text:
Talk:666 (number)

Way too much stuff
Okay, this is just ridiculous. Some of this is marginally interesting, but honestly, saying what Alt-666 will get you? Why not add what Unicode character 666 is? (There isn't one; it skips straight from 601 to 710.) Or how about adding what day of the week June 6, 1966 was? (It was a Monday.) I mean, come on! I'm considering the removal of: Any opinions? If nobody objects, I'll just delete the stuff, and narrow the entry down mostly to legitimate mathematical properties. —Simetrical 20:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * All "the 666th X is Y", like "The 666th non square-free number is 1701." This is not a mathematical property of 666.
 * Stupidly obvious stuff, like "666 is the 333rd even number".
 * The entries about $$6^{6^6}$$ and Ü.
 * I agree with you, but it seems you never got around to this. Since nobody has responded to this. I will leave it a couple of days to give people time to object, then do it myself. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hold on, it appears that some of this stuff has gone and some new junk has crept in. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

userbox for people obsessed with 666
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Java7837 (talk • contribs)

John of Patmos encoded Neron Kaisar (Greek) as "666", Nero Caesar (Latin) became "616" in Vulgate
I added... John of Patmos encoded Neron Kaisar as "six hundred sixty-six (666)" by transliterating his name in Greek into Hebrew gematria. Nero Caesar in Latin was transliterated into "six hundred sixteen (616)" through Hebrew gematria. "616" appeared in the Latin Vulgate. 73.85.202.238 (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

 * 616 is an alternative to 666 known from a few old Bible manuscripts. I'm not sure how much relevance it has to this article (as opposed to Number of the beast). AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Unicode value of the words HOLYBIBLE total to 666 but I don't know how to post it without the moderators deleting my contributions and threatening me. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

666
The subject of 666 is misunderstood.The scripture says that 666 is the number of the name of a man.The first six of the most significant digit represent the initial of the first name and the position the alphabet lies on the alphabetical list.The second digit represent the middle name and the last digit represent the surname or tittle.Note that the old Hebrew contained no Vowels but only consonants. Using the Roman letters,a name like Avensius Armenius Augustus would be written as Hvnshhs Hrmnhs Hgsths.If we remove the Vowels from the Roman Alphabets,the letter H lies the sixth place and the name vnshhs Hrmnhs Hgsths can numerically be represeted as 666. 666 is the initials of a name of the Roman emperor Avensius Armenius Augustus.He is the the man referred to in the scripture as the son of Perdition.Note that at his command the second Temple that was at Jerusalem was destroyed by his son Titus Christianitystudycentre (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 * That's not how it works with traditional examples such as "Nero(n) Kaisar". Ancient isopsephy used the Greek alphabet, and the New Testament is in Greek, so I really don't know why the Latin alphabet would be relevant at all... AnonMoos (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Numerology argument
Recently, added "It's also worth noting that the Unicode values of the words HOLY BIBLE (using capital letters) total to 666. Where H = 72, O = 79,  L = 76, Y = 89, B = 66, I = 73, B = 66, L = 76 and E = 69, HOLY BIBLE = 666." to the article. While this is true, (and stems from ASCII code values), it should also be noted that : The point is, to figure out if it is significant or not, you need to look at the bigger picture, i.e. how often that happens in in any random text. Dhrm77 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are at least 169 words (up to 8 letters long) for which the sum of the ASCII code of its letters adds up to 666. That includes: slinky, royals, runner, buyers, mosque, soviet, sperms, sphinx, floppy, tomboy, zipper and worker.
 * There are millions of words combination where the sum of the letters also adds up to 666, including "A MUSICIAN", "A Bookie", "A PARASITE", "A SERAPHIM", "A SERGEANT", "A RELIGION", "A DIURETIC", "I REASONED", "HE HAMMERS", "AN ANALOGY", "GO EARLIER", "BY ADVICES", "WE ENLARGE", "WE DICTATE", "IS PAYABLE", "NO BATHING", "ON CHARGES", "PACKING IT", "OR PEACHES", "TO DEFLECT", "CUDDLED UP", "MY BANANAS", "Be Giant", "US CALIBER", "He Bears", "Hi Alien", "An Ankle", "Do Cheer", "As Death", "Go Panda", "In China", "Magic Ax", "No Babes", "My Cache", "TIMELY CAB", "BAD SUBURB", "HONEST DAD", "ACE ALWAYS", "RANSOM BAG", "VIRGIN BED", "MORGUE BED", "MORTAL FAD", "MATURE BEE", "POLITE AGE", "VICTIM AID", "LOUNGE FEE", "FLYING BAN", "hi sexy", "LIVING ICE", "ORGASM CAM", "BIG SAVING", "ENTIRE EGG", "BOB SPEAKS", "FILTER CAP", "CLERGY GAL", "MATZAH FAN", "JOCKEY BAR", "KIDNEY MED", "HAM EATERS", "HYDRID CAR", "ODD REPAIR", "ODDEST ELF", "SMOKED BAT", "SAD NOTICE", "FAR CITIES", "ALL RECENT", "CENTER SEA", "HORNED GOD", "GOD wept", "RED CARPET", "FAT GAMERS", "INSANE MAN", "SESAME BAY", "GLORIA AVE", "we poop", "FARMER TED", "CHURCH HAT", "SALTED DIP", "VERBAL MAP", "GINGER PIE", "OLD INCOME", "RAM BUFFER", "THE ORCHID", "GAY BRIDES", "so this", "LILAC HUES", "ONE GAZEBO", "COCKER EYE", "ORB NEBULA", "to pass", "SHARED POD", "up axis", "my ship", "GAMING FIX", "BEFORE MAY", "BENIGN FLU", "TEN MADAMS", "ANY ANIMAL", "ENAMEL CUP", "us dorm", "HANGAR KEY", "PET BAZAAR", "GENIAL BOY", "WAR DEVICE", "NEW DIALOG", "BIGGER BUS", "FRAMED TUB", "CUT BAGELS", "CAPPED TAX", "SAY CHEESE", "DEALER TIP", "CEREAL MIX", "OFFICE RUG", "AGEING LOT", "WET PAJAMA", "FEMALE SEX", "SIX BABIES", "HABILE GUY", "GRAPE JAMS", "ARABIC ZOO", "Bad Goon", "Evil BABE", "NYLON Bag", "Shoe Fad", "DEAD SKUNK", "Folk Aid", "PERKY FACE", "CAFE OWNER", etc... to list a few.
 * And I only looked at words up to 8 letters. If you include bigger words, you can get many more.

 * The words HOLY BIBLE are not random. I can do exactly what you did as well and analyze thousands of word and word combinations at once to find other combinations that total to 666. But HOLY BIBLE is literally the title of the book that discuss the number 666 in Revelation 13:18. None of the words and/or word combinations have anything to do with Revelation 13:18 or the Bible so your analysis is meaningless. The title of the book is not random, and I think that you are the one that is not looking at the big picture and the implications of my point. You're clearly trying to discredit me by throwing irrelevant information in volume at the readers. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop pushing this trivial coincidence. And "HOLY BIBLE" does not sum to 666 when adding up the Unicode values of the characters. It adds to 698 since the Unicode value of the space is 32. Meters (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all off-topic, not to mention extremely silly. Unicode, ASCII and the English Language didn't even exist when Revelation was written. We don't even mention Unicode or ASCII in the article because they are completely irrelevant to this topic. Per WP:NOTFORUM, I'm rolling this up to avoid further time wasting. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:666 (number)


text:
Roger de Moulins

Roger de Moulins was the eighth Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller from 1177 until his death in 1187. He succeeded Jobert of Syria. His successors were two interim masters, William Borrel and then Armengol de Aspa, before the permanent Grand Master Garnier of Nablus was selected in 1190.

Biography
Roger de Moulins was little known to history before his elevation to the magistracy of the Order. He may have been a Norman knight from Moulins, but there is no proof of that. His first concern, after his installation in the Holy Land, was to urge Baldwin IV of Jerusalem and the principal lords of the kingdom to continue the war against Saladin with vigor. On 25 November 1177, he participated in the Battle of Montgisard, winning "the most beautiful victory of the crusades" against the Ayyubids. Saladin's defeat is regarded as so severe that it was only redeemed by his victory ten years later at the Battle of Hattin in 1187.

The Hospitallers formed one of the strongest military organizations of the kingdom, but this was contrary to the spirit of the Order, distancing them from the works of hospitality for which it had been founded. Pope Alexander III called them back to the observance of the rule of Raymond du Puy between 1178 and 1180, issuing a bull that forbade them to take up arms unless they were attacked and urged them not to abandon the care of those sick and in poverty.

The Hospitallers were clear rivals of the Knights Templar. Alexander III persuaded Roger de Moulins to make a truce in 1179 with Odo de St Amand, then Grand Master and also a veteran of Montgisard. The pope instituted an arbitration process. Three brothers from each order were chosen as arbiters, each of whom had the right to appoint two other brothers. If the arbitration was insufficient, the friars were to call upon persons outside the orders. If there was still a disagreement, the matter would be submitted in the last resort to the two Grand Masters. The agreement with the Templars was not a good one. They were in constant conflict over their rights and possessions.

On one point, the Templars and the Hospitallers were in perfect agreement. The grievances that diocesan authority harbored against the privileges of the orders. The secular clergy did not accept the immunities and privileges that the two orders held from the Holy See. In March 1179, the prelates appealed to the Third Lateran Council, which reformed the abuses and forbade the orders to receive churches and tithes from the laity without the agreement of the diocesan authority, and cancelled the recent moderno temporen donations. This decision, while reforming the abuses, left the privileges of the orders intact. Vexed, the clergy redoubled their attacks and it took two papal bulls, 26 August 1180 and 14 August 1182, to bring the clergy back to respecting the decisions of the council, as well as the persons and property of the Hospitallers, and prescribing the excommunication of anyone who would attack the Hospitallers and the Templars with an armed hand.

