text:
Four-leaf clover

The four-leaf clover is a rare variation of the common three-leaf clover that has four leaflets instead of three. According to traditional sayings, such clovers bring good luck, although it is not clear when or how this idea began. One early mention of "Fower-leafed or purple grasse" is from 1640 and simply says that it was kept in gardens because it was "good for the purples in children or others".

Occurrence
A 2017 survey of approximately 5.7 million clovers in six European countries found the frequency of 4-leaf clovers to be about 5000 to 1 (one 4-leaf clover for every ~5000 normal 3-leaf clovers), twice the commonly stated probability of 10,000 to 1. According to this survey, the frequency of a 5-leaf clover is ~24,400 to 1, and of a 6-leaf clover is ~312,500 to 1. The precise reported frequencies are 5076 to 1 for 4-leaf clovers; 24,390 to 1 for 5-leaf clovers; and 312,500 to 1 for 6-leaf clovers.

The clover with the most leaves ever found had 63 of them, and was discovered by Yoshiharu Watanabe of Nasushiobara, Japan, on 2 August 2023. The clover was from the species Trifolium repens L., or white clover; beating the previous record, a 56-leaf clover found by Shigeo Obara of Hanamaki, Iwate, Japan, on 10 May 2009. Both men obtained clovers with such a number of leafleats through crossbreeding cloverplants with a high rate of clovers with an abnormal number of leaflets, causing that, on average, cloverplants generated clovers with a higher number of leaflets in each generation. Shigeo Obara used the method of natural crossbreeding, while Yoshiharu Watanabe used both natural crossbreeding and manual crossbreeding.

The world record for number of 4-leaf clovers collected in one hour is 166, set by American Katie Borka on 23 June 2018.

Collectors have reached records as high as 160,000 4-leaf clovers in a lifetime.

As stated, clovers can have more than four leaves. 5-leaf clovers are less commonly found naturally than 4-leaf clovers; however, they too have been successfully cultivated. Some 4-leaf clover collectors, particularly in Ireland, regard the 5-leaf clover, known as a rose clover, as a particular prize.

Cause
It is debated whether the fourth leaf is caused genetically or environmentally. Its relative rarity (1 in ~5,000 clovers ) suggests a possible recessive gene appearing at a low frequency. Alternatively, four-leaf clovers could be caused by somatic mutation or a developmental error of environmental causes. They could also be caused by the interaction of several genes that happen to segregate in the individual plant. It is possible all four explanations could apply to individual cases. This means that multiple four-leaf clovers could be found in the same cloverplant, and a cloverplant that already has a clover with an abnormal number of leaflets has a higher chance of growing or having another abnormal clover than a cloverplant that doesn't has any.

Researchers from the University of Georgia have reported finding the gene that turns ordinary three-leaf clovers into the coveted four-leaf types. Masked by the three-leaf gene and strongly influenced by environmental conditions, molecular markers now make it possible to detect the presence of the gene for four-leaves and for breeders to work with it. The results of the study, which also located two other leaf traits in the white-clover genome, were reported in the July/August 2010 edition of Crop Science, published by the Crop Science Society of America.

The other leaf traits, the red fleck mark and red midrib, a herringbone pattern that streaks down the center of each leaflet in a bold red color, were mapped to nearby locations, resolving a century-old question as to whether these leaf traits were controlled by one gene or two separate genes. White clover has many genes that affect leaf color and shape, and the three in the study were very rare. These traits can be quite attractive, particularly if combined with others, and can turn clover into an ornamental plant for use in flower beds.

There are reports of farms in the US which specialize in four-leaf clovers, producing as many as 10,000 a day (to be sealed in plastic as "lucky charms") by introducing a genetically engineered ingredient to the plants to encourage the aberration (there are, however, widely available cultivars that regularly produce leaves with multiple leaflets – see below).

Multi-leaved cultivars
There are some cultivars of white clover (Trifolium repens) which regularly produce more than three leaflets, including purple-leaved T. repens "Purpurascens Quadrifolium" and green-leaved T. repens "Quadrifolium". Some clovers have more spade-shaped leaves, rather than the usual rounded ones. This may be a genetic mutation. Some genetic mutations in clovers include spade-like shaped leaves or a dotted rusty color on the leaves. Trifolium repens "Good Luck" is a cultivar which has three, four, or five green, dark-centered leaflets per leaf.

Other species
Other plants may be mistaken for, or misleadingly sold as, "4-leaf clovers"; for example, Oxalis tetraphylla is a species of wood sorrel with leaves resembling a 4-leaf clover. Other species that have been sold as "4-leaf clovers" include Marsilea quadrifolia.

As a good luck charm
A description from 1869 says that 4-leaf clovers were "gathered at night-time during the full moon by sorceresses, who mixed it with vervain and other ingredients, while young girls in search of a token of perfect happiness made quest of the plant by day." In an 1877 letter to St.Nicholas Magazine, an 11-year-old girl wrote, "Did the fairies ever whisper in your ear, that a 4-leaf clover brought good luck to the finder?"

Symbolic usage

 * Italian automobile maker Alfa Romeo uses a quadrifoglio (4-leaf clover) icon to delineate its racing cars and performance-oriented road models. This tradition started in the 1923 Targa Florio race, when driver Ugo Sivocci decorated his car with a green clover on a white background.  As of 2022, the quadrifoglio is used on the company's race liveries.
 * Los Angeles-based space exploration company SpaceX includes a 4-leaf clover on each space mission embroidered patch as a good luck charm. Inclusion of the clover has become a regular icon on SpaceX's flight patches ever since the company's first successful Falcon 1 rocket launch in 2008, which was the first mission to feature a clover "for luck" on its patch.
 * Celtic Football Club, an association football team from Glasgow, Scotland, have used the four leaf clover as the club's official badge for over 40 years.
 * Former Japanese game developer studio Clover Studio used a 4-leaf clover as their logo.
 * Several businesses and organizations use a 4-leaf clover in their logos to signify Celtic origins.
 * The global network of youth organizations 4-H uses a green 4-leaf clover with a white H on each leaf.
 * The logo of the New Jersey Lottery features an outline of the state in white on a green 4-leaf clover printed on a lottery draw machine ball.
 * The English-language imageboard 4chan features a 4-leaf clover in its logo as a nod to its predecessor, the Japanese site Futaba Channel (2chan), whose name means two leaves, leading 4chan to be referred to in Japan as yotsuba, meaning four leaves.
 * Traditional symbol of agrarian parties popularized by Republican Party of Farmers and Peasants, Bulgarian Agrarian National Union, People's Party, and International Agrarian Bureau in interwar period. Used until today among others by Polish People's Party, Estonian Centre Party, and Nordic agrarian parties.
 * In Japan, the Green Cars of Shinkansen use a 4-leaf clover logo.
 * Jewelry brand Van Cleef & Arpels the Alhambra lines feature motifs of 4-leaf clover.

Meanings
Some folk traditions assign a different attribute to each leaf of a clover. The leaves have been used by Christians to represent hope, faith, love and luck. Others say that 4-leaf clovers granted the power to see fairies.

title: Four-leaf clover


text:
Talk:Passphrase

Copyright
The second and third paragraphs seem to be an exact copy of the section "What is a passphrase?" from http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html. The copyright for that page states, in part, "The author hereby grants rights for free, non-commercial, electronic distribution, with attribution, of this entire text or just the Diceware word list.", with emphasis on entire..

