text:
Talk:City of London Police

Untitled
Does anyone have any definite evidence about the rank badge of a City of London Assistant Commissioner? I changed it to a crown above the crossed tipstaves, but someone's changed it back to a pip. However, this webpage clearly shows it as a crown. Is this an old badge or is it still a crown? Anyone? -- Necrothesp 13:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Since nobody responded, I have changed back to version shown on website. -- Necrothesp 17:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * 66.108.103.59, please give an explanation of your change to the AC's rank badge. -- Necrothesp 18:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Assistant Commissioner mike bowronnotice he has a pip over the crossed tipstaves thats why i changed it.
 * Fair enough. They must have changed the insignia since then. -- Necrothesp 00:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unique?
Spyfly has added a line on 13/2/06 stating that the City force is partly funded by the Corporation of London making it unique. As i understand it this just the same as every other Home Office force which receives part of its funding from the local governement of its particular area. In the City's case this is the Corporation. Therefore this is not a particularily unique feature. I tempted to delete this. Any thoughts? Dibble999 17:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know how it works elsewhere, but I get charged a precept directly by Leicestershire Constabulary that appears on my Council Tax bill, but doesn't go into Leicester City Council's budget. Whereas this seems to be talking about a 'giving the police force' money item in the Corporation's budget.  I don't know how this works for non-joint police authorities, though.  Morwen - Talk 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole point of British police independence is surely that they are separate from the local authority. As Morwen says, we pay for them through the Council Tax, but that has nothing to do with the local authority apart from as a collector. -- Necrothesp 23:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you but I think your missing the point of my query. Spyfly added (which I deleted) that the City force is unique because it gets part funding from the Corporation of London. As I understand it the Corporation is the local government of the City so its just like Leicester City Council or Warwickshire County Council gathering and part funding Leicestershire Constabulary and Warwickshire Police. So I imagine a resident of the City has a precept on his/her council tax bill for the City of London Police. The City force is unique for other reasons (red markings, tiny area etc) but not for the this reason...I think. I will be gladly be corrected if someone can suggest otherwise! Regards. Dibble999 11:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But the resident population of the Square Mile is only about 5,000, I believe. You wouldn't get much in the way of precepts from that, so I would suspect the Corporation has to fund the force. -- Necrothesp 19:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Business, commercial property and industry must also pay 'council tax' with police precepts which would also fund the force, not just the (granted) small population. Plenty of them in the square mile (rich too). I would also imagine the non-residential 'council tax' will be very high. Its worth keeping in mind that most of the Home Office police force funding comes through central government via the Home Office. I'm still not convinced it is any different from other Home Office force. Dibble999 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * They don't pay council tax, but uniform non-domestic rates, with a special City weighting, which then goes into the coffers of the City. There's no evidence either way whether the City of London Police precepts or just bills the Corporation - so I'm just explaining how it would be possible for  the factlet to be true - not trying to argue that it is.  I shall look into how city rates work more - also will find the Corporation's budget.  Morwen - Talk 19:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Morwen. I would be very interested to find out what the situation is with the funding. On another point, although London forces are not in the current proposed mergers across the country, you'd have thought this forces days are numbered too. Especially taking into consideration the reasons for the proposed mergers. Dibble999 10:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Logic and constitency would indicate that, but the City and Corporation of London has never been bound by those. It has indeed been openly discussed Ken suggesting it back in 2004, and even Ian Blair saying it is under review in 2005.  This is probably worth putting it in the article - if we can find more recent stuff that would be good.   Morwen - Talk 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok. The Corporation of London includes in its accounts for FY 2004/2005, a sum of £82 million for police.  It also includes in its accounts a credit for the Police Support Grant from central government, of £32 million.  The non-domestic business rate for the city is 45.9p, which is 0.3p above the rate elsewhere, and raise about half a billion from that.  They raise about £5 million from Council Tax.  There doesn't seem to be a separate police rate any more.  Morwen - Talk 10:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Good resarch Morwen. I suppose that does make the CoLP a bit different, in terms of funding, compared with every other Home Office force? Its a bit of a historical, political throughback that one square mile has its own force, but money talks I suppose! They have an excellent fraud squad though. Further to my last point above, a colleague in BTP has told me that the Metropolitan Police is pushing to have BTP functions within the M25 merged into its own force. In effect BTP would not exist in London with rail and underground policing falling to the Met. The governement is allegedly looking into this especially with 2012 coming up. Its worth noting that if BTP lose London, BTP would struggle to justify its existence in the rest of the country. (Thats from an operational viewpoint). These possible changes may also play a huge part in the future of the CoLP. So, a knock on from all these changes may be that the CoLP and BTP may be looking at moves to abolish. I would need to find some basis for all the above before adding to any article. Its all been passed to me by colleagues and it may just be a faulty grape vine! Regards Dibble999 13:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Are there police 'trade' newspapers/magazines that would cover this sort of thing? Morwen - Talk 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Population
We say the City's resident population is 8,043 (which seems far too precise, but never mind), but the City Police's website claims it's "about 6,000". That's a pretty big difference. The City of London article itself makes an even higher claim — 8,600. The only figure I can find on the Corporation's website is 7,185, but that was in 2001. Is there a definitive source anywhere? Proteus (Talk) 12:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Impossible to say as many of the flats in the Barbican, the City's main residential area, are occupied Monday night to Thursday night by non-Britons who tend to spend the other three nights of the week outside of the UK for fiscal or family reasons. I would hazard that many of these people don't count in population figures anywhere in the world. The best bet would be to say that the lower figures apply to the weekends and the higher to weekdays! Nonetheless the semi-residents still need police protection and cover for their property. Saga City 04:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The most recent estimate (2005) from the Office of National Statistics (page 18) is 4,900 males and 4,300 females - 9,200 in total. Nick Cooper 12:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The 2011 Census put the population at 7,400 so I have changed all of mentions of population to 7,400 - (Anonposeidon (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC))

Leeds
The City of London Police operate in Leeds too, due to the location of the Bank of England there. It is only minor operations in policing that, and escorting cash transfers to and from King Street, but as it is an operation of the City of London Police, should it be mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.188.233 (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * If you can find a reference for it, then by all means yes. Smartse (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

History of policing in the City
"Policing in the City of London has existed since Roman times. Wood Street Police Station the current headquarters of the City Police, is built on part of the site of a Roman fortress, which may have housed some of the first police in the City." This statement comes from the force's website. However, it's a ridiculous claim. I have a fair amount of professional expertise in this area. There is no justification for claiming that 'policing in the City of London has existed since Roman times'. The current headquarters might be located on the site of a Roman fort, but the Romans did not have police (Police).

I propose that the paragraph either be deleted, or edited as follows: "Wood Street Police Station is the current headquarters of the City Police, and is built on part of the site of a Roman fortress."

Unless someone can find a reliable reference for a Roman police force in Britain.--Ceiteag (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree that the statement is silly. EVEN IF the Romans had a police force the break between the Roman empire and the next established police force would itself make the statement untrue.

Montalban (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

In Literature Section
The book STAB PROOF SCARECROWS is a self published memoir by an ex City of London Police officer (Special Constable). While book itself is author's opinions on state of modern policing the chapters on July 7th 2005 and July 21st 2005 are factual accounts of what happened those 2 days re: terrorist attacks, giving facts about what happened and how the City police reacted to these atrocities re: manpower and utilisation of resources.

It also gives facts such as COLP Specials winning the annual Ferrers cup for their efforts on July 7th and the fact that officers up to rank of Chief Superintendent were doing foot patrol in the days following, for public reassurance.

I resent the fact that my efforts to publicise this book via the City Wiki' page are constantly taken down.

I am NOT the author, despite assumptions from previous editors.

I simply want people to know that COLP's efforts were recognised. If I post the unusual information without mentioning the book then we are back at square 1 as you will want to know the reference for the information.

