Wikipedia has an international audience, the term 'balance of probabilities' runs the risk of misleading international readers, as it has a different meaning in Australia as in other countries such as the USA and the UK. Its therefore essential to an explanation of the Australian balance of probabilities that it include a discussion of the Briginshaw standard and how it affects the way 'balance of probabilities' is interpreted as the Australian civil standard. Many sources and judgements use the term 'briginshaw standard' interchangeably synonymously with BoP and the civil standard; in cases where the civil allegations are relatively serious.
 * For context, part of the reason for this dispute is because its wikilinked from Ben Roberts-Smith. Some editors are unhappy with the way 'balance of probabilities' has been qualified in that article by an attendant explanation of the Briginshaw standard. It also used to wikilink to the USA explanation of the civil standard, which for various reasons would mislead a reader as to the standard that would have applied in the BRS case.
 * I attempted to rectify this by writing this section on Australian civil standards of proof; with the prose above explaining the BoP standard; and that Briginshaw is not seen as a 'third standard' of proof in Australia, and instead being incorporated within the BoP standard. My view is that the prose is fine as drafted. It seems to me that User:Melbguy05 sees Briginshaw as a separate standard of proof (please correct me if I'm wrong Melbguy05); I'm not of that view, and I think the sources establish the faults of that view. I think its important that international readers appreciate the particularities of civil proof in Australia, as its quite different to the USA and UK (it has some similarities in operation with Canada, I intend to add that in future but haven't gotten round to it yet.)
 * Jack4576 (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Melbguy05 please review if what Jack said is accurate. If not, what you disagree with and desired outcome. I’ll then assess both sides and provide my opinion. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jack4576 As written, your contributions look good to me. However, I believe that you need to improve in one particular area, namely the frequency with which you write factually accurate contributions without citing a trustworthy secondary source. EG: The criminal burden of proof in Australia is BRD. True, but this needs an appropriate source. Statutory provisions are primary sources, and citing them is interpretative and original research. There are different standards here compared to law school or practice. I'm not sure if you are working as a lawyer, but if so, the client pays us to interpret the law and write advice. They don't need secondary sources; they just want a clear answer. I see you providing that. Here, though, you need to add a secondary source. Otherwise, people will tag your contributions with a CN template or even remove them. @Melbguy05 That's my opinion on this; ping me if you have further issues. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maxna I respectfully disagree with the notion that BRD needs a source as it’s a fact that’s about as well known as water being wet. If another editor wants to add one though of course I wouldn’t object.
 * Regarding primary sources, let’s have that discussion another time. I think the core issue of avoiding WP:OR has been avoided, which is always the attendant danger of primary sources. Jack4576 (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not removing the contributions. I’m also not telling you what to do as I’m not in authority over anyone. What I’m saying is that by following guidelines to the letter you’ll leave people less willing and able to challenge your contributions. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes don’t worry I know I know.
 * I don’t follow guidelines ‘to the letter’ I read them in conjunction with the 5 pillars. People will always challenge regardless, and that’s their prerogative. Jack4576 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate you stepping in here Maxna, thank you Jack4576 (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Burden of proof (law)


text:
Halemweg (Berlin U-Bahn)

Halemweg is a station on the Berlin U-Bahn line U7, located in the Charlottenburg-Nord district. It was opened on 1 October 1980 (architect R.G.Rümmler) with the line's extension from Richard-Wagner-Platz to Rohrdamm. The eponymous neighborhood street is named after Resistance fighter Nikolaus von Halem, who was executed in Brandenburg-Görden Prison on 9 October 1944. The next station is Jakob-Kaiser-Platz.

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

title: Halemweg (Berlin U-Bahn)


text:
Category:Cryptography

Cryptography is the study of ways to convert information from its normal, comprehensible form into an obscured guise, unreadable without special knowledge — the practice of encryption. In the past, cryptography helped ensure secrecy in important communications, such as those of spies, military leaders, and diplomats. In recent decades, the field of cryptography has expanded its remit. Examples include schemes like digital signatures and digital cash, digital rights management for intellectual property protection, and securing electronic commerce. Cryptography is now often built into the infrastructure for computing and telecommunications; users may not even be aware of its presence.

title: Category:Cryptography


text: Category:BDSM

title: Category:BDSM


text:
Jakob-Kaiser-Platz (Berlin U-Bahn)

Jakob-Kaiser-Platz is a metro station on the Berlin U-Bahn line U7, located in the Charlottenburg-Nord district. It was opened on 1 October 1980 (architect R.G.Rümmler) with the line's extension from Richard-Wagner-Platz to Rohrdamm. The eponymous traffic circle located above the station is named after politician and Resistance fighter Jakob Kaiser (1888–1961). The next station going eastbound is Jungfernheide (change there for DB and S-Bahn)

History
Originally planned under the name Charlottenburg-Nord, the station was built in 1967 future proofing for line U7 in the construction of the above autobahn A 111 and was used to the inclusion of the underground operation as a pedestrian tunnel to the crossing of the highway. However, the actual construction of the underground line between Richard-Wagner-Platz and Rohrdamm did not begin until 1973. Together with the other stations of this construction section, the subway station, opened under the name Jakob-Kaiser-Platz, was put into operation on 1 October 1980.

Like the other stations of the U7 line that were also built at the same time, this station was also designed by Rainer G. Rümmler. Rümmler designed a 110-meter-long central platform with two entrances to the west and east of the A 100 city motorway. The station itself is relatively simple and resembles the neighboring underground station Halemweg. The walls behind the tracks and the support columns are in yellow. The station nameplates are colored dark blue / red. The floor is brightly tiled today. The entrances to the Kurt Schumacher-damm are also yellow roofed in the striking style of the 1970s.