 * Your right; in fact, the original version — as of 15:05, 27 Nov 2002 — is even more similar. I suggest we just merge the ideas into Password, as a pass phrase is just a type of password. — Matt 09:12, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Matt, True enough. But not to users. Choosing a pass phrase is rather different than choosing a password, the security implications can be rather different, and so on. I would advocate cross links and two articles despite the conceptual identity from particular perspectives. Thoughts in response? ww 14:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see any major differences in concept. In both cases you avoid guessable passwords, try not to write it down on bits of paper and stick them on the monitor, and have a tension between entropy and memorability. A passphrase just has a special form. We already have the line "Passcode is sometimes taken to imply that the information used is purely numeric, such as the PIN commonly used for ATM access." in Password; why not append "A Passphrase is a long password, usually formed from a sequence of words."? — Matt 16:12, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Matt, No conceptual difference, I agree. The precedent of passcode here is unconvincing. (Perhaps I should done a wig whilst pronouncing on questions of precedent, or at least judicial robes?) I like the 'tension between entropy and memorability' phrase, though. Nice job. The 'special form' of a pass phrase is sufficiently distinct, I think. Cross refs are certainly in order and your sentence would be quite appropriate in making the point of no conceptual difference. However, choosing a pass phrase is rather different than choosing a password or passcode and readers should, I think, learn of this. As it stands the article doesn't do a good job of covering this, nor does password. On my list of course......
 * The reason I argue for a separate article is not conceptual difference (as there is none in my view, nor in yours; nor anybody's I would imagine) but practical difference to users. I think enough difference to justify 2 articles. ww 18:13, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I just looked carefully at the above discussion, which took place before I started editing here, and realized someone could infer a possible copyright problem with this article. I am the owner of http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html and I hereby give retroactive permission under GFDL for whatever use was made of it by Wikipedia.--agr 12:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I hereby add permission under the Creative Copyright CC-BY license with the understanding that it is compatible with past, current and future licensing schemes approved by Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia Foundation.--agr (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Difference between a password and a passphrase
There is a conceptual difference between a password and a passphrase. A traditional password is short, and therefore to be secure, it should be random (have high entropy). The idea of the passphrase is to maintain the same total entropy, but lower the entropy per character. This permits the use of phrases that are easier to remember without loss of security. This concept should be included in the main article. It would be better if people would read my original paper* before opining. --Sig Porter

Crypto 81 (1981 IEEE-CS Workshop on Cryptography) Computers & Security, Vol. 1. No. 1, 1982, North Holland Press http://pages.sbcglobal.net/snporter5/passphrase/page1.html
 * "A Password Extension for Improved Human Factors"

Snporter 03:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

passphrases in PGP
Why are there passphrases in OpenPGP, when there already is a private key? --Abdull 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The passphrase is used to encrypt the private key so someone else who gains access to your private key file cannot use it, assuming you have a strong passphrase and the attacker can't employ a keyboard logger or acoustic cryptanalysis or other means to discover your passphrase. --agr 23:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

IT context vs. mainstream usage?
I had never encountered this word — "passphrase" — till just now. What I need is to describe a multi-word (i.e. sentence) "password" used for mutual identification of underground operatives in clandestine meetings. Is "passphrase" appropriate for usage in mainstream contexts, or does it meanwhile remain strictly in Information Techonology usage, as the page seems to indicate? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it's only used in relation to computing, its goal being to emphasize the strength of one's passwords. The reason is that computers are capable of systematically trying a large numbers of passwords by brute force, whereas this is simply not possible when trying to identify yourself to a human being. While remote systems can analogously detect brute force attempts, protecting local storage in this manner is simply not reliable, if your threat model includes the attackers gaining access to this data. Hence the need to protect your important data with a "phrase", and not just a "word". -- intgr 09:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The term was invented in 1981 by Sigmund N. Porter (A Password Extension for Improved Human Factors, Advances in Cryptology: A Report on CRYPTO 81, Allen Gersho, editor, volume 0, U.C. Santa Barbara Dept. of Elec. and Computer Eng., Santa Barbara, 1982. Pages 81--81. Also in Computers & Security, Vol. 1. No. 1, 1982, North Holland Press.) . So if your looking for authentic spy lingo for a novel, it probably won't do. If you are writing a paper, there is no reason not to use the word if it suits.
 * By the way, remote systems can not detect brute force attempts, in general, because of the way many systems pass credential in the form of a hashed password. These can be attacked off-line at very high speeds.--agr 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Passphrase
Password: 94 characters (26 lower case, 26 upper case, 10 number, 32 symbol) Passphrase: 880,000 characters (dictionary) separated by spaces —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluefoxicy (talk • contribs) 06:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Security section
The parts without citation in the security section don't make sense. For example: "The words or components of a passphrase need not all be, but often are, found in a language dictionary" -- if a passphrase is not a word in any particular language, that is no longer a passphrase by definition. A random collection of letters and symbols is called a password -- not a passphrase.--Musides (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It seems that at least one decently easy way to think of passwords, passphrases, and alike is by separating all considered languages into ”token spaces” of characters, words, phrases (and so on…).  The exact method to generate the token spaces in cases where languages such as Japanese and Chinese are to be considered is suitable to be left for linguistics—as well as correcting my terminology.
 * A password is defined as follows: a string that stores most of its entropy in a sequence of randomly selected members of the character token space. In this case, the set of passwords = set of all possible strings.
 * A passphrase is defined as follows: a string that stores most of its in as a sequence of randomly selected members of the word token space. Passphrases are thus a subset of passwords. Also, both “CORRECT HORSE BATTERY STAPLE” and “+0CORRECT#Horse#BATTERY#STAPLE!” should be considered different members of the set of all passphrase because both of them store most of their entropy in a sequence formed by four random English words.
 * I know one old teacher with her own “passparagraphs,” which continue this distinction by consisting of phrases from popular songs and poems.
 * Passphrase security does not derive from their length in characters (though that may be important when choosing the cryptographic password salt). Think about BIP39-wallets which do not even accept anything but words. 2001:14B8:1871:6440:7157:B1F0:2EAB:E214 (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Entropy of passphrases
I'm removing a section that attempts to estimate the entropy of passphrases based on the assumption that each character has 1.1 bit of entropy. The 1.1 bit of entropy for characters in English texts are optained by letting humans guess characters taken from an article or book under the assumption that the human already knows the context from which the text was taken. Passphrases are a different scenario, hence the study has little to no relevance here. For example one can not conclude that 10 character passwords taken from an English dictionary have 11 bits of entropy (there are certainly more than 2048 English words with 10 characters). Similarly, the result can not be applied to passphrases, since these do not follow a given context. 85.2.11.92 (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * (1) Those are not estimates, but mathematical calculations; (2) these findings are widely published and used, as the references indicate; (3) there is a tremendous amount of academic research backing up this data, starting with Shannon; (4) you can't remove a section because you don't personally agree with it. In particular, the reference from Microsoft uses this data. It is not satisfactory if you do not agree with his findings; you must cite alternate sources.

 * The proper way to resolve your concerns is to find alternative sources, and cite those. If you do that, we can set it up as two different and competing approaches. That would be fine and appropriate. There is plenty of room for varying positions on this subject. But you cannot delete/censor material you do not agree with, and this is not a place for your personal research/opinion. --Musides (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok, let's try to resolve this without going into a revert war. The problem with your "calculation" is that it makes the assumption that (A) the entropy per character of the English text and (B) the entropy per character of passpharses is the same. The entropy of English text is indeed well published and 1.1 bit seems to be in line with other publications. Note however, that this number is valid for sufficiently long text. E.g., in the reference that you gave the participants have to guess 100 characters given 100 preceeding characters of the text. If you repeat these experiments but try to guess the first 100 characters of a text too, then you'll probably notice that guessing the first 100 characters is harder than guessing the next 100 characters, which would imply that the entropy per character is higher at the beginning of the text. Hence it is unclear whether (A) and (B) are the same. So regarding your comments: (1) if you start with an unproven assumption, you'll end up with an unproven result. In particular, paper you reference does not support the claim that text of size 60 have 66 bit of entropy. (2) If your claim is indeed widely published then please give a reference for it. So far it is unsupported. (3) There are publications backing up 1.1 bit per char or similar results for sufficiently long English text. You are abusing these results for something that was not measured. (4) Wrong. You made the claim. You have to support it. 85.2.71.61 (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 * (A) entropy per character is not an assumption, it is based on the findings of Shannon. We agree that this is predicated on a passphrase being a line of regular english text, as opposed to a random collection of characters; (B) Another source makes this assumption, but certainly, that source does not only make an assumption, but talks about doing it.

 * We both agree there is room for skepticism and critique of passphrase strength. I'm not aware of good published sources against the view outlined by the Microsoft source -- I hope you can find some. I'd love to see some good, real data on the subject, because there is plenty of room for debate.

 * Regarding your citation needed, this is being pedantic. You don't need a citation for basic math (do I really need to cite a source that proves 1.1 x 60 = 66)? We already have citation for the 1.1 number in Shannon, and we have citation for the method itself at Microsoft. I have no idea what you are talking about with your 3 & 4, this data is from the Microsoft source.

