text:
Talk:Badminton

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022
Under the "External Links" section there's a link to http://www.worldbadminton.com/rules/documents/bwfLaws2019.pdf Laws of Badminton

That is an old version of the rules. A more appropriate link that is kept current is https://www.worldbadminton.com/rules/ Laws of Badminton 68.74.112.137 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

✅ PianoDan (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2023
I want to editing fastest badminton smash according to Yonex's record about fastest badminton smash on Yonex's official website: The changes in the flying speed of the shuttlecock were visualized using a graph. The fastest badminton hit (male) is 565 km/h (351.07 mph) and was achieved by Satwiksairaj Rankireddy (India) at a gymnasium at Yonex Co., Ltd. AsuLaiVN (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. If you re-open this request, please provide the source you used to get the numbers you mentioned. — Sirdog (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024
1, The section entitled, "Comparison with tennis", has been tagged as Original Research since 2010, and that tagging is accurate, if perhaps a little bit too mild; further tag(s) of refimprove and/or primary sources needs to be affixed.

2, A decade is more than enough to allow non-encyclopedic material to remain. The parts of this section — e.g., the opening observational bullets, and the closing editorializing paragraphs, **all unsourced** — should be removed from view using mark-up. Comment can can likewise be left in the article indicating that portions of the text can be returned to view when secondary sources are added, such that the section becomes material from published sources, rather than WP editor's reporting on their own research and perspectives as WP content.

3, Even the material that appears with citation is assuredly WP:OR, because observations are being made directly from primary sources. That is, a WP editor is researching primary sources and reporting what they find, rather than reporting on research appearing in secondary sources. Hence, in addition, to hiding the material baldly, violating WP policies and guidelines (unpublished material standing at over a decade, unsourced here), the material in this same section that appears just with primary sources needs to remain tagged as WP:OR, and as yet, not up to encyclopedic standards. 73.73.49.62 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Just pointing out problems is not enough, please provide the text you want changed and the exact text you want to replace it. Shadow311 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024 (2)
1, Reference [7] appearing does not support the sentences to which it is attached, in particular, with regard to support for historic quotations. It is on the one hand incomplete as a citation (lacking either full, usual or  fields, in both cases a URL being helpful), and on the other hand, inadequate  insofar as bibliographic information presented is inaccurate and so not useful for content verification. (If one somehow finds a "badminton" entry by going to a Web or hardcopy version of the OED, as likely as not, one will not find the historic quotation presented (i.e., the best access to any such citation—given the limited bibliographic content—is indirect, and the information found indirectly does not support the sentence). [For instance, the top level information page at OED.com for "badminton", "n[oun]", does not present any quotes, see https://www.oed.com/dictionary/badminton_n1?tl=true. And going to a hardcopy version of an OED dictionary—given how many there are—is even less of a guarantee of finding the quotation presented.]

Needed, rather—this is edit request 1 here—is a citation of a specific hardcopy dictionary (with formal title, publisher, publication date, even page no.), or better, a full citation with web URL and access date — which, if from OED, must bear a URL-access field that indicates that a subscription is necessary to access etymology/quotes.

2, The following sentence does not pass scholarly muster. One cannot cite a 1911 source, and then state that other needed information mentioned remains unavailable/unclear (in the >100 years of time elapsed since the publication of that source).
 * "The name derives from the Duke of Beaufort's Badminton House in Gloucestershire,[5] but why or when remains unclear."

Hence, request 2 is either that the sentence be edited such that there is no claim of a lack of information, or very least, that the second half of the sentence be tagged as (or ).

3, The foregoing two edit requests, and the requests in the preceding entry from this same editor, indicate the tension, even folly, of restricting editing. None of the edits proposed are vandalism, and our being required to write this, and your being required to reply to it – both are wastes of precious editing time.

By keeping the article out of circulation among committed, interested, editors—which at this encyclopedia, since the early days of Jimbo Wales, have included non-registered editors, many of which are scholars—the encyclopedia is "shooting itself in the foot".

Hence the third request must be that you focus attention on preventing real vandalism, and allow real progress in the evolution of the article, some issues for which have remained in place for over a decade (see previous request). 73.73.49.62 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ The first two requests. If you want to request this page be unprotected, see WP:RFUP. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

correcting info and requesting edit
"Equipment" the part about its strings should be corrected as "from 0.58 to 0.74mm" whilst BG-66's diameter is 0.66mm. "Comparison with tennis" note that the current fastest smash belongs to Satwiksairaj Rankireddy (565km/h), and not Mads Kolding as written in the post. 22nd..dec (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Badminton


text:
Talk:Rural flight

U.S. rural depopulation
Suggesting the addition of the following text on rural population outflows in the U.S. This would be for the section United States and Canada. (I am an editor with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, which published the article cited in this text.)

Rural counties in the United States, which make up about 70 percent of the nation’s land mass, have been struggling with population loss. Historically, population increase from births in rural areas more than compensated for the number of people moving from rural areas to urban areas, but from 2010 to 2016, rural areas lost population in absolute numbers for the first time.

EditorMax of RichmondFR (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Rural flight


text: Category:Pennington County, Minnesota

title: Category:Pennington County, Minnesota


text:
Up North

Up North may refer to:

Regions

 * Northern Wisconsin, including the Northern Highland, Lake Superior Lowland, Door County, and various other locations with an affluence of lakes and second homes, by residents of the Chicago and Milwaukee metropolitan areas.
 * Northern Minnesota, including the North Shore, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Superior National Forest, and other areas north of the Twin Cities with an abundance of lakes and personal cabins, by residents of Minnesota.
 * Northern Michigan, by residents of the lower peninsula of Michigan
 * Northern Saskatchewan, by residents of Southern Saskatchewan

Media

 * Up North (book), a 1992 book by Charles Jennings
 * Up North (film), a 2018 Nigerian film
 * Up North, a comedy series on the Essex TV website, Sheffield Live
 * Up North Combine, a British amalgamation of pigeon racing clubs
 * "Up North (Down South, Back East, Out West)", a song by Wade Hayes from the album Highways & Heartaches

title: Up North


text:
User:RobertBrook

A long-time Wikipedia lurker, and some-time contributor.

Personal site: RobertBrook.com

I work in the UK Parliament: I don't comment on political issues. I'm not a politician. I'm not a civil servant. I'm not a researcher employed by an MP.

title: User:RobertBrook


text:
Contiki

Contiki is an operating system for networked, memory-constrained systems with a focus on low-power wireless Internet of Things (IoT) devices. Contiki is used for systems for street lighting, sound monitoring for smart cities, radiation monitoring and alarms. It is open-source software released under the BSD-3-Clause license.

