text:
Counts of Louvain

The Counts of Louvain were a branch of the Lotharingian House of Reginar which from the late 10th century ruled over the estates of Louvain (French) or Leuven (Dutch) in Lower Lorraine.

History
The likely ancestor of the Reginars, Gilbert, Count of the Maasgau, a vassal of the West Frankish king Charles the Bald, married a daughter of the Carolingian emperor Lothair I in 846. Reginar I "longneck", possibly his son, was the most powerful noble in the now kingless kingdom of Lotharingia (Lorraine), in the period from 910 to 915. His son and successor Gilbert swore fealty to the East Frankish king Henry the Fowler in 925 and three years later married his daughter Gerberga of Saxony. His younger brother's son Reginar III held lands in the region of Mons.

About 990, Lambert the Bearded (d. 1015), son of Count Reginar III, married Gerberga, daughter of the Carolingian duke Charles of Lower Lorraine, and by 1003 he was being described as a Count of Louvain. His county, with its original capital of Louvain built upon the Dyle river, between the old Pagus of Brabant and Pagus of Hasbania, rapidly increased in size and power. In 1013, Lambert annexed part of the county of Bruningrode, located between Louvain and Tienen, and this became a source of long-running conflict with the prince-bishops of Liège.

Lambert's family gained great influence in the Holy Roman Empire, acquiring more comital titles over time. His son Lambert II is also mentioned as a count of Brussels, where he had the St. Michael's Church erected to house the relics of Saint Gudula. When he joined the rebellion of Count Baldwin V of Flanders against Emperor Henry III, he was killed in a 1054 battle at Tournai.

Lambert's grandson, Count Henry III of Louvain was vested with the title of a Landgrave of Brabant upon the death of the Ezzonid count palatine Hermann II of Lotharingia in 1085.

In the early 12th century, Henry III was succeeded by his brother Godfrey I, who was entrusted with the imperial Dukedom of Lower Lotharingia, and Margraviate of Antwerp after Henry of Limbourg fell out of favour. Although the title was later given back to the lords of Limbourg-sur-Vesdre, Godefrey and his family refused to stop using the title, and kept possession of Antwerp. The ensuing conflict between the families led to the eventual abolishment of the Duchy, and the two families came to be known as the Dukes of Brabant and Limbourg respectively.

Counts of Louvain and Brussels

 * 1003–1015: Lambert I, was the first Count of Louvain, son of Reginar III Count of Hainaut
 * 1015–1038: Henry I, (son of Lambert I)
 * 1038–1040: Otto
 * 1040–1054: Lambert II, (son of Lambert I)
 * 1054–1079: Henry II, (son of Lambert II)
 * 1079–1086: Henry III, (son of Henry II)

Counts of Louvain and Brussels, Landgraves of Brabant

 * 1086–1095: Henry III, (son of Henry II)
 * 1095–1106: Godfrey I, (son of Henry II)

Counts of Louvain and Brussels, Landgraves of Brabant, Dukes of Lower-Lorraine

 * 1106–1128: Godfrey I, (son of Henry II)
 * 1128–1141: Godfrey II, (son of Godfrey I)
 * 1141–1190: Godfrey III, (son of Godrey II)

From 1183 onwards, the titles of Count of Louvain, Count of Brussels and Landgrave of Brabant were merged in the title of Duke of Brabant and used as appanages.

title: Counts of Louvain


text:
Talk:Earl of Bridgewater

Untitled
I don't know whether this should be here. The place is currently called "Bridgwater" (not that that's any guarantee that the title is spelt the same way), but there is no consensus on the internet as to how the title is spelt. I'll go and have a look in Burke's when I next have a change to see if it's mentioned there. Proteus (Talk) 10:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I've seen it spelled both ways, and I've put in a few redirects just in case. Mackensen 13:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Cokayne spells "Bridgwater" on etymological grounds (< from "Burg-Walter"), but both his direct quotations (one the will of the seventh Earl) spell "Bridgewater". So does the Oxford DNB, and, apparently, so do the treatises. (I haven't looked at a copy, but a major university library transcribes thus). Septentrionalis 22:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Earl of Bridgewater


text:
User:Plato/Articles I wrote

These are all the articles I wrote. Jen tells me I'm really cool history buff I think she's right!

Guido Buffarini-Guidi, Antonino Tringali-Casanova, Gothic Line, Fernando Mezzasoma, Alessandro Pavolini, Carlo Alberto Biggini, Marie José of Belgium, Plato's Crito, Lawrence Rockwood

Milestone Edits
1000 Edits -  00:36, 23 Aug 2004 (hist) m Chemistry (revert) (top)

_ __ (_(%)_)   (_)\       | __       |/_/       |       |

title: User:Plato/Articles I wrote


text:
Talk:Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection

Should the entry mark the fact that Theorem is a misnomer ?
There is a well-defined use of the word theorem in mathematics, which is linked to in the article. Describing something as a Theorem carries a strong implication of certainty, which is inappropriate for an idea which is either a statement of faith, a definition, or a first draft of a hypothesis, and where the terms used are so poorly defined that they have caused decades of controversy. Using the word may have been a shrewd move by Fisher in the war for recognition. An encyclopedia should perhaps be a little distanced from such a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fentlehan (talk • contribs) 09:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fisher's original statement was a theorem. It is not usually stated as such, but Fisher proved it as a theorem.  The article should reflect this, rather than discounting the idea as not a theorem (i.e. referring to it as a "so-called theorem").Trashbird1240 (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edwards' genetics paper out of scope
In the list of references, Edwards' 2000 paper in Genetics is listed. This paper is a historical review with anecdotes of things that have happened in the population genetics community, and only shortly mentions the fundamental theorem. I think it is out of scope for this wikipedia entry, so it could be deleted because of lack of relevance. Anyone who thinks otherwise? --Anthony Liekens 00:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quote
Why is the Edward's quote in the introduction? It is not really more modern terminology, and there is confusion about gene frequency (should be allele frequency) and genic variation. What does the Edwards' quote give us? Ted 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Edward's quote but the main description of Fisher's theorm should be fixed to so that it says "additive genetic variance" instead of "genetic variance" because only when there is additive genetic variance in a population can a population evolve or increase it's fitness. This is because genetic variance (VG) can be divided into three parts additive variance (VA), dominance variance (VD) and epistatic variance (VI). Dominance and epistatic variance are not passed on to the offspring only additive variance is; thus only additive variance can cause evolution to occur. NightAngel1384 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

 * If it is a quote you can't change it to anything else than what Fisher wrote. You can find another quote or you can add information about the different types of genetic variance but don't change the wording of that quote.Sjö (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What about Gaussian adaptation?
Fisher's theorem is based on a model of evolution selecting genes. Gaussian adaptation and the theorem of Gaussian adaptation is based on a model selecting individuals. Unfortunately, the theorems differ from each other. In Fisher’s theorem a maximal mean fitness means zero variances, while Gaussian adaptation carries out a simultaneous maximization of mean fitness and variances (average information) according to the entropy law. But, the scientific community has not yet accepted Gaussian adaptation. Would it not be possible to temporarily accept Gaussian adaptation as a possible alternative until the discrepancies has been fully understood?--Kjells 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Please note that talk pages are for discussions aabout improving the article at hand, not for soapboxing your pet theories.Sjö 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Would the following contribution be interpreted as an improvement?
 * == Some criticism ==
 * As a random process one would expect evolution to increase the phenotypic variances (average information) according to the second law of thermodynamics (entropy law) dependent on the mutation rate. But unfortunately, Fisher’s fundamental theorem tells us nothing about this. So, a possible impact of the entropy law seems to be missing. If this impact is taken into consideration, it may as well happen that evolution maximizes the average information keeping the mean fitness constant; or something between the extremes.--Kjells 09:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This is not correct. Fisher's theorem is talking about a population undergoing directional selection, which leads to a narrowing of phenotypic space. Natural selection does not lead to a increase in phenotypic divergence under most circumstances (excluding density dependent selection).
 * Yes, but it is missleading in the sense that a maximum in mean fitness can only be reached when variances are = 0. But in reality and in a state of selective equilibrium mean fitness may be constant with variances greater than 0. In addition evolution is a random process and such processes produce disorder according to the entropy law. As a "fundamental" theorem it should not ignore the impact of the entropy law.
 * In Gaussian adaptation the gradient of mean fitness is
 * dP(m)/dm = M-1 P (m* – m), where M is the moment matrix, P is the mean fitness, m is the centre of gravity of phenotyhpes before selection and m* is centre of gravity after selection. The gradient also gives the direction in phenotypic space.--Kjells 06:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed on the thread
 * http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=163730&page=5&highlight=rogerg
 * --Kjells 07:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the fundamental theorem of Gaussian adaptation taking also the entropy law into consideration. In this case selection takes place on the individual level (not the genetic dito). As can be seen P may be maximal when m = m*, even though the variance is not = 0.--Kjells 08:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no conflict of interest. My interest was to find out why there is a paradox here. I now see why the theorem of Fisher differs from the theorem of Gaussian adaptation (GA), in which only one definition of mean fitness is used. But, in Fisher's theorem two different definitions are used: 1 the mean fitness of offspring (before selection) and 2 the mean fitness of the parents to offspring in the next generation (after selection). Thus far I have always used the same definition of a mathematical entity when trying to investigate its increase. Therefore the theorem tells me nothing about the increase in the mean fitness of offspring from one generation to the next (my main concern) or likewise for the parents. The entropy law is ignored and without entropy there will be no evolution. GA will also be unable to work properly without a suitable increase in entropy. I look forward to see a new Fisher-theorem considering also the entropy law.--Kjells 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * That is ok, but Wikipedia is not the place to develop new ideas or conduct additional research, and then publish instructional data. See - no original research, wikipedia is not a textbook 130.216.191.182 01:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * But, in order to avoid misunderstanding for readers who are not biologists by profession I suggest that at least some lines in the article should point to the fact that the Fisher theorem is not about the increase in mean fitness of the offspring from one generation to the offspring in the next (what the layman may think) but only from offspring to parents in the same generation.--Kjells 12:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A closer look at Fisher's theorem
I have now been able to get a closer look on the proof of Fisher’s fundamental theorem.