In 1184, he toured Europe with Arnold of Torroja, the Grand Master of the Templars, and Heraclius, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. One objective was to plead with kings and pope Lucius III to send a new crusade to strengthen the Latin states in the East, which were at the mercy of the growing power of Saladin and established the Hospitaller Order in England, France and Germany. On his way back he helped the Kingdom of Sicily attack Thessalonica in 1185. In his time, he established the tradition of the Grand Master of the Hospitallers involvement in the politics of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. After the death of Baldwin V of Jerusalem in August 1186, Roger ended up at conflict with Gerard de Ridefort, Arnold's successor as Grand Master, and with Raynald de Châtillon due to his having opposed Guy of Lusignan - he at first refused to hand over his key to the royal treasury when Guy was crowned King of Jerusalem in 1186.

The Battle of Cresson
At the end of 1186, Raynald de Châtillon, in defiance of the truce with Saladin, had captured a caravan going from Cairo to Damascus with the sister of the emir. The barons, gathered in Jerusalem by Guy de Lusignan, on 27 March 1187, had demanded that before anything else a reconciliation take place between Lusignan and Raymond III of Tripoli. The masters of the Templars and Hospitallers, Joscius, the archbishop of Tyre, Balian of Ibelin, lord of Nablus, and Renaud Grenier, lord of Sidon, were appointed to negotiate with the count of Tripoli in Tiberias when they had to face Muslim troops. A victim of the foolish pride of Gerard de Ridefort, Roger took part in the Battle of Cresson against Saladin near Nazareth on 1 May 1187, where he was killed by a spear wound. Roger was succeeded by William Borrel, who served as custodian of the Hospitallers for a brief time in 1187, and then by Armengol de Aspa, who served as provisor (custodian) until 1190. A new Grand Master was not chosen until Garnier of Nablus was elected in 1190 during the Third Crusade.

The status of the Order
On 14 March 1182, the new statutes of the Hospitaller under the leadership of Roger de Moulins marked an essential turning point for the Order on several points. In the spiritual domain, as early as 21 October 1154, a category of brother priests or chaplains was established, granted by pope Anastasius IV. In the hospital and military domain, it was not until these statutes that doctors and surgeons appeared among the Order's medical personnel. And in the military field, brothers in arms (noted for the first time in a text, even though they already existed in practice): "It was on this date, therefore, that the order became, in law, a religious-military order." It was also specified that on the death of a brother, a mass will be dedicated to it in addition to the daily mass, and that "the brothers' biers, and be covered with a red sheet with white cross.

These are the only statutes to mention charity in a normative text. Three articles refer to it, all of them dealing with the reception and care of the sick: (1) To welcome thirty poor people at table each day; (2) To give alms to all those who come to the door of the establishment three days a week; and, (3_Wash the feet of thirteen poor people on the Saturday of Lent, and provide them with new clothes and shoes. Roger was the originator of the bull issued on 22 August 1185, Quanto per gratiam Dei, and it was this one that officially made the Order a charitable order. These are the ones that give the most information about care. Whether it be on the full-time recruitment (in the hospital or on the battlefield) and binding by oath of the four physicians and four surgeons employed by the Order, "because of the scientific and practical deficiency of the friars." The only normative texts which give an account of the reception of all pregnant women in a specific room, and of the future of abandoned children, whom the hospital must then provide for and feed.

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

title: Roger de Moulins


text:
Shennong

Shennong (神農), variously translated as "Divine Farmer" or "Divine Husbandman", born Jiang Shinian (姜石年), was a mythological Chinese ruler known as the first Yan Emperor who has become a deity in Chinese and Vietnamese folk religion. He is venerated as a culture hero in China and Vietnam. In Vietnamese, he is referred to as Thần Nông.

Shennong has at times been counted amongst the Three Sovereigns (also known as "Three Kings" or "Three Patrons"), a group of ancient deities or deified kings of prehistoric China. Shennong has been thought to have taught the ancient Chinese not only their practices of agriculture, but also the use of herbal medicine. Shennong was credited with various inventions: these include the hoe, plow (both leisi (耒耜) style and the plowshare), axe, digging wells, agricultural irrigation, preserving stored seeds by using boiled horse urine, trade, commerce, money, the weekly farmers market, the Chinese calendar (especially the division into the 24 jieqi or solar terms), and to have refined the therapeutic understanding of taking pulse measurements, acupuncture, and moxibustion, and to have instituted the harvest thanksgiving ceremony (zhaji(蜡祭) sacrificial rite, later known as the laji(腊祭) rite).

"Shennong" can also be taken to refer to his people, the Shennong-shi.

Mythology
In Chinese mythology, Shennong taught humans the use of the plow, aspects of basic agriculture, and the use of cannabis. Possibly influenced by the Yan Emperor mythos or the use of slash-and-burn agriculture, Shennong was a god of burning wind. He was also sometimes said to be a progenitor to, or to have had as one of his ministers, Chiyou (and like him, was ox-headed, sharp-horned, bronze-foreheaded, and iron-skulled).

Shennong is also thought to be the father of the Huang Emperor (黃帝) who carried on the secrets of medicine, immortality, and making gold. According to the eighth century AD historian Sima Zhen's commentary to the second century BC Shiji (or, Records of the Grand Historian), Shennong is a kinsman of the Yellow Emperor and is said to be an ancestor, or a patriarch, of the ancient forebears of the Chinese.

After the Zhou dynasty, Shennong was thought to have existed within it by some "ancient Chinese historians" and religious practitioners as the "deified" form of "mythical wise king" Hou Ji who founded the Zhou.

As an alternative to this view, Shennong was also thought of in the era of the Hundred Schools of Thought as a culture hero rather than a god, but one with a supernatural digestive system who ate a specimen of every single plant that existed in the time of the Hundred Schools to find which ones were edible by humans. In the third century BCE, during times of political crisis and expansionism and wars among Chinese kingdoms, Shennong received new myths about his status as an ideal prehistoric ruler who valued laborers and farmers and "ruled without ministers, laws or punishments."

In literature
Sima Qian (司馬遷) mentioned that the rulers directly preceding the Yellow Emperor were of the house (or societal group) of Shennong. Sima Zhen, who added a prologue for the Records of the Grand Historian (史記), said his surname was Jiang (姜), and proceeded to list his successors. An older and more famous reference is in the Huainanzi; it tells how, prior to Shennong, people were sickly, wanting, starved and diseased; but he then taught them agriculture, which he himself had researched, eating hundreds of plants — and even consuming seventy poisons in one day. Shennong also features in the book popularly known in English as I Ching. Here, he is referenced as coming to power after the end of the house (or reign) of Paoxi (Fu Xi), also inventing a bent-wood plow, a cut-wood rake, teaching these skills to others, and establishing a noonday market. Another reference is in the Lüshi Chunqiu, mentioning some violence with regard to the rise of the Shennong house, and that their power lasted seventeen generations.

The Shénnóng Běn Cǎo Jīng is a book on agriculture and medicinal plants, attributed to Shennong. Research suggests that it is a compilation of oral traditions, written between about 200 and 250 AD.

Historicity
Reliable information on the history of China before the 13th century BC can come only from archaeological evidence because China's first established written system on a durable medium, the oracle bone script, did not exist until then. Thus, the concrete existence of even the Xia dynasty, said to be the successor to Shennong, is yet to be proven, despite efforts by Chinese archaeologists to link that dynasty with Bronze Age Erlitou archaeological sites.

However, Shennong, both the individual and the clan, are very important in Chinese cultural history, especially in regards to mythology and popular culture. Indeed, Shennong figures extensively in historical literature.

Popular religion
According to some versions of the myths about Shennong, he eventually died as a result of his researches into the properties of plants by experimenting upon his own body, after, in one of his tests, he ate the yellow flower of a weed that caused his intestines to rupture before he had time to swallow his antidotal tea: having thus given his life for humanity, he has since received special honor through his worship as the Medicine King (藥王 Yàowáng). The sacrifice of cows or oxen to Shennong in his various manifestations is never at all appropriate; instead pigs and sheep are acceptable. Fireworks and incense may also be used, especially at the appearance of his statue on his birthday, lunar April 26, according to popular tradition. Under his various names, Shennong is the patron deity of farmers, rice traders, and practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine. Many temples and other places dedicated to his commemoration exist.

Popular culture
As noted above, Shennong is said in the Huainanzi to have tasted hundreds of herbs to test their medical value. The most well-known work attributed to Shennong is The Divine Farmer's Herb-Root Classic, first compiled some time during the end of the Western Han Dynasty — several thousand years after Shennong might have existed. This work lists the various medicinal herbs, such as lingzhi,and marijuana that were discovered by Shennong and given grade and rarity ratings. It is considered to be the earliest Chinese pharmacopoeia, and includes 365 medicines derived from minerals, plants, and animals. Shennong is credited with identifying hundreds of medical (and poisonous) herbs by personally testing their properties, which was crucial to the development of traditional Chinese medicine. Legend holds that Shennong had a transparent body, and thus could see the effects of different plants and herbs on himself. He is also said to have discovered tea, which he found it to be acting as an antidote against the poisonous effects of some seventy herbs he tested on his body. Shennong first tasted it, traditionally in ca. 2437 BC, from tea leaves on burning tea twigs, after they were carried up from the fire by the hot air, landing in his cauldron of boiling water. Shennong is venerated as the Father of Chinese medicine. He is also believed to have introduced the technique of acupuncture.

Shennong is said to have played a part in the creation of the guqin, together with Fuxi and the Yellow Emperor. Scholarly works mention that the paternal family of famous Song dynasty General Yue Fei traced their origins back to Shennong.

Places
Shennong is associated with certain geographic localities including Shennongjia, in Hubei, where the rattan ladder which he used to climb the local mountain range is supposed to have transformed into a vast forest. The Shennong Stream flows from here into the Yangtze River.

title: Shennong


text:
HMAT Supply (1759)

Launched in 1759, the third Supply was a Royal Navy armed tender that played an important part in the foundation of the Colony of New South Wales. The Navy sold her in 1792. She then served commercially until about 1806.

