text:
Sergiusz Piasecki

Sergiusz Piasecki (1901 in Lachowicze near Baranowicze – 1964 in Penley, London) was one of the best known Belarusian-Polish writers of the mid 20th century. He was mainly portraying life of criminals and lowlifes of Minsk, which he knew very well, as well as work of Polish spies in Soviet Union and later the anti-Nazi conspiracy in Wilno; he had personal experience in both matters.

His novel written in prison, Lover of the Great Bear, published in 1937, was the third most popular novel in the Second Polish Republic. Following World War II, Piasecki's books were banned by communist censorship in the People's Republic of Poland.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in early 1990s, Lover of the Great Bear became again one of the best selling books in the country according to Rzeczpospolita daily newspaper. His other novel, an Anti-Soviet satire The Memoirs of a Red Army Officer, had already been reprinted several times.

Early life
Sergiusz Piasecki was born on 1 April 1901 (or 1 June 1899) in Lachowicze, 130 km from Minsk, then in Northwestern Krai of the Russian Empire (now Brest Province, Belarus). The latter date was presented by Piasecki on several occasions, in order to mislead the authorities. He was an illegitimate son of an postmaster Michał Piasecki and servant Klaudia Kukałowicz. He was looked after by his stepmother Filomena Gruszewska, who bullied him physically and mentally. His family spoke exclusively in Russian at home and he didn't learn Polish language until his later imprisonment.

His childhood was very difficult because children at school mocked his Polish roots, calling him "Lach". Piasecki hated the Russian school – as he later explained – and in the seventh grade, armed with a pistol attacked the teacher. Sentenced to jail, he escaped from prison, and thus his formal education ended.

After he run away from jain, he headed to Moscow, where he experienced October Revolution and watched his close friends' deaths. It was then that his disgust with communist ideology started.

In 1919 he traveled to Minsk, as a member of the Belarusian "White" organisation. He cooperated with Polish army that was entering Minsk at that time, getting himself wounded.

From 7 April 1920 to 10 January 1921 he studied in army officers school Infantry Officer Cadet School in Warsaw. Later he took part in Polish–Soviet War of 1920. He was demobilised on 12 May 1921. Afterwards, he was asked to join Polish intelligence, as his language skills (he spoke Russian and Belarusian fluently) were highly regarded.

Ambiguities
In the monograph about his life, work and legend, researcher Krzysztof Polechoński noted that most available data about Piasecki's whereabouts often do not correspond to reality, not to mention the claims made by the writer himself. Perhaps the discrepancies came from his work as intelligence agent, but there is no way to confirm many of his personal stories. Piasecki's addresses in Vilnius are not available and neither are the registers of houses in which he lived. His personal documents in possession of Piasecki's son: such as the copy of a marriage certificate with Jadwiga Waszkiewicz or the birth certificate of his son Władysław Tomaszewicz are falsifications, as revealed by Polechoński himself after a search performed in Vilnius archives. It is not possible to say whether his evacuation card is authentic. There is no photo of him in the prisoners' photo archives of Łukiszki penitentiary. There is no proof of his residency amongst the Vilnius city dwellers. He might have stayed in a hotel.

Work for the Polish intelligence service
In early 1920s, Piasecki organized a whole web of Polish agents, covering the area of Soviet Belarus. Piasecki was also a smuggler, in order to both earn the money to finance his activities but also to have a cover up for them. Foreign spies as a rule were all executed by the Soviets, while smugglers were only incarcerated for a few years. As he wrote – he smuggled cocaine to the USSR, taking furs back to Poland.

During this period, he served 21 months in Novogrudok prison for his involvement in a clash between two smuggling gangs. This situation repeated again in 1926, Piasecki was again imprisoned and expelled from service. After his release from prison, he tried to interest French intelligence in his services and to leave for the Foreign Legion. After these plans failed, he took up robbery. He was arrested again and sentenced to death by a verdict of the Vilnius Field Court on January 9, 1930. His former supervisors from the intelligence have sought a reduced fine, and so instead of being executed, Piasecki ended up with 15 years imprisonment. His stay in the Lida prison was short. As a leader of a rebellion, he was moved to Rawicz. There, he incited another riot, and was moved to Koronowo and later to Wronki. Finally, Piasecki was transferred to the hardest prison in Poland, located in Łysa Góra near Kielce. As he was regarded a troublesome prisoner, he was often kept in isolation ward, where he got sick with tuberculosis.

Writing in prison
Piasecki became a writer by chance. Later, he confessed that many prisoners in Wronki would write, so he decided to emulate them. As his knowledge of standard Polish was poor, he would learn from a school book of Polish grammar. Some time in either 1935 or 1936, his prison prose came to the attention of a famous novelist and journalist, Melchior Wańkowicz, who toured Polish prisons as a reporter. After reading a manuscript of Kochanek Wielkiej Niedzwiedzicy, Wańkowicz encouraged Piasecki to continue his writing efforts and helped him to publish the book. The publication and resulting popularity of the book became the catalyst for getting Piasecki out of prison. The book was published while Piasecki was still in prison, and its copy was delivered to his cell. The book sold out within a month, it was the third most popular publication of interwar Poland.

Due to popularity of the book, Wańkowicz's efforts to release Piasecki were supported by other writers and lawyers. Finally, in 1937 president Ignacy Mościcki pardoned him. The day of his release was sensational, crowds of journalists were waiting at a gate, and Piasecki himself was shocked at technical novelties, such as radio, which had become common since 1926. In late 1937 and early 1938, Piasecki went to Otwock and Zakopane, to recuperate. Among others, he met Witkacy, who painted his portrait. Being a celebrity, he avoided meeting with numerous readers, neither did he like signing of books.

World War II activities
In the summer of 1939 Piasecki went to Wilno where he stayed during the invasion of Poland in World War II. In September 1939, he volunteered to the Border Defence Corps, to fight the Soviets. During the occupation of Poland, he was offered a chance to move to France, but refused and decided to stay in his occupied homeland. Even though he had never been a member of the Home Army (he said he worked for its executive branch No 2, which – like many of his stories – was never confirmed), he had cooperated with the Polish resistance, and in 1943 became an executioner, carrying out capital punishment sentences handed down by underground Polish courts. His wartime noms de guerre were "Sucz", "Kira" and "Konrad". Later, he wrote two books about his war activities. These are Wieża Babel (The Tower of Babel) and Adam i Ewa (Adam and Eve). Among those who he was ordered to execute, was Józef Mackiewicz, falsely accused of cooperating with the Germans. However, Piasecki refused to kill him, and later it was revealed that Mackiewicz's accusations had been made up by the Soviets.

Living in exile
After the war, Piasecki hid from the secret police for a year inside Poland. In April 1946, he escaped to Italy, where he spotted the Italian translation of his own Kochanek Wielkiej Niedzwiedzicy. Soon, he got in touch with Polish writers living in exile, including Jerzy Giedroyc. In 1947, Piasecki moved to England, his name can be found on a resolution of Union of Polish Writers in Exile, which urged all concerned to stop publishing in the Communist-occupied country. He once publicly declared that he would gladly take any job that would result in erasing Communism.

Living abroad, Piasecki did not stop writing. In late 1940s he came to the conclusion that humor was the best weapon to fight the Communists. So, he wrote a satire The memoirs of a Red Army officer, which presents a made-up diary of Mishka Zubov - an officer of the Red Army, who, together with his unit enters Poland on 17 September 1939. Zubov claims in his "diary" that his only purpose is to kill all the bourgeoisie who possess watches and bicycles. Piasecki became fluent in English as an adult. Sergiusz Piasecki died in 1964 in London at the age of 65. On his tomb, located in Hastings Cemetery, England, it is said that he was born on 1 June 1899.

title: Sergiusz Piasecki


text:
Talk:Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542

Rename?
When have these acts been called the Act of Union 1536 and Act of Union 1543? When I studied the subject we referred to the 1543 act as the "Laws in Wales Act". Are these the legal names of the measures? If not, where do these names come from. They are *like* the later acts of union but it is anachronistic (surely) to apply the later term to the earlier act? Francis Davey 5 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

 * The article itself states 'The Acts were not known as the "Acts of Union" until 1801, when historian Owen Edwards assigned them that name'. There may be an Interpretation Act that gives them the short names 'The Laws in Wales Act 1535' and 'The Laws in Wales Act 1542', but I guess legally they are 27 Hen. 8 c26. and 34 & 35 Hen. 8 c26. Owain 6 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