Following Maynard Smith (see reference page 117), we may let the frequency of genotypes g = (g1, g2, …, gn) before selection be   p = (p1, p2, …, pn) And their fitness w = (w1, w2, …, wn). Then the mean fitness, W, becomes (summation is over the set of indices i)  W = Σ piwi);         (1) After selection has operated, the frequency_after_selection of gi becomes   pi* = piwi/W;               (2)               and hence the mean fitness of of the selected parents W* is   W* = Σ piwi2/W; Hence the selection differential on fitness is   S = W* – W = variance in fitness before selection / mean_fitness

Equation (2) is perfect as long as selection takes place on the level of individuals where w describes the fitness of the individuals. But Maynard Smith defines fitness as a property, not of an individual, but of a class of individuals - - (page 38). Suppose for instance that selection is triangular in a phenotypic 2-dimensional space (x,y) according to the figure below, and that the digits in x and y represent genotypes. The probability of selection for green points may be = 1 and for red points = 0. But this seems impossible if individuals have no fitness. http://www.evolution-in-a-nutshell.se/select_triangle.gif

In order to secure the correctness, the fitness of genotypes must always - in accordance to equation (2) - be proportional to  wi = W * frequency_after_selection / pi. (3) Philosophically and numerically this seems tricky because W requires pi and wi given beforehand according to (1), while wi requires frequency_after_selection and W given according to (3). I don’t know how to put it in English; Fisher’s theorem is formally correct, but the proof seems to go in a circle. What happens in the phenotypic space is not correctly dealt with.

On the other hand, Gaussian adaptation (GA) – using selection of individuals - gives the gradient (the steepest direction) of W with respect to changes in m (the centre of gravity of Gaussian distributed phenotypes). The variance or variability of interest here is represented by M; the moment matrix of the Gaussian. gradient_of_mean_fitness = dW/dm = W M-1(m* – m) where M is the moment matrix of the Gaussian and m* is the centre of gravity of phenotypes after selection. A possible correspondence to Fisher’s increase in W is  S = (dW/dx)*Δx + (dW/dy)Δy = W(m* - m)’M-1(m* – m) In this case the increase in W is from the offspring in one generation to the offspring in the next. It is assumed that the mutation rate is adapted such that M is fairly constant from generation to generation.

Simulations gave the results: Selection_differential = 0.0116     using the GA-gradient at black m                           = 0.0112      by moving the Gaussian to dark-green m_aft = 0.1295     According to Fisher. It seems to me that the GA-model gives about the same result if the gradient is used for estimation, or if the Gaussian is moved to m*. But the small figures are uncertain and mean results of a hundred simulations have been used.

Thus, Fishers model gives a seemingly fast increase in W because the mutation rate and the offspring in the next generation is not considered. GA shows a very slow increase in this case because the triangle is thin. But both evolution and GA may adapt M to become more proportional to M*, which may speed up the process considerably. Therefore, I think that GA may contribute (a little) to the theory of evolution.

When GA is used for optimization the gradient will suffice.

Reference: Maynard Smith, J. Evolutionary Genetics. Oxford University Press, 1998. --Kjells 09:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Changed --Kjells 17:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Changed --Kjells 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Kjells (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Maynard Smith presents a simplified version of Fisher's theorem, and his definition of fitness is not the same as Fisher's, so I am not sure your criticisms are relevant. For Fisher the relevant concept of fitness is the relative rate of increase or decrease of the groups of individuals bearing particular gene variants (alleles).  I don't think it is now disputed that his theorem is mathematically valid, given his definitions.  It remains disputed whether it is as important as he thought. He certainly never claimed that there would be a rapid increase in fitness, or indeed that *absolute* fitness (measured simply by the number of surviving offspring), would necessarily  increase at all.  He recognized explicitly that the 'environment' - including the biotic environment - might be deteriorating at a rate sufficient to offset the increase in relative genetic fitness.86.183.203.119 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Creationists have reason to doubt the classical theoy of evolution
A discussion about Fisher's fundamental theorem has recently been held at ScienceBlog, where I have been encouraged to publish some new paper about it. Here is my blog:

Submitted by kjellstrom on Sat, 2008-01-12 03:04. bioscience and medicine Creationists have reason to doubt the theory based on Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection published in 1930. It relies on the assumption that a gene (allele) may have a fitness of its own being a unit of selection. Historically this way of thinking has also influenced our view of egoism as the most important force in evolution; see for instance Hamilton about kin selection, 1963, or Dawkins about the selfish gene, 1976 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_adaptation#References

On the other hand, if the selection of individuals rules the enrichment of genes, then Gaussian adaptation will perhaps give a more reliable view of evolution (see the blog “Gaussian adaptation as a model of evolution”).

In modern terminology (see Wikipedia) Fisher’s theorem has been stated as: “The rate of increase in the mean fitness of any organism at any time ascribable to natural selection acting through changes in gene frequencies is exactly equal to its genic variance in fitness at that time”. (A.W.F. Edwards, 1994).

A proof as given by Maynard Smith, 1998, shows the theorem to be formally correct. Its formal validity may even be extended to the mean fitness and variance of individual fitness or the fitness of digits in real numbers representing the quantitative traits.

But, if the selection of individuals rules the enrichment of genes, I am afraid there might be a risk that the theory becomes nonsense, and that this is not very well known among biologists.

A drawback is that it does not tell us the increase in mean fitness (see my blog “The definition of fitness of a DNA- or signal message”) from the offspring in one generation to the offspring in the next (which would be expected), but only from offspring to parents in the same generation. Another drawback is that the variance is a genic variance in fitness and not a variance in phenotypes. Therefore, the structure of a phenotypic landscape – which is of considerable importance to a possible increase in mean fitness - can’t be considered. So, it can’t tell us anything about what happens in phenotypic space.

The image shows two different cases (upper and lower) of individual selection, where the green points with fitness = 1 - between the two lines - will be selected, while the red points outside with fitness = 0 will not. The centre of gravity, m, of the offspring is heavy black and ditto of the parents and offspring in the new generation, m* (according to the Hardy-Weinberg law), is heavy red.

Because the fraction of green feasible points is the same in both cases, Fisher’s theorem states that the increase in mean fitness is equal in both upper and lower case. But the phenotypic variance (not considered by Fisher) in the horizontal direction is larger in the lower case, causing m* to considerably move away from the point of intersection of the lines. Thus, if the lines are pushed towards each other (due to arms races between different species), the risk of getting stuck decreases. This represents a considerable increase in mean fitness (assuming phenotypic variances almost constant). Because this gives room for more phenotypic disorder/entropy/diversity, we may expect diversity to increase according to the entropy law, provided that the mutation is sufficiently high.

So, Fisher’s theorem, the Hardy-Weinberg law or the entropy law does not prove that evolution maximizes mean fitness. On the other hand, Gaussian adaptation obeying the Hardy-Weinberg and entropy laws may perhaps serve as a complement to the classical theory, because it states that evolution may maximize two important collective parameters, namely mean fitness and diversity in parallel (at least with respect to all Gaussian distributed quantitative traits). This may hopefully show that egoism is not the only important force driving evolution, because any trait beneficial to the collective may evolve by natural selection of individuals.

Gkm

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/creationists-have-reason-doubt-classical-theory-evolution-15214.html

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/kjellstrom

--Kjells (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Please don't add links to your own texts. As I understand it, talk pages aren't indexed by search engines, so the link here and on Talk:Gaussian adaptation won't increase the rating anyway.Sjö (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. --Kjells (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Genetic diversity?
During discussions, I recently discovered something that is perhaps "well known", but is not covered here: it would seem that Fisher unintentionally conflated two ideas: "variance of the fitness of a population" with the "genetic diversity of the population". Based on practical experience with machine learning, its clear that these two concepts are distinct. I've noticed that the rate of improvement in fitness is related to the genetic diversity of the population, and NOT to the variance of the fitness of the population. That is, one can have algos that (unintentionally) generate a very homogeneous population, that has a large variation in fitness. In such a situation, the algo grinds to a halt, and rate at which fitness improves becomes very slow. The rate of improvement can be improved by increasing the diversity of the population!!

This, in a certain sense, I discovered that "Fisher was wrong", and that the correct statement should be: "The rate at which a population improves in fitness is proportional to the variance of the genetic diversity of the population". (and that one should not confused "variance of the fitness" with "diversity", which are naively similar but in fact are quite unrelated).

Surely, I am not the first to observe this: but who is, and how can the article be amended to reflect this? (p.s. this seems related to the phenomenon discussed in the post immediately above.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection. 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/20040918165349/http://stevefrank.org/reprints-choice/97Evol-Causal-R.html to http://stevefrank.org/reprints-choice/97Evol-Causal-R.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Journal of Mathematical Biology
I just noticed a relevant paper. Are there any suggestions as to how this could be incorporated and used as a reference?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300A:1624:CA00:A88C:2C6D:FD32:F0D4 (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

 * That's an interesting paper. While certainly an extension to mutating populations is desired, the authors also say:

At the heart of Fisher’s conception was his famous fundamental theorem of natural selection (Fisher’s Theorem). Fisher’s Theorem, published in his text The Genetical Theory of Evolution (Fisher 1930), showed that given a population with pre-existing genetic variants (i.e., Mendelian alleles) the population’s mean fitness will increase. Not only will mean fitness increase, the rate of increase will be proportional to the genetic variance for fitness within the population at any given time.
 * I've added emphasis in the text. I do not know what that last sentence means . What is the "genetic variance for fitness within the population" as a mathematical expression? The primary page has the same problem.

 * It does appear to be a standard statement and argument, although lecture notes illustrations are much belabored. Professor John Baez has recently tried to clarify a bunch of this via explicit quantification of fitness and via the Lotka–Volterra equations.

22:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * bayesianlogic.1@gmail.com

Revert by ThomHimself
Undid the revert by ThomHimself who undid my edits with no explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanbei85 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Basener & Sanford
User:Hob_Gadling alleged that I have misrepresented Basener & Sanford's research here, but that would need to be demonstrated. The quote Gadling is trying to remove comes directly from their paper. What is the point of this? User:Arjayay reverted it again, falsely marking it as a minor edit and giving no reason for the revert. --Kanbei85 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your wording "George R. Price contended that Fisher's theorem was correct" instead of "showed" is a distortion. Fisher's theorem is correct, and Price reformulated it. "Contention" means there are misgivings. So, who has them?
 * Your wording "challenges the biological validity of Fisher’s central thesis (that fitness always increases)", though lifted from the source almost word for word, is a distortion. Fisher's theorem does not say that "fitness always increases". As Basener and Sanford say:
 * "Fisher did not include mutations in his model, but believed that mutations would provide a continual supply of variance resulting in perpetual increase in mean fitness, thus providing a foundation for neo-Darwinian theory"
 * No mutations in his theorem. The perpetual increase Fisher believed in was based on mutations, but it was not part of his theorem. Just writing "More recent work challenges the biological validity" confuses the reader and makes him think that it is Fisher's theorem that has been questioned, when it is just what Basener and Sanford call his "Corollary".
 * Your removal of the parts "builds on Price's understanding in two ways. One aims to improve the theorem by completing it" and "The other argues that the partial [..]" is a distortion. It makes the reader think that Fisher tried to model evolution, and Basener and Sanford shot it down. Reality vs. Theory of Evolution 1:0. But actually, they improved on Fisher: Reality vs. Theory of Evolution 0:2.
 * Your wording "challenged Fisher’s model" is a distortion. They did not claim to have found any mistakes in Fisher's model, and they did not say there were any. All they did was adding another factor, making it more applicable. Sort of like what Einstein did to Newton. Newton's mechanics is still applied because it is still applicable in most circumstances. Fisher's model still works, there is nothing wrong with it. This is how science works.
 * Your wording "[Basener and Sanford] show that natural populations can either increase or decrease in fitness, depending on many variables, but only a narrow range of parameters can actually prevent fitness decline.", though again containing text lifted word by word from the source, is a distortion. Basener and Sanford actually write:
 * "Not only do other finite mathematical population models show that fitness can decrease—they often show that only a narrow range of parameters can actually prevent fitness decline."
 * So, not Basener and Sanford show (in the sense of prove) that fitness decline is the norm, other finite mathematical population models show that (possibly in the sense of display).
 * All your wordings move the text away from the source and toward an attitude of "that evolution stuff is all just theory, it does not hold water". --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 * I would support changing the word 'theorem' to 'corollary' to more accurately represent Basener's and Sanford's paper. The statement that only a narrow range of parameters can prevent fitness decline should remain, and that is a major contribution by this paper to the topic. The previous wording had no reference to this and made it seem as if Basener and Sanford were fully supporting Fisher's theorem and its broad application / corollary. Sanford himself is a critic of evolution, so if his findings cast some doubt then it is not a result of any misrepresentation on my part. --Kanbei85 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You made a creationist edit, turning the article into a bit of pseudoscientific propaganda, and now you think cosmetic changes will make all that bunch of bullshit acceptable?
 * Previously, I wanted to be generous, so I did not mention that Sanford et al. is a primary source and thus less desirable. (Fisher and Kimura are also used as primary sources, but they are world famous, and their achievements are known anyway.) Now you say Sanford is a crackpot, I see that I was wrong to be generous. Is it John C. Sanford? I only read his piece cursorily - that was enough to refute your distortions.
 * By the way, you are still under a misapprehension that pseudoscience should get equal footing in WP. See WP:Lunatic charlatans and WP:FRINGE. But you will probably WP:IDHT again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How, again, is it 'undesirable' to quote from a primary source? And yet.. of course we can make exceptions if the person is "world famous". Well, if you want to be open about your double standards, that's fine with me. I am not responsible for quoting Basener and Sanford here, and if you attempt to censor the stable, long-standing content, it will amount to edit warring. Consensus was already established on this article. There is no propaganda here except your own statements. Basener and Sanford's article touches Fisher's Theorem directly and is published in a peer-reviewed, "reputable" scientific journal.--Kanbei85 (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:SECONDARY: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources" and WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
 * What Fisher found, and what Kimura found, is easily gathered by consulting almost any biology book. We can use any reliable source, even the primary one, because they all say the same regarding the straightforward fact of their actual findings. Sanford is different. Is there any reliable secondary source that quotes his work? If no, it is obviously not important enough, so why should we?
 * "Censor" is empty rhetoric. Wikipedia articles obviously cannot contain every tidbit that is related to the subject of the article. We have to choose what is important and what is not.
 * "stable, long-standing content" is irrelevant. Text does not become sacrosanct by being there for a long time. If it is not up the scratch, it can go.
 * So, all your reasoning is bad, and you do not know the first thing about using sources in Wikipedia. Still, I will not revert your edit because I am not an edit warrior like you. Someone else, someone who has been convinced by this discussion that your edit has no merit, can do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Is there any reliable secondary source that quotes his work? If no, it is obviously not important enough, so why should we?"
 * What an amazing assumption. Apparently if a brand new piece of research is has not (yet) been quoted in secondary sources, it must be irrelevant / unimportant? I think not. Just another self-reinforcing mechanism to stack the deck against any challenges to the mainstream consensus, especially if they happen to come from a 'taboo' individual. This is the modern-day iron curtain in full display. Hopefully your desire to censor Basener and Sanford's work on ideological grounds will not win the day here.--Kanbei85 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If something is new, we do not know whether it is important yet. So we wait until it gets enough feedback to tell it is. Then we add it. Just another self-reinforcing mechanism to stack the deck against any flashes in the pan.
 * Again, your empty rhetoric impresses nobody. The outcome is predictable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where WP standards discourage editors from making reference to any research papers which are recently published (you know, just to avoid any 'flashes in the pan')?--Kanbei85 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See No original research and Neutral point of view." --tronvillain (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * tronvillain, please look more carefully at the conversation in the thread prior to your copy/pasting that. That is not showing what I asked for / what Hob Gadling was claiming. It is understood that secondary sources are better when possible, but as Gadling already admitted, that is not always possible and this article does not by any means rely solely on secondary sources. Gadling is trying to create a double-standard whereby he allows primary sources he personally likes while disallowing other sources he wants to suppress (like Basener and Sanford's research).--Kanbei85 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly refrain from claiming I "admitted" something. That makes it sound as if I said you were right about something we disagreed upon. You weren't, and I didn't. (Creationists often try to have those pretend victories.)
 * WP:RS AGE says: "Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery)."
 * "Purport to debunk a long-standing consensus". That is exactly what Sanford did.
 * "he allows primary sources he personally likes" You were always not exactly what I would call honest, but with this, you crossed over into the territory of actual lies. I explained to you why the primary sources used in the article are acceptable. You ignored that explanation and made up another one.
 * Look here. Wikipedia is an environment where you need to have good reasons for your edits. You also need to be reasonable in discussions. Defending ideas that have not a single good reason on their side, such as creationism, obviously requires the use of bad reasoning or even lying. And edit wars, of course. You tried all that, and it did not work.
 * I am in favor of deleting the Sanford source until it has been critically evaluated. Good thing you tried to boost it, otherwise it would have taken a long time until somebody noticed it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Gadling, this is just another excuse to apply a biased double standard whenever it suits. That 'guideline' is full of subjective language. Ex: "Sometimes," "might," "too new" (who decides 'too'?). It can sometimes take years for scientists to get around to replicating, or failing to replicate, a piece of research. On the Higgs Boson page, for example, there is research mentioned from this year (2018). I wonder, why is that 'guideline' not being applied there? As you can see this is all a subjective and arbitrarily-applied 'standard'. If you have an actual problem with Basener and Sanford's paper, then make your case [but even then, it would not merit deletion since it is not up to Wikipedians to attempt to interpret primary sources for themselves!]. So far you have had nothing to say except to try to poison the well with ideological considerations which are beyond the scope of this article and irrelevant to the research.--Kanbei85 (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (I will ignore your usual bluffing and blustering.) If it takes years, then it takes years. We are gathering the knowledge of humankind. If some paper nobody in the field noticed enough to quote it, is not mentioned, that is not a problem.
 * If you think that guideline is bad, you can discuss it on the guideline's Talk page. After you succeed to change it by convincing other editors, we can take up this case again. Until then, this receptionless 2017 paper does not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you know as well as I do that one lone editor like myself is not going to prevail against the Echo Chamber of editors such as yourself who like to have a good excuse to censor things at will from the pages of Wikipedia. I have shown that that guideline is subjective an arbitrary, and even given a prominent example of it not being applied. You even "read" the paper yourself and had no problem with its inclusion here until you found out that Sanford is a critic of evolution. This shows this is about your ideological axe to grind, not about the Wikipedia guidelines. --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking over Higgs boson, I can't find any research cited that was actually published in 2018. There are a couple "As of 2018" statements, but those are just of the "As of 2018, it still looks like the Standard Model Higgs" nature (and they're actually uncited). So, no, it's not an example of new research being promoted before it has been critically evaluated. And even if it were, that would just mean that policy was not being followed elsewhere, which is not an excuse to dodge it here. I agree with Hob Gadling: the paragraph about Basener and Sanford should be deleted. Spending words on a paper that has attracted zero attention in the academic community violates WP:UNDUE. XOR'easter (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Another aspect: If critical examination or even endorsement of Sanford's writings is to be expected, there is no problem with waiting that short while. Only if one expects silence and wants to smuggle the paper into the article, now is the time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, right: Playing the "I am being suppressed" card never helps. We hear the same from every other pseudoscience promoter. You lose because your reasoning is bad and your edits contradict policy, not because you are in the minority. Even if a huge mob of creationists started to edit here, they could only achieve what they want by acting against the rules. It's the same thing as within science: creationists lost, in the nineteenth century, when they were in the majority, because they just did not have the facts to back their worldview up. Evolution has won because it did have the facts. And evolution wins in Wikipedia for the same reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Wikipedia is an echo chamber of anti-creationist bigotry, where Talk Origins is actually considered a reliable source. That doesn't need repeating. Nor is this the appropriate place to debate creationism. I did that on your talk page, Hob Gadling, and you proved that you aren't interested in the facts in the least, but merely clinging to your "Big Science says it, I believe it, that settles it!" mentality. None of that is relevant here. Basener and Sanford's paper is about Fisher's Theorem, not creationism. It is relevant to the topic and peer reviewed. To remove it would be nothing other than pure censorship, plain and simple. The Higgs Boson page does include references to recent work, and I'm sure if you went looking you could find other such recent references scattered all over Wikipedia. You'll need a better reason than "it's new" to attempt to remove the paper.--Kanbei85 (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * " Wikipedia is an echo chamber of anti-creationist bigotry" - Bullshit. Wikpedia cares about truth, and creationist sources don't, which is why they are not considered reliable sources.
 * "you proved that you aren't interested in the facts in the least" - Bullshit. I caught you trying to source claims to webpages that did not say what you claimed they said, and you fled when I called your bluff.
 * Try "it's new, has not been quoted by reliable sources yet, and is not expected to be (favorably)", that is closer to the truth. As soon as Sanford's paper gets quoted by RS, there will be no reason not to include it. Why do you need to quote it earlier than that? Why the hurry? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources" is a loaded term. What one considers reliable is dependent on your worldview. You dismiss all creationist sources out of hand because you're biased. I have not fled, in fact I have responded to your false claims. I cannot go back and forth forever, though, with someone who does not care to understand or really read the sources he's given. As far as why the "hurry"? Well, you'd have to ask the person who added the paper. I am merely arguing that it should not be removed. You argue creationist sources "don't care about truth", but that is just begging the question and again displaying your bias. Why you think someone who is devoted to the God of the Bible, who commands us to be truthful, would "not care about truth" is a bit of a mystery. On the contrary, it is evolution that cares nothing about "truth". The only thing that matters in evolution is what works for reproduction, not necessarily what is "true".--Kanbei85 (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the empty rhetoric again. (Though the authors of WP:RS will be interested to hear that reliability is a matter of taste. Only someone who does not care about truth would say that. Actually, checking reliability is a pretty straightforward task, though it may be a lot of work.)
 * "you'd have to ask the person who added the paper" - This is disingenuous. You are in favor of keeping it, and you argue in favor of keeping it, so you are in favor of hurrying. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kanbei85, if you don't like the Wikipedia policies of WP:RS and WP:V, I suggest that you find some website that doesn't follow those policies. I believe that http://creationwiki.org/ would welcome your edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Higgs Boson page does include references to recent work" — so, now we're moving the goalposts from "2018" to "recent". I see. "I'm sure if you went looking you could find other such recent references scattered all over Wikipedia" — first, "recent" is not the same as "unexamined". Sometimes the scientific community can provide commentary, feedback and critique rather quickly, particularly when the area is highly trafficked like particle physics is. Second, again, just because research that has had no impact among scientists might be cited elsewhere around Wikipedia is not an excuse to do so here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Kanbei85 for the next shocking twist of the story. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the whole paragraph. It was introduced in 2018 by someone who did almost nothing else, it says Grafen "reviewed" something, but does not say what that something actually is, and that something was written not by a biologist but a data scientist. Not a reliable source, but does not inspire confidence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * R. A. Fischer.jpg