JB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.7.124 (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 * "my efforts to publicise this book via the City Wiki'" see WP:PROMO - wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote anything, whether you are the author or not. For it to be used as a reference it needs to say something factutal about the COLP, rather than opinion and not just about the events of July 2005, which would be better mentioned in the 7/7 and Charles de Menezez articles. Smartse (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 * The fact the book is self-published doesn't do much for its credibility, either. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Re: Nick Cooper. You clearly know nothing about Self Publishing and are apparently confusing it with Vanity Publishing. Do not insult this genre with ignorant opinions lacking factual knowledge. Fair enough, I will put the same info on the 7/7 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.93.34 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where I have also removed it. I suppose it might be possible to include an in literature section but to avoid undue weight issues it would reallly include only seriously well known authors and books.©Geni 15:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia is to have any credibility then promotions such as this must be excised.S a g a C i t y (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 94.69.93.34, I am not "confusing" anything. Try reading Verifiability before you accuse anyone else of "ignorance." Nick Cooper (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Scientology
So the CoS is making efforts to befriend the police. This is not worth mentioning unless there is some reason to believe that the police have been corrupted by it. The implication that there is a link to the action against the protestor is an original synthesis which is not contained within either source. – Smyth\talk 11:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Awards
Rather than edit war can we discuss whether the awards received by the Special Constabulary deserve a mention in the article? Personally I don't think they should be included unless a secondary source such as a newspaper reported on them. SmartSE (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Smartse. Award is given annually and ref (13) provided by Brookesward simply links to press office page of NPIA with at least 10 other trophy winners mentioned. This is not relevant for COLP despite how proud winner is on getting the award. 2006 para is notable as it was first time an entire Special force got the award and involves July 7th atrocity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cziltang mexico (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

City Specials Rank Structure
As a former cop with City of London I can tell you that it is NOT possible to jump ranks in the Regulars. Paid, full time officers can only Act Up or become Temporary by one rank (eg. a Chief Inspector may become an Acting Superintendent). An exception would be where one force does not have a rank that another holds (e.g. Mike Bowron, former Commissioner of COLP went from a Superintendent to an Assistant Chief Constable with Kent Police as, at that time, Kent did not have the Chief Superintendent rank).

Specials, while having to be experienced are judged more on merit, hence the rather unique situation of Ian Miller being a Special Constable and being promoted to the Commandant.

Further, due to its unique status the City of London Police only patrol ONE square mile and the Specials work both independently and amongst the Regulars. The Specials of the two active stations with cell areas (Snow Hill and Bishopsgate) are classed as a separate BCU and on some occasions take over the running of their Areas for a shift or an entire day (a "takeover day"). Wood Street is another BCU, specialising in other areas such as Fraud and Traffic.

Traditionally the Special Constabulary have only grades not ranks. However a Special Constable is obliged to call anyone over the "rank" of Special Sergeant Sir or Ma'am unless that particular officer specifically waives this requirement (the former DO of Bishopsgate insisted on being addressed as "Sir" while his successor does not). In the City they have more responsibility and autonomy and for this reason I have included the BCU Commanders. --Cziltang mexico (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 * However, there are several problems with how you had placed the rank structure information into the article. It was misplaced at the top of the section: it should either have been lower in the Special Constabulary section, or else the bulk of the section should have had its own subheader. It used a non-standard subheading style. It was unsourced. Finally, it looked over specific: it didn't look like a rank structure so much as a list of division (BCU) commanders. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 * My apologies over layout. I'm new to this. --Cziltang mexico (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 * A few points. It has no relevance that you were a City officer.  I am serving officer elsewhere but that doesn't make me or you more qualified to edit here.  Re regular rank 'jumping', I've had a quick scan at police regulations (2003) and it does mention promotion to Sgt & Insp ranks and the requirements, however no mention is made of higher ranks (apart from Chief Officer level) thus making it POSSIBLE for ranks to be jumped in theory.  It is very rare but I'm sure I recall it happening (I think it was Insp to Supt for a high flyer).

 * Also you are a completely wrong regarding your assertion around only being able to 'act up' one rank. Picking a force at random I've found the Hampshire Police policy where it clearly states:

 * "3.1.7 Only in very exceptional circumstances should it be necessary for an officer to perform acting duty in a rank more than one above his or her own. Approval for such an appointment must be obtained from the Deputy Chief Constable. Where approval is given in such a case there will be no requirement for a second qualifying period of acting duties in the higher rank prior to payment of a temporary salary allowance." http://www.hampshire.police.uk/nr/rdonlyres/e7f37f3f-89eb-4c9e-97a9-11b2589f8938/0/24017.pdf

 * So it is very possible to act up more than one rank although in practice rare.

 * Can you just clarify your statement above, because it would certainly be notable and needs citation. Are you saying Special supervisors are left in operational charge of part of the City i.e. supervising regulars?  I find that incredibly hard to believe but if so, that needs a clear citation.  Again you have made comments regarding autonomy/responsibility of Specials in the City compared to outside - this again needs citation, unless you know the inner workings of every force Special Constabulary in the country. Dibble999 (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 * You appear correct on the process of Acting Up. I was specifically told yo could only act up one rank but I concede this point. With regard to promotion, while you may have heard of someone jumping ONE rank I think you'll concur that going from bottom to top (SPC to Commandant) is unusual if not unique. As for the BCU takeovers. I cannot cite this, it's just from my own experiences with COLP that I know about it. The Specials didn't/ don't command Regulars, they run one half of the square mile for a shift while the Regulars do Custody and Traffic duties. In 2006 this was done at Snow Hill on a Sunday Early Turn (morning shift). When your "area" is one police station and half a mile AND the majority of the population aren't there as its's the weeekend, it'ìs kind of easy.--Cziltang mexico (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Bear in mind that Wikipedia is limited to what is verifiable, and that rules out some categories of first-hand knowledge (see WP:No original research). Accordingly, without a citation (at least to an externally-available COLP source, if not an independent one), it can't go in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Re the Commandant and his rapid rise. It is notable yes and should be part of the article, however technically he is still just a special constable due to there being no legal definition of differing ranks within Special Constabularies.  Your either a Special Constable or your not in law.  That was really my first point when I made my original edit.  There is no rank structure merely a grading system to assist in organisation.  This makes it far easier for someone to do what the Commandant did as he hasn't had to qualify for Sgt, Insp as the regulars do with exams and so on.  Its only fairly recently that Special supervisors have begun to be called 'Special Sergeant', 'Special Inspector' and so on from the previous none regular names like 'section officer' and so on.  There is some issues with this switch due to the powers/authorities that these ranks infer in the regular world but that specials don't have whatever there rank (such as authority for sec 18 PACE search).  But I digress.  I would be interested to know if the commandant was of high grade in his Scottish force, as if so, his rapid rise wouldn't be as spectacular. Dibble999 (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Ian Miller was only an SPC in Tayside before joining City but had over 20 years experience. There is no rank structure in the Scottish Special Constabulary. They interviewed 3 ranks for the Commandant position, Ian who was a Special Constable, a Divisional Officer (Special Super') and an SO (Special Sarge). They were apparently most impressed with Ian which is why he got it. Your previous paragraph sheds some light on the "leapfrogging" system and it's an interesting point about the s.18 powers as this would presumably have to be kicked back to at least an Inspector, regardless of the rank/grade of the Special that needed it. This world is explained in some detail, with some of the issues raised here, in the book Stab Proof Scarecrows by Lance Manley who was a Special with City during the 2005 terrorist attacks. Looking at this page's history the author or someone else appear to have tried to link to the book but it was taken out due to irrelevancy. Merseyside Specials have started using not only the same rank titles (Special Inspector etc.) but also the same shoulder insignia, which in my cynical mind is a crafty attempt to hide just how many cops we won't have over the next 4 years due to the spending cuts.--Cziltang mexico (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

tug of war
The article states that because the tug-of-war isn't in the Olympics ...

 * which means the City of London Police is still the reigning Olympic champion

Are they in fact the 'reigning Olympic champions'??? Did they represent themselves, or Great Britain at the Olympics. If they represented Great Britain then isn't it correct to say GB is the reigning champion, not the City of London Police?

Montalban (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Teams seem to have entered as clubs rather than countries. In 1908, for instance, Gold, Silver and Bronze all went to British clubs (all police clubs, in fact). Proteus (Talk) 16:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Internet censorship
The City of London Police have been doing a lot of Internet hacks in the past few years, including domain takeovers, ad injection, and intimidation. For example: http://torrentfreak.com/uk-police-takes-down-proxy-service-over-piracy-concerns-140806/ Maybe we should have a section on that in the article. Meneth (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll probably need more mainstream and unbiased sources for claims like that. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest adding such commentary into the specific subdivision page, thePIPCU Deku-shrub (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

City of London Police Act 1839
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/city_of_london_police_act_1839_2#comment-62068

Hatnote
cut down my hatnote claiming "edit patronising hatnote which assumes readers won't know what the City of London is".