Contiki was created by Adam Dunkels in 2002 and has been further developed by a worldwide team of developers from Texas Instruments, Atmel, Cisco, ENEA, ETH Zurich, Redwire, RWTH Aachen University, Oxford University, SAP, Sensinode, Swedish Institute of Computer Science, ST Microelectronics, Zolertia, and many others. Contiki gained popularity because of its built in TCP/IP stack and lightweight preemptive scheduling over event-driven kernel which is a very motivating feature for IoT. The name Contiki comes from Thor Heyerdahl's famous Kon-Tiki raft.

Contiki provides multitasking and a built-in Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP stack), yet needs only about 10 kilobytes of random-access memory (RAM) and 30 kilobytes of read-only memory (ROM). A full system, including a graphical user interface, needs about 30 kilobytes of RAM.

A new branch has recently been created, known as Contiki-NG: The OS for Next Generation IoT Devices

Hardware
Contiki is designed to run on types of hardware devices that are severely constrained in memory, power, processing power, and communication bandwidth. A typical Contiki system has memory on the order of kilobytes, a power budget on the order of milliwatts, processing speed measured in megaHertz, and communication bandwidth on the order of hundreds of kilobits/second. Such systems include many types of embedded systems, and old 8-bit computers.

Networking
Contiki provides three network mechanisms: the uIP TCP/IP stack, which provides IPv4 networking, the uIPv6 stack, which provides IPv6 networking, and the Rime stack, which is a set of custom lightweight networking protocols designed for low-power wireless networks. The IPv6 stack was contributed by Cisco and was, when released, the smallest IPv6 stack to receive the IPv6 Ready certification. The IPv6 stack also contains the Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (RPL) routing protocol for low-power lossy IPv6 networks and the 6LoWPAN header compression and adaptation layer for IEEE 802.15.4 links.

Rime is an alternative network stack, for use when the overhead of the IPv4 or IPv6 stacks is prohibitive. The Rime stack provides a set of communication primitives for low-power wireless systems. The default primitives are single-hop unicast, single-hop broadcast, multi-hop unicast, network flooding, and address-free data collection. The primitives can be used on their own or combined to form more complex protocols and mechanisms.

Low-power operation
Many Contiki systems are severely power-constrained. Battery operated wireless sensors may need to provide years of unattended operation and with little means to recharge or replace batteries. Contiki provides a set of mechanisms to reduce the power consumption of systems on which it runs. The default mechanism for attaining low-power operation of the radio is called ContikiMAC. With ContikiMAC, nodes can be running in low-power mode and still be able to receive and relay radio messages.

Simulation
The Contiki system includes a sensor simulator called Cooja, which simulates of Contiki nodes. The nodes belong to one of the three following classes: a) emulated Cooja nodes, b) Contiki code compiled and executed on the simulation host, or c) Java nodes, where the behavior of the node must be reimplemented as a Java class. One Cooja simulation may contain a mix of sensor nodes from any of the three classes. Emulated nodes can also be used to include non-Contiki nodes in a simulated network.

In Contiki 2.6, platforms with the TI MSP430 and Atmel AVR microcontrollers can be emulated.

Programming model
To run efficiently on small-memory systems, the Contiki programming model is based on protothreads. A protothread is a memory-efficient programming abstraction that shares features of both multithreading and event-driven programming to attain a low memory overhead of each protothread. The kernel invokes the protothread of a process in response to an internal or external event. Examples of internal events are timers that fire or messages being posted from other processes. Examples of external events are sensors that trigger or incoming packets from a radio neighbor.

Protothreads are cooperatively scheduled. Thus, a Contiki process must always explicitly yield control back to the kernel at regular intervals. Contiki processes may use a special protothread construct to block waiting for events while yielding control to the kernel between each event invocation.

Features

Contiki supports per-process optional preemptive multithreading, inter-process communication using message passing through events, as well as an optional graphical user interface (GUI) subsystem with either direct graphic support for locally connected terminals or networked virtual display with Virtual Network Computing (VNC) or over Telnet.

A full installation of Contiki includes the following features:
 * Multitasking kernel
 * Optional per-application preemptive multithreading
 * Protothreads
 * Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) networking, including IPv6
 * Windowing system and GUI
 * Networked remote display using Virtual Network Computing
 * A web browser (claimed to be the world's smallest)
 * Personal web server
 * Simple telnet client
 * Screensaver

Contiki is supported by popular SSL/TLS libraries such as wolfSSL, which includes a port in its 3.15.5 release.

Microcontrollers

 * Atmel – ARM, AVR
 * NXP Semiconductors – LPC1768, LPC2103, MC13224
 * Microchip – dsPIC, PIC32 (PIC32MX795F512L)
 * Texas Instruments – MSP430, CC2430, CC2538, CC2630, CC2650, CC2538: cctv, Firefly, Zoul (comprises the CC2538 and CC1200 in a single module format)
 * STMicroelectronics – STM32 W

Computers

 * Apple II
 * Atari 8-bit computers
 * Atari ST
 * Atari Portfolio
 * Pocket Viewer
 * Commodore PET
 * VIC-20,
 * Commodore 64, Commodore 128
 * Oric
 * NEC PC-6001
 * Sharp Wizard
 * x86-based Unix-like systems, atop GTK+, or more directly using an X Window System

Game consoles

 * GP32
 * Game Boy
 * Game Boy Advance
 * Jaguar
 * Nintendo Entertainment System
 * TurboGrafx-16

title: Contiki


text:
Torridon Hills

The Torridon Hills surround Torridon village in the Northwest Highlands of Scotland. The name is usually applied to the mountains to the north of Glen Torridon. They are among the most dramatic and spectacular peaks in the British Isles and made of some of the oldest rocks in the world. Many are over 3000 ft high, so are considered Munros.

Rock types
These are mainly made of a type of sandstone, known as Torridonian sandstone (see Geology of Great Britain), which over time has become eroded to produce the unique characteristics of the Torridon Hills. In geology, Torridonian describes a series of proterozoic arenaceous sedimentary rocks of Precambrian age. They are amongst the oldest rocks in Britain, and sit on yet older rocks, Lewisian gneiss. Some of the highest peaks, such as Beinn Eighe are crowned by white Cambrian quartzite, which gives those peaks a distinctive appearance. Some of the quartzite contains fossilized worm burrows and known as pipe rock. It is circa 500 million years old. The strata are largely horizontal, and have weathered into terraces on the mountains.

Each of the Torridon Hills sits very much apart from one another, and they are often likened to castles. They have steep terraced sides, and broken summit crests, riven into many pinnacles. There are numerous steep gullies running down the terraced sides from the peaks. The summit ridges provide excellent scrambling, and are popular with hillwalkers and mountaineers. However, like many ridge routes, there are few escape points, so once committed, the scrambler or hillwalker must complete the entire ridge before descent.

