text:
Naval operations in the Dardanelles campaign

The naval operations in the Dardanelles campaign (17 February 1915 – 9 January 1916) took place against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. Ships of the Royal Navy, French Marine nationale, Imperial Russian Navy (Российский императорский флот) and the Royal Australian Navy, attempted to force a passage through the Dardanelles Straits, a narrow, 41 mi waterway connecting the Mediterranean Sea with the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea further north.

The naval operations were defeated by the Ottoman defenders, mainly through use of naval mines. The Allies conducted the Gallipoli campaign, a land invasion of the Gallipoli peninsula to eliminate the Ottoman artillery along the straits before resuming naval operations. The Allies also passed submarines through the Dardanelles to attack Ottoman shipping in the Sea of Marmara.

Dardanelles Strait
The mouth of the strait is 2.3 mi wide with a rapid current emptying from the Black Sea into the Aegean. The distance from Cape Helles to the Sea of Marmara is about 41 mi, overlooked by the heights on the Gallipoli peninsula and lower hills on the Asiatic shore. The passage widens for 5 mi to Eren Keui Bay, the widest point of the strait at 4.5 mi, then narrows for 11 mi to Kephez Point, where the waterway is 1.75 mi wide and then broadens as far as Sari Sighlar Bay. The narrowest part of the strait is 14 mi upstream, from Chanak to Kilid Bahr at 1600 yd, where the channel turns north and widens for 4 mi to Nagara Point. From the point, the passage turns north-east for the final 23 mi to the Sea of Marmara. The Ottomans used the term "fortress" to describe the sea defences of the Dardanelles on both sides of the waterway from the Aegean approaches to Chanak. In 1914 only the defences from the entrance of the straits and 4 mi from the north end of Kephez Bay to Chanak had been fortified. Until late October 1914, the nature of the seaward defences of the Dardanelles was known to the British and French but after hostilities commenced, information on improvements to the Ottoman fortifications became harder to obtain.

Ottoman entry into the war
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire had a reputation as the sick man of Europe. After the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, the French, British and Germans had offered financial aid. In December 1913, the Germans sent a military mission to Constantinople, headed by General Otto Liman von Sanders. The geographical position of the Ottoman Empire meant that Russia, France and Britain had a significant interest in Ottoman neutrality. During the Sarajevo Crisis in 1914, German diplomats offered Turkey an anti-Russian alliance and territorial gains, when the pro-British faction in the Cabinet was isolated, due to the British ambassador's absence. On 30 July 1914, two days after the outbreak of the war in Europe, the Ottoman leaders, unaware that the British might enter a European war, agreed to a secret Ottoman-German Alliance against Russia, although it did not require them to undertake military action.

On 2 August, the British requisitioned the modern battleships OTTOMAN BATTLESHIP Sultân Osmân-ı Evvel and OTTOMAN BATTLESHIP Reşadiye which British shipyards had been building for the Ottoman Navy, alienating pro-British elements. The German government offered SMS Goeben and SMS Breslau as replacements. In the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau, the ships escaped when the Ottoman government opened the Dardanelles to them, despite international law requiring a neutral party to block military shipping. In September, the British naval mission to the Ottomans was recalled and Rear Admiral Wilhelm Souchon of the Imperial German Navy took command of the Ottoman navy. The German naval presence, and the success of the German armies, gave the pro-German faction in the Ottoman government enough influence to declare war on Russia.

Closure of the Dardanelles
In October 1914, following an incident on 27 September, when the British Dardanelles squadron had seized an Ottoman torpedo boat, the German commander of the Dardanelles fortifications ordered the passage closed, adding to the impression that the Ottomans were pro-German. Hostilities began on 28 October, when the Ottoman fleet, including Goeben and Breslau (flying the Ottoman flag and renamed OTTOMAN BATTLECRUISER Yavûz Sultân Selîm and OTTOMAN CRUISER Midilli but still commanded by German officers and manned by German crews) conducted the Black Sea Raid. Odessa and Sevastopol were bombarded, and a Russian minelayer and gunboat were sunk. The Ottomans refused an Allied demand that they expel the German missions and on 31 October 1914, formally joined the Central Powers. Russia declared war on Turkey on 2 November and the British ambassador left Constantinople the next day.

A British naval squadron bombarded the Dardanelles outer defensive forts at Kum Kale and Seddulbahir; a shell hit a magazine and the explosion knocked the guns off their mounts and killed 86 soldiers. Britain and France declared war on Turkey on 5 November and the Ottomans declared a jihad (holy war) later that month. The Caucasus campaign, an Ottoman attack on Russia through the Caucasus Mountains began in December, leading the Russians to call for aid from Britain in January 1915. The Mesopotamian campaign began with a British landing to occupy the oil facilities in the Persian Gulf. The Ottomans prepared to attack Egypt in early 1915, to occupy the Suez Canal and cut the Mediterranean route to British India and the Far East.

