text:
JT Group Limited

JT Group Limited (doing business as JT) is the parent company of several subsidiaries including Jersey Telecom Limited and Wave Telecom Limited. Jersey Telecom is the former monopoly operator in the Bailiwick of Jersey. JT provides telecommunications, Internet access and other services, mostly within the Channel Islands.

History
In 1972 legislation was passed in Jersey, which led the States of Jersey to take over the country's telephone exchanges from the British Post Office. A state monopoly was formed through the Telecommunications Board in 1973, and remained under state control until 2003, when the market was opened to competition. In 2002 JT was granted licences by the Office of Utility Regulation to operate fixed and mobile telecommunications services to, from and within the Bailiwick of Guernsey and was known as Wave Telecom. The following year in 2003, Jersey Telecom became a private company, though it remained under 100% ownership by the States.

In 2006 the States of Jersey Council of Ministers proposed the sale of JT Limited. In 2008, following comments in the Scrutiny report and market uncertainty, the Minister for Treasury and Resources decided to withdraw the proposition. In November 2006 JT then announced that it was to install a new high capacity optical submarine cable from Dartmouth to L'Ancresse Bay on the north west tip of Guernsey. In 2009 Graeme Millar, formerly Chief Commercial Officer of Mobile TeleSystems, the Russian mobile operator, became the CEO of JT.

In April 2010 JT relaunched its Next Generation Networking (NGN) programme which had run into technical difficulties the previous autumn. In September 2011, Jersey Telecom changed its name to JT. The following year, in 2012, JT acquired Worldstone. In September 2014, JT began work on a £12m 4G network in Jersey. The first masts went live in February 2015 and full Island coverage was reached three months later. On 28 March 2014 JT partnered with Fon and the service became available to JT broadband subscribers connected to fibre in 2016.

Digital sandbox
In 2018 JT began partnering with Sony in order to test its newly developed Low-Power, Wide-Area Wireless Network (LPWAN) technology, for use in the Internet of Things where low speed data links are utilized. That year JT also partnered with ZTE to bring a 5G network to the Channel islands. Both deals are a part of JT's and Jersey's role as a "digital sandbox", for testing new telecommunications technologies. That year JT was named Digital Company of the Year award at the Jersey TechAwards.

Wave Telecom
JT Group has operated in the Bailiwick of Guernsey since 2002 through the subsidiary company "Wave Telecom Limited", a wholly owned subsidiary of the JT Group, which was later renamed JT with the rest of the company's properties.

JT Fibre
JT Fibre is a fibre to the home service, was initiated with a budget of £41.5m with £20m provided by the States of Jersey. The first homes were connected in February 2012. The project ran into difficulties in 2013 due to a dispute between JT and contractors and JT established a new subsidiary to take the programme forward. In November 2015, JT admitted that the project was behind schedule and could finish three years after its 2016 completion deadline. In January 2017, JT announced that the work was 70% complete. The project was delayed as the result of services having to be provided to additional new homes that had been built since the project began.

In 2018, JT announced that thanks to the completion of its full-fibre network, Jersey had become the first jurisdiction in the world where 100 percent of broadband users were on its fibre network. The JT Fibre project began in 2012 with a budget of £41.5m, of which £20m was provided by the Government of Jersey. The first properties were connected in February 2012, but the project ran into difficulties with JT defending the progress after criticism in the States Assembly. JT has laid over 3,000 km of individual fibre-optic cable to over 45,000 homes and businesses providing access, regardless of means, to the whole Island.

In January 2020, JT announced it was doubling broadband speeds from 250 Mbit/s to 500 Mbit/s for all subscribers. In March, following discussions with Digital Jersey and other telecom operators, JT increased speeds to 1 Gbit/s at no extra cost as part of measures to contain the spread of COVID-19.

As of 2021, JT has the fastest network in the world.

IoT
JT sold a majority stake in its Internet of Things business in June 2021 to family-backed private equity firm Perwyn. The business continues to operate from Jersey as Velos IoT.

Partnerships and international business
In 2019, JT signed a partnership with Speednet Communications, the leading mobile network provider in Belize. The deal meant JT would provide a fully managed roaming service using its existing 2G, 3G and 4G roaming connectivity. The partnership added to JT's already wide roaming network that has access to over 700 networks around the world.

JT upgraded its mobile network to be able to cope with future demands and technologies by signing a deal with ECI to upgrade its optical network.

JT Lab
JT Lab provides facilities for the trial and testing of telecoms related products in small-scale and live environments. JT Group is regulated by the Channel Islands Competition and Regulatory Authorities.

Gigabit Isles
In the early 2010s, JT created the Gigabit Isles project, in order to spread access to FTTP broadband to the full population if the Isles region, at various data rates.

5G
Along with other mobile operators, JT has taken part in limited trials of 5G at two test sites, one in Jersey and the other Guernsey. Roll out of 5G is dependent on licences being issued by the telecoms regulator, the JCRA.

Profits
In 2019, JT returned £17m in dividends to the Government of Jersey's Treasury, which was in line with previous years. However, the Jersey Evening Post reported a fall in profits which JT's CEO Graeme Millar explained was down to higher operating costs and investment in major projects and developments. In 2018, profits after tax were £2.2m, a drop of more than half. JT said cutting roaming charges had hit revenue and it had been expensive to increase the number of broadband users on unlimited contracts.

title: JT Group Limited


text:
User:Aiksy

I have just joined the community and hope to be of some help here. My main areas of interest include history, literature and computers. I reside in Warsaw, Poland. <--A question to admins: ''A registered with the 'Aiksy' login name, but would much rather prefer to be identified as 'Aiks' - this is my login for most other projects I contribute to. If the login 'Aiks' does not belong to anyone at the moment but just 'takes up space'(it does not show any contributions), I would very much like claiming it! But if this is not possible, I will understand, of course!'' -->

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

title: User:Aiksy


text:
Encyclopédie Méthodique

The Encyclopédie méthodique par ordre des matières (lit. 'Methodical Encyclopedia by Order of Subject Matter') was published between 1782 and 1832 by the French publisher Charles Joseph Panckoucke, his son-in-law Henri Agasse, and the latter's wife, Thérèse-Charlotte Agasse. Arranged by disciplines, it was a revised and much expanded version, in roughly 210 to 216 volumes (different sets were bound differently), of the alphabetically arranged Encyclopédie, edited by Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert. The full title was L'Encyclopédie méthodique ou par ordre de matières par une société de gens de lettres, de savants et d'artistes; précédée d'un vocabulaire universel, servant de table pour tout l'ouvrage, ornée des portraits de MM. Diderot et d'Alembert, premiers éditeurs de l'Encyclopédie.

Development
Two sets of Diderot's Encyclopédie and its supplements were cut up into articles. Each subject category was entrusted to a specialized editor, whose job was to collect all articles relating to his subject and exclude those belonging to others. Great care was to be taken of those articles that were of a doubtful nature, which were not to be omitted. For certain topics, such as air (which belonged equally to chemistry, physics and medicine), the methodical arrangement had the unexpected effect of breaking up a single article into several parts. Each volume was to have its own introduction, a table of contents, and a history of the Encyclopédie. The whole work was to be linked together by a Vocabulaire universel (Vol. 1 – 4), with references to all locations where each word appears.

The prospectus, issued early in 1782, proposed three editions, each with seven volumes of 250 to 300 plates:
 * 84 volumes;
 * 43 volumes, with 3 columns per page; and
 * 53 volumes of about 100 sheets, with 2 columns per page.

Subscription was priced at:
 * 672 livres from the March 15 to July 1782
 * 751 livres from August 1782 to March 1783; and
 * 888 livres after April 1783.

The livraisons (home-deliveries) were to be in two volumes each, the first (Jurisprudence, Vol. 1; Literature, Vol. 1,) to appear in July 1782, and the whole to be finished by 1787. The number of subscribers, 4072, was so great that the subscription list for the price of 672 livres was closed on April 30. Twenty-five printing offices were employed, and in November 1782, the first livraison (Jurisprudence, Vol. 1; and half volume each of Arts et métiers and Histoire naturelle) was issued.

A Spanish prospectus was sent out and obtained 330 Spanish subscribers, with the inquisitor-general at their head.

The complaints of the subscribers and his own heavy advances of over 150,000 livres induced Panckoucke, in November 1788, to appeal to the authors to finish the work. Those who were behind made new contracts, giving their word of honor to put their parts to press by 1788, so that Panckoucke hoped to finish the whole, including the Vocabulaire universel (4 or 5 vols.) by 1792.