For 2013, a refurbishment of the station was planned. The station was rebuilt to be more accessible and two elevators were installed. The completion of the work was then scheduled for 2017, the cost of which was estimated at 2.1 million euros. Meanwhile, the wall panels have been replaced on the rear track areas by yellow tiles and station signs located there replaced by a smaller and simpler version. The ceiling lights, which were previously arranged transversely to the edge of the platform, gave way to a longitudinal strip of light. The first lift finally went into operation in December 2018, it leads from the east side of the Kurt Schumacher Damm on the platform and cost about 1.1 million euros. A second elevator on the western side will be completed in 2021. For barrier-free expansion, a total of 3.9 million euros are now estimated.

A bus run to now closed Berlin Tegel "Otto Lilienthal" Airport.

title: Jakob-Kaiser-Platz (Berlin U-Bahn)


text:
Broomball

Broomball is a both a recreational and organized competitive winter team sport played on ice or snow and is played either indoors or outdoors, depending on climate and location. It is a ball sport and is most popularly played in Canada and the United States.

Unlike most winter team sports played on ice, organized broomball does not use ice skates. Player footwear for formal play consists of shoes created specifically for broomball which are designed to improve a player's traction on the ice. Though the sport can be played outdoors on snow, organized broomball in the 21st century is primarily played on an ice hockey rink.

Players hit a ball around the ice or snow with a stick. Regardless of whether the broomball stick used by players is a literal broom or a conventional broomball stick with a molded paddle-shaped end, the stick is simply called a "broom." The broom may have a wooden or aluminum shaft and has a rubber-molded triangular head similar in shape to that of a regular broom (or, originally, an actual corn broom with the bristles either cut off or covered with tape or another restricting material). Players wear special rubber-soled shoes instead of skates, and the ice is prepared in such a way that it is smooth and dry to improve traction. The ball can differ whether the game is played indoors or outdoors. The indoor ball is smooth while the outdoor ball has ridges and resembles a small soccer ball.

In a game of broomball there are two teams, each consisting of six players: a goaltender and five others. The object of the game is to score more goals than the opponent. Goals are scored by hitting the ball into the opponent's net using a traditional broom or the more conventional paddle-shaped stick designed for the sport. Tactics and plays are similar to those used in sports such as ice hockey, roller hockey and floorball. The sport uses its own offside rules in both International Federation of Broomball Associations (IFBA) rules and American broomball rules, but both differ. While ice hockey goal nets are sometimes used, a regulation-sized broomball net is considerably larger by comparison. IFBA sanctioned games use a 5 x net, while American broomball uses 6 x nets.

The sport involves organized competitions and events run by its international governing body, the IFBA. The national organization in Canada is Broomball Canada while in the United States the two main organizations are All Elite Broomball (AEB) and the United States Broomball Association (USBA). Every two years the IFBA runs the IFBA World Broomball Championships (also known as the Challenge Cup), an international event with teams from around the world. Historically, the championships have been dominated by the North Americans teams.

A similar game called Moscow broomball is played in Russia.

Gameplay

The sport is played on either an indoor or outdoor ice rink. Conventional play involves the use equipment designed specifically for broomball, though recreationally the traditional corn broom with tape is still used. A regulation broomball goal net is considerably larger than the one used in the sport of ice hockey, though conventional ice hockey nets are often used unofficially.

A broomball game begins with a face-off. A typical game of broomball is broken up into two or three periods. Each team has a goaltender plus five other players, typically two defenders and three attackers (two forwards and one centre). If the ice surface is especially small, some leagues use fewer players on the ice.

The object of the game is to score goals into the opponent's goal or net. The team with the most goals at the end of a game is declared the winner. In some tournaments, if the scores are tied after regular time, an additional overtime period is played to determine a winner. In the overtime period (in most cases), six players, three on each team, play five minutes without a goalie. The team to score more goals in the overtime period is declared the winner. In the event of another tie, a second overtime period may be played. In some games a shootout period will be played. The shooter has the choice to have the ball placed a specified distance from the net or, like in hockey, can play the ball from centre ice.

Equipment
Sport specific equipment involves broomball shoes, broomball sticks, and broomball balls. Equipment used is either traditional for an informal style of play, or a deliberately manufactured design created for modern, formal play.

Protective equipment
In competitive play, protective equipment for broomball is similar to that used in the sports of ice hockey and ringette with some sport specific equipment designed for broomball.

Broomball stick
In traditional play, a broom is literally a broom, usually a corn broom, with tape added to keep the bristles from fraying. In the modern game, a broomball stick has a shaft with a stylized hard plastic paddle at the end.

Broomball shoes
Shoes designed specifically for broomball are available for purchase, but only for games played on ice. The soles are designed to give players traction on the ice.

Broomball balls
In informal play, players can use any type of ball, though a soccer ball is usually used. In more formal play, two types of balls are manufactured for use. An outdoor ball is usually the color blue, while the indoor ball is the color orange.

Broomball goal nets
Broomball goal nets have a different shape than those used in ice hockey and ringette and are larger.

Goaltender equipment
Goaltenders generally wear a full face cage in addition to thick padding on the legs, thighs, chest and shoulders. Goaltenders are permitted to use a blocker, a specially designed rectangular glove attachment that is used to block shots. A blocker is similar to those used by ice hockey and ringette goalies. Goalie's must also wear a chest protector.

Officials
Broomball games are controlled by two on-ice referees. Both referees have the same powers to call all penalties, off-sides, goals, and so on. There usually are off-ice officials as well, depending on the level of the game being played, including a scorekeeper, a timekeeper, a penalty timekeeper, and goal judges.

Referees are generally required to wear black and white vertical-striped jerseys, with a red arm band on one arm. They use this arm to signal penalties throughout the game.

History

There is no known fully accurate history of broomball. The exact origin of the sport has been difficult to pinpoint. The best estimates in regards to its origin involves the First Nations in Canada, who are believed to have passed the sport on to the settlers.

The first known recorded broomball games in North America have been found documented in Perdue, Saskatchewan, on March 5, 1909, though the game has also been observed to have been played by organized girls teams in the Canadian province of Ontario in the early 1900s.