Allied strategy
Field Marshal Lord Kitchener planned an amphibious landing near Alexandretta in Syria in 1914, to sever the capital from Syria, Palestine and Egypt. Vice Admiral Sir Richard Peirse, Commander-in-Chief, East Indies, ordered HMS Doris (1896) to Alexandretta on 13 December 1914 as the RUSSIAN CRUISER Askold and the French cruiser Requin were performing similar operations. The Alexandretta landing was abandoned because it required more resources than France could allocate, and politically France did not want the British operating in their sphere of influence, a position to which Britain had agreed in 1912. By late 1914, static warfare had begun on the Western Front, with no prospect of a quick decisive victory and the Central Powers had closed the overland trade routes between Britain, France and Russia. The White Sea in the Arctic and the Sea of Okhotsk in the Far East were icebound in winter and the Baltic Sea was blockaded by the Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial German Navy). Ottoman belligerence closed the Dardanelles, the remaining supply route to Russia.

In November 1914, the French Minister Aristide Briand proposed an attack on the Ottoman Empire but the idea was rejected and an attempt by the British to buy off the Ottomans also failed. On 2 January 1915, Grand Duke Nicholas of Russia appealed to Britain for assistance against the Ottoman Erzurum Offensive in the Caucasus and planning began for a naval demonstration in the Dardanelles, as a diversion. Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty, proposed an invasion of Schleswig-Holstein by sea, drawing Denmark into the war and re-opening the Baltic Sea route to Russia and an attack on the Dardanelles, to control the Mediterranean-Black Sea supply route and to encourage Bulgaria and Romania to join the Allies. The urgency of the Russian appeal and disdain for the military power of the Ottoman Empire made a campaign in the Dardanelles appear feasible.

On 11 January 1915, the commander of the British Mediterranean Squadron, Vice Admiral S. H. Carden proposed a plan for forcing the Dardanelles using battleships, submarines and minesweepers. On 13 February, the British War Council approved the plan and Carden was given more pre-dreadnought battleships, the modern battleship HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913) and the battlecruiser HMS Inflexible (1907). France contributed a squadron including four pre-dreadnoughts and the Russian navy provided the light cruiser Askold. In early February 1915, the naval forces were supplemented by contingents of Royal Marines and the 29th Division, the last uncommitted regular division, which joined Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (Anzac) divisions training in Egypt. The infantry were intended for the occupation of Constantinople after the straits had been taken by the Entente navies.

Dardanelles defences
In August 1914, the Outer Defences were two fortresses at the end of the Gallipoli peninsula and two on the Asiatic shore. The forts had 19 guns, four with a range of 9 mi and the remainder with ranges of 3.4 –. Four field howitzers were dug in at Tekke Burnu (Cape Tekke) on the European side, then for the next 10 mi, there was a gap until the Intermediate Defences at Kephez Point, with four defensive works on the south shore and one on the north shore. The fortresses had been built to cover a minefield, which in August 1914 was a line of mines across the strait from Kephez Point to the European shore. Fort Dardanos was the main work which had two new 6-inch naval guns and the rest contained ten small quick-firing guns with shields. At the Narrows, the Inner Defences had the heaviest guns and some mobile light howitzers and field guns. Five forts had been built on the European side and six on the Asian side with 72 heavy and medium guns. Most of the artillery was obsolescent but there were five long-range 14 in guns with a range of 9.7 mi and three 9.4 in guns with a 8.5 mi range. The remainder of the guns in the Inner Defences were mostly obsolete and unable to shoot beyond 5.7 mi.

Of the 100 guns in the pre-war defences, only 14 were modern long-range pieces, the rest being old-fashioned breech loaders on fixed carriages. The gunners were poorly trained, there was little ammunition and scant prospect of replacement. Night illumination consisted of a searchlight at entrance to the Straits and one at the Narrows. The forts were easily visible, there were few gun shields and other protective features for the gun-crews and range-finding, artillery observation and fire-control depended on an telephones linked by wire on telephone poles, vulnerable to artillery-fire. The Ottoman official historian wrote,

"On mobilisation, the fortification and armament of the Dardanelles was very inadequate. Not only were the majority of the guns of old pattern, with a slow rate of fire and short range, but their ammunition supply was also limited."

Ottoman strategy
The Germans secured the appointment of Lieutenant-General Erich Weber as an advisor to the Ottoman GHQ and at the end of August 1914, Vice-Admiral Guido von Usedom, several specialists and 500 men were sent to reinforce the forts on the Dardanelles and Bosphorus. In September, Usedom was made Inspector-General of Coast Defences and Mines and Vice-Admiral Johannes Merten relieved Weber at Chanak with a marine detachment to operate the modern guns. By mid-September, the German advisers reported that the guns in the Narrows had been refurbished and were serviceable. By October, most of the guns in the main batteries had German crews, operating as training units but able to man the guns in an emergency. Plans were made to build more defensive works in the Intermediate Zone and to bring in mobile howitzers and quick-firers dismounted from older Ottoman ships. Several heavy howitzers arrived in October but the poor standard of training of the Ottoman gunners, obsolete armaments and the chronic ammunition shortage, which Usedom reported was sufficient only to defend against one serious attack, led him to base the defence of the straits on minefields.

