text:
List of German football champions

The German football champions are the annual winners of the highest association football competition in Germany.

History
The history of the German football championship is complex and reflects the turbulent history of the country through the course of the 20th century.

Brought to the country by English immigrants, the sport took root in the cities of Berlin, Hamburg, Stuttgart, and Leipzig in the 1890s, leading to the growth of city, regional, and academic leagues, each with their own championships. Following the establishment of the German Football Association (Deutscher Fußball Bund) in 1900, the first recognized national championship match was hosted by Hamburg club Altona 93 in 1903 in which VfB Leipzig defeated DFC Prag 7–2, and was awarded the Viktoria, the championship trophy from 1903 to 1944. Before the formation of the Bundesliga in 1963, the championship format was based on a knockout competition, contested between the winners of each of the country's top regional leagues. Since 1963, the first-place finisher in the Bundesliga has been recognized as the national champion.

Championship play was suspended twice; from 1915 to 1919 due to World War I and again from 1945 to 1947 due to World War II. Following World War II, Germany was occupied by the victorious Allies and two German football competitions emerged when the country was divided as a result. The historical tradition of the DFB was continued in what was known as West Germany, while a second national championship was contested in Soviet-controlled East Germany under the auspices of the DFV (Deutscher Fußball-Verband or German Football Federation). Following the reunification of the country in 1990, the two separate football competitions were merged and a single national championship was restored.

Bayern Munich hold the record for the most championships with 33, all but one of these (1932) coming in Bundesliga competition. BFC Dynamo claimed 10 titles in the former East Germany, winning these championships in consecutive seasons (1979–88).

Early German football championships (1903–32)
The new English game of football quickly caught on in late 19th-century Germany, which had previously been a nation of gymnasts and fencers. The earliest attempt at organizing some form of national championship came in 1894, when city champions Viktoria 89 Berlin invited FC Hanau 93 to play a challenge match. The Hanauers were unable to afford the cost of the trip and so were unable to take up the invitation. In 2007, the 1894 final was replayed and Viktoria were crowned the official 1894 champions.

After its formation in 1900, the DFB began to establish its authority over the myriad city and regional leagues springing up throughout the country and organized the first officially recognized national championship in 1903.

The prize of German football was the Viktoria, a trophy statue of a seated Roman goddess of victory, donated by the committee that organized German participation in the 1900 Olympic Games in Paris – and originally intended to be shared with teams playing the rugby version of football. The formation of the DFB helped establish for the first time a clear divide between association football and its close cousin.

To qualify for the German championship finals, a club had to win one of the regional championships, which, in some cases, predate the national one. Those were:
 * Southern German football championship – formed in 1898
 * Brandenburg football championship – formed in 1898
 * Central German football championship – formed in 1902
 * Western German football championship – formed in 1903
 * Northern German football championship – formed in 1906
 * South Eastern German football championship – formed in 1906
 * Baltic football championship – formed in 1908

One other regional championships briefly existed:
 * March football championship – existed from 1903 to 1911

From 1925 onwards, the runners-up of those competitions were also qualified for the German championship finals, which had been expanded to sixteen clubs. The two strongest regions, South and West were also allowed to send their third-placed team. This system of regional championships was abolished in 1933 and superseded by the Gauliga system.

German football championships in Nazi Germany (1933–45)
With the beginning of the 1933–34 season, top-flight German football was reorganized into 16 regional Gauligen with each of these leagues sending their champion to the national playoffs. New Gauligen were created as the Reich expanded its border through the Anschluss with Austria. This expanded the national championship competition with the addition of regional champions from the new circuits. It also introduced previously foreign clubs into German domestic competition where Viennese Austrian sides made a notable impression. Competition during the war was also characterized by the formation of military-based clubs including the Luftwaffe side LSV Hamburg which appeared in the era's last national championship match at the end of the 1943–44 season. Unlike the United Kingdom, where play was suspended early on, national football competition continued on in Germany in some form through the course of the war. Play finally collapsed as the war drew to its conclusion and no champion was declared in 1944–45.

It was also during this period that a national cup competition was introduced; the Tschammerpokal was named for Reichssportführer (Sports Chief of the Reich) Hans von Tschammer und Osten and is predecessor to the modern-day DFB-Pokal (German Cup). The first cup competition was staged in 1935 and won by 1. FC Nürnberg.

Key

German football championships from post-war to the Bundesliga (1946–63)
In the immediate aftermath of World War II, German football was in complete disarray. Occupying Allied authorities ordered the dissolution of most organizations in the country.

However, many football clubs were soon re-established and new sides formed; play was tentatively resumed. By 1948, a new first division league structure, the Oberligen, was in place in most of the Western zone of occupation. The restored competition maintained the German game's historical practice of play in regional leagues. An exception was in French-occupied Saarland where attempts by France to annex the state were manifested in the formation of a separate, but short-lived, football competition that staged its own championship. Saarland briefly had its own representation under FIFA, forming Olympic and World Cup sides, before re-joining German competition in 1956.

In the Soviet-occupied East zone, a more enduring separation took place that was not mended until the reunification of Germany in 1990. As a result, Eastern-based clubs did not take part in the German national championship under the DFB, vying instead for a different prize. The country's capital city of Berlin was similarly divided and clubs based in West Berlin took part in western-based competition.

The Viktoria disappeared at war's end, although it would eventually reappear and be held in East Germany. A new trophy – the Meisterschale – was introduced in the west in 1949. The first post-war champions were 1. FC Nürnberg (2–1 over 1. FC Kaiserslautern in Köln) who were also, coincidentally, the first champions following World War I.

Over time, the notion of professionalism – long anathema to German sports – made inroads in the country. A consequence of this was that by 1956, a distinct national amateur championship was established, open to teams playing below the Oberliga level in second- and third tier leagues.

East German football championships (1950–90)
The post-war occupation of Germany by the victorious Allies eventually led to the de facto partition of the country and the emergence of two separate German states, each with its own government and institutions.

Early plans to maintain a national championship to be contested by representatives from the eastern and western halves of the country quickly fell by the wayside in the context of the Cold War. An Ostzone champion was declared in each of the 1946–48 seasons and in 1949 the first division DDR-Oberliga was established under the DFV (Deutscher Fußball-Verband der DDR) as a distinct national sport governing body. From 1950 through to 1990 an East German football champion was declared, until the eastern competition was reintegrated into the German national competition under the DFB.

In the first recognized East German national championship staged in 1949, ZSG Union Halle defeated SG Fortuna Erfurt 4–1. In 1990, the last East German champion was SG Dynamo Dresden. The following season the DDR-Oberliga (I) was redesignated the Nord-Ostdeutscher Fußball Verband Oberliga and became a third tier regional division within the existing German league structure under the DFB. FC Hansa Rostock captured the title in the transitional 1990–91 season, and alongside runners-up SG Dynamo Dresden, advanced to play in the Bundesliga, thereby fully integrating former Eastern clubs into a unified German championship.

Bundesliga (since 1963)
The formation of the Bundesliga in 1963 marked a significant change to the German football championship. The historical regional league and national playoff format was abandoned in favour of a single unified national league. Sixteen teams from the five Oberligen in place at the time were invited to be part of the new circuit – which also for the first time formally acknowledged the sport as professional rather than amateur.

The new league adopted a round-robin format in which each team plays every other club once at home and once away. There is no playoff, with the club having the best record at the end of the season claiming the German championship. 1. FC Köln captured the first-ever Bundesliga title in the league's inaugural 1963–64 season. Since then the competition has been dominated by Bayern Munich which has taken the championship in 32 of the 60 Bundesliga seasons played to 2023.

Key

Performances
Over the history of the German football championship, 30 different clubs have won the title. The most successful club is FC Bayern Munich, with 33 titles to its credit, 32 of those coming in Bundesliga competition. The most successful pre-Bundesliga club is 1. FC Nürnberg, who won eight titles in the era of knockout play amongst regional champions.

Former German champions are recognized through the Verdiente Meistervereine system which permits the display of a star or stars on a club's jersey. This system allows for the recognition of both German and East German titles, although only German titles are listed in the table below.

Clubs in bold currently play in the top division.

Performance by club
Notes:
 * A. VfB Leipzig would have faced Berliner TuFC, but no final was held.
 * B. The German football championship was not held from 1915 to 1919 due to the First World War.
 * C. The 1922 final between Hamburger SV and 1. FC Nürnberg ended 2–2. The match was called due to darkness after 189 minutes of play. The replay ended 1–1 when the referee called off the game while in extra time due to Nuremberg having just seven players remaining in the game. Hamburg was awarded the championship but later declined.
 * D. The German football championship was not held from 1945 to 1947 due to the Second World War and its aftermath.
 * E. VfB Leipzig are now known as Lokomotive Leipzig.
 * F. Vienna was part of Germany when Rapid Wien won the championship in 1941.

Performance by state and regional association
As of 2024, German football champions have come from 11 of the 16 German states. The most successful state is Bavaria with 45 championships. Bavaria is also home to the two individually most successful clubs, Bayern Munich and 1. FC Nürnberg. North Rhine-Westphalia follows with 26 championships. The state is home to the third and fourth most successful clubs, Borussia Dortmund and Schalke 04. No club from the Saarland, Thuringia, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg, and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has yet won the championship.