Repeal?
Has this Act of Union repealed? I don't think so, Wales is still part of the UK... some aprts may have been rendered ineffective, but the majority of the Act is still in force, surely? (Some IP address Aug 2004) I'm inclined to agree, and will mak the change until someone more authoratative can change it back. Rich Farmbrough 09:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The Acts have been repealed. The Welsh Language Act 1993 explicitly repealed both the Act of Union 1536 and the Act of Union 1543 (known formally as the Laws in Wales Acts), "so far as unrepealed", with the exception of section 47 of the 1543 Act. Section 47, the only clause still in force, states that if stolen goods or cattle are sold at market in Wales, the sale doesn't change the lawful ownership of the property. Repeal didn't change Wales' status as part of the UK - remember that, before the Act of Union 1536, Wales was still a Dominion of the Realm. The effect of the Acts was to incorporate the Dominion, Principality and Country of Wales into the English administrative and judicial system, not to unite a previously independent country with England. James Groves 00:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In any case, the legal rule applied to such legislation is 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' - that not expressingly stated is not affected. Owain 19:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Language and Focus
The section "the Welsh farmers of remoter districts found themselves adrift in amidst a legal and economic system whose language and focus were unfamiliar to them." seems a little dubious perhaps NPOV. Since the 13thC many of the King officials would have been opperating in French for legal/government matters in Wales [only slowly moving to English]. Much of this administration would have been so distant as to never involve a remote rural farmer so the distinction drawn seems stronger than the reality.Alci12

 * Maybe. But you should have seen the bias that was there before I revised it! I just tried to keep the same content but fix the POV. Doops | talk 19:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Along the same lines, the page at present states: ...some historians are increasingly arguing that "absorption" or even "colonization" are more accurate. Surely "colonization" is almost the opposite of "absorption"? This seems illogical. Doops | talk 06:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I did think that a very odd statement. England had ruled Wales for 300 years before these acts, and there was no influx of English population. All we have is a high level reorganisation of the mechanics of government. Colonization seems the wrong word entirely. You could, perhaps, say annexation or absorption. After all Wales was going from a Royal fief to part of the English state.

 * In the literal sense of the word (which would imply English people setting out to live there), I have no idea how much colonization of Wales occurred over the years; but the article on Little England beyond Wales seems to imply it was a mediaeval phenomenon — certainly not something started by these acts. Furthermore, the new and sloppy sense in which everybody uses "colonialism" now (the use which doesn't have anything to do with settlers but simply is applied when one country interests itself imperiously in another's business while keeping it at arm's length) doesn't at all apply here, since Wales became an integral part of England. Doops | talk 19:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Page move
This page was moved to Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 from Acts of Union 1536-1543 by Owain on 25 Nov 2005 without any discussion. I'm going to move it back. If you want to move something, a or  tag should be inserted and it should be discussed. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Um, JW, it doesn't appear that you've moved it back. Rather, you seem to have done a cut-and-paste. Is there a reason? Doops | talk 22:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * No reason. I probably should have done a move...since now the edit history is still at Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542.  Oops.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, It won't let me move from Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 to Acts of Union 1536-1543 because Acts of Union 1536-1543 already exists... --JW1805 (Talk) 22:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, any editor can move to a bluelink if that page has a single item in its edit history making the page a redirect; otherwise it takes WP:RM to do it — so unfortunately you shot yourself in the foot there. Doops | talk 23:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no such Act of Parliament as the "Act of Union 1536" or "Act of Union 1543". The Acts are called the "Laws in Wales Act 1535" and "Laws in Wales Act 1542". Quite why you have moved the correctly-titled page back to an incorrect name baffles me. You have also screwed-up the ability for it to be simply moved back to it's correct title using the move facility, thereby forcing me to do a horrible cut/paste job to restore it. Thankfully, that's where all the edit history is, so it's not the end of the world. Owain 10:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * BTW, if you would like to discuss why it should be moved AWAY from the correct title, then please do, although bear in mind that other articles about Acts of Parliament use their correct short title. If people want to search for nicknames such as "Act of Union 1536" then they are able to, as that redirect exists, and points the reader to the correctly-named page. Owain 10:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * This article existed for two years as Acts of Union 1536-1543. It was moved with no discussion whatsoever.  Please stop moving it until we have a discussion.  Wikipedia article titles are based on the most commonly used name.  There are only 28 Google hits for "Law in Wales Act".  ""Act of Union 1536" has 951.  "Acts of Union 1536-1543" has 667.  --JW1805 (Talk) 15:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * As you well know, just because something is repeated doesn't make it right! Is this an encyclopaedia or not? I have no problem with #REDIRECT pages from "commonly used names" but the article itself should be on the page with the correct name! The google test just proves that the erroneously-titled Wikipedia article has been replicated elsewhere! Owain 16:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Absolutely, and google hits are notoriously fickle. The point is a phrase like "Theft Act 1968" is not chosen arbitrarily. Either the name is given in the act (possibly as amended), in the Short Titles Act or in the Chronological Table of Statutes. As the Laws in Wales Act XXXX it has been known to lawyers and historians for a considerable time. It may be that there is a school that likes (for propaganda reasons) to call them acts of union, though they aren't in the sense that the real Acts of Union are. Francis Davey 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
I am proposing that this page be moved back to Acts of Union 1536-1543, which was the title for two years, and is the most commonly used term (see comments above). --JW1805 (Talk) 15:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support my nom. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you cite sources for the term please. Francis Davey 11:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Short History of Wales by Owen M. Edwards - this is what is referred to in the article. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose there is no such Act of Parliament as the "Act of Union 1536" or "Act of Union 1543". What are being referred to here are two acts - 27 Henry VIII c. 26 and 34 and 35 Henry VIII c. 26, which have been assigned the short titles "Laws in Wales Act 1535" and "Laws in Wales Act 1542". See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1993/Ukpga_19930038_en_6.htm
 * And I think, though my research isn't extensive, that the names are from the Chronological Table of Statutes. Francis Davey 11:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Neutral. But if there is no change, why not make the first sentence read something like "The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, often called the Acts of Union 1536-1543, were a series of parliamentary measures by which the legal system..." or vice versa if the renaming passes? LuiKhuntek 08:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose there is a standard way in which acts of the UK (and its predecessor) Parliaments are cited in scholarly usage. The Laws in Wales Act XXXX is the universally preferred form amongst lawyers, constitutional historians and is consistent with the way in which names are assigned to statutes throughout wikipedia. It may be that, for literary or propaganda purposes, one or more historians or writers have called them "Acts of Union", but no more do we refer to the (present) prime minister as Bliar, just because that was a popular name amongst his opponents. Most importantly, they *aren't* like the other acts of union, to describe them as so is not NPOV. Whereas they are unarguably acts about laws in Wales. Francis Davey 11:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Result
Not moved. Eugene van der Pijll 20:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bias
"a single legal jurisdiction, which is frequently referred to as England and Wales." - should read as "by extending the single legal jurisdiction of England, more recently this state is referred to as England and Wales.". The Welsh revolution is coming like the force of a mighty dripping tap! -- Pbhj 03:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * incidentally there have been a couple of letters in The Times of London recently, see letters for edition of 18 August 2007, "A Welsh Dimension" (which includes reference to other letter).

Date of formation of the United Kingdom?
After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the UK was actually founded in 1603 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, because I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