Indeed, that *was* the assumption!- and no, I don't consider it "patronising". Does Proteus really think that most people worldwide *do* know what the "City of London" is, or rather, if they even realise that there's a difference between it and the city of "London"? I'd be willing to bet the vast majority don't!

The "City of London Police" are referenced (for example) in many press releases that ultimately appear on websites outside the UK. (Indeed, they're disproportionately prominent in this respect).

It's highly insular to expect someone not even living in the UK, let alone London, to be aware of Londoners' use of confusingly-similar nomenclature for very distinct entities. In fact, it's quite clear from comments on articles referencing them that most people *aren't* aware of the disinction between the forces (nor the geographic terms).

While this article- and hence the hatnote- is about the police force, rather than the City of London itself, the current wording:-
 * This article describes the police force for the City of London. For the police force for the rest of Greater London, see Metropolitan Police Service.

still rests on the assumption that the reader already knows that the "City of London" *isn't* the city of "London", and that "Greater London" means London proper.

I appreciate that my original hatnote was a little longwinded, but the requirement to clarify what the article refers to- without expecting the reader to have to read the article itself- is still a reasonable one.

Ubcule (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Stations
In the infobox, it had read that of three stations, one station was "fully operational" and two were "not fully operational". I checked the body of the article, as well as the linked pages for these two stations, (Snow Hill and Bishopgate), but there was no further info that could be found to explain what "not fully operational" means. Are these stations only staffed seasonally, or only during special events, or only during certain hours (eg: closed on nights and weekends) or only used by certain units, or only used administratively and not open to the public? Something else.. ?

For the number of stations in the infobox it should simply state "3" and not have any additional unsupported superfluous info. There shoud, however, be more info about the status of these stations somewhere in the body of the article. If anyone is able to provide more info, with refs, that would definitely be an improvement. - the WOLF  child  10:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on City of London Police. 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/20091027045503/http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police-reform/Police-strength-Mar09 to http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police-reform/Police-strength-Mar09
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100716031548/http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/About/services/History/ to http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/About/services/History/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110224145900/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5DDACB93-FA64-4921-851F-4B524B4F0E2C/0/LH_CLRO_policerecords.pdf to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5DDACB93-FA64-4921-851F-4B524B4F0E2C/0/LH_CLRO_policerecords.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208034839/http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/About/Who/ to http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/About/Who/
 * Added tag to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23698329-city-police-hire-50-specialists-to-fight-1-billion-fraudsters.do

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) 09:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Headquarters
I have modified this to the Guildhall, as per COLP's website, however other sources state that Wood St remains the hq. WisDom-UK (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * City-Police-van.jpg

Merger Proposal Special Constabulary
I propose to merge City of London Special Constabulary (referred to as COLPSC) into City of London Police (referred to as COLP). I think that the content in the COLPSC would be best suited being placed within the section City of London Police, since there are only two main sections within the COLPSC, the main information and HAC info. Which would easily fit within the article without making it too "clunky", the insignia is already displayed on both pages already. No other polcie forces I can find have a seperate article for a special constabulary making it harder to locate information on the COLPSC compared to other articles. Overall I believe that having the two articles seperate adds unnecessary complication where there is no need for them to be seperate and should be merged. Terasail [Talk] 16:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Legally speaking the COLPSC is part of the COLP and I'm not sure why a seperate page was started for a section of the COLP (i.e. the special constabulary).  The Chief Officer of the COLP appoints the special constables of the COLP and they are under his command & control so, yes the COLPSC should be a section of COLP page.  (See sec 27 of the Police Act 1996 for the legal position). Bowchaser (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Commissioner Vs Chief Constable
The City Police along with the Met are the only two UK forces to have the rank of Commissioner. The former because of the strategic and operational nature. It's always been my understanding that a Commissioner is higher than a Chief Constable because of their responsibilities not equivalent to, as the article states. Also both forces have the rank of Commander. Yes a Commissioner may be equal to a Chief Constable as they're both the head of their force but a commissioner does have more responsibility. Just a thought. I haven't edited the article, just floating it as an idea. Escaper27 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're suggesting a change, and if so to what, but in law each of the 43 police forces are independent and none of the chief officers of each have any particular power, authority or precedence over another. A question of responsibility would be a subjective assessment, and it would be very much arguable that the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police has a considerable amount more responsibility that the Commissioner of the City of London Police. The London forces' use of the titles "Commissioner" and "Commander" (and their junior versions) allows them a greater depth in their rank structure, but the level of responsibility any particular senior officer in the UK might have is never going to be comparable to that of a similarly-titled officer in another force, because each force is different and organised differently. ninety:one  17:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Commissioner and Chief Constable are simply the most senior ranks within forces, with City Police and the Met using them, as already mentioned, to give greater depth to the rank structure. With only 2 forces utilising the rank, I feel it's a fair comparison to make with Chief Constable - as they both identify the individual leading said force. I can see an element of your argument for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, because of the major national responsibilities (ie national security, royal protection – not merely fraud as in the City) the Met holds, but the CoLP Commissioner is rather insignificant. 07Alpha55 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As both previous replies have already pointed out, legally speaking a Chief Constable or a Commissioner (for the MPD and COLP) are the same thing. They are all the Chief Officer for their individual forces and none has any authority over the other. Each Chief Officer of each individual force has operational independence to police his/her police area as he wishes (within the law and policy guidelines etc).  There is of course a sort of pecking order in terms of career progression and salary.  A Chief Constable of a small force would not be carrying the same amounts of responsibilities, risks and so on as the Chief Constables or GMP, West Mids, West Yorks etc.  The Met has some national responsibilities which mean is attracts the highest salary.  But as already pointed out they are all independent operational leaders of their respective forces and a Chief Officer has no legal authority or precendece over another.  As a small point, the reason the COLP has a commissioner and not a Chief Constable is largely down to historical reasons - there was significant kick back from the City authorities when it was muted in the 1830s that the Met should take over policing in the City.  In response the City authorities introduced a private members bill to establish the City of London Police, largely based on the Met, in order to fend off any Met amalgamation.  As it was based on the Met and they had Commissioners, so the City also had to have a Commissioner.  It is certainly not for the same reason as the Met (depth of rank due to size).  The COLP is the smallest territorial police force in the country and some might argue continues to be a bit of historical throwback. Bowchaser (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Allowing depth of rank may well be a benefit of the Met's current rank structure, but it cannot be the reason it has a Commissioner, since when the Met was created, none of (what we would now call) the chief officer ranks below Commissioner existed: Assistant Commissioners were added in 1856, Deputy Assistant Commissioners in 1919, the Deputy Commissioner in 1931 (informally in 1922) and Commanders in 1946. (There was also a rank of District Superintendent introduced in 1869, renamed Chief Constable in 1886, renamed Deputy Commander in 1946, and abolished in 1968.) Proteus (Talk) 22:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Agreed re the depth argument being null at the time of inception of the MPS but it is why it is still in place now. Having thought about it, the rank of Commissioner was probably used, as uniquely for the MPS (and I think for COLP), the Commissioner was appointed as a magistrate (JP) and not as a constable.  Therefore they could not be a 'Chief Constable' as they were not a constable.  Back in the day new constables could be sworn in by the Commissioner and did not need to see a normal magistrate as now.  This has all changed and somewhere in the early 1970s (from memory) the magistrate side of the Commissioner was changed by statue to that of a constable to bring it into line with all Chief Officers.  So at that point they could have changed the designation to Chief Constable but by then the Met was of course massive so the depth was required and the rank structure remained as it is. Bowchaser (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Sci-Hub press release
My edit got removed, because "Reddit is not a realiable source".

While it is true that Reddit is not a reliable source, the problem is that we do not need to trust Reddit to verify that it is true:

The Reddit citation is after the claim "especially because when asked, the City of London Police refused to provide any evidence or technical details that would make such attacks plausible." If you don't trust that claim, you can reproduce it by asking the London Police the same question that the Redditor asked.