Entire topics such as architecture, engineering, hunting, police, and games had been overlooked in the prospectus. A new division was made in 44 parts, to contain 51 dictionaries, and about 124 volumes. Permission was obtained on February 27, 1789 to receive subscriptions for separate dictionaries. Two thousand subscribers were lost in the French Revolution.

The 50th livraison appeared on July 23, 1792, by which time all the dictionaries eventually published had been begun except for seven: Jeux familiers and mathématiques, physics, Art oratoire, physical geography, Chasses and Pèches. On the other hand, eighteen volumes were now finished: Mathématics, games, surgery, ancient and modern geography, history, theology, logic, grammar, jurisprudence, finance, political economy, commerce, marine, military science, academic art, arts and crafts, and Encyclopédiana. Of the three parts of Assemblée Nationale: only volume 2, i.e. "Debates", appeared in 1792, with 804 pages (Absens to Aurillac). Supplements were added to military art in 1797, and to history in 1807, but not to any of the other 16, despite many changes in knowledge by 1832.
 * the History of the Revolution;
 * Debates; and
 * Laws and Decrees;

The publication was continued by Henri Agasse, Panckoucke's son-in-law, from 1794 to 1813, and then by the latter's widow, Mme Agasse, until 1832, when it was completed in 102 livraisons or 337 parts, forming roughly 166½ volumes of text (depending on how the parts were bound) as well as 51 illustrated parts containing 6,439 plates. The number of pages totalled 124,210 pages, of which 5,458 pages were plates. To save money, the plates belonging to architecture were not published. Pharmacy (separated from chemistry), minerals, education, Ponts et chausses were not published as had been announced.

Many dictionaries have a classed index of articles. The one in Oeconomie politique is an excellent example, giving the contents of each article, so that any passage can be found easily.

When "completed," the encyclopedia suffered at least one great weakness. As the Vocabulaire Universel, the key and index to the entire work, was not published, it was difficult to carry out any research or to find all the articles on any particular subject. The original parts had often been subdivided, and had been so added onto by other dictionaries, supplements, and appendices that an exact account could not be given of the work, which contained 88 alphabets, 83 indexes, 166 introductions, discourses, prefaces, etc. Overall, probably no more an unmanageable body of dictionaries has ever been published, except Jacques Paul Migne's Encyclopédie théologique, Paris, 1844–1875, with 168 volumes, 101 dictionaries, and 119,059 pages.

The Encyclopédie méthodique par ordre des matières occupied a thousand workers in production, and 2,250 contributors.

Translations
Ten volumes of a Spanish translation with a volume of plates were published at Madrid in 1806:
 * Historia natural, Vol. 1-2
 * Grammatica, Vol. 1
 * Arte militar, Vol. 1-2
 * Geografia, Vol. 1-3
 * Fabricas, Vol. 1-2
 * Plates, Vol. 1

A French edition was printed at Padua, with the plates, very carefully engraved.

Details of encyclopedia format
The division adopted was:

The largest dictionaries were:
 * Zoology: 13,645 pages, 1206 plates (7 vols.);
 * Botany: 12,002 pages, 1,000 plates (34 only of cryptogamic plants);
 * Medicine: 10,330 pages (13 vols.);
 * Geography: 9,090 pages, 193 maps and plates (3 vols. and 2 atlases);
 * Jurisprudence (with police and municipalities): 7,607 pages (10 vols.); and
 * Anatomy (not a dictionary but a series of systematic treatises): 2,866 pages (4 vols.).

Partial list of contributors

 * Jean Guillaume Audinet-Serville (insects)
 * Pierre Joseph Bonnaterre (cetaceans, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects)
 * Jean-Nicolas Démeunier (U.S.A)
 * Antoine-François Fourcroy (insects)
 * Félix Édouard Guérin-Méneville (insects)
 * Jean Baptiste Godart (insects)
 * Christian Hee Hwass (molluscs)
 * Thomas Jefferson (U.S.A)
 * Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (botany)
 * Philippe Petit-Radel (surgery)
 * Philippe-Isidore Picot de Lapeyrouse (birds)
 * Guillaume-Antoine Olivier (insects)
 * Pierre André Latreille (invertebrates, insects)
 * Amédée Louis Michel le Peletier, comte de Saint-Fargeau (insects)
 * Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau (chemistry)
 * Antoine Chrysostome Quatremère de Quincy (architecture)
 * Jean-Marie Roland, vicomte de la Platière (commerce)
 * Jacques de Sève artwork
 * Jacques-André Naigeon

title: Encyclopédie Méthodique


text:
South Kentish Town tube station

South Kentish Town is a disused London Underground station located in Kentish Town, north London, on the branch of the Northern line.

It was opened in 1907 by the Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway but closed in 1924 due to low passenger usage. Latterly, it was on what is now the Northern line's High Barnet branch between Camden Town and Kentish Town stations. The surface building survives on Kentish Town Road near its junction with Castle Road and is currently a retail unit.

History
South Kentish Town station was opened on 22 June 1907 by the Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway (CCE&HR) on its branch to Highgate (now Archway). The station was planned to be called Castle Road; however, this was changed just before it opened. The Castle Road name had already been fired into the original Leslie Green tiles inside the station, so after the name change they were painted over with the revised name.

On 20 April 1924, trains of the City & South London Railway began to call at the station as the connection between the CCE&HR and C&SLR at allowed the C&SLR to extend its services northwards along the CCE&HR's northern branches. This situation would only last for seven weeks. The station was temporarily closed following unofficial strike action at Lots Road Power Station during the afternoon of 5 June 1924. It was decided not to re-open the station after the power was restored, due to the very low number of passengers using it; in fact, since as early as 1908 some trains did not stop there. During the Blitz in the Second World War it was adapted for use as an air-raid shelter.

There have been occasional proposals to rebuild the platforms and the station as part of the redevelopment plans for Camden Town. The layout of South Kentish Town is similar to Kentish Town (also originally a CCE&HR station); with two 23 ft diameter lift-shafts and an 18 ft diameter spiral staircase. South Kentish Town now serves as an access point for permanent way works and as an emergency egress point for passenger services.

A 1951 short story called South Kentish Town by John Betjeman told the fictional story of a passenger who became trapped in the disused station. It was based on a true incident where a train stopped at the station and mistakenly opened its doors, but in reality nobody became trapped.

As of 2016, the station building housed a retail unit and a yoga studio. From 2021, it contained three escape rooms themed to its heritage as both a former Underground station (with the aforementioned John Betjeman story being a crucial plot point) and a World War 2 air-raid shelter.

 * Note: this template is wrong. For the 1907 former service, please read Hampstead instead of Northern, with a violet colour instead of black.

title: South Kentish Town tube station


text:
The Sun Sessions

The Sun Sessions is a compilation album by American singer Elvis Presley, issued by RCA Records in 1976. The album contains Presley's earliest commercial recordings, made in Memphis, Tennessee for Sun Records in 1954 and 1955. RCA issued the album in the UK in 1975 under the title The Sun Collection. The album features liner notes by Roy Carr of the New Musical Express. The Sun Sessions features most of the tracks Elvis recorded for Sun Records and produced by Sam Phillips, the head of Sun Studios. The Sun Sessions reached number two on the Billboard Country Albums and number 1 on the Cashbox Country Albums charts.

In 2002, The Sun Sessions was chosen by the National Recording Registry of the Library of Congress to be included in its archives given their importance to the development of American popular music. In 2003, the album was ranked number 11 on Rolling Stone 's list of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, although its place in future revisions of the list was supplanted by Sunrise, a similar, larger compilation. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll included two tracks from the album: "Mystery Train" and "That's All Right."

Recording
The album features most of the tracks Elvis recorded at Sun studio and were produced by Sam Phillips, the head of Sun Studios. Elvis began his singing career with Sun Records label in Memphis. Phillips signed Presley after hearing a song that he had recorded for his mother on his birthday.

Phillips said that Presley was rehearsing with his band, Scotty Moore and Bill Black, when Presley started singing the song, a blues song written by Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup. Phillips said that the version of the song was what he was looking for when he signed Presley, and turned the tape recorder on.

Elvis recorded more than 20 songs at Sun, including some private recordings. Of these, 15 appear on this album.

Missing songs:
 * "Harbor Lights"
 * "Tomorrow Night"
 * "When It Rains, It Really Pours"
 * "I Got a Woman" (tape lost)
 * "Satisfied" (tape lost)
 * The earlier private recordings

In 1987, RCA Records released The Complete Sun Sessions which included all 15 tracks previously issued on  The Sun Sessions plus "Harbor Lights", "Tomorrow Night", "When It Rains, It Really Pours", and 14 other outtakes. Although the album claims to contain the Complete Sun recordings, the collection was still missing "I Got a Woman", "Satisfied" and the earlier private recordings.