1603 is an error. England and Scotland come under the same personal rule of the sovereign James I (and VI of Scotland) in that year but the explicit Act of Union is indeed 1707. The United Kingdom can only be dated from that year.Jatrius (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Technically both 1603 and 1707 are wrong. 1603 was indeed only the union of the crowns. 1st May 1701 was the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain; uniting the kingdoms of England (with Wales) and Scotland into one kingdom. The phrase "united Kingdom" is used in the Acts of Union but only descriptively; the name of the new state was explicitly "Great Britain".
 * The United Kingdom was created on 1st January 1801; a new union uniting the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland into one, which was then called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". (Not a snappy name, but the Georgians believed in the grandeur of long titles.)
 * Howard Alexander (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One wonders how much the UK is a union and how much it's actually a single state. Scotland may have a separate legal system, but its legislature is in Westminster which tolerates some lawmaking at Holyrood. For all the euphemistic language, it would seem that the 16th century acts abolished Wales and made it part of England. One wonders if Wales has any legal standing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * You are quite right. The Acts of Union were complete incorporating unions; in 1707 the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were "united into one kingdom", not just tagged along together. England and Scotland were gone, unless as geographical expressions. (The Act even referred to "that part of the united Kingdom now called Scotland".) The 1800 Act had identical wording abolishing Great Britain and Ireland. There is no euphemistic wording there. I have not read the Laws in Wales Acts for a while though to be sure of that wording. In any case "the Dominium of Wales" was part of the Kingdom of England merged into a single Prydain Fawr 301 years ago.
 * This is all uncomfortable for English nationalists and Scots nationalists if they take it politically, but nothing stops them being particular about their geographical areas if they wish. Personally I feel just as much at home in Caernarfon, Kent, Caithness or Carrickfergus.
 * Howard Alexander (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal and legislative unions of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom
The Belfast Agreement link should be removed from the 'Sovereignty' section as the agreement was not concerned with and did not alter sovereignty in Northern Ireland or the UK as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjamesg (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dates
Why is the title 1535-1542 but the text refers to 1536-1543 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahutchinson (talk • contribs) 08:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - there seems to be much confusion concerning dates in this article. Gwybedyn (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The dates
(I'm moving a discussion here from my talk page) -- Snowded  TALK  18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on the Law section of the Wales article and noticed Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 looked odd. The Acts always seem to be referred to as having been passed in 1536 and 1543 (John Davies and Gwenllian Lansdown for example). Although the full texts from the UK Statute Law Database (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517920&versionNumber=1 here) and (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1518015&versionNumber=1 here) and the article title refer to 1535 and 1542. Any idea why? Daicaregos (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting one that. The Encyclopedia of Wales talks about the Acts of  "Union" of 1536 and 1543 and has some interesting stuff about the abolition of the Council of Wales and the Marches in 1689 which finally integrated fully with the English system of circuits.  Everything was still up in the air until 1769 (and the Great Sessions were not abolished until 1830).  Monmouth sent its cases to London which is another factor in that old chestnut.
 * So I think 1536 and 1543 is it as we have three third party sources. DIfference might be Royal Assent?  Best to post all the above on the talk page and ask.  I note that Wales is described as a country in the act ... -- Snowded  TALK  17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Just a guess - Old Style and New Style dates ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Could be, whatever it seems we should go with the Third Party sources? -- Snowded  TALK  17:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm right, a parallel might be Bristol Channel floods, 1607 - contemporary records gave the date as 1606, because the new year started on March 25 rather than Jan 1 - but nowadays they are referred to as taking place in 1607. It's quite possible that different sources are confused because they haven't all taken the calendar change into account.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are probably right here. However we have the Encyclopedia of Wales and John Davies (bows head in awe) using 1536 and 1543 and I think (If I am not confused) that means they probably took the shift into account. -- Snowded  TALK  17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or.. I could be wrong. This British Library document (p.8) says: "Although Wales was incorporated into England by the Statute of Wales 1284 (12 Edw.1 Stat. Wallie), it was another two-and-a-half centuries before it received parliamentary representation. This was effected by the Laws in Wales act 1535 (27 Hen.8, cap.20), actually passed in 1536 and otherwise called the Union with Wales act...."  There are othr sources (maybe less reliable) which say it was passed in 1535 but not enacted until 1536 - but they may be confused as well.  And, to confuse you even more, see footnote 74 here.  Not much help am I?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats closer to my original speculation - enacted rather than royal assent but same principle. Either way, third party sources!  Regardless of the reason do you agree with the change?-- Snowded  TALK  17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many more Google hits for <"Laws in Wales" 1535 1542> than there are for <"Laws in Wales" 1536 1543>.  I'm not claiming that should be definitive, but we do need to bear in mind what readers are most likely to look for.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer authoritative sources to google hits. Also a redirect handles the search?-- Snowded  TALK  17:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was all discussed on the article talk page back in 2005. We should go back and look at that, and propose any further changes there, IMHO.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense - 2005 was before my time here! -- Snowded  TALK  18:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this resolve the issue? It seems to give the official answer - the Laws in Wales Act 1535 and the Laws in Wales Act 1542. End of story, I think - there can't be anything more authoritative than the Chronological Table of Statutes, where those titles come from, can there? If that's right, presumably the article text needs to be changed, with some sort of explanation for the evident confusion over the dates. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Turning it round the other way. Official records clearly identify the legislation as The Laws in Wales Act 1535 and The Laws in Wales Act 1542.  So, why is it that many secondary sources refer to them by the dates 1536 and 1543?  This needs to be explained in the article, and I'm not sure what the explanation is.  Two possibilities have been suggested - that is is something to do with the calendar and Old Style and New Style dates, or that it is to do with confusion over the dates of enactment of the legislation and its implementation.  Does anyone have a definitive answer, with refs, that can be used to amend the article?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: The book Constitutional and administrative law by Bradley and Ewing (p.36, fn.9) states: "The Statute Law Revision Act 1948 called this the Laws in Wales Act 1535, but recent Welsh writers have called it the Act of Union of 1536." One example showing that is here.  I propose amending the article, for clarity, to give the correct official dates of 1535 and 1542, also stating that the legislation is often referred to as the "Acts of Union" of 1536 and 1543.  What we still don't have is any explanation of why that is the case.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone know John Davies well enough to ask? I am pretty sure he wrote the relevant section of the Encyclopedia of Wales so its him against the documents.-- Snowded  TALK  09:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's anyone against anyone else - clearly both sets of dates, and both descriptions ("Laws in Wales Acts" and "Acts of Union") are verifiably in use, and it's quite possible that the dates anomaly may go back to O. M. Edwards who first used the latter term. All we need to do is set out both terms, state that they are both in use, and explain why - if we can find an explanation.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(Joining the discussion from a notice on the talk page of WP:LAW) My recollection of legal history, thin though it is, is that having the year in the title, and even the short title itself, are both relatively modern ideas; for centuries, the Acts of Parliament were known by the chapter number and regnal year (i.e. the 7th Act passed in the 9th year of the reign of Queen Nancy III would be referred to as "9 Nancy III c. 7"). There would be a "long title" (something like "An Act for doing something about something, and something else about another thing, and for related purposes") but no snappy short title. I'm not sure how the system worked when a Parliamentary session overlapped the anniversary of the monarch's accession, but it might be a question of whether the sources are using the start or end of the Parliamentary session in which the Act was passed to choose the date. And, in the absence of an official contemporary short title, I can see how different people would end up with different titles for the Acts. BencherliteTalk 12:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true - the 1535 Act was referred to as Anno vicesimo septimo Henrici VIII c. 26. What I suspect happened is that, when it became conventional to use year dates, the calculation was done that the date should be 1536 - perhaps at the same time that the term "Act of Union" was used, perhaps not - but that when these things were rationalised (the 1948 legislation?) the year 1535 was adopted using whatever consistent criteria they adopted at that time (which we don't know).  So, perhaps 1536 was the usual date given up to 1948, but since then 1535 has been adopted as the "official" date??  But all speculation, still.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to revise text
In the light of the above discussion, I propose that the text be revised. Although we don't know why this happened (and can't speculate), it seems clear (and referenced) that the official names of the legislation now (in English) are The Laws in Wales Act 1535 and The Laws in Wales Act 1542. So, I propose that the first para of the article be revised as follows: The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 (Y Deddfau Uno 1535 a 1542) were parliamentary measures by which the legal system of Wales was annexed to England and the norms of English administration introduced in order to create a single state and a single legal jurisdiction, which is frequently referred to as England and Wales. The Acts were passed during the reign of King Henry VIII of England, who came from the Welsh Tudor dynasty. They have frequently been referred to as the Acts of Union of 1536 and 1543, but some scholars consider this name to be inaccurate, and their formal names are "The Laws in Wales Act 1535" and "The Laws in Wales Act 1542".  Further citations can be added from the above discussion, and there will be some consequent changes to the dates in later parts of the article. But, I think the proper names of the Acts are clear and the article should reflect those. Would anyone object to that change? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

 * John Davies says on the BBC site, here, the Act was 'passed' in 1536. The University of Warwick note the Act here as 'the Act of Union of 1536'. This is a novel way of showing both sets of dates. This book says “The enduring union between England and Wales was formally effected by Act of Parliament in 1536” The passage contains a note: “Variously labelled the Laws in Wales Act 1535 and the Act of Union 1536.” The Oxford History of the Laws of England: 1483-1558 has it that “The principal statute, passed in 1536, has been referred to as an act of Union.” May I suggest that unless/until the reason for the discrepancy is discovered, the intro be amended to:

The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 (Y Deddfau Uno 1535 a 1542) were parliamentary measures by which the legal system of Wales was annexed to England and the norms of English administration introduced. The intention was to create a single state and a single legal jurisdiction; frequently referred to as England and Wales. The Acts were passed during the reign of King Henry VIII of England, who came from the Welsh Tudor dynasty. They are frequently referred to as the Acts of Union of 1536 and 1543, but some scholars consider this name to be misleading. The Acts formal names are "The Laws in Wales Act 1535" and "The Laws in Wales Act 1542". Pretty much the suggested version of Ghmyrtle, with a couple of tweeks. Daicaregos (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. One question - the Welsh translation is given as Y Deddfau Uno.  I don't speak Welsh but suspect that that translates as "Acts of Union" rather than  "The Laws in Wales Acts".  Is that correct, and, if so, is that the Welsh term we should use?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't know. One of the main effects of the acts was that they didn't have to be bilingual :) Though obviously they would have to have been called something by those who spoke no English, which was 95% of Welsh people at the time. John Davies has it that the preamble was propaganda written by Cromwell, particularly about the claims that union already existed between Wales and England. So, possibly, they were always known as Y Deddfau Uno to Welsh speakers. Wicipedia only mentions the Acts of Union ("Y Deddfau Uno 1536 a 1543"), saying nothing of "The Laws in Wales Acts". Daicaregos (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, I've been bold and had a go. I think it is clearer now, but it would be good to get to the bottom of why different dates are in use.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two separate things going on here. The first is to do with titles, the second with dates. Titles first: the titles of Acts of Parliament in the 16th C were what we now call the "long title" and were (are) often very long. As a result important Acts often acquired one or more popular titles or "nicknames". All modern Acts have a legal short title as well as a long title, and in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the practice of retrospectively assigning a legal short title to important Acts still extant came about. In this particular example the legal short title of "The Laws in Wales Act" was conferred by the Statute Law Revision Act 1948, s.5 and Sch. 2. So that is currently the legal name notwithstanding any nicknames, however longstanding. Dates:a bit more complicated, but you can date an Act from the date of Royal Assent (the current practice), or from the contemporary date on which the parliamentary session started. So, for example, the 8th session of Henry VIII's 5th Parliament met between 4th Feb 1535/6 and 14th April 1536, but Royal assent would not have been given until 1536. That's why the official dates (e.g. HMSO) use 1535 (the year the Parliamentary session began - in contemporary dating) but a number of academic works use 1536 (the date of Royal Assent, or the date the Act was "passed"). Lyndwood (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very helpful, thanks. Would you like to try and fit some brief explanatory wording (with sources) into the text of the article to explain this, as clearly the confusion should be clarified if possible?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have attempted to do so by amending the text in the introduction and some detail later. I do wonder whether this might be something that ought to be addressed in a more general way somewhere else, rather than separately every time an article deals with an old Act of Parliament. But I'm not sure where that somewhere else might be.
 * I've also amended 1535-1542 in the first line to 1525 & 1542, as, although there is some reference to these two Acts being part of a "series of measures", there appears to be no indication what those might be apart from these two Acts. So it seems to me that for consistency the article should either (a) be about these two Acts, in which case the title should be amended and references to "a series of measures" deleted, or (b) if it is about these and "other measures", those should also be explicitly listed (and cited) along with the two Acts. Lyndwood (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Principality of Wales was still a separate realm from England until The Happy Parliament of 1624
I just dropped by to check a date - this article talks of Wales being made part of The Kingdom of England by The Laws in Wales Acts - this is not true : please read them !