It isn't a great source, but it is reproducible -> It fulfills the condition that everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable.

Unless anyone with a CS background argues otherwise, I think that that section should re-appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volker Weißmann (talk • contribs) 15:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit got reverted because it constituted original research and was poorly-sourced, with Reddit being one example of the poor sourcing. You also cited a primary source, the City of London Police website - we don't generally cite straight to a primary source (see WP:PSTS). Your logic re: Reddit is flawed - what you're saying is that the source is "Go ask the police yourself". There's plenty of normal, reliable sources writing about this - please find one, or two, and re-write the content using them as your sources. ninety:one  08:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As an ongoing and not hugely significant news story I don't think it (yet) meets criteria for inclusion in this article - even if it is notable enough for inclusion in the Sci-Hub article. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Photographs
Regarding section 3 Uniform the current photographs show officers killed on duty, instead of a clear view of a uniform. They could be moved to 1.2 Officers killed in the line of duty. After that they could be replaced with at least one other image from commons. --Dreddmoto (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Photographs as references
I'm not sure how they can be integrated as references, but there are plenty of photographs in news articles and on social media showing the rank insignia and badges. For example: Proteus (Talk) 11:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - two PCs
 * - a PS
 * - a superintendent
 * - an assistant commissioner
 * - the current commissioner
 * - two special constables
 * - a special constable and a special commander

title: Talk:City of London Police


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Engeseth

The Swedish summer holidays are over, everybody's back in town, and the pranksters back at their computers wasting everybody's time. Stefan Engeseth is a vanity page for a "Stockholm-based businessman" and author of an "acclaimed" book on marketing, created by the same user as the Vendela Kirsebom article ten minutes earlier. (Kirsebom is rather more notable than Engeseth.) It's interesting to see how the user had, just before, inserted Engeseth and Kirsebom in the List of Swedes article under " Other notables", creating a hilarious effect in what had been a very short list of Swedish household names, and being underhand in marking the insertion of himself (?) as a minor edit. Then he created the Engeseth and Kirsebom articles, I don't know why, but perhaps less for self-promotion than in order to blue their telltale redlinks on List of Swedes. Anyway, I've asked Mic to revert the list, and Stefan Engeseth needs to be deleted, if not Vendela Kirsebom. Bishonen 13:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: All the Swedes I know are scratching their heads on this. Minor figure, at best. Geogre 14:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. He is not notable at all, nobody i know (Swedes and Swedish-Finlanders) have ever heard about this guy. Only 40 google.se hits and almost all are promoting him or his book. Kirsebom however should stay. bbx 14:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete—fair enough. I entered it but admittedly he is known only within his industry and perhaps those he has promoted his work to. He seems better regarded outside Sweden. To Bishonen: I have not entered anything about myself but was in touch with a couple of people as I wrote their bios (you'll probably be able to guess which ones) to ensure none of their personal info was put on without their permission. This was an innocent mistake, not a puff piece for Mr Engeseth and certainly not a prank. I will take responsibility and revert the list, removing Mr Engeseth, but will wait for the outcome of your decisions on Ms Kirsebom (who, again, seems better regarded outside Sweden). Stombs 22:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Stombs. This is a vote about the Stefan Engeseth article, not about Vendela Kirsebom, and people here seem to agree in any case that she's notable enough to have her own article. But about the other matter, your addition to the List of Swedes of Engeseth and Kirsebom as two out of six (!) of the most notable "other" Swedes through the ages: uh, I don't quite know how to say this ... but I suppose E. and K. must simply be tremendously well-regarded outside Sweden. Thank you for removing Engeseth from the list, but I see that you've left Kirsebom right up there with Lars Johan Hierta and Sven Hedin. (It's not polite to look so surprised, co-voters. The two last-mentioned actually are notable in Swedish history.) (I've removed her now.) Admit it, you're trying to get on BJAODN, aren't you? Bishonen 23:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi Bishonen: thanks for replying to me. I am still getting used to conventions here but judging from Ms Kirsebom's company, I take your point and thank you for removing her. In that context, I may have succeeded in getting on to BJAODN! I know E. is well regarded in some overseas countries (but only in his field) and I'm about four degrees of separation from him but maybe I got suckered in by his promotion. Well, at least I didn't add the Graaf sisters. Then you guys would think I was on drugs. Stombs 23:46, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. When the original author votes to delete, that's enough debate for me. Skyler 01:43, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. -- Mic 18:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable enough. It should not be expected that friends of yours know about swedish people known in the business inustry of sweden nor is it a criterion to have an article on him. This is not an encyclopedia on english culture but an encyclopedia in english. A Google search on swedish domains gave me 74 hits, a general google search will give 546 hits this excluding hits with wikipedia and not using filter. Stombs, there is no reason for you to vote for a delete, this is a completely legitimate article.--Dittaeva 20:28, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I'm sorry for taking a tone with you, Dittaeva, but what is it that in your opinion disqualifies the users who have voted about this, or friends of theirs (of whose, exactly?) from being knowledgeable on the subject? It can't be our nationality, since you do know that this is not an encyclopedia on English culture but an encyclopedia in English, so of course you realize that Wikipedia users aren't all Americans. Bishonen and Mic are Swedes, as it happens, bxx a Finland-Swede. But maybe you have some secret information about what line of work their friends are in? About the Google hits, though, I do appreciate that you supply the links and figures in a spirit of helpfulness, and I don't at all mean to suggest that the way you count is "wrong". But I think it's most usual, on VfD at least, to count only the hits that you actually see, i. e. up to the Google boilerplate "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar"etc. Looked at like that, your links give 26 Swedish hits, 153 general hits, and surely that's woefully, almost incredibly, few for anybody in this line of business. Heck, never mind about ommitting the very similar entries, they're too few no matter what. The man's a marketing specialist, he teaches people how to get Google hits. But if Stombs or any other voter is impressed by your argument, I hope they know that they're free to change their votes any time, until the entry rolls off VfD. Bishonen 21:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, I deserved your tone for the friends issue, I was thinking about Geogre with his "All the Swedes I know", and bbx with his "nobody i know". I am truly sorry about the google hit values I gave, I have always done it like that, but see that your way is the better one, will try not use such values again. But I still think he is notable enough.--Dittaeva 22:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Meant to establish the basis of my vote only. Since a Google search was unrewarding, I went back to the next level of research: Swedish language.  Since I don't know Swedish, I have to rely on my Swedish friends to find out for me.  I asked them, first, "Is this a famous person?"  No.  Then I asked them to find out.  After a .se web search, the answer was "a business figure."  Ok.  So, having personally no knowledge of the figure, I went to Google.  Getting nothing from Google, I went to Swedes I know.  Getting nothing from them, I voted Delete.  When I put in a vote, the words there are generally meant to be an explanation of why.  If you found hundreds of Google hits in English, then your search was better than mine.  Since this is the English language Wikipedia, I think we serve the Anglophone community.  That means, to me, that an Anglophone would wish to know about the subject.  I couldn't find a way for that to be the case with this figure. Geogre 13:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * My vote was rough because I don't care too much my futile votes. But since I'm at it: Searching Google for "stefan engeseth" -wikipedia -"known speaker in inspirational business" on english pages, without filter, I get 88 hits omitting "very similar hits". If you really are interested these hits describe him:, ,  and probably some more  on pages that does not seem to be his own. His book seems to be hailed as, well, really, really good. --Dittaeva 20:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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


text: Category:French mailplanes

title: Category:French mailplanes


text:
KATU (TV)

KATU (channel 2) is a television station in Portland, Oregon, United States, affiliated with ABC. It is owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group alongside La Grande–licensed Univision affiliate KUNP (channel 16). Both stations share studios on NE Sandy Boulevard in Portland, while KATU's transmitter is located in the Sylvan-Highlands section of the city.

KATU went on the air as the fourth commercial station in Portland in 1962. It was built and signed on by Fisher Broadcasting Company, later Fisher Communications, and originally served as an independent station before joining ABC in 1964. The station expanded its local programming in the early 1970s and became a contender in Portland-area local news ratings. Fisher continued to own KATU until the entire company was sold to Sinclair Broadcast Group in 2013.