In most cases the regional associations of the DFB align with state borders in Germany. However, the DFB has two regional associations in Rhineland-Palatinate, and three each in North Rhine-Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg. For the champions of these states the regional associations are mentioned as well. From 1938 to 1945 Austria was part of Germany, and Austrian clubs were thus allowed to compete in the German football championship. Rapid Wien won one championship in that period.

Undeclared championships
In over a century of German football competition, champions were not declared in several seasons for various reasons. No champion was declared in 1904 due to the DFB's inability to resolve a protest filed by Karlsruher FV over their 1–6 semi-final loss to Britannia Berlin to determine which of these sides would face defending champion Leipzig in that year's final. Karlsruhe's protest was over the failure to play the match at neutral venue.

The national championship was suspended in October 1915 due to World War I. Limited play continued on a regional basis in many parts of the country, while competition was abandoned in other areas. Several regional leagues continued to declare champions or cup winners. The national championship was reinstated with the 1919–20 season that was concluded with a 2–0 victory by 1. FC Nürnberg over SpVgg Fürth in Frankfurt.

The 1922 final was contested by 1. FC Nürnberg and Hamburger SV, but never reached a conclusion on the pitch. The match was called on account of darkness after three hours and ten minutes of play, drawn at 2–2. The re-match also went into extra time, and in an era that did not allow for substitutions, the game was called at 1–1 when Nürnberg was reduced to just seven players and the referee ruled they could not continue. Considerable wrangling ensued over the decision. The DFB awarded the win to Hamburg under the condition that they renounce the title in the name of "good sportsmanship" – which they grudgingly did. Ultimately, the championship trophy was not officially presented that year.

Competition for the national title was maintained through most of World War II and was supported by the regime for morale. Play became increasingly difficult as the war drew to its conclusion due to manpower shortages, bombed-out stadiums, and the hardship and expense of travel. In the era's final championship match Dresdner SC beat the military club LSV Hamburg 4–0 on 18 June 1944 in Berlin's Olympiastadion. The 1944–45 season kicked off ahead of schedule in November; however, by March 1945 play had collapsed throughout Germany as Allied armies overran the country. Play was tentatively resumed in various parts of the now-occupied country in early 1946 and the postwar Oberliga structure began to take shape in the 1946–47 season; no national champion was declared from 1945 to 1947. In 1947–48, qualification play took place to determine Westzonen (Western occupation zones) and Ostzone (Eastern occupation zone) representatives to meet in a national final that never took place. 1. FC Nürnberg is recognized as the first postwar German national champion for its 2–1 victory over 1. FC Kaiserslautern in the Westzonen final staged on 8 August 1948 in Mannheim. In the Ostzone, SG Planitz beat SG Freiimfelde Halle 1–0 on 4 July 1948 in Leipzig to qualify for the scheduled national final, but were denied a permit to travel to play the match by Soviet authorities.

Workers' and Faith-based Leagues
In the aftermath of World War I, several lesser national football competitions emerged as outgrowths of the tumultuous German political situation. These included the left-leaning workers' ATSB (Arbeiter-Turn- und Sport-Bund), the Catholic-sponsored DJK (Deutschen Jugendkraft), the Protestant-backed DT (Deutsche Turnerschaft), and the Communist KG (Kampfgemeinschaft für Rote Sporteinheit). Through the 1920s and 1930s, each of these leagues staged their own national championships or fielded national sides. Because of the ideologies they represented, they were considered politically unpalatable by the regime and disappeared in the 1933 reorganization of German football under Nazi Germany that consolidated competition in state-sanctioned leagues. These clubs were forced into mergers with other mainstream sides or saw their assets seized by the state.

Antisemitism in Germany led to the creation of Jewish sports associations as Jews were forced out of mainstream clubs. These associations, including Sportbund Schild and Makkabi, staged their own national championships from 1933–38.

Arbeiter-Turn-und Sportbund (1920–1933)
Key

Deutsche Turnerschaft (1925–1930)
Following the 1930 season, most DT teams became part of the mainstream DFB.

Participation of non-German clubs
German championships have included clubs from countries other than Germany. DFC Prag, vice-champions in the first national final and a founding member of the DFB, was an ethnically-German club from Bohemia in the Austro-Hungarian Empire (today part of the Czech Republic) which did not at the time have its own national football federation.

Following the annexation of Austria, which was incorporated into Nazi Germany in 1938, Austrian clubs became part of German competition; Admira Wien made a losing appearance in the German national final in 1939, Rapid Wien captured the championship in 1941, and First Vienna also lost in 1942. In each case their opposition was Schalke 04. Throughout the course of World War II, clubs in German-occupied territories were made part of German competition in the Gauligen and took part in the regional qualifying rounds of the national championship, but without the same success as Austrian sides.

Trophies
Two trophies have been used for the official German and, during the era of the divided Germany, West German champions. The pre-Second World War trophy, the Viktoria, was awarded from 1903 to 1944, making Saxonian clubs VfB Leipzig the first and Dresdner SC the last club to receive it. The trophy disappeared during the final stages of the war and would not resurface until after the German reunification. A new trophy, the Meisterschale, was commissioned after the war but was not ready for the first post-war champions in 1948. Instead it was first awarded to VfR Mannheim in 1949. While the original trophy has only the champions from 1903 to 1944 engraved the new one lists all the German champions since 1903 and has had to be enlarged on occasion.

title: List of German football champions


text:
Naruto Strait

Naruto Strait (鳴門海峡) is a strait between Awaji Island and Shikoku in Japan. It connects Harima Nada, the eastern part of the Inland Sea and the Kii Channel. A famous feature of the strait is the Naruto whirlpools. Ōnaruto Bridge, the southern part of the Kobe-Awaji-Naruto Expressway, crosses over it.

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

title: Naruto Strait


text:
North Valley

North Valley may refer to:

 * North Valley (San Jose), California
 * North Valley, New Mexico

title: North Valley


text:
User:Niteowlneils/edit summary glossary

 * avoid redir msg=avoid a "redirected from" message
 * cap or de-cap=changed capitalization of the first letter of a word; if plural, multiple letters and/or words
 * clarify=make subject or facts more specific to reduce confusion and/or ambiguity
 * crex=corrected facts
 * dab=changed link to avoid either a "redirected from" message, or a disambiguation page
 * d'oh!=fixed minor mistake I made on previous edit
 * fix date=a correction, or better linkage
 * fxd=fixed (IE a commonly misspelled word)
 * fixed link=turned red link into blue link, usually by making a small word all lowercase, or by moving a plural "s" outside the ]]
 * fmt=any sort of formatting, plus adding the subject to the intro (can include adding links if it's a new, raw-text submission
 * gram=changed wording, punctuation, etc. to read better, or, more often, just to be more correct English
 * imdb=added imdb.com link
 * locate=make it more clear where in the world the subject is
 * rdndnt=redundant (I've used a few different shorter forms, actually)
 * -sig=removed previous contributor's name or date/time/name stamp from an article
 * sp=corrected spelling
 * stub=added stub msg
 * tweak=assorted changes that change presentation, but not basic content
 * typo=minor correction of cap, gram, or sp
 * wik=combination of fmt and linkage (short for wikify, basically)

From what I remember, I believe any others I use are common and/or obvious

title: User:Niteowlneils/edit summary glossary


text:
Talk:Peter Taaffe

Old talk
--81.157.152.224 13:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC):Through having met and spoken to Alan Woods, i can confirm that the "Scottish turn" was not innitially supported by Grant or Woods. I currently do not have an online source, but will try and find one in the coming days. It is correct to say SA membership is around 200, but it is beggining to rise (although i am of the opinion that that is irrelevent to this article)

 * Taaffe and the majority in Militant supported the Scottish turn and the creation of Scottish Militant Labour whilst Grant and the minority opposed it after being initially in favour. Scottish Militant Labour eventually became the Scottish Socialist Party which has several MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, however, in 2003 the leadership of the SSP broke away from the CWI.

AW Healy removed everything after "opposed it". Taaffe's "Response to Ted Grant and Rob Sewell" claims Grant and the minority initially supported the Scottish turn. Does AW Healy have any evidence that this is incorrect? If not then the material he removed shold not have been removed.

AW Healy also removed:
 * Grant and his leading supporters were expelled and have reconstituted themselves as the Workers International League. While the Taaffe led majority left the Labour Party, the Grant-led WIL continues to practice entrism despite Labour's embrace of the Third Way under Tony Blair.

Yet the Grant group did reconstitute itself as the Workers International League and does continue to practice entrism despite Labour's turn to the Third Way.

AW Healy added:

 * Using his control over the beareaucratic structures of the group Taaffe moved to expel Grant and his leading supporters together with the majority of the organisation's leading trade union Cadres internationally.

The use of "bureaucratic structures" is a POV. The claim that the "majority of the organisation's leading trade union Cadres internationally." is, as far as I can determine, disputed. What I've read suggests that while the Spanish and Mexican sections went with Grant the vast majority of the rest stayed in the CWI.

Healy adds:
 * The Grant group has grown internationally and now has three MPs in Pakistan as well as a daily updated website WWW.Marxist.com.

but he removed:

 * The Grant-led WIL, however, has fewer than 200 members though it does have some influence internationally through the Committee for a Marxist International and its In Defence of Marxism webpage.

but does not put forward an alternative to the 200 figure. If it's fair to compare the Grant and Taaffe groups then it is a remiss not to mention that the Taaffe group is ten times the size of the Grant group in England.