HMAT Supply (1759) is not to be confused with the replacement vessel HMS Supply (1793), a 10-gun storeship, of 388 tons (bm), originally the American mercantile New Brunswick, which the Admiralty purchased in 1793 as an armed vessel for the colony at Port Jackson and was broken up there in 1806.

Construction
Supply was designed in 1759 by shipwright Thomas Slade, as a yard craft for the ferrying of naval supplies. Construction was contracted to Henry Bird of Rotherhithe, for a vessel measuring 168 $76/94$ tons (bm) to be built in four months at £8.80 per ton. In practice, construction took about five months from the laying of the keel on 1 May 1759 to launch on 5 October. As built, the vessel was also larger than designed, measuring 174 $1/2$ tons (bm) and with a length overall of 79 ft, a beam of 22 ft, and a hold depth of 11 ft.

Rigged as a brig, she had two masts, and was fitted with four small 3-pounder cannons and six $20/94$-pounder swivel guns. Her armament was substantially increased in 1786 with the addition of four 12-pounder carronades.

Her initial complement was 14 men, rising to 55 when converted to an armed tender for the First Fleet voyage in 1788.

Naval service
Supply was used to transport naval supplies between the Thames and Channel ports from 1759 to 1786. Throughout this period, she was based at Deptford Dockyard, undergoing minor repairs as required to maintain seaworthiness.

As one of 2 Royal Navy escorts to the First Fleet, she left Spithead on 13 May 1787 and was the first to arrive in Botany Bay on 18 January 1788, as recorded in the journals of William Bradley and John Hunter of HMS Sirius, which arrived on 20 January. Supply was under the command of Captain Arthur Phillip (who had transferred from Sirius at Cape Town). She was captained by Henry Lidgbird Ball, the master was David Blackburn, and the surgeon was James Callam. Supply was also the first ship to sail into Port Jackson after the original Botany Bay landing was found unsuitable for settlement.

After the establishment of the initial settlement at Port Jackson, Supply was the link between the colony and Norfolk Island, making 10 trips. Following the loss of Sirius in 1790, she became the colony's only link with the outside world. On 17 April 1790, she was sent to Batavia for supplies, returning on 19 September, her captain having chartered a Dutch vessel, Waaksamheid, to follow with more stores.

Supply left Port Jackson on 26 November 1791 and sailed via Cape Horn, reaching Plymouth on 21 April 1792.

A number of David Blackburn's letters to family and friends have survived. These letters describe the events of the voyage and the early days of settlement, including Blackburn's participation in the expedition to Norfolk Island to establish a settlement there in February 1788.

Later service
The Admiralty sold her at auction in July 1792 and her new owners renamed her Thomas and Nancy. She then carried coal in the Thames area until 1806.

The Admiralty in October 1793 purchased the American mercantile ship New Brunswick, named her HMS Supply (1793), and sent her out to New South Wales to replace her predecessor.

Postscript
A New South Wales Urban Transit Authority First Fleet ferry was named after Supply in 1984.

title: HMAT Supply (1759)


text:
Jean Mueller

Jean Mueller (born 1950) is an American astronomer and discoverer of comets, minor planets, and a large number of supernovas at the U.S. Palomar Observatory in California.

Scientific career
In 1983, she became the first woman to operate the historic Hooker telescope at Mt. Wilson Observatory and was the first woman hired as a telescope operator at Palomar Observatory in 1985.

The Second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS II) got under way in August 1985, with the first of the 14" photographic glass plates being pulled off the Palomar's Samuel Oschin telescope (then called the 48-inch Schmidt Camera). Jean Mueller was hired as the 48-Inch Night Assistant in July of that year, and worked in the capacity as observer and telescope operator for the duration. She took over 5500 photographic plates and had the honor of setting the telescope and removing the final plate from the historic Schmidt Camera on June 3, 2000, as well as discovering her last supernova, 2000cm, on that same night.

Jean Mueller spent hundreds of hours (in her spare time) scanning POSS II plates under high magnification looking for comets, fast-moving asteroids, and supernovae on an X/Y stage that held the 1 mm thick glass plates. Mueller would sometimes mark over a hundred galaxies recorded on a single POSS II plate to hunt for supernova candidates. She would then compare these plates with the first Palomar Sky Survey (POSS I) of similar fields. It was during the years of the POSS II project that Jean Mueller made all of her discoveries.

Discoveries

Working at Palomar Observatory, she discovered a total of 15 comets, including 7 periodic comets 120P/Mueller, 131P/Mueller, 136P/Mueller, 149P/Mueller, 173P/Mueller, 188P/LINEAR-Mueller, 190P/Mueller, and 8 non-periodic comets.

She is credited by the Minor Planet Center with the discovery of 13 numbered minor planets during 1987–1993, including several near-Earth objects such as the Apollo asteroids 4257 Ubasti, 9162 Kwiila, and 12711 Tukmit and the Amor asteroid 6569 Ondaatje.

Mueller also discovered 107 (9 listed as co-discoveries) supernovae.

Honors
The inner main-belt asteroid of the Hungaria family, 4031 Mueller, was named in honor of Jean Mueller for her astronomical discoveries. Discovered on February 12, 1985, by Carolyn Shoemaker at Palomar Observatory with the 18" Schmidt Camera, it was originally designated . The official naming citation was published by the Minor Planet Center on 12 December 1989 (M.P.C. 15576).

Affiliations
Jean Mueller is an Advisor of the Meade 4M Community who supports her outreach activities.

title: Jean Mueller


text:
Viana, Espírito Santo

Viana is a municipality in the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil. It is located 18 km southwest of Vitória on the road to Minas Gerais. Its population was 79,500 (2020) and its area is 312 km2. Though it is part of the Greater Vitória metropolitan area, it still maintains a much more laid-back feeling. Marked by its first church dedicated to Nossa Senhora da Conceição (built on March 22, 1817) atop a little mound in the middle of the town all those who pass it on their way to and from Minas Gerais appreciate its imposing landmark. The town also has a railway museum at the railway station inaugurated on 13 July 1895 by the English. The municipality borders Vitória (E), Cariacica (N), Domingos Martins (W) and Guarapari (S).

History
In 1846, 39 families from North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate (then known as Rheinpreussen in German, or Prússia Renana in Portuguese) arrived at Vitória on 21 December to settle what is now Viana, as this was the first allotted land they received from the government. In 1857, though, most of them moved on to found Santa Isabel Colony on 27 January 1857.

In the 1890s, Viana was a prosperous colony of mainly Azorean immigrants. In 1891 Santa Isabel became a municipality independent from Viana in what used to be its mountainous region. In 1961, the city was made the seat of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Viana.

title: Viana, Espírito Santo


text:
Michael Malloy

Michael Malloy (1873 – February 22, 1933), nicknamed Mike the Durable or Iron Mike, was a homeless Irishman from County Donegal who lived in New York City during the 1920s and 1930s. A former firefighter and stationary engineer, he was murdered by a group of five acquaintances after multiple failed attempts on his life by the men to perpetrate life insurance fraud.

Failed murder attempts
Beginning in January 1933, while Malloy was unemployed, alcoholic and homeless, five of his acquaintances – Tony Marino, Joseph "Red" Murphy, Francis Pasqua, Hershey Green, and Daniel Kriesberg (later dubbed "the Murder Trust" by the media) – plotted to kill Malloy by getting him to drink himself to death to collect life insurance. Presumably achieved with the aid of a corrupt insurance agent, they collected insurance policies on Malloy's life under the name Nicholas Mellory and stood to gain over US$3500 if Malloy died an accidental death.

Marino owned a speakeasy and gave Malloy an unlimited tab, thinking the alcoholic Malloy would abuse it and drink himself to death. Although Malloy drank for a majority of his waking day, it did not kill him. Marino then added antifreeze to Malloy's liquor, but Malloy would continue to drink with no problems. A possible explanation for the antifreeze not killing him is the fact that ethanol blocks absorption of ethylene glycol in the liver; and is used as an antidote for antifreeze poisoning. Antifreeze was replaced with turpentine, followed by horse liniment, and finally rat poison was mixed in. After these mixtures failed to kill Malloy, Marino mixed shots of wood alcohol (pure methanol) in with his normal shots of liquor. This did not kill Malloy, presumably because the normal liquor helped negate the methanol poisoning.

The group then gave Malloy raw oysters soaked in wood alcohol - the idea apparently coming from Pasqua, who claimed he saw a man die after eating oysters with whiskey. A sandwich of spoiled sardines mixed with poison and carpet tacks was then tried.

Concluding that it was unlikely that anything Malloy ingested was going to kill him quickly enough before the insurance policies ran out, the group decided to freeze him to death. On an extremely cold night, after Malloy drank until passing out, he was carried to a park, dumped in the snow, and had 5 USgal of water poured on his bare chest. However, shortly thereafter, Malloy was rescued by police who took him to a homeless charity where he was re-clothed.

The group then attempted to kill Malloy by running him down with Green's taxi, moving at 45 mph. This put Malloy in the hospital for three weeks with broken bones. The group presumed he was dead, but they were unable to collect the policy on him.

Malloy's murder
On February 22, 1933, after he had passed out for the night, the murderers took Malloy to Murphy's room, put a hose in his mouth that was connected to the coal gas jet, and turned it on. This finally killed Malloy, with his death occurring within an hour. He was pronounced dead of lobar pneumonia and quickly buried, with Dr. Frank Manzella signing the death certificate. Police heard rumors of "Mike the Durable" in speakeasies all over town, and upon learning that a Michael Malloy had died that night, they had the body exhumed and forensically examined.

The five men were put on trial for homicide and subsequently convicted. Dr. Manzella was held as an accessory after the fact with a US$10000 bail, but was ultimately convicted of a misdemeanor in "failing to report a suspicious death to the police and Medical Examiner." Green went to prison, while the other four members were sentenced to death and executed in the electric chair at Sing Sing in Ossining, New York: Kriesberg, Marino, and Pasqua on June 7, 1934, and Murphy on July 5, 1934.