text:
Romanian leu

The Romanian leu (, plural lei ; ISO code: RON; numeric code: 946) is the currency of Romania. It is subdivided into 100 bani (, singular: ban ), a word that means both "money" and "coin" in the Romanian language.

Etymology
The name of the currency means "lion", and is derived from the Dutch thaler (leeuwendaalder "lion thaler/dollar"). The Dutch leeuwendaalder was imitated in several German and Italian cities. These coins circulated in Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria and gave their name to their respective currencies: the Romanian leu, the Moldovan leu and the Bulgarian lev.

First leu: 1867–1947

In 1860, the Domnitor Alexandru Ioan Cuza attempted to create a national românul ("the Romanian") and the romanat; however, the project was not approved by the Ottoman Empire.

On 22 April 1867, a bimetallic currency was adopted, with the leu equal to 5 grams of 83.5% silver or 0.29032 grams of gold. The first leu coin was minted in Romania in 1870.

Before 1878 the silver Russian ruble was valued so highly as to drive the native coins out of circulation. Consequently, in 1889, Romania unilaterally joined the Latin Monetary Union and adopted a gold standard. Silver coins were legal tender only up to 50 lei. All taxes and customs dues were to be paid in gold and, owing to the small quantities issued from the Romanian mint, foreign gold coins were current, especially French 20-franc pieces (equal at par to 20 lei), Ottoman lira (22.70 lei), Russian rubles (20.60 lei) and British sovereigns (25.22 lei).

Romania left the gold standard in 1914 and the leu's value fell. The exchange rate was pegged at 167.20 lei to US$1 on 7 February 1929, US$1 = 135.95 lei on 5 November 1936, US$1 = 204.29 lei on 18 May 1940, and US$1 = 187.48 lei on 31 March 1941. During Romania's World War II alliance with Nazi Germany, the leu was pegged to the reichsmark at a rate of 49.50 lei to RM 1, falling to 59.5 lei = RM 1 in April 1941. During Soviet occupation, the exchange rate was 1 ruble to 100 lei. After the war, the value of the currency fell dramatically and the National Bank issued a new leu, which was worth 20,000 old lei.

Second leu (ROS): 1947–1952
A revaluation ("Great stabilization", marea stabilizare) took place on 15 August 1947, replacing the old leu at a rate of 20,000 old lei = 1 stabilized leu. No advance warning was given and there were limits for the sums to be converted in the new currency: 5 million old lei for farmers and 3 million old lei for workers and pensioners.

Out of the 48.5 billion old lei in circulation, only around half were changed to stabilized lei. The most affected was the middle and upper classes, who were later also affected by the nationalization of 1948. At the time of its introduction, 150 new lei equalled 1 US dollar.

Third leu (ROL): 1952–2005
On 28 January 1952, another new leu was introduced. Unlike the previous revaluation, different rates were employed for different kinds of exchange (cash, bank deposits, debts etc.) and different amounts. These rates ranged from 20 to 400 "old lei" for one "new" leu. Again, no advance warning was given before the reform took place.

Between 1970 and 1989, the official exchange rate was fixed by the government through law. This exchange rate was used by the government to calculate the value of foreign trade, but foreign currency was not available to be bought and sold by private individuals. Owning or attempting to buy or sell foreign currency was a criminal offence, punishable with a prison sentence that could go up to ten years (depending on the amount of foreign currency found under one's possession). International trade was therefore considered as part of another economic circuit than domestic trade, and given greater priority.

This inflexibility and the existence of surplus money due to constant economic decline in the 1980s, mixed with the need for more foreign currency and the refusal of the Ceaușescu regime to accept inflation as a phenomenon in order to attain convertibility, led to one of the greatest supply side crises in Romanian history, culminating with the introduction of partial food rationing in 1980 and full rationing for all basic foods in 1986/87. This was a major factor in growing discontent with Ceaușescu, and contributed in part to the fall of the Communist regime in 1989.

In the post-communist period, there has been a switch in the material used for banknotes and coins. Banknotes have switched from special paper to special plastic, while coins switched from aluminum to more common coin alloys (probably partly due to technical limitations of coin-operated vending machines). The transition has been gradual for both, but much faster for the banknotes which are currently all made of plastic. There has been a period in which all banknotes were made of plastic and all coins were made of aluminum, a very distinctive combination.

In the 1990s, after the downfall of communism, inflation ran high due to reform failures, the legalization of owning foreign currency in 1990, reaching rates as high as 300% per year in 1993. By September 2003, one euro was exchanged for more than 40,000 lei, this being its peak value. Following a number of successful monetary policies in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the situation became gradually more stable, with single-digit inflation in 2005.

The Romanian leu was briefly the world's least valued currency unit, from January (when the Turkish lira dropped six zeros) to July 2005. However, the 1,000,000 lei banknote was not the highest Romanian denomination ever; a 5,000,000 lei note had been issued in 1947.

Fourth leu (RON): 2005–present
On 1 July 2005, the leu was revalued at the rate of 10,000 "old" lei (ROL) for one "new" leu (RON), thus psychologically bringing the purchasing power of the leu back in line with those of other major Western currencies. The term chosen for the action was "denominare", similar to the English term "redenomination". The adjustment was a difficult one for shoppers and many ATMs were inoperable and in need of reprogramming. The old ROL currency banknotes remained in circulation until 31 December 2006 (coins remained in circulation only until 31 December 2005), but all accounts were converted starting 1 July 2005. There is no conversion time limit between the currencies. Retailers had to display prices in both old and new currency from 1 March 2005 until 30 June 2006. The appreciation of the leu during 2005 was about 20% against a basket of major currencies.

As of 2006, the revaluation was a potential source of confusion, especially to visitors, since both old and new currency values were commonly quoted. When written, the very large amounts in old currency are usually obvious, but in speaking inhabitants might refer to an amount of 5 new lei as simply "fifty" in reference to its value of 50,000 old lei. As of 2020, it is still common to call 100 lei "un milion" or one million and 500 lei "cinci milioane" or five million.

Speculation about joining the Eurozone
In 2014, Romania's Convergence Report set a target date of 1 January 2019 for euro adoption. In April 2014, Romania had met four out of the seven criteria for accession to the Eurozone. In recent years, however, Romania had made step backs regarding the adopting of the euro; the 2020 Convergence Report concluded that Romania does not meet any of the four economic criteria necessary for this process. In February 2021, then-Prime Minister Florin Cîțu stated that Romania could join the Eurozone in 2027 or 2028, although Romanian economist Florin Georgescu announced in December 2021 that this date had been delayed to 2029.

Coins
The size and composition of coins changed frequently after the introduction of the currency.

First leu
In 1867, copper 1, 2, 5 and 10 bani were issued, with gold 20 lei (known as poli after the French Napoleons) first minted the next year. These were followed, between 1870 and 1873, by silver 50 bani, 1 and 2 lei. Silver 5 lei were added in 1880. Uniquely, the 1867 issue used the spelling 1 banu rather than 1 ban.

In 1900, cupronickel 5, 10, and 20 ban coins were introduced, with holed versions following in 1905. The production of coins ceased in 1914, recommencing in 1921 with aluminum 25 and 50 ban pieces. Cupronickel 1 and 2 lei coins were introduced in 1924, followed by nickel brass 5, 10, and 20 lei in 1930. In 1932, silver 100 lei coins were issued. However, inflation meant that in 1935, smaller silver 250 lei coins were introduced with nickel 100 lei coins being issued in 1936, followed by nickel 50 lei in 1937.

In 1941 and 1942, zinc 2, 5, and 20 lei coins were introduced, together with silver 200 and 500 lei. Nickel-clad-steel 100 lei followed in 1943, with brass 200, and 500 lei issued in 1945. In 1946 and 1947, postwar inflation brought the exchange rate even lower, and a new coinage was issued consisting of aluminum 500 lei, brass 2,000, and 10,000 lei, and silver 25,000, and 100,000 lei.