Steve asks: what evidence is there for a membership of 200 for the Grant group or 2,000 for the Taaffe group? There is evidence that the membership of the Taaffe group is growing following years of decline but some referencing is needed.

Healy writes:

 * The Socialist Party had some initial success in council elections based on the personal standing of individuals who had developed positions as Labour Party candidates in the main.

Yet the SP has more councillors today than it did at the time of the split which suggests that the "initial success" claim is inaccurate. As well, as a majority of the councillors were not Labour Party candidates the second part of Healy's statement is also false.

Healy writes:

 * Membership has continued to decline and the organisation eventually lostits national office in East London.

Yet he removes:

 * and today has a membership of several thousand, the largest Marxist group in Britain except for the Socialist Workers Party.

and

 * However, the party but has experienced a resurgence in recent years.

and

 * and like all Marxist groups in Britain suffered from a decline in membership in the 1990s.

The recent resurgence of membership contradicts the "continued to decline" claim and removing the statement that all groups declined in the 1990s removes context. He also removes the current SP membership figure and it's status behind the SWP thus also removing context.

 * The organisation increasingly competes with the Socialist Workers Party and remains isolated from the mass organisations of the working class, in Britain and internationally.

That is POV and contradicts the SP's recent success in UNISON elections, in union elections in Northern Ireland, the CWI's success in Ireland with the election of Joe Higgins, its success electing councillors in Sweden, representatives in the ex-USSR and growth elsewhere.

AndyL 02:49, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * the majority leadership published documents that it claimed made it clear that the minority was intending to split from Militant

What documents are these? A reference would be useful.

GO writes : in answer to the above question, no references will be given, because, quite simply, these documents do not exist. The Minority in the British section, led by Grant and Woods, did not intend to split, but to fight for internal democracy and against the ultra-leftist "turns" in Liverpool and Scotland. They were expelled as a result. Grant and Woods warned that the methods pursued by Taaffe would lead to a collapse of the influence of the organisation. This is exactly what has happened. The claim of the SP to have "thousands" of members is clearly a wild exageration. Where are they ? The position they had in Scotland has been lost, and in Liverpool also (following further expulsions). Their available forces in London are widely known to be less than 100 people. So in what region are the "thousands" or even "hundreds" hiding ?

In relation to their international position, the claims of Taaffe supporters in relation to their alleged base in Pakistan are pure invention. One will not find any evidence of any significant activity by supporters of Taaffe in Pakistan. Information published by Taaffe about "mass demonstrations" his supporters supposedly organised have proved to be utterly false. They do have a certain base in Nigeria, apparently, and also in a few European countries (Sweden, Germany, Belgium). Of the 80 people (members of the JCR) they affiliated in France in the 1990's, about 20 remain, almost all of whom are students in Rouen. While it is possible to contest the exact position in terms of numbers and influence in this or that country, one unmistakable fact remains : following the explusion of Grant and Woods, the Taaffe-led tendency entered into a process of decline and disintegration.

 * Then, irrespective of whether the above POV is correct and whether the Woods Grant faction intended to stay or go, we would all be happy to remove the line "until the majority leadership published documents that it claimed made it clear that the minority was intending to split from Militant"? The more important point, however, is how one would document an "expulsion" since everyone implicitly acknowledges that the Grant Woods faction treated themselves as effectively expelled, a point of view, as there were no expulsion procedures, because the Grant Woods faction ceased to operate within the Militant at any level. Andysoh 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Andysoh 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC) : re "Scottish turn" just a little niggle re the otherwise very helpful remarks above: in the first para of this discussion page, I think this opening assertion is wrong. Peter Taaffe quotes from the executive committee of 10/4/91 in his book, 'The Rise of Militant'  to indicate that initially the Open Turn was not at first an issue. Even more conclusive is the report from Alan Woods which pre-dated the dispute by a few months on the Spanish section which is quite specific about the need for an open turn in Spain which is here:

At the time of the outbreak of the dispute, it was an issue of the apparent promotion of a younger comrade, to speak on a CWI platform, when Ted thought it should be himself, that was the trigger for the dispute.

Resurgence
Hi, it seems that this page and the discussion has been edited by those who are trying to attack Taaffe rather than give a NPOV article. The biggest point of this is the talk about the decline of the CWI and the Socialist Party since the split between Woods and Taaffe. Even if this is true, I think the article should also point out the recent resurgence that the Socialist Party has had and the recent rapid increase members.

Also, should an article on Peter Taaffe have so much stuff on it about what Woods and co have done since the split? Shouldn't that be on a differnt page with its own article?

 * Hi. I find myself very uncomfortable with the NPOV policy, anyway that's how this site works and if somebody comes here, he needs to follow the rules. I think that much material on the rival group both on this page and Ted Grant page (and in many other pages being related, too) should be cleaned away. Moreover, while myself convinced that the 1500 figure of SP membership doesn't really seem to be correct, the solution is not to wage an edit war about that number: the solution is to use the magic verb to claim, as somebody correctly did with the Socialist Appeal membership figure. If a group claims a true figure and another group doesn't, shame on the liars, the page will ridiculize them to everybody knowing the true situation while still preserving its informational value and correctness. MauroVan 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mauro Trious 23:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Some effrot made to re-balance along the lines of these points. The break was significant, in point of marxist theory, but it is not the only issue.Andysoh 21:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

CWI Pakistan?????
I find it a bit odd to refeer to Pakistan as a big "colonial" section of CWI, it's quite a sham. But keep it on if you like, the jokes on the people who wrote it, especially when it quite obviously is out of sync with reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marxistviking (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Quite right. Colonial changed to neo-colonial as per your discussion

Andysoh 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean up
It seems to me that the Peter Taaffe entry has gained more balance with references along the lines indicated in the discussion here.

However, before the clean up tag can be removed, at least one important remaining issue on this page is the question of the unsupported statement:

"until the majority leadership published documents that it claimed made it clear that the minority was intending to split from Militant"

This has been criticised in the discussion, and is indeed inadequate. The Grantites deny it, and the Taaffe supporters feel that it suggests an organisational approach to resolving the dispute, which Militant supporters always claimed was never the method of the Militant. Let's simply cite the material, and give as full a context as the reader will bear.

There is no question of the importance of the 'open turn' debate. But it is still the case that the article is biased towards this one event. So let's add something of the role Taaffe played in the major events of the period.

It must be more concretely placed in the historical circumstances that surrounded it, which I have tried to do here.

I propose the following update to the para beginning: "The dispute between the Taaffe-led majority and the Grant-led minority continued within Militant for some time with an important exchange of documents, until the majority leadership published documents that it claimed made it clear that the minority was intending to split from Militant."

Replace with:

Militant had up to now played to a wide audience. The Liverpool struggle and the Poll Tax struggle of 1989 - 1991 were truly epic battles. The Liverpool struggle forced the British government into a temporary retreat, causing apoplexy in some of the media ("The august Times (11 July 1984) thundered: 'Danegeld in Liverpool'." writes Peter Taaffe in Liverpool - A City That Dared to Fight, chapter 8 ). The Poll Tax non-payment campaign (or else the Poll Tax Riot which ensued) has been widely credited for causing British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s downfall. (See for instance Poll Tax Riots or the BBC report: “The unpopularity of the new charge led to the poll tax riots in London in March 1990 and - indirectly - to the downfall of the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the November of the same year.” )

In the four year Liverpool struggle, Taaffe, the Liverpudlian General Secretary of the Militant Tendency, was intimately involved with developments, discussing with close friends and leading Liverpool Militant supporters, such as the former print worker Tony Mulhearn. Mulhearn co-authored with Taaffe the 500 page book 'Liverpool - A city that dared to fight' and was President of the Liverpool District Labour Party during these events, in which the Liverpool City Council declared it was "Better to break the law than break the poor", agreed an illegal budget, and built 4,800 houses and bungalows, and improved 7,400 houses and flats (amongst other works), before the 47 councillors were surcharged and removed from office.

Their opponents however claimed that Liverpool was in chaos. At the 1986 labour Party conference Labour leader Neil Kinnock became famous for his impassioned denunciation of the Labour-led Liverpool City Council, ("one of the most famous of any post-war British politician's" as the wikipedia Kinnock entry expresses it). the speech had many airings on television, and was replayed by the Labour Party in its party political broadcast during the 1987 general election campaign. however, whilst many commentators expressed great praise of the speech in programmes, articles and columns throughout the media, "the [Labour] party was again defeated in a landslide" (see reference in Labour Party), the Conservative's overwhelming majority reduced slightly from 143 to 102. At any rate, however the events were judged by the population at large, there is no denying the impact the Liverpool struggle had throughout British political society at the time.

Taaffe's role in the Poll Tax battle was also significant. "In April 1988" he writes, "I visited Glasgow for a one-day conference with delegates from every area of Scotland where Militant had supporters and influence." (The Rise of Militant' p312 ) This conference decided to adopt the tactic of mass "non-payment" of the Poll Tax, a strategy which was clearly in tune with large swathes of the population (see note 1. above). In fact Prime Minister John Major reported that 17.5 million people had either not paid or were in serious arrears (Danny Burns, Poll Tax Rebellion, p176) just before abolishing it.