 * Look, it is okay not to agree with something -- that doesn't mean that data needs to be deleted. Instead, just find a counter-point.
 * --Musides (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Musides, I do not ask for a reference that 1.1 x 60 = 66, but for a reference that this computation actually gives a relevant result and is not just based on a misunderstanding. Again, the experiment you reference uses longer texts and asks for the entropy per character given that the context from which this text is taken is known. You apply this to shorter English passphrases, which do not have any context. Hence, you misuse a result for something it was not meant for. The Microsoft source does not support your calculation either. I.e., it claims a lower bound of 1.3 bits per character for typical passphrases and an upper bound of 2.3 bits and notes that these estimates are not based on sufficient experiments. Certainly, having more data would be nice. But not having data does not mean we have to fill the gap with somewhat random speculation. 85.2.55.154 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Okay, let's see if I haven't resolved this debate with the changes I made. It became clear to me that we needed more references for this discussion to move forward, and what better source than NIST -- about as definitive a resource as we have. So, I added their model and the huge amount of empirical data and testing that they bring to the fore. Have a review of this, and let me know if this has resolved our issue.

 * FWIW, regarding Shannon. We both agree that context, or in this case length, is the determining factor of entropy. Shannon's 2.3 bits was for 8 letter words, and that varies depending on word length. NIST points out that the longer the phrase (ie context) gets, the less reliant or lower the entropy of the phrase.

 * --Musides (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, your latest changes improve the article and resolve my complaints. I also agree that NIST has done a good job with their publication. 85.2.1.21 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Portions of the text without citations
Most of this article doesn't have citations. What is the general rule/proper etiquette to wait until we delete sections without citations and replace it with researched/documented information? --Musides (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The citation police are of one opinion, mostly the same as the OR police. The problem is that technical articles / technical content are not the same sort of animal as literary or academic content / articles. Edmund White's opinion of Hemingway's writing (or vice versa) is probably important in that context and deserves a citation. In contrast, for technical matters (eg, that iron is solid at room temperature) I think citation demands are borderline idiotic. They quickly degrade into the sort of mushy epistemology fanaticism that one finds in disputes about junk science or religious science. It does WP no good, nor its Readers, for whom we are all working.
 * Bare facts (eg, melting point of lead at STP) can be sourced from most anything. Something a bit more than a bare fact (eg, lead is often used in ammunition for guns) often draws fire from the same and policy statements (eg, lead should not be used in ammunition for ecological contamination reasons) do also. Only the last, in my opinion, really requires a citation. The rest is WP political correctness gone wild. ww (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I see, so I take it you are not a big fan of citations? In any event, the reason why I bring up citations is because some of the claims made in this article are dubious. For example, it fails to properly distinguish between pass phrases as strings of texts, and pass phrases as memorization techniques. It has some dubious claims about passwords being strong, and so on.

 * I can see reason with what you say, but there seems to be this competing problem of edit wars of one person's opinion versus another, and I can imagine this problem is notorious in technical articles (I shudder to think about emacs, vi, etc). Citations help keep people honest, and their personal opinions/research out of the picture. In any event, I think you've answered my question: I just need to edit.--Musides (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

who verified the pass4all external link?
The page linked has a JavaScript at Pass4All and NOT a URL.

Who has verified that ? I can find no such reference other than this external link.

Please remove until verified.

passphrases.aule-browser.com is my site and it should not be linked here.

Start with a search on "passphrase generator", please.

example: http://readablepassphrase.codeplex.com/ which provides information as to what the visitor may choose to download.

This link is missing that one crucial level of indirection: the page explaining the what the user is invited to click on and with some semblance of being verifiable witouth investigating page source ( wikipedia users able to do that are able to generate their own passphrases with simple scripts of their own.)

First and foremost, an external link should be a URL to at least information on the passphrase generator and not what this is, a completely uninformative link with an embedded piece of JavaScript. The fact that the external link SAYS "browser button" is not sufficient.

The page in question reads as source

"  "

so I will remove the link now.

G. Robert Shiplett 20:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Passphrase vs pass-phrase vs pass phrase
This article currently has three different ways of typing passphrase, can we agree on a default and use that or is there a reason it differs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghanababar (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that I changed them all to passphrase, except in an reference article title.--agr (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge Passphrase with Password, then redirect Passphrase to Password.
The majority of the text in Passphrase exist in the Password article. The only thing needed is to state in the Password article that a Passphrase is the same as a very long password but that it usually refer to passwords that consist of multiple words, like a sentence. Rescator (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose merge. There are significant differences between passphrases and passwords --Guy Macon (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Prove it, as the Passphrase article itself state they are the same "A passphrase is a sequence of words", "A passphrase is similar to a password in usage, but is generally longer" and that is the first paragraph in the article. Then under "Compared to passwords" we see "Passphrases differ from passwords. A password is usually short" and "two Cambridge University researchers analyzed passphrases from..., losing much of the potential of using long passwords", and "One method to create a strong passphrase is to use dice to select words at random from a long list," but this is also suggested for passwords. Basically a password is short and a passphrase is not short, "passphrase" is a synonym for long-password. Per the password article this is a valid password "This is my secret!", and per the passphrase article this is a valid passphrase "This is my secret!" see the difference? I certainly don't. Are both articles wrong or right or is just one of them wrong, now if a passphrase truly is different from a long-password or sentence or string of words then the article fails to clarify this, for years I've seen passphrase used to indicate more-than-one-word passwords, probably due to "word" and "phrase" being rather descriptive gramatically speaking. And if passphrase is not the same and uses a completely different way or method to derive a passphrase vs a password then why is that not described in the article and in the very first paragraph. "The passphrase FAQ" which is cited as source even says "A passphrase is a sentence or phrase used instead of a single password", how can you oppose a merge on the grounds that a password and passphrase are different when the cited sources themselves says they are the same only password references a single word use and passphrase references multiple word use. Old sources states a password is typically 6-8, while a passphrase is at least 14. Certain password guides states that a really secure password should be 16 characters, but isn't that a passphrase then? If you are correct then both the password and passphrase articles need to be re-written and any cite sources that contradict themselves can not be used (which includes the Passphrase FAQ) which has this as an example "There is a sucker born every minute." how is that any different from a long password aka a password with spaces in it? From the password article there is this "Some passwords are formed from multiple words and may more accurately be called a passphrase. The terms passcode and passkey are sometimes used when the secret information is purely numeric" so why not add a passphrase paragraph in the password article? Please qualify your statement! You have a really interesting quote on your user page that is a tad ironic right now. Rescator (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Regarding your claim that "'passphrase' is a synonym for long-password", is there any reliable source that we can cite to support this claim? Note the usage by Microsoft security guru Robert Hensing, by PC Magazine, cloud security expert Sabi Goriawala, and by Cambridge University researchers Joseph Bonneau and Ekaterina Shutova -- especially section 3.1 ("Comparison to passwords").

 * Regarding rewriting either article for clarity, feel free to do so, keeping in mind that WP:V applies to all claims made in any Wikipedia article. If different sources give different definitions, we simply apply WP:WEIGHT and report what is in the sources. Note that sources from before the time when the term "passphrase" became popular are especially likely to contain definitions for "password" that are of little use in differentiating them from passphrases.

 * As for the rest of your argument, it appears that the same argument could be used to argue for merging/redirecting our Word article with our Phrase article. Semantically, there is a world of difference between words and phrases and there is a world of difference between passwords and passphrases.

 * Finally, please try to dial back the aggression a bit. We are supposed to be two reasonable people having a calm, thoughtful discussion about what is best for the encyclopedia. Neither option (merged or unmerged) is obviously wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Since I was censored this has now been move to dispute resolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rescator (talk • contribs) 16:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Regarding the content dispute, there has been very little discussion on the article talk page, and per WP:CONSENSUS no dispute resolution venue is appropriate until both parties have made a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute through talk page discussions.

 * Regarding the accusation of censorship, censorship is a user conduct issue and not an article content issue, and thus should be brought up at WP:ANI, not WP:DRN -- but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG.