Channel 2 comes to Portland
Channel 2 was not initially assigned to Portland, being allocated in 1957. That action spurred activity on the valuable frequency. Four applications were initially received, from The Oregon Journal, owner of KPOJ (1330 AM); Fisher Broadcasting Company, which owned KOMO radio and television in Seattle; Tribune Publishing Company, publisher of The News Tribune and owner of KTNT-TV in Tacoma, Washington; and KPTV (channel 12), which wanted to move to channel 2. KPTV later withdrew, and KPOJ dropped its application in March, but it was not until the end of 1959 that an FCC hearing examiner recommended Fisher over the Tribune Publishing Company for the channel 2 construction permit. The full commission began drafting paperwork in support of this decision in December 1960, and Fisher received the permit on February 23, 1961.

Work began to build facilities in the former Crystal Laundry on NE Sandy Boulevard in June; the two-story building was refitted to contain two production studios. The station originally was assigned the call letters KOXO but switched to the call sign KATU within months.

KATU began broadcasting on March 15, 1962, originally operating as an independent station; Portland native and actress Jane Powell was the master of ceremonies. The station's transmitter was originally located atop Livingston Mountain, about 7 mi north-northeast of Camas, Washington; this northerly site had been required to maintain minimum spacing to the unbuilt channel 3 (the future KVDO-TV) at Salem.

While it was the 25th independent in the United States, from the moment it went on air, speculation swirled that KATU might look to poach a network affiliation from one of the three other commercial stations in Portland. Rumors intensified in June 1963 as KATU began construction of a transmitter in Portland's West Hills, which would improve its signal coverage and co-site channel 2 with the other major stations. The news came in early December when ABC announced it would drop KPTV, Oregon's oldest television station, and move to KATU on March 1, 1964. The news led to speculation that the ABC switch to KATU, in spite of KPTV performance comparable to that of other ABC affiliates, was a countermove by the network to avoid losing Seattle's KOMO-TV, one of the network's few top-rated stations at the time, to a possible overture by CBS. KPTV—which had been ABC's Portland affiliate since 1959—sued, alleging that Fisher coerced ABC into affiliating with KATU by threatening to defect in Seattle. (It was the second time KPTV had lost an affiliation to a group owner in five years; King Broadcasting Company's KGW-TV [channel 8] displaced KPTV as the NBC television affiliate in Portland in 1959, and its KING-TV in Seattle replaced KOMO-TV in the network lineup. )

After a decade in which the station struggled to build an identity in the market, KATU began to find its way in the early 1970s after expanding its local programming. New shows such as public affairs program Town Hall, weekend children's program Bumpity, and talk show AM Northwest proved critical to the station's success. AM Northwest continues to air, while other shows, such as Faces & Places and Two at Four, ended in the 1980s.

In 1975, KATU-TV became sister stations with Hokkaido Television Broadcasting in Sapporo, Japan, a sister city of Portland. The stations exchanged documentary footage of events in their areas.

KATU was Portland's first commercial station to broadcast in digital, doing so in 1998 alongside Oregon Public Broadcasting. KATU shut down its analog signal, over VHF channel 2, on June 12, 2009, the official date on which full-power television stations in the United States transitioned from analog to digital broadcasts under federal mandate. The station's digital signal remained on its pre-transition UHF channel 43, using virtual channel 2.

Sinclair Broadcast Group ownership
On April 10, 2013, KATU and Fisher Communications's other holdings were acquired by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. The Federal Communications Commission granted its approval of the deal on August 7, and the sale was completed the following day.

On May 8, 2017, Sinclair Broadcast Group entered into an agreement to acquire Tribune Media—owner of CW affiliate KRCW-TV (channel 32)—for $3.9 billion, plus the assumption of $2.7 billion in debt held by Tribune. Sinclair would have been required to sell one of KUNP or KRCW-TV if the deal were to be approved. However, in 2018, the FCC designated the deal for hearing by an administrative law judge; the deal was then terminated by Tribune.

News operation
From the station's first day on air, KATU produced local newscasts. As an independent, its late-night local news aired at 10 p.m. This changed after the station switched to ABC in 1964, but KATU remained mired in third place in local news coverage behind KOIN-TV and KGW-TV, which were said to have a "stranglehold" on Portland viewers.

One Oregon news event covered by KATU cameras in the station's first decade on air acquired lasting notoriety. In November 1970, reporter Paul Linnman, who worked at KATU from 1967 to 1972 before returning to the station in 1984 and retiring from TV news in 2004, traveled to Florence, Oregon, where a sperm whale washed ashore; its carcass was exploded unsuccessfully. The station continued to receive requests for footage years after the event and has since commemorated anniversaries of the exploding whale, including a news special in 1995 and a remaster of the original newsfilm in 2020. The 4K remaster was conducted by the Oregon Historical Society, which has held the original film in its collection since the 1980s.

In 1975, Richard Ross left KGW-TV after 19 years to become the news director at channel 2. That same year, former Oregon governor Tom McCall joined KATU as commentator; prior to becoming governor, he had also worked at KGW. Under Ross, the station produced such efforts as Kidwitness News, a monthly newscast for kids anchored by puppets; the station's documentary unit won a Peabody Award in 1981. McCall's commentaries continued appearing despite his battle with cancer leading up to his death in January, 1983.

News hires at KATU in the 1980s included Jeff Gianola, who initially joined as a weekend weather presenter in 1983 and became evening anchor before defecting to KOIN in 1998, and Bill O'Reilly, the future Fox News Channel anchor whose tenure in Portland lasted less than a year due to family reasons. O'Reilly's time with the station was marked by remarks about Portland being a "vacation" compared to his previous job in Boston, which displeased management, and an incident in which he left his paycheck in a copy machine, unwittingly divulging a six-figure salary that irked underpaid colleagues. By 1985, what had once been a five-person staff in the early days had become a 60-person news department.

KATU had worked its way up to having the top-rated newscasts in Portland by 1997, but ratings were starting to decline before Gianola's departure for KOIN, which was responsible for leading a resurgence at that station. In 1997, the station's general manager concocted a promotional strategy, known as the "Power of 2", by which the station acquired two news helicopters, in an attempt to increase falling ratings, even though the news director had previously said helicopters were primarily a marketing tool. The campaign was produced with such secrecy that its first airing took newsroom employees by surprise. Within a month of the highly publicized debut of the second helicopter, the leased helicopter, "JetRanger II", crashed and burned in November while harvesting Christmas trees.

By 2021, KATU had returned to first place in early and late evening news in total viewership, though Fox affiliate KPTV beat it out in morning news. That year, the station attracted industry attention for suspending an entire day of newscasts so the station staff could take stress management training in light of increasing burnout in television news.

Notable former on-air staff

 * Dick Bogle – reporter, and later anchor, from 1968 to 1982; later a city council member
 * Anna Canzano – anchor/investigative reporter
 * Jack Faust – hosted the weekly public affairs show Town Hall for 13 years (1980–1993)
 * Paul Magers – reporter (1979–1981)
 * Rob Marciano – meteorologist (1997–2003)
 * Cathy Marshall – reporter/anchor (1998–2003)
 * Tom Rinaldi – lead reporter for ESPN and contributor to ESPN College Football, now with Fox Sports
 * Roger Twibell – sports reporter (1973–75), now sportscaster for CBS Sports Network
 * Brian Wood – reporter/anchor (2008–2021)
 * Linda Yu – news anchor (1975)

Subchannels
The station's signal is multiplexed: {{legend|#DFEBF6|Broadcast on behalf of another station}}

The 32.1 subchannel for KRCW-TV is broadcast by KATU as part of Portland's ATSC 3.0 (NextGen TV) deployment plan; in exchange, KRCW-TV broadcasts KATU in that format.

Translators
KATU is additionally rebroadcast over a network of sixteen low-power digital translator stations:
 * Astoria: K26DB-D
 * Baker Valley: K27MX-D
 * Corvallis: K08PZ-D
 * Hood River: K28CQ-D
 * La Grande: K32LY-D
 * La Grande: K35GA-D
 * Lincoln City, etc.: K32NK-D
 * Madras: K26NX-D
 * Milton-Freewater: K28FT-D
 * Pendleton: K34DI-D
 * Prineville: K35LD-D
 * Rainier: K31HK-D
 * Rockaway Beach: K23NS-D
 * The Dalles: K18HH-D
 * Tillamook: K34PJ-D
 * Grays River/Lebam, WA: K20NL-D

title: KATU (TV)


text:
Talk:List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes

Where is the 300 tribes of France ?
The map for my country is wrong. Celtie is a different country than Armorica. And we had more 300 tribes in the territory of France.