The Canadian style of the game is believed to have spread south to the United States, becoming especially popular in Minnesota. In 1910 a group of men would gather and play on the ice by the docks in Duluth, Minnesota. By the 1960s a broomball community was thriving in Minnesota.

Initially the sport used brooms, usually corn brooms, and an assortment of different types of balls which were bigger than a baseball but not larger than a soccer ball. The playing area for a game of broomball took place on either a snow-covered area or field, or on an area of ice created by frozen ponds, lakes, rivers and the like, until both enclosed indoor and outdoor ice rinks, usually ice hockey rinks using artificial ice became more prevalent. Today the game is played on snow mostly during organized winter festivals, but play using an ice surface, especially artificial ones, has grown in popularity and is the playing area more prevalently seen used today. In regards to equipment, sport specific sticks and balls are available and have been developed for the game with balls designed for both indoor and outdoor play, while protective equipment is similar to and sometimes identical to that found in the sport of ice hockey.

Broomball gradually spread internationally over the following decades, and by the 1980s, organized broomball was being played in Australia, Japan, Sweden, Italy, Germany, and Switzerland.

International governing body
The International Federation of Broomball Associations (IFBA) is the world governing body of broomball. Its headquarters are in Canada.

Every two years the IFBA runs the IFBA World Broomball Championships (also known as the Challenge Cup), an international event with teams from around the world. Historically, the championships have been dominated by the North Americans teams.

International status
Broomball has been gaining popularity internationally. The sport is now an established international recreational sport, played in many countries around the world. Canada and the United States are the "powerhouse" nations of the sport, with their local representative teams often battling in prestigious tournaments held annually across North America.

In Japan, some top teams and players are attracted to regular tournaments. Australia holds its annual National Championships in centres across the country and is continually increasing its number of players in a country where ice sports are not considered popular. Switzerland and Italy regularly send representative teams to tournaments in North America. Other broomball nations include Finland, Germany, and Russia.

IFBA Rules vs USA Rules
There are two main differences between International Federation of Broomball Associations (IFBA) gameplay and American broomball gameplay: the way offside works, and the size of the net. The results of these rules are generally considered to effect the game by making both the score and the pace of play slightly slower under IFBA rules.

Offside
Under IFBA rules, the red line (center ice) is the only line used to determine offside. Once the offensive team clears the red line, the defense must work to get it back over the same line.

In American broomball, a "floating blue line" is employed, meaning the offensive team must pass the blue line, and then the defense must work to get it back over the red line.

Goalnets
The other major difference is the size of the goalnets.

 * IFBA sanctioned games use a 5 x net.
 * American broomball uses 6 x nets.

While there are other slight differences, these two are by far the biggest.

University and college broomball
Broomball is played at many universities and colleges, mostly in North America. Some leagues are competitive while others function as a social event.

United States
In the United States, broomball is played at the following educational institutions:
 * Michigan State University
 * Carleton College
 * Miami University
 * Iowa State University
 * University of Notre Dame
 * Michigan Technological University
 * University of Texas at Austin
 * Rochester Institute of Technology
 * University of Chicago
 * University of Nebraska-Lincoln
 * Boston University
 * Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 * Yale University

Moscow broomball
Broomball is played, with a slightly different ruleset, by expatriates in Moscow.

title: Broomball


text:
Berlin Jungfernheide station

Berlin Jungfernheide is a railway station located at Charlottenburg-Nord, in the Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf district of Berlin, served by the S-Bahn lines and, the U-Bahn line  and Regional-Express trains of the Deutsche Bahn. Its name literally translates into "maidens' heathland"; it was named after the Jungfernheide, a former large forest in the proximity of this station.

S-Bahn station
The S-Bahn station Jungfernheide was opened in 1894, around 20 years after the tracks were first laid on that stretch. It originally had a single island platform, served by trains of the Berlin Ringbahn. This was supplemented in 1908 by a second platform for suburban trains and then later by a third, built specifically for the new Siemensbahn, which was funded by the company Siemens to serve their plant some distance west of the station.

Following the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, however, services were disrupted and the station was reduced to having two platforms. The station fell into complete disuse after 1980, when passenger numbers fell to unsustainable levels. This situation was intensified by the building of the U-Bahn line, which was essentially a parallel service to the S-Bahn to Spandau.

Following the fall of the Wall, many disused S-Bahn lines were brought back into use. This included the Ringbahn but none of the other routes through Jungfernheide, which therefore reopened with only one platform on 15 April 1997, at which time only the line from the south was in use. It was not until 2002 that the Ringbahn was operated again in its entirety and Jungfernheide enjoyed a status as an important interchange between S-Bahn and U-Bahn, owing to its being served by direct trains from the majority of Berlin's central districts.

U-Bahn station
The subway station was opened on 1 October 1980 on the occasion of the commissioning of the route from Rohrdamm to Richard-Wagner-Platz on the. Originally, a changeover to the S-Bahn was planned at this time. However, this had been shut down as a result of the strike of the Reichsbahn two weeks before.

The design took over the architect Rainer Gerhard Rümmler as with all Berlin subway new buildings at this time. The result was a decorated with colorful floral motifs fired on ceramic tiles station, which, however, looks very dark by the barren lighting. The station is designed with two stacked platforms, as a connection to Tegel Airport (Urban Tech Republic) and Rathaus Reinickendorf was provided by the Urban Ring "U0" and the extended line. For this purpose, the eastern platform edge would have been used on both levels. Today, the trains were stacked in two levels, stop in the direction of Rudow at the upper platform and at the lower platform in the direction of Rathaus Spandau.

On 17 December 1997, the subway station received an elevator that connects both platforms with the front hall for accessibility reasons.

In one part of the station and the adjoining unused track tunnel the fire-brigade exercise facility of the Berlin subway is located. It was inaugurated on 14 July 2003. The facility is 350 meters long, including a 90-meter smoke chamber. This marks the U5 platforms and tracks totally unusable. The U5 extension was later cancelled and became a tram route. In addition to the BVG-own staff firefighters, police, emergency physicians and Technisches Hilfswerk train in the emergency training center (Notfallübungscenter (NÜC)) the fire fighting and evacuation. An emergency exit can also be included in the exercises.