The Principality of Wales remained a separate realm in which Henry VIII and his successors could raise taxes as they pleased - and pack Parliament with obedient Welsh MPs !

James I more or less bankrupted Wales but eventually still ran out of money : the Welsh MPs rebelled and bargained with English MPs - no - they were on their knees begging !

James surrendered The Principality of Wales to The Happy Parliament of 1624 - and I have written about this on that page recently : 1624 is the date of the political union !

http://www.uwp.co.uk/editions/9780708319062?language=en = The Politics of the Principality : Wales 1603-1642 - Lloyd Bowen - University of Wales Press ( chapter 1 I think )

DaiSaw (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102012041/http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517920&versionNumber=1 to http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517920&versionNumber=1

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody knows how the Border appeared directly after the laws in wales acts this is too strange
were areas such as llanrothal cp welsh bicknor in wales after the acts or did this happen after the welsh biknor wiki thinks the latter im leaning towards the former? Editor account 2222 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542


text:
Talk:Langres

Old talk
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blason_Langres.jpg

I did some cleanup. The former version mentioned 12 towers, 7 gates AND 7 towers and 6 gates in the same article. I left the latter, but not sure of which one is actually correct. olivier 02:36, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Langres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130705094933/http://www.completefrance.com/language-culture/twin-towns to http://www.completefrance.com/language-culture/twin-towns

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) 11:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Langres


text: Category:Battles of the Thirty Years' War


text:
BASIC Stamp

The BASIC Stamp is a microcontroller with a small, specialized BASIC interpreter (PBASIC) built into ROM. It is made by Parallax, Inc. and has been popular with electronics hobbyists since the early 1990s.

Technical specifications
Although the BASIC Stamp 2 has the form of a 24 pin DIP chip, it is in fact a small printed circuit board (PCB) that contains the essential elements of a microprocessor system:
 * A Microcontroller containing the CPU, a built in ROM containing the BASIC interpreter, and various peripherals
 * 2kB of i²C EEPROM memory.
 * A clock, in the form of a ceramic resonator
 * Voltage regulator
 * External input/output

The end result is that a hobbyist can connect a 9 V battery to a BASIC Stamp and have a complete system. A serial connection to a personal computer allows the programmer to download software to the BASIC Stamp, which is stored in the onboard non-volatile memory device: it remains programmed until it is erased or reprogrammed, even when the power of the stamp is removed. If the power is reconnected the stamp immediately starts executing the program in slot 0 (of 8, numbered 0..7).

Programming
The BASIC Stamp is programmed in a variant of the BASIC language, called PBASIC. PBASIC incorporates common microcontroller functions, including PWM, serial communications, I²C and 1-Wire communications, communications with common LCD driver circuits, hobby servo pulse trains, pseudo-sine wave frequencies, and the ability to time an RC circuit which may be used to detect an analog value.

Once a program has been written in the 'Stamp Editor', an integrated development environment (IDE) in Windows, the syntax can be checked, tokenized and sent to the chip through a serial/USB Mini-B cable, where it will run.

Versions
There are currently four variants of the interpreter:
 * 1) (1992) BASIC Stamp 1 (BS1)
 * 2) (1995) BASIC Stamp 2 (BS2), with six sub-variants:
 * 3) BS2e
 * 4) BS2sx
 * 5) BS2p24
 * 6) BS2p40
 * 7) BS2pe
 * 8) BS2px
 * 9) (2002) Javelin Stamp
 * 10) (2006) Propeller\Spin Stamp

The BS2 sub-variants feature more memory, higher execution speed, additional specialized PBASIC commands, extra I/O pins, etc., in comparison to the original BS2 model. While the BS1 and BS2 use a PIC, the remaining BASIC Stamp 2 variants use a Parallax SX processor.

The third variant is the Javelin Stamp. This module uses a subset of Sun Microsystems' Java programming language instead of Parallax's PBASIC. It does not include any networking facilities.

The fourth variant is the Spin Stamp. The module is based on the Parallax Propeller and therefore uses the SPIN programming language instead of PBASIC.

A number of companies now make "clones" of the BASIC Stamp with additional features, such as faster execution, analog-to-digital converters and hardware-based PWM which can run in the background.

The Parallax Propeller is gradually accumulating software libraries which give it functionality similar to the BASIC Stamp; however, there is no uniform list of which PBASIC facilities now have Spin equivalents.

title: BASIC Stamp


text:
Brittle star

Brittle stars, serpent stars, or ophiuroids (referring to the serpent-like arms of the brittle star) are echinoderms in the class Ophiuroidea, closely related to starfish. They crawl across the sea floor using their flexible arms for locomotion. The ophiuroids generally have five long, slender, whip-like arms which may reach up to 60 cm in length on the largest specimens.

The Ophiuroidea contain two large clades, Ophiurida (brittle stars) and Euryalida (basket stars). Over 2,000 species of brittle stars live today. More than 1,200 of these species are found in deep waters, greater than 200 m deep.

Range
The ophiuroids diverged in the Early Ordovician. Ophiuroids can be found today in all of the major marine provinces, from the poles to the tropics. Basket stars are usually confined to the deeper parts of this range; Ophiuroids are known even from abyssal (>6,000 m) depths. However, brittle stars are also common members of reef communities, where they hide under rocks and even within other living organisms. A few ophiuroid species can even tolerate brackish water, an ability otherwise almost unknown among echinoderms. A brittle star's skeleton is made up of embedded ossicles.

Anatomy

Of all echinoderms, the Ophiuroidea may have the strongest tendency toward five-segment radial (pentaradial) symmetry. The body outline is similar to that of starfish, in that ophiuroids have five arms joined to a central body disk. However, in ophiuroids, the central body disk is sharply marked off from the arms.

The disk contains all of the viscera. That is, the internal organs of digestion and reproduction never enter the arms, as they do in the Asteroidea. The underside of the disk contains the mouth, which has five toothed jaws formed from skeletal plates. The madreporite is usually located within one of the jaw plates, and not on the upper side of the animal as it is in starfish.

The ophiuroid coelom is strongly reduced, particularly in comparison to other echinoderms.

Water-vascular system
The vessels of the water vascular system end in tube feet. The water vascular system generally has one madreporite. Others, such as certain Euryalina, have one per arm on the aboral surface. Still other forms have no madreporite at all. Suckers and ampullae are absent from the tube feet.

Nervous system
The nervous system consists of a main nerve ring which runs around the central disk. At the base of each arm, the ring attaches to a radial nerve which runs to the end of the limb. The nerves in each limb run through a canal at the base of the vertebral ossicles.

Most ophiuroids have no eyes, or other specialised sense organs. However, they have several types of sensitive nerve endings in their epidermis, and are able to sense chemicals in the water, touch, and even the presence or absence of light. Moreover, tube feet may sense light as well as odors. These are especially found at the ends of their arms, detecting light and retreating into crevices.

Digestion
The mouth is rimmed with five jaws, and serves as an anus (egestion) as well as a mouth (ingestion). Behind the jaws is a short esophagus and a stomach cavity which occupies much of the dorsal half of the disk. Digestion occurs within 10 pouches or infolds of the stomach, which are essentially ceca, but unlike in sea stars, almost never extend into the arms. The stomach wall contains glandular hepatic cells.

Ophiuroids are generally scavengers or detritivores. Small organic particles are moved into the mouth by the tube feet. Ophiuroids may also prey on small crustaceans or worms. Basket stars in particular may be capable of suspension feeding, using the mucus coating on their arms to trap plankton and bacteria. They extend one arm out and use the other four as anchors. Brittle stars will eat small suspended organisms if available. In large, crowded areas, brittle stars eat suspended matter from prevailing seafloor currents.