One point feels me a little nervous, it's, all these names only in Latin. ("ii", often = "wi") Nobody could find and write the name in the true Celtic language? For us, in ARMORICA (but ARMORICA is not a good name to call about KERNEV, the CORNWALL of SOUTH, or CYMRU of SOUTH). Anyway the name should be write in old CYMRIC language, for the tribes from the CYMRIC branch, and in Old GAELIC, for the branch from EIRE and ERSE (scotland); with the meaning of the name of tribes, because these names of Tribes means always something.

To go on to diffuse the wrong latin information given by Rome, i cannot agree it.

Hominn, Kernéô Abrincatuï —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.243.136 (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Illyrians & Ubii
Illyrians a celtic tribe?? --Yak 13:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) Ubii? The entry says the're Germanic? --Yak 13:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I removed them. Bogdan | Talk 13:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think there's some talk about a mixing of the original Illyres and the migrating Celts... similarly with the Thracians etc. In any case, their mention under "see also" should probably stay. --Joy [shallot]

Ancalites
I added an article link for Ancalites, hope that's ok, now there's one! ;) Ciriii 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

General improvement
I now believe this useful article name "List of Celtic Tribes", has been edited into a less particularly useful, perhaps nationalist and factional article. Headings such as "[Asia minor]" which then do not go on to list any Celtic tribes, a single heading of [Celtiberia] as a seperate heading to the tribes within [Spain], an edit about the tribes which lived within the political borders of the republic of [Ireland]...This i have reverted, and i intend to revert more if there is no dispute in 48 hours. This is intended to be a list for easy access surely? Which tribes lived in Spain, ireland..etc. Unfortunately the celts did not respect modern day political boundaries, and we cannot impose them upon history. Further adding Continents and nations which contained no celtic nations is not only ludicrous but factually wrong; yes it's a shame, but we can't all have a celt! Ciriii 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Havent deleted anything, but made some cahnges, links, changed alot...might actually be just for my benefit as nobody sems to care! lalala....Added a few peoples who should be classed as celtic sub group, and put some into the sub-group who shoup who should be there, though I'm a bit confused about the Illyrians and where this information came from, I never knew there were Illyrian Celts?I assumed they would all be Helennic, but due to the gallic progression, have left it! Ciriii 16:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why Scythia and Dacia are included in the list described by ambiguous words "These peoples are believed to have strong Celtic associations, though not thoroughly proven to be Celts". They were not the Celts, though there were wars (and trade) between them and the Celts. But the same would be true for Greeks and Germanic tribes. I do not think that all peoples who fighted (or traded with) the Celts should be listed here. And I do not know ANY "strong Celtic associations" of Medes. I would be happy to know the opinion of other editors. Tankred 20:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No you are right and i would be happy for the wording to be arranged. There are several differing theories theories that the "Celts" (in the very broadest sense of the word) were originally inhabitants or the same people as the Dacians or Scythii. With the Scythii there has been much work done in relationship to their migration west and possible resettlement into the British isles. Because the celts were a migratory people and didn't simply spring up in these lands, the evidence shows more than trade and relatively few wars, especially linguistically and militaristically, but perhaps that does not belong here. As for Medes, there was a large celtic presence in the Medes army. These were the Anatolian Celts. I will add sources to the page. I am happy for the section to be re-named or enlarged, perhaps contemporaries of the Celtic peoples, in actual fact there wouldn't be that many withing local boundaries.Ciriii 16:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the small, not very complete listing of Gaulish tribes, replacing it with a link to the main list which already existed. Nantonos 11:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Celtiberians
I see this text: The Ibero-Celts were most certainly Celts, but heavy influence, firstly from the Iberian Almerian civilisations, then Carthage means they probably should belong to a separate sub-group. In the same logic, heavy influence on the Romans from the Greeks and the Etruscans would mean that the Romans are not Romans; similarly heavy influence from the Phoceans of Massalia, the Ligurians, and the Etruscans would mean the Gauls are not Gauls... cultures influenced each other substantially at all periods in history. There was much trade and travel. I can't see why the Celtiberians are down there in the 'not really celtic' section along with the Medes and the Dacians... --Nantonos 11:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Celtiberians are recognised as Forebears of a celtic civilisation in Hispania, at least this is one theory. Is the link for Celtiberian not to that appropriate page which explains this, i will check, if not please adjust. Also, i am putting the Gallic tribes back, it is all very well having a sperate page, but this a page to include all tribes.Ciriii 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course the Celtiberians are Celtic - that is my point. Thus they should be moved up into the main section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NantonosAedui (talk • contribs)