 * That being said, Rescator edited my comments in direct violation of Talk page guidelines and Talk page layout and I reverted the edits to my comment in compliance with Talk page guidelines --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I must be in backwards land then, looking at the history of the talk page I only see Guy Macon removing my responses to his many points. He answered in the form of multiple points and I answered to several of them individually (though with a lot of overlap in the answers I must admit.) Looking at the history I do not see myself editing any of his comments nor do I appear to have messed up any indentation there (Guy Macon comments are at 3 indentations while my responses to his points are at 4 indentations. Although I do see a Wikipedia error in the history (is that what the issue is?). I request that Guy Macon please show a reference to which of his comments I allegedly edited or he should refrain from making false accusations. In either case Guy Macon has achieved his goal (intentional or not) as I will refrain from editing either passphrase nor password articles, if this is how messy the talk pages get I won't bother with the articles themselves, I have enough grief in my life as it is, I do not need to keep arguing with someone on Wikipedia as well. I still wish for the accusations made against me on this talk page to be resolved though purely on principle. Rescator (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The link showing where you edited my comments is in the comment above yours (click on the number between the "[" and "]" just to the right of "Rescator edited my comments", or just click here. Note that adding text in the middle of another editors comment is considered editing another person's comments, and is the reason why WP:INTERSPERSE links there.

 * To go directly to the part of the talk page guidelines where this is not allowed, click on these links: Wikipedia talk page layout guidelines and  Wikipedia guide to talk page layout. Those documents are quite clear on the subject of what behavior is expected from you. I advise that you read them, follow the rules, and drop the stick.

 * To go directly to the part of the talk page guidelines where my undoing your editing my comments is allowed, click on this link: Wikipedia talk page guidelines on removing other editor's comments. Again, the talk page guidelines are perfectly clear on this. If you need help understanding them, post a question at our help desk with links to the edit and revert in question (feel free to copy the links from my comments above). You could even ask why the Wikipedia guidelines forbid interspersing comments.

 * Finally, if you had simply followed my instructions (see edit comment here) instead of escalating your aggression and filing complaints when it is you who either don't understand or are unwilling to follow Wikipedia's talk page guidelines we wouldn't be having this conversation. Competence is required. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I see that the the guidelines you link to state "Separate multiple points with whitespace", for threading and clarity purposes I replied to the points, should I instead have replied in a singular comment but as a point list? (nowhere does it state that is the way to do it) And I certainly would not edit your points by adding your signature to their end either. I see no guidelines on how to address responding to multiple points. I checked and I only found the mention of separating multiple points with whitespace and ensuring indenting is enforced. The other issue is that when you reversed my edits you reversed all of them and not just the parts that you mean infringed upon your copy you you even removed the comment below that where I asked what aggressive behavior you where claiming I had. I did not behave aggressively and I'll state it again, I'm completely neutral in this, I do not resort to smileys or similar as I find that unnecessary, if I was upset with you I'd directly state it instead, if anything I feel it is you that are aggressive towards me. Also please don't be patronizing and telling me how to compare page history edits, I stated earlier that I did in fact do that. And the reason for the escalation was simple, looking at your user page you are clearly higher ranking and the logical thing is to ask your peers for advice how to handle the situation. I'll reiterate. You undid my comments and mentioned a violation, I read up and it says nothing about how to handle multiple points, it does mention multiple points and it states that proper indentation should be used to make it clear who is responding to what. Blaming me for lack of experience in this case is ignorant, and telling me I'm incompetent I find insulting, especially when the competent page you link to does state that perfection is not required, and it also state that not trying to help improve the knowledge of some can seem disruptive, something I agree with. I can only hope that something good comes out of this, like improving the guidelines to state how to handle multiple points and indentation of the answers to multiple points, you can not blame me for not knowing guidelines that is not even written. All this could easily have been solved if you had simply informed me that responding to multiple points with multiple answers is not allowed even if you use indentation. Instead you just pointed to the guidelines which says I did nothing wrong nor even suggested to handle multiple points and threading of such. Know if there is a policy stated for this then I do not see it, and you tell me I should have asked for help, and I did, i asked for a mediator to help mediate the situation and explain what the error was as you did not offer any. But the point is mute now anyway, you can add another notch in you belt (or perhaps a userpage badge exists for it) and Wikipedia has left a sour taste in my mouth. I'll be turning off the watch of this page so I don't have to deal with this any more, I'll just end with a closing statement: The Wiki talk page guidelines lack information for multiple points and how to respond to them, and the talk page lack the ability to respond to separate points, hopefully one of these or both will be rectified in the future so situations like this can be avoided. Rescator (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't know what part of "then the next post will go underneath yours and so on" you are having so much trouble understanding, but I will open up a dialog with the editors who maintain those guidelines and see whether we can make it even more clear. You still have the option to stop wikilawyering and get back to talking about your proposed merge/redirect as explained in WP:CONSENSUS. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sentences vs random sets of words
The entropy discussions in the article seem to be based on English sentences, rather than on randomly chosen sets of words. The low entropy-per-character counts are based on the assumption (true for English text) that later parts of the text tend to be predictable based on earlier parts. The word "antidisestablishmentarianism" contributes almost no entropy after about 8 letters, because there are few words that start with those 8 letters. Similarly, a quotation very rapidly starts being predictable.

On the other hand, in the top 10,000 English words there are more than 1024 that are four or fewer letters long. If we choose randomly from 1024 four-letter words, we get 10 bits of entropy per word - an average of 2.5 bits per letter - and that value is constant no matter how many words we choose. 80 bits of entropy requires eight such words, for a total of 32 letters. (Spaces between the words don't add entropy and don't need to be included.)

This arithmetic is covered to some extent in the Example Methods section, in the discussion of Diceware, but it seems to belong in a more prominent location; it's part of the fundamentals of passphrases rather than a mere example.

Perhaps there should be a section discussing sentences (or sentence fragments) vs randomly selected words? I'm not sure where to get cites, though. Jordan Brown (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 * We would have find a source that discusses the above in order to avoid WP:OR, but even if we do is sentences vs random words really what the reader needs to know about? IMO he/she needs to know about the difference between a random sequence (whether it is constructed of random words, random characters or even random 1s and 0s) and a sequence that has meaning that can be figured out.

 * Let me try to illustrate this with an example. The English Wikipedia has pages of all kinds. So I roll some dice to choose a page and cut and paste the first 256 characters from that page, making note of the time. If my attacker knows that I did that, she would only have to make  guesses to get my passphrase, far less than it would take to try every 256 character sequence. One could argue "how would the attacker know to use parts of Wikipedia pages as guesses as opposed to, say, parts of Linux MAN pages or quotes from My Little Pony episodes?" If one follows Kerckhoffs's principle, (which I do) one must assume that everything about the system except the actual key is public knowledge. This includes the method used to generate the key.

 * On the other hand, using random words or characters makes it really hard to memorize a passphrase. My personal master passphrase has over 32 words in it, a couple of which don't exist in any dictionary. I have never written it down, it isn't on my hard disk or in anything I have ever posted online and I have never spoken it aloud; it exists only in my memory. Obviously it can not be random words, because I would not be able to memorize it. Something about my long passphrase makes it hard for me to forget. See [ https://xkcd.com/936/ ]

 * So, how do I reconcile the two contradictory things I just wrote? The way I solved it is with those couple of words which don't exist in any dictionary. I generated a bunch of random sequences from a true random source and picked the first two that were pronounceable. I can memorize two nonsense words. Even if an attacker knows everything else about my passphrase, there is enough entropy in those two words alone to protect my information. Of course none of that is actually secure. See [ https://www.xkcd.com/538/ ] :( --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Sorry, yes, it's random vs meaningful sequences. It's approximately the same distinction as between words and random sequences of letters.  (Similarly, there are fewer than a million five-word phrases in a particular edition of the Bible.)  Agree that the best assumption is that the villain knows exactly what scheme you used.  Anyhow, it doesn't seem like the article covers the need for randomness very well.  The second paragraph says that passphrases can be relatively weak, but uses the math for non-random phrases.

 * As for memorability, shrug. I haven't used passphrases much, but in a few experiments getting 40 or 50 bits doesn't seem difficult.  I more or less routinely memorize 8-character random lowercase/digit passwords (at ~41 bits), and my few attempts at memorizing 4-5 word passphrases made from short common words (at 40-50 bits) have suggested that they will be easier.