Three more lines of mines had been laid before Usedom arrived and another 145 mines were searched out, serviced and laid in early November. Cover of the minefields was increased with small quick-firers and four more searchlights. By March 1915, there were ten lines of mines and 12 searchlights. When the Ottoman Empire went to war on 29 October 1914, the defences of the Straits had been much improved but the Intermediate Defences were still inadequately organised and lacking in guns, searchlights and mines. On 3 November, the outer forts were bombarded by Allied ships, which galvanised the Ottoman defenders into reducing their obstructionism against the German advisers. The fortress commander, Jevad Pasha, wrote later that he had to improve the defences at all costs. The short bombardment had been extraordinarily successful, destroying the forts at Sedd el Bahr with two shots, that exploded the magazine and dismounted the guns. The Ottoman and German defenders concluded that the Outer Defences could be demolished by ships firing from beyond the range of the Ottoman reply. The forts were repaired but not reinforced and the main effort was directed to protecting the minefield and Inner Defences.

Forcing the straits
On 3 November 1914, Churchill ordered an attack on the Dardanelles following the opening of hostilities between Ottoman and Russian empires. The battlecruisers of the Mediterranean Squadron, HMS Indomitable (1907) and HMS Indefatigable (1909) and the obsolete French battleships FRENCH BATTLESHIP Suffren and FRENCH BATTLESHIP Vérité, attacked before a formal declaration of war had been made by Britain against the Ottoman Empire. The attack was to test the Ottoman defences and in a twenty-minute bombardment, a shell struck the magazine of the fort at Sedd el Bahr, dismounting ten guns and killing 86 Ottoman soldiers. Total casualties during the attack were 150, of which forty were German. The effect of the bombardment alerted the Ottomans to the importance of strengthening their defences and they began laying more mines.

The outer defences lay at the entrance to the straits, vulnerable to bombardment and raiding but the inner defences covered the Narrows near Çanakkale. Beyond the inner defences, the straits were virtually undefended but the defence of the straits depended on ten minefields, with 370 mines laid near the Narrows. On 19 February 1915, two destroyers were sent in to probe the straits and the first shot was fired from Kumkale by the 240 mm Krupp guns of the Orhaniye Tepe battery at 07:58. The battleships HMS Cornwallis (1901) and HMS Vengeance (1899) moved in to engage the forts and Cornwallis opened fire at 09:51. The effect of the long-range bombardment was considered disappointing and that it would take direct hits on guns to knock them out. With limited ammunition, indirect fire was insufficient and direct fire would need the ships to be anchored to make stable gun platforms. Ottoman casualties were reported as several men killed on the European shore and three men at Orkanie.

On 25 February the Allies attacked again, the Ottomans evacuated the outer defences and the fleet entered the straits to engage the intermediate defences. Demolition parties of Royal Marines raided the Sedd el Bahr and Kum Kale forts, meeting little opposition. On 1 March, four battleships bombarded the intermediate defences but little progress was made clearing the minefields. The minesweepers, commanded by the chief of staff, Roger Keyes, were un-armoured trawlers manned by their civilian crews, who were unwilling to work while under fire. The strong current in the straits further hampered minesweeping and strengthened Ottoman resolve which had wavered at the start of the offensive; on 4 March, twenty-three marines were killed raiding the outer defences.

Queen Elizabeth was called on to engage the inner defences, at first from the Aegean coast near Gaba Tepe, firing across the peninsula and later in the straits. On the night of 13 March, the cruiser HMS Amethyst (1903) led six minesweepers in an attempt to clear the mines. Four of the trawlers were hit and Amethyst was badly damaged with nineteen stokers killed from one hit. On 15 March, the Admiralty accepted a plan by Carden for another attack by daylight, with the minesweepers protected by the fleet. Carden was taken ill the same day and was replaced by Rear Admiral John de Robeck. A gunnery officer noted in his diary that de Robeck had already expressed misgivings about silencing the Ottoman guns by naval bombardment and that this view was widely held on board the ship.

Battle of 18 March
The event that decided the battle took place on the night of 18 March when the Ottoman minelayer OTTOMAN MINELAYER Nusret laid a line of mines in front of the Kephez minefield, across the head of Eren Köy Bay, a wide bay along the Asian shore just inside the entrance to the straits. The Ottomans had noticed the British ships turned to starboard into the bay when withdrawing. The new row of 20 mines ran parallel to the shore, were moored at 15 m and spaced about 100 yd apart. The clear water meant that the mines could have been seen through the water by reconnaissance aircraft. The British plan for 18 March was to silence the defences guarding the first five minefields, which would be cleared overnight by the minesweepers. The next day the remaining defences around the Narrows would be defeated and the last five minefields would be cleared. The operation went ahead with the British and French ignorant of the recent additions to the Ottoman minefields. The battleships were arranged in three lines, two British and one French, with supporting ships on the flanks and two ships in reserve.