No, please don't put the small poor list 'back'. It didn't list all the tribes before (clearly this page started as a list of British celtic tribes and has grown by adding a selection of others). You could put a copy of the main Gaulish list, but would you then ensure it is kept up to date? --Nantonos 17:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that not only did you put the old, poor list back, you also deleted the link to the much fuller and better list. I am reverting your change, because your edit reduced the quality of the page. --Nantonos 17:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a list of CELTIC TRIBES, and should include the ones of Gaul also, not just a redirect to another page, which should be placed at the bottom. instead of removing them and redirecting to a different page, please improve the list since you clearly have the knowledge to do so.Ciriii 21:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the link from the top in the first place, because it already existed at the bottom, which is generally where links are located. I have no problem with the same information on the tribes of gaul page being repeated on here, but not to simply ignore them. I don't think whether this started as a tribes of Britain page or not is relevant, as it is not now. Do you think you could then add improve the list of Gauls, rather than deleting it simply again?Ciriii 22:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Map
This map is much better than the last one...but can anyone find one both where all the tribes mentioned are noted and where Wales looks half realistic! Ciriii 17:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Terminology
Is "tribe" really the best term for Celtic population groups? The convention seems to be that such a group is a "tribe" before being conquered by Rome, implying primitive political organisation, and a "civitas" thereafter, implying a more sophisticated setup, but the word used in Latin texts is civitas in both instances, and the level of political organisation seems to me to be more complex than tribal. Certainly the "tribes" (civitates) of Gaul described by Caesar have a stratified social structure (class system) which is typical of chieftoms, proto-states, or even in the most advanced cases full states. Wikipedians tend to base their edits on older reference works, particularly public domain ones on the internet, but it seems to me that in recent years there's a move away from the term "tribe" among scholars. A. R. Birley, introducing his 1999 translation of Tacitus's Agricola and Germania for Oxford World's Classics, says "I have avoided the word 'tribe' to describe the native peoples or states of Britain and Germany... 'Tribe' is, I think, a misleading expression... Instead I have used terms such as 'state(s)', 'people(s)', 'community', occasionally 'nation', according to the context." A. J. Woodman, in his 2004 translation of Tacitus's Annals, uses "community" or "kingdom". I saw the first part of Terry Jones's Barbarians on BBC2 last night and he savaged Roman historians for their dismissive and condescending attitude towards the Celts, but it seems to me that Caesar and Tacitus look down on the Gauls and Britons less than most modern historians, and in many ways it's the choice of the word "tribe" to translate civitas that's to blame (that and assuming the word "barbarian" had its modern connotations of unrestrained viciousness and brutality, which is another argument). I'd be interested to read people's opinions on this. --Nicknack009 13:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your point is very valid, tribe is often misleading. Though I think it is also appropriate in some instances. Although tribes is still probably what most people would refer to as a celtic social structure, i believe "celtic peoples" would be more appropriate. Ciriii 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just nationalism, please stop
Will people please stop nationalising this page. It is highly inappropriate. Like removing Portugal from Celtiberians; they inhabited northern Portugal, and the wikipedia page states so. Or removing Croatia from the Scordisci, their range incompassed this; also stated in wikipedia itself, and despite your own opinions, it is necessary merely for a consensus, and because it is a viewpoint. Removing things like that is essentially nationalism, iunless you explain why....and present your views and an opposite and valid point??Ciriii 23:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
I tried to include the recent edits and put links in. But just putting "Gaul-Belguim" in next to certain tribes which already had a different placing i didnt understand, that space i think was intended for where the tribe wass from, and it already stated they weren't? If you could elabortae with some decent links? And if you could write about the Gaulish language on that page, this is for the placing of tribes..though it is interesting? I never heard that?? Ciriii 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Iberia
Hello Ciriii. I see that you have reverted my inclusion of the Celtic populations of Iberia. You state that "early people of Iberia were not definitely Celt". Well... My friend, you are contradicting present knowledge on Celtic Iberia, as can be seen in the reference I've placed in the article (Alberro, Manuel and Arnold, Bettina (eds.), e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies, Volume 6: The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, Center for Celtic Studies, 2005.) - please read it before going back to your archaic view that there were not Celts in Iberia. I am reverting you, given also the fact that my edit did not erase any of the info previously presented, I even added some images, and expanded the list of tribes in Iberia, with their respective links, and sourceded it (with a reference of the Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies and a Detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia (around 200 BC) by the archeological station of Tavira). My friend... I suspected that you may have a British Isles centered PoV!?! If this discussions turns out to be a war, I will be forced to ask for a Third opinion. Thank you. The Ogre 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what a British isles point of view is, but clearly yours is a biased one. The article works on the assumption of "people" not political borders, we have had this argument again and again. The iberians were not celtic, but iberian. A distinct and seperate ethnic grouping, which is why they have their own sub grouping but do not appear in the "list of Celtic peoples". The celts that were in Iberia, being covered by the list of Gallic celts, or Celtiberians, make the need for a new section irrelevant. If you wish to begin a revert war, and seek a third party juridiction, ok. It is not about the "evidence", it is merely about the necessary format of the article. Ciriii 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My friend... Of course Iberians were not Celtic! But a great number of the populations of Iberia were not Iberians in the ethnic-cultural sense! Do not confuse them! And the celts in Iberia are not just covered by the Gallic celts or Celtiberians. An article like this is supposed to list all the celtic tribes - that is what I am trying to do - and with references! Notice that the article Celt states (blods are mine):
 * "The term Celt, normally pronounced // (see article on pronunciation), now refers primarily to a member of any of a number of peoples in Europe using the Celtic languages, which form a branch of the Indo-European languages. It can refer in a wider sense to a user of celtic culture. However, in ancient times the term 'celt' was used either to refer generally to barbarians in north-western Europe or to specific groups of tribes in Iberia and Gaul. This article is mainly about the ancient and modern views of the celts of pre-Roman Europe, with a separate article on Modern Celts. Although today restricted to the Atlantic coast of Western Europe, the so-called 'Celtic fringe', Celtic languages were once predominant over a much wider area, from Ireland and the Iberian Peninsula in the west to northern Italy and Serbia in the east. Archaeological and historical sources show that at their maximum extent in the early centuries BC, the Celts were also present in areas of Eastern Europe and Asia Minor."
 * I shall ask for a Third Opinion. Thank you. The Ogre 16:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I Have asked for a Third opinion. Have you read, Ciriii, what is written in Celt regarding Iberia, and I quote:
 * [[Image:Prehispanic languages.gif|thumb|right|280px|Main [[language]] areas in Iberia, showing Celtic and Proto-Celtic languages in green, and Iberian languages in purple, circa 250 BC.]]
 * Traditional 18th/19th centuries scholarship surrounding the Celts virtually ignored the Iberian Peninsula, since material culture relatable to the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures that have defined Iron Age Celts was rare in Iberia, and did not provide a cultural scenario that could easily be linked to that of Central Europe.
 * Traditional 18th/19th centuries scholarship surrounding the Celts virtually ignored the Iberian Peninsula, since material culture relatable to the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures that have defined Iron Age Celts was rare in Iberia, and did not provide a cultural scenario that could easily be linked to that of Central Europe.

 * Modern scholarship, however, has proven that Celtic influences were very substantial in Iberia. The Celts in Iberia were divided in two main archaeological and cultural groups, even if the divide is not very clear:
 * One group, from Galicia and along the Iberian Atlantic shores. They were made up of the Lusitanian tribes (in Portugal and the Celtic region that Strabo called Celtica in the southwest including the Algarve, inhabited by the Celtici), the Vettones, Vacceani and Germani tribes (of central west Spain and Portugal), and the Gallaecian, Artabric, Astures and Cantabrian tribes of the Castro culture of north and northwest Spain and Portugal).
 * The Celtiberian group of central Spain and the upper Ebro valley, which both present special, local features. The group originated when Celts migrated from what is now France and integrated with the local Iberian people.

 * The origins of the Celtiberians might provide a key to unlocking the Celticization process in the rest of the Peninsula. The process of celticization of the SW by the Keltoi and NW is however not a simple celtiberian question. Recent investigation about the Callaici Bracari in NW Portugal is bringing new approaches to understand celtic culture evidences (language, art and religion) in western Iberia.

 * There is some evidence that Brythonic Celts migrated from Britain to Northern Iberia in the Early Middle Ages. However this culture did not survive.
 * I believe you are contradicting established facts! Thank you. The Ogre 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There is now an expanded list of Iberian tribes etc that may be a compromise...if you couldedit it and put the relevant info like place names and also the maps on theer I think iut should be ok now. Ciriii 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My friend... are you saying that we should go back to my former version, given your most recent edits? And yes, I can put the info like place names and also the maps. The Ogre 16:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I still desagree withe the heading "Celtic Forebears/Contemporaries" - their were Celts! Period. The Ogre 16:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no not your former version, the one now, if it suits both parties. Because the information on other contemporaries is there, but some other information for the reader I see as a compromise. In future, please do not use terms like "british point of view"; it is unecessarily inflammatory and highly sterotypical from someone who doesn't know my views. I apologiese for acalling you bias. Thank you for making the edits. Is it possible to find a better map of the British isles and Gaul than the ones that were formerly used, perhaps like The Iberian one, which is easy to read? I am not good at inserting images otherwise i would try. ThanksCiriii 17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ciriii I did not intend to offend you, sorry if that happened. I still have some issues regarding this version. What do you mean by "information on other contemporaries is there, but some other information for the reader I see as a compromise."? As I said, I still desagree withe the heading "Celtic Forebears/Contemporaries" - their were Celts! And do not agree with the statement "The people living in the Iberian peninsula live don the edge of the Celtic world and although Gallic influence culture penetrated in the north there was a distinct and seperate culture throughout much of Spain and Portugal until Roman Expansion and conquest." - I believe it can be better sated. I can also try to find better maps, but it may take a while. Should we let the previous one there meanwhile? The Ogre 17:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Ciriii. Done some changes. What do you think? The Ogre 15:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion
Hi Ciriii and The Ogre. I found your request for a third opinion, and read over your discussion. I'm no expert on the Celts or Iberia, so I'm not the best person to address the content dispute; however, I have some comments about your process so far: You have stated your points clearly, explained your intentions, used direct quotes, collaboratively edited compromise text, requested and given clarification, evaluated and addressed the process, explained what did not work well and what to do differently, apologized to each other, thanked each other, and requested help from each other. In my opinion, you are negotiating well and moving in the right direction. The request for a third opinion might have been premature. Ask again if you still have a dispute after your negotiations, but I don't think you will, if you keep doing what you have been doing. In the meantime, I hope my perspective is helpful. Charm ©† 08:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The first two comments contained some heated language, but did effectively state the main points.
 * The Ogre stated their intentions and quoted from another article with emphasis to support their point, and announced the request for a third opinion.
 * The Ogre quoted the other article again, and stated their belief that Ciriii was "contradicting established facts".
 * Ciriii created compromise text, and invited The Ogre to contribute to it ("if you could edit it...").
 * The Ogre requested clarification of a point, agreed to the requested contribution, and stated disagreement with wording of a heading.
 * Ciriii gave the requested clarification. Focusing on process, they requested The Ogre do something differently, explained why the previous action did not work well, and apologized for something Ciriii did previously. Ciriii thanked The Ogre for their contribution and requested help from The Ogre with some content (a map) which is not Ciriii's strong point.
 * The Ogre apologized for what had not worked well. Then they asked for another clarification of wording, stated a couple of disagreements (with direct quotes), and suggested a rewording.  They agreed to search for a map, and requested agreement to keep the current map in the interim.