Second leu
Coins were issued in 1947 after the revaluation in denominations of 50 bani, 1, 2, and 5 lei and depicted the portrait of King Michael I. This coin series was brief, preceded by the king's abdication less than a year later and replaced following the establishment of communist administration in Romania in 1948, reissued gradually in denominations of 1, 2, 5, and 20 lei in nickel-brass alloy, and later in aluminum. All second leu coins were discontinued and devalued in late 1952.

Third leu
Coins were first issued in 1952 in denominations of 1, 3, 5, 10, 25, and 50 bani, with aluminum bronze for 1, 3, and 5 bani, and cupronickel for 10, 25, and 50 bani. These coins featured the state arms and name "Republica Populară Romînă".

In 1960, a new series of coins was issued in denominations of 5, 15, & 25 bani and 1 and 3 lei struck in nickel-plated steel. Starting in 1966, the name on all coins was changed to "Republica Socialistă România" following the ascent of Nicolae Ceaușescu, though all pre-1966 coins of these denominations remained valid. In 1975, the composition of 5 and 15 ban coins was changed to aluminum, and the 25 bani followed suit in 1982. In 1978, an aluminum 5 leu coin was introduced. These denominations remained in use until 1991, particularly the 5 lei, following the lifting of state-mandated exchange rates and price controls.

In 1991, a new coin series with post-communist iconography and new valuations was released in denominations of 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 lei. These coins gradually lost value with inflation, and a new series was introduced in 1998 with an aluminum-magnesium alloy 500 leu and 1,000 and 5,000 leu coins in 2000.

Fourth leu
The coins that are currently in circulation are one ban, made of brass-plated steel; five bani, made of copper-plated steel; ten bani in nickel-plated steel; and fifty bani in nickel brass. These were first introduced into circulation in 2005 with the fourth revaluation and are all currently valid. There are six 50 bani commemorative circulating coins made in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

The current coins of the Romanian leu are by any objective standards of functional austere design, surpassing in lack of decoration even the plainest Communist-era predecessors.

The one ban coin was rarely seen and not in demand by either banks or many retailers; the 'situation' has changed and the coin is not uncommonly found (as of 2015). Supermarkets continue habitually to advertise prices such as 9.99 (lei), and frequently price goods to the precise ban such as 9,47; indeed, as of 2014, very few of the prices displayed at the Carrefour online site (for example) display prices to the nearest 5 or 10 bani. In practice, many retailers round totals to the nearest 5 or 10 bani for cash payments, or even whole leu, although (inter)national supermarket chains generally give exact change. For card payments the exact amount (not rounded) is always charged. The reversion to single ban pricing (and change giving) is perhaps due to the (effective) government drive for shops/businesses to give a receipt, an accurate bon fiscal (to avoid tax evasion) for every transaction. Official notices must be prominently displayed in all shops/restaurants that an accurate receipt must be given.

First leu
In 1877, state notes were introduced in denominations of 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, and 500 lei. In 1880, these notes were overstamped for issue by the Banca Națională a României, which began to issue regular notes in 1881 in denominations of 20, 100, and 1,000 lei.

In 1914, five leu notes were reintroduced, followed by one and two leu notes in 1915 and 500 lei in 1916. The Ministry of Finance issued very small-sized notes for 10, 25 and 50 bani in 1917. 5,000 lei notes were introduced in 1940, followed by 10,000 and 100,000 lei in 1945 and 1,000,000 and 5,000,000 lei in 1947. In 1945, the Ministry of Finance issued 20 and 100 leu notes to replace those of the National Bank.

Second leu
In 1947, the Ministry of Finance introduced 20 lei notes and Banca Națională a României introduced 100, 500 and 1,000 lei notes. In 1949, Banca Republicii Populare Române took over the production of paper money and issued 500 and 1,000 lei notes.

Third leu
In 1952, the Ministry of Finance introduced notes for 1, 3, and 5 lei, and the Banca Republicii Populare Române introduced 10, 25 and 100 leu notes. In 1966, the Banca Națională a Republicii Socialiste România took over the production of all paper money, issuing notes for 1, 3, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 lei.

In 1991, 500 and 1,000 leu notes were introduced, followed by 200 and 5,000 leu notes in 1992, 10,000 lei in 1994, 50,000 lei in 1996, 100,000 lei in 1998, 500,000 lei in 2000 and 1,000,000 lei in 2003. There was also a commemorative 2,000 lei note introduced in 1999 celebrating the total solar eclipse that occurred on 11 August 1999. The final issues of the 2,000, 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000 lei were polymer notes.

Notes in circulation at the revaluation were:
 * 10,000 lei (became 1 leu)
 * 50,000 lei (became 5 RON)
 * 100,000 lei (became 10 RON)
 * 500,000 lei (became 50 RON)
 * 1,000,000 lei (became 100 RON)

Fourth series
In 2005, polymer notes were introduced for 1 leu, 5, 10, 50, 100 and 500 RON. 200 RON notes were added in 2006. The designs of the 1 leu, 5, 10, 50, and 100 RON notes are based on those of the earlier 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000 leu notes which they replaced. The 10 RON note was redesigned in November 2008 (most of the graphic elements are identical, some of the safety elements were changed, making its safety features similar to the lower-valued notes for 1 leu and 5 RON). The highest-value coin (in general circulation) is 50 bani (around 15 cents US or 9 pence sterling); the 1 leu note (there is no coin) has, therefore, a value of (approximately) 25 cents US or 18 pence sterling, or around 23 euro cents.

In preparation for Romania joining the Eurozone, banknotes of the fourth leu are of equal size to Euro banknotes.

The 20 RON banknote was introduced by the National Bank of Romania in November 2021.

title: Romanian leu


text:
List of counts and dukes of Limburg

The counts of Limburg ruled a medieval county with its capital at Limbourg-sur-Vesdre, lying between Liège and Aachen. They rose to prominence when one of them was appointed Duke of Lower Lorraine. Though Lorraine was later confiscated, the ducal title was kept within the family, transferred to the county of Limburg, and this was eventually ratified by the Holy Roman Emperor. Thereafter, the dukes of Limburg were one of several claimant lines of heirs to the title of the old duke of Lower Lorraine. Their title was eventually inherited by their competitors, the dukes of Brabant, and became part of the large collection of titles of the Burgundian Netherlands, eventually passing to the Hapsburgs.

After the occupation in 1794 by the French, the old Austrian Duchy of Limburg was disbanded and the largest part was absorbed into the département of Ourthe (which became the province of Liège). Only a small northern part belonged to the département of Meuse-Inférieure and thus to the later province of Limburg. The title "duke of Limburg" was nevertheless revived after the foundation of the new Duchy of Limburg as a result of the Treaty of London in 1839. According to this treaty the new duchy (without the cities of Maastricht and Venlo), was joined to the German Confederation. After the collapse of this confederation in 1866, Limburg as a duchy ceased to exist and became a province of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

House of Ardennes

 * 1065–1082: Waleran I (received Limburg through his wife Judith, daughter of Frederick, Duke of Lower Lorraine)
 * 1082–1116: Henry I (son of, also duke of Lower Lorraine)

House of Ardennes

 * 1119–1139: Waleran II (son of, also kept the ducal title his father had been granted as ruler of Lower Lorraine)
 * 1139–1170: Henry II (son of, also count of Arlon)
 * 1170–1221: Henry III (son of, also count of Arlon)
 * 1221–1226: Waleran III (son of, also count of Arlon and Lord of Monjoie)
 * 1226–1247: Henry IV (son of, also count of Berg and Lord of Monjoie)
 * 1247–1279: Waleran IV (son of)
 * 1279–1283: Ermengarde (daughter of, married Reginald I, Duke of Guelders)

The Duchy of Limburg was lost in 1288 to the dukes of Brabant in the Battle of Worringen.

House of Leuven

 * 1288–1294: John I (also duke of Brabant and Dukes of Lothier)
 * 1294–1312: John II (son of, also duke of Brabant and Dukes of Lothier)
 * 1312–1355: John III (son of, also duke of Brabant and Dukes of Lothier)
 * 1355–1406: Joanna (daughter of, married)

House of Valois

 * 1404–1415: Anthony (great-nephew of)
 * 1415–1426: John IV (son of)
 * 1427–1430: Philip I also called Philip of Saint Pol - (brother of)
 * 1430–1467: Philip II also called Philip the Good (cousin of)
 * 1467–1477: Charles I also called Charles the Bold (son of)
 * 1477–1482: Mary (daughter of, married Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, regent from 1482 until 1494)

House of Habsburg

 * 1493–1506: Philip III also called Philip the Handsome - (son of)
 * 1506–1555: Charles II (son of, also Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain)

After the abdication of Charles II, the Seventeen Provinces went to the Spanish branch of the House of Habsburg.

 * 1555–1598: Philip IV (son of, also King of Spain)
 * 1598–1621: Isabella and Albert (daughter and son-in-law of)
 * 1621–1665: Philip V (nephew of)
 * 1665–1700: Charles III (son of, also King of Spain)
 * 1700–1706: Philip VI (cousin of, also King of Spain)

After the death of Philip VI the Seventeen Provinces returned to the Austrian branch of the House of Habsburg.

 * 1706–1740: Charles IV (cousin of, also Holy Roman Emperor)
 * 1740–1780: Maria Theresa (daughter of, also Queen of Hungary and Bohemia)

House of Habsburg-Lorraine

 * 1780–1789: Joseph (son of, also Holy Roman Emperor)
 * 1790–1792: Leopold (brother of, also Holy Roman Emperor)
 * 1792–1794: Francis also called Double Emperor (son of, also Holy Roman Emperor and Emperor of Austria)

House of Orange-Nassau

 * 1839–1840: William I (also King of the Netherlands and Grand Duke of Luxembourg)
 * 1840–1849: William II (also King of the Netherlands and Grand Duke of Luxembourg)
 * 1849–1866: William III (also King of the Netherlands and Grand Duke of Luxembourg)

title: List of counts and dukes of Limburg


text:
Malaysian Scouts Association

Malaysian Scouts Association, officially known as the Scouts Association of Malaysia (Malay: Persatuan Pengakap Malaysia), is the largest informal youth and educational organisation in Malaysia, and member of World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM).

History
Scouting in Malaya (now Malaysia) was first introduced in Penang in 1908 as an experimental troop in YMCA before spreading throughout the entire peninsula.