The Anti Poll Tax Unions, set up around the country, which brought Tommy Sheridan to prominence and which are described in detail in Taaffe’s 'The Rise of Militant', had to be built outside, and essentially in opposition to the Labour Party, which was implementing the Poll Tax at local level, and expelling Militant supporters, such as Militant supporting Labour MP Terry Fields who refused to pay the Tax.

"The experience of mass struggles outside the Labour Party, above all in the Poll Tax", writes Taaffe, "were to convince the majority of Militant's supporters and leaders that the old tactic of concentrating most of its forces in the Labour Party had been overtaken by events." ( 'The Rise of Militant' p344 )

New section, "A parting of the ways"

Update continues...

Yet it was in 1988, as Militant's Poll Tax strategy was being shaped, that Taaffe first notes a major rift appearing in the Militant, between Taaffe and the majority on the Militant executive who believed capitalist restoration was possible in the Soviet Union, and Grant, who disagreed (The Rise of Militant, p328 []). The ‘Open Turn’ debate took place essentially between April and October 1991. In April 1991 the Militant executive body decided to support the "Scottish Turn". The Rise of Militant p433-4. Very shortly afterwards the dispute broke out.

A special national conference was organized in October 1991 in which the two factions presented their arguments. There was a final document of the exchange, which came from the minority also in October 1991. Between April and October discussions were held at branch, district and regional level with speakers from both factions taking part. At an all-London meeting, for instance Ted Grant addressed a packed meeting to respectful silence, but failed to gain the support of the meeting. After the October conference there were no more meetings of this nature, and no more documents were exchanged.

In January 1992, the majority leadership claimed that the minority was intending to split from Militant. Peter Taaffe published an editorial in the Militant (24 January 1992) entitled “A parting of the ways” which announced that following the 'Open Turn' (or more precisely the "Scottish turn") decision, Tommy Sheridan had been put forward as "candidate for Glasgow Pollock in the approaching general election."

Taaffe reminds the reader that the past ten months had been one of "profound debate" culminating in a special October conference in which the "vote was 93% to 7% in favour of our proposals". Many opponents of the 'Scottish turn' will remain loyal supporters of Militant, Taaffe predicts. But

“…it has now become clear that immediately after our conference, Ted Grant and his group abandoned any idea of acting as a loyal opposition. Instead of continuing the debate within our ranks, as they had claimed they would, they took steps to set up their own, rival publication. They have plans to launch a monthly magazine, moving, as soon as possible, to a fortnightly and weekly. They now have their own small premises and their own staff and are raising their own funds. We regret Ted Grant has split in this way. He made a vital contribution...”

In December 1991 Grant, Sewell and Woods were formally suspended from the national committee in the light of these allegations, pending an appeal. They made no attempt to appeal, claiming that they had been expelled. Grant and his leading supporters reconstituted themselves as the Socialist Appeal tendency, after its paper...etc

Andysoh 23:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I've given the article quite a go through, mostly copyediting. I've added a [citation needed] tag to various statements which appear to need one - many of these references should be easy to find.  I've also tried to remove most of the external links from the body of the article; these should usually be in reference tags, or placed under external links at the end.

 * In general, the article looks reasonable to me, but it is quite short on information on Taaffe, while it has some information on Militant or the Socialist Party with no obvious connection to him. Either the links should be made more explicit, or the information should be moved to the relevant article. Warofdreams talk 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Matgamna's recollections removed.
I've had to remove reference to Sean Matgamna's recollections. They are very detailed and valuable. However, the wikipedia biography of living persons guide is very clear: "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed." Matgamna makes clear that these are his recollections, which are largely (though not exclusively) by their very nature unsourced. He makes a great many controversial claims in sweeping acerbic terms, as well as a few personal and contradictory remarks about Taaffe either being very "intelligent" or being "very thick", which are out of place here. Andysoh 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, (whilst going through the early issues of the Militant to reseach additions for the entry on the Militant Tendency), Matgamna's claim that "After a few issues Protz left, and the paper became a very clumsily laidout, underedited, and amateurish four pager" is not true, or rather, only true only in relation to the number of pages. The last article by Protz appears in issue five, though whether he laid that issue out (he was "technical editor", meaning in charge of laying out the paper, and so forth) could be disputed. But issue six, May 1965, when Protz's name disappears and we can assume he is not longer laying out the paper, introduces the front page cartoon which was a feature of Militant from then on, and the use of photos is good and the structure of the page is solid, comparing well against, for instance, issue three, which leads with a lengthy article by Protz. And as for the drop in the number of pages, an appeal on the front page of issue two says enough. "Alas, if only alll this enthusiam could be translated into hard cash! Money, we regret, is already very short..." Andysoh 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Political rant and Taaffite praise.
Far from being an objective, NPOV, entry, this piece is nothing but an open praise of Peter Taaffe as well as a terribble political attack on ted grant and his supporters within the CWI in the late 80's and early 90's. There are many example of parts which ought to be removed, or at least edited for further objectivity, such as :

"On the contrary, counters Taaffe, it is Grant and his followers who have fallen into "dogmatism" and betray an atrophy of thought: "The former minority are political dinosaurs. They operate with outmoded formulas which no longer apply... an absolutely dogmatic, black and white, undialectical approach towards political phenomena, both in Britain and on an international scale." [31].

Lastly, Taaffe says that Grant "publicly asserted his views against the majority of the editorial board on crucial issues, [which] threatened to have a disorientating effect on some of our supporters". [32] "

which, far from being a simple reference to the differences between the majority and the minority of the CWI at the time, is a vicious defence of Taaffe position's against Grant, who is, in this case, presented as Politically incapable and unwilling as well as unable to undertake any serious discussion of an issue - which, Grant's supporters, as well as most of his detractors, would admit to be completely and utterly false.

May I thus suggest that the entire part of the entry covering the differences whithin Militant either be removed, re-worked, or at least re-allocated to the article concerning the Tendency as such, where it could hopefully be discussed/presented with greater objective and respect for the truth.

Furthermore, I feel it is necessary to point out that most references linking to articles presenting Grant's positions on a majority of the above issues are either broken or misdirected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.66.115.150 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

 * Please keep in mind that the article expresses Peter Taaffe's point of view, because it is an article which is about Peter Taaffe. It makes clear that what is being expressed is Peter Taaffe's point of view throughout, and I think the comments of Taaffe which you quote are best suited to this article. It makes no claim that these views are correct.

 * I think you have to be a bit careful before calling something a "political rant" and so forth. I think few would agree.

 * Really, you are taking issue with just a few paragraphs, I think. The first quote from Peter Taaffe to which you object begins by specifiying exactly what the followers of Ted Grant claimed - you omit to mention this, which might appear misleading. The article is reporting what Taaffe said, at a crucial turning point in his life, which is important. And what Taaffe said was itself balanced, since he first specifies exactly what the followers of Ted Grant said, (and continue to say) - that theory was relegated below activism - and offers his own views that this view is wrong.

 * But I agree that the second quote of Taaffe saying that Grant publicly asserted his views "against the majority of the editorial board on crucial issues" does not provide its own references, as it were. We should perhaps add at least a footnote to demonstrate that these accusations Taaffe makes are worthy of reporting here.

 * The footnote could note that Taaffe was refering here to such instances as Grant's assertion that during the 1990 Gulf war, "if there is conscription, we have to go with the workers into the armed forces and fight". One instance where Grant broke ranks with the EC on this question was at an annual conference of the Militant, where he expressed this view against the majority of the EC, causing a certain amount of consternation at that conference, particularly amongst the youth, who began coming to the rostrum one after another to protest at the suggestion and put the correct position, losing Grant no small amount of credibility within the party.

 * It's not the place to discuss it here, but just to note that the Militant's position was that there was no prospect of conscription, but if conscription was introduced, the Militant would organise mass opposition to it, a mass campaign of refusing to be conscripted.

 * By 1990, Grant was in a minorty on a number of issues, such as Iraq, the collapse of the Soviet Union, South Africa, and so on, but did not put the majority EC position, and did not engage with Peter Taaffe and others about these issues. The truth is he took a somewhat contemptuous attitude towards Taaffe and others, saying that Taaffe had no grasp of theory, etc, rather than trying to understand what Taafe and others were saying, for instance in relation to the possibilities of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union, or the prospect of the collapse of apartheid in South Africa, and so on, where Grant and Woods dismissed these possibilities. Taaffe indicates these points in the editorial quoted from, but for brevity and balanace, it is not, I think, appropriate to go into great lengths about these issues in an article about Peter Taaffe, as they are about Ted Grant, the false positions he took from 1987 onwards, and in substance they should go on the Ted Grant wikipedia article if anywhere. It really is not a Ted Grant page.

 * Thanks for pointing out that the Minority document previously at the Grantite http://www.marxist.com/new-turn-militant-2.htm appears to have been removed. I have not been able to source this on the marxist.com, but both the majority and the minority documents are available on the CWI's marxist.net, and have reset the links accordingly.

 * I hope this clarifies the issues.

Andysoh 21:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Though I do agree that an article concerning a political figure ought to include a summary of his ideas, I am not sure whether it appropriate to include Taaffe's POV in the way that it's been done in this entry. The fact that they have been consistently presented in opposition to Grant's positions. Furthermore, the tone in which they are presented, clearly indicates that the author(s)of this entry has made no effort whatsoever to hide that he feels that Taaffe is correct. I am sure many agree. Perhaps it's Peter himself who wrote the article... judging the way in which it has been put, it frankly wouldn't surprise me. In fact, I am sure that many would agree that parts of this entry (I only used the paragraph in question as one specific example of a trend which is to found throughout the entry.) resemble, what I would without a doubt, refer to as a political rant.