There are numerous other mountains outside the immediate area of Loch Torridon which have the same characteristics, such as An Teallach near Ullapool.

Major peaks
Although many peaks in the Northwest Highlands exhibit Torridon geology, the Torridon hills are generally considered only to be those in the Torridon Forest to the north of Glen Torridon. Specifically, these are:

 * Liathach
 * Beinn Eighe
 * Beinn Alligin
 * Beinn Dearg
 * Baosbheinn

Hills between Glen Torridon and Strath Carron share much of the splendour and character of the main hills, although perhaps less of the drama:
 * Beinn Liath Mhòr
 * Sgorr Ruadh
 * Maol Cheann-dearg
 * Beinn Damh
 * An Ruadh-stac
 * Fuar Tholl

The Torridon Hills exhibit some of the most dramatic mountain scenery in the British Isles, perhaps surpassed in grandeur only by the Cuillins of Skye.

title: Torridon Hills


text:
Outrospective

Outrospective is the third album by Faithless, released on 18 June 2001. It is the follow-up to Sunday 8PM and the predecessor to No Roots. The single "We Come 1" had the most success, charting at number 3 on the UK Singles Chart, while "One Step Too Far" with vocals from Dido charted at number 6, and both "Muhammad Ali" and "Tarantula" charted at number 29. The album itself reached number 6 on the UK Albums Chart. The cover photograph was taken during the May 1968 students uprisings in Paris, France. In the cover booklet of Forever Faithless – The Greatest Hits, Rollo Armstrong has stated that despite Outrospective being their biggest selling album in the UK, it is, however, his least favourite.

Outrospective / Reperspective
Outrospective / Reperspective is a re-release of the Outrospective album from Faithless. The CD contains a bonus CD with remixes. The album won the Dancestar Award for Album of the Year in 2002.

title: Outrospective


text:
Oviraptoridae

Oviraptoridae is a group of bird-like, herbivorous and omnivorous maniraptoran dinosaurs. Oviraptorids are characterized by their toothless, parrot-like beaks and, in some cases, elaborate crests. They were generally small, measuring between one and two metres long in most cases, though some possible oviraptorids were enormous. Oviraptorids are currently known only from the Late Cretaceous of Asia, with the most well-known species and complete specimens found only in the Gobi Desert of Mongolia and northwestern China.

Description
The most characteristic feature of this group is the skull structure. Oviraptorids had short snouts and very deep mandibles. Some taxa (such as Citipati, Corythoraptor, Rinchenia) had a midline crest on top of the skull, resembling that of a cassowary. Other distinguishing characteristics include a bony spike intruding on the mandibular fenestra, nostrils placed very high and far back on the snout, an extremely thin bony bar beneath the eye, and highly pneumatized skull bones. Like their relatives the caenagnathids, the jaws were edentulous (with no teeth), having instead two small bony projections on the roof of the mouth.

Classification
The classification of the oviraptorids has been controversial. Most studies divide oviraptorosaurs into two primary sub-groups, the Caenagnathidae and the Oviraptoridae. However, some phylogenetic studies have suggested that many traditional members of the Caenagnathidae may be more closely related to the crested oviraptorids. Because of this, and the fact that at least one study found that Caenagnathus itself may not have been part of the 'caenagnathid' group, Tom Holtz (2010) placed that group close to the Oviraptoridae and termed it the Elmisauridae, though this idea has not gained consensus among other researchers.

The Oviraptoridae itself is traditionally divided into two "subfamilies": the small, short-armed, and mainly crestless subfamily Heyuanniinae and the larger, crested, long-armed Oviraptorinae (Oviraptor + Citipati). Some phylogenetic studies have shown that Oviraptor is the most primitive known oviraptorid, thus making Citipati a closer relative of the "ingeniines" and this traditional division into crestless and crested forms artificial.

Other possible oviraptorids include Nomingia gobiensis, Gigantoraptor erlianensis, Jiangxisaurus ganzhouensis and Shixinggia oblita. All four have been suggested to be oviraptorids, caenagnathids, or more primitive than either group. The below cladogram was found in the description of the genus Anzu.

In 2020, during their description of Oksoko, Funston et al. recovered a slightly different cladogram. Because Oviraptor did not clade with Citipati and the other "oviraptorines", they named the latter's clade Citipatiinae, although they did not provide a formal definition. However, according to Mickey Mortimer, the clade can be considered valid because its describers explicitly name it as new, which satisfies ICZN Article 16.1.

Diet
The diet of oviraptorids is not fully understood. Though some appear to have been at least partially carnivorous, they were probably primarily herbivorous or omnivorous.

Originally, oviraptorids were thought to be specialized egg raiders, based on a Mongolian find showing Oviraptor on top of a nest erroneously attributed to the ceratopsian dinosaur Protoceratops. However, discoveries in the 1990s, including Citipati specimens clearly brooding (rather than preying on) the same types of nests, and a Citipati embryo inside the same type of egg preserved in these nests, showed that the "specialized egg thief" idea was incorrect. Still, some scientists have suggested that oviraptorids may have fed on shelled food items like eggs or shellfish. However, animals specialized for eating shelled food typically have broad, crushing beaks or teeth. In contrast, the jaws of oviraptorids had thin, sharp edges probably supporting shearing beaks, ill-suited for cracking shells. Among other known animals, the beaks of oviraptorids most closely resemble those of herbivorous dicynodont synapsids, which are usually considered herbivorous.(This leads to the possibility that these animals are omnivorous).

Their beaks also share similarities with the beaks of herbivorous parrots and tortoises.

Evidence of partial carnivory among some oviraptorines comes from a lizard skeleton preserved in the body cavity of the type specimen of Oviraptor and two hatchling Byronosaurus skulls found in a Citipati nest. Some scientists have also suggested that some oviraptorids (especially the small-handed, weak-clawed "ingeniines") fed mainly on plant material.

Reproduction
Although fossilized dinosaur eggs are generally rare, oviraptorid eggs are relatively well known. Several oviraptorid nests, eggs, and embryos are known, mostly uncovered in the Gobi Desert. Some specimens of Oviraptor philoceratops, Citipati osmolskae, Nemegtomaia and cf. Machairasaurus have been found in brooding positions in association with nests. All of the nesting specimens are situated on top of egg clutches, with their limbs spread symmetrically on each side of the nest, front limbs covering the nest perimeter. This brooding posture is found today only in birds and supports a behavioral link between birds and theropod dinosaurs.