 * Anyhow, yes, the problem is references.Jordan Brown (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. People have been known to choose the easiest path possible when coming up with a password/passphrase that nobody will see and can judge them on. Given that the most common 100 words make up half of all written words, you just know people are going to choose something like "this is my long password", just like they used to choose "12345678".  This has a huge effect on the entropy section. Nerfer (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Bill Burr
Bill Burr wrote the original ''NIST Special Publication 800-63. Appendix A,'', which advised that all passwords should be a string of random characters and that they should be changed every 90 days, which eventually became the de facto standard for most commercial IT shops. In 2017, though, he had changed his position, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, saying that random passphrases were more secure and easier to remember. I'd like to add this updated policy to this page, but I'm not sure where to put it. (Citation here and here and below.) — Loadmaster (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Passphrase


text:
Hubert Lagardelle

Hubert Lagardelle (8 July 1874 – 20 September 1958) was a pioneer of French revolutionary syndicalism. He regularly authored reviews for the Plans magazine, was co-founder of the journal Prélude, and Minister of Labour in the Vichy regime.

Revolutionary syndicalism
Finishing his studies in Law with a thesis on trade unions, Hubert Lagardelle began his career in journalism by founding the Toulouse Marxist journal Socialist Youth (1895). In 1896 he became a member of the French Workers' Party (Marxist) of Jules Guesde. In 1899 he founded the Le Mouvement socialiste, a theoretical journal of socialism and syndicalism which remains a benchmark in the history of French socialism. Lagardelle took influence from the theories of Proudhon, Marx and Georges Sorel. As a socialist activist, he attended meetings of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and was a contributor to the development of the revolutionary syndicalist movement in the years 1904–1908.

Fascism and national syndicalism
In 1910, disappointed with the evolution of the CGT, Lagardelle retired to Toulouse where he became responsible for the local chamber of commerce. Like many other contemporary French revolutionary unionists, such as Gustave Hervé and Georges Valois, he left the labour movement and developed a tendency towards fascism. In 1926, he joined the Toulouse section of the Faisceau, the first French fascist party. Benito Mussolini attributed the genesis of Fascism in part to Lagardelle, writing in his "Doctrine of Fascism" (1932): "In the great river of fascism, you will find that the veins run back to Sorel, Peguy, to the Lagardelle Socialist Movement and the Italian trade unionists, who from 1904 to 1914, carried a new note in socialist circles with Pagine libere Olivetti, La Lupa of Orano He Divenire Social E. Leone."

Vichy government and later life
Fascinated by Italian fascism, Lagardelle assisted the Ambassador of France to Rome, Henry de Jouvenel, from 1932 to 1937 in an attempt to establish a Franco-Italian alliance to prevent further German expansionism.

Lagardelle became Minister of Labour for the Vichy government of Pierre Laval (April 1942 – November 1943). In 1943, he was forced to resign from the government and became editor of the Socialist France newspaper. In 1946, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for collaboration but released because of his age in 1949.

He died on 20 September 1958 and was buried at the Saint-Ouen Cemetery.

Works

 * The Agrarian Question and Socialism (1899)
 * The Evolution of Labour Unions in France (1900)
 * Intellectuals to Socialism (1901)
 * The Confederation of Labour and Socialism (1907)
 * Unionism and Socialism (1908)
 * The Socialist Party and the General Confederation of Labour, Paris, River, 1908.
 * Bakunin and Marx, 1909, published in the International.
 * Text and Comment letters of Georges Sorel Hubert Lagardelle, 1933, Rome.
 * The Italian Fascist Regime, 1935 in the French Encyclopedia.
 * Twenty years of history of Italy, 1937.
 * The French Socialism.
 * Rome Mission Mussolini, 1955.

title: Hubert Lagardelle


text:
An Elder Scrolls Legend: Battlespire

An Elder Scrolls Legend: Battlespire is an action role-playing video game developed and published by Bethesda Softworks, set in the world of The Elder Scrolls.

Gameplay
Unlike other The Elder Scrolls games, Battlespire lacks a rest feature. Throughout the game, there are no merchants to buy items from, and consequently, there are no gold pieces to find. Enemies do not reset when the player leaves the area and they are also not randomized as they were in Arena and Daggerfall.

Bethesda introduced a multiplayer feature that included a cooperative mode to follow the single-player storyline online as well as a team-based versus mode to fight using all the same strategies from the single-player. This was done through the multiplayer network GameSpy, which is now defunct. Though no longer supported by Mplayer/GameSpy Arcade, one can still play through the Kali multiplayer network client, which supports and works with all the features in the game.

Plot
In Battlespire (named so after the training facility for battlemages), the player takes the role of an apprentice who, on the day of his final test, discovers that an army of Daedra led by Mehrunes Dagon has invaded and killed nearly everyone. On top of that, his partner is being held captive by Mehrunes Dagon himself. Over the course of seven levels, the player must travel through various realms of Oblivion to reach Mehrunes Dagon, defeat him and escape back to Tamriel.

Development
Following the release of Daggerfall, work began on three separate projects all at once: Battlespire, Redguard, and Morrowind. Battlespire, originally titled Dungeon of Daggerfall: Battlespire, was the first of the three to be released, on December 2, 1997.

Originally designed as an expansion pack for Daggerfall, Battlespire focuses on what Bethesda called "the best part of Daggerfall": dungeon crawling. Battlespire has a smaller scope than Daggerfall and prioritizes level design. Until The Elder Scrolls Online, it was the only game in the series to have deathmatch or multiplayer support. When Morrowind's scope turned out to be too difficult to implement, it was put on hold, and its staff were moved to work on Battlespire and Redguard. Battlespire was repackaged as a stand-alone game and sold as An Elder Scrolls Legend: Battlespire.

Julian Le Fay opted to use sprites for the enemies because he preferred the high level of detail possible with sprites over the blocky polygonal models of the time.

Reception
According to Stephan Janicki of Computer Gaming World, Battlespire and the related title The Elder Scrolls Adventures: Redguard were both "commercial failures".

Next Generation reviewed the game, rating it three stars out of five, and stated that "Battlespire is a step in the right direction. While it might not be revolutionary, it is a solid release that should provide hours of dungeon-crawling fun. We anxiously await the next installment." GameSpot wrote that, compared against Daggerfall, "Battlespire's less expansive scope, hack-and-slash gameplay, and technical problems ultimately provide a role-playing experience that is only occasionally satisfying."

title: An Elder Scrolls Legend: Battlespire


text:
Diet of Augsburg

The diets of Augsburg were the meetings of the Imperial Diet of the Holy Roman Empire held in the German city of Augsburg. Both an Imperial City and the residence of the Augsburg prince-bishops, the town had hosted the Estates in many such sessions since the 10th century. In 1282, the diet of Augsburg assigned the control of Austria to the House of Habsburg. In the 16th century, twelve of thirty-five imperial diets were held in Augsburg, a result of the close financial relationship between the Augsburg-based banking families such as the Fugger and the reigning Habsburg emperors, particularly Maximilian I and his grandson Charles V. Nevertheless, the meetings of 1518, 1530, 1547/48 and 1555, during the Reformation and the ensuing religious war between the Catholic emperor and the Protestant Schmalkaldic League, are especially noteworthy. With the Peace of Augsburg, the cuius regio, eius religio principle let each prince decide the religion of his subjects and inhabitants who chose not to conform could leave.

The Diet of 1518
An Imperial Diet took place at Augsburg from July to October 1518, during the reign of Maximilian I, who died a few months later. He tried, among other things, to appoint his grandson Charles as King of Romans, in order to guarantee his accession to the throne, but he failed. (His only son Philip had died in 1506.)

The Elector Frederick persuaded the pope Leo X to have Luther examined at Augsburg, instead of being called to Rome, where the Imperial Diet was held. Between 12 and 14 October 1518 Luther defended himself under questioning by papal legate Cardinal Cajetan. The pope's right to issue indulgences was at the centre of the dispute between the two men. The hearings degenerated into a shouting match. More than writing his theses, Luther's confrontation with the church cast him as an enemy of the pope: "'His Holiness abuses Scripture', retorted Luther. 'I deny that he is above Scripture'." Cajetan's original instructions had been to arrest Luther if he failed to recant, but the legate desisted from doing so. With help from the Carmelite friar Christoph Langenmantel, Luther slipped out of the city at night, unbeknownst to Cajetan.