Perhaps you ought to provide a link, or links, to a biography, or at least some form of text, concerning Taaffe written by his opponents, though not necessarily by Ted Grant. And, before you say anything, I can assure you that such links have been provided on the page concerning Grant -for the sake of objectivity, if nothing else.

 * Hi,
 * There has always been a link to Rob Sewell's postscript on the role of Taaffe in the Militant at the bottom of the page.

 * On the one hand, Rob Sewell, as Militant's National Organiser during the period during which he criticises the leadership of the Militant, is an important authority, even if he was part of the leadership which he criticises.

 * But on the other hand, before you read the postscript I should warn you that there are some pretty strongly worded personal accusations in that document against Peter Taaffe some of which are derogatory, possibly defamatory, unsourced, and strongly disputed by Taaffe. As such the link to this postcript appears to fall foul of wikipedia policy. If it is to be removed, however, Taaffe's reply should be removed as well.
 * Andysoh 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

I had actually noticed the link to post-script of History Of British Trotskyism (which, trust me, I have read more than once) but had forgotten about it when I answered you yesterday. So I suppose that's my mistake. Then again, if you pay close attention to some of the footnotes in Liverpool: A City that Dared to Fight , I think you would notice that Taaffe makes no secret of how he felt about Grant. The same feelings on Taaffe's part are equally appearent in his obituary - the "truth-factor" of which those close to Grant have disputed since its publication - in which Taaffe kicks Ted Grant, not only when he is lying down, but once he has actually passed away. That does of course not mean that they should not be provided as references to statements/claims made in this entry. Furthermore, Taaffe's book about the achievements of Militant in Liverpool is a great source of inforamtion for anyone studying the history of the Marxist Tendency, and is, at least as far as know, still presented as recommended reading on the Liverpool "episode" by many of Grants supporter.

As far I can judge, the authoritative weight of Rob Sewell's criticism of Hepscott Road is actually made greater precisely due to the fact that he had been part of the very leadership that he criticises in his post-script - it is unfair to pretend that he still formed part of it in the peiod which he is writing about, given that Taaffe and his supporter had de facto marginalised him from the work carried out by the Tendency and virtually excluded him, as well as other supporters of the Minority, from any discussions conducted by full-timers at the Centre. Furthermore, Sewell's post-scripts puts forward the claim that Taaffe consistently barred Alan Woods and other Grantist from the financial resources necessary for them to be able to publish the Tendency's theoretical journal, the MIR. If, for the sake of informative value, positions defended by, and favourable to, Peter Taaffe are provided, not only as links but as direct statement, in this entry, then, surely, the claims concerning him made by his opponents ought to be treated as more than just references.

 * Hi,
 * There are no footnotes in Liverpool A city that Dared to fight. There are no derogatory remarks of any kind about Ted in there.

 * Harry Ratner reviewed Ted’s History of Trotskyism and Sewell's postscript. “Sewell’s explanation is superficial and far from satisfactory. Almost seven whole paragraphs are devoted to casting Peter Taaffe as the main villain who organised a faction against Grant ...Sewell seems to allot the real political context a minor role.” (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext23/Grant.html) He calls Sewell’s account “highly partisan” and this itself would be sufficient to cast doubt on its inclusion, even as a “See also” on a wikipedia biography of living persons article. The accusations you repeat, which you take as good coin from Sewell's postscript are more convincingly countered by Taaffe at http://www.marxist.net/grantreply/, together with a more marxist approach, looking at the political context, etc.

 * There is no evidence of this "marginalising" and "virtually excluding" and so forth, which you repeat as if it were established fact. Sewell's accusations are found to be unconvincing by Harry Ratner and others. They may even be a reversal of the truth. Sewell himself quotes Grant's derogatory remarks about Taaffe made to him, and Grant's behaviour at a national meeting, but his allusions to Taaffe's role are pure assertions with no references.

 * You may disagree about this. Please feel welcome to post any comments on this question to my personal page, where I would be happy to discuss it - there is a great deal more which could be said. But this is not the place to discuss this, as this is a discussion page about the article, and it is hardly disputable that Sewell's accusations are not referenced.

Andysoh 21:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

low income and trotskyist
Hi Philip,

Here's my reasoning for my minor changes after your very helpful copy edit:

Re "Low Income": I think there are low income working class families and high income working class families, and all places inbetween. Working class people can be very well paid - take for instance train drivers in the UK - and working class communities are not necessarily agglomerates of low income people either. Working class people in the UK might even take offense to be told that "working class" and "low income" went hand in hand. I know that some people think that "working class" means unemployed or on benefits, but this is not the view shared by most:

"Indeed, last year [2003] we found that 68% of the [UK] public agreed with the statement "At the end of the day, I'm working class and proud of it" - Mori.

In the period we are refering to - the 1960s - workers won substancial gains. But merseyside was particularly depressed. So I don't think it is a tautology.

Now use of the word "Trotskyist" is not as clear cut. Some, of course, claimed that the Militant were reformists, and not Trotskyist, partly because of its use of Labour movement / working class terminology rather than traditional Trotskyist terminology. I agree that Taaffe is a Trotskyist, but I put mention of it further down by a small margin, in the first section, in a context which should allow for less controversy. The Militant began to call itself the "Marxist voice of Labour and Youth" on its masthead - almost certainly under Taaffe's direction, as the editor, so to call it "Marxist" would be quite correct in this sense. Taaffe also terms himself a Marxist. However, Peter Taaffe also considers himself a Trotsktyist i.e. a Marxist of the Trotskyist tradition. The problem lies in the very wide range of Trotskyist trends, more than a few of which were considered by Taaffe to be 'ultra-left', so that, without some context, in my opinion, the term needs to be used, but used with care.

Then, finally, we must take note of the wiki policy in regards to the biographies of living people, and observe sensitivity. Taaffe prefers to be described as a Marxist. For these reasons, whilst making the situation clear appropriately in the text, I've tried to compromise in this edit.

I hope this helps. Andysoh 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
Can a section with criticisms be added? Especialy on his role on the destruction of the militant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.169.108 (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Open Turn
Please see merge suggection in Talk:Militant_tendency. - Altenmann >t 02:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Sorry, it seems too minor to me at first glance - is the new page intended to be worthwhile? e.g. significantly more than a stub? Would involve some careful work. I mean, if there were already existing a full treatment of the issue, then the merge would be meaningful, it seems to me. Andysoh (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Taaffe. 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/20070930171127/http://www.marxist.com/history-british-trotskyism-introduction.htm to http://www.marxist.com/history-british-trotskyism-introduction.htm

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) 21:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Peter Taaffe


text:
Cow shark

Cow sharks are a shark family, the Hexanchidae, characterized by an additional pair or pairs of gill slits. Its 37 species are placed within the 10 genera: Gladioserratus, Heptranchias, Hexanchus, Notidanodon, Notorynchus, Pachyhexanchus, Paraheptranchias, Pseudonotidanus, Welcommia, and Weltonia.

Description
Cow sharks are considered the most primitive of all the sharks, as their skeletons resemble those of ancient extinct forms, with few modern adaptations. Their excretory and digestive systems are also unspecialized, suggesting they may resemble those of primitive shark ancestors. A possible hexanchid tooth is known from the Permian of Japan, making the family a possible extant survivor of the Permian–Triassic extinction.

Their most distinctive feature, however, is the presence of a sixth, and, in two genera, a seventh, gill slit, in contrast to the five found in all other sharks. The first pair are not connected across the throat. They range from 1.4 to 5.5 m in adult body length.

These cylindrical sharks have a ventral mouth with compressed, comb-like teeth in the lower jaw and smaller, pointed teeth in the upper jaw. They have a short, angular and spinless dorsal fin. The pelvic fins are smaller than the angular pectoral fins. The caudal fin has a notch towards the end.

Biology
Cow sharks are ovoviviparous, with the mother retaining the egg cases in her body until they hatch. They feed on relatively large fish of all kinds, including other sharks, as well as on crustaceans and carrion.

Fossil Record
The only fossil records of the cow shark consist of mainly only isolated teeth. Although skeletal remains for this species have been found from the Jurassic time period, these have been very rare and have only been found in the "Late Jurassic lithographic limestones of South Germany, Nusplingen, Solnhofen, and late Cretaceous calcareous sediments of Lebanon." Due to these sparse records some scientists conclude that the cow shark is now a more "diverse and numerous species".