Many species in the family Ophiuridae are carnivorous. Ophiura Linnaeus hunts epibenthic animals and the Antarctic Ophiosparte gigas is an active predator. Ophiura albida Forbes and Ophiura sarsii Lütken eat both infaunal prey, carrion and seafloor organic matter, and Ophionereis reticulata is omnivorous and feeds on algae, polychaetes and detritus.

In basket stars, the arms are used to sweep food rhythmically to the mouth. Ophiopsammus maculata consumes Nothofagus pollen in the New Zealand fjords (since those trees hang over the water). Eurylina clings to coral branches to browse on the polyps.

Respiration
Gas exchange and excretion occur through cilia-lined sacs called bursae; each opens between the arm bases on the underside of the disk. Typically ten bursae are found, and each fits between two stomach digestive pouches. Water flows through the bursae by means of cilia or muscular contraction. Oxygen is transported through the body by the hemal system, a series of sinuses and vessels distinct from the water vascular system.

The bursae are probably also the main organs of excretion, with phagocytic "coelomocytes" collecting waste products in the body cavity and then migrating to the bursae for expulsion from the body.

Musculoskeletal system

Like all echinoderms, the Ophiuroidea possess a skeleton of calcium carbonate in the form of calcite. In ophiuroids, the calcite ossicles are fused to form armor plates which are known collectively as the test. The plates are covered by the epidermis, which consists of a smooth syncytium. In most species, the joints between the ossicles and superficial plates allow the arm to bend to the side, but cannot bend upwards. However, in the basket stars, the arms are flexible in all directions.

Both the Ophiurida and Euryalida (the basket stars) have five long, slender, flexible, whip-like arms, up to 60 cm in length. They are supported by an internal skeleton of calcium carbonate plates referred to as vertebral ossicles. These "vertebrae" articulate by means of ball-and-socket joints, and are controlled by muscles. They are essentially fused plates which correspond to the parallel ambulacral plates in sea stars and five Paleozoic families of ophiuroids. In modern forms, the vertebrae occur along the median of the arm.

The ossicles are surrounded by a relatively thin ring of soft tissue, and then by four series of jointed plates, one each on the upper, lower, and lateral surfaces of the arm. The two lateral plates often have a number of elongated spines projecting outwards; these help to provide traction against the substrate while the animal is moving. The spines, in ophiuroids, compose a rigid border to the arm edges, whereas in euryalids they are transformed into downward-facing clubs or hooklets. Euryalids are similar to ophiurids, if larger, but their arms are forked and branched. Ophiuroid podia generally function as sensory organs. They are not usually used for feeding, as in Asteroidea. In the Paleozoic era, brittle stars had open ambulacral grooves, but in modern forms, these are turned inward.

In living ophiuroids, the vertebrae are linked by well-structured longitudinal muscles. Ophiuroida moves horizontally, and Euryalina species moves vertically. The latter have bigger vertebrae and smaller muscles. They are less spasmodic, but can coil their arms around objects, holding on even after death. These movement patterns are distinct to the taxa, separating them. Ophiuroida moves quickly when disturbed. One arm presses ahead, whereas the other four act as two pairs of opposite levers, thrusting the body in a series of rapid jerks. Although adults do not use their tube feet for locomotion, very young stages use them as stilts and even serve as an adhesive structure.

Reproduction
The sexes are separate in most species, though a few are hermaphroditic or protandric. The gonads are located in the disk, and open into pouches between the arms, called genital bursae. Fertilization is external in most species, with the gametes being shed into the surrounding water through the bursal sacs. An exception is the Ophiocanopidae, in which the gonads do not open into bursae and are instead paired in a chain along the basal arm joints.

Many species brood developing larvae in the bursae, effectively giving birth to live young. A few, such as Amphipholus squamata, are truly viviparous, with the embryo receiving nourishment from the mother through the wall of the bursa. However, some species do not brood their young, and instead have a free-swimming larval stage. Referred to as an ophiopluteus, these larvae have four pairs of rigid arms lined with cilia. They develop directly into an adult, without the attachment stage found in most starfish larvae. The number of species exhibiting ophiopluteus larvae are fewer than those that directly develop.

In a few species, the female carries a dwarf male, clinging to it with the mouth.

Fission
Some brittle stars, such as the six-armed members of the family Ophiactidae, exhibit fissiparity (division through fission), with the disk splitting in half. Regrowth of both the lost part of the disk and the arms occur which yields an animal with three large arms and three small arms during the period of growth.

The West Indian brittle star, Ophiocomella ophiactoides, frequently undergoes asexual reproduction by fission of the disk with subsequent regeneration of the arms. In both summer and winter, large numbers of individuals with three long arms and three short arms can be found. Other individuals have half a disk and only three arms. A study of the age range of the population indicates little recruitment and fission is the primary means of reproduction in this species.

In this species, fission appears to start with the softening of one side of the disk and the initiation of a furrow. This deepens and widens until it extends across the disk and the animal splits in two. New arms begin to grow before the fission is complete, thus minimizing the time between possible successive divisions. The plane of fission varies so that some newly formed individuals have existing arms of different lengths. The time period between successive divisions is 89 days, so theoretically, each brittle star can produce 15 new individuals during the course of a year.

Life span
Brittle stars generally sexually mature in two to three years, become full grown in three to four years, and live up to five years. Members of Euryalina, such as Gorgonocephalus, may live much longer.

Regeneration
Ophiuroids can readily regenerate lost arms or arm segments unless all arms are lost. Ophiuroids use this ability to escape predators, in a way similar to lizards which deliberately shed the distal part of their tails to confuse pursuers. Moreover, the Amphiuridae can regenerate gut and gonad fragments lost along with the arms. Discarded arms have not been shown to have the ability to regenerate.

Locomotion
Brittle stars use their arms for locomotion. Brittle stars move fairly rapidly by wriggling their arms which are highly flexible and enable the animals to make either snake-like or rowing movements. However, they tend to attach themselves to the sea floor or to sponges or cnidarians, such as coral. They move as if they were bilaterally symmetrical, with an arbitrary leg selected as the symmetry axis and the other four used in propulsion. The axial leg may be facing or trailing the direction of motion, and due to the radially symmetrical nervous system, can be changed whenever a change in direction is necessary.

Bioluminescence
Over 60 species of brittle stars are known to be bioluminescent. Most of these produce light in the green wavelengths, although a few blue-emitting species have also been discovered. Both shallow-water and deep-sea species of brittle stars are known to produce light. Presumably, this light is used to deter predators.

Ecology
Brittle stars live in areas from the low-tide level downwards. Six families live at least 2 m deep; the genera Ophiura, Amphiophiura, and Ophiacantha range below 4 m. Shallow species live among sponges, stones, or coral, or under the sand or mud, with only their arms protruding. Two of the best-known shallow species are the green brittle star (Ophioderma brevispina), found from Massachusetts to Brazil, and the common European brittle star (Ophiothrix fragilis). Deep-water species tend to live in or on the sea floor or adhere to coral, urchins, or xenophyophores. The most widespread species is the long-armed brittle star (Amphipholis squamata), a grayish or bluish, strongly luminescent species.

Parasites
The main parasite to enter the digestive tract or genitals are protozoans. Crustaceans, nematodes, trematodes, and polychaete annelids also serve as parasites. Algal parasites such as Coccomyxa ophiurae cause spinal malformation. Unlike in sea stars and sea urchins, annelids are not typical parasites.

Diversity and taxonomy
Between 2,064 and 2,122 species of brittle stars are currently known, but the total number of modern species may be over 3,000. This makes brittle stars the most abundant group of current echinoderms (before sea stars). Around 270 genera are known, these are distributed in 16 families, which makes them at the same time a relatively poorly diversified group structurally, compared with the other echinoderms. For example, 467 species belong to the sole family of Amphiuridae (frail brittle stars which live buried in the sediment leaving only their arms in the stream to capture the plankton). There are also 344 species in the family of Ophiuridae.