The first British line opened fire from Eren Köy Bay around 11:00. Shortly after noon, de Robeck ordered the French line to pass through and close on the Narrows forts. The Ottoman fire began to take its toll with Gaulois, Suffren, Agamemnon and Inflexible suffering hits. While the naval fire had not destroyed the Ottoman batteries, it had succeeded in temporarily reducing their fire. By 13:25, the Ottoman defences were mostly silent so de Robeck decided to withdraw the French line and bring forward the second British line as well as Swiftsure and Majestic.

The Allied forces had failed to properly sweep the entire area for mines. Aerial reconnaissance by aircraft from the seaplane carrier HMS Ark Royal (1914) had discovered a number of mines on 16 and 17 March but failed to spot the line of mines laid by Nusret in Eren Köy Bay. On the day of the attack civilian trawlers sweeping for mines in front of line "A" discovered and destroyed three mines in an area thought to be clear, before the trawlers withdrew under fire. This information was not passed on to de Robeck. At 13:54, Bouvet—having made a turn to starboard into Eren Köy Bay—struck a mine, capsized and sank within a couple of minutes, killing 639 crewmen, only 48 survivors being rescued. At first it appeared that the ship had been hit in a magazine and de Robeck thought that the ship had struck a floating mine or been torpedoed.

The British pressed on with the attack. Around 16:00, Inflexible began to withdraw and struck a mine near where Bouvet had sunk, thirty crew being killed and the ship taking on with 1600 LT of water. The battlecruiser remained afloat, was eventually beached on the island of Bozcaada (Tenedos) and temporarily repaired with a coffer dam. Irresistible was the next to be mined and as it began to drift, the crew were taken off. De Robeck told Ocean to take Irresistible under tow but the water was deemed too shallow to make an approach. At 18:05, Ocean struck a mine which jammed the steering gear leaving the ship adrift. The abandoned battleships were still floating when the British withdrew but when a destroyer commanded by Commodore Roger Keyes returned to tow or sink the vessels, they could not be found despite a 4-hour search.

In 1934, Keyes wrote that

"The fear of their fire was actually the deciding factor of the fortunes of the day. For five hours the [destroyer] Wear and picket boats had experienced, quite unperturbed and without any loss, a far more intense fire from them than the sweepers encountered... the latter could not be induced to face it, and sweep ahead of the ships in 'B' line.... I had the almost indelible impression that we were in the presence of a beaten foe. I thought he was beaten at 2 pm. I knew he was beaten at 4 pm – and at midnight I knew with still greater clarity that he was absolutely beaten; and it only remained for us to organise a proper sweeping force and devise some means of dealing with drifting mines to reap the fruits of our efforts."

For 118 casualties, the Ottomans sank three battleships, severely damaged three others and inflicted seven hundred casualties on the British-French fleet. There were calls amongst the British, particularly from Churchill, to press on with the naval attack and De Robeck advised on 20 March that he was reorganising his minesweepers. Churchill responded that he was sending four replacement ships; with the exception of Inflexible, the ships were expendable. It is not correct that the ammunition of the guns was low: they could have repulsed two more attacks. The crews of the sunken battleships replaced the civilians on the trawler minesweepers and were much more willing to keep sweeping under fire. The US Ambassador to Constantinople, Henry Morgenthau, reported that Constantinople expected to be attacked and that the Ottomans felt they could only hold out for a few hours if the attack had resumed on 19 March. Further, he thought that Turkey itself might well disintegrate as a state once the capital fell.

The main minefields at the narrows, over ten layers deep, were still intact and protected by the smaller shore guns that had not seen any action on 18 March. These and other defences further in the strait had not exhausted their ammunition and resources yet. It was not a given that one more push by the fleet would have resulted in passage to Marmara Sea. Churchill had anticipated losses and considered them a necessary tactical price. In June 1915, he discussed the campaign with the war correspondent Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, who had returned to London to deliver uncensored reports. Ashmead-Bartlett was incensed at the loss of ships and lives but Churchill responded that the ships were expendable. To place the losses into perspective, the Navy had ordered six hundred new ships during the period Admiral Fisher was First Sea Lord, approximately corresponding with the length of the Dardanelles campaign.

De Robeck wrote on 18 March,

"After losing so many ships I shall obviously find myself superseded tomorrow morning."