Species
The 37 species of cow shark (five of which are extant), in 10 genera, are:
 * †Gladioserratus Underwood, Goswami, Prasad, Verma & Flynn, 2011
 * †Gladioserratus aptiensis Pictet, 1864
 * †Gladioserratus dentatus Guinot, Cappetta & Adnet, 2014
 * †Gladioserratus magnus Underwood, Goswami, Prasad, Verma & Flynn, 2011
 * Heptranchias Rafinesque, 1810
 * Heptranchias perlo (Bonnaterre, 1788) (sharpnose sevengill shark)
 * †Heptranchias ezoensis Applegate & Uyeno, 1968
 * †Heptranchias howelli Reed, 1946
 * †Heptranchias karagalensis Kozlov in Zhelezko & Kozlov, 1999
 * †Heptranchias tenuidens Leriche, 1938
 * Hexanchus Rafinesque, 1810
 * Hexanchus griseus (Bonnaterre, 1788) (bluntnose sixgill shark)
 * Hexanchus nakamurai Teng, 1962 (bigeyed sixgill shark)
 * Hexanchus vitulus Daly-Engel, 2018 (atlantic sixgill shark)
 * †Hexanchus agassizi Cappetta, 1976
 * †Hexanchus andersoni Jordan, 1907
 * †Hexanchus casieri Kozlov, 1999
 * †Hexanchus collinsonae Ward, 1979
 * †Hexanchus gracilis Davis, 1887
 * †Hexanchus hookeri Ward, 1979
 * †Hexanchus microdon Agassiz, 1843
 * †Hexanchus tusbairicus Kozlov in Zhelezko & Kozlov, 1999
 * †Notidanodon Cappetta, 1975
 * †Notidanodon lanceolatus Woodward, 1886
 * †Notidanodon pectinatus Agassiz, 1843
 * Notorynchus Ayres, 1855
 * Notorynchus cepedianus (Péron, 1807) (broadnose sevengill shark)
 * †Notorynchus borealus Jordan & Hannibal, 1923
 * †Notorynchus kempi Ward, 1979
 * †Notorynchus lawleyi Cigala Fulgosi, 1983
 * †Notorynchus primigenius Agassiz, 1843
 * †Notorynchus serratissimus Agassiz, 1843
 * †Notorynchus subrecurvus Oppenheimer, 1907
 * †Pachyhexanchus Cappetta, 1990
 * †Pachyhexanchus pockrandti Ward & Thies, 1987
 * †Paraheptranchias Pfeil, 1981
 * †Paraheptranchias repens Probst, 1879
 * †Pseudonotidanus Underwood & Ward, 2004
 * †Pseudonotidanus semirugosus Underwood & Ward, 2004
 * †Welcommia Klug & Kriwet, 2010
 * †Welcommia bodeuri Cappetta, 1990
 * †Welcommia cappettai Klug & Kriwet, 2010
 * †Weltonia Ward, 1979
 * †Weltonia ancistrodon Arambourg, 1952
 * †Weltonia burnhamensis Ward, 1979
 * †Xampylodon Cappetta, Morrison & Adnet, 2019
 * Xampylodon brotzeni ( Siverson, 1995)
 * Xampylodon dentatus ( Woodward, 1886)
 * Xampylodon loozi ( Vincent, 1876)

title: Cow shark


text:
Eleanor of England, Countess of Leicester

Eleanor of England (also called Eleanor Plantagenet and Eleanor of Leicester) (1215 – 13 April 1275) was the youngest child of John, King of England and Isabella of Angoulême.

Early life
At the time of Eleanor's birth at Gloucester, King John's London was in the hands of French forces, John had been forced to sign Magna Carta and Queen Isabella was in shame. Eleanor never met her father, as he died at Newark Castle when she was barely a year old. The French, led by Prince Louis the Lion, the future Louis VIII, were marching through the south. The only lands loyal to her brother King Henry III of England were in the Midlands and southwest. The barons ruled the north, but they united with the royalists under William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke, who protected and was regent for the young king Henry, and Louis was defeated in a few battles, and was forced to sign a treaty.

Before William Marshal died in 1219 Eleanor was promised to his son, also named William. They were married on 23 April 1224 at New Temple Church in London. The younger William was 34 and Eleanor only nine. He died in London on 6 April 1231, days before their seventh anniversary. There were no children of this marriage.

Eleanor had brought a dowry of 10 manors and 200 pounds per year to this marriage. According to the law of the time, widows were allowed to retain one third of the estates of the marriage. However, her brother-in-law Richard took all of the estates and sold many, including her dowry, to pay William's debts. Eleanor strove for many years to recover her lost property.

The widowed Eleanor swore a holy oath of chastity in the presence of Edmund Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury.

Simon de Montfort
Seven years later, she met Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester. According to Matthew Paris, Simon was attracted to Eleanor's beauty and elegance as well as her wealth and high birth. They fell in love and married secretly on 7 January 1238 at the King's chapel in Westminster Palace. Her brother King Henry later alleged that he only allowed the marriage because Simon had seduced Eleanor. The marriage was controversial because of the oath Eleanor had sworn several years before to remain chaste. Because of this, Simon made a pilgrimage to Rome seeking papal approval for their union. Simon and Eleanor had seven children:
 * 1) Henry de Montfort (November 1238 – 1265)
 * 2) Simon de Montfort the Younger (April 1240 – 1271)
 * 3) Amaury de Montfort (1242/1243–1300)
 * 4) Guy de Montfort, Count of Nola (1244–1288)
 * 5) Joanna, born and died in Bordeaux between 1248 and 1251
 * 6) Richard de Montfort (1252–1281)
 * 7) Eleanor de Montfort Princess of Wales (1258–1282)

During the Second Barons' War, Simon de Montfort's victory at the Battle of Lewes in 1264 led to him becoming de facto ruler of England. He tried to set up a reformed government, including the first parliament elected by citizens of the towns, but was unable to retain the support of the other barons. Several switched sides to the royalist cause; especially after the escape of Prince Edward, future Edward I of England, from Simon's custody. Montfort was defeated at the Battle of Evesham on 4 August 1265, where he was killed along with his son. Eleanor fled to exile in France where she became a nun at Montargis Abbey, a nunnery founded by her deceased husband's sister Amicia, who remained there as abbess. There she died on 13 April 1275, and was buried there. She was well treated by Henry, retained her incomes, and her proctors were allowed to pursue her litigation concerning the Leicester inheritance in the English courts; her will and testament were executed without hindrance.

Eleanor's daughter, Eleanor de Montfort, was married, at Worcester in 1278, to Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales. She would die giving birth to their only child, Gwenllian of Wales. After the conquest of Wales, Gwenllian was imprisoned by Edward I of England, her mother's first cousin, at Sempringham priory, where she died 1337.

Fiction
Eleanor appears as a major character in Sharon Kay Penman's novel Falls the Shadow, where she is called Nell.

Eleanor is the main character in Virginia Henley's historical romance The Dragon and the Jewel, which tells of her life from just before her marriage to William Marshal to right before the Battle of Lewes in 1264. Her romance and marriage to Simon de Montfort are much romanticized in this novel, especially since in real life Simon is killed the year following the Battle of Lewes and the pair had already had all 7 of their children; in the book, Eleanor and Simon have only just had their first two sons. Eleanor makes a second appearance in Henley's The Marriage Prize. Her role in the book is that of the legal guardian to her niece, Rosamond Marshal.

Eleanor appears as a side character in James Blish's novel Doctor Mirabilis, which is primarily about Roger Bacon. Early on, Bacon's mentor Adam Marsh is confessor to Eleanor. He tries to withdraw as her confessor, not stating the reasons, but she deduces the truth: he is too attracted to her beauty and wishes to avoid temptation. Nearer to the end of the book, Bacon visits her after Simon's death. He is commissioned by the Pope to write a book about human longevity and wishes to raise money to write it. Eleanor remembers him as Adam's protege. She gives him a piece of jewelry she has had for most of her life, and when he attempts to refuse it, she insists.


text: File:PuseyHouseOxford.jpg

title: File:PuseyHouseOxford.jpg


text:
Blackwell's

Blackwell UK, also known as Blackwell's and Blackwell Group, is a British academic book retailer and library supply service owned by Waterstones. It was founded in 1879 by Benjamin Henry Blackwell, after whom the chain is named, on Broad Street, Oxford. The brand now has a chain of 18 shops, and an accounts and library supply service. It employs around 1000 staff in its divisions.

The Broad Street branches, which include speciality music and art/poster shops, remained the only ones until expansion in the early 1990s, when at peak after taking over Heffers in Cambridge in 1999 and James Thin in Scotland in 2002, the company had more than 70 outlets. Its library supply chain serves an international market, but parts were sold off in 2009, with the North American arm of Blackwell Book Services and the Australian business James Bennett sold to Baker & Taylor for their academic arm YBP Library Services. The group were also publishers, under the Blackwell publishing imprint, which published more than 800 journals when it was sold to John Wiley & Sons in 2007 for £572 million to form Wiley-Blackwell.

The Blackwell family ran the company until 2022, with an ownership divided between voting shares owned by the family and wealth shares owned by family and others. There was a public dispute in 2002 between Julian "Toby" Blackwell, the current owner of the group, and Nigel Blackwell, the former chairman of the publishing arm, about the possible sale of the publishing business. This led to an offer of £300 million from Taylor & Francis and to an eventual deal with John Wiley & Son in 2006, as a result of which Nigel Blackwell and Toby's son Philip Blackwell left the business, leaving Toby Blackwell the sole family member still involved in running the company. Other family voting shares were held by a trust, which Toby's shares would transfer on his death, eventually bringing an end to the Blackwell family involvement with the company. Toby Blackwell announced in 2009 that the wealth shares would be distributed between staff, transforming the company into an employee-partnership, similar to that of retailer John Lewis, when the company returned to profitability having spent several years experiencing losses. The company reported it was expecting to return to profit in 2012.

In February 2022, the UK book chain Waterstones, itself under the umbrella of Elliott Management Corporation, bought Blackwell's.