Oviraptorid eggs are shaped like elongated ovals (elongatoolithid) and resemble the eggs of ratite birds (such as ostriches) in texture and shell structure. In the nest, eggs are typically found in pairs and arranged in concentric circles of up to three layers, with complete clutches consisting of as many of 22 eggs in some species. The eggs of Citipati are the largest known definitive oviraptorid eggs, at 18 cm. In contrast, eggs associated with Oviraptor are only up to 14 cm long.

The first oviraptorid eggs (of the genus Oviraptor, which mean "Egg thief") were found in close proximity to the remains of the ceratopsian dinosaur Protoceratops and it was assumed that the oviraptorids were preying upon the eggs of the ceratopsians. It was not until 1993, when a Citipati embryo was discovered inside an egg of the type assigned to Protoceratops, that the error was corrected. Norell et al., who recognized the embryo as oviraptorid, assigned it to the genus Citipati. The egg containing the embryo was smaller than most known Citipati eggs at only 12 cm, though it was partially eroded and broken into three pieces, making an accurate estimate of its original size difficult. The embryo-bearing egg was otherwise identical to other oviraptorid eggs in shell structure and was found in an isolated nest, again arranged in a circular pattern. An oviraptorosaurian specimen from China described in 2005 was found to have two unlaid eggs within the pelvic canal. This suggests that, unlike modern crocodilians, oviraptorosaurs did not produce and lay many eggs at the same time. Rather, the eggs were produced within the reproductive organs in pairs, and laid two at a time, with the mother positioned in the center of the nest and rotating in a circle as each pair was laid. This behavior is supported by the fact that the eggs oval shape, with the more narrow end pointing backward from the birth canal, matching their orientation toward the center of the nest after being laid. The presence of two shelled eggs within the birth canal shows that oviraptorosaurs were intermediate between the reproductive biology of crocodilians and modern birds. Like crocodilians, they had two oviducts. However, crocodilians produce multiple shelled eggs per oviduct at a time, whereas oviraptorosaurs, like birds, produced only one egg per oviduct at a time.

In 2017, paleontologists discovered colored pigments in some fossilized oviraptorid embryos of the egg-shell genus Macroolithus (which may represent eggs of Heyuannia). Examinations of eggs attributed to Heyuannia by Jasmina Wiemann and Tzu-Ruei Yang et al revealed the eggs preserved the blue-green pigment biliverdin and the reddish-brown pigment protoporphyrin, the same pigments found in many modern birds' eggshells. The eggs are thought to have been a blue-green color, because biliverdin is preserved in much greater abundance the photoporphyrin. In modern bird eggs, coloration can camouflage the eggs or help parents identify eggs, and it is correlated with more intensive parental care.

Metabolism
A study by Robert Eagle et al. of the University of California-Los Angeles indicates that from specimens of eggs found in Mongolia and examination of the isotopes carbon-13 and oxygen 18 found within, Oviraptorids had body temperatures that could be elevated higher than that of the surrounding environment but lower than that of birds. This is very different from the isotope ratios of sauropod dinosaurs like Brachiosaurus, which had body temperatures of up to 100 F and were fully endothermic.

Feathers
Oviraptorids were probably feathered, since some close relatives were found with feathers preserved (including species of Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx and Similicaudipteryx). Another finding pointing to this is the discovery in Nomingia of a pygostyle, a bone that results from the fusion of the last tail vertebrae and is responsible in birds to hold a fan of feathers in the tail. Finally, the arm position of the brooding Citipati would have been far more effective if feathers were present to cover the eggs.

Pathology
The brooding oviraptorid specimen IGM 100/979 showed a callus and possible longitudinal groove left over from a healed fracture of the right ulna. Other oviraptorids have had pathological features reported in their phalanges but these have not been described in detail in the scientific literature.

Paleoenvironment
Almost all oviraptorids come from desert deposits of the Gobi Desert. Even in the late Cretaceous period, much of this area was desert, or at least very dry, habitat. In many of the localities where they are found, oviraptorids are among the most abundant dinosaurs present, second only to ankylosaurs and protoceratopsids. This is consistent with the idea that they were primarily herbivores, which tend to far outnumber carnivores in a given environment. Oviraptorids appear to have been far more abundant in arid habitats dominated mainly by small dinosaurs (such as those preserved in the Barun Goyot and Djadochta Formations) than in wetter ecosystems where large dinosaurs are common (such as the Nemegt Formation). The same pattern holds true for protoceratopsids, indicating that both groups preferred dry, desert-like habitat, and fed mainly on the types of tough, low-growing plant life that grows in arid climates.

title: Oviraptoridae


text:
Mentha aquatica

Mentha aquatica (water mint; syn. Mentha hirsuta Huds. ) is a perennial flowering plant in the mint family Lamiaceae. It grows in moist places and is native to much of Europe, northwest Africa and southwest Asia.

Description
Water mint is a herbaceous rhizomatous perennial plant growing to 90 cm tall. The stems are square in cross section, green or purple, and variably hairy to almost hairless. The rhizomes are wide-spreading, fleshy, and bear fibrous roots. The leaves are ovate to ovate-lanceolate, 2 to 6 cm long and 1 to 4 cm broad, green (sometimes purplish), opposite, toothed, and vary from hairy to nearly hairless. The flowers of the watermint are tiny, densely crowded, purple, tubular, pinkish to lilac in colour and form a terminal hemispherical inflorescence; flowering is from mid to late summer. Water mint is visited by many types of insects, and can be characterized by a generalized pollination syndrome, but can also spread by underground rhizomes. All parts of the plant have a distinctly minty smell. Unbranched, hairless plants, with narrower leaves and paler flowers, native to areas of Sweden and Finland near the Baltic Sea, have been called Mentha aquatica var. litoralis.

Mentha aquatica is a polyploid, with 2n = 8x = 96 chromosomes.

Taxonomy
Mentha aquatica was first described by Carl Linnaeus in 1753. As with other Mentha species, it was subsequently re-described under a variety of different names;, Plants of the World Online listed 87 synonyms, including four forms or varieties that it does not recognize. The cultivated eau de Cologne mint (also known as bergamot mint) is considered to be a variety of this species.

It hybridises with Mentha spicata (spearmint) to produce Mentha × piperita (peppermint), a sterile hybrid; with Mentha suaveolens (apple mint) to produce Mentha × suavis; with Mentha arvensis (corn mint) to produce Mentha × verticillata; and with both M. arvensis and M. spicata to give the tri-species hybrid Mentha × smithiana.

Distribution and habitat
Water mint is native to much of Europe, northern Africa and western Asia. It has been introduced to North and South America, Australia and some Atlantic islands.