Scouting took roots in 1908 and welcomed Lord Baden-Powell and Lady Olave Baden-Powell during their historical visit in 1934 to Penang, Kuala Kangsar, Ipoh and Kuala Lumpur.

After gaining independence on 31 August 1957, the Boy Scouts International Bureau formally issued membership on 1 September 1957 to the nation's Scouting body which took shape as Federation of Malaya Boy Scouts Association and officially established as Persekutuan Kanak-kanak Pengakap Malaysia or Boy Scouts Association of Malaysia and officially regulated by an act of Parliament through The Boy Scouts Association of Malaysia (Incorporation) Act No. 38, 1968.

It took on its current name as Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia (PPM) or Scouts Association of Malaysia following an act of Parliament; Boy Scouts Association of Malaysia Act No. 143, 1974.

The previous patron of the PPM is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Abdullah (2019–2024) while the President of PPM is the Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim (since 2022). The current National Chief Scout (Malay: Ketua Pengakap Negara) is Major General (R) Prof. Dato' Dr. Haji Mohd Zin Bidin and National Chief Scout Commissioner (Malay: Ketua Pesuruhjaya Pengakap Negara) is Haji Nasaruddin Haji Shamsuddin.

In 1974, Datuk Syed Hashim bin Abdullah was awarded the Bronze Wolf, the only distinction of the World Organization of the Scout Movement, awarded by the World Scout Committee for exceptional services to world Scouting. Other recipients include Tan Sri Kamarul Ariffin bin Mohd Yassin in 1983.

On 2 May 2023, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was proclaimed the President of the association and conferred the Golden Rice Spirit Star Award (Malay: Anugerah Bintang Semangat Padi Emas), the highest award of the association and exclusive award bestowed only on national and state leaders by Acting National Chief Scout and National Chief Scout Commissioner Mohd Zin Bidin. Mohd Zin also hoped the proclamation could take its image to greater heights, strengthen its role and attract more youths at the universities and schools to join it.

Founding of Scouting in the states of Malaysia
The founding of Scouts movements in the states of Malaysia were, by date and founder
 * 1908 - Penang, YMCA experimental Troop
 * 1909 - Selangor, 1st Selangor (now 1st Kuala Lumpur) in Victoria Institution by B.E. Shaw
 * 1912 - Pahang, by G.M. Laidlow in Pekan, restored in 1927 by H.P. Hertslet
 * 1913 - Sabah, by Reverend Thomas Cecil Alexander in Sandakan Scout Association of Malaysia Sabah Branch
 * 1913 - Sarawak, by Reverend Thomas Cecil Alexander in Kuching (active only from 1930 onwards).
 * March 27, 1915 - Penang, by Harold Ambrose Robinson Cheeseman in Penang Free School
 * 1921 - Perak, by Mr. A. B. Samuels at Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Methodist, Ipoh (A.C.S Ipoh).
 * 1922 - Kedah, by E.C. Hicks, E.A.G. Stuart, R.P.S. Walker and C.W. Bloomfield at Sultan Abdul Hamid College
 * 1925 - Negeri Sembilan, in 1923 by British Resident Edward Shaw Hose at a missionary school in Seremban and by R. Brunstone, then in 1925 by Bird and Roger Smith who started organising for the entire state.
 * 1926 - Melaka, by R. Brunstone in Malacca
 * 1927 - Terengganu, by A.J. Gracle
 * 1927 - Kelantan, by Y.M. Tengku Ahmad Temenggong
 * 1928 - Johor, by Harold Ambrose Robinson Cheeseman in the English College Johore Bahru (now Maktab Sultan Abu Bakar).
 * 1931 - Perlis, by Bird and Roger Smith

Scout leaders
Malaysian Scouts Association is led by National Chief Scout (Malay: Ketua Pengakap Negara), who is the top executive responsible for high-level decisions and association's vision, and assisted by National Chief Scout Commissioner (Malay: Ketua Pesuruhjaya Pengakap Negara), who oversees day-to-day operations.

National Chiefs Scout
List of national chiefs scout since 1952 until today.

National Chief Scout Commissioners
List of national chief scout commissioners since 1910 until today.

Leadership structure

 * Royal Patron:
 * His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar
 * President:
 * Dato' Seri Haji Anwar Ibrahim
 * National Chief Scout:
 * Major General (R) Prof. Dato' Dr. Haji Mohd Zin Bidin
 * National Chief Scout Commissioners:
 * Haji Nasaruddin Haji Shamsuddin
 * Deputy National Chief Scout Commissioners (Activity):
 * Haji Ahmad Sabri Saad
 * Deputy National Chief Scout Commissioners (International):
 * Ts. Mohd Hilmi Abu Bakar
 * Chief Executive Officer:
 * Jamaluddin @ Jamal Jinal
 * Chief Operating Officer / Chief Secretary:
 * Aiznin Sairi Sulaiman

States
The PPM is organized into 15 territorial councils and two national at-large councils:

1. Perlis

2. Kedah

3. Pulau Pinang

4. Perak

5. Selangor

6. Kuala Lumpur

7. Negeri Sembilan

8. Melaka

9. Johor

10. Pahang

11. Terengganu

12. Kelantan

13. Sabah

14. Sarawak

15. Labuan

16. Kumpulan Latihan Malaysia

17. Kumpulan Latihan Kelanasiswa Malaysia

Sections
Scouting in Malaysia is primarily school-based and as such, the Scouting sections are organised as follow:
 * 1) Primary School Level - Cub Scouts (Malay: Pengakap Kanak-Kanak): Between 9 and 12 years old or Standard 3 to Standard 6. Motto: "Do Your Best" (Malay: Buat Habis Baik), official colour: Blue.
 * 2) Lower Secondary School Level - Junior Scouts (Malay: Pengakap Muda) between 13 and 15 years old or Form 1 to 3. Motto: "Be Prepared" (Malay: Sedia Selalu), official colour: Green.
 * 3) Upper Secondary School Level - Senior Scouts (Malay: Pengakap Remaja) between 15 and $17 1/2$  years old or Form 4 to 5. Motto: "Look Wide" (Malay: Pandang Luas), official colour: Yellow.
 * 4) Pre-University Level - Rovers (Malay: Pengakap Kelana) between $17 1/2$ and 26 years old or Form 6. Motto: "Service" (Malay: Berkhidmat), official colour: Red.
 * 5) Higher Educational Institutions and Universities - Rovers - Malaysian University Rover Training Group (Malay: Kumpulan Latihan Kelanasiswa Malaysia) or KLKM. Between $17 1/2$ and 26 years old. Motto: "Service" (Malay: Berkhidmat), official colour: Red.
 * 6) Teachers' Training Colleges & Institutions - Rovers & Adult Leaders - Malaysian Training Group (Malay: Kumpulan Latihan Malaysia) or KLM Between 20 and 26 years old. Rover Motto: "Service" (Malay: Berkhidmat), official colour: Red. Teachers at training colleges undergo and complete woodbadge adult leadership training and streamed according to their assigned service to a primary or secondary school.

Uniform
A Junior Scout's uniform consists of a short-sleeve (girls wear long sleeves) grey shirt, with two pockets with buttons on the left and right breast, the official neckerchief, the forage cap, navy-blue pants, the official bronze belt, navy-blue socks and black canvas shoes with laces. A miniature Malaysian flag is stitched on the right breast pocket and the Tenderfoot badge (analogous to the same-named first rank in the Boy Scouts of America) stitched on the left one. The neckerchief, with red, white and blue stripes, is worn about the collar, fastened with the official woggle. The forage cap has a badge with the Malaysian Scout emblem on one side.

On the left sleeve are one's patrol's name and merit badges. On the right sleeve is one's state, district, and troop number. The advancement badge is sewn below the troop number when a Junior Scout earns it. Depending on a Junior Scout's rank and/or badges, he/she may be allowed to wear a lanyard.

A Senior Scout's uniform is the same as the Junior Scout's except for the position of badges. The King's Scout badge is worn on the left sleeve, five centimetres below the patrol badge. On the left sleeve is one's patrol's name, and one's advancement badges. The Senior Scout's have up to five advancement badges. Once taken, the Senior Scout will go on to become a King's Scout. The King's Scout badge is worn five centimeters below the patrol badge in place of all five Senior Badges.

The only differences between a Leader's (Rovers/Scoutmasters) uniform and that of Junior Scouts are the insignia sewn on and the epaulets worn. The Chief Scout and Assistant Scoutmasters don blue epaulets with various symbols, while Rovers wear red epaulets. Each Rover Crew is allowed to create its own crew emblem, which is then stitched on the right arm beneath the Crew Letter. The advancement badges for Rovers are worn on the left breast, below the Rover badge, while the miniature King's Scout Badge is worn on the left sleeve.

Colours of epaulette and shoulder patch:
 * Red – Rover Scouts
 * Grey - staff
 * Purple – trainers
 * Blue – commissioners
 * Green – lay officers
 * Maroon – elected officials
 * Yellow – royal family

Badge progression scheme
The Scout emblem incorporates elements of the coat of arms of Malaysia.

Regardless of which unit one is a member of, one must pass the Tenderfoot (Malay: Keahlian) test before being eligible for any other badges. This test examines one on one's qualifications to become a Scout, testing one on the Scout uniform, Scout emblems, Scout oath, Scout laws, Scout salute and sign, the history of Scouting, and basic knot-tying, such as tying a reef knot.

For Cub Scouts (Malay: Pengakap Kanak-Kanak), one may receive the Bronze Dagger (Malay: Keris Gangsa) badge, Silver Dagger (Malay: Keris Perak) badge and Gold Dagger (Malay: Keris Emas) badge. The dagger (Malay: Keris) is a Malay dagger used as an official weapon by the royalty. One must attain all preceding badges before qualifying for the next one. Besides that, one may also receive various merit badges throughout the course of receiving the three dagger (Malay: Keris) badges. Someone who has achieved the Gold Dagger (Malay: Keris Emas) badge with certain merit badges is entitled to wear the Cub Scout Cord (Malay: Rambu Pengakap Kanak-Kanak), which is blue in colour.