History
The company was founded in 1879 by Benjamin Henry Blackwell, son of the first city librarian, who having finished his education at 13, was apprenticed to a local bookseller for a shilling a week. His father, Benjamin Harris Blackwell, had been heavily involved in the Temperance Society. The society promoted, as well as religion, self-education and also encouraged reading. The society provided separate rooms for non-alcoholic refreshment and silent reading. A religious family, the Blackwells had also become involved with the Temperance Society due to Benjamin's father being teetotal, and as a protest against the government making money from the excise duty on alcohol.

The flagship shop at 48–51 Broad Street, Oxford, was originally only twelve feet square but quickly grew to incorporate the upstairs, cellar and neighbouring shops. Benjamin Henry Blackwell was well respected in Oxford and was elected the first Liberal councillor for Oxford North.

Basil Blackwell, Benjamin Henry's son, became the first Blackwell to go to university; he was awarded a scholarship at Oxford University's Merton College. He was expected to join the family firm, however, which he did in 1913, after a spell as an apprentice publisher in London. He was tasked with expanding his father's publishing business. The first Blackwell publication, Mensæ Secundæ: verses written in Balliol College by Henry Beeching, was printed in 1897. Blackwell's began the careers of many writers: J. R. R. Tolkien's first poem, "Goblin Feet", was published in 1915. To promote universal access to literature, Blackwell's pioneered a series of cheaper books, from a one-volume Shakespeare to "3-and-6 novels". The publishing company was merged into the main company in 1921, and a scientific section was added in 1939.

When Benjamin Henry died in 1924, Basil Blackwell took over from his father, and went on to head the company for decades. Basil Blackwell wanted to preserve fine printing. After rescuing the Shakespeare Head Press, he commissioned belles-lettres, including well-known classics such as the Pilgrim's Progress, the works of the Brontës and a complete version of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

In 1966, the Norrington Room was opened, named after Sir Arthur Norrington, the President of Trinity College and extending under part of Trinity College. It boasts three miles (5 km) of shelving and at 10000 sqft merited an entry in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest single room selling books.

Recent history
The company has followed a determined policy since the 1990s to spread out from its established Oxford base and take on a much broader UK presence.

In 1995, Blackwell's became the first bookshop in the UK to allow its customers to purchase online from a catalogue of over 150,000 titles, and opened a flagship shop in London the same year, at 100 Charing Cross Road, which is now one of the company's six most prominent shops. Blackwell's took over the Heffers bookshops in Cambridge in 1999, and in 2002 acquired the academic bookshops of James Thin in Scotland.

Both the Oxford and London flagship shops have won Bookseller of the Year at the British Book Awards.

On 29 October 2012, Blackwell's was – with Foyles, John Lewis department stores, Waitrose, Sainsbury's and Argos – among the retailers to launch the Nook e-reader – and, from November, the Nook HD and Nook HD+ tablet computers.

The company remained in the hands of the Blackwell family until February 2022 when it was acquired by Waterstones.

title: Blackwell's


text:
User talk:Arin chaudhuri

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~ (4 tildes).

title: User talk:Arin chaudhuri


text:
North Union

North Union may refer to:

 * North Union Railway, a British railway company formed in 1834
 * North Union, Indiana, an unincorporated community
 * North Union Township, Pennsylvania (disambiguation)
 * North Union Township, Fayette County, Pennsylvania
 * North Union Township, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania
 * North Union High School (disambiguation)

title: North Union


text:
User talk:Zacha

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~ (4 tildes).

 * Thankyou for welcome. Z

I'm no tourist! I just really like the area :) Nice work on the Rocks entry btw. You may be also interested in Wikipedians/Australia Dysprosia 06:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Have added name to lists.

Redirect to a dead link? Burgundavia 07:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Zacha, Welcome to the 'pedia :) You need to create an article before making any redirects to it.  Otherwise the link to the redirect looks live but goes nowhere.   I've deleted for now -- sannse (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Think I have fixed this now. Zacha

WikiProject Sydney
Want to join? I'm still formulating policy. Incidently, there is a message board Australian wikipedians' notice board - Ta bu shi da yu 06:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Go to my userpage!--Yo Mama 5000 6 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Iosono, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ra2007 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Matronymic
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Matronymic, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Matronymic. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a classical music edit-a-thon Saturday week (13 October) in Sydney. The theme will be Music of France, to coincide with the ABC Classic FM countdown between 8-14 October. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online during the countdown. Details an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/October 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 15:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney meetup invitation: January 2013
Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Thursday 10 January 2013. Details an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 10:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney September 2013 edit-a-thon invite
Hi there! You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Saturday (21 September) in Sydney at the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW), where you can collaborate with other Wikipedians throughout the day. Andy Carr, a senior librarian at SLNSW will also be helping out. The theme of the edit-a-thon is paralympics sports, but you are free to come along to meet other wiki contributors, and edit other topics.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online. Details and an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/September 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Wikipedians in Sydney)

title: User talk:Zacha


text:
Florentine Camerata

The Florentine Camerata, also known as the  Camerata de' Bardi, were a group of humanists, musicians, poets and intellectuals in late Renaissance Florence who gathered under the patronage of Count Giovanni de' Bardi to discuss and guide trends in the arts, especially music and drama. They met at the house of Giovanni de' Bardi, and their gatherings had the reputation of having all the most famous men of Florence as frequent guests. After first meeting in 1573, the activity of the Camerata reached its height between 1577 and 1582. While propounding a revival of the Greek dramatic style, the Camerata's musical experiments led to the development of the stile recitativo. In this way it facilitated the composition of dramatic music and the development of opera.

Membership
The term camerata is entirely a new construct coined by the members of Bardi's circle, although apparently based on the Italian word for "chamber", camera, a term used for a room where important meetings were held. The name for Bardi's group comes from Giulio Caccini's score for Euridice, wherein he dedicates the work to Count Bardi, remembering the "Camerata's good years." The earliest recorded meeting was 14 January 1573 at Count Giovanni Bardi's house. Known members of the group besides Bardi included Giulio Caccini, Pietro Strozzi, and Vincenzo Galilei (the father of the astronomer Galileo Galilei). Girolamo Mei also participated, and at a young age, Ottavio Rinuccini (1562-1621), likely the first opera librettist, may have also participated. Less prominent members of the Camerata may have included the musicians Emilio de' Cavalieri, Francesco Cini, Cristoforo Malvezzi, and Alessandro Striggio. Literary figures included Giovanni Battista Guarini, Gabriello Chiabrera, and Giovanni Battista Strozzi the younger. The social circle of Jacopo Corsi should not be confused with the Camerata of Bardi. Though they included many of the same luminaries, the rivalry between Corsi and Bardi was fierce and constant.

Unifying the Camerata members was the belief that music had become corrupt, and by returning to the forms and style of the ancient Greeks, the art of music could be improved, and thereby society could be improved as well. Though they did not originate many of their conclusions about music, the Camerata of Bardi solidified the ideas gleaned from outside thinkers like Girolamo Mei.

Foundation
Prior to the Camerata's inception, there existed a popular sentiment among the Camerata's Renaissance contemporaries that music should mimic the ancient roots of the Greeks. The current day's thought held that the Greeks used a style between speech and song, and this belief guided the Camerata's discourse. They were influenced by Girolamo Mei, the foremost scholar of ancient Greece at the time, who held—among other things—that ancient Greek drama was predominantly sung rather than spoken. Foundational for this belief was the writing of the Greek thinker Aristoxenus, who proposed that speech should set the pattern for song.

Largely concerned with a revival of the Greek dramatic style, the Camerata's musical experiments led to the development of the stile recitativo. Cavalieri was the first to employ the new recitative style, trying his creative hand at a few pastoral scenes. The style later became primarily linked with the development of opera.

The criticism of contemporary music by the Camerata centered on the overuse of polyphony at the expense of the sung text's intelligibility. Excessive counterpoint offended so the ears of the Camerata because it muddled the affetto ("affection") of the important visceral reaction in poetry. It is the job of the composer to communicate the affetto into an audible, comprehensible sound. Intrigued by ancient descriptions of the emotional and moral effect of ancient Greek tragedy and comedy, which they presumed to be sung as a single line to a simple instrumental accompaniment, the Camerata proposed creating a new kind of music. Instead of trying to make the clearest polyphony they could, the Camerata voiced an opinion recorded by a contemporary Florentine, "means must be found in the attempt to bring music closer to that of classical times."

Composition
In his formative days, Vincenzo Galilei was trained in music theory by the famed Gioseffo Zarlino. In 1582 Vincenzo Galilei performed a setting, that he composed himself, of Ugolino's lament from Dante's Inferno. Caccini also is known to have performed several of his own songs which were more or less chanted melodically over a simple chordal accompaniment. The Camerata composers sought to recreate the style of Greek music, even though actual transcribed Greek music had been lost for centuries.

The musical style which developed from these early experiments was called monody. In the 1590s, the monody developed into a vehicle capable of extended dramatic expression through the work of composers such as Jacopo Peri, working in conjunction with poet Ottavio Rinuccini. In 1598, Peri and Rinuccini produced Dafne, an entire drama sung in monodic style: this was the first creation of a new form called "opera". Though Peri's Dafne was the first performed opera, its music has been lost to the centuries. Instead, Euridice, his second opera is most-often heralded as the history-making work. The new form of opera also borrowed, especially for the librettos, from an existing pastoral poetic form called intermedio; it was mainly the musical style that was new. The instrumentation for an opera from the Camerata composers (Caccini and Peri) was written for a handful of gambas, lutes, and harpsichord or organ for continuo.