Proceedings
Emperor Charles V could not bring himself to openly discuss the matters of religious dispute and cause for division throughout Europe so he often stayed away from the sessions of the Diet. Instead he sent his younger brother Ferdinand I to have authority over discussions.

The Diet was organized into three separate colleges: Prince-electors, ecclesiastical and secular sovereigns, and imperial cities. However, unlike other diets, the Diet did not possess fixed rules or methods to conduct. Tradition for the Diet of Augsburg began to emerge in the 1530s and the sessions were to be conducted under these guidelines. Either the emperor or the estates organized day-to-day business of the diet and the proposito functioned as the agenda for the Diet but could be easily altered by the convention.

The business of the Diet was conducted on three levels; the committees, the colleges, and the plenary session. The plenary sessions or colleges created the committees; this level was staffed by members and/or experts of the Diet. The committees would prepare material that would be discussed by colleges and once acted upon, the issue entered the plenary session stage, however this was only ceremonial during the Diet of Augsburg.

The issue would continue to be discussed independently then collectively by the College of Electors and College of Sovereigns. Once they were able to confer on a decision the College of Cities would be informed. If they also agreed to the decision this would become a final decision and passed to the Emperor. If the Emperor approved this recommendation he could adopt it but if there were any issues or concerns he would send it back and the process would start again.

The Diet of 1530 and the Augsburg Confession
The 1530 Imperial Diet of Augsburg was requested by Emperor Charles V to decide on three issues: first, the defense of the Empire against the Ottoman threat; second, issues related to policy, currency and public well being; and, third, disagreements about Christianity, in attempt to reach some compromise and a chance to deal with the German situation. The Diet was inaugurated by the emperor on 20 June. It produced numerous outcomes, most notably the 1530 declaration of the Lutheran estates known as the Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana), a central document of Lutheranism that was presented to the emperor.

Background
The Ninety-five Theses, published by Martin Luther in 1517, had sparked the Reformation in the German lands and an increasing number of princes turned Protestant. After the Great Peasants' Revolt was suppressed, the 1530 Diet was convoked to calm rising tensions over Protestantism, especially due to fears of the Ottoman advance; the forces of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent had almost taken the Habsburg residence Vienna in 1529 and Emperor Charles V wanted Christianity to unite against the invasions. After the 1521 Diet of Worms had imposed an Imperial ban on Martin Luther and his tracts, problems of enforcement emerged, as Charles' wars against France and commitments in the rest of his empire prevented him from focusing on German religious problems.

In 1529, however, the emperor signed a successful peace treaty with France. After these successes, Charles aimed to assert his control over what he saw as German religious heresies. At the Diet of Speyer, the Edict of Worms was affirmed, resulting in the Protestation at Speyer enacted by the Lutheran princes.

Creation
The Augsburg Confession was intended “to be an expression of the faith of the universal Church, and thus a basis for a reconciliation between the Lutheran Reformers and the Roman Church.” It had been prepared by Philipp Melanchthon and Johannes Brenz at the behest of John, Elector of Saxony. Based on Melanchthon's earlier Articles of Schwabach, it contained twenty-one succinct articles of faith to show that the doctrines preached did not violate the norms that were traditionally present as well as justifications for the changes in worship and life that occurred from abusive traditions.

The Confession was presented to the emperor on 25 June. During the Diet, Melanchthon withstood a variety of attacks while formulating the text. According to Joachim Camerarius, his first biographer, he “did not bend the truth to win favor or meet objections; at the same time he avoided unnecessary conflict”. Camerarius also mentions that during the diet, Melanchthon cried when hearing his work during this intense time of negotiations.

There has been a long dispute regarding the Augsburg Confession and what type of confession it truly is. One suggestion is that it is a political and theological confession, which established the Protestant church. A second view is that it is a catholic confession that dispensed with minor teachings such as penance. During the 16th century the tensions and relationship that existed between the Emperor, the Pope, the German Princes and the Protestants were quite complex. The confessions of the early centuries of the church were evoked by the Protestant Reformation and of the tensions that existed in the Church. The confession represented Protestant beliefs during the time of intense political and religious pressures. The Confession did discuss the basis and role of the papal authority in the Church “but it was decided not to incorporate a statement of the Lutheran position on the papacy in the confession in order to avoid upsetting Charles V and running the risk that he might simply refuse to negotiate with the Lutheran part at the Diet”.

Martin Luther’s contribution
At the time of the Diet of Augsburg, Martin Luther was an outlaw of the Empire and as a result was unable to be present at the Diet. Staying at the Veste Coburg, he made himself present through a variety of publications including the composition of Admonition to All the Clergy Assembled at Augsburg. Five hundred copies were quickly sold and circulated around during the Diet. A member of the Saxon group, Justus Jonas wrote that Luther’s work seemed inspired while “rebuking the haughtiness of the higher clergy, forcefully asserting ‘the article on necessity,’ and reducing the opponents to silence”.

Further, Luther’s impact was evident in August 1530 with the increased resistance of the Protestants to demands for concessions in the later stages of negotiations. Luther was able to read Melanchthon’s confession at an early stage, and admitted that he could have never written it in such a finely-argued way. He did later note that there “was no article on purgatory and no unmasking of the papal Antichrist”. During mid-July 1530 Luther was reported as having told a number of friends that he had no expectation that the Diet would lead to any sort of agreement between the two sides.

The General Synod of the Lutheran church accepted the twenty-one doctrinal articles with the Abuses altered.

Augsburg Interim
Following the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 was the Nuremberg Religious Peace which gave the Reformation more time to spread. At the end of this was the Schmalkaldic War and the ensuing Augsburg Interim in 1548 which was the Imperial decree given by Charles V after his army won against the Schmalkaldic League during the Schmalkaldic War of 1547/48. The tensions between Charles V and the German Lutheran princes were finally resolved with the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, which formally acknowledged Protestantism as a legitimate religion of the Empire.

After his victory over the Schmalkaldic League, Charles V convened the Diet of 1547/48 (geharnischter Reichstag - 'harnessed diet', due to its tense atmosphere, very close to outright hostility), where the Augsburg Interim was proclaimed. This attempt to give Catholicism the priority was rejected by many princes, though, and a resolution of the confessional tensions was only achieved at the session in 1555, where the Peace of Augsburg was concluded. The treaty acknowledged the Augsburg Confession and codified the cuius regio, eius religio principle, which gave each prince the power to decide the religion of his subjects.

The decrees of the Council of Trent were acknowledged by the Catholic princes of Germany at the Diet of Augsburg held in 1566.

title: Diet of Augsburg


text:
Winnipeg South Centre

Winnipeg South Centre (Winnipeg-Centre-Sud) is a federal electoral district in Manitoba, Canada, that has been represented in the House of Commons of Canada from 1925 to 1979 and since 1988.

Geography
The district includes the neighbourhoods of Beaumont, Brockville, Buffalo, Chevrier, Crescent Park, Crescentwood, Earl Grey, Eby-Wentworth, Edgeland, Fort Garry, Grant Park, J.B. Mitchell, Linden Woods, Lord Roberts, Mathers, Maybank, McMillan, Osborne Village, Parker, Pembina Strip, Point Road, River Heights, Riverview, Rockwood, Roslyn, Sir John Franklin, Tuxedo, Wellington Crescent and Wildwood Park in the city of Winnipeg.

The Liberals tend to win their most votes in River Heights and adjacent neighbourhoods like Wellington Crescent. They are also strong in Roslyn. The Conservatives tend to do best in Tuxedo and Brockville. The NDP tends to do the best in Osborne Village.