As the name suggests, water mint occurs in the shallow margins and channels of streams, rivers, pools, dikes, ditches, canals, wet meadows, marshes and fens. If the plant grows in the water itself, it rises above the surface of the water. It generally occurs on mildly acidic to calcareous (it is common on soft limestone) mineral or peaty soils. M. aquatica can occur in certain fen-meadow habitats such as the Juncus subnodulosus–Cirsium palustre plant association. It is a component of purple moor grass and rush pastures – a type of Biodiversity ActPlan habitat in the UK.

Uses
It can be used as an edible herb (like spearmint or peppermint) and to make a herbal tea. The cultivated variety known as eau de Cologne mint or bergamot mint is used to produce mentha citrata oil, also known as bergamot mint oil, an ingredient used in perfumery (not to be confused with bergamot essential oil).

title: Mentha aquatica


text:
Talk:Wildlife

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alanis Rubi Rosario. Peer reviewers: Khatherinne.rivera, NRC2020UPRC.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I have completely re-written the Wildlife destruction section. I really couldn't work out how to properly link references (this is my first serious Wiki edit) so please help out with the Diamond ref if you can. Gary Beilby 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is terribly written, with many statements relating to point of view. I find the statement "It is ok to use wildlife to human benefit as long as you do not use to much or it could have strong negative impact in the environment." Particularly offensive. That is a viewpoint at odds with many modern environmental philosophers and is disrespectfull to the inherent value of life.

this page is really bad dosent make sense and not informative as there is too little info and very few links related to wildlife and its conservation on this page

 * I have interconnected this "Wildlife" / "Wildlife Conservation" page now to many conservation related pages on Wikipedia, and also added External Links.

All are welcome to please make this page better. Thanks

Atulsnischal 01:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Additional Wildlife Conservation Links"
See also

 * Animal husbandry
 * Artificial insemination
 * Biodiversity
 * Birdwatching
 * CITES
 * CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora)
 * Cloning
 * Conservation biology
 * Conservation movement
 * Conservation status
 * Earth First
 * Earth Liberation Front
 * Ecology
 * Ecosystems
 * Ecotourism
 * Embryo transfer
 * Endangered species
 * Environmental agreements
 * Environmental movement
 * Environmentalism
 * Ethology Animal Behavior
 * Ex-situ conservation
 * Extinction
 * Gene pool
 * Greenpeace
 * Habitat (ecology)
 * in-situ conservation
 * IUCN Red List
 * List of Conservation topics
 * List of politically endorsed extermination of animals
 * Natural history
 * Natural Resources Defense Council
 * Nature documentary
 * Ornithology
 * Pest control
 * Reintroduction
 * Titmouse
 * Wildlife Enforcement Monitoring System (WEMS)
 * Wildlife Enforcement Monitoring System (WEMS)
 * Wildlife gardening
 * Wildlife management
 * World Conservation Union (IUCN)
 * Zoos

References

 * The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
 * The Convention on Biological Diversity
 * In-Situ Conservation, The Convention on Biological Diversity
 * Ex-Situ Conservation, The Convention on Biological Diversity
 * Wildlife SOS Working to save Wildlife
 * Wildlife Warriors Worldwide
 * The World Wide Fund for Nature
 * http://www.defenders.org
 * Sundarbans Tiger Project Research and Conservation of tigers in the largest remaining mangrove forest in the world.
 * http://www.wildlifesf.com
 * http://www.ecologyfund.com
 * http://www.therainforestsite.com
 * North American wildlife
 * Restoring Appalachian Wildlife
 * GLOBIO past, current and future scenarios maps of human impact on particularly larger wildlife, flagship species, and biodiversity in general
 * Africam - African Wildlife Webcams
 * Religious Freedom with Raptors
 * The Nature Conservancy - a not-for-profit organization dedicated to preserving habitat for wildlife
 * North American Wildlife Photo notecards
 * Wild Animals Online encyclopedia - articles on many species, facts, photos
 * The Wildlife Trusts (UK) Protecting Wildlife for the Future
 * Wildscreen Trust Arkive creating a lasting audio-visual record of life on earth.
 * Natural History New Zealanda wildlife television production company
 * World Hunting Association
 * THE PROS AND CONS OF CLONING (AND OTHER REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY TECHNIQUES)
 * CLONING TO SAVE A SPECIES - THE CHEETAH (Asiatic Cheetah) & RUSTY SPOTTED CAT; THE "END OF EXTINCTION" SCENARIO

Atulsnischal 05:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please create more "Wildlife of ....." articles for all countries.
.... and kindly contribute to these new articles when you get time, and request others too.

See Wildlife of India for reference.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for WikiProject Protected areas of India & Conservation
If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This needs a flag or two
I agree that this article is poorly executed and needs to be rewritten to meet quality standards and NPOV. I think the last section is particularly weak, and the article may be better off without it until the topic can be approached with an acceptable style. Anyone want to flag for quality, citations, and NPOV? I would, but I have no idea how to do so. --88.149.173.98 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Permission to use work?
I found much of this taken from http://www.idiotvox.com/Photography/PodCast_Review_Chameleons_Eye_Israel_News_Photos_and_Features__17160.html under the heading "Animals and Wildlife Images"

Definition of Wildlife
According to Wiktionary, and often in common usage, the term "wildlife" refers only to animals, not plants or other organisms. Is this a "common mistake", or a legitimate alternative meaning? I think this discrepancy should be dealt with in the article. Gidip (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I came to the page to clarify the same. To me, all living things not bred / grown by humans are wildlife, but in common usage including wildlife organisations it means animals, and only "obvious" animals like birds and mammals, rarely insections etc except as prey. Perhaps this is for PR reasons. There is probably no right answer, but the article should then mention the ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblomov99 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

religion
I've removed the very poorly worded and misspelt paragraph in the religion section. It has no relevance to the subject which is, ....Oh yes, WILDLIFE. the remaining paragraph is only barely relevant and probably should be removed. BUT some do gooding reactionary reverted it without even thinking, I give in, no wonder wikipedia is derided for its rubbish content Splodgeness (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sugarcane Deforestation, Bolivia, 2016-06-15 by Planet Labs.jpg

Plants
Why wildlife is only relates to animal when the word wildlifes refers to catch all term for all types of organisms?2404:8000:1027:85F6:A140:91BB:6B11:B462 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wildlife


text: Category:Pine County, Minnesota

title: Category:Pine County, Minnesota


text:
Talk:History of feminism

Removed a confusing passage of little importance
I removed the following passage (which I have, evenso, considerably cleaned up) from the terminology paragraph under the "Post-war and second wave" heading: "(This terminology is not completely uniform among all authors. T.Z. Lavine maintains that the 'First wave' in the United States was the Women's Rights Movement from the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention to the onset of the American Civil War in 1861; the 'Second wave,' or Woman Suffrage Movement, from the founding of the National American Woman Suffrage Association in 1890 to 1924 after the amendment to grant the vote was ratified; the 'Third wave,' the 'Women's Movement,' from 1964. )"I removed it because it only confuses an already very garbled article, and because the source seems obscure, and because the info, if it belongs in Wikipedia at all, belongs in a section or article that focuses on the U.S. All in all, I personally think Wikipedia can probably live without it. Softlavender (talk)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be 4 (not 3?) bullet points, in the lede?
These comments are based upon the "Latest revision as of 02:43, 2 March 2023" of the article.