Other composers quickly began to incorporate the ideas of the Camerata into their music, and by the first decade of the seventeenth century the new "music drama" was being widely composed, performed and disseminated. Instead of an immediate decline in contrapuntal vocal music, there was a time of coexistence and then an eventual synthesis of monody and polyphony. Florence, Rome, and Venice became the Italian capitals of innovation and synthesis.

The Camerata's view on counterpoint and monody did not rise to prominence without opposition. Galilei's famed theory teacher Zarlino countered, "What has the musician to do with those who recite tragedies and comedies?"

In the compositions of the Camerata members, the theory preceded the practice; the men decided how the music should sound before they set to compose it. The composers of the Camerata became so faithfully committed to the exploration of their declamatory style that often their pieces became rife with monotone sonorities.

Eventually the influence of the Bardi circle waned as Giovanni Bardi fell out of favor. Bardi publicly endorsed the marriage of Francesco I de' Medici and his mistress Bianca Cappello. This endorsement was in stark contrast to the feelings of Francesco's brother Ferdinando I de' Medici, who was a cardinal in Rome at that time.

Legacy
Bardi, Galilei, and Caccini left writings expounding their ideas. Bardi wrote the Discorso (1578), a long letter to Giulio Caccini, and Galilei published the Dialogo della musica antica et della moderna (1581–1582). In 1602, long after the group had disbanded, Caccini wrote "Le nuove musiche".

The members of Bardi's circle may not have recognized the full importance of their labors, as no one named the group until Caccini's label in 1600. Galilei once marked that Bardi aided noblemen in the study of music. Yet, through the critical efforts of men like Galilei, the Camerata gained an indirect influence on the flow of music history, as Galilei challenged artists to rethink the palette of sound they had been utilizing for decades. The greatest innovation to emerge from the Camerata was not a piece of music or aesthetic ideal, but rather a door opened for further composition of dramatic music.

title: Florentine Camerata


text:
Henry W. Petrie

Henry W. Petrie (March 4, 1857 - May 25, 1925) was an American composer and performer of popular music. Petrie was born in Bloomington, Illinois and died in Paw Paw, Michigan.

Songs

 * "Davy Jones' Locker"
 * "I Don't Want To Play In Your Yard" w. Philip Wingate (1894)
 * "Jonah and the Whale" w. Wingate Black (1894).
 * "The Owls Serenade" w. Arthur J. Lamb (1894)
 * "Asleep in the Deep" w. Arthur J. Lamb (1897)
 * "Where The Sunset Turns The Ocean's Blue To Gold" w. Eva Fern Buckner (1902)
 * "In a Peach-basket Hat Made for Two" w. James M. Reilly (1909).
 * "When The Twilight Comes To Kiss The Rose "Good-Night"" w. Robert F. Roden (1912)
 * While The Stars In The Heavens Shine On" w. Harry D. Kerr (1914)

title: Henry W. Petrie


text:
User talk:Vijaykumar~enwiki

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~ (4 tildes).

Request to Look Into Arundhati Roy page
Hi there, I have run into a content-dispute with another person, and asked him for opinions as to why he totally removed all my edits RV to a old version, including Images etc, and plain formatting over the Arundhati Roy article. If you do have time, please look into it. --பராசக்தி 06:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Vijaykumar. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Vijaykumar~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vijaykumar~enwiki


text:
Carolyn Lawrence

Carolyn Lawrence is an American actress and real estate agent. She is known for her voice roles on Nickelodeon animated shows, including Sandy Cheeks on SpongeBob SquarePants, Cindy Vortex on Jimmy Neutron, and Mandragora on Winx Club as well as the title character on Adult Swim original series Moral Orel and Ashley Graham in the original version of Resident Evil 4.

Life and career
Lawrence left high school to take dance classes in Chicago. Since then, she began her long-running role as Sandy Cheeks on SpongeBob SquarePants. She was also the voice of Cindy Vortex in the film Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius and its spinoff series The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius, as well as the title character, Orel Puppington, in Moral Orel. Lawrence is the voice of Ashley Graham, the U.S. president's daughter, in all releases of the 2005 survival horror video game Resident Evil 4. She plays Christy Allison on the video podcast Goodnight Burbank.

Lawrence has 2 children. She is also a licensed real estate agent.

title: Carolyn Lawrence


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football Clubs/page name

This is a page to discuss the various possible titles for football club pages on Wikipedia. Add suggestions of models and possible advantages and disadvantages to them all.

Comments prior to creation of this page
From User_talk:SimonMayer: Has someone had at you for the naming of the football club pages? Wikipedia's naming convention - which I'm way too lazy to find & link to here - would tend to suggest the full name should be used. I note that someone started a rather grim Grimsby Town Football Club entry, which I've recently NPOVd, hence discovering the wretchedness of the current naming of all the other club pages. I've got to suggest that if you want to prevent duplicate pages being added, you need to think in terms of adding a couple or more redirects per page - e.g. Manchester United -> Manchester United F.C. , Manchester United Football Club -> Manchester United F.C. . If you have to do this, you might think about the naming convention from scratch, and maybe move all the pages. If this has been discussed to death somewhere, please point me at it. best wishes --Tagishsimon

Response: I've never heard any official debate on it, but ever since I found Wikipedia, originally as an anonymous user in late 2003, the system has pointed towards an F.C. suffix. For simplicity I tried to get all club information onto F.C. pages, using A.F.C. for some exceptions (such as Hull City A.F.C.). SimonMayer 03:29, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe that way back in 2002, soon after I discovered Wikipedia, that it may well have been me who standardised most clubs to use the form XXX F.C.. I see absolutly no good reasons why we should the full epansion of 'Football Club' except for pedantry. I think that it would most peculiar to list AFC Wimbledon at 'Association Football Club Wimbledon' which gets precisely 1 hit on google and only because the page is discussing the fact that some fans like to state that AFC Wimbledon stands for A Fans' Club. I think that there is a slight inconsistency in the use of full-stops between 'F.C.' and 'AFC' and if it came to it I would prefer to see 'F.C.' become 'FC' rather than 'F. C.' or AFC become 'A.F.C.' or 'A. F. C.' This issue hasn't been raised before to my knowledge. Mintguy (T) 21:14, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Meta comments on this page
Hats off to User_talk:SimonMayer for creating this page - very much appreciated. Before thinking further about the well presented options, below, I'd like to suggest that Naming conventions (acronyms) privides the answer by specifying full name and no acronyms in all but exeptional cases, and the liberal use of #redirect to hoover up the many other names people will search by. And that would be Model 5.

Models
The example club for these models will be Grimsby Town.

Model 1
Keep with the current system e.g. Grimsby Town F.C.

Exceptions: Clubs with an A.F.C. name ending e.g. Hull City A.F.C. also AFC Bournemouth, AFC Wimbledon and Runcorn FC Halton

Advantages

 * Simplicity of keeping all articles in the same place
 * Short and tidy name
 * F.C. is a commonly accepted name ending

Disadvantages

 * F.C. does not give the full detail of the club name
 * Full stops can be inconvenient to type
 * The final full stop may be missed out of a hyperlink in instant messenger programs or message boards, would link to Grimsby Town F.C

Model 2
Use the same model with no full stops e.g. Grimsby Town FC

Exceptions: same as Model 1, A.F.C. ending becomes AFC

Advantages

 * Easier to type
 * Shorter/tider than Model 1
 * FC is commonly accepted, maybe more commonly accepted than F.C.

Disadvantages

 * Does not give the full detail of the club name
 * Lack of full stops - now fails to indicate an initialism

Model 3
Call all clubs by their commonly accepted "full name" e.g. Grimsby Town

Exceptions: Clubs with ambiguous names e.g. Barnsley, Chelsea

Advantages

 * Many people would look directly for this page

Disadvantages

 * Many exceptions and a lack of consistency

Model 4
Use a new full name system e.g. Grimsby Town Football Club

Exceptions: A.F.C. clubs e.g. Hull City Association Football Club

Advantages

 * Gives full detail of club name

Disadvantages

 * Long name
 * More prone to type errors
 * Takes a lot of effort to type

I think Model 4 is a complete non-starter. It was meant to be the same as what is now called 'Model 5'. I just made a mistake in the way I worded this section.SimonMayer 02:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Model 5
Use a new full name system e.g. Grimsby Town Football Club

No exception for A.F.C. clubs i.e. Hull City Association Football Club would be used

Liberal use of #redirect to redirect variant names to the full title.

Advantages

 * Follows Naming conventions (acronyms) strictly
 * Gives full detail of club name

Disadvantages

 * Long name
 * More prone to type errors (but redirects overcome this)
 * There are too many possible type errors that could occur here - far too many for redirects (May not be a serious problem as most should realise their type errors)
 * The redirects I was thinking of are not all conceivable typing mistakes, but specific redirs for likely searches: Man U, Man United, Manchester United, MUFC all relove to Manchester United Football Club. Whichever scheme we go for, we should redirect the common names of clubs to the chosen name. That, for me, is what the naming convention and redirects are for. --Tagishsimon
 * Takes a lot of effort to type (but redirects overcome this)
 * Lots of renaming work, probably to be done by people called Simon. Just my guess.