Deutsche Bahn station
The part of the station for regional trains was opened on 28 May 2006 along with the new Berlin Hauptbahnhof, which also included a major reorganisation of the train services in and around Berlin. The station is served around half-hourly for most of the day by the Regional-Express line RE4, which runs between Rathenow and Jüterbog, and the RegionalBahn service RB10, from Nauen to Berlin Hbf.

Before the Ringbahn was reactivated in this area, its platform B was used in the early 1990s as a terminus for regional trains.

Rail services
The station is serves by the following services:

 * Rathenow – Wustermark – Berlin Jungfernheide – Berlin Hauptbahnhof - Ludwigsfelde – Jüterbog – Falkenberg (Elster)
 * Nauen – Falkensee – Berlin Jungfernheide – Berlin Hauptbahnhof – Berlin Potsdamer Platz – Berlin Südkreuz
 * Nauen – Falkensee – Berlin Jungfernheide – Berlin Hauptbahnhof – Berlin Potsdamer Platz – Berlin Südkreuz
 * Berlin Gesundbrunnen – Berlin Jungfernheide – Berlin-Spandau – Dallgow-Döberitz – Wustermark – Golm – Potsdam

Berlin S-Bahn services:
 * (Ring Clockwise) Jungfernheide - Gesundbrunnen - Ostkreuz - Treptower Park - Hermannstraße - Südkreuz - Innsbrucker Platz - Westkreuz - Westend - Jungfernheide
 * (Ring Anti-clockwise) Jungfernheide - Westend - Westkreuz - Innsbrucker Platz - Südkreuz - Hermannstraße - Treptower Park - Ostkreuz - Gesundbrunnen - Jungfernheide

U-Bahn services:
 * Spandau - Jungfernheide - Charlottenburg - Fehrberlliner Platz - Yorckstraße - Mehringdamm - Neukölln - Rudow

Other transport links
The station is also served by four bus lines during the day. There is also one night bus service.

title: Berlin Jungfernheide station


text:
Riviera Maya

The Riviera Maya is a tourism and resort district south of Cancun, Mexico. It straddles the coastal Federal Highway 307, along the Caribbean coastline of the state of Quintana Roo, located in the eastern portion of the Yucatán Peninsula. Originally the name applied narrowly, focusing on the area of coastline between the city of Playa del Carmen and Tulum. The designation has since expanded up and down the coast, now including the towns of Puerto Morelos, situated to the north of Playa del Carmen, as well as the town of Felipe Carrillo Puerto, situated 40 km to the south of Tulum. This larger region is what is currently being promoted as part of the Riviera Maya tourist corridor.

Once the area was originally only called the "Cancun–Tulum corridor", but in 1999 it was renamed as the Riviera Maya, analogous to the Italian and French Riviera, with the instigation of among others, Miguel Ramón Martín Azueta. At the time, he was the municipal president of Solidaridad, Quintana Roo. The Riviera Maya includes the municipalities of Solidaridad in the north and Tulum in the south, and extends approximately 40 km inland, to the border with the state of Yucatán.

Tourism
The Riviera Maya is famous for its large scale all-inclusive resorts and a historical tourism base of smaller boutique hotels as well as the many fine-dining restaurants available along the Fed 307 and on or near the beaches. Luxury travel entities have been instrumental in increasing luxury villa rentals and yacht charters in the area however these only represent a small fraction of the total tourism accommodation available.

Government development plans include establishing a number of medium-sized cities of ~200,000 inhabitants within the Riviera Maya with initial planning spanning 20 years. Target areas for urbanization include the towns and villages of: Puerto Aventuras, Akumal, Chemuyil, and Tulum.

A major attraction throughout the Riviera Maya are coastal and reef aquatic activities dependent on the beaches, coastal water and the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (also known as the Belize Barrier Reef) which begins near Cancun and continues along the whole length of the Riviera Maya continuing southward to Guatemala. This barrier reef system is the second longest in the world.

Activities at the most visited locations include jet-skiing, snorkeling, scuba diving, swimming in cenotes, swimming with dolphins, zip-lining, horse riding, sailing, and guided jungle tours. Archeology is also a big tourist draw in the area, including the popular archeological sites operated by the Instituto Nacional de Archeological such as Tulum on the coast, and Chichen Itza and Coba located some distance inland. The self-named ecoparks of Xcaret and Xel-Ha also include some smaller archeological ruins as part of their attractions, but these natural water theme parks operated by private business consortia attract much larger crowds due to the diversity and range of activities provided, such as swimming with captive dolphins.

Climate
The mean annual temperature is 24 - 25 C. The climate is dominated by a rainy season from May through November, and within the dry season there is a period dominated by northerly winds, called El Norte, which usually occurs in the months of January and February. The maximum mean annual precipitation throughout the Yucatán Peninsula occurs along the coast of the Riviera Maya with 1500 mm of rainfall with a general decline to the NW with only 400 mm per year or less on the opposite side of the Peninsula. While the Caribbean coast of the Yucatán experiences a large number of tropical storms and hurricanes, the storm tracks and therefore landfalls of these are divergent to both the north (Cancun) and the south (south of Tulum and down to Belize) striking generally outside the Riviera Maya. Groundwater and therefore cenote water temperatures are 25 °C year round. Coastal waters range from 26 °C in January to 29 °C in August.

Geography
The Riviera Maya is completely within the state of Quintana Roo on the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico. The terrain is flat and covered by low tropical jungle. The geology is high purity carbonates down to a depth of 0.5–1.5 km below the surface. Mean annual rainfall is 1.5 m per year and the efficient infiltration results in the complete absence of any surface rivers. As is common in karst, underground river networks have formed by dissolution, and these have been explored and mapped by cave diving through sinkhole collapses, locally called cenotes.