Commercial performance
The Sun Sessions was released in March 1976 and reached No. 76 on the pop and No. 2 on the country charts.

The single "Baby, Let's Play House" combined with "I'm Left, You're Right, She's Gone" reached No. 5 on the country charts in 1955. Aware that Elvis was rapidly building a reputation for his live performances, RCA Victor bought out Presley's contract with Sun Records for $35,000.

The single "That's All Right" did not chart in the US when released in 1954, and it was never issued as a single in Great Britain during Presley's lifetime. In 2004, the song became the focus of attention when it was the subject of a great deal of publicity because of the 50-year anniversary. There was a special ceremony on July 6, 2004, featuring Isaac Hayes, Justin Timberlake and Scotty Moore which was beamed live to 1200 radio stations. The song went top five in the UK and Canada and also charted in Australia. The Sun Sessions was also re-released in 2004 (in Japan only) to celebrate the anniversary.

Reception and legacy
After The Sun Sessions was released, Village Voice critic Robert Christgau hailed The Sun Sessions as "the rock reissue of the year", writing in that along with Chuck Berry's Golden Decade, its songs represented the wellspring of rock music. He later included it in his "basic record library" of essential albums from the 1950s and 1960s, published in Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies (1981).

In 2003, the albums 1999 extended 2CD reissue was ranked No. 11 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time, maintaining the rating in a 2012 revised list, and dropping to number 78 in the 2020 reboot of the list. In 2001, the TV channel VH1 named it the 21st greatest album of all time. Music scholar Michael Campbell called it "quintessential rockabilly" with Presley's voice "the magical element" drawing on country and rhythm and blues but confined to neither, while AllMusic critic Cub Koda said "what we ultimately have here is a young Elvis Presley, mixing elements of blues, gospel and hillbilly music together and getting ready to unleash its end result – rock & roll – on an unsuspecting world."

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll included two tracks from the album: "Mystery Train" and "That's All Right." In 2002, The Sun Sessions were chosen by the National Recording Registry of the Library of Congress to be included in its archives given their importance to the development of American popular music. This album is the very first Elvis album to feature "I Don't Care If The Sun Don't Shine", which was only previously issued as a single. After more than 20 years, The Sun Sessions marked the song's official debut on LP.

Track listing
Note
 * The last six tracks are original Sun recordings, but were not issued until 1956 on Presley's first album for RCA Victor. They were never released on the Sun label.

Personnel

 * Elvis Presley – vocals, acoustic guitar, piano on "Trying to Get to You"
 * Scotty Moore – electric guitar
 * Bill Black – double bass
 * Jimmie Lott – drums on "I'm Left, You're Right, She's Gone" (erroneously attributed to D.J. Fontana)
 * Johnny Bernero – drums on "I Forgot to Remember to Forget" and "Trying to Get to You" (erroneously attributed to D.J. Fontana)

title: The Sun Sessions


text:
Master equation

In physics, chemistry, and related fields, master equations are used to describe the time evolution of a system that can be modeled as being in a probabilistic combination of states at any given time, and the switching between states is determined by a transition rate matrix. The equations are a set of differential equations – over time – of the probabilities that the system occupies each of the different states.

The name was proposed in 1940: "When the probabilities of the elementary processes are known, one can write down a continuity equation for W, from which all other equations can be derived and which we will call therefore the 'master” equation."

Introduction
A master equation is a phenomenological set of first-order differential equations describing the time evolution of (usually) the probability of a system to occupy each one of a discrete set of states with regard to a continuous time variable t. The most familiar form of a master equation is a matrix form: $$ \frac{d\vec{P}}{dt} = \mathbf{A}\vec{P},$$ where $$\vec{P}$$ is a column vector, and $$\mathbf{A}$$ is the matrix of connections. The way connections among states are made determines the dimension of the problem; it is either
 * a d-dimensional system (where d is 1,2,3,...), where any state is connected with exactly its 2d nearest neighbors, or
 * a network, where every pair of states may have a connection (depending on the network's properties).

When the connections are time-independent rate constants, the master equation represents a kinetic scheme, and the process is Markovian (any jumping time probability density function for state i is an exponential, with a rate equal to the value of the connection). When the connections depend on the actual time (i.e. matrix $$\mathbf{A}$$ depends on the time, $$\mathbf{A}\rightarrow\mathbf{A}(t)$$ ), the process is not stationary and the master equation reads $$ \frac{d\vec{P}}{dt} = \mathbf{A}(t)\vec{P}.$$

When the connections represent multi exponential jumping time probability density functions, the process is semi-Markovian, and the equation of motion is an integro-differential equation termed the generalized master equation: $$ \frac{d\vec{P}}{dt}= \int^t_0 \mathbf{A}(t- \tau )\vec{P}( \tau ) \, d \tau. $$

The matrix $$\mathbf{A}$$ can also represent birth and death, meaning that probability is injected (birth) or taken from (death) the system, and then the process is not in equilibrium.

Detailed description of the matrix and properties of the system
Let $$\mathbf{A}$$ be the matrix describing the transition rates (also known as kinetic rates or reaction rates). As always, the first subscript represents the row, the second subscript the column. That is, the source is given by the second subscript, and the destination by the first subscript. This is the opposite of what one might expect, but is appropriate for conventional matrix multiplication.

For each state k, the increase in occupation probability depends on the contribution from all other states to k, and is given by: $$ \sum_\ell A_{k\ell}P_\ell, $$ where $$ P_\ell $$ is the probability for the system to be in the state $$ \ell $$, while the matrix $$\mathbf{A}$$ is filled with a grid of transition-rate constants. Similarly, $$P_k$$ contributes to the occupation of all other states $$ P_\ell, $$ $$ \sum_\ell A_{\ell k}P_k, $$

In probability theory, this identifies the evolution as a continuous-time Markov process, with the integrated master equation obeying a Chapman–Kolmogorov equation.

The master equation can be simplified so that the terms with ℓ = k do not appear in the summation. This allows calculations even if the main diagonal of $$\mathbf{A}$$ is not defined or has been assigned an arbitrary value. $$ \frac{dP_k}{dt} = \sum_\ell(A_{k\ell}P_\ell) = \sum_{\ell\neq k}(A_{k\ell}P_\ell) + A_{kk}P_k = \sum_{\ell\neq k}(A_{k\ell}P_\ell - A_{\ell k}P_k). $$

The final equality arises from the fact that $$ \sum_{\ell, k}(A_{\ell k}P_k) = \frac{d}{dt} \sum_\ell(P_{\ell}) = 0 $$ because the summation over the probabilities $$ P_{\ell} $$ yields one, a constant function. Since this has to hold for any probability $$\vec{P}$$ (and in particular for any probability of the form $$ P_{\ell} = \delta_{\ell k}$$ for some k) we get $$ \sum_{\ell}(A_{\ell k}) =  0 \qquad \forall k.$$ Using this we can write the diagonal elements as $$ A_{kk} = -\sum_{\ell\neq k}(A_{\ell k}) \Rightarrow A_{kk} P_k = -\sum_{\ell\neq k}(A_{\ell k} P_k) .$$

The master equation exhibits detailed balance if each of the terms of the summation disappears separately at equilibrium—i.e. if, for all states k and ℓ having equilibrium probabilities $$\pi_k$$ and $$\pi_\ell$$, $$A_{k \ell} \pi_\ell = A_{\ell k} \pi_k .$$

These symmetry relations were proved on the basis of the time reversibility of microscopic dynamics (microscopic reversibility) as Onsager reciprocal relations.

Examples of master equations
Many physical problems in classical, quantum mechanics and problems in other sciences, can be reduced to the form of a master equation, thereby performing a great simplification of the problem (see mathematical model).

The Lindblad equation in quantum mechanics is a generalization of the master equation describing the time evolution of a density matrix. Though the Lindblad equation is often referred to as a master equation, it is not one in the usual sense, as it governs not only the time evolution of probabilities (diagonal elements of the density matrix), but also of variables containing information about quantum coherence between the states of the system (non-diagonal elements of the density matrix).

Another special case of the master equation is the Fokker–Planck equation which describes the time evolution of a continuous probability distribution. Complicated master equations which resist analytic treatment can be cast into this form (under various approximations), by using approximation techniques such as the system size expansion.

Stochastic chemical kinetics provide yet another example of the use of the master equation. A master equation may be used to model a set of chemical reactions when the number of molecules of one or more species is small (of the order of 100 or 1000 molecules). The chemical master equation can also solved for the very large models, such as the DNA damage signal from fungal pathogen Candida albicans.