For Junior Scout (Malay: Pengakap Muda), one may receive the Third Class (Malay: Usaha) badge, Second Class (Malay: Maju) badge and First Class (Malay: Jaya) badge. One must attain all preceding badges before qualifying for the next one. Same as the previous stage, one can also receive a total of eight merit badges; two for hobbies, three for knowledge, and another three for service. Someone who achieves the First Class badge with the eight other merit badges is entitled to wear the Junior Scout Cord (Malay: Rambu Pengakap Muda), which is green in colour.

For Senior Scout (Malay: Pengakap Remaja), one earns Independence (Malay: Jaya Diri) badge, Skills (Malay: Kemahiran) badge, Activities (Malay: Kegiatan) badge, Expedition (Malay: Ekspedisi) badge and Service (Malay: Perkhidmatan) badge. These badges are known as the Five Highest Badges (Malay: Lima Lencana Tertinggi), and a pre-requisite before being assessed as a King's Scout (Malay: Pengakap Raja).

King's Scout Award
The qualified candidate will hand in his/her application form to the district commissioner together with his/her logbooks and certs (of all badges received). He/she will be evaluated and assessed during Pre-King's Scout Assessment Camp (Malay: Kem Ujian Pra-Penarafan Pengakap Raja), which has these components: Responsibility (Malay: Tanggungjawab), Expedition (Malay: Pengembaraan), Community Service (Malay: Perkhidmatan Masyarakat), Activity (Malay: Kegiatan), and Independence (Malay: Berdikari). Once a candidate completes and passes the Pre-King's Scout Assessment Camp (Malay: Kem Ujian Pra-Penarafan Pengakap Raja), he/she is recognised and allowed to wear a royal yellow Senior Scout's Cord (Malay: Rambu Pengakap Remaja), and therefore has all the requirements ready for King's Scout certification.

The candidate then progresses to attend the King's Scout Assessment Camp (Malay: Kem Penarafan Pengakap Raja), a three-day two-nights organised by his/her respective State King's Scout Assessment Council (Malay: Lembaga Penaraf Pengakap Raja Negeri). Such an assessment follows the national scheme and involves camping, campcraft, pioneering, first aid, estimation, knots and lashing, map reading, foot and stave drills, backwoods' man cooking, songs, personal and group interviews, handicraft making and more.

Upon passing all the required tests, the candidate is accorded and allowed to wear a royal yellow coloured Bushman's Thong, which is self-made.

After all documentation has been completely vetted at headquarters, the candidate will have earned the yellow, blue and green King's Scout Badge (Malay: Lencana Pengakap Raja) which is worn on their left sleeve. They will also be invited to the Royal Palace of their respective state and bestowed the prestigious King's Scout Certificate (Malay: Sijil Pengakap Raja), by the Royal Ruler of that state, representing His Majesty Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia, the Patron of the PPM. The certificate is unique as it bears 10 signatures, lead foremost by the current Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia and the 9 State Rulers. There are, thus far, no other certificates in such a similar manner. If in a non-Royal state, His Majesty's signature is present first and foremost.

Junior Scouts who receive the King's Scout Certificate and Badge while in their age level are required to pass the Pre-King's Scout Assessment Camp (Malay: Kem Ujian Pra-Penarafan Pengakap Raja), the King's Scout Assessment Camp (Malay: Kem Penarafan Pengakap Raja) and all others requirements, if so needed should all the requirements be accomplished.

Troop organization
A troop is divided into several patrols, each with its own patrol leader and assistant patrol leader. A committee called the Patrol Leaders' Council plans all the troop's activities, with guidance from the troop's Scoutmaster(s). The Patrol Leaders' Council consists of all the patrol leaders and their assistants. From the Patrol Leaders' Council, Patrol Leaders are elected to become the Troop Leader, Assistant Troop Leader, Troop Secretary, Troop Treasurer and Troop Quartermaster. This committee is called the Court of Honour (COH) and is the most exclusive committee in a troop. The posts mentioned are the least a troop can have. Besides the above-mentioned posts, other posts such as Discipline Officer, Den warden, Librarian, IT Director, Historian and much more can be added if the need should arise.

A patrol itself, besides its patrol leader and assistant patrol leader, has a secretary for taking down the details of a patrol meeting, has a treasurer for recording the financial matters and has a quartermaster for taking care of the patrol's equipment. During camp, the quartermaster becomes the equipment quartermaster, and a food quartermaster is appointed. The secretary becomes assistant patrol leader if the patrol leader or assistant patrol leader does not show up for a meeting.

Malaysian Scout Jamborees
The Malaysian Scout Jamboree is the national jamboree and held since 1966. Each state takes turns to host this event. The list of Jamborees are:
 * 1966 – Telok Bahang, Penang Camp Chief – Tan Sri Wong Pow Nee
 * 1970 – Malacca
 * 1974 – Johor
 * 1978 – Sarawak
 * 1982 – Kelantan
 * 1986 – Pahang
 * 1989 – Perak
 * 1992 – Sabah
 * 1997 – Terengganu
 * 2002 – Kedah
 * 2006 – Negeri Sembilan: 11th Malaysian Scouts Jamboree (December 12–19, Ulu Bendul Recreational Park, Kuala Pilah) | Camp Chief: Hamdan Bin Hj. Mohd Nor, Negeri Sembilan State Chief Scout Commissioner
 * 2011 – Terengganu: 12th Malaysian Scouts Jamboree (November 19–25, Telaga Batin Scout Camp, Kuala Terengganu)
 * 2016 - Federal Territory - Kuala Lumpur: 13th Malaysian Scouts Jamboree (November 25 - December 1, Metropolitan Batu Park, Kuala Lumpur) | Camp Chief: Dato' Dr. Elli Bin Haji Mohd Tahir, Federal Territory - Kuala Lumpur State Chief Scout Commissioner

B-P House
The headquarters for Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia or Scouts Association of Malaysia is Rumah B-P or B-P House. It is located in Kuala Lumpur at 4 Jalan Hang Jebat (formerly Davidson Road), 50150 Kuala Lumpur.

The foundation was laid on May 16, 1954 by Pengakap Agong Persekutuan Tanah Melayu or Federated Malay States Chief Scout Commissioner General Sir Gerald Walter Robert Templer KG, GCB, GCMG, KBE, DSO, who was then the British High Commissioner of Malaya prior to his departure on May 31, 1954. B-P House was constructed at a cost of RM150,000 and took three years to complete. It was formally officiated by His Excellency Sir Donald Macgillivray KCMG, MBE, Pengakap Agung Persekutuan Tanah Melayu or Federated Malay States Chief Scout Commissioner on January 5, 1957 to commemorate the 100th birth year of Lord Baden-Powell (February 22, 1857) and also 50th anniversary of world Scouting (1907 - 1957).

The 4-storey building has recently undergone a major renovation with a large hall on the left wing, a museum on the right wing, a Scout shop with its own separate entrance on the ground floor, the National Chief Scout, National Chief Scout Commissioner and administration offices on the 1st floor, hostels on the 3rd and 4th floor.

It is about 12 minutes by car to World Scout Bureau - Global Support Centre Kuala Lumpur, within walking distance to the iconic Petaling Street, Pasar Seni or Central Market and PUTRA-LRT station.

The Scout headquarters serves as a national centre for administration for Scout matters. It currently has a paid staff of 9. Meetings and leadership courses are held there.

Gilwell Scouts Nature Park Sandakan
Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia proposed the idea of Gilwell Scouts Nature Park Sandakan (Gilwell SNP Sandakan) applying to be part of World Organization of the Scout Movement's Scout Centre of Excellence for Nature, Environment and Sustainability or SCENES on April 10, 2019. This proposal was endorsed on August 4, 2019. The 12 acre Gilwell SNP Sandakan is owned and operated by Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia Cawangan Sabah (PPMCS), one of 17 members in the federation of Scouting in Malaysia. The application and all pertaining information was authored and submitted in March 2020 to World Scout Bureau Global Support Centre Kuala Lumpur. The World Scout Bureau approved Gilwell SNP Sandakan for official accreditation as a SCENES centre on May 12, 2020 after approvals from PPM, Asia-Pacific Region and WOSM. This is a historic milestone with Gilwell SNP Sandakan as the first SCENES in Malaysia and the third in Asia Pacific, after Hong Kong and Taiwan.

title: Malaysian Scouts Association


text:
Scouting and Guiding in Malaysia

The Scout and Guide Movement in Malaysia consists of

 * Persatuan Pandu Puteri Malaysia, member of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts
 * Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia, member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement

International Scouting units in Malaysia
In addition, there is an international troop of Scouts in Kuala Lumpur, linked to the Direct Service branch of the Boy Scouts of America, which supports units around the world.

History
Scouting in Malaya (now Malaysia) was first introduced in Penang in 1908 as an experimental troop in YMCA before spreading throughout the entire peninsula.

Some local Scout troops registered with The Boy Scouts Association of the United Kingdom which established a local branch, the Boy Scouts Association Malaya & Straits Settlement Branch which became defunct in 1957 when Persekutuan Budak-Budak Pengakap Malaysia (Federation of Malaya Boy Scouts Association) was formed. Persekutuan Budak-Budak Pengakap Malaysia was renamed the Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia (Scouts Association of Malaysia).

title: Scouting and Guiding in Malaysia


text:
User:Doug Danner

Myself
Hi,

My name is Doug Danner, and I'm a software engineer. I'm intereseted in History and Politics.

I intend to work on enforcing accuracy in articles relating to the middle east (See: CAMERA for more details.) There are too many contributors that will simply inject propaganda into this site. Either provide a link from a credible source, or keep your theories to yourself.

I'm proudly a Zionist, and believe in the right of Jews to live and take refuge in Israel. I also support the creation of a Palestinian state, and hope that the conflict resolves itself justly through negotiations.

I believe that the greatest obstacle for a negotiated solution to the conflict lays in militant extremism - that of Jewish settlers and to a greater extent Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. I don't see this sort of Islamic terrorism as legitimate militancy as it strives for the destruction of Israel and the murder and expultion of it's citizens. They're hardly partners for peace. For all of those dellusional people who believe that they're just a reaction to Isreal please note that bus bombings etc' started in 1994 while the Oslo process was still in its euphoric phase. If anything, the success of Israel in defeating suicide bombings in 2004 has shown that applying military pressure to these organizations works, and that there is little reason to capitulate to their brutality. However, the non terrorist majority of both nations deserves a peace deal.