The "History" section of the "Infobox" or "sidebar" Template:Feminism sidebar -- which is present in this article! -- has four entries in its "Waves" sub-section ("First", "Second", "Third", and "Fourth"). Also, [the 19th to 21st centuries section of] this article itself -- (see the version that is mentioned [and linked to] above) -- includes a sub-section called "Fourth wave".

Yet, for some reason (perhaps inertia? going all the way back to when the third wave was the 'current' / 'most recent' wave?) the bullet points in the lede of this article (see the version mentioned above) only include the first, second and third waves.

Given this inconsistency, it does not take much of an expert to suspect that there might be an opportunity for improvement here. For example, someone could add a fourth bullet point, (after the three bullet points that already exist, in the "top" part of this article ... that is, the part of this article before the "Early feminism" section) and include there some more content, analogous to what is explained in the three bullet points that are already there. That editor might choose to be guided to some extent (if appropriate) by reading what it says in the sub-section of this article called "Fourth wave"; probably including the fact that said sub-section begins (in part) with a LINK to [the article about] "Fourth-wave feminism".

Just a suggestion. Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of feminism


text:
Talk:Military history of Britain

Military history of Britain
So article title has been changed, considering how close the vote was i fail to see how this option is far less controversial especially as several of the people who voted against British Isles were told to come here and vote a certain way on an Irish forum.

I can live with the current article title but we need clarification about what on earth this article is meant to be about? Is this an article just on the island of Britain? is it about the whole of Britains past including during the period of the United Kingdom so we talk about the British Empire. OR do we just delete everything from this article (what a waste) and replace it with links to

Military history of England Military history of Scotland Military history of United Kingdom

This is a complete mess. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

 * An article under this title is basically redundant to Military history of the United Kingdom. Stop messing about with title changes and page moves, and decide what the page should actually be about. A page about wars and military action occurring on the land of the British Isles would have served a purpose; a page rehashing the content of Military history of England, Military history of Scotland, Military history of Ireland, Military history of Wales and Military history of the United Kingdom is pointless. If we're not going to have a page about the wars on the soil of the British Isles, then get on with creating Military history of Ireland and the so-far-ignored Military history of Wales, and restore the title of this page to Military history of the British Isles with links to those other articles, with Military history of Britain being a redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom. Fences and windows (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have complained to the admin about his ill-judged actions. There was clear external canvassing and he was made aware of it. This move goes completely against the rationale he was arguing for and if the move persists it will set a dangerous precedent. LevenBoy (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article remains at this title? it should be adjusted to Military history of Great Britain & then a Military history of Ireland article, should be created. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I'm making the point about external canvassing. It swayed the vote. The article title, current or otherwise, is not relevant to the issue. This is vote rigging pure and simple. LevenBoy (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You state which drew numerous new editors to the vote and which bolstered the option you say has won.. What new editors?  --HighKing (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Personally, I'm concerned about all those newbies having cast their opinons. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who? --HighKing (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec. Are we speaking about the poll held from May 31-June 3? GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats the poll which was mentioned which resulted in the choice between the two options.. It was very close as we said at the time and there was certainly a couple of editors who came out of nowhere, clearly being encouraged to post after seeing the comment on the Irish forum.BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm concerned about those newbies. Intially, I suspected that sockery was at hand. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Same question. Who? --HighKing (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * These blokes: Clem McGann, Colm Dawson, 83.71.42.12, Jonsnow27 and Navnite. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Navnite, ColmDawson and especially Jonsnow27s interest in this article all of a suddent was interesting. (didnt think McGann was a problem), and lets not forget it was only because we closed the poll right away announcing the results.. dozens of others could of came and posted to totally swing the vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Clem will have something to say about that. --HighKing (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont blame the admin for making the choice made and putting this article at the current title. Whilst i disagree with the choice, its certainly more accurate and clear than the previous title which was a complete joke. But i do think we should decide on what the content for this article was going to be if it was changed to the current title (before the change happened). With or without those editors it is clear the vote was very close and no consensus was going to be reached from it so it seems rather unfair that one person has decided the outcome. (although as i said before its certainly a better title than it was) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Military history of Britain excludes, by definition, Ireland, and while we're talking about what should be in the article and if it should be about the Military History of the British Isles - someone's gone and removed some of the content relevant to Ireland - and removed the Irish wikiproject box that was on this talk page. (They've missed bits, but the intent is clear). *sigh*... Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol sorry the removal of the several mentions of Ireland in the intro and the wikiproject was by me in response to the articles name change. If this isnt a permanent name change then those edits can be undone. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that sometimes the military history of Britain is going to bump into some of the military history of Ireland at some points, so it might not be a good to remove all references to Ireland.... --HighKing (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lmao well im glad you accept that now HighKing, it has been one of the main arguments for keeping this title at British Isles, the fact that Military history of Britain "bumps into" military history of Ireland ALOT of the time. There for commonsense was to have a single article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