The fleet lost more ships than the Royal Navy had suffered since the Battle of Trafalgar; on 23 March, de Robeck telegraphed to the Admiralty that land forces were needed. He later told the Dardanelles Commission investigating the campaign, that his main reason for changing his mind, was concern for what might happen in the event of success, that the fleet might find itself at Constantinople or on the Marmara sea fighting an enemy which did not simply surrender as the plan assumed, without any troops to secure captured territory. With the failure of the naval assault, the idea that land forces could advance around the backs of the Dardanelles forts and capture Constantinople gained support as an alternative and on 25 April, the Gallipoli campaign commenced.

Further naval plans
Following the failure of the land campaign up to May, De Robeck suggested that it might be desirable to again attempt a naval attack. Churchill supported this idea, at least as far as restarting attempts to clear mines but this was opposed by Fisher and other members of the Admiralty Board. Aside from difficulties in the Dardanelles, they were concerned at the prospect that more ships might have to be diverted away from the Grand Fleet in the North Sea. This disagreement contributed to the final resignation of Fisher, followed by the need for Asquith to seek coalition partners to shore up his government and the consequential dismissal of Churchill also. Further naval attacks were shelved.

Keyes remained a firm supporter of naval action and on 23 September submitted a further proposal to pass through the Dardanelles to de Robeck. De Robeck disliked the plan but passed it to the Admiralty. Risk to ships had increased since March, due to the presence of German submarines in the Mediterranean and the Sea of Marmara, where the British ships would be inviting targets if the plan succeeded. The Allied minesweeping force was better equipped and some of the ships had nets or mine bumpers, which it was hoped would improve their chances against mines. The Ottoman Empire had regained land communications with Germany since the fall of Serbia and demands on the Anglo-French navies for more ships to support the attempt had to be added to the commitment of ships for the land campaign and operations at Salonica attempting to support Serbia. Kitchener made a proposal to take the Isthmus of Bulair using forty thousand men to allow British ships operating in the Marmara Sea to be supplied across land from the Gulf of Xeros. Admiralty opinion was that another naval attack could not be mounted without support of land forces attacking the Dardanelles forts, which was deemed impractical for lack of troops. Kitchener visited the area to inspect the positions and talk to the commanders concerned, before reporting back advising a withdrawal. The War Committee, faced with a choice either of an uncertain new campaign to break the stalemate or complete withdrawal, recommended on 23 November that all troops should be withdrawn.

The British cabinet as a whole was less keen to abandon the campaign, because of political repercussions of a failure and damaging consequences for Russia. De Robeck had been temporarily replaced by Admiral Rosslyn Wemyss in November 1915 for reasons of ill health. In contrast to De Robeck, Wemyss was a supporter of further action and considerably more optimistic of chances of success. Whereas de Robeck estimated losses at 12 battleships, Wemyss considered it likely to lose no more than three. It was suggested that liquidating the Salonica commitment, where the troops involved never managed to aid Serbia and did little fighting, could provide the reinforcements but this was vetoed by the French. Wemyss continued a campaign promoting the chances of success. He had been present when de Robeck assumed command from Carden and was more senior but had been commanding the base at Mudros whereas de Robeck was with the fleet. Churchill had preferentially chosen de Robeck. On 7 December, it was decided by Cabinet to abandon the campaign.

Submarine operations
British submarine attacks had commenced in 1914, before the campaign proper had started. On 13 December, the submarine HMS B11 (Lieutenant-Commander Norman Holbrook) had entered the straits, avoiding five lines of mines and torpedoed the Ottoman battleship OTTOMAN IRONCLAD Mesûdiye, built in 1874, which was anchored as a floating fort in Sari Sighlar Bay, south of Çanakkale. Mesûdiye capsized in ten minutes, trapping many of the 673-man crew. Lying in shoal water, the hull remained above the surface so most men were rescued by cutting holes in the hull but 37 men were killed. The sinking was a triumph for the Royal Navy. Holbrook was awarded the Victoria Cross—the first Royal Navy VC of the war—and all twelve other crew members received awards. Coupled with the naval bombardment of the outer defences on 3 November, this success encouraged the British to pursue the campaign.

The first French submarine operation also preceded the start of the campaign; on 15 January 1915, the French submarine FRENCH SUBMARINE Saphir negotiated the Narrows, passing the ten lines of mines before running aground at Nagara Point. Various accounts claim she was either mined, sunk by shellfire or scuttled, leaving fourteen crew dead and thirteen prisoners of war. On 17 April, the British submarine HMS E15 attempted to pass the straits but having dived too deep, was caught in a current and ran aground near Kepez Point, the southern tip of Sarı Sıĝlar Bay, under the guns of the Dardanos battery. Seven of the crew were killed and the remainder were captured. The beached E15 was a valuable prize for the Ottomans and the British went to great lengths to deny it to them and managed to sink it after numerous attempts.