The whole of the Yucatán Peninsula is underlain by a density-stratified coastal aquifer system with a lens-shaped freshwater body floating on top of intruding saline water. The formation of caves (speleogenesis) within this coastal carbonate aquifer is principally associated with carbonate dissolution at the fresh-saline water contact within the aquifer. By 2008, the Quintana Roo Speleological Society (QRSS) reported more than 700 km of flooded cave passages within the limits of the Riviera Maya including the two longest underwater cave systems in the world of Sac Actun and Ox Bel Ha. These groundwater resources, accessed via the thousands of cenotes throughout the landscape, once supported the Maya civilizations and today remain the only natural sources of potable water in the area.

The Caribbean coastline is a series of crescent shaped white sand beaches interrupted every 1–10 km by rocky headlands and inlets, called caletas, through which groundwater discharges into the coastal water. Large sections of the extensive mangrove swamps that lie behind the beaches and headlands are included in the areas scheduled for tourism development.

Transportation
Most tourists to the Riviera Maya arrive through Cancún International Airport, approximately 50 km north of Playa del Carmen.

About 20 km north of Tulum, a new international airport was announced. In March 2011, the bidding for construction contracts was to be concluded.

As of April 2014, all projects related with the Tulum Airport are no longer available through official sites. The high speed trans-peninsula train is now the main project for the area.

In 2018 construction started on the Tren Maya, which would run the length of the Riviera Maya and connect it with other destinations on the Yucatán peninsula.

title: Riviera Maya


text:
Mierendorffplatz (Berlin U-Bahn)

Mierendorffplatz is a station on the Berlin U-Bahn line in Charlottenburg. It was opened on 1 October 1980 with the line's extension from Richard-Wagner-Platz to Rohrdamm. The eponymous square is named after politician and Resistance fighter Carlo Mierendorff (1897–1943). Architect Rümmler designed this station walls like the pattern of a M as in Mierendorffplatz. The next station is Richard Wagner Platz.

title: Mierendorffplatz (Berlin U-Bahn)


text:
Biak

Biak is the main island of Biak Archipelago located in Cenderawasih Bay near the northern coast of Papua, an Indonesian province, and is just northwest of New Guinea. Biak has many atolls, reefs, and corals.

The largest population centre is at Kota Biak (Biak City) on the south coast. The rest of the island is thinly populated with small villages.

Biak is part of the Biak Islands (Kepulauan Biak), and is administered by Biak Numfor Regency.

Geography
Biak covers an area of 2,455 km2 The island is 72 km long and 37 km wide at its widest point. The highest point is approximately 740 meters elevation, located in the northwest of the island.

The island of Supiori lies close to the northwest, separated from Biak by a narrow, shallow channel. The smaller Padaido Islands lie south and southeast of Biak.

Collectively Biak, Supiori, the Padaido Islands, and the island of Numfor to the southwest are known as the Schouten Islands, also called the Biak Islands or Geelvink Islands. Biak is the largest island in the group, and the most populated. The islands enclose Cenderawasih Bay on the north. The island of Yapen lies south of Biak and the Padaido Islands, separated by a broad channel.

The island is administered by Biak Numfor Regency, which also includes Numfor and the Padaido Islands. The administrative center is at Biak City. Supiori was formerly part of Biak Numfor Regency, but was made a separate regency in 2004.

History
Biak was first sighted by Europeans by the Portuguese navigator Jorge de Menezes in 1526. In his voyage from Malacca to Maluku via northern Borneo, Jorge de Menezes landed at Biak Islands, at the entrance of the Gulf, where he was forced to winter; the island is thenceforth called in Portuguese maps Ilha de Dom Jorge or Ilha onde invernou Dom Jorge, to become, finally, Ilha de S. Jorge.

The Spanish navigator Álvaro de Saavedra sighted the island on 24 June 1528, when trying to return from Tidore to New Spain. Another sighting was later reported in 1545 by Spanish navigator Íñigo Ortiz de Retes on board of galleon San Juan when also attempting the return to New Spain

The archipelago was first mapped in the Portuguese charts of Gaspar Viegas (c. 1537), an anonymous map of 1540, and on the maps of João de Lisboa and of Bartolomeu Velho (c. 1560), and by other Portuguese, Spanish, and Dutch maps.

In World War II, a strategic airfield of the Imperial Japanese Army was located there, serving as a base for operations in the Pacific theatre. American forces eventually captured the island during the Battle of Biak. The captured airfield was renamed Mokmer Airfield and later transferred to the Royal Australian Air Force. Biak became the second landing of allied forces after Hollandia. Many Biak islanders received supplies from allied forces such as clothes and foods.

To restore Dutch rule after the war they reopened schools and re-employed graduates from teacher schools in Miei. Some Biak islanders including Frans Kaisieppo, Eduard Rumbrar, Markus Kaisiepo, Marttinus Rumayau, and Lukas Rumkorem were educated in Bestuur schools. By September 1945, Lukas Rumkorem founded Perserikatan Indonesia Merdeka (PIM), the first political party in Biak which held meetings during September and November in Nusi and from January 1946 in Bosnek. Although Rumkorem's activity would be found out by Hoofd Plaatselik Bestuur (HPB), no further action would be taken as the HPB went on sick leave until the resident found out. By the middle of 1947, Lukas Rumkorem would be captured by Dutch authority accused of trying to kill Frans Kaisiepo and Marcus Kaisiepo. De Bruijn as district leader of Biak would reorganised and formed regional council Kakain Karkara on 20 November 1947 to rebuild villages which were destroyed after Koreri movements against social changes brought by outsiders.