List of families according to the World Register of Marine Species, following O'Hara 2017:
 * subclass Myophiuroidea Matsumoto, 1915
 * infraclass Metophiurida Matsumoto, 1913
 * superorder Euryophiurida O'Hara, Hugall, Thuy, Stöhr & Martynov, 2017
 * order Euryalida Lamarck, 1816
 * family Asteronychidae Ljungman, 1867
 * family Euryalidae Gray, 1840
 * family Gorgonocephalidae Ljungman, 1867
 * order Ophiurida Müller & Troschel, 1840 sensu O'Hara et al., 2017
 * suborder Ophiomusina O'Hara et al., 2017
 * family Ophiomusaidae (O'Hara, Stöhr, Hugall, Thuy, Martynov, 2018)
 * family Ophiosphalmidae (O'Hara, Stöhr, Hugall, Thuy & Martynov, 2018)
 * Ophiomusina incertae sedis
 * suborder Ophiurina Müller & Troschel, 1840 sensu O'Hara et al., 2017
 * family Astrophiuridae Sladen, 1879
 * family Ophiopyrgidae Perrier, 1893
 * family Ophiuridae Müller & Troschel, 1840
 * Ophiurina incertae sedis
 * Ophiurida incertae sedis
 * Ophioderma (Charleston, South Carolina, 7 February 1852).jpgorder Ophintegrida O'Hara, Hugall, Thuy, Stöhr & Martynov, 2017
 * order Amphilepidida O'Hara, Hugall, Thuy, Stöhr & Martynov, 2017
 * suborder Gnathophiurina Matsumoto, 1915
 * superfamily Amphiuroidea Ljungman, 1867
 * family Amphiuridae Ljungman, 1867
 * family Amphilepididae Matsumoto, 1915
 * superfamily Ophiactoidea Ljungman, 1867
 * family Ophiactidae Matsumoto, 1915
 * family Ophiopholidae O'Hara, Stöhr, Hugall, Thuy & Martynov, 2018
 * family Ophiothamnidae O'Hara, Stöhr, Hugall, Thuy & Martynov, 2018
 * family Ophiotrichidae Ljungman, 1867
 * suborder Ophionereidina O'Hara, Hugall, Thuy, Stöhr & Martynov, 2017
 * superfamily Ophiolepidoidea Ljungman, 1867
 * family Hemieuryalidae Verrill, 1899
 * family Ophiolepididae Ljungman, 1867 (restricted)
 * superfamily Ophionereidoidea Ljungman, 1867
 * family Amphilimnidae O'Hara, Stöhr, Hugall, Thuy & Martynov, 2018
 * family Ophionereididae Ljungman, 1867
 * suborder Ophiopsilina Matsumoto, 1915
 * superfamily Ophiopsiloidea Matsumoto, 1915
 * family Ophiopsilidae Matsumoto, 1915
 * order Ophiacanthida O'Hara, Hugall, Thuy, Stöhr & Martynov, 2017
 * suborder Ophiacanthina O'Hara, Hugall, Thuy, Stöhr & Martynov, 2017
 * family Clarkcomidae O'Hara, Stöhr, Hugall, Thuy & Martynov, 2018
 * family Ophiacanthidae Ljungman, 1867
 * family Ophiobyrsidae Matsumoto, 1915
 * family Ophiocamacidae (O'Hara, Stöhr, Hugall, Thuy, Martynov, 2018)
 * family Ophiopteridae O'Hara, Stöhr, Hugall, Thuy & Martynov, 2018
 * family Ophiotomidae Paterson, 1985
 * family Ophiojuridae O'Hara, Thuy & Hugall, 2021
 * suborder Ophiodermatina Ljungman, 1867
 * superfamily Ophiocomoidea Ljungman, 1867
 * family Ophiocomidae Ljungman, 1867
 * superfamily Ophiodermatoidea Ljungman, 1867
 * family Ophiodermatidae Ljungman, 1867
 * family Ophiomyxidae Ljungman, 1867
 * family Ophiopezidae O'Hara, Stöhr, Hugall, Thuy & Martynov, 2018
 * Ophiacanthida incertae sedis
 * order Ophioleucida O'Hara, Hugall, Thuy, Stöhr & Martynov, 2017
 * family Ophiernidae O'Hara, Stöhr, Hugall, Thuy & Martynov, 2018
 * family Ophioleucidae Matsumoto, 1915
 * order Ophioscolecida O'Hara, Hugall, Thuy, Stöhr & Martynov, 2017
 * family Ophiohelidae Perrier, 1893
 * family Ophioscolecidae Lütken, 1869
 * Ophiuroidea incertae sedis

Fossil record
The first known brittle stars date from Early Ordovician. Study of past distribution and evolution of brittle stars has been hampered by the tendency of dead brittle stars to disarticulate and scatter, providing poor brittle star fossils. Until discoveries in the Agrio Formation of Neuquén Basin in the 2010s no fossil brittle star was known in the Southern Hemisphere, nor was any brittle star of Cretaceous age known.

Silurian fossils from a minor mass extinction called the Mulde event shows the ancestors of modern brittle stars went though a bottleneck, where a miniaturization caused by paedomorphosis led to structural simplification of their skeletal anatomy. These traits affected their further evolution. As they began to increase in size again, so did their complexity. The first large-sized modern brittle star originated in the Early Carboniferous.

Human relations

Brittle stars are not used as food, though they are not toxic, because of their strong skeleton.

Even if some species have blunt spines, no brittlestar is known to be dangerous, nor venomous. There is no harm evidence towards humans, and even with their predators, brittlestars' only means of defense is escaping or discarding an arm.

Aquaria
Brittle stars are a moderately popular invertebrate in fishkeeping. They can easily thrive in marine tanks; in fact, the micro brittle star is a common "hitchhiker" that will propagate and become common in almost any saltwater tank, if one happens to come along on some live rock.

Larger brittle stars are popular because, unlike Asteroidea, they are not generally seen as a threat to coral, and are also faster-moving and more active than their more archetypical cousins.

title: Brittle star


text: Category:Norwegian scientists

title: Category:Norwegian scientists


text:
Talk:Orlando Cabrera

Untitled
I changed the description of Cabrera as one of the best shortstops in baseball. I name Jeter, Nomar, Tejada as certainly better than he is. Carlos Guillen has been as solid as Cabrera, and is playing much better in 2004. Michael Young is at least as good as Cabrera. Omar Vizquel has consistently been a very good SS, Angel Berroa won Rookie of the Year, and Edgar Renteria's statistics are better as well. That means Cabrera is at best the 10th best SS in baseball, which hardly qualifies him as "one of the best". - NYYW im the best shortstop not him

 * that lines back, so im removing it again. thats a load of bull. cabreras good, but hes not one of the best. i wouldnt say berroas better than him (nobody even knows wut berroas doing nowadays), and nomar hasnt been a shortstop for 3 years. but cabrera barely cuts the top 10 regardless, maybe top 15. though top 15 isnt good enough to be considered one of the best. reyes, rollins, han-ram, tejada, jeter, guillen, young, renteria, peralta, and quite a few others are just a couple names i would like to have instead of cabrera.

Added in that Sox fans still give him standing ovations whenever he walks up to the plate. Peach freak 03:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited Cabrera's statistics into his current ones.

Dec. 3, 2007.

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 one external links on Orlando Cabrera. 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 tag to http://22gigantes.com/2012/01/orlando-cabrera-retires-from-baseball.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Orlando Cabrera


text:
Talk:Solar variation

Chart looks rather out of date
The chart needs updating - as it ends in 2006 - missing the latest solar cycle. 131.111.23.90 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical perspective
Is this quote really helpful? First off, it talks about weather prediction, not climate. The quote itself is ambiguous, open to interpretation as either: "history has shown time and again that it is pseudo-science" or as "in those days it was seen as pseudo-science, but now we have a better understanding". The intro of the source text would be a better choice imo:
 * Since it is the Sun's energy that drives the weather system, scientists naturally wondered whether they might connect climate changes with solar variations. Yet the Sun seemed to be stable over the timescale of human civilization. Attempts to discover cyclic variations in weather and connect them with the 11-year sunspot cycle, or other possible solar cycles ranging up to a few centuries long, gave results that were ambiguous at best. These attempts got a well-deserved bad reputation. Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts. The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged.  Ssscienccce (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

 * The article itself is rife with such conflicts. I don't expect an easy resolution. Batvette (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Solar constant
The article states that "The amount of solar radiation received at the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m2." Yet the Wikipedia article on the solar constant gives the value of 1361 W/m2. Can anyone explain the discrepancy? Thanks. Mhklein (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 * The lower estimate is more recent. Don't know if it is controversial. See Solar irradiation. Lfstevens (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I moved the order of these around slightly, to put the solar constant before the variation in solar constant, but didn't change the actual number without a canonical reference. Different sources do use slightly different totals.  Several links were redirects to "solar irradiance", so I consolidated these to just one place. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Predictions based on patterns
This section is a bit rubbish. Firstly, it "predicts" the 2010 peak, and no-one (including me!) has bothered update it for whatever happened. Secondly, its almost all about "predicting" climate (has it been copied in from elsewhere) not predicting the cycles, so it belongs under the climate heading William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Cosmic ray claim
Why is the stuff on cosmic rays in there? It doesn't apply to solar variation in any way. Lfstevens (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure I understand the question. The sun's magnetic field deflects galactic cosmic rays. Thus, cosmic rays decrease with higher solar actitity.  So this is related to solar variation.
 * However, if you're just saying that there's too much on this subject for the article -- well, ok, maybe there is, and possibly it should be compressed and put into a single subsection, instead of spread over several.
 * --by the way, you changed the term "galactic cosmic rays" to just "cosmic rays" in several places. I'm going to change those back-- the more generic term "cosmic rays" can also refer to solar proton events, which of course increase with solar activity. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Restructure proposal
User:Lfstevens/sandbox

Comments

title: Talk:Solar variation


text:
Pherecydes

Pherecydes or Pherekedes (Φερεκύδης) was the name of three ancient Greek writers, who may not all be distinct:

 * Pherecydes of Syros (fl. 6th century BC), a pre-Socratic philosopher from the island of Syros, believed by some to have influenced Pythagoras
 * Pherecydes of Athens (fl. c. 465 BC), an historian and genealogist (= FGrHist 3), perhaps the same person as Pherecydes of Leros (below)
 * Pherecydes of Leros (before 480-477 BC), an historian from the Greek island of Leros, possibly the same person as Pherecydes of Athens (above)