The first submarine to pass the straits was the Australian HMAS AE2 (Lieutenant-Commander Henry Stoker) which got through on the night of 24/25 April. The army landings at Cape Helles and Anzac Cove began at dawn on 25 April. Although AE2 sank one Ottoman destroyer, thought to be a cruiser, the submarine was thwarted by defective torpedoes in several other attacks. On 29 April, in Artaki Bay near Panderma, AE2 was sighted and hit by the Ottoman torpedo boat OTTOMAN TORPEDO BOAT Sultanhisar. Abandoning ship, the crew was taken prisoner.

The second submarine through the straits had more luck than AE2. On 27 April, HMS E14 (Lieutenant-Commander Edward Boyle), entered the Sea of Marmara and went on a three-week sortie that was one of the most successful actions of the Allies in the campaign. The quantity and value of the shipping sunk was relatively minor but the effect on Ottoman communications and morale was significant. On his return, Boyle was immediately awarded the Victoria Cross. Boyle and E14 made a number of tours of the Sea of Marmara. His third tour began on 21 July, when he passed the straits, despite the Ottomans having installed an anti-submarine net near the Narrows. HMS E11 (Lieutenant-Commander Martin Nasmith) also cruised the Sea of Marmara and Nasmith was awarded the VC and promoted to Commander for his achievements. E11 sank or disabled eleven ships, including three on 24 May at the port of Rodosto on the Thracian shore. On 8 August, during a later tour of the Marmara, E11 torpedoed the OTTOMAN BATTLESHIP Barbaros Hayreddin.

A number of demolition missions were performed by men or parties landed from submarines. On 8 September, First Lieutenant H. V. Lyon from HMS E2 swam ashore near Küçükçekmece (Thrace) to blow up a railway bridge. The bridge was destroyed but Lyon failed to return. Attempts were also made to disrupt the railways running close to the water along the Gulf of İzmit, on the Asian shore of the sea. On the night of 20 August, Lieutenant Guy D'Oyly-Hughes from E11 swam ashore and blew up a section of the railway line. On 17 July, HMS E7 bombarded the railway line and then damaged two trains that were forced to halt.

French attempts to enter the Sea of Marmara continued. Following the success of AE2 and E14, the French submarine FRENCH SUBMARINE Joule attempted the passage on 1 May but she struck a mine and was lost with all hands. The next attempt was made by FRENCH SUBMARINE Mariotte on 27 July. Mariotte was caught in the anti-submarine net that E14 had eluded and was forced to the surface. After being shelled from the shore batteries, Mariotte was scuttled. On 4 September, the same net caught E7 as it began another tour.

The first French submarine to enter the Sea of Marmara was FRENCH SUBMARINE Turquoise but it was forced to turn back and on 30 October, when returning through the straits, ran aground beneath a fort and was captured intact. The crew of twenty-five were taken prisoner and documents detailing Allied operations were discovered, which included a rendezvous with HMS E20 scheduled for 6 November. The rendezvous was kept by the German U-boat SMU UB-14 which torpedoed and sank E20 killing all but nine of the crew. Turquoise was salvaged and incorporated (but not commissioned) into the Ottoman Navy as the OTTOMAN SUBMARINE Onbasi Müstecip, named after the gunner who had forced the French commander to surrender.

The Allied submarine campaign in the Sea of Marmara was the one significant success of the Gallipoli campaign, forcing the Ottomans to abandon it as a transport route. Between April and December 1915, nine British and four French submarines sank one battleship, one destroyer, five gunboats, eleven troop transports, forty-four supply ships and 148 sailing vessels at a cost of eight Allied submarines sunk in the strait or in the Sea of Marmara.

Gallipoli landings
The Mediterranean Expeditionary Force (General Sir Ian Hamilton) was established on 12 March with about 70,000 men. At a conference on 22 March, four days after the failed attempt by the navy, it was decided to use the infantry to seize the Gallipoli peninsula and capture the forts, clearing the way for the navy to pass through into the Sea of Marmara. Preparations for the landing took a month, giving the Ottoman defenders ample time to reinforce. The British planners underestimated the Ottomans and expected that the invasion would be over swiftly. The initial landings were made at Gaba Tepe by the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (Anzac). The landing miscarried and the troops went ashore too far north at a place now known as Anzac Cove. In both landings, the covering force went ashore from warships with the exception of V Beach at Helles where the SS River Clyde was used as an improvised landing craft for 2,000 men. In the landing at Anzac Cove, the first wave went ashore from the boats of three Formidable-class battleships, HMS London (1899), HMS Prince of Wales (1902) and HMS Queen (1902). The second wave went ashore from seven destroyers. In support were HMS Triumph, Majestic and the cruiser HMS Bacchante (1901) as well as the seaplane carrier Ark Royal and the kite-balloon ship, HMS Manica, from which a tethered balloon was trailed to provide artillery spotting.