In his administration de Bruijn had a right hand man by the name of Stefanus Yoseph which was formerly under the employ of Japanese and met de Bruijn during his employment in Wissel Lakes (Paniai), Stefanus Yoseph was entrusted as warden in Biak, during which he stayed with Petero Jandi a Makassarese working as woodworker in HPB office. According to Stefanus, Petero Jandi was an Indonesian nationalist extremist (with links with Polongbangkeng group from South Sulawesi) which was captured and exiled to Biak. When Solait the bestuurassistent was on holiday in Ambon, Stefanus was chosen as bestuurassistent. During this time they supported two prisoners, Hermanus Rumere and Ambonese named Watti which led an attack on ammunition depot and Biak prison on 14 March 1948. Another important figure in this rebellion was Hanoch Rumbrar a clerk in HPB office, which became the intermediary between civilians and Petero Jandi's movement in garnering support and campaign from January to 10 March to become part of 'Sukarno's Republic'. They gained some support however some rejected not because they were pro-Dutch but afraid of similar retaliation during Manseren incident (1942-1943). This movement also tried to coordinate with Silas Papare's PKII particularly with Saleh, Ratulangi's exiled assistant in Serui. A week before this rebellion de Bruijn was on official travel. The plan was to attack KNIL garrison in Sorido followed with attack to central radio station and KNIL military post in Boruku field and Mokmer to gain weapons and free prisoners in Serui before invading Manokwari and Sorong. The rebellion did not go to plan and led to shootouts as one of local Biak youth, Terrianus shot Dutch Sergeant Schipper. By Monday, Stefanus Yoseph was captured, followed by Petero Jandi, Hanoch Rumbrar, and others the next day. Around 40 rebels would be captured and brought to Cipinang prison in Jakarta and released in the 1950s. Petero Jandi would receive capital punishment in Hollandia while others holdouts in jungle, like Petrus Korwa and Hanoch Rumbrar were sent to Digul.

PIM activities would resume after the arrival of Corinus Krey from Hollandia on 7 August 1949. On 1 October 1949, there would be a meeting in the home of Yenures village leader, David Rumaropen to reorganise PIM and formally reactivated on 5 October 1949 in Bosnik, in the home of Lukas Rumkorem, with him as leader, Corinus Krey as deputy and J. Tarumaselly as advisor and Petrus Warikar as secretary. By 1958, a new movement led by Lukas Rumkorem was formed called Tentara Tjadangan Tjenderawasih (TTT), which according to J. Tarumaselly had branches in other region of Papua. This organisation sent some papuan youths to undergo military training outside Biak which was planned to guide Indonesia infiltration forces. TTT also made contacts with Indonesia Consulate General in Singapore to utilise Chinese-Indonesian as they move more freely with KPM ships other activities include surveillance of potential important locations in Biak by J. Tarumaselly and T. Rumngeur which was sent to Indonesian representatives in Singapore, Ambon, Hollandia, and Serui. TTT activities would be stopped after Dutch authorities found out and captured David Woisiri, Rafael Maselkosu, J. Tarumaselly, Jonathan Saroy, and Frits Werluken member of TTT branch of Serui.

It was transferred from Dutch rule, along with half of New Guinea, to Indonesia in the 1960s. On 15 August 1962, New York Agreement was signed, which contained provision for Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat. From 29 September to 19 October 1962, there was a papuan delegations consisting of 19 members to visit Indonesian regions and meet with Sukarno in Jakarta. Another delegations from papuan regions consisted of 34 people declare their oaths for Indonesia, among these Biak sent 2 delegates, Ds. F.J.S. Rumainum and Frans Kaisiepo. Another declaration from education employees delegates consisted of 16 people with Biak represented by L. Manidbodibo and N. Urbinas.

On 1 July 1998, the anniversary of the unsuccessful 1971 Papuan declaration of independence, Biak was the scene of what is commonly known as the 'Biak Massacre' or 'Bloody Biak'. Members of the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (Free Papua Movement), raised 'The Morning Star', at Kota Biak water tower and camped there for the next six days.

At 05:30 on 6 July 1998, the demonstration was fired upon by the Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI or Indonesian Military). Many were shot while attempting to flee. Survivors were rounded up and forced to the docks where they were kept for several days while further demonstrators were caught.

About 200 of the original demonstrators were forcibly loaded onto two Indonesian naval vessels and taken to two different locations to be thrown into the ocean. In the following days, bodies washed up on Biak's shores, or were snarled in fishing nets. The TNI explained that the bodies turning up belonged to victims of the Aitape tsunami which occurred approximately 1,000. km away in Papua New Guinea.

Demographics
The people of Biak are predominantly Melanesians, though speaking predominantly Austronesian languages and the main religion is Christianity.

In Biak and surrounding regions, many titles relating to jobs in Tidore Sultanate administration became used as clan and family names, which include Korano or Kolano (ultimately from Javanese Klono in Panji), Sanadi or Sangaji (district leader), Mayor which had job to deliver tribute to Tidore. Dimara (village leader), military leaders such as Kapitarau (sea captain) and Kapisa (captain), as well as numerous names with starting element of Rum- such as Rumbiak, Rumbewas, Rumbekwan, have origin in Tidore language, as Rum referred to specific area in palace of Tidore.

However due to extensive foreign trading relationship Biak and Yapen islands as well as the Yondama bay host a sizeable descendant of foreign traders. This can be seen with these islands has the largest local Chinese-descent population in Papua provinces. They have intermarried with locals for generations and sometimes took on local family name. Proof of extensive foreign tradings also include various local traditions involving Chinese porcelains, such as Mansorandak tradition of stepping on a plate after going back from long voyage.

The official language is Indonesian and the main local language is Biak. Other languages such as English are also used, but limited. Administratively there are 12 kecamatan, covering only the island itself, having 122,166 people in the 2020 census.

Climate
Biak features a tropical rainforest climate with nearly identical temperatures throughout the course of the year. The average annual temperature in the city is 26 C, which is also generally the average temperature of each day in Biak. The city sees a good amount of precipitation in every month throughout the course of the year, averaging roughly 2816 mm of precipitation per year. Its driest months November, average a little under 200 mm of rain per month.