Pherecydes can also refers to:
 * Pherecydes (spider), a genus of spiders

title: Pherecydes


text:
Rosemont

Rosemont may refer to:

Canada

 * Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie, a borough of Montreal, Quebec, Canada
 * Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie (federal electoral district), a federal electoral district in Montreal, Quebec
 * Rosemont (provincial electoral district), a provincial electoral district in Quebec
 * Rosemont, Calgary, a neighbourhood in Calgary, Alberta, Canada

United States

 * Rosemont, California
 * Rosemont, Illinois
 * Rosemont, Baltimore, a neighborhood in Baltimore, Maryland
 * Rosemont, Maryland, in Frederick County
 * Rosemont, Nebraska
 * Rosemont, Hunterdon County, New Jersey
 * Rosemont, Mercer County, New Jersey
 * Rosemont, Ohio
 * Rosemont, Pennsylvania

Australia

 * Rosemont (Woollahra), a heritage-listed residence in New South Wales

United States

 * Rosemont (Wilmington, Delaware), listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places
 * Rosemont (Woodville, Mississippi), listed on the NRHP in Mississippi
 * Rosemont (Briarcliff Manor, New York), an NRHP contributing property
 * Rosemont Plantation, Waterloo, South Carolina, listed on the NRHP in South Carolina
 * Rose Mont (Gallatin, Tennessee), listed on the NRHP in Tennessee
 * Rosemont House (Waxahachie, Texas), listed on the NRHP in Ellis County, Texas
 * Rosemont Historic District (Alexandria, Virginia), listed on the NRHP in Virginia
 * Rosemont (Powhatan, Virginia), listed on the NRHP in Virginia
 * Rosemont Historic District (Martinsburg, West Virginia), listed on the NRHP in West Virginia

Other

 * Rosemont (horse), an American Thoroughbred racehorse
 * Rosemont College, a college in Rosemont, Pennsylvania
 * Rosemont High School, a high school in Sacramento, California
 * Rosemont Theatre, a concert hall in Rosemont, Illinois
 * Allstate Arena, a sports & entertainment arena in Rosemont, Illinois (formerly known as the Rosemont Horizon, or informally as Rosemont)

title: Rosemont


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Reports

Reports of LaRouche related content being added... will follow...

for starters. Should this page be linked from one of the higher level pages? Pakaran. 14:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
Billy Sullivan (1900s catcher)

William Joseph Sullivan, Sr. (February 1, 1875 – January 28, 1965) was an American professional baseball player and manager. He played as a catcher in Major League Baseball, most notably as a member of the Chicago White Sox with whom he won a World Series championship in 1906. Although he was a relatively weak hitter, he sustained a sixteen-year playing career by being one of the best defensive catchers of his era.

Sullivan's reputation as a defensive standout is enhanced because of the era in which he played. In the Deadball Era, catchers played a huge defensive role, given the large number of bunts and stolen base attempts, as well as the difficulty of handling the spitball pitchers who dominated pitching staffs. He had to catch every type of pitch imaginable, such as shine balls, spitballs, knuckleballs, and emery balls.

Early life
William Joseph Sullivan was born on February 1, 1875, in the town of Oakland, Wisconsin, to Irish immigrant farmers. He attended Fort Atkinson High School, where he played mainly as an infielder until their regular catcher could not play due to an injury. Sullivan substituted and excelled; so much so that he began being scouted by a local amateur team.

After his graduation from high school, Sullivan played for an independent team located in Edgewater, Wisconsin. He played on his first professional team in 1896 for the Cedar Rapids Bunnies of the Western Association, a Class-B minor league. He stayed in the Western Association for the 1897 season, playing for the Dubuque, Iowa, representative. In 124 games played that season, he batted just .216, but did hit seven home runs and stole 27 bases.

Sullivan then transferred to the Class-A Western League in 1898 to play for the Columbus Buckeyes, also referred to as the Senators, and had a .276 batting average in 68 games played. He stayed with the Buckeyes to begin the 1899 season, though he later moved with the team to Grand Rapids, Michigan; they then became known as the Furniture Makers. He was hitting .306 after 83 games when he was sold to the Boston Beaneaters of the National League for $1000.

Major-league career
Sullivan made his major league debut with the Beaneaters on September 13, 1899, at the age of 24, and became their regular catcher, appearing in 22 games the rest of season. On September 27, against the Washington Senators, he hit his first major league home run; a three-run home run in the bottom of the fifth inning off of Bill Magee. In 1900, Sullivan hit 8 home runs, the fifth highest total in the National League.

Sullivan then joined the Chicago White Sox of the American League in 1901. He played as catcher in the American League's first game as a major league, an 8-2 Chicago victory over Cleveland on April 24, 1901. He helped guide the White Sox pitching staff to the lowest team earned run average in the league as they went on to win the American League championship. Sullivan's pitch-calling skills were evident in 1904 as the White Sox led the league with 26 shutouts. He caught for two twenty-game winning pitchers in 1905, with Nick Altrock winning 23 games and Frank Owen winning 21 games. Frank Smith added 19 wins and Doc White provided another 17 victories as the White Sox once again led the league in earned run average. The team battled the Philadelphia Athletics in a tight pennant race and were tied for first place with 11 games left in the season before faltering to finish the season in second place.

Sullivan was a member of the 1906 White Sox team that became known as the Hitless Wonders when they won the American League pennant despite posting the lowest team batting average in the league. The team had been in fourth place by the end of July, $7 1/2$ games behind the defending champion Athletics, when they went on a 19-game winning streak that drove them into first place. No American League team would surpass the 19-game winning streak for almost 100 years until the 2002 Oakland Athletics won 20 consecutive games. The team made up for their lack of hitting prowess by leading the league in walks, hit batsmen and sacrifice hits. Sullivan tied for the team lead in home runs with two. He led American League catchers in baserunners caught stealing, finished second in putouts and assists and guided the White Sox pitching staff to a league-leading 32 shutouts and the second lowest earned run average in the league. The White Sox then defeated their cross-town rivals, the heavily favored Chicago Cubs in the 1906 World Series. Sullivan was literally hitless for the "Hitless Wonders," going 0-for-21 at the plate in the Series.

In 1907, Sullivan caught for three twenty-game winning pitchers, as Doc White won 27 games, Ed Walsh won 24 games and Frank Smith won 23 games. The White Sox once again led the league in earned run average, however, they fell to third in the season standings. Sullivan's catching credentials were embellished by his association with future Baseball Hall of Fame member, Walsh, who would win 40 games in 1908, as the White Sox once again led the league in shutouts. The White Sox were in contention until losing the final game of the season to the eventual American League champions, the Detroit Tigers. He served as a player-manager for the White Sox in 1909, guiding the team to a fourth-place finish. The following season, Hugh Duffy took over as manager and Sullivan returned to catching.

Sullivan was the White Sox catcher on July 1, 1910, when the team inaugurated their new stadium, Comiskey Park, named after the team owner, Charles Comiskey. On August 24, 1910, Sullivan caught three baseballs thrown by Ed Walsh from a window at the top of the Washington Monument as a publicity stunt, matching the feat by Washington catcher Gabby Street two years earlier. By 1912, the 37-year-old Sullivan's performance began to decline as future Hall of Fame member, Ray Schalk, emerged as his successor. He spent the 1913 and 1914 seasons as a coach, tutoring Schalk before being given his unconditional release on February 15, 1915.

Sullivan returned to the minor leagues in 1915, playing one season for the Minneapolis Millers, helping them win the American Association pennant. He rejoined the major leagues in 1916, appearing in one game with the Detroit Tigers, before retiring as a player at the age of 41.

While Sullivan was not a very good hitter, it was his performance as a fielder that garnered him high praise from his peers. Ty Cobb, Hall of Fame outfielder of the Detroit Tigers and former all-time major league leader in stolen bases, once described him as the hardest catcher on which to attempt a steal.

Career statistics
In a sixteen-year major league career, Sullivan played in 1,147 games, accumulating 777 hits in 3,647 at bats for a .213 career batting average along with 21 home runs, 378 runs batted in and an on-base percentage of .254. He led American League catchers three times in fielding percentage and ended his career with a .976 average, which was 12 points above the league average during his playing career. Sullivan also led American League catchers twice in baserunners caught stealing and caught stealing percentage, and once in assists. His 952 baserunners caught stealing ranks him 11th on the all-time list for major league catchers. Sullivan also ranks 11th overall among major league catchers in shutouts caught during his career. He was also durable, leading league catchers in games played three times, while consistently within the top three most of his career.

Later life
After his retirement from baseball, the Jefferson County, Wisconsin, native retired in Newberg, Oregon, where he farmed twenty acres of land and became the president of a local fruit growers' association. Upon the occasion of his induction into the Wisconsin Athletic Hall of Fame in 1956, Sullivan was honored with a plaque at the Milwaukee County Stadium. He died of a heart ailment on January 28, 1965, at the age of 89. Although news reports at the time of Sullivan's death credited him as the inventor of the catcher's chest protector, this was disputed by author Peter Morris in his book, Catcher, in which he states that catchers first began using chest protectors during the 1880s. Sullivan did however, receive a United States patent in 1908 for an inflatable, contoured chest protector, which protected his body better and, thanks to hinging, allowed more freedom of movement than the normal model.