Quantum master equations
A quantum master equation is a generalization of the idea of a master equation. Rather than just a system of differential equations for a set of probabilities (which only constitutes the diagonal elements of a density matrix), quantum master equations are differential equations for the entire density matrix, including off-diagonal elements. A density matrix with only diagonal elements can be modeled as a classical random process, therefore such an "ordinary" master equation is considered classical. Off-diagonal elements represent quantum coherence which is a physical characteristic that is intrinsically quantum mechanical.

The Redfield equation and Lindblad equation are examples of approximate quantum master equations assumed to be Markovian. More accurate quantum master equations for certain applications include the polaron transformed quantum master equation, and the VPQME (variational polaron transformed quantum master equation).

Theorem about eigenvalues of the matrix and time evolution
Because $$\mathbf{A}$$ fulfills $$ \sum_{\ell}A_{\ell k} = 0 \qquad \forall k$$ and $$ A_{\ell k} \geq 0 \qquad \forall \ell\neq k,$$ one can show that:
 * There is at least one eigenvector with a vanishing eigenvalue, exactly one if the graph of $$\mathbf{A}$$ is strongly connected.
 * All other eigenvalues $$ \lambda$$ fulfill $$ 0 > \operatorname{Re} \lambda \geq 2 \operatorname{min}_i A_{ii}$$.
 * All eigenvectors $$v$$ with a non-zero eigenvalue fulfill $ \sum_{i}v_{i} =  0$.

This has important consequences for the time evolution of a state.

title: Master equation


text:
Smith's longspur

Smith's longspur (Calcarius pictus) is a bird from the family Calcariidae, which also contains the other species of longspurs. A bird of open habitats, it breeds in northern Canada and Alaska, and winters in the southern United States. Primarily a ground-feeding seed-eater, it supplements its diet with insects in the summer.

Description
These birds have short cone-shaped bills, streaked backs, and dark tails with white outer rectrices. In breeding state plumage (mostly formed by worn basic plumage), the male has a pumpkin-orange throat, nape, and underparts contrasting with an intricate black-and-white face pattern. The white lesser coverts are quite pronounced on a male in spring and early summer. Females and immatures have lightly streaked buffy underparts, dark crowns, brown wings with less obvious white lesser coverts, and a light-colored face. The tail is identical at all ages.

Measurements:

 * Length: 5.9-6.7 in (15-17 cm)
 * Weight: 0.7-1.1 oz (20-32 g)
 * Wingspan: 25 cm

Distribution and habitat
This bird breeds in open grassy areas near the tree line in northern Canada and Alaska. In winter, they congregate in open fields, including airports, in the south-central United States. Migration is elliptical, with northbound birds staging in Illinois in the spring and southbound birds flying over the Great Plains in the fall.

Behavior
These birds nest in small colonies; males do not defend territory. The female lays three to five eggs in a grass cup nest on the ground. Both males and females may have more than one mate (polygynandry). The parents, one female and possibly more than one male, feed the young birds.

These birds forage on the ground, gathering in flocks outside of the nesting season. They mainly eat seeds, also eating insects in summer. Young birds are mainly fed insects.

The song is a sweet warble that is inflected at the end, somewhat reminiscent of the chestnut-sided warbler. The call is a dry rattle, like a shortened version of the call of a female brown-headed cowbird, noticeably drier than that of Lapland longspur.

Audubon named this bird after his friend Gideon B. Smith.

title: Smith's longspur


text:
Kristiansand Zoo and Amusement Park

The Kristiansand Zoo and Amusement Park (Kristiansand Dyrepark) is a zoological garden and amusement park situated in of Kristiansand, Norway. It is Norway's most frequently visited attraction, covering an area of 60 ha. Established in 1966, it has been owned by Braganza since 2004.

The Kristiansand Zoo and Amusement Park has Norway's largest collection of animals. It consists of over a hundred species of animals from around the world, that move freely on a relatively large area.

Amusement attractions include Cardamom Town (Kardemomme by), which is made to look like the town in the book by Thorbjørn Egner, and Captain Sabertooth and pirate village Abra Havn (Abra Harbor), which is taken from a theatre act by the singer and actor Terje Formoe.

History
The operating company was listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange in 1993. Ludv. G. Braathens Rederi became a partial owner in 1996. Its successor company Braganza gradually bought up shares until reaching a forty-percent stake in 2004. That year it made a successful deal to buy the entire company and the company was subsequently delisted.

The zoo
The zoo department of the park contains animals from different climate conditions, from all over the world. There are built own houses for animals that are sensitive to cold weather. Animals from the Nordic countries are located in a separate department. The collection of animals in the park is the largest in Norway and the animals have relatively large spaces to move around.

Animals

 * Nordic wilderness - Nordic animals like wolves, wolverines, Arctic foxes, lynxes and mooses.
 * Tropical department - area with snakes, crocodiles, tortoises and frogs. As well the chimpanzee Julius and many other apes in the trees.
 * Africa - African animals like zebras, cheetahs, ostriches and African wild dogs
 * Asia - Asian animals like Siberian tigers, leaf monkeys,orangutans, gibbons and red pandas.
 * Heia - Area that includes various types of flowers like daisies.
 * KuToppen - opened in 2009, this a area with regular Norwegian farm animals, based on the children's TV series with the same name.

Some of the animals in the zoo department (Gallery):

Cardemom Town
For those who know Thorbjørn Egner's story about the picturesque small town, it is very easy to recognize. The author has designed the small town as it appears. Here is the weather forecast tower, the robber's housing, police office with jail, bakery, small shops and a tram line with a singing tram driver. It is possible to sleep over in this part of the park. In the high season there are theatrical performances in Norwegian.

Captain Sabertooth World
In 1995 a Captain Sabertooth themed section of the Kristiansand Zoo and Amusement Park was opened. The area has a pirate village theme and contains various attractions, restaurants, and shops that are centered around the character. In the summer the park holds several shows and features, including one that allows guests to ride on Sabertooth's ship The Black Lady (in Norwegian: Den sorte dame).

Attractions

 * Kaptein Sabeltanns skattkammer, a small exhibition of treasures and weapons from the Captain Sabertooth stories.
 * Miriams forheksede hus and Grusomme Gabriels gang, two haunted house attractions.
 * Smokkariumet, a small room in the Captain Sabertooth castle where children that have stopped using pacifiers can place them in a coffin along with those left by others.
 * Sjøslag på Grashavet, a daily event where The Black Lady and the Countess will battle each other.

Restaurants

 * Sjørøvergrill, a pirate-themed grill restaurant located next to the Kaptein Sabeltanns skattkammer.
 * Piratproviant, a kiosk that serves hamburgers and french fries.
 * Pizzabakeriet, a sit-down pizza restaurant located in the Pirate Theater.
 * Kanelbakeriet, a bakery located within the pizza restaurant.
 * Hevnen er SØT, a small storefront that sells cotton candy, Ice cream and popcorn.

Shops

 * Havnehandelen, a port-themed shop that sells Sabertooth-themed merchandise.
 * Benjamins Bengalske Bazar, a shop that sells general pirate-themed merchandise.
 * Kaptein Sabeltanns Sjørøvermagasin, a shop that sells costumes.
 * Kapteinens Karibiske Marked, a shop that sells books and DVDs.
 * Maga Khans Marked, a shop that sells bags, hats, and other merchandise.

The pirate village

 * Abra Havn, a scenic pirate village surrounded by tall walls.
 * Accommodation in family apartments.

Badelandet water park
This water park is affiliated with the area, but it requires a separate ticket. Here are water slides in many varieties both indoor and outdoor, swimming pools and a separate beach. The water park is open from mid-May to mid-September.

title: Kristiansand Zoo and Amusement Park


text:
Talk:Scientology/Archive 1

Writer Beware
As in entries on like organizations such as The Local Church of Witness Lee and the Jehovah's Witnesses, no fair discussion can take place on this topic. If anyone dare edit this article, it will be swiftly and aggressively reverted to reflect only the official point of view of Scientology. Try it.

What darkness fears most is the bright light of day.

Hello 4.21.3.3, glad to see you dive right in.

However, in doing so, you've made a few boo-boos. First of all, you deleted a whole chunk of information. Perhaps you were considering moving it to another page? Not a bad idea, although in this case it would have helped to leave in a small synopsis. The secret teachings of Scientology appear to form an important part of this religion, and should at least be mentioned on its main article. Since the teachings of Scientology are said to be secret to its members, it helps to prepend a warning 'Wikipedia contains spoilers'.

Also, you replaced a couple of internal links with external ones. Generaly a different type of link is used for this: Like this. Also, since you link to biased sites, it would help if you mentioned the fact that those sites are biased, 'like so (pro-Scientology)'.