Economy
The island is relatively rural and most Papuans on the island subsist off the land, primarily by fishing or gathering. It has large reserves of copper and nickel. For generations, most Papuans have inherited "customary claims" to parcels of land that they live off of and these property rights are defended by both the property's owner and possibly also the property owner's clan.

Transport
Biak is served by Frans Kaisiepo Airport, which has flights from all over Indonesia.

Biak lies at latitude 1 degree south of the equator and consequently, any rockets launched from the island would require less fuel to reach Earth's orbit and enter into a geocentric orbit than had the same rocket been launched further away from the equator. The equatorial location offers particularly efficient launches to equatorial and near-equatorial orbits; facing eastward toward the Pacific Ocean reduces the downrange risks of launch. , space satellite launch services had been planned for the new Biak Spaceport.

Tradition
The Biak Numfor culture revolves around their ancient animist religion, although today they are Christian as well.

Their beliefs revolve around a ritual ceremony called Wor, where they will be plagued by all kinds of bad luck and sickness. The Wor is in all aspect of their life and some of their traditional ceremonies are still being held now. They include the first hair cut ceremony (Wor Kapapnik), the growing up ceremony (Wor Famarmar) and the Wedding ceremony (Wor Yakyaker Farbakbuk). All of these ceremonies are accompanied by singing, dancing and offering to ancestral spirits.

Yosim Pancar Dance
The Biak Numfor have a friendship dance called Yosim Pancar which is popular across West Papua and coastal Papua. Its small to mid-size dance group formations could last all-night long. Several "Yosim Pancar" moves that are popular till this day are: Pancar Gas, Gale-Gale, Jef, Pacul Tiga, Seka, and Poco-poco adaptation.

This dance is an amalgamation of two traditional dances namely Yosim dances originating from the bay of Sairei (Serul, Waropen) and Pancar dances originating from Biak, Numfor and Manokwari. The musical instruments used for Yosim usually used are cuku lele (Ukulele), and guitars which shows foreign influences as these were not instruments from Papua. Included was also local bass made from three strings, with the strings made from Pandan leaves. As well as Kalabasa, a dried Calabash, which was then filled with beads. In Yosim dance, the women are dressed with weavings to cover the chest, and headress made from bird feathers. While the men are bare-chested and wearing the same headress. The dance movement are more energetic though simple. In Pancar dance, the music are from Tifa drums which is the universal instruments for coastal Papuans. The drum skin is usually made from soa-soa (lizards). The movements are more stiff following the Tifa beats.

Movements include Seka, this dance movement are usually from southern coast with famous version from Kaimana, Fakfak, and Timika. In Pacul Tiga, or Pancar Meneru the dancer swing forward three steps, and throw both arms and one leg to the left and right, which was then repeated fir the other leg. Jef movements are influenced by rock and roll dance from 1969-1971, Gale-Gale movements are from Wondama Bay and Mor-Mambor islands. Pancar movements are performed by the dancers move in a circle. These movements was inspired by animals, and have four variations.

The rhythm and song of Yosim Pancar dance are now being modernized with special effect sounds and pop dance beat. Originally the rhythm is to summon ancestral spirits and let them join the group. The traditional musical instrument of this dance is a self-made string bass from coconut tree and roots which is similar to the guitar or ukulele.

Flora and fauna
The rain forest-covered Biak Islands have been designated the Biak–Numfoor rain forests, especially as they have the largest number of endemic bird species of any single area in the New Guinea region. There are also numerous reptile and amphibian species found here. Among the many snake species catalogued by Tom Mendelson during his herpetological survey of Biak in the 1990s, the green tree python (Morelia viridis) and the amethystine python (Morelia amethystina) were quite common. The Biak glider is a recently reclassified gliding possum species, formerly considered a sugar glider subspecies.

There are numerous types of flora in the tropical rain forest of the island, including a variety of trees and other commercially important species plus the lush vegetation of mangrove swamps. The recently discovered palm tree Manjekia maturbongsii is endemic to Biak.

Notable people

 * Frans Kaisiepo, 4th Governor of Papua (as West Irian) and National Hero of Indonesia
 * Johannes Abraham Dimara, Indonesian Army major and National Hero of Indonesia
 * Beatrix Koibur - politician.
 * Raema Lisa Rumbewas - Olympic weightlifter.
 * Nitya Krishinda Maheswari - Badminton player, gold medalist at Southeast Asian Games and Asian Games.

title: Biak


text:
Flora Fountain

Flora Fountain is a Fountain located at the Hutatma Chowk is an ornamentally sculpted architectural heritage monument located at the southern end of the historic Dadabhai Naoroji Road, at the Fort business district in the heart of South Mumbai, Mumbai, India. Flora Fountain, built in 1864, depicts the Roman goddess Flora. It was built at a total cost of Rs. 47,000, or 9,000 pounds sterling, a large sum in those days.

History
The fountain originally intended for the Victoria Gardens, is now surmounted by the figure of Plenty ("Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries."). History of the Flora Fountain is traced to the time when the Old Mumbai Fort was demolished in 1860 as part of the then Governor, Sir Bartle Frère's efforts to improve civic sanitation (municipal improvements) and the urban space requirements of the growing city. Prior to this demolition, the Fort had been built between 1686 and 1743 by the British East India Company with three gates (the Apollo Gate, the Church Gate and the Bazaar Gate), a moat, esplanade, level open spaces on its western fringe (to control fires) and residences. A small road called the Hornby Road, named after the then Governor of Bombay (Mumbai) between 1771 AD and 1784 AD, also existed at the old Fort area. Consequent to the demolitions, the Hornby road was widened into a broad avenue and on its western side commercial plots were developed to build new commercial buildings in Neo Classical and Gothic Revival designs. The Dadabhai Naoroji Road (D. N. Road), developed into a veritable sight of colonial splendor with Crawford Market linked to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus anchoring the northern end and the Flora Fountain, forming the southern end of the Mile Long Road.