 * What is the difference between British military history (which redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom) and the military history of Britain? And what is the difference between the military history of the United Kingdom and the military history of Britain (since we all know that there are "bits" that will "bump off" Ireland)? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (update after PBS's edit) PBS's seems sensible. I think British military history should redirect here also - going to do that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I've been bold and created a dab page. Whether "British military history" redirects to Military history of the United Kingdom or here depends on whether British is an adjective for the state or the island. If a Military history of Wales is written it can be added to the page, and I would suggest that when the Military history of Ireland is written, it is added to the bottom of the page under "See also", Whow I see someone has already done it.  --PBS (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote a REALLY rough military history of Ireland. Can people please go there to add bits and edit as necessary. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We should all accept the outcome which does resolve the problem by removing the previous crazy article title. Oh just so everyone knows, i removed the See also section linking to Ireland. This is about Britain, Ireland has nothing to do with it anymore. The fun now is how on earth an article on military history of Ireland is going neutral and accepted by all sides. Cya all there BritishWatcher (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "This is about Britain, Ireland has nothing to do with it anymore." Oh, if only :) I've put it back in. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? This is now about Britain ONLY not Ireland, A link to the Irish page doesnt belong here. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Frankly it`s a disgrace.--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This page disambiguates to Military history of the United Kingdom among other articles. That would be the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, no? Formerly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? That article overlaps with that Military history of Ireland entirely during the period 1801-1922 and partially thereafter. It would strike me that Military history of Ireland is a reasonable See also in that circumstance. No? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No sorry i find it totally unacceptable to have military history of Ireland linked on the military history of Britain which is a completly different island. The fact there is huge overlap is exactly why many of us argued against a change and split to these articles. Now that has happened i really see no need to link the Ireland page here.
 * Irelands involvement between 1800 to today belongs at Military history of the United Kingdom, i have no problem with a link on that page to Military history of Ireland but it doesnt belong here this is about Britain. This issue made me laugh, its a bit like going for a divorce and wanting to keep wearing the wedding ring afterwards. Weve split the articles, Britain and Irelands military history with the exception of the United Kingdom is sadly no longer a shared one. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 * This is a dab page. "Britain", as you know, can mean either the island of that name or the UK. Hence, "Military history of Britain" dabs to Military history of the United Kingdom. You may find it "totally unacceptable to have military history of Ireland linked on the military history of Britain" but the fact is that for the past 206 years, they are linked. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not linked enough to justify a shared article which many of us were arguing for. This is a dab page for links about Britain which ofcourse includes the United Kingdom, but thats where the link to Ireland belongs on the Military history of the United Kingdom not on one just about Britain. I dont know what others think, but i find it very strange we split the articles in two and then decide theres such a shared history they must be linked. Military history of Australia or Canada isnt going to be listed here despite a shared history as they were part of the British Empire.
 * Britain and Ireland have a huge history together, clearly shown by the current Military history of Ireland article which mentions either England or Britain / British in almost every single paragraph. That is why it made sense to use the fact we share a geographical area known as the British Isles to talk about everything together. Sadly people want to wipe the British Isles off the map and they are starting with wikipedia. People can not argue on one hand that Ireland and Britain are so different they cant be put together on a single article, then think Ireland deserves a link on a page just about Britain. I dont think there needs to be a link on the Ireland page to here, although one to the Military history of the United Kingdom is ofcourse justified and a good idea.  BritishWatcher (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, that's bit more reasoned. (But I did smile at reading, "Not linked enough to justify a shared article which many of us were arguing for." It's only a 'See also' link for heaven's sake.) Anyway, let's see what others say it ain't no biggey anyway. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

<--outdent. BritishWatcher you are currently in a minority of one on whether to include MhoI in the "see also" section. I am going to reinstate it, because it may be of use for some people. Please don't revert again and lets wait and see if anyone else agrees enough with your arguments that MhoI should not be in the see also section to wish to remove it from the article. --PBS (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me " a minority of one"? I have seen 1 other person defend its inclusion here since this article was radically changed yesterday. What is the point in splitting the articles in two if the article on Britain now has to link to the article on Ireland.. they are two very different things atleast thats what people argued was the case?
 * The whole matter has been a disgrace. First someone changed the article title from something stable for 7 months with no consensus, got the article locked into where it remained until yesterday. There were two attempts to rig the vote about the future of this article, the result of the vote was clearly divided and ONE person made the choice to split the articles.
 * Now i can accept the split, i didnt strongly oppose it but i saw the problems of having two different articles. Now after that split people think its right to link to the Ireland page? This is about Britain.. people chose to divide the articles, what on earth does Ireland have to do with Britain?? The link to Ireland belongs on the article about the United Kingdom military history.. NOT on a page about Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The anti-BI brigade want it all ways. They've been temporarily successful in renaming this article for overtly political reasons, now they want it to reference Ireland. No chance. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second ... this is not about pro- or anti-BI. (If it were then surely the "pro-BI brigade" would want Ireland included?) PBS was out of line to say BritishWatcher was a "minority of one" in a discussion involving only two participants. If Military history of Ireland is not wanted in the 'See also' section then that's fine, it's no big deal. This is a dab page and like BritishWatcher says the link can go on the Military history of the United Kingdom page. Let's not blow things out of proportion and let's put an end to the name calling. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not out of line as I was also involved in this conversation, that is two to one (see my comments above), and when I made the comment there were on other participants in the conversation. I am more than happy to go with Aervanath's template idea and I now hope this page and debate can be laid to rest. -- PBS (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I must agree with British Watcher and MidnightBlue when they say that it is a bit contradictory to have a link to the Military history of Ireland page here. Moreover, if this page is to link to the Ireland page, then it must link to the Spanish, French and German pages because, if I'm not mistaken, the British have had the odd war with those countries also. I really can't see the logic for the special treatment. I'm Irish. 86.44.18.83 (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea of the Europe template was a very good compromise and i hope its accepted by everyone. PBS and comra, im sorry about my comments before i didnt mean to come across hostile, this issue really got to me for some reason, far far more than the article name change itself. It looks as if people are prepared to accept the name change so hopefully this article will be stable now. Thanks everyone BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 * "British Isles" brings out the stress in us all. Don't let it strain you out. (BTW my username is "rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid" (kind of like: ryan-vawrth-ee an-aih-nij), "coṁra" means "discussion".) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL thanks for pointing that out. Ill copy/paste the name next time i was going to type out the whole thing but thought id make too many mistakes as its a rather long name. Saw the Comra and thought hmm thats nice and simple to type :). BritishWatcher (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 * No worries ... it's a tough one. "anaithnid" or "anaiṫnid" (if you can do the dot over the 't') will do just fine (it means "anonymous"). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is Ireland here?
Last time I checked, Ireland was not part of Britain so why is the page about Irish military history linked from this page? Iamdmonah (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Military history of Britain


text:
Talk:Babylonia

This is a pretty patchy article
AMORITE PERIOD - There is not much detail about the Amorite dynasty, apart from Hammurabi

KASSITE PERIOD - Same as above really, pretty basic and patchy. Someone removed the detailed rev because of "Assyrian bias" lol...i never saw any tbh.

OTHER DYNASTIES - The current version just ignores them

NEO BABYLONIAN EMPIRE - Most of this is about PERSIA???