Third, you included information from a biased source. Although it cannot be helped that a source is biased, you should try and attribute the statement to its source. So rather than stating 'Scientology has grown in countries X, Y and Z', you could state 'Scientology claims to have grown in countries X, Y and Z in the 1990s'.

I'm sorry I have to criticize all you contributions so far, but I am sure you'll learn quickly and start making some great contributions shortly. I realise this must all seem like nitpicking, but please realise that the Church of Scientology, and anything related to it, is an extremely controversial subject, so it helps to be careful. Thanks for your help! branko

Wouldn't it be better to have separate entries for Scientology (the teachings and philosophy) and for the Chrurch of Scientology (the organization which claims ownership of all Scientology teachings)? There are many who value the teachings of Scientology, while being highly critical of what they call the "CofS". Using the word Scientology to refer to the Church of Scientology is just as inaccuate as using Christianity to refer to the Roman Catholic Church would be. Mkweise 03:21 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the organization of Scientology tries to claim a copyright on the word "Scientology" and keep anyone else from using it. That's why the ones who claim that there's actually something beneficial in Dianetics and Scientology call themselves the "Free Zone." Furthermore, many people don't believe that Scientology is a "church" anyways. It may call itself a church, but it sure doesn't act like one.

It´s unbelievable that in the USA Scientology is a respectable institution. Imagine if your encyclopedia said that "mafia" was the term for "economic enterprises with strong informal components". Must we copy the official point of view, can´t we deliver our own opinion? Most people here are convinced that Scientology is a crime organisation, so why not express this within the first or second paragraph? --Grasso

 * Grasso, read neutral point of view again. If you have relevant facts that are missing from the article, add them.  If there are common or otherwise noteworthy views on Scientology that haven't been mentioned, mention and attribute them.  Our *own* opinion on the Scientologists is *not* relevant.  For the record, I do regard them as just another nasty cult, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of writing this article.

As to your Mafia analogy, the point is that no-one disputes the Mafia is an organisation that makes profits from crime. Scientologists dispute strongly that they are members of a money-grabbing cult. --Robert Merkel

 * I do not know any members of the Mafia, perhaps they too claim to be legitimate. I reworded the first sentence of the article to reflect the fact that most of the civilized world does not see Scientology as a religion.

 * I hope you understand that just stating that Scientology is a religion would not be very NPOV either. I realise that my wording may be too controversial, but I hope somebody will rephrase it in a manner that is more factual than it was before or is now.--branko

Crime Two key issues seem to have been omitted. First was that Hubbard had on several occassions admitted to starting the "church" as a joke / tax write off system.

 * Several claims along those lines appear in the article - if you can provide more specifics why don't you do so? --Robert Merkel

Second is that to this day recruitment is by means of screening likely candidates and then indoctrination in controled physical environments (temp, thrist, peer presure) designed to sway these people into switching their identity for that of the 'church'.

 * If you've got specifics, this *needs* to go in the article.  --Robert Merkel

Instead the article does appear to be mostly a Scientology pamphlet.

 * Personally, I think Scientology is one big con. However, a neutral point of view here means that we can't just rag on them because we think their particular set of beliefs is nonsense (because there's no more or less direct evidence of their correctness or otherwise than Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and so on).  Pointing out that, their founder and leaders don't seem to believe in it themselves, b) they are ridiculously secretive about their practices, c) they use the legal system to attack their critics, d) they use dubious techniques to gain adherants, and e) church leaders seem to be more interested in enriching themselves than anything else, is entirely appropriate and if you think these points haven't been adequately covered (or you have more criticisms that I haven't mentioned here) them IMHO go right ahead. --Robert Merkel
 * I agree in general but must disagree that "there's no more or less direct evidence of their correctness" than other religions. If you can find anyone who disagrees with Scientology but who has not committed a crime against the laws of the land, you have disproved Scientology's beliefs.  If you find a single person who opposes Narconon's dangerous use of vitamin overdoses to treat drug abuse but who also opposes drug abuse, you have disproved Scientology's beliefs. --Antaeus Feldspar

I moved the page to a free link style page, but the page seems very one-sided, more like a Scientology pamphlet than an encyclopedia entry.

If you read any of the entries on any of the religions mentioned here, hare krishna, christianity, tao teh ching, buddhism, you will not find any effort to do more than recite what the adherents hold as being the parts of their faith. It is not our place to praise or bash beliefs here, nor to seek out and repeat controversial utterances by others about a given faith or practice. In Catholicism we could repeat polemics by Martin Luther, in Lutheranism we could rave on about how Luther's own writings in some cases depict him as a psycho drunk and woman-hating womanizer, decry the snake-handling practices of some Pentecostals.

If we are not going to do it to everyone, let's don't do it to anyone.

In general, see neutral point of view. The principle I crusade for is that controversial views be attributed to someone--or that it be obvious (as in Scientology it is) that the views and practices in questions are attributed to someone. Beyond that, as long as competing theories are portrayed sympathetically, the sky's the limit. So, there's absolutely nothing wrong (IMO) with adding some mainstream criticisms of Scientology, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.--but really, if the criticisms deserve to be in an encyclopedia article, they must either be really quite common criticisms (and identified/attributed as such; e.g., "One common criticism...") or else credited to the person who originated it. I can imagine a separate page, Scientology/Criticisms and replies as well as Scientology/Public perception, in which what seems to be the cult-like nature of Scientology is described--and attributed to, well, someone or other. --LMS

Thank you, Larry. You put it much better than I could. I just thought the last paragraph rather glossed over the endless arguments and controversy about Scientology over the last several decades. And since there has been so much controversy, it seems reasonable to have some account with summaries of the two sides - at least report that group A says X, group B says Y. (for comparison, there's a nice entry for the Book of Mormon that summarises Mormon doctrine, and reports other theories of the origins of the book)

And all I originally set out to do was remove a couple of CapitaliseDLinKs...

I have re-written the last paragraph from a Scientology-positive point of view to a Scientology-negative one in neutralised wording. I hope this alleviates the problems mentioned above. -- Andre Engels

As a researcher of religions and a lover of a good spy story (being a PI myself) I once read 'way too much about Scientolgy controversy from both sides. I added bunches of material in that vein. I'm afraid there is now more about the controversy than the beliefs, but if that's where people's attention is... -

I (Jimbo Wales) have a problem with this paragraph:

Those who oppose Scientology style themselves "critics." These range from press with critical statments to make, having had no contact with the church themselves; to apostates who may have left the church following disagreements or who may have been expelled on moral grounds; to avowed enemies of the church who planned to infiltrate it, plant documents, and foment fraudulently based criminal prosecutions. Other critics speak from the point of view that the beliefs and practices of Scientology are in one manner or another antipathetic to their own religious convictions, and therefore deserving of censure.

A few points I'd like to make about this:

1. The use of the scare quores around the word "critics" suggests that these opponents aren't _really_ critics, but something else, perhaps something less than true critics.

2. The list of types of people who are critical of the church reads like the church's own version of the story. Only 4 types are mentioned (a) members of the press with no actual contact themselves (b) apostates (c) avowed enemies who would gladly resort to fraud and criminality and (d) advocates of other religions, who oppose it on those grounds, exhibiting one supposes religious intolerance.

This list makes it sound like the good church of Scientology is just being harassed. My own reading of the criticisms, though, is quite different. I am by no means a Scientology-basher, but when I got interested in this issue a few years ago, I thought that the critics (and they are real critics) had quite a good case.

Our write-up need not end up supporting the critics or the church, but the current writeup (this paragraph anyway) is decidedly pro-scientology.

The "good" church? I think convictions for stealing gov't docs surely puts the question to that...

As to "critics," what suggestion would you make? I was similarly disposed to you when I first undertook to do my own bit of investigating. My reading, however, did not turn up any independent critics without their own agenda. One such who held herself out as a completely objective academic expert (notwisthstanding that she published at least one book accusing all "cults" of brainwashing or something, which her peers pretty roundly criticized) turned out to be making a major portion of her income testifying against Scientology and other groups in court. I have read probably thirty to fifty independent appraisals, some quite detailed, from academics, psychologists, clerics, investigative reporters and the like and they were neutral, not critical. The persons listed in the paragraph do style themselves "critics." And I have noted that's what opponents of Scientology do, publicly. They don't say "I hate this church and want to close it." They say - "I have criticisms." One guy in particular, whom I saw a news video on (taken without his knowledge) is sitting there with a reporter whom he believes to be an FBI agent or something, plotting to destroy the church from inside. He calls himself a "critic" and says the church does not like him because he "criticizes" it. In contrast, those reporting on the subject who do not refer to themselves as critics also, it seems a) have no agenda and b) are neutral, not critical.