In popular culture

 * A 1986 episode of Amazing Stories, called "One for the Road", is a fictionalized version of this incident, in which a group of friends conspire to kill a drunk named Mike Malloy for insurance money.
 * Alternative rock band Primus included the Matt Winegar-penned instrumental (which Winegar also performed) "You Can't Kill Michael Malloy" for their 1990 album, Frizzle Fry.
 * A 2015 episode of True Nightmares, produced by Wilma TV/Discovery Channel Season 2, Episode 3 "Friends Like These", is a telling of the story of Michael Malloy and his murder.

title: Michael Malloy


text:
Latria

Latria or latreia (also known as latreutical worship) is a theological term (Latin Latrīa, from the Greek λατρεία, latreia) used in Catholic theology and Eastern Orthodox theology to mean adoration, a reverence directed only to the Holy Trinity. Latria carries an emphasis on the internal form of worship, rather than external ceremonies. Christians took the Greek word λατρεία, present in the Septuagint, into their practice of worship. Latreia, in Greek, means 'service', or 'being in a condition of servitude'. Thus, Christian ministers render service unto God. This Divine Service is worship.

Eucharist
Latria also applies to the Eucharist and Eucharistic adoration. In the 16th century, the Council of Trent made specific affirmations of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the theological basis for Eucharistic adoration and stated:

"The only-begotten Son of God is to be adored in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist with the worship of "latria", including external worship.

Pope Paul VI's 1965 encyclical Mysterium fidei: also affirmed this belief and in items 56 stated:"The Catholic Church has always displayed and still displays this latria that ought to be paid to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, both during Mass and outside of it".

Vs. dulia and hyperdulia
Latria is sacrificial in character, and may be offered only to God. Catholic and Orthodox Christians offer other degrees of reverence to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to the other saints; these non-sacrificial types of reverence are called hyperdulia and dulia, respectively. In English, dulia is also called veneration. Hyperdulia is essentially a heightened degree of dulia provided only to the Blessed Virgin.

This distinction, written about as early as Augustine of Hippo and St Jerome, was detailed more explicitly by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, A.D. 1270: "Reverence is due to God on account of His Excellence, which is communicated to certain creatures not in equal measure, but according to a measure of proportion; and so the reverence which we pay to God, and which belongs to latria, differs from the reverence which we pay to certain excellent creatures; this belongs to dulia, and we shall speak of it further on (103)"; in this next article St. Thomas Aquinas writes: "Wherefore dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays due service to the Lordship of God. It is, moreover, a species of observance, because by observance we honor all those who excel in dignity, while dulia properly speaking is the reverence of servants for their master, dulia being the Greek for servitude".

Protestant critique of dulia
New Testament scholar James Dunn discusses the tradition of Catholic dulia in Augustine and Aquinas, mentioning that the new testament's use of δουλεία (pronounced dulia) is always used negatively. He states:"'douleia occurs only in the sense of 'slavery, servility', and always in a negative sense – the slavery to physical corruption (Rom. 8.21), slavery to the law (Gal. 5.1), slavery to the fear of death (Heb. 2.15).'"Bill Mounce overviews New Testament use of δουλεία with the following chart:

Linguistic distinctions in English
The word worship is derived from the West Saxon dialect noun weorðscipe 'condition of being worthy', which is from weorð 'worthy' + -scipe '-ship'. The word worship is used in a strong sense in relation to God (latria), but also in a weak sense in relation to man: for instance, "His Worship the Mayor", or "Your Worship" (when addressing a magistrate in Court), or the worship of the saints (dulia) as distinct to the adoration of God (latria). Adoration provides a clear and unequivocal, and therefore better, translation of latria and expression of the absolute sacrificial reverence due to God alone. "This worship called forth by God, and given exclusively to Him as God, is designated by the Greek name latreia (Latinized, latria), for which the best translation that our language affords is the word Adoration. Adoration is different from other acts of worship, such as supplication, confession of sin, etc., inasmuch as it formally consists in self-abasement before the Infinite, and in devout recognition of His transcendent excellence." Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians especially adore with latria during their religious service, the Mass or Divine Liturgy. Catholics consider themselves to literally participate in the sacrifice at the foot of Calvary, that what Christ offered once "participates in the divine eternity", while Methodists teach that Holy Communion is a type of sacrifice that re-presents the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross; with regard to the Eucharist, the Methodist Churches further teach that: A formal statement by the USCCB affirms that "Methodists and Catholics agree that the sacrificial language of the Eucharistic celebration refers to 'the sacrifice of Christ once-for-all,' to 'our pleading of that sacrifice here and now,' to 'our offering of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,' and to 'our sacrifice of ourselves in union with Christ who offered himself to the Father.'"

title: Latria


text:
Hooked squid

The hooked squid, family Onychoteuthidae, currently comprise about 20–25 species (several known from only single life stages and thus unconfirmed), in six or seven genera. They range in mature mantle length from 7 cm to a suggested length of 2 m for the largest member, Onykia robusta. The family is characterised by the presence of hooks only on the tentacular clubs, a simple, straight, funnel–mantle locking apparatus, and a 'step' inside the jaw angle of the lower beak. With the exception of the Arctic Ocean, the family is found worldwide.

Species

 * Genus Onychoteuthis Lichtenstein, 1818
 * Onychoteuthis banksii (Leach, 1817) – common clubhook squid
 * Onychoteuthis bergii* Lichtenstein, 1818
 * Onychoteuthis mollis* Appelloef, 1891
 * Onychoteuthis compacta Berry, 1913
 * Onychoteuthis borealijaponica Okada, 1927 – boreal clubhook squid
 * Onychoteuthis meridiopacifica Rancurel & Okutani, 1990
 * Onychoteuthis lacrima Bolstad & Seki in Bolstad, 2008
 * Onychoteuthis prolata Bolstad, Vecchione & Young in Bolstad, 2008
 * Onychoteuthis horstkottei Bolstad, 2010
 * Genus Onykia Lesueur, 1821 (includes most species previously placed in Moroteuthis)
 * Subgenus Onykia
 * Onykia carriboea Lesueur, 1821 – tropical clubhook squid
 * Onykia robusta (Verrill, 1876) – robust clubhook squid
 * Onykia loennbergii (Ishikawa & Wakiya, 1914) – Japanese hooked squid
 * Onykia aequatorialis* Thiele, 1920
 * Onykia robsoni (Adam, 1962) – rugose hooked squid
 * Onykia indica* Okutani, 1981
 * Subgenus Moroteuthopsis
 * Onykia ingens (Smith, 1881) – greater hooked squid
 * incertae sedis
 * ?Onykia appelloefi* Pfeffer, 1900
 * Genus Ancistroteuthis Gray, 1849
 * Ancistroteuthis lichtensteinii (Ferussac, 1835) – angel clubhook squid or angel squid
 * Genus Kondakovia Filippova, 1972
 * Kondakovia longimana Filippova, 1972
 * Kondakovia nigmatullini Laptikhovsky, Arkhipkin & Bolstad, 2008
 * Genus Notonykia Nesis, Roeleveld & Nikitina, 1998
 * Notonykia africanae Nesis, Roeleveld & Nikitina, 1998
 * Notonykia nesisi Bolstad, 2007
 * Genus Filippovia Bolstad, 2010
 * Filippovia knipovitchi (Filippova, 1972) – smooth hooked squid
 * Genus Walvisteuthis Nesis & Nikitina, 1986
 * Walvisteuthis jeremiahi Vecchione, Sosnowski & Young, 2015
 * Walvisteuthis rancureli (Okutani, 1981)
 * Walvisteuthis virilis Nesis & Nikitina, 1986
 * Walvisteuthis youngorum (Bolstad, 2010)

(*) indicates taxa requiring further taxonomic investigation

title: Hooked squid


text:
Machelen, Zulte

Machelen, or in full Machelen-aan-de-Leie, is a village in the municipality of Zulte in the province of East Flanders of Belgium. It was the hometown of the painter Roger Raveel.

History
Machelen was first mentioned in 697 as Machlinio. In the 11th century, the village belonged to the Lords of Oudenaarde. The Sint-Michiel-en-Cornelius-en-Ghislenus Church was first mentioned in 1163. In the 17th century, the church became a site of pilgrimage and was greatly extended. In 1914, the tower which was damaged in the 19th century, was repaired, only to be destroyed again in 1918. It was subsequently repaired in 1920.

Machelen was an independent municipality until 1977 when it merged into Zulte. The Roger Raveel Museum is located in the village.

Notable people

 * Roger Raveel (1921–2013), painter associated with pop art.
 * Gerard Reve (1923–2006), author buried in Machelen.

title: Machelen, Zulte


text:
Talk:Hooked squid

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hooked squid. 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/20061111152219/http://www.tonmo.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=55 to http://www.tonmo.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=55

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) 15:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hooked squid


text:
Ambani

Ambani is a Gujarati surname found in the Indian State of Gujarat.