Demographics

 * According to the 2021 Canadian census

Languages: 77.1% English, 2.5% French, 1.7% Tagalog, 1.6% Punjabi, 1.5% Spanish, 1.5% Mandarin, 1.5% German

Religions: 44.1% Christian (16.3% Catholic, 5.2% United Church, 3.7% Anglican, 1.9% Anabaptist, 1.9% Orthodox, 1.8% Lutheran, 13.3% Others), 6.4% Jewish, 2.7% Muslim, 2.3% Hindu, 1.8% Sikh, 40.8% No religion

Median income (2020): $44,000

Average income (2020): $63,850

History
The electoral district was originally created in 1924 from the ridings of Winnipeg South and Winnipeg Centre. Its first iteration was generally located west of the Red River and north of the Assiniboine River. In 1952, it gained parts the Rural Municipality (and later city) of St. James. In 1966, it gained parts the municipalities of Assiniboia, and Charleswood, and the Town of Tuxedo. By this time, the riding had moved further west and crossed the Assiniboine.

In 1976, it was abolished with its territory transferred to the ridings of Winnipeg—Assiniboine and Winnipeg—St. James.

The electoral district was re-created in 1987 from parts of the redrawn ridings of St. Boniface and Winnipeg North Centre, and the abolished Winnipeg—Assiniboine and Winnipeg—Fort Garry. The new riding was almost entirely south of the Assiniboine River, except for Downtown Winnipeg, and had very little territory in common with the original Winnipeg South Centre. The riding contained all of Downtown Winnipeg south of Portage Avenue, plus the neighbourhoods of Alpine Place, Crescentwood, Earl Grey, Winnipeg, Ebby-Wentworth, Elm Park, Glenwood, Grant Park, J. B. Mitchell, Kingston Crescent, Lord Roberts, Mathers, McMillan, the northern half of Norberry, River-Osborne, River Heights, Riverview, Rockwood, Roslyn, St. George, Varennes, Wellington Crescent, and Tuxedo east of Edgeland Blvd.

The district's boundaries were redistributed in 1996. It lost all of its territory east of the Red River to St. Boniface; it lost all of Downtown Winnipeg north of York Avenue and east of Main Street to Winnipeg Centre. It gained Armstrong's Point and West Broadway south of Portage Avenue from Winnipeg North Centre; and it gained the remainder of Tuxedo plus the neighbourhoods of Assiniboine Park, Edgeland, Old Tuxedo, Sir John Franklin, and Vialoux from Winnipeg South.

The 2003 redistribution moved the riding entirely south of the Assiniboine for the first time, losing its territory north of the Assiniboine to Winnipeg Centre. The riding also lost Assiniboine Park and Vialoux to Charleswood—St. James. It gained the neighbourhoods of Beaumont, Buffalo, Chevrier, Crescent Park, Maybank, the western half of Pembina Strip, Point Road, and Wildwood from Winnipeg South.

This riding gained the neighbourhoods of Brockville, Linden Woods, Tuxedo Industrial and the remainder of the Pembina Strip from Winnipeg South during the 2012 electoral redistribution.

Following the report from the 2022 electoral redistribution, the riding is set to lose the Tuxedo area to the new riding of Winnipeg West, while adding Whyte Ridge, Linden Ridge and West Fort Garry Industrial from Winnipeg South.

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

Current member of Parliament
Ben Carr has represented Winnipeg South Centre since a by-election in June 2023. He is the son of former MP and federal cabinet minister Jim Carr, who died in office in December 2022.

1988–present

title: Winnipeg South Centre


text:
Emily Hart

Emily Anne Hart (born May 2, 1986 ) is an American former actress. She is the younger sister of actress Melissa Joan Hart and is best known for her roles as Sabrina Spellman in Sabrina: The Animated Series and Amanda Wiccan in Sabrina the Teenage Witch.

Biography
Hart is a daughter of television producer Paula Hart (née Voje) and William Hart, a businessman. She has six sisters (three of whom are half-sisters) and one brother. Her stepfather (since 1994) is television executive Leslie Gilliams, who competed on Season 5 of the American version of MasterChef in 2014, finishing in 3rd place. Her older siblings Melissa, Trisha, Elizabeth, and Brian Hart have all been in show business to varying degrees, as have younger half-sisters Alexandra Gilliams, Samantha Gilliams, and Mackenzie Hart.

Hart started acting influenced by her older sister Melissa. In 1994, she played 4-year-old Tommy in the Broadway production of The Who's Tommy. In 1998, she won a Young Artist Award for her role in the television movie The Right Connections. She was also nominated that year for a guest appearance on the series Sabrina the Teenage Witch, in which her sister Melissa Joan Hart starred. A later episode of that series, entitled "Witchright Hall", served as a backdoor pilot for a possible spin-off series starring Hart as Sabrina's younger cousin Amanda, but the show was not picked up by The WB.

In 1999, Hart was cast in the title role of Sabrina: The Animated Series while her older sister Melissa co-starred as Hilda and Zelda Spellman, for which she was nominated for the Young Artist Awards in 2000 and 2001, winning the second of the two. Also in 2001, Hart starred as the teenaged Shirley Temple in the TV movie Child Star: The Story of Shirley Temple. In 2003, she won another Young Artist Award for a guest appearance on the series Sabrina the Teenage Witch.

In 2005, Hart starred in the short film Mute, which was directed by her older sister Melissa. In 2009 she played York in the horror thriller film Nine Dead, which also featured her older sister Melissa. She was the narrator for the 2016 audio book Things I Can't Explain: A Clarissa Novel.

Personal life
In September 2013, Hart married Alex Madar. They have two sons.

title: Emily Hart


text:
Henri Padé

Henri Eugène Padé (17 December 1863 – 9 July 1953) was a French mathematician, who is now remembered mainly for his development of Padé approximation techniques for functions using rational functions.

Education and career
Padé studied at École Normale Supérieure in Paris. He then spent a year at Leipzig University and the University of Göttingen, where he studied under Felix Klein and Hermann Schwarz.

In 1890 Padé returned to France, where he taught in Lille while preparing his doctorate under Charles Hermite. His doctoral thesis described what is now known as the Padé approximant. He then became an assistant professor at Université Lille Nord de France, where he succeeded Émile Borel as a professor of rational mechanics at École Centrale de Lille.

Padé taught at Lille until 1902, when he moved to Université de Poitiers. He became recteur of Académie de Besançon and Dijon in 1923. He later became Recteur of Académie de Aix-Marseilles until he retired in 1934.

title: Henri Padé


text: User:CCChen

title: User:CCChen


text:
John Mark Ainsley

John Mark Ainsley (born 9 July 1963) is an English lyric tenor. Known for his supple voice, Ainsley is particularly admired for his interpretations of baroque music and the works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. In the course of his career, he has gravitated towards 20th-century music, singing in operas by Henze, Janáček, and Britten.

Early life and education
Ainsley was born in Crewe, Cheshire, the son of an Anglican priest and a teacher. He spent most of his childhood in Worcester and was educated at the Royal Grammar School Worcester (singing in the Worcester Cathedral Voluntary Choir), and Magdalen College, Oxford. He studied privately with Anthony Rolfe Johnson for five years and went to sing as a lay clerk at Christ Church. He later spent some time in Chicago where he studied with Diane Forlano, who remains his teacher to this day.

Career
Ainsley made his official solo debut in 1987 when he sang in Stravinsky's Mass under Simon Rattle. After further engagements with Gothic Voices and other groups he made his professional opera debut in 1988 as Armindo in Scarlatti's Gli equivoci nel sembiante at Innsbruck's Early Music Festival. This was followed by his debut with English National Opera the following year as Eurimaco in Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, and his United States debut in 1990 in a series of concerts in Boston and New York. He has subsequently performed all around the world in operas and concerts. In 1992 he made his debut with the Berlin Philharmonic under Haitink and created the tenor part in the world premiere of John Tavener's We shall see Him as He is. The following year he made his debut in the Vienna Musikverein, singing the Evangelist in Bach's St Matthew Passion and tenor solos in the St John Passion under Peter Schreier. Other notable concert appearances include performances with the London Philharmonic under Roger Norrington, the London Symphony under Sir Colin Davis, Mstislav Rostropovich and André Previn, Les Musiciens du Louvre under Marc Minkowski, the Cleveland Orchestra under Franz Welser-Möst, the New York Philharmonic under Kurt Masur, the Boston Symphony under Seiji Ozawa, the San Francisco Symphony under Jeffrey Tate, the Vienna Philharmonic under Trevor Pinnock, the Academy of St Martin in the Fields under Neville Marriner, and both the Orchestra of the Maggio Musicale Fiorentino and the Orchestre de Paris under Carlo Maria Giulini among many others.