The Flora Fountain was erected at the exact place where the Church gate (named after St. Thomas Cathedral, Mumbai ) stood before its demolition along with the Mumbai Fort. It was constructed by the Agri–Horticultural Society of Western India, out of a donation of Rs 20,000 by Cursetjee Fardoonjee Parekh. Designed by Richard Norman Shaw, it was sculpted in imported Portland stone by James Forsythe. A white coat of oil paint has to some extent marred the antiquity of the structure. The fountain was originally to be named after Sir Bartle Frère, the Governor of Bombay at the time, whose progressive policy had resulted in many of the great public buildings of Mumbai. However, the name was changed before the fountain was unveiled as Flora Fountain, named after Flora, a Roman Goddess of flowers and the season of spring; her majestic and pretty Portland stone statue adorns the top of the fountain. The four corners of the fountain have four life-sized female mythological figures carrying foliage to represent the four seasons.

The fountain was originally intended to be built at the Jijamata Udyaan at Byculla but, in 1908, the grass plot and the palm trees that had camouflaged the fountain were cleared for creating space for pedestrians and horse–traffic between the tram lines and the kerb of the fountain.

Hutatma chowk
From the time the Flora Fountain was built in 1864 and until 1960, the chowk (square) where five streets meet (hence, also known as the Piccadilly Circus of Mumbai ) and the fountain stands now, was named as the Flora Fountain area. But in 1960, to commemorate the people who laid their lives in the turbulent birth of Maharashtra State at the square, it was renamed as the Hutatma Chowk with a stone statue bearing a pair of torch-holding patriots. The Flora Fountain, surrounded by the British Victorian era heritage buildings, is very much part of the chowk and has been declared a heritage structure and it continues to charm visitors with its beauty and with its spray of water. It sits well alongside the Hutatma statue which adorns the chowk. (Picture depicts the two structures). It was the decision of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly that recommended to the Government to take necessary steps to erect as early as possible a memorial at Flora Fountain in Bombay in commemoration of the sacrifices of the persons who died on the police firing at Flora Fountain in Bombay in the month of November 1955.

Nostalgia
Nostalgic writing by a cricketer, an unnamed resident of Mumbai who played street cricket in front of the fountain in his youth, reads that the fountain at the centre of the Mumbai city evokes feelings: ''The Centres of the world are well etched in the mind: the New York City's Time Square and the Paris's Champs-Élysées, London's Piccadilly Circus. Even now I feel a curious magic about Mumbai's Flora Fountain. We called it the heart of the city and so it was.''

Poetic expression
A poem in Marathi language by Niranajan Bhagat translated to English extols the beauty of the Flora Fountain thus: A Glass and concrete jungle;

In its midst always

Quiet, comely,

With hope filled face,

she stands

Flora

A dream of spring in her matchless eyes,

holding in both hands stone flowers.

About her, in all corners,

Iron butterflies fly round and round

And lifeless insects play

title: Flora Fountain


text: User:Morwen/District names

title: User:Morwen/District names


text:
File:The Wiki Way.jpg

Fair use rationale for The Wiki Way
Although this image is subject to copyright, it is covered by US fair use laws because:
 * 1) The image is only being used in the article about the book (The Wiki Way) for informational and educational purposes.
 * 2) Use of the book cover visually identifies the book and its author in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC.
 * 3) This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone.
 * 4) The image is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.
 * 5) The image is the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
 * 6) The image is a low resolution image of the book cover, in an inferior graphics format (JPEG).
 * 7) The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
 * 8) The use of this image will not affect the value of the original work.
 * 9) The use of this image will not limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute or make a profit from the original. In particular, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the book.

title: File:The Wiki Way.jpg


text:
Category:Violence

Violence is the exertion of physical force so as to kill, injure or abuse, such as murder or forceful human destruction of property or injury to persons or animals, usually intentional, and forceful verbal and emotional abuse that harms others.

title: Category:Violence


text:
User:Céçaquiéça

fr:Utilisateur:Céçaquiéça

title: User:Céçaquiéça


text:
Category:Condensed matter physics

Condensed matter physics is the field of physics that deals with the macroscopic physical properties of matter. In particular, it is concerned with the "condensed" phase matter, phases that appear whenever the number of constituents in a system is extremely large and the interactions between the constituents are strong. The most familiar examples of condensed phases are solids and liquids; more exotic condensed phases include the superfluid and the Bose-Einstein condensate, the superconducting phase, and the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic phases of spins on atomic lattices.

title: Category:Condensed matter physics


text:
Talk:Index of BDSM articles

Untitled
OK, now we've got enough entries to construct a BDSM-specific topic list, we can start to fill in the gaps. -- Karada 20:52, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well I guess since some words have no link these are sort of requests for new wikipedia entries ?194.183.196.141 07:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I am sure there is a good reason to list Richard Francis Burton, but nothing in his wikipedia entry explains the link with BDSM... Could someone explain ?194.183.196.141 08:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Richard Francis Burton translated the Kama Sutra (which contains S&M topics) into English Robin Roberts 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Commons images
There's now commons:Category:BDSM symbols over on Wikimedia Commons. AnonMoos 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Under the Bridge by ropemarks.jpg

WHY YOU USED DIRTY IMAGES IN INDEX ITSELF
THE PAGE HAS TWO IMAGES WHICH CAN BE EASILY USED FOR STIMULATION OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT OR RAPE. THE CASE ACTUALLY SO MUCH SERIOUS IN SOME CASES THE IMAGES ARE EITHER USE ANIMATION OR PAINTING FOR IT THANK YOU Ravinesh rds (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)RAVINESH RDSRavinesh rds (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)10:38 GMT 7/17/2020
 * https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Submissive_BDSM_poses.jpg
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Under_the_Bridge_by_ropemarks.jpg

 * Signature moved from heading. Please do not add your signature to the heading of posts. Secondly, please do not type in all-caps, since that comes across as yelling. If you personally find these images (which do not appear to encourage rape or assault) "dirty", there are ways for you to hide them in your browser. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 18:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Index of BDSM articles