Notable people

 * The Ambani business family of the Reliance Industries and Reliance Group fortune
 * Dhirubhai Ambani (1932–2002), Indian business executive; founder of Reliance
 * Mukesh Ambani (born 1957), Indian business executive; older son of Dhirubhai
 * Nita Ambani (born 1963), Indian business executive and philanthrpist; wife of Mukesh
 * Anil Ambani (born 1959), Indian business executive; younger son of Dhirubhai
 * Tina Ambani (born 1957), Indian business executive and philanthropist and former child actress; wife of Anil
 * Akash Ambani (born 1991), Indian business executive; son of Mukesh and Nita

title: Ambani


text:
Talk:British House of Commons/Page name

Anyone have a problem with renaming this United Kingdom House of Commons or House of Commons (UK)? - stewacide 01:50 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

 * The House of Commons is by FAR the most well known house of commons in the world and should remain at House of Commons, just like Paris is at Paris and London is at London. Mintguy

I fundamentally disagree. We have a problem with wiki's Americocentrism. Presuming that if people say House of Commons they of course mean the UK House of Commons is going to add a degree of anglocentrism that we should equally apply. Other countries also call their lower chambers the House of Commons and are just as entitled to. Equally some countries have former lower houses that were called House of Commons. I think the standard should be {country} House of Commons allowing Canadian, Irish, British etc to be used, with House of Commons as a disambigulation page. ÉÍREman 23:04 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * Mintguy, there's a Paris, Ontario. The difference between Paris and the House of Commons is that if an Ontarian says Paris, she probably means Paris, France; but if she refers to the House of Commons, she probably means the one in Ottawa. - Montréalais

 * There's also a London, Ontario, and I bet an Ontarian saying "London" means that one. It makes no sense to do this disambiguation for pages that are almost universally understood to mean one thing. The article about toast isn't a disambiguation page with links to French toast and Melba toast and ordinary toast is it? But do what you like I'm tired of this nonsense. The page was perfectly happy residing at House of Commons without anyone complaining, until yesterday, someone decided to move it without any debate. Mintguy

 * I agree, but "House of Commons" is not almost universally understood to mean the British one. Nobody outside the UK says "House of Commons" if they mean the British one. "House of Commons" is universally understood to mean the lower house of any Westminster-style parliament, not only the British one, any more than Senate is universally understood to mean the Roman or American or Canadian one. And just because there was no debate doesn't mean nobody disagreed with you.
 * At any rate, as long as you say "do what you like," I will. - Montréalais
 * AFAIK there are only 2 extant House of Commons and the United Kingdom house is BY FAR the most widely known. Mintguy

 * Whether it is widely known is not the point (and there are three, not two.) The point is whether someone means the British one to the exclusion of all others when they use the unmodified term. They do not. - Montréalais

 * Sorry. What is the third?! The point is whether it needs qualification or not. House of Commons unqualified, means to most people in the world, the UK House. It's not whether it means this to the exclusion of all the others, or otherwise Michael Jackson the singer wouldn't be at Michael Jackson etc.. See my reply to JTD belowMintguy 22:14 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Also: outside the UK people do not say the House of Commons when referring to the UK HofC. They say British House of Commons. That is how the French, German, Italian, Canadian, Irish and US media always refer to it. Simply adding in the relevant name as in British House of Commons, Irish House of Commons, Canadian House of Commons is by far the best option. ÉÍREman 23:22 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I understand Mintguy's argument but I think it is misplaced and I agree with Montrealais's changes. And in particular I think British House of Commons is preferable to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, given that the first form is the one generally used, whereas the second isn't. ÉÍREman 17:39 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Search Google NEWS (i.e. select the NEWS tab) for ...
 * "British House of Commons" return 34! results
 * "Britain's House of Commons" returns 18! results
 * "House of Commons" returns 2,180 results of which (of the first 100, 87 were about the UK house,
 * only 3 of which were prefixed with British or Britain's, the remaining 13 were about the Canadian house).
 * "Canadian House of Commons" returns 0 results
 * "Canada's house of commons" returns 3 results one of which was a Canadian website
 * "house of commons of Canada" also returns 3 results one of which was a Canadian website

 * "If aliens landed in Quebec, the American media would give it two inches in the entertainment section." - Alison Bechdel

That is my last word on the subject, my protest has been registered, I've had enough of arguments of this kind dragging on. I've already lost faith in Wikipedia over naming conventions Mintguy

FWIW I think House of Commons (UK) is better than British House of Commons, because it's much easier to modify existing references with the pipe trick. Mintguy

That is a format used by 0% of people, Mint. And how do you suppose we deal with others House of Commons articles. House of Commons (Irl), House of Commons (Can). Noone uses those. We are supposed to use the most common easily recognisable format. That is British House of Commons, the terminology used worldwide outside the UK. And how exactly is it easier to modify using the 'pipe trick'? The format Montrealais used here is 100% correct, 100% recognisable, 100% usable and 100% accurate. No other alternative is. ÉÍREman 00:09 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)
 * Very small point, but it'd be House of Commons (Ireland), House of Commons (Canada) , no? Mr. Jones 23:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just thought of another problem with House of Commons (UK). The United Kingdom became the formal name of the state when Great Britain and Ireland merged in 1801. So using (UK) could in terms of accuracy only refer to the House of Commons from 1801 on. Britain dates back to 1707, though James VI/I first coined the term in a rather confusing manner in October 1604. No-one word is 100% accurate (so that's a slight change from what I said above.) England cannot cover after 1707 when Scottish MPs went to Westminster and UK covers when Irish MPs joined them in 1801. British at least covers two of the three general names of the state which sent MPs to Westminster, so while it isn't 100% accurate, it is the most accurate version on offer and covers just about all of the period of parliamentary supremacy over the monarchy, which many date to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. So that offers another nail in the coffin of the HofC (UK) option. ÉÍREman 00:20 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Regarding the problem of England, I linked articles on subjects prior to 1707 to British House of Commons anyway, since I presume that's where the history will go (much like links to the colony of Newfoundland are to Newfoundland and Labrador, where the history of the colony is.) - Montréalais

It is now, several months after this page was moved. People who wanted to move this page might want to note that links to 'House of Commons' now has about 130 pages linking to this page of which at least 100 are referring to the British House of Commons, and shows that the page shouldn't have been moved. Mintguy 14:20, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Some further statistics in the same vein. (Figures are rough, I couldn't motivate myself to count exactly). 200-250 pages link to British House of Commons, 80 pages link to Canadian House of Commons, 12 pages link to Irish House of Commons. Rough average of Google News stats,Mintguy's statistics and these statistics is that Britain mentions outweigh Canada mentions about 4 to 1, with Ireland nowhere. I can't decide whether this is sufficient to warrant 'promoting' Britain to the HoC slot - if it does there is a lot of work changing nearly 250 links to be done. Pete 15:01, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I feel that the sections on "Restrictions," "Royal Assent," and "Devolution" belongs on the Parliament page rather than on the Commons page, since these definitely deal with Parliament as a whole, rather than the Commons alone. What are the opinions of the other users? Lord Emsworth 04:10, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

'Saturday sessions are only called during national emergencies; the last such occurance was during World War II' is wrong. There was at least one sitting during the Falklands War. - Chrism 19:59, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why was 'British' chosen? You're aware, I suppose, of the different meanings of UK and British? I propose renaming it United Kingdom House of Commons or House of Commons (UK) the British reference is inaccuarate and misleading.2toise 13:38, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To quote Duffy "I just thought of another problem with House of Commons (UK). The United Kingdom became the formal name of the state when Great Britain and Ireland merged in 1801. So using (UK) could in terms of accuracy only refer to the House of Commons from 1801 on. Britain dates back to 1707, though James VI/I first coined the term in a rather confusing manner in October 1604. No-one word is 100% accurate (so that's a slight change from what I said above.) England cannot cover after 1707 when Scottish MPs went to Westminster and UK covers when Irish MPs joined them in 1801. British at least covers two of the three general names of the state which sent MPs to Westminster, so while it isn't 100% accurate, it is the most accurate version on offer and covers just about all of the period of parliamentary supremacy over the monarchy, which many date to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. So that offers another nail in the coffin of the HofC (UK) option. ÉÍREman 00:20 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)" Mintguy

 * By this logic we should also go and change the name of the United States of America, since it wasn't always called that.2toise 16:54, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

2toise - In future don't make such moves without fixing the broken redirects. I'm moving it back. Mintguy

 * Sorry if that caused problems, but I thought that it automatically redirected? In any event, you agree to the change if the redirects (which ones?) are fixed? The official website is hosted at UK Parliament, British is simply incorrect.2toise 21:26, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of pages linking to the article page. You can also access this list by clicking "What links here" on the article page. Pete 21:43, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * As I understand it, none of these are 'broken' by moving the article. What am I missing here?2toise 23:45, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

re United Kingdom House of Commons - that was debated some time ago and the agreement was to use British House of Commons, British House of Lords, British Prime Minister, etc., not United Kingdom. (I didn't take sides if I remember correctly) The reason was the 'most common name' wikipedia policy. UK HoC is simply never ever used. If HoC is qualified, it always is with British. Ditto with PM. Anytime anyone decided to change them, it usually led to a revertion war from those who were passionate about the British. And in retrospect I think they were right. UK HoC looks alkward and is not used. BHoC is. FearÉIREANN 23:47, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Interesting, I wasn't aware of that - I will stop fixing the links for a bit until we can clarify this - I am surpised that an encyclopedia would go with the 'most common name' rather than the correct one - are there other instances of this? I don't think United States of America should be listed as America simply because that is the most common name for it, or Netherlands listed as Holland just because a lot of people think that's what it's called - do you?2toise 23:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The most common name rule is the basic rule of wikipedia. You didn't know that? Oops. It is Rule Number 1 of wikipedia. Only where most common name is also 100% wrong (eg Holland) is it not used, or in specialist areas like royal titles. But elsewhere most common rule is all but sacrosanct.

 * As far as I can seeon the guidelines on this, the most common name is not used if it is factually wrong or misleading. Factually acuracy (Bill rather than William is not not misleading for Clinton, since both refer to him) would seem to be important for an encyclopedia, but perhaps I'm very old fasioned.2toise 06:51, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hence United States in most of wikipedia, not United States of America, Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton, etc. Also as the House of Commons is in as BHoC not UK HoC if you have been doing what you did on Irish Houses of Parliament elsewhere, you'd be strongly advised to be careful. Redirects have a habit of breaking down. One re-direct is risky (where possible they should go directly) but two redirects is suicidal, for they regularly break links all over the place. So never ever make double redirects and if possible remove single redirects. It is worth reading all the guidance on naming conventions before making major changes because clear policies are defined there. :-) FearÉIREANN 00:02, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * 100% wrong? Surely the name is either correct or not? Holland is part of the Netherlands, Britain is part of the United Kingdom. The fact that people commonly mistake one for the other is surely not justification for what an encyclopedia calls it?