If you don't mind, could you refer me to an otherwise unbiased critic? If you will do so, I will immediately include his class of people in paragraph. I just don't want people misled by the idea that the othwise neutral term "critic" means that the person so styled speaks without a predisposing agenda. Until I actually see someone who does not oppose Scientology and yet who is critical of it, I'm not sure how that paragraph should read...

 * I'm sorry, but even if you were able to name some specifics for all this anecdotal evidence (i.e., tell us who this 'academic expert' was and who were the 'peers' that 'roundly criticized' it and on what grounds; tell us who this 'one guy in particular' was and what 'news video' showed him plotting to 'destroy the church from inside'), it still wouldn't change the fact that it is anecdotal evidence. You're demanding that someone else prove wrong the impression you got from anecdotal evidence (which just happens to match what Source insisted every Scientologist must believe as a matter of dogma):  that everyone out there who opposes Scientology (a 'critic' by the CoS's definition) must have some hidden malign agenda.  That is, of course, not the way burden of proof works.  To declare "All those who oppose Scientology fall into one of these untrustworthy categories" is unworthy of being declared as if it was fact, whether you believe it because of your anecdotal evidence or because Source said so.

O.k., I think I can help with this. Of course in some sense, all people who are critical of X must oppose X to some extent, right? So pointing out that all the critics of Scientology are opposed to Scientology is either redundant or (as in this case) it sounds like a way of dismissing the critics, i.e. to say that no objective person actually opposes Scientology.

So, let me be your hypothetical critic. My own views do not belong in Wikipedia, of course, but consider what my view is. I am critical of Scientology. I think it is total bunk as a theory about the world. It's just as much bunk as Christianity or Marxism as a theory about the world. It's untested or, where tested, provably false in important ways.

Yet, I can hardly be seen as someone who is "opposed to" Scientology, unless any criticism at all is to be discounted because it is criticism. I don't suppose that I've ever written publicly about it until just now. Not that I can recall, anyway. I'm an objective outsider, with no particular emotional investment in the question, and it seems quite clear to me that the critics have many valid points. Check out the XENU documents, for example. Nutso stuff.

I would object equally to a paragraph in an essay on Christianity that suggested that everyone opposed to Christianity is either a heretic, uninformed, biased, etc.

Court records make great credible sources. I've cleaned the text up a bit and removed the most blatant pro-CoS bias, and added some factual material about their history (Though I would personally prefer to be much harder on them).

One wonders why you would prefer this. Have they done something to you?

Yes, they've done something to all of us: they are solely responsible for shutting down the "penet" anonymous Usenet posting service, and have done much to further the cause of internet censorship. They've also caused a lot of harm (possibly including murder) to many good people, including my friend Keith Henson. They are truly an evil organization, and will stop at nothing to silence critics. That, of course, is a personal opinion not worthy to put in an article here, but I stand by it nonetheless.

One also wonders why you changed the first line "...science fiction author L. Ron..." to "...author L. Ron...", while marking your change as a "minor edit" so it wouldn't show up in the recent changes list. At that time, that's exactly what L. Ron was, a science fiction author, which is an interesting bit of background information (though admittedly not necessarily relevant to the religion itself).

Well, I am pleased to see you own up to the nature and the source of your position. If more people were as honest, then more truth would come to the whole picture. Unfortunately, the world is full of people disguising personal hatreds as "impartial analysis."

In my travels, I have quite literally lived and conversed with Moonies, Hare Krishna, Buddhists, Pentacostals, Scientologists, astrologers, numerololgists, followers of the I Ching, a palmist, World Messaianists, Mormons (one of my daughters was baptised in that faith), Baptists, Born-agains, Catholics, Jews, Moslems, Tarot readers, General Semanticists, Theosophists, Wiccans, Jehovah's Witnesses (in cities 400 mi. distant from each other, some of the kindest and most generous neighbors I ever had), Seventh Day Adventists and others. As to each of the above I have found the decided majority of adherents to each given school of thought to be good people, concerned about their community and their world, and trying to do and be the best they could for themselves and others.

Here is what I learned: Return good for good. Return good for evil. Judge none. Be no man's enemy. Such evil as you seek to punish will taint you. Life is too short to hate.

''I would never disagree. I have nothing against any rank-and-file Scientologist; they are victims of the organization, not perpetrators. It is the organization itself that I consider a criminal conspiracy. I happen to think that it is a moral duty to point out evil and work to eliminate it. If you call that "hate", well then we'll just have to disagree about that.''

I'm quite touched with your wholehearted attempt to save humanity from the evil of this world. However, you seem to have never experienced the full power of scientology to destroy your family.

No, WojPob, I have not. And neither, I believe you would find, have most of the people who write and talk about it.

LDC - The church of JC of LDS was also officially regarded as a criminal conspiracy by the US gov't in early days, and the army was dispatched to do away with it. In a hundred years, we will see whether the C of S more closely paralled the Mafia or the Mormons (I do so love a good alliteration). One things puzzles me, however. In a criminal conspiracy, one will uniformly find the members (of the conspiracy) seeking to realize a personal benefit from the fruits of the crime - hopefully fruit which justifies the scope of the crime and effort undertaken to plan and commit it. Arguably, Hubbard (dead at the moment) was the primary criminal master mind. Who would that be now, and how are they benefitting from it?

 * Hell, let's throw some nitro-glycerine and liquid-ox on the fire, shall we? I agree with you that the comparison to Mormonism is apropriate, but you probably won't like why. I'm a native Utahn and former Mormon, and I'll tell you, that curch is very much like a criminal conspriacy. The Morman church literally owns that state. Where else in the US would a major city sell a block of downtown main street to a church to rip up and make a park out of it? We're talking right in the heart of the stinking city. Public transit is shut down on Sundays, understandable if there's a lack of demand. They fire the system up, however, if the Church is having a conference in town that week. The Morman Church has also persecuted internet sites that were critical of it, IIRC for copyright violation. You also have the fact that the CoJCoLDS listed as a fortune 500 company. They don't have classes like the scientologists, but you can't get a temple recommend if you don't pay tith (note: temple recommends are like Mormon membership plus, i.e. the only way to be "sealed" to your spouse for all eternity, you need to get a temple marriage, etc).

 * But then I dislike organized religion in general. Every time someone says, "trust me," my instinct is to find out why that person would think I shouldn't trust them/their views. Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of the people I know are Mormans (including my parents), I've found them to be about average as far as people go. My beef is with churches as organizations, especially when they ask for money or demand sacrifices to them (as opposed to for the community, one's family, et al.).--BlackGriffen

I just noticed this above, and had not responded to it:

"One also wonders why you changed the first line "...science fiction author L. Ron..." to "...author L. Ron...", while marking your change as a "minor edit" so it wouldn't show up in the recent changes list. At that time, that's exactly what L. Ron was, a science fiction author, which is an interesting bit of background information (though admittedly not necessarily relevant to the religion itself)."

I considered the change a minor edit. My understanding, from a couple of Hubbard biographies (one unauthorized) is that science fiction was less than half of his writing (see the Dianetics entry). I personally first read anything by the man in like '67 or so, a somewhat tongue-in-cheek little novel called "Buckskin Brigades" if I recall. At the time I thought of him as a minor sort of Zane Gray. So to call him a science fiction writer would probably be like introducing Thomas Jefferson as a farmer. Sure, he was one - but that was not his chief, or even secondary avocation. Then, too, each time I have seen him introduced that way, it has been the lead-in to a Scientology hit piece. So, I thot why not drop it?

BTW - I did not notice who put in the Fishman thing. When I looked him up a minute ago, this was the #1 item on the hit list: / Jehovah's site. I thot at first - nah, different guy. A couple of paragraphs in, it's like - oh. Same guy.

Yeah, Fishman's a flake, which I why I didn't quote him or offer him as an example of anything. I only mentioned the court case to verify the source of the OT documents.

The comparison with Mormons is interesting but flawed. The Mormons were primarily persecuted because of the practice of bigamy, which they eventually gave up (at least officially) in order to better get along with the neighbors. I personally think that laws against consensual polygamy are stupid and opressive, and that they had every right to fight back. But once they abandoned that practice, their critics fell back to saying nasty things about them instead of having them jailed, and the Mormons let them. The CoS on the other hand unleashes the might of its legal team against those who merely /speak/ against them (including, admittedly, some who speak falsely). I believe quite strongly that the only legitimate response to speech--even false speech--is more speech, and if the CoS had only done that I would consider them harmless crackpots like Moonies or Krishnas. But when you use the force of government to supress your critics, you are in effect taking up arms to supress /their/ ideas, and it is /you/ who bears responsibility for escalating the conflict beyond words.