His opera appearances include the role of Idamantes in Idomeneo with Welsh National Opera, the title role in La clemenza di Tito with Opera Australia, Fenton in Falstaff with Scottish Opera, the title role in Monteverdi's Orfeo with Netherlands Opera, and Don Ottavio in Don Giovanni at numerous houses and festivals including Covent Garden and the San Francisco Opera and both the Aix-en-Provence and Glyndebourne festivals. Other roles have included Lensky in Eugene Onegin, Lysander in Britten's A Midsummer Night's Dream, David in Carl Nielsen's Saul og David, and Jupiter in Semele, the latter of which he performed to acclaim at the English National Opera in 1999. At the 2003 Salzburg Festival, he created the role of 'Der Daemon' in the world premiere of Hans Werner Henze's L'Upupa und der Triumph der Sohnesliebe, which he later reprised at the Teatro Real in Madrid.

More recently, Ainsley has sung the roles of Soliman in Zaide and Belfiore in La finta giardiniera at the Salzburg Festival (2006), The Madwoman in Britten's Curlew River with Oper Frankfurt (2006), Pelléas in Pelléas et Mélisande with the Deutsche Oper Berlin (2006), Skuratov in Janáček's From the House of the Dead with both the Amsterdam and Vienna Festivals (2007), Hippolyt in the world premiere of Henze's Phaedra with the Berlin State Opera (2007) and La Monnaie (2007), Vere in Billy Budd with Oper Frankfurt (2007), Chevalier de la Force in Dialogues des Carmelites with the Hamburg State Opera (2008), and both Bajazete in Tamerlano and the title role in Idomeneo with the Bavarian State Opera (2008). Ainsley sung the role of Emilio in Partenope with the English National Opera in the autumn of 2008 and returned for performances at the Bavarian State Opera and Berlin State Opera in 2009. In 2010 his performance in the role of Captain Vere in Billy Budd was filmed by the Glyndebourne Festival for release in August 2010, and is streaming on Medici.tv.

Awards
He was awarded the Munich Festival Prize for his performance as Orfeo, and in 2007 won the 2007 Royal Philharmonic Society Singer Award. He was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2020 Birthday Honours for services to music.

Personal life
In 2007 Ainsley entered into a civil partnership with organist William Whitehead.

Ainsley was diagnosed with leukaemia in 2016, and took the decision to retire from public performance, although he continues to work in music education.

Recordings
Ainsley has made numerous recordings that range from Monteverdi to Britten. He regularly appears on radio and in the BBC Proms. Amongst other recordings are Rameau's Dardanus, Monteverdi's L'Orfeo (he is generally regarded as the world authority on this character's role), Britten's Serenade for tenor, horn and strings, the role of Frederic in the Sir Charles Mackerras recording of The Pirates of Penzance and lieder by Mozart, Beethoven and Schumann. Ainsley has also become particularly associated with Handel's music and has recorded over ten of his oratorios including Jephtha, La Resurrezione, Messiah, Joshua and Saul. He has also recorded numerous English and French songs including works by Ralph Vaughan Williams, Peter Warlock, Herbert Howells, Gerald Finzi and Gabriel Fauré among others.

title: John Mark Ainsley


text: User talk:65.164.132.41

title: User talk:65.164.132.41


text:
Yorkton—Melville

Yorkton—Melville is a federal electoral district in Saskatchewan, Canada, that has been represented in the House of Commons of Canada since 1968.

Geography
The district is in east-central Saskatchewan.

History
The electoral district was created in 1966 from Yorkton, Melville and Mackenzie ridings.

In 2006, 30.2% of the population of the Yorkton—Melville constituency were of Ukrainian ethnic origin, the highest such percentage in Canada. Also during the 2006 election, the Yorkton—Melville riding had the highest percentage of eligible voters over the age of 65, and highest average age of all the then-308 federal electoral districts.

This riding lost a fraction of territory to Regina—Qu'Appelle and gained territory from Saskatoon—Humboldt and a fraction from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River during the 2012 electoral redistribution.

title: Yorkton—Melville


text: User talk:206.176.109.39

title: User talk:206.176.109.39


text:
Kiriath-Jearim

Kiriath-Jearim (also Kiryat Ye'arim; קִרְיַת-יְעָרִים Qīryaṯ Yə‘ārīm, "city of woods"; Καριαθιαριμ ; Latin: Cariathiarim) was a city in the Land of Israel. It is mentioned 18 times in the Hebrew Bible. The biblical place was identified with Abu Ghosh.

Etymology
Other names are Kiriath-Ba'al, Ba'alah and Ba'ale-Judah (see, e.g. Joshua 15:60; 2 Samuel 6:2; 1 Chronicles 13:6), which implies the city was affiliated with Baal worship at an earlier date.

History
In Eusebius' Onomasticon, Kiryat Ye'arim is placed about 9 Roman miles, or about 15 km, from Jerusalem. Palestine Exploration Fund explorers Claude Reignier Conder and Henderson have identified it with the site now known as Khirbet 'Erma, a ruin located 3.6 km south of Kasla and 6.4 km east of Beit Shemesh. However, starting with Edward Robinson, biblical Kiriath-Jearim has been more often identified with Deir el-Azar (Tel Qiryat Yearim),  a place near Abu Ghosh on a hill where the Deir El-Azar Monastery currently stands, about 7 mi west of Jerusalem. This site was the only major biblical site in ancient Judah that had not been excavated, until an excavation began in 2017 by a team from Tel Aviv University and the Collège de France.

Kiriath-Jearim was described as a Hivite city linked to the Gibeonites (see Joshua 9:17). It was a key landmark in identifying the border between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (see Joshua 15:9 & 18:14, 15). It is mentioned as the place the Ark of the Covenant may have been moved after being in Beit Shemesh (1 Samuel 6:21–7:2). About 60 years (2 Samuel 6) afterward, the ark was moved to Jerusalem and placed in a tent outside the palace of David.

Kiriath-Jearim's change in designation from Kiriath-Ba'al (meaning City of Baal, or City of the Lord) may indicate the population change that took place after Joshua's military campaign to take possession of the land from its previous inhabitants. According to Israel Finkelstein and Thomas Romer, the possibility that Kiriath-ba‘al/Ba‘alah was the original name of the town, or more correctly its Northern name, hints that the god YHWH was worshipped as Baal, before that title became a negative link with "foreign" (Phoenician or other) storm gods.

The Hebrew Bible identifies at least one prophet of God who came from this town. Uriah, the son of Shemaiah, was from Kiriath-Jearim, and was a contemporary of Jeremiah who prophesied against Jerusalem (see Jeremiah 26:20). This aroused the wrath of King Jehoiakim (r. 609–598 BC) who sought to put Uriah to death. Uriah escaped to Egypt, where he was apprehended by the king's henchman and extradited to Jerusalem for execution and burial in an unmarked grave (Jeremiah 26:22–23).

The writer of the Books of Chronicles teaches that Shobal (possibly a descendant of Caleb) was "the father of Kiriath-Jearim" (see 1 Chronicles 2:50–53), possibly in the sense of being the founder of this town.

Descendants of Kiriath-Jearim were among the Jewish exiles who returned to Judea with Zerubbabel (see Nehemiah 7:29).

title: Kiriath-Jearim


text:
Wife-beater

Wife-beater, wifebeater, or wife beater is a slang term for a man who commits domestic violence, particularly against his wife or long term female partner.

It can also refer to:

Items stereotypically associated with perpetrators of domestic violence
 * a type of sleeveless shirt
 * a nickname for certain alcoholic drinks:
 * Rum, made from sugarcane, sometimes called "the golden wifebeater"
 * Stella Artois, a beer sometimes called "Wife Beater" in the UK

Nicknames
 * Matt Prince, (born 1973) a professional wrestler whose ring name is Wifebeater
 * Chris Spradlin, (born 1979) a professional wrestler whose former ring name was Wife Beater
 * Sickie Wifebeater, stage name of The Mentors' guitarist Eric Carls (born 1958)

Media projects
 * Wife Beater (EP), an EP by the metalcore band The Plot in You

title: Wife-beater