Re the redirects, I was slapped for moving the page without correcting the redirects, and then for fixing the redirects before moving the page - it seems the tactic is simply one to keep the incorrect name for the page.2toise 00:09, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A Google search on the word British in wikipedia shows that use of the adjective British to mean "of the United Kingdom" is widespread within the encyclopedia. (there are exceptions - e.g. the UK general election of 2001 and the other general election pages). I see the options as:
 * 1) Change all "British" pages to UK unless the topic specifically excludes Northern Ireland. Pros: Likely to be correct in the strict sense (although could be thorny problems with history articles), rather than just the "well everyone uses and understands British to be the adjectival form of Britain, British Isles or UK as appropiate" sense of correctness we currently have. Cons: An enormous amount of work where the benefit is likely to be pretty thin compared with an equivalent amount of work developing new articles.
 * 2) Change some "British" pages, such as this one, to UK as the fancy takes us. Pros: Correctness in the sense above on those pages. Cons: Inconsistency.
 * 3) Don't change anything. Pros: Simple. Cons: Inconsistency
 * 4) Change UK articles to British. Pros: Consistency. Cons: Maintain correctness only in the loose sense described above. Pete 12:57, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I would be more than happy to assist in fixing the links, and think that an approach of gradual fixing and making new articles correct would be reasonable, a small group of people could probably fix most of the links pretty quickly, and spot and broken links.
 * Without wanting to bang on about this too much, the fact that it is a common misconception that Britain and United Kingdom are synonyms doesn't mean we need to propogate it - it is even more important to be correct on this point. Thanks for you input on this, I support either of the first two of your proposals.2toise 14:26, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Now it's me at risk of banging on too much, but I just wanted to be clear on what exactly the misconception people have is. It is a misconception to believe that (Britain = United Kingdom). I don't think this conception is widespread (at least in the British Isles) and of course we would never wish to make this mistake in Wikipedia. However are you saying the use of the adjective "British" to mean "of the United Kingdom" is also a misconception? I don't believe it is. See for instance http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=British where as an adjective there are two meanings - meaning a) of Great Britain but meaning b) of the United Kingdom. My Concise Oxford English Dictionary says the same thing (meaning 1, if you have a copy). Thus although using British in meaning b) sense would seem to be wrong in a strict formal grammatical sense, it is absolutely fine in normal English according to the dictionary compilers. There is no suggestion that this meaning is slang or inappropiate for a formal medium like an encyclopedia. These were the two levels of correctness I alluded too. I hope with this extra detail you won't be too disappointed if there is not a wholesale change in lots of page names. You probably aren't going to get a lot of support for changing something that isn't substantially wrong, for little benefit and a lot of work. Pete 21:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks - actually I do think the misconception is widespread (there is, at the very least, considerable confusion, see below). I believe the disctionary definition reflects usage, a lot of people use Britain to mean United Kingdom. While that's fine in everyday use, I can say I am from Britain or from the UK without fear of confusion, I believe that an encyclopedia should be a little more careful, especially when most of the article linking to it are discussions of UK politics and constitutional issues where the distinction is important. I think that it is substantially wrong and am volunteering to put in a large share of the work.2toise 22:03, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Copied from Village pump debate on same topic.2toise 21:26, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Article naming (British / United Kingdom House of Commons / Lords / Parliament etc)
I'd like to ask for broader comment on a discussion going on on the British House of Commons page. The debate hinges on whether the page about the House of Commons in London should be called British House of Commons or United Kingdom House of Commons. It seems that everyone agrees that the House of Commons in question is part of the government of the United Kingdom, but some assert that the page should nonetheless be called British because it is often (erroneously) called that. The convention of naming the article by its most common correct term, not necessarily the official one, is cited to justify that. My concern is that Britain is only part of the United Kingdom, and it is factually incorrect and misleading to title the article British. Comment would be appreciated on that page since there are implications for many other articles.2toise 05:13, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My concern with "UK" is that there is a Scottish one too, right? This is their web page: "The House of Commons is part of the United Kingdom Parliament." Speaking as an American, I think it's silly to call it anything other than plain old "House of Commons" in the article. They were first, it's quite unambigous, etc. There should be another article entitled United Kingdom Parliament, etc. For the article itself, I would recommend House of Commons (United Kingdom). Daniel Quinlan 06:46, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

 * Err, no, not if I'm reading you properly -- there's a Scottish Parliament, not a Scottish House of Commons. I'd stick to "British House of Commons" since British is the common term for things pertaining to the whole UKGB+NI not just the island of Britain. My passport says that I am "Nationality: British Citizen" not "Nationality: United Kingdom Citizen". -- Arwel 12:03, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I think that you might be mistaken there, there is, indeed, a Scottish Parliament, which takes some decisions relating to Scotland, and a Welsh Assembly, which makes decisions relating to Wales. Both were established by acts of the House of Commons in Wesminster, which makes decisions relating to the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Britain, is shorthand for Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), while UK includes Northern Ireland. Your passport may say British Citizen, that indicates that you were not born in Northern Ireland.
 * The United Kingdom Parliament site is at http://www.parliament.uk/ and houses government information about the UK Houses of Commons and Lords. The confusion surrounding this underlies the importance of us getting it correct as an encyclopedia.2toise 17:47, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Both were established by acts of the House of Commons in Wesminster -> actually the were passed by the Queen-in-Parliament, ie passed by the House of Commons and Lords and given the Royal Assent by HM the Queen. The House of Commons cannot pass Acts, merely Bills, which cannot purely by being passed by the House of Commons become Acts. FearÉIREANN 00:04, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but as far as I can see, this pedantry has nothing to do with the point in hand.2toise 00:05, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Are you suggesting that someone born in Northern Ireland would not have British Citizen in the nationality part of their passports' data page (unless they applied for an Irish passport, which they certainly could do at least before the Good Friday Agreement)? If this is the case, you are simply wrong in your argument. The British Nationality Act 1981 defines British Citizenship, not United Kingdom Citizenship, there is no such thing. "British" is an adjective meaning "of the United Kingdom" - see any reputable dictionary. Your argument is misconceived and I see no point in continuing this argument. -- Arwel 23:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * No, citizenship has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The use of the term British to refer to citizens of the UK is fine, but not for government. You will not, I think, find any examples of the UK government describing itself or parts thereof as the British Government. I challenge you to find any cases of this.2toise 00:07, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Then again, the U.S. articles are all named United States House of Representatives or Supreme Court of the United States or similar. (What I said about the references inside the article itself still stands.) Daniel Quinlan 06:57, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

My two cents is that the article should be listed under United Kingdom House of Commons as I think official names should be the default in situations like this. I'd list British House of Commons as a redirect. However, I'd generally use "British" rather than "United Kingdom" as the adjective form in articles; it's the common term in general usage and much less unwieldy. MK (Sorry. Forgot to include my name when I first posted this.)

 * Agreed. Within the article (so long as it isn't a link) it can be listed however the authors like, although I would still tend to avoid British (unless we actually mean England Wales and Scotland) and just use HoC if it is clear which one we are talking about. We should also avoid reffering to the Netherlands as Holland for the same reasons2toise 17:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That is a false argument based on a historical and linguistic misconception. Many states have adjective forms of their name. Some do not. In the case of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, British is universally used and has been continually throughout the variety of states that have existed in that geographic region. In modern geo-political terms, British was used initially from October 1604 to describe the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, which in the previous year had come to share the same sovereign, James VI/I. It owned its origins to James's unsuccessful attempt to create a single name for his separate kingdoms. That name he chose was Great Brittaine. Great Britain because the formal state name following the 1707 Act of Union of Scotland and England. In 1801 a new state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed. (James had used the perscriptive, not descriptive term united kingdom as early as 1604.) In 1922, most of Ireland left the kingdom, and the new truncated state was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Through every state from 1604 to the present day, (ie. England and Scotland separate with a shared king, Great Britain, the UK of GB and I, then the UK of GB and NI) the term British has been used as the adjective form of the state, whatever its nomenclature, in 99% of cases. Queen Anne is recorded as a British Queen, as is Queen Elizabeth II. (Some commonwealth states used to refer to "His Brittanic Majesty") Every prime minister without exception has been known when defined by state mostly as British prime minister, with the alternative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom used largely only in formal legal documentation (eg, treaties). The monarchy since James VI/I has been regularly called the British monarchy, the House of Commons the British House of Commons. The media is referred to as the British media. Sports stars are referred to British athletes/footballers/ etc. David Beckham is called a British football player, except when seen in terms of international soccer when he described as English.

A linguistic distinction exists between British/Britain, which is used to refer to the entire kingdom, and Great British/Great Britain, which is used to refer to the island that contains England, Scotland and Wales, and is used as such in the name of he UK, ie, the United Kingdom of Great Britain (the island) and Northern Ireland (a territory off the island of GB). To use Great British PM would be wrong as there is no PM in the Island of GB, not is there a queen of GB. But using British as the adjective form of United Kingdom is standard, not least because it allows for a degree of continuity between the often changing names by which the British state was known since the separate states on Great Britain were first constitutionally linked ago. United Kingdom is also problematical given that there have in fact been 2 UKs, one from 1800 to 1922, one from 1927 to the present (and confusion between 1922 and 1927). Following the flawed logic of 2toise, one could not have a list of British Prime Ministers, for example, but three lists; GB (up to 1800), UK of GB+I (1801-1920s), UK of GB + NI (1920s - present), no list of British monarchs, but 3 lists, no lists of famous British people, but three lists, etc etc. And so one would have articles called

 * List of Prime Ministers of the Kingdom of Great Britain,
 * List of Prime Minsters of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
 * List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Oh and
 * House of Commons of the Kingdom of Great Britain,
 * House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
 * House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, etc.

Logically if one was to follow the policy of accurate absolutism 2toise seems to want, you would have to rewrite much of wikipedia - one could not talk about Australia before 1900 as there were six states, not one. Italy could not be used before Italian unification in the 1870s, Germany would be limited to after the creation of the German Empire. And of course, President of the United States would also have to go, as to use the correct state nomenclature, every link would have to be President of the United States of America.