I'm pretty optimistic right now regarding a negotiated solutions. Newly elected PA chariman Mahmud Abbas has recently shown that contrary to the old Arafat hoax, it is possible to enforce law and order, even before Israeli concessions are made. So now after the calculated Arafat recklessnes of handing out weapons to anyone and everyone it's possible to reverse the endless chaos simply by insisting that there is only one legitimate force in Palestinian territory. In Israel Ariel Sharon has finally seriously butted heads with his former protectorate - the settler movement. It seems like the time where 200,000 dictate the future of 6 million is coming to an end in Israel.

Finally, I'm all for a solution such as the National Census or the Geneva Accord.

A note about the Beslan Massacre
As a father I'm absolutely disgusted and depressed by this event. It's a testament to inhumanity and stupidity. I don't really understand how Chechens and their extremist muslim arab allies believe that this will help their quest for indipendence. It did nothing other than expose their ture face and rob them of any positive PR.

Just as a reminder, we've seen this before - the Maalot massacre in which Palestinian terrorists held hostage then murdered 21 high school children in Israel.

Contributions
Here are the articles I've done significant work on:
 * History of Lebanon
 * Hezbollah
 * Taif Agreement and Taif Agreement
 * UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and UN Security Council Resolution 1559
 * UN Security Council Resolution 1583 and UN Security Council Resolution 1583
 * Israeli Embassy Attack in London
 * Blue Line (Lebanon)
 * Shebaa Farms
 * UN Security Council Resolution 1566
 * UN Security Council Resolution 1373
 * UN Security Council Resolution 425
 * Leon Pinsker, Auto-Emancipation and Auto-Emancipation

Articles that I've done minor work on:
 * AMIA Bombing
 * Operation Litani
 * List of terrorist incidents
 * Syria
 * Anti-Zionism

Media Accuracy

 * CAMERA: Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
 * Honest Reporting
 * ADL
 * Casualty Statistics: Lebanon War - Note that 55% were military personnal killed, and of the civillian portion the PLO did its share by shelling Christian neighborhoods.
 * Myths & Facts: The Lebanon War
 * Reuters challenged on 'terrorist' policy WorldNet Daily, September 22, 2004
 * 1,017 Israelis killed in intifada Ha'aretz, September 27, 2004

News

 * Ha'artez Daily
 * UN rebukes Lebanon over Har Dov Reuters January 29, 2005
 * Palestinian periodical reprints Israeli critique of militants Amira Haas, Ha'aretz, October 5, 2004
 * UNRWA chief Peter Hansen 'sure' Hamas members on payroll Ha'aretz, October 4, 2004
 * Powell says Palestinian uprising should end Ha'aretz, Sep 30, 2004
 * Shalom urges UN to end its obsession with Israel Shlomo Shamir, Ha'aretz, September 23, 2004
 * Iranian arrested photographing Israeli Embassy in Azerbaijan Amos Harel and Yossi Melman, Ha'aretz, September 20, 2004
 * Kidnapped soldiers' families set to sue Hezbollah, Iran, the UN Tsahar Rotem, Ha'aretz, September 18, 2004
 * Israeli city says barrier is 'working' James Reynolds, BBC, September 14, 2004
 * Hezbollah among hosts of anti-globalization, anti-war conference Nathan Guttman, Haaretz, September 14, 2004
 * EU opposed to more talks on fence at UN Shlomo Shamir, Ha'aretz, September 14, 2004
 * Arab journalist attacks radical Islam Magdi Abdelhadi, BBC, September 7, 2004
 * US draft resolution at UN demands respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, AFP, September 2, 2004
 * UN Press Release SC/8181 UN, September 2, 2004 (UNSCR 1559)

Op-Eds

 * Events in Lebanon may change U.S. regional behavior, Eyal Zisser, March 24, 2005
 * Is this what you call democracy? Yoel Marcus, Ha'aretz, March 5, 2005
 * The indirect message of Mahmoud Abbas Ze'ev Schiff, Ha'aretz, February 2, 2005

 * An unholy alliance Yoel Marcus, Ha'aretz, January 28, 2005
 * Cautious French feelers Avirama Golan, Ha'aretz, October 19, 2004
 * The PLO still sees a single state Avraham Tal, Ha'aretz, October 15, 2004
 * Not South Africa, but southern Syria Alexander Yakobson, Ha'aretz, October 10, 2004
 * Moral norms, even in war Ze'ev Schiff, Ha'aretz, October 7, 2004
 * Keep Qassams out of the W. Bank Ze'ev Schiff, Ha'aretz, October 6, 2004
 * Get down from the roof, you crazies Yoel Marcus, Ha'aretz, October 5, 2004
 * The war that Palestine couldn't lose - and did Bradley Burston, Ha'aretz, October 1, 2004
 * Why I changed my mind Uri Avnery, Ha'aretz, September 24, 2004
 * Letting go for the sake of life Sami Michael, Ha'aretz, September 24, 2004
 * Only if he comes to Jerusalem Aluf Benn, Ha'aretz, September 15, 2004
 * He took terror to task Ari Shavit, Ha'aretz, September 15, 2004
 * Hizballah and Syria's "Lebanese Card" Nicholas Blanford, Middle East Online Report, September 14, 2004
 * We saw the signs already in 1994 Avi Beker, Ha'aretz, September 7, 2004
 * On terror and hypocrisy Yoel Marcus, Ha'aretz, September 7, 2004
 * A Lebanese lesson Ha'aretz, September 5, 2004

Other

 * The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule dhimmitude.org
 * The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky By Keith Windschuttle
 * A disgraceful career By Keith Windschuttle
 * Chomping Chomsky: Debunking a Left-wing icon. By Clara Magram

title: User:Doug Danner


text:
User talk:Ushishir

Hello "Ushishir" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

I'm glad to see someone else interested in ancient Mesoamerica contributing! Please note the article that "Maya" links to is a disambiguation page; the link you need in this context is Maya civilization. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 11:10, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Sign talk page entries with ~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
 * If you have any questions, see Help, or you can a question to the village pump.
 * I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

Thanks for the tips :) Ushishir 12:34, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ushishir


text:
Acheron River (Marlborough)

The Acheron River is a river in the South Island of New Zealand, in Marlborough and flows into the Waiau Toa / Clarence River. It flows southwest and then east for a total of 76 km, joining the Waiau Toa / Clarence at the southern end of the Inland Kaikōura mountains. The Alma and Severn Rivers flow into the Acheron before it joins the Waiau Toa / Clarence.

title: Acheron River (Marlborough)


text:
Châteaux of the Loire Valley

The châteaux of the Loire Valley (châteaux de la Loire) are part of the architectural heritage of the historic towns of Amboise, Angers, Blois, Chinon, Montsoreau, Orléans, Saumur, and Tours along the river Loire in France. They illustrate Renaissance ideals of design in France.

The châteaux of the Loire Valley number over three hundred, ranging from practical fortified castles from the 10th century to splendid residences built half a millennium later. When the French kings began constructing their huge châteaux in the Loire Valley, the nobility, drawn to the seat of power, followed suit, attracting the finest architects and landscape designers. The châteaux and their surrounding gardens are cultural monuments which embody the ideals of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Many of the châteaux were built on hilltops, such as the Château d'Amboise, while the only one built in the riverbed is the Château de Montsoreau. Many had exquisite churches on the grounds or within the château.

History
With the Hundred Years' War concluded, Charles VII, Louis XI, and their successors preferred to spend the bulk of their time in the "garden of France" along the banks of the Loire. In the late 15th century Tours, then Blois, and later Amboise became the preferred locations of the French royal court. Many courtiers bought dilapidated castles built by the medieval Counts of Blois and of Anjou, and they had them reconstructed in the latest Italianate fashion. Leonardo da Vinci and other Italian artists arrived to design and beautify these residences.

In the 16th century, Francis I moved his main residence back to the Louvre, in Paris. With him went the great architects, but the Loire Valley continued to be the place where French royalty preferred to spend their time when not in the capital. Toward the end of the 17th century, Louis XIV made the Île-de-France the permanent locale for great royal residences when he built the Palace of Versailles. Nonetheless, those who gained the king's favour, as well as the wealthy bourgeoisie, continued to renovate existing châteaux or build lavish new ones in the Loire Valley as summer residences.

The French Revolution saw a number of the great châteaux destroyed and many ransacked, their treasures stolen. The overnight impoverishment of many French noble families, usually after one of their members lost his or her head to the guillotine, saw many châteaux demolished. During World War I and World War II, various chateaux were commandeered as military headquarters. Some of these continued to be so used after the end of World War II.

Today, the remaining privately owned châteaux serve as homes and some of them open their doors to tourists, while others operate as hotels or bed-and-breakfasts. Many others have been taken over by local governments, and the grandest, like those at Chambord, are owned and operated by the national government and are major tourist sites, attracting hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.

List of châteaux of the Loire
Though there may be no universally accepted definition for the designation, the main criterion is that the château must be situated close to the Loire or one of its tributaries (such as the Maine, Cher, Indre, Creuse or Loir). Châteaux further upstream than Gien are generally not included, with the possible exception of the Bastie d'Urfé for its historical significance.

title: Châteaux of the Loire Valley


text:
MDL

MDL may refer to:

Computing

 * Fayyad & Irani's MDL method, a discretization method
 * MDL (programming language), derived from LISP
 * The extension for Valve's Source, Source 2 and ID Software's IDTech game engines proprietary model file format
 * Microsoft Design Language, a design language created by Microsoft
 * Minimum description length, a principle for inductive inference in information theory

Locations

 * Mazagon Dock Limited, an Indian shipyard
 * Military Demarcation Line, a truce border line between North and South Korea
 * Museum of Dartmoor Life, Oakhampton, Devon, England
 * IATA airport code for Mandalay International Airport

Other

 * Method Detection limit of a chemical substance
 * Mobile driver's license, a mobile app that replaces a physical driver's license
 * MDL Information Systems, company formerly named "Molecular Design Limited"
 * Moldovan leu, the currency of Moldova
 * Multidistrict Litigation, US consolidation of complex litigation
 * Roman numeral for 1550
 * Might Delete Later, 2024 mixtape by J. Cole

title: MDL


text:
Ada River (New Zealand)

The Ada River is a minor river in Canterbury in the South Island of New Zealand.

The headwaters are in the Spenser Mountains. The river flows east for 10 km before flowing into the Waiau Uwha River.

title: Ada River (New Zealand)