The whole article is patchy and doesnt contain much detail at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Babylonia: Persian?!, so what happened to Iraq?
So why didn't the writer say that Babylonia was completely PERSIAN?!, this includes much fatal errors and remember that you can not trust all websites of the sources you've used (writer), we can not include something from our own, the Iraqi Wikipedians must help us in this or the Iraqi history will go out like this!.
 * Quite probably because Persians are an Iranic Indo-European people, and Babylonians were Semites and remnants of the Sumerians that spoke a non-IE language? Just a thought. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Because Babylonia wasn't completely Persian. It continued to use Cuneiform, Aramaic, and develop Babylonian sciences. Persians didn't come en masse to Mesopotamia until 800 A.D. 64.222.113.252 (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)John Dee

babylonian and aztec
I seen a program on the history chanel saying that the aztecs are actualy babylonian in decent so that would mean that they are not native to america that they migrated here just like the early europeans they had to have done a blood test or something to figure this out can anyone confirm this?68.116.91.31 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM

Genesis 10:10
The Book of Genesis, 10:10 states "The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar. Does this refer to "Babylonia" or "Babylon" (I believe they are the same thing). Twillisjr (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, in this instance the reference is to the city of Babylon, not the region/state of Babylonia. However, Babylon was not located in Sumer (Shinar.)

Gnosticism
Is Gnosticism the religion of Babylonians? Early Iraq is supposedly connected to this religion and a few scholarly articles do mention it as being practiced in Babylonia. Does anyone else know if this is the case and where to add it?

Twillisjr (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Not quite. If we read Gnosticism we see it properly refers to a religion that began to spread around the year 100 AD, in the eastern Roman Empire. I think there may be groups in Iraq today that were influenced by them, but it is an anachronism for Babylonia, which is going back to 500-1800 BC. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The one given was only accurate for some parts of American English. Rather than laundry list the variants, leave it for the Wiktionary entry and remember Wikipedia is. We should only include pronunciations where well-meaning readers could be genuinely confused. Is there anyone who's going to read this as baby-lone-ee-? If so, reïnclude the IPA, but include sourcing and the "British" pronunciation with the short I which is also shared by many Americans. — Llywelyn II   02:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion
WP:Further reading sections are almost always a bad idea since Wikipedia doesn't have any experts curating them and they gradually and unhelpfully bloat. Kindly restore these to the article as they are used to verify points being made:

 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)
 * Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes (published twice-yearly from 2003 onwards)

If the further reading section is being recreated, include a gloss about each work explaining how exactly these works are more helpful than a Google search to someone learning about the topic. — Llywelyn II   02:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There's also more info at the EB articles (and EB material already in the article that needs to be cited to them), but do keep in mind that some points may be dated. — Llywelyn II   03:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Babylonia. 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://archive.is/20150221193358/http://www.aliraqi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=69813 to http://www.aliraqi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=69813

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) 10:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Help
How I can use this source on this article?

See Citing sources and the associated templates. Dimadick (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Dimadick, I mean, which section of this article I can use this source's information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah5 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Social
Collect the more information of babylonia and sumerians 223.184.76.27 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Babylonia


text:
Leith (disambiguation)

Leith is a port and area of Edinburgh, Scotland

Leith may also refer to:

Australia

 * Leith, Tasmania

Canada

 * Leith, Ontario

New Zealand

 * Leith Valley, Dunedin
 * Water of Leith (New Zealand), a river

South Georgia

 * Leith Harbour

United Kingdom

 * Leith (ward), Edinburgh, Scotland
 * Leith (UK Parliament constituency), Edinburgh, Scotland
 * Leith Hill, Surrey, England
 * River Leith, Cumbria, England
 * Water of Leith, in Edinburgh, Scotland

United States

 * Leith, North Dakota
 * Leith, Ohio
 * Leith, Pennsylvania; see List of places in Pennsylvania: La–Ll

People

 * Leith (surname)

Given name

 * Leith Anderson, American evangelical Christian leader, author, and pastor
 * Leith Brodie (born 1986), Australian swimmer
 * Leith Clark (born 1979), Canadian-born English fashion stylist, editor, and fashion journalist
 * Leith Dunn, Jamaican sociologist, writer and academic
 * Leith Mulligan (born 1972), Australian sports journalist
 * Leith Mullings (1945–2020), Jamaican-born author, anthropologist and professor
 * Leith Ratten, Australian convicted murderer
 * Leith Ross, Canadian indie rock singer-songwriter and guitarist
 * Leith Shankland (born 1991), South African swimmer
 * Leith Stevens (1909–1970), American composer and conductor
 * Lieth Von Stein (1946–1988), American murder victim

Other uses

 * HMS Leith, ships of the Royal Navy

title: Leith (disambiguation)


text:
National Hispanic University

The National Hispanic University (NHU)  was a small, private university located in San Jose, California, founded by Stanford-educated Dr. B. Roberto Cruz. National Hispanic University ceased operations on August 23, 2015. It was the first four-year Latino university in the United States. NHU's vision was to foster "a caring learning environment where students have felt valued and supported at every step in their academic journey. Embracing diversity and multiple perspectives as guiding principles."

History
The National Hispanic University was founded in 1981 in Oakland, California, to address the needs of Hispanic men and women. Founder Dr. Roberto Cruz had studied the disproportionately large impact historically black colleges and universities had in generating both undergraduate and professional degree graduates within the Black community. Dr. Cruz's vision was to have similarly positive impact on the Hispanic community in the United States. In 1990, the university opened a San Jose campus and moved to a larger facility in Oakland. In 1994, NHU closed both campuses and moved to a new campus in East San Jose.

For several years, National Hispanic University published an annual report card on Hispanic quality of life.

From 1981 to 1986, NHU also published reports on women of La Raza, Cesar Chavez, bilingual special education, Las Posadas, and "Steps to Humanity."

In the 2000s, NHU was unsuccessful in its many attempts to find financial backers from Silicon Valley or Latino philanthropists who could save the school.

After those options were closed, the school reached a deal with Laureate Education.

In 2010, NHU became a member of the Laureate International Universities network, a for-profit college chain. Laureate hoped to turn NHU into a mostly online school.

In 2012, NHU celebrated its 30th anniversary.

Laureate officially closed National Hispanic University on August 23, 2015.

Laureate's decision to close
When Laureate made the decision to abandon National Hispanic University in 2014, one NHU student remarked "The values of the school stood out for me."..."Now it comes down to dollar bills." According to the San Jose Mercury News, "some students who wanted a traditional, classroom approach to education said they felt abandoned by Laureate after NHU's drive to enroll thousands of new students in Internet classes did not produce the desired results."

Plans for NHU campus
As part of the Foundation for Hispanic Education's efforts, the East San Jose campus is planned to house The Center for Latino Education and Innovation, The Latino College Preparatory Academy (a bilingual charter school), and The Luis Valdez Leadership Academy, a charter high school for students in San José.

Accreditation
The university was accredited by WASC and was rated by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a "Baccalaureate College", with an academic breadth rated as "Diverse Fields"

title: National Hispanic University