Wikipedia policy is clear - according to our naming conventions and Manual of Style,

 * Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. (NC)

 * Use the form most familiar to English speakers: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). (MoS)

According to google searches;
 *  British monarchy 30,000 versus United Kingdom monarchy 48
 * British Prime Minister 182,000 versus United Kingdom Prime Minister 817
 * British House of Commons 11,000 versus United Kingdom House of Commons 737
 * British Football 11,000 versus United Kingdom Football 774
 * British sport 10,500 versus United Kingdom sport 511
 * British politics 54,500 versus United Kingdom politics 792
 * British music 69,300 versus United Kingdom music 1,630
 * British instiutions 6710 versus United Kingdom institutions 281
 * British government 496,000 versus United Kingdom government 24,300
 * British current affairs 191 versus United Kingdom current affairs 3.
 * British media 34,700 versus United Kingdom media 1,050.

All the evidence shows that Britain is
 * 1) The standard use of reference when referring to the UK in adjective form
 * 2) used by 99% of people in up to 99% of cases;
 * 3) is universally recognised and recognisable, as the google search shows;
 * 4) allows for continuity through the various state names used for 399 years;
 * 5) is accurate. It clearly refers to the UK in adjective form. The island's name is Great Britain, not Britain, as the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shows unambiguously. In that way it has no parallel with Holland whatsoever, which is not the adjective form of The Netherlands at all;
 * 6) was the form of language overwhelmingly the last time the issue was discussed.

United Kingdom is
 * 1) rarely used in adjective form (eg, people say British prime minister, British queen, British House of Commons, British football, British tabloids, etc., not United Kingdom prime minister, United Kingdom queen, United Kingdom House of Commons, United Kingdom football, United Kingdom tabloids, etc, as the google search shows in every single case)
 * 2) is ambiguous as it could refer to either of the two UKs;
 * 3) is period specific and so cannot be used to describe the holders of offices before 1800;
 * 4) is clumsy in language;
 * 5) is not the most common form of terminology used, meaning that its usage would run contrary to the 'common name'  and 'form most familiar to English speakers' rules that tens of thousands of articles have been drafted using;
 * 6) if followed, would require major change in large numbers of articles that have followed the the 'common name'  and 'form most familiar to English speakers' rules to the letter;
 * 7) was rejected as an option when previously the issue was discussed for many reasons, including those above.

One final point: Northern Ireland Unionists insist that they are British, not Great British, because as they openly admit they couldn't be the latter as they don't live in Great Britain (the island), but in Britain (the state), formally known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So clearly using British as the adjective form of UK is the solution that follows general usage, international usage and wikipedia's own rules. Using United Kingdom in adjective form involves ignoring general usage, accepted usage worldwide and breaking wikipedia's own rules on the matter.FearÉIREANN 22:35, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bravo! -- Arwel 23:27, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * 1. British is not 'universally used'. It is often (erronenously) used in a casual context, rarely in a discussion of constitutional or political issues. It is clumsy to have sentences like In the United Kingdom, Parliament consists of the British House of Commons etc. (from Parliament). The author is careful to point out that they are talking about the UK, but have to link to the British House of Commons, even though they know the term is misleading.
 * 2. I am not suggesting that we need separate pages for all of the historical cases. I am suggesting using the current correct name, and discussing the historical precursors on that page, as we do with most successor states.
 * 3. You are a little misleading in your statistics all the evidence shows 99% etc? That's simply not true.
 * 4. You might want to take a look at Naming conventions (common names) we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading. Wikipedia does not condem authors to parrot common errors.
 * 5. The UK Parliament (of which the HoC is part, describes itself on the site http://www.parliament.uk/. That seems pretty definative, there is no mention of it being the British Parliament.
 * 6 The CIA World Factbook: conventional long form: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland conventional short form: United Kingdom abbreviation: UK
 * I don't understand why you seem so committed to perpetuating a common misconception.2toise 22:58, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * It is a misconception to equate Britain and United Kingdom. It is NOT a misconception to use British to mean of the United Kingdom - it is the accepted adjective.  No adjective form of United Kingdom has been successfully coined, and although it's sometimes used unmodified as an adjective this is FAR from being common usage. --Morven 23:15, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Morven is absolutely correct. As to British not being "universally used" in adjective form it is a fact that it is. As to the British House of Commons link, that should have been piped. As to the current correct name argument, OK, so you want to rename the British House of Commons article as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland House of Commons? That is what your argument requires. United Kingdom is not the correct name but a generalised shortened version, as you will see if you look at treaties signed in the state's name. So if you want accuracy, it has to be that! As to the we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading argument that is completely irrelevant. British is not "unreasonably misleading". It has been used as the adjective version of various British states for 399 years. Calling The Netherlands "Holland" is misleading. Calling France "the Kingdom of France" would be misleading. Calling Northern Ireland "Ulster" is misleading. Using the standard adjective form of a name, used worldwide by billions of people, including the British (BTW what do you suggest calling the British then? United Kingdomish?) is common sense and follows wikipedia's rules on name use to the letter and the spirit. Your suggestion does neither. As to the British Parliamentary website, that is completely irrelevant, and I'm surprised you use it. Of course they use the most formal title. All official sites do that. That is not evidence of anything. Why does Tony Blair have international press releases issued that call him the "British Prime Minister" if the "British" bit was so wrong. I simply cannot understand your determination to push an illogical, factually inaccurate agenda that breaks wikipedia's own rules to produce article titles that will be no more accurate, just less accessible and less likely to show up in google searches, given that most of the planet will use British in searches, whether you want them to or not. FearÉIREANN 23:20, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Clearly, the correct approach according to Wikipedia precedent with American which is similarly problematic for a few editors (although because it may be too inclusive, not because it may be too exclusive) is to clarify every single usage of "British" and replace with "UK citizen" or "of the UK" since it can be confusing. UKian would be the best option if only people would use that term instead of British. We should also create a new page named Alternate words for British and list any alternative words that have been constructed to raise awareness of the issue and it can be linked from various possibly offensively-titled articles where "British" has to be retained for some pathetic reason. Basically, a few people might find it offensive, so it doesn't matter what common usage dictates. Daniel Quinlan 23:35, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

 * Not necessary, we are not talking about citizenship, British is fine for that, since there is no confusion. The name of the government and parts thereof is the only thing that needs to be corrected.2toise 23:59, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

But this would also be wrong. There is no such thing as United Kingdom Citizenship, there is British Citizenship  - see the British Nationality Act 1981, or the article on British Nationality Law. 2toise is, quite simply, flogging a dead horse; he is just plain wrong in his arguments. -- Arwel 23:45, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, you are insisting on caracaturing my argument. United Kingdom is the correct short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Britain is simply not. Arguments about "British citizen" etc are irrelevant, since, as you point out confusion does not arrise in those cases. In terms of which parts of the UK different parts of government have authority over confusion does arise, and the use of British is unreasonably misleading. :Please find any reference in official UK government material to "British House of Commons", "British Parliament", "British Government". I think you won't find it, because that usage is wrong and misleading in that context (in other contexts, as you correctly point out, it is neither misleading or incorrect).2toise 23:57, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * *sigh* You are ignoring every single point everyone else makes and continually repeating factual inaccuracies as if if you say them often enough they might just become true. How many times does it have to be repeated? British is the adjective version of United Kingdom, not the name. BTW if British was such nonsense, why would Parliament enact a law called the British Nationality Act? Not that you'll answer the point of course. Your argument is getting increasingly silly and threadbare. FearÉIREANN 00:12, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I will concede this point if anyone can find a single official usage of British Parliament, British House of Commons etc by the UK Government. I doubt that you will respond to this reasonable request.
 * I will answer your point that British is a perfectly acceptable adjective in terms of citizenship. Indeed, as you point out, it is used officially. I don't disagree with you. I disagree that you will find any official usage in terms of discribing the government itself.2toise 00:17, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * (Caught in 4 edit conflicts, but I'll post anyway) Oh for crying out loud! How many times do we have to tell you that United Kingdom (whether the short form or the long) is a noun and British is an adjective one of whose commonest meanings is "pertaining to the United Kingdom"? (In any context, not just citizenship) I absolutely refuse to continue this pointless argument until you go away and read a bloody dictionary!!! -- Arwel 00:25, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Getting shrill won't help.2toise 00:27, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Re references from the UK Government to itself as the "British Government" - here is one particularly notorious example (not notorious for use of the word "British", I hasten to add). It's quite common, I think. --Camembert

 * I beg your pardon - I mean in the form British House of Commons, or British Parliament, which is what we are talking about.2toise 00:27, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry. Only you said above 'Please find any reference in official UK government material to "British House of Commons", "British Parliament", "British Government"', so I was just following orders... --Camembert

Appologies - I think this can be settled very easily. There are NO official uses of British House of Commons or British Parliament by the UK Government. I cannot understand why you insist on propogating the myth that this term is ever used officially.2toise 00:41, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's not what you said 20 minutes earlier in 'You will not, I think, find any examples of the UK government describing itself or parts thereof as the British Government. I challenge you to find any cases of this.2toise 00:07, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)' Moving goalposts, eh? -- Arwel 00:40, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * We can play games as long as you want to, the case in point is British House of Commons. The term is a fiction, NEVER used by the UK Government. You can attack me, or you can find ANY example of this term (which is the one we are talking about) - Used by the UK Government, that is.2toise 00:45, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Hansard - Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons Second Report paragraphs 70 & 72 -- Arwel 00:49, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, you're right, there is one. If the community at large is committed to adopting a term that is incorrect, misleading and extremely rarely used then so be it, there's no sense in trying to reason. The Hansard record does show that the term was indeed used on occasion, and the majority are clearly committed to this ridiculousness.2toise 00:53, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, this argument is ridiculous. When you have half a dozen people arguing against one, there's not much point in going further.  I'd suggest a vote, but it seems pretty obvious how it would turn out.  As far as parliament, it does seem to be officially called the United Kingdom Parliament... john 02:52, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK. Lets see. The website mentions about the Duke of Gloucester (the website's words) ''He is President of a number of organisations including: Britain-Nepal Society, The British Consultancy and Construction Bureau, British Leprosy Relief Association (LEPRA - Vice President).
 * 1) MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
 * 2) Oral evidence - Taken before the Defence Committee on Wednesday 4 June 2003
 * 3) Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Guinea-Bissau regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates
 * 4) Select Committee on Treasury Minutes of Evidence - Memorandum submitted by Professor Robert M Worcester, MORI
 * 5) Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence - Memorandum submitted by the British Council
 * 6) Written Questions for Answer on Thursday 30 July 1998
 * 7) Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Eighteenth Report - AIR SERVICE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES - Reasons for Renegotiating Bermuda II
 * 8) Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence - Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Bilateral Action Plans for EU Applicant Countries
 * 9) British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L. Speaker:  Baroness Blatch]
 * 10) On this day: 1952 British monarch laid to rest - BBC website
 * 11) The official website of the British monarchy (the name of the website)

By the way, have you ever heard of two airlines called British Airways and British Midland. Or the Order of the British  Empire, or the British Empire''. Oh, and have you heard of the Encyclopedia of British History? And Nationmaster.com has an article on British History, British House of Commons, etc.