Senones
Senones were only in Romagna and the Romagna portion of Marche form river montone (ravenna included) trhough Esino river near Senigallia (so called because of theiri "gallica" inhabitants). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.25.75 (talk • contribs)

Ruteni
Ruteni were mentioned by Caesar, but are not on the list? Why? They were significant contributors (foederati) to the Roman army, although one part was on the Vercingetorix's side against Romans. - signed by anon IP

Were the Ruteni related to any Slavic peoples (former Yugoslavia) from across the Adriatic sea? The Roman Empire took over Celtic and non-Indo-European lands like the Etruscans. If they were still Celtic people, the Ruteni would have a relationship with the so-called Ruthenians in present-day Belarus, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

By Tribe as Well?
Should this also be listed by tribe? For instance the damnoni/dumnoni of Britain are possibly the same in origin, as are the cornovi, and the brigantes. So perhaps they also ought to be listed by tribes as well. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 * What's with moving Great Britain and Ireland? ---G.T.N. (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Map
Why do we have a modern day attempt at a map of Wales to show tribes that would've inhabited the area thousands of years ago. Complete nonsense that the tribes began and ended with relative modern boundaries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.232.195 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Are you refering to the national boundaries? ---G.T.N. (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Belgae, Boii
The tribes named are definitely Celtic and there are many reliable references for this. I will be adding citations for all the tribes you questioned. Please try to be specific instead of changing the whole meaning of the page by inserting "mostly" in front of Celtic.Jembana (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several tribes named Belgae and Boii (or spelled Boi, Boui and Voii) in continental Europe and the British Isles. There are also many tribes named Gal- like the Galatians in Asia Minor (Turkey) and we're not sure there's a relation with the Galilee in the Holy Land in biblical Palestine/Israel. The term Gal-il in Aramaic and Hebrew (Semitic and Afro-Asiatic languages) means "center" or "central", "district" or "province" and "part" or "sect", not related to Celtic and Indo-European languages meaning of Gal. 12.218.47.123 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Celtic tribes. 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/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm

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) 22:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Celtic tribes. 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/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm

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) 12:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Ligurians' other names
Ligurians had a few different names in this field of study: Ligures, Ligyles, Ambrones and Cimbris. The articles point to Ambrones who were Germanic and Cimbri whose name were derived from Cimmerians of Iranian origin in Europe. Apparently, the Ligurians were either originally non-Celtic, para-Celtic or partially Celtic. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Atlantii
A tribe named for living near the Atlantic Ocean living in the southern and western Basque Country, itself not a Celtic "homeland". Sometimes, the Aquitani were listed as Celtic, except it's more probable they were Iberian or related to the Basque people or Vascones. Another name for Atlantii is Alanti (similarly sounds or spelled like "Aryan"), not to be confused with Alans whom settled in Spain and Portugal after the fall of the Roman Empire in the 1st millennia AD. 12.218.47.123 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Greek and Phoenician Colonies in The Iberian Peninsula.png

this article is worded very strangely
it repeats itself a lot, and the tone feels off. i also feel like it goes into completely irrelevant tangents, such as with the Nazi mentions. sometimes it sounds like the author does not trust the reader's intelligence, and there are many typos. but there is some good content within as well. 2A01:E0A:163:2E60:B5EE:741:B09D:EB5B (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 * An editor had recently added a lot of unsourced and mostly off-topic content. It has now been removed for that reason. – Asarlaí  (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


text:
Paul Linnman

Paul Linnman (born January 25, 1947) is an American former television news reporter and anchor in Portland, Oregon, and radio personality in the same city. He is perhaps best known for his 1970 KATU report on the attempt by the Oregon Highway Division to dispose of a dead, beached whale by exploding it (beaches open to motor vehicles are considered state highways in Oregon). He worked for more than 30 years as a television news reporter, host and anchor, from 1967–1972 and 1978–2004. He had a talk radio show on KEX 1190 AM from 2003 to 2014, and subsequently has worked as a media consultant.

Education
Born in 1947, Linnman grew up in Portland and attended Wilson High School. He graduated from Portland State University, studying journalism.

Career
He began his broadcast career in 1967, when he was hired by Portland's ABC affiliate, KATU. His initial stint working at KATU lasted through 1972 and included various jobs, among them news assignment editor, sports director and investigative reporter. He left the station in January 1973, to join the staff of then-new City Commissioner Mildred Schwab, as an executive assistant. At the time, he had not intended to return to broadcast journalism, he told The Oregonian in a 1978 interview.

In January 1978, he was hired by KGW, Portland's NBC affiliate station, to replace departing co-host Dick Klinger on KGW's local magazine program Evening, which had been broadcast every weeknight since 1975. The Evening program was replaced in September 1979 by PM Magazine, a nationally syndicated program with a similar format and local hosts with each affiliate station; Linnman also served as one of its regular co-hosts while at KGW.

Linnman left KGW in late 1983 to return to KATU, as host of a new daily one-hour afternoon local news and features program, Two at Four, scheduled to debut in January 1984. He remained with KATU for the next 20 years. In September 1987, Linnman returned to news broadcasting, when KATU made him the anchor of its 6:30 p.m. weekday newscast.

In 2003, Linnman began hosting a morning talk show on Portland radio station KEX. In August 2004, he left KATU in order to focus exclusively on his KEX radio show, which continued until 2014.

Since 2014, he has worked as a media consultant.

Published works

 * Oregon Golf: The Oregon Coast, Southern Oregon, Portland & Environs, Central Oregon. Portland, Oregon: Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company, 1999. ISBN 1-55868-474-3
 *  The Exploding Whale: And Other Remarkable Stories from the Evening News (with Doug Brazil). Portland, Oregon: Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company, 2003. ISBN 1-55868-743-2

title: Paul Linnman


text:
User talk:Gjz22

For an an answer to your question, see the item I posted on the Nixon discussion page Talk:Richard Nixon

PedanticallySpeaking 13:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gjz22


text:
Secure Hash Algorithms

The Secure Hash Algorithms are a family of cryptographic hash functions published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as a U.S. Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS), including:

 * SHA-0: A retronym applied to the original version of the 160-bit hash function published in 1993 under the name "SHA". It was withdrawn shortly after publication due to an undisclosed "significant flaw" and replaced by the slightly revised version SHA-1.
 * SHA-1: A 160-bit hash function which resembles the earlier MD5 algorithm. This was designed by the National Security Agency (NSA) to be part of the Digital Signature Algorithm. Cryptographic weaknesses were discovered in SHA-1, and the standard was no longer approved for most cryptographic uses after 2010.
 * SHA-2: A family of two similar hash functions, with different block sizes, known as SHA-256 and SHA-512. They differ in the word size; SHA-256 uses 32-bit words where SHA-512 uses 64-bit words. There are also truncated versions of each standard, known as SHA-224, SHA-384, SHA-512/224 and SHA-512/256. These were also designed by the NSA.
 * SHA-3: A hash function formerly called Keccak, chosen in 2012 after a public competition among non-NSA designers. It supports the same hash lengths as SHA-2, and its internal structure differs significantly from the rest of the SHA family.

The corresponding standards are FIPS PUB 180 (original SHA), FIPS PUB 180-1 (SHA-1), FIPS PUB 180-2 (SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512). NIST has updated Draft FIPS Publication 202, SHA-3 Standard separate from the Secure Hash Standard (SHS).

Comparison of SHA functions
In the table below, internal state means the "internal hash sum" after each compression of a data block.

Validation
All SHA-family algorithms, as FIPS-approved security functions, are subject to official validation by the CMVP (Cryptographic Module Validation Program), a joint program  run by the  American National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Canadian Communications Security Establishment (CSE).

title: Secure Hash Algorithms


text:
River Eden

River Eden may refer to:

England

 * River Eden, Cumbria
 * River Eden, Kent

Scotland

 * River Eden, Fife
 * Eden Water, a tributary of the River Tweed

Wales

 * Afon Eden, Gwynedd

Elsewhere

 * Eden River (Dominica)

title: River Eden


title: Category:1717


title: Category:1719


title: Category:1726