...by which I presume you would deny access to courts for things like libel, slander, copyright infringements. Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it...

So, for kicks, I went to some of the source material (historical documents written contemporaneously with the events) on the Mormon expulsion from Illinois, the Missouri Extermination Order by Governor Boggs, etc.

In brief - the Mormons did not sit still for utterances against them, but fired back in their own newspapers, in the absence of legal protection agains libel and slander on the American frontier in those days. The accusations against them at the time appear mostly to have been petit larceny, sharp business practice, unsightly buildings, over-agressive acquisition of land, and open derision of others' beliefs. I was unable, in about four hours of looking, to find anything on polygamy in connection with these events, though it was key in holding up the application for statehood by Utah, and the subject of treaty talks between the Mormon forces and the U.S. Army around that time.

Interestingly, the Mormons as the local militia went under arms on at least two occasions under a duly constituted non-mormon general to quell mob violence against them - ie they could be seen to "...use the force of government to suppress (their) critics..."

Absent the context of Wild West shooting and violence, it would appear the parallel between their and the Scientologists' response to threat is fairly apropos.

I was reading from my The Essential Koran (Thomas Cleary - 1993, selected readings in which its easier to find some quotes I like) last night. Some of my earlier passion for defending those of faith and good will was rekindled. I think I will be a thorn in everyone's side on this and related issues, as the self-appointed defender of faith. All faith.

I think it will be best if we conscientiously avoid baiting anyone of any faith in these pages. So, as it seems that the mention of specific words from the purportedly quoted "Operating Thetan" materials in the main article is, to Scientologists, like waving a red flag in front of a bull while stinging it with a cattle prod, I replaced it with a non-quote reference to the same material.

''You don't seem to have replaced any quote in particular, merely the name of the evil galactic overlord with his title. Out of curiosity, why is that an important difference?''

If you've been around the net on this subject, you already know the answer to that question. Scientologists did not start getting freaked about supposed leaks of this "Operating Thetan" material unless certain specific terms were used. If you leave out the actual names and terms, they don't seem to mind.

I have this old book (1952, I think) called Scientology, a History of Man that has almost all the same stuff in it (and more - talk about a science fiction scenario!) as the "Operating Thetan" materials on the web, but without specific names and certain terms. If they are willing to sell this book to the public and put it in libraries, as I have seen, then it's not the general subject matter of the materials they don't want bandied about. It's things like names and exact events - I think. So - in deference to tender feelings, I deleted the name. Anyone is free to correct me if this understanding is wrong, but that's why I did it.

Question from a non-native speaker: Does 'criticize' mean that you speak bad about something or that you evaluate something? The existence of :Film critics points to the latter. --Yooden
 * Yooden, both are legitimate AND common usages in English. In fact, I'd guess that in popular speech 'criticize' more commonly means 'speak bad about' and that in university speech it is more likely to mean 'evaluate.'--MichaelTinkler

OK, that sounds familiar. Hereabouts though, 'criticize' (well, the translation) is certainly of a better quality than 'speak bad about' (as I so eloquently called it) aka 'bitch'. It involves reasoning and evidence. Thus, any criticism is inherently a Good Thing, as anyone on Wikipedia should acknowledge.

There seems to ba a mixup of 'Scientology == CoS' and 'Scientology != CoS'. Could someone clear this up? --Yooden

I was given to understand that the policy of "fair game" was not officially revoked, rather that Hubbard ordered his followers to refrain from using that term. Has the policy officially been revoked by the CoS? -D

-
 * The current church practice is pointed to; that of requiring members who have significant turmoil in their lives stemming from the antagonisms of family and friends to cease participation in church services and not resume them until differences with those close to them have been ironed out.

How does the writer of this sentence know this to be the case? If it's just a policy proclamatation, what value is that? At the risk of an inflammatory analogy, Catholic Church policy was firmly against buggering orphans under their care, but it sure happened a lot, and the church hierachy of the time preferred to pretend it wasn't happening rather than deal with the problem. --Robert Merkel

My first contact with anything relating to Scientology was when I had a night job at a US Postal Service mail sorting facility. One of the bags had come open and a mailing obviously intended for those who "train" what the church calls "clears" had fallen out. During a break I read some of the articles. They were uniformly concerned with how best to convince "stalled clears" to part with more of their money in payment for additional "training." Intrigued, I searched out as much as I could find on the church.

To say that I was shocked that an orgnization such as Scientology could style itself as a "church" would be a classic understatement. I can say without equivocation that Scientology qualifies as a cult under any reasonable definition of the term. Harrassment and intimidation of critics (legitimate, un-self-serving ones, I might add), extortion, bribery of public officials, violence against those attempting to leave the church, brain-washing of initiates to rival that experienced during the Korean conflict, use of adherents as virtual slave laborers...all were alleged (and in my humble opinion proven) time and time again. Under the adadge that "where there's smoke, there's fire," Scientology has a very, very bad track record.

I agree with the concept of NPOV, but surely there is some point at which we have to call a spade a damned shovel! Scientology is a cult. F. Lee Horn

The attributes you mention aren't really attributes of a cult, though: they're the attributes of a criminal organization, like the Mafia. Cults are more often totally irrational, based around a single person who acts on whim, not calculated greed. Unfortunately, I don't think we should come out and simply define them as a criminal organization since our government seems to have some tolerance for the goons, even though some foreign governments (like Greece, which the "church" tried to take over the government of) have more sense. I'd also personally prefer that any information on the net about them be much more critical, and frankly, I hope the bastards all go to jail where they belong, but until they actuall are all put in jail, I think we have little choice but to simply report the facts we have and trust readers to draw their own conclusions. --LDC

 * Our government? Foreign government? I thought this encyclopedia was an international effort?--branko

LOL! I suppose I must agree, albiet with extreme reluctance. :) F. Lee Horn

I added some structure to the document by cutting up overly long paragraphs (at hopefully sensible points) and by adding headings.

This will hopefully achieve the following:

 * better readability of the entry
 * better readability of diffs

(I was reading the last 'minor edit' and had a hard time discovering where the edit was made.)

At one point I had to change a paragraph a little, so that a back reference would not be left dangling in the air: "The aim is" became "The aim of auditing is".

At another point I moved a paragraph to a more logical position: the paragraph starting with 'In addition to free Sunday services' now follows the original begining of the previous overly long paragraph that I chopped into more easily legible bits.

Probably the text could even be structured better, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader. :-) --branko

=
I would be concerned when the simple fact that Scientology has misused copyright law as a basis for suits against its detractors becomes reason enough to not present those views. My first question would be: "Were those suits successful?" IMHO when a group misuses the threat of law to crush less affluent opposition, there is a very serious threat to the concept of free speech. The litigator no longer needs to have right on his side, he only needs to be powerful. Eclecticology

The brainwashing isn't explained, as if the charge came out of the clear blue sky! What needs to be explained is that the entire purpose of "auditing" is precisely to brainwash people. I read somewhere that the "preclear" are "audited" for hours at a time. If people understand that this is basically an hours long session of psychoanalysis, then any claim that it's not brainwashing (by "leaders" in psychology or not) will be risible. Normal therapy sessions with psychologists who aren't trying to brainwash you can turn very bad. How much worse must it be to be in that chair for hours upon hours at a time with someone who is trying to brainwash you? -- Ark

The first sentence states that Scientology is recognized as a religion, but fails to specify who did the recognizing. To my knowledge there is no board of certification for religions.

Should this article be edited to indicate simply that Scientology claims itself to be a religion? David 12:28 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)

Interesting question. What's meant by "recognition" of a religious organization in the USA is usually that it is considered a religious nonprofit organization under the tax code, as administered by the Internal Revenue Service. There isn't any registry of religions (that is to say, belief systems) as such. As far as I know, the IRS's recognition is not imposed on the courts or other branches of government as a precedent, though controversial organizations like to point to their tax-exempt status as if it were a government accreditation of their authenticity. --Fubar Obfusco

 * In an earlier version of the article I had written exactly that, 'claims to be a religion', which got edited out, which in turn I had expected, more or less even asked for. I tried to exagerate on purpose, because the previous version (from before the conversion) stated bluntly 'is a religion'.

 * The problem I had with the 'is a religion' is that people clearly distinguish (disambiguate) between cults (in its negative connotation) and religions, even if the former are technically speaking a subset of the latter. I feel that in what commonly are referred to as churches and cults, Scientology is the latter, and the article should somehow reflect that distinction.