His son, Billy Sullivan, Jr., also became a major league catcher. When Billy Sullivan Jr. caught for the Detroit Tigers in the 1940 World Series, the Sullivans became the first father and son to have played in the World Series.

title: Billy Sullivan (1900s catcher)


text:
Talk:Pherecydes of Syros

The two Pherecydeses
There are two different Pherecydes in ancient Greece, this page seems to present a person which is a mixture of both ... this need to be fixed. (Note to myself.) Nixdorf 14:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No point. Tale of two Pherekydeses originates from Diogenes Laertius, and he cannot decide if there is one or two, or which deeds belong to which one. Just mention the possible ambiguity in the article, that should be enough for anybody. http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/dlpherecydes.htm

 * If Diogenes didn't know, then it's highly improbable that we'll ever know either... :-/ OK will do this. Nixdorf 12:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to nordisk familjebok the two Pherecydes's are:

 * Pherecydes of Syros, the philosopher, associated with Pythagoras and autor of "On the nature of the Gods"
 * Pherecydes of Leros (from the island of Leros close to Miletus) the author of Fragmenta Historium Graecorum

Nixdorf 12:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has been resolved by the new, excellent entry for Pherecydes of Leros. Nixdorf 08:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, as the corresponding articles now reflect, according to the Suda, there were three Pherecydes (see Pherecydes):
 * Pherecydes of Syros,
 * Pherecydes of Athens, and
 * Pherecydes of Leros.

Note also, Pherecydes of Leros is not the author of the Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (= FHG), which is a compilation of the fragments of many ancient Greek authors by Karl Wilhelm Ludwig Müller, and which has been for the most part superseded by Felix Jacoby's Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (= FGrHist)). Rather, Pherecydes of Athens is one of the authors whose fragments are compiled in FHG and FGrHist (= FGrHist 3), who may or may not be the same person as Pherecydes of Leros. Paul August ☎ 21:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Pentamychos
Also, article Pentagram talks about Pherekydes's book as Pentamychos (with its conclusions in Pythagorean mystics); while this seems to have a sound reasoning behind it, as Pherekydes is said to have teached Pythagoras, at least 1911 Britannica says Pentamychos is probably misreading (but it is widespread in scholarship). That's another Pherekydean mystery, but it could be mentioned in the article - it is confusing if you see a reference and you don't know it's the same book.

Well, the 1911 Britannica is outdated. Modern scholars almost all agree that Pentemychos is the correct title. In particular, Hermann S. Schibli, considered the most acclaimed scholar on Pherecydesa and author of the only scholarly book wholly devoted to Pherecydes, believes the title was Pentemychos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by August (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Raising standards
Attempted to increase the profile of this important yet little known figure by adding content and also by copying the layout of pages considered as being of a high standard. However I am no expert - I had never heard of Pherecydes until a couple of days ago, nor do I have much experience of editing wikipedia articles. My efforts probably require wiki-templates for "citations needed", "more work needed", and/or "tidy up required" or similar notifications. I have never used such templates before, and ran out of time trying to find them.--Davidc 18:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Discovered template which I have added. I feel that the claims for Pherecydes' astronomical work requires primary sources. His importance for me is his position bridging traditional mythology and rational philosophy. Sadly history appears to have pigeon-holed him as a writer on mythology, rather than a philosopher.--Davidc 21:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Influenced by?
The "Influenced By" section says "Zedekiah"....who is this? Cornelius (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably Zedekiah, last king of Judah, was meant. I've removed it, and put in Hesiod instead, since he seems a more plausible influence. Pasicles (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ridicolous claim of ethnicity
All the sources agree that Pherecydes was ethnically a Greek from Syros (both "σύρος" and "συριανός" in ancient Greek,thence the 19th century translations that give him as a "Syrian"), and the works cited are three from the 19th century and one even from the 17th century, and also they three of them state he was "native from the island of Syros" and only one just says "Syrian"; the modern translation of "Lives of Eminent Philosophers" by Diogenes Laertius renders "συριανός" as "native of Syros", http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.54.19.49 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't "Syrian" basically mean native of Syros?
During Pherecydes birth modern-day Syria was Babylonia. Saying that he's "Syrian" sounds like a huge misunderstanding between the 2 entities (syros & syria). Encyclopedia Britannica also calls him "Greek". Should it be changed? Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've removed it. The "Syrian" claim was introduced a couple of months ago by a ban-evading sockpuppet of some ethnic agenda-pusher, and I quite agree with the analysis of the anon user posting above who tried to remove it earlier this year, and who was unfortunately reverted by an over-eager recent-changes patroller. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pherecydes of Syros


text:
Talk:Ajit Jogi

Untitled
Which IIT is Ajit Jogi associated with? The link IIT has to be replaced by a link to the specific IIT or to the article about all (Indian) IITs at IITs. -- Paddu 14:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== This request belongs to get loan.Hi,Sir this is Sarad Chandra sir this year i have passed out the B.com exam and have also taken admission in Hyderabad Calrton Business School but sir i paid them only Rs 10000/ not more and the total fee is Rs360000. ==

Sir,I introduce to myself I'm Sarad Chandra from Vill-Tikthi,Block-Marwahi,Dist-Bilaspur(C.G.).Sir,i've not much money to study there but i want study so i talked with many persons and they suggested me that u should try to Mr.Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi who's the MLA of our block.so plz sir i heartily requests to u that helm me as your son plz sis plz! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.139.255 (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ajit Jogi


text:
Talk:Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering

Untitled
Which IIT is mentioned here? The link IIT has to be replaced by a link to the specific IIT or to IITs. -- Paddu 14:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

63.65.68.246 has been editing this page, removing a link to a resource for LGBT alumni/students of SVCE. This is bonafide material, and there is no reason why this should be removed from here. S/he has also been removing a similar link on the Anna University article. I have restored these links many times, and each time, it is being reverted. If s/he continues this, I will have to take it to arbitration, and consequences for him/her might include ban on editing. So, please stop fooling around.

This userbox was created for SVCE students and alumni by Amog:

Removed criticism section info
As much as id like to agree with the views, wikipedia is not the place for writing reviews. Do not add anything that cannot be substantiated --Plane Mad 09:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The views represented were not reviews,and can most certainly be substantiated.
 * Wikipedia is NOT censored,and criticism and controversy must be freely displayed. Amog (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Yep, its not censored and criticism and controversy must most definitely be freely displayed, as long as they have encyclopaedic value and can back it with a verifiable source like a newspaper link. Dont turn the article into a student complaint box please --Plane Mad 12:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the physics department was a tad too much,but points such as the fees trouble were perfectly valid,and were found in articles in prominent newspapers.The entire portion did not merit deletion.Amog (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Then by all means, no ones stopping you from adding it, im too lazy to search for the newspaper link --Plane Mad 04:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Here's the link:
 * http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/31/stories/2007073154040600.htm
 * Go ahead and restore the section:)        Amog (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * (You might want to look at the last few paragraphs)Amog (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. so if i take a picture of one of the college buses,does it mean the likes of you will not remove the criticism section?i mean u can disagree with certain points i agree.but scrappin the entire section is ridiculous.peace!-svcean. P.S i am not sure if i am conforming with the standards for editing this page.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.216.91 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Er,i'm not too sure i get what you mean.Can you rephrase that part about the bus picture again?Amog (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i was trying to talk about one of the points i made in the criticism section.That was too informal and i apologize for that. what i meant was that i would try to take some pictures of some of the pathetic buses.--svcean P.S its obvious that you dint read the criticism section with a lot of interest:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.224.40 (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude,you should take it up with planemad.If your read all that^^^,you'll find i was all for the criticism section.Amog (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Major cleanup done
info Amog (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Btw,kudos to planemad for the amazing map!
 * how'd you do it?
 * Also,i suggest we change the nickname from the "pennalur penitentiary" to SVCE,which sounds more appropriate.

 * We should apply for a re-assessment of this article on the quality scale soon.Amog (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * btw,in the transport part of the article,it says,
 * "Initially the college started out with eight buses,and now have over 50".
 * but in one of the following lines,it also says,
 * "The College owns five buses, one ambulance and a van."-svcean
 * Yeah,its supposed to mean:"the college owns five,and the other buses are all rented"Amog (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi svceans I've got some good pics of our college, which includes the swimming pool, technology innovation centre, medical centre etc.. SO if any of u could put it up here in wikipedia, it would be great.. My email id is kaushikmechano@yahoo.co.in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushikmechano (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
The GA Review has been archived and can be accessed here. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost all claims in the article have citations. this is great work but other than one or two, all of them are from the college's website.I understand that is the only way to get certain information but claims of the college website like("first to","placement %","placement companies" need not be entirely true.regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliterammer (talk • contribs) 11:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Traxion
Department of Automobile engineering National level symposium EA32417 (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)