"The British Constitutional Monarchy was the consequence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and was enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1689. Whereby William and Mary in accepting the throne, had to consent to govern 'according to the statutes in parliament on." - J. Harvey and L. Bather, The British Constitution. And don't forget Ralph Alan Griffiths, John Ashton Cannon, The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy (Oxford Paperback Reference) and Kenneth O. Morgan, The Oxford History of Britain (ISBN 019288073X).

So in other words, the British parliament uses the word British constantly. The official website of the monarchy refers to the British monarchy. Net encyclopædias talk about the British House of Commons. Top academics write books with the words British in it. Google searches show it is the overwhelming preference of millions of internet users. We have British Midland, British Airways, the Order of the British Empire, and of course the British Broadcasting Corporation. So your comment about how British is 'rarely used', maybe on the moon it isn't but on planet earth it clearly is. How official do you want? The Queen? - got it. Parliament? - ditto. The media? Yup. Academia? You bet. Sorry your argument is so nonsensical that it is funny. The facts are clear. The evidence is overwhelming. QED. FearÉIREANN 22:40, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Although it's good to have your research and knowledge on the page, I think now is the time to stop flogging this horse. 2toise already conceded the point and debate - maybe not particularly gracefully - but that's hard to do when the debate got to a pitch as feverish as last night. Pete 23:49, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that 2toise conceded the point, merely adopted a 'you all are wrong and won't listen to sense' tone. The problem is that this nutty "you can't use British" argument comes up as regularly as a British royal scandal. Granted no-one else has been as absolute as 2toise in making a claim that can so easily be demonstrated as factually wrong. But those of us who deal with this nonsense everytime it appears are getting a tad bored having to re-fight the argument every couple of months. So I put in the comments to show that 2toise's you all are wrong and won't listen to sense is not a consession, merely an "OK. Be wrong then for all I care" withdrawal, by answering the claim once and for all. That way the next time someone digs up this nonsensical argument, we won't have to start from scratch again but simply point to a definitive page of facts. And instead of the previous attempts to raise the issue, that ended in the person just dropping the issue for a while, this time the clear unambiguous evidence is stated bluntly, so 2toise, unlike others, can't come back and try again thinking everyone will have forgotten their evidence and maybe this time they might get away with the loopy idea. The evidence is here to be used the next time this issue is dug up. And I did deliberately end the piece above with QED (Quad Erat Demonstratum) which means in effect - ''as has been demonstrated. Issue now closed.'' :-) FearÉIREANN 00:41, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Jtdirl / FearÉIREANN / ÉÍREman - I'm afraid that all you have demonstrated is an ability to win a war of attrition against people interested in correcting this point. Not many people have endless reserves of tolerance for your cheap debating club tactics. A couple of particularly risible examples stand out:
 * Your cup and ball trick logic; "There's an airline called British Airways, so it must be called the British House of Commons".
 * The belief that if you state something false enough times it becomes true "the British Parliament uses the word constantly".
 * I'm not interested in discussing this with you any further because you are clearly bent on misrepresenting the situation. Even if we were to accept the strong form of your argument, that is only that there is an secondary meaning to the term British which is a synonym for 'relating to the UK'. That still leaves UK as at least as appropriate a term, and the one that is used overwhelmingly on the UK Parliament website [www.parliament.uk/ www.parliament.uk/].
 * Of course people keep on bringing this up, and of course more people will continue to. The fact that the people who are interested in correcting this don't seem to want to put up with your belligerence and hostility as well as your childish 'logic' for very long, and eventually give up on trying to make you see sense isn't really surprising. Whatever bizarre agenda it is that makes you think it is so important to propagate this error is none of my business, but it's a shame that Wikipedia has to pay the price for it.2toise 14:04, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"one that is used overwhelmingly on the UK Parliament website" this appears to be inaccurate. The phrase that is used overwhelmingly is an unqualified "House of Commons" as for the rest :- Google search Only two pages out of this lot actually has one of the above phrases located on the page found by google (the rest state "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page") and these pages Annual%20Report%2095.pdf both use British House of Commons. One of the hits for UK House of Commons has UK at the end of a sentence and House of Commons at the beginning. Mintguy
 * site:www.parliament.uk "united kingdom house of commons" = 4
 * site:www.parliament.uk "uk house of commons" = 24
 * site:www.parliament.uk "british house of commons" = 7

I wasn't going to return to this, but to add to Mintguy's analysis, you seem overly wedded to the name of the Parliament website but they had to call it something. Have you actually searched that website? I have. This afternoon, searching using the box at the top left of the home page for "UK Parliament" returned 264,494 hits; searching for "British Parliament" returned 305,531 hits. It is a very long way from your claim that "There are NO official uses of British House of Commons or British Parliament by the UK Government". -- Arwel 16:11, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * That just shows you are misunderstanding that search engine. You would have found fewer references if you had searched just for "parliament", as its search engine performs a default OR, not a phrase search.  Try these better searches: "British parliament" 453, "United Kingdom parliament" 936 , "UK parliament" 85,400 .  Then go to the pages and look at the image http://www.parliament.uk/images/hop/gen_parl.gif which is at the top left of many of the ones I looked at, with alt="The United Kingdom Parliament". I have no objection the using British or UK, though the official name is clear.  Given the huge number of links to House of Commons, the vast majority of which are to the Westminster one, it may be worth discussing if it might be better to use neither. --Henrygb 02:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let us recap. 2toise believed that the use of British as the adjective form of United Kingdom was wrong. That was shown to be wrong by history books, by websites, by the records of the British Parliament, by the Royal Family, by industry, broadcasting, etc. He insisted that the term British House of Commons was false and never existed. ever. This was disproved by the House of Commons itself. So as usual he moved the goalposts and said it was just one. So another ten were produced that showed both the widespread use of British and the specific usage of British House of Commons. His response was to call that "childish logic". Arwel, MIntguy and others demonstated that, no matter how 2toise changed the question when his latest theory was disproved, every new argument fell flat on his face. But still, 2toise calls the facts a "bizarre agenda". The words 'when', 'hole' and 'digging' come to mind. FearÉIREANN 20:19, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:British House of Commons/Page name


text:
London West (federal electoral district)

London West (London-Ouest) is a federal electoral district in London, Ontario, Canada, that has been represented in the House of Commons of Canada since 1968.

Geography
The district includes the northwest part of the City of London.

In 2003, it was defined to consist of the part of the city lying north and west of a line drawn from the western limit of the city along Dingman Creek, Southdale Road West, Wharncliffe Road South, Commissioners Road East, the Canadian National Railway, the Thames River, Wharncliffe Road North, Oxford Street West and Wonderland Road North.

History
The electoral district was created in 1966 from London, Middlesex East, and from Middlesex West.

It initially consisted of the part of the City of London west of a line drawn from north to south along Adelaide Street, Dundas Street, Wellington Street and Wellington Road.

In 1976, it was redefined to consist of the part of the city west of a line drawn from south to north along Southdale Road, Wellington Road, the Thames River and the North Thames River, Dundas Street, Colborne Street, Huron Street and Richmond Street.

In 1987, it was redefined to consist of the part of the city lying north and west of a line drawn from the southern limit of the city along Wharncliffe Road South, Commissioners Road East, Wellington Road, the Thames River, the North Thames River, the Medway River, Western Road and Richmond Street.

In 1996, it was redefined to consist of the part of the city lying north and west of a line drawn from the western limit of the city along Dingman Creek, Southdale Road West, Wharncliffe Road South, Commissioners Road East, the London and Port Stanley Electric Railway, the Thames River, Wharncliffe Road, Oxford Street, Wonderland Road North and Hutton Road.

In 2003, it was given its current boundaries as described above.

This riding lost territory to London North Centre during the 2012 electoral redistribution.

Demographics

 * According to the 2021 Canadian census

Ethnic groups: 70.4% White, 3.2% Latin American, 5.6% Arab, 5.8% South Asian, 3.7% Black, 3.1% Chinese, 3.1% Indigenous, 1.3% West Asian, 1.1% Korean

Languages: 72.7% English, 4.2% Arabic, 3.0% Spanish, 1.8% Mandarin, 1.1% French, 1.0% Portuguese

Religions: 51.3% Christian (22.3% Catholic, 5.4% United Church, 5.1% Anglican, 2.0% Christian Orthodox, 1.7% Presbyterian, 1.4% Baptist, 1.1% Pentecostal, 12.3% Other), 9.3% Muslim, 1.6% Hindu, 35.3% None

Median income: $42,800 (2020)

Average income: $55,300 (2020)

Members of Parliament
This riding has elected the following members of Parliament:


text: User talk:195.36.182.36

title: User talk:195.36.182.36