The landing at Cape Helles by the 29th Division was spread over five beaches with the main ones being V and W Beaches at the tip of the peninsula. While the landing at Anzac was planned as a surprise without a preliminary bombardment, the Helles landing was made after the beaches and forts were bombarded by the warships. The landing at S Beach inside the straits was made from the battleship Cornwallis and was virtually unopposed. The W Beach force came from the cruiser HMS Euryalus (1901) and the battleship HMS Implacable (1899) which also carried the troops bound for X Beach. The cruiser HMS Dublin (1912) and battleship HMS Goliath (1898) supported the X Beach landing as well as a small landing to the north on the Aegean coast at Y Beach, later abandoned.

The navy was to support the landing, using naval guns as substitutes for field artillery, of which there was a severe shortage. With a few spectacular exceptions, the performance of naval guns on land targets was inadequate, particularly against entrenched positions. The guns lacked elevation and so fired on a flat trajectory which, coupled with the inherently unstable gun platform, resulted in reduced accuracy. The battleships' guns did prove effective against exposed lines of troops. On 27 April, during the first Ottoman counter-attack at Anzac, the Ottoman 57th Infantry Regiment attacked down the seaward slope of Battleship Hill within view of Queen Elizabeth which fired a salvo of six 15 in shells, halting the attack. On 28 April, near the old Y Beach landing, Queen Elizabeth sighted a party of about one hundred Turks. One 15-inch shrapnel shell containing 13,000 shrapnel bullets was fired at short range and killed the entire party.

On 27 April, an observer on a kite-balloon ship had spotted an Ottoman transport ship moving near the Narrows. Queen Elizabeth, stationed off Gaba Tepe, had fired across the peninsula at a range of over 10 mi, and sank the transport with the third shot. For much of the campaign, the Ottomans transported troops via rail, though other supplies continued to be moved by ship on the Sea of Marmara and Dardanelles. At Helles, which was initially the main battlefield, a series of costly battles only managed to edge the front line closer to Krithia. The navy continued to provide support via bombardments but in May, the battleship Goliath was sunk by the Ottoman torpedo boat OTTOMAN DESTROYER Muâvenet-i Millîye in Morto Bay on 12 May and SMU U-21 (Germany) torpedoed and sank Triumph off Anzac on 25 May and Majestic off W Beach on 27 May.

Permanent battleship support was withdrawn with the valuable Queen Elizabeth recalled by the Admiralty as soon as the news of the loss of Goliath arrived. In place of the battleships, naval artillery support was provided by cruisers, destroyers and purpose-built monitors which were designed for coastal bombardment. Once the navy became wary of the submarine threat, losses ceased. With the exception of the continued activity of Allied submarines in the Dardanelles and Sea of Marmara, the only significant naval loss after May was the Laforey-class destroyer (1913) destroyer HMS Louis (1913) which ran aground off Suvla during a gale on 31 October and was wrecked. The destruction of the stranded ship was accelerated by Ottoman gunfire.

Troop transports
Another important aspect of the allied naval operations was transporting thousands of soldiers to and from the Dardanelles over the Mediterranean Sea. The major threats were attacks by German and Austrian-Hungarian submarines and mines. The worst loss during the Dardanelles Campaign was the sinking of HMT Royal Edward on 13 August 1915. The ship sailed from Alexandria, Egypt to Gallipoli with 1,367 officers and men on board and was torpedoed by SM UB-14 near the Dodecanese, with 935 lives lost.


text:
Luv

Luv or LUV may refer to:

Films and television

 * Luv (TV series), a BBC sitcom
 * Luv (play), a Broadway play and 1967 film
 * Luv (film), 1967 film
 * LUV (film), 2012 film

Music

 * Luv (group), a Korean pop group
 * Luv', a Dutch pop group
 * Lil Uzi Vert (born 1994), American rapper
 * Luv (album), a 2017 album by Luna Sea
 * "LUV" (A Pink song), a song by Apink
 * "Luv" (Janet Jackson song), a 2008 song by Janet Jackson
 * "Luv" (Tory Lanez song), a 2016 song by Tory Lanez
 * "Luv", a song by Zion I from True & Livin'
 * "Luv", a song by Travis
 * "L.U.V" (BtoB song), a 2016 song by BtoB
 * "L.U.V.", a song by Charlie Puth

Other

 * Chevrolet LUV, a light utility vehicle
 * CIELUV, the CIE 1976 L*, u*, v* color space
 * Dumatubin Airport (IATA code), Langgur, Kai Islands, Indonesia
 * Lava (Ramayana) or Luv, son of Hindu god Rama
 * Linux Users of Victoria
 * Large unilamellar vesicle (LUV), a type of liposome
 * LUV, the New York Stock Exchange symbol of Southwest Airlines
 * Luv, a character in Blade Runner 2049

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

title: Luv


text:
Colin Jackson (disambiguation)

Colin Jackson is a Welsh sprinter and sports broadcaster.