 * Religion is a vague term. The religion entry in WP says: "What constitutes a religion is subject to much dispute in the field of theology and among ordinary people. We might begin by defining religion as a system of beliefs based on humanity's attempt to explain the universe and natural phenomena, often involving one or more deities or other supernatural forces." According to this definition, the only thing we can vaguely say about religion is that it is a system of beliefs held by more than one person. (Yet, if more than one person believes a set of common urban legends, or in say scientific 'truths', we don't call that a religion—perhaps sacredness should be in that definition somewhere, if that term itself could be redefined without any references to religion or the supernatural.)

 * Hm, I wanted to say something, but I am getting confused now.--User:Branko

I think you said some interesting things. I, too, have thought about "religion". But perhaps it would be better to continue that discussion at /Talk:Religion. David 14:47 Aug 17, 2002 (PDT)

One point - I notice the specific mention of Australia as a place where scientology is frowned upon. Whilst, like many other countries, most people not involved with it regard it as a rather wacky cult, there is no systematic official attempts to discourage it as there is in Germany. Hence I removed the specific reference. --Robert Merkel 01:40 Sep 15, 2002 (UTC)

Discussing Scientology from a NPOV is, perhaps, even harder than discussing Nazism from the same NPOV: The crimes of the Nazis are well-documented, the main themes of genocide and extreme nationalism are beyond dispute, and the leaders are recognized by nearly everyone to have been dangerous madmen. In Scientology, however, the crimes are less documented, the main themes of greed and powerlust are tough to state without someone belittling them by ragging on another religion (oh, Scientology's moneylust is nothing compared to the Catholic greed), and people still try to dress it up as a 'religion' and attack critics with claims of bigotry and intolerance.

The last point is particularly vexing, and reflects typical Scientologist practice of twisting the meanings of words (ref: ethics vs. 'ethics'). There is enough looniness in the tracts for one to think that it must be a religion, but the cynicism of the payment plan (Only one more payment and you'll be Clear!) and the leadership (Furiously attacking all criticism with legal bulldogs trained to recite copyright law, for God's sake!) gives the lie to any claim of being a religion the Corporation of Scientology may try to make.

It's like being glowered at and slapped down when you try to say the Emperor is buck naked.

As the entry currently exists (July 6th 2003, 12:49PM PDT), it is extremely well done. I am very knowledgable about Scientology and Scientology Inc., having studied the commercial enterprise since 1995. It is not an easy task to write from a "neutral point of view," considering the nature of the topic. Scientology ruins lives and families, with the chief victims being Scientologists. Human rights activists are also targeted by Scientology Inc. for destruction because we work to defend Scientologists (and non-Scientologists) from Scientology Inc.'s abuses.

The sinister business claims that us human rights activsist are "bigots" and that we attack the "church" out of "hatred," and "ignorance." The truth of the matter, which anyone and everyone can see, is that critics of Scientology and Scientology Inc. engage in criticism out of compassion for Scientologists and the victims of Scientology and Scientology Inc.: if we "hated" them, we wouldn't object to Scientology Inc.'s crimes and human rights abuses!

Concerning demarcating between Scientology and Scientology Inc., many observers think that the two are the same Scientology Inc. would agree. However, there are "Free Zoners" who dissagree. I tend to demarcate between the two when I write about Scientology and/or Scientology Inc., to be fair to the Free Zoners.

Scientology is not, never has been, and probably never will be a religion. As a former Scientologist recently wrote in alt.religion.scientology, he spent nine years as a full-time, dedicated Scientologist who didn't know Scientology was a "religion" until after he came to his senses and fleg the organization. L. Ron Hummabr wrote about "the religion angle" as being only a "matter for accountants" and the IRS. He made Scientology a "religion" and Scientology Inc. a "church" *ONLY* to gain tax-exemption status, and to gain certain protections againsty prosecution for various crimes. Religions in the USA are pretty much exempt from prosecution for prtacticing medicine without a license: a fact Hubbard was quick to take advantage of.

Desertphile

Oh, this is damned irritating.

Dysprosia, could you possibly not reverse edits while I'm literally in the middle of editing a page? I'll post a notice to this page when I'm done. Then it might be a good idea to discuss which specific bits you don't like. And thank you for the pointers, but I do know what I'm doing, and I can honestly claim to know a thing or two about the subject.

-- ChrisO 01:32 UTC 09 Nov 03

 * You removed a whole heap of content without real explanation, which isn't a good thing. If you plan to do somethign better with it, or you believe you have good reason to remove it, raise the issue here before you do. It's not good form to remove content without explaining why. Dysprosia 01:41, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * That's why waiting until the edit is actually finished might be a good idea. If I'm dovetailing, moving or clarifying content section by section (note - not removing it), the overall effect won't be obvious until it's done. Let's then discuss what specific changes you don't like, without first removing a whole heap of edits without real explanation (to borrow a phrase).

 * -- ChrisO 02:04 UTC 09 Nov 03

 * Please use the Edit summary feature to make this absolutely clear in future. Without a clear comment there, we don't know your intentions in changing the page, whether you're moving it, or going to put the content elsewhere, or whatever. I'm sorry if I was a bit short with your editing before. Dysprosia 02:29, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, the changes have been made. Key points:

 * The status of Scientology from the first paragraph has been moved down to the bit about the Church of Scientology. There is no controversy that I'm aware of about the status of Scientology groups outside the Church itself.

 * Para 2 has been reworked a bit and expanded to make clear the difference between Scientology and Dianetics. I've deliberately omitted the Dianetics book list, as that is more appropriate to the Dianetics article (to which I will add it).

 * New para added on origins of the word "Scientology".

 * New para added on how Scientology's doctrines are codified.

 * Para on Church of Scientology's status reworked to note Scientology's constitutionally protected status in the US and contrast with the situation elsewhere; the reference to the German tax exemption is not appropriate to such a brief overview and should be moved to the Church of Scientology page (which I'll do).

 * Minor tweaks to "Controversy and Criticism" para - no point mentioning the 19th century if Scientology started in 1952!

 * "Scientology-related deaths" amended to "Deaths of Scientologists". Scientology would dispute that the deaths in question are "related" and I don't think that phrasing is really consistent with a NPoV.

If anyone has any comments on any of this, please say so (and explain why!). Thanks. :-)

-- ChrisO 02:45 UTC 09 Nov 03

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scientology/Archive 1


text:
Nigella

Nigella is a genus of 18 species of annual plants in the family Ranunculaceae, native to Southern Europe, North Africa, South Asia, Southwest Asia and Middle East. Common names applied to members of this genus are nigella, devil-in-a-bush or love-in-a-mist.

The species grow to 20-90 cm tall, with finely divided leaves; the leaf segments are narrowly linear to threadlike. The flowers are white, yellow, pink, pale blue or pale purple, with five to ten petals. The fruit is a capsule composed of several united follicles, each containing numerous seeds; in some species (e.g. Nigella damascena), the capsule is large and inflated.

Culinary
The seeds of Nigella sativa, known as kalonji, black cumin, black caraway, black coriander, roman coriander, black onion seed, onion seed, charnushka, git (in historical Roman cuisine), or just nigella, are used as a spice and a condiment in South Asian, Ethiopian, Middle Eastern and Polish cuisines.

Garden flowers
Several species are grown as ornamental plants in gardens. Nigella damascena has been grown in English cottage gardens since the Elizabethan era, commonly called love-in-a-mist. Nigella hispanica is a taller species with larger blue flowers, red stamens, and grey leaves. Nigella seeds are self-sowing if the seed pods are left to mature.

The dried seed capsules can also be used in flower arrangements.

Use in healthcare
In traditional medicine, the seeds are used as a carminative and stimulant to ease bowel and indigestion problems, and are given to treat intestinal worms, nerve defects, to reduce flatulence, and induce sweating. Dried pods are sniffed to restore a lost sense of smell. It is also used to repel some insects, much like mothballs. Numerous studies have shown that it has anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidative, anti-mycotic, antibacterial,  anti-fungal, anti-cancer,     anti-viral, antihistamine properties, possessing many properties that make it a potential remedy against certain diseases.

Black cumin is used in naturopathy. Black cumin oil or powder are used in the treatment of pathologies such as skin diseases, muscle pain, eczema or psoriasis, but also acne, diabetes, asthma, A 2014 study showed its positive effects on the harmful effects of radiotherapy treatments.

Nigella oil contains almost 60% linoleic acid (omega 6).

It is available in capsule, oil or powder form, with both internal and external uses (in massages).

In Silico study of 96 phytochemical compounds of Nigella sativa, identifying Nigelladine A as the most promising compound for SARS-CoV-2 inhibition with the highest docking scores for the spike protein and Mpro. Thymoquinone is a phytochemical compound found in the plant Nigella sativa. Dithymoquinone, kaempferol, Nigelladine B, Nigelladine, and Nigelladine sulphate also showed high docking scores.

title: Nigella