Colin Jackson may also refer to:
 * Colin Jackson (politician) (1921–1981), British Labour politician, MP for Brighouse & Spenborough in 1974
 * Colin Jackson (Scottish footballer) (1946–2015), Scottish footballer
 * Colin Jackson (Australian footballer) (born 1906), Australian footballer for Melbourne

title: Colin Jackson (disambiguation)


text:
Perverted-Justice

Perverted Justice Foundation, Inc., more commonly known as Perverted-Justice (also known as PeeJ), was an American organization based in California and Oregon which investigated, identified, and publicized the conduct of adults who have used chat rooms and other social media in order to solicit online sexual conversations and in-person meetings with minors. Their website serves as an archive of collected data on these investigations, which they make available in order to assist law enforcement and the public in understanding the behavior and child grooming techniques of online hebephiles.

The activity of the Perverted-Justice organization included online volunteers carrying out sting operations by posing as minors (the age range portrayed by the decoys is usually 10–15) on chat sites and waiting for adults to approach them. After obtaining the identifying information of the adults who are seeking sexual contact with minors (the adult seeking the minor may offer their telephone number or other details so that a meeting can be arranged), the organization would then pass the information on to law enforcement. Perverted-Justice's methods are controversial, and critics have labeled these actions harassment and possibly legal entrapment. The site additionally attracted media attention, both laudatory and critical, as a result of their collaboration with Dateline NBC on a series of televised sting operations called To Catch a Predator.

Perverted-Justice also operated a site that targets groups and individuals it identifies as being involved in the pedophile activism community, a site that provides information to abuse victims on their legal recourse, a site that gives advice to minors on dealing with grooming on the internet, and a site that targets organizations that Perverted-Justice believes allow pedophile activists to use their services. The foundation also offers free online training to law enforcement officers and has an intern program for college students.

In late 2018, Perverted-Justice announced that, from the beginning of 2019, they would be formally ending decoy operations, and effectively cease all other operations afterwards. They also announced that they would be converting the official website to an archive of past operations and collected data, and removing other site features such as the forums. The data they proposed to compile and make accessible on the website, including thousands of formerly unseen chat logs, is available for research purposes in order to assist anti-pedophile groups and law enforcement with regard to understanding the behavior and techniques of online pedophiles.

Background
Perverted-Justice was set up in 2002 by Frank Fencepost and Xavier Von Erck (born Philip John Eide). The organization says that its online operations have led to 623 convictions as of October 8, 2018, with over 200 more currently awaiting trial, and an average of 25 arrests a month for the year of 2006. In 2006, the organization reported annual income of US$825000 2006, with Von Erck earning a salary of US$120000 2006.

The site originally started with the posting of chat logs to shame people who engaged in sexual chats with purported children. Some members of the site allegedly went further by harassing the targets of their chats in real life, as well as their friends, neighbors, employers, and family. After a falling-out over a vitriolic chat log with a phone verifier in 2004, Fencepost was dismissed from the site. "Xavier became much more oriented toward getting pedophiles arrested rather than just making them complete social pariahs in their neighborhood," says Fencepost.

Von Erck said he got the idea for the website while watching people attempt to groom young girls in chat rooms in Oregon. He says Perverted-Justice is a computer watchdog agency that works closely with law enforcement agencies. "The media likes to use the term 'vigilante' because it gets attention, but we don't consider ourselves vigilantes. We cultivate cooperation with police and work within the law to get justice, not outside of the law."

Methods
Perverted-Justice functions by supporting volunteers who act as informants in chat rooms where minors can typically be found. The volunteers' public profiles have youthful-sounding usernames, young ages, and pictures of children. The administrators of the site say they do not initiate online contact with the users, and refuse to act on tips from the public as a result. If a user starts chatting to the volunteer and turns the conversation to sex, the volunteer responds positively and encourages them to divulge personal details, particularly a telephone number, ostensibly needed to verify their identity so that a meeting can be arranged.

In the past, around this point the chatlog and details would be published on the site. Volunteers on the site's forums would then engage in "follow-up", attempting to identify and notify family members, employers, and neighbors. However, in December 2003, the organization set up its "Information First" program, in which interested police departments could contact Perverted-Justice, and any "busts" made within that department's jurisdiction would be sent straight to them without being posted to the website. In the early days of the program, Perverted-Justice.com did not initiate contact with the police, professedly because officers were skeptical that its information could be used in a court of law.

Since July 2004 when they facilitated their first conviction, the site's operators switched to a policy of cold calling local police with the information they obtained. If a government agency is interested (police, FBI, military CID, etc.) then the chatlog and other information is not posted to the site until after a conviction has been reached.

Before Perverted-Justice's "Information First" program and cold-calling policy became standard, logs that received no interest from law enforcement agencies were posted directly to the website. In November 2006, after the site's 100th conviction, Perverted-Justice announced that chat logs would no longer be posted unless law enforcement was involved first, as "Information First" agreements were sufficient to cover most U.S. residents caught in a sting. The complete unedited chat logs, which usually contain sexually explicit content and obscenities (and sometimes are annotated with comments from the Perverted-Justice volunteer) are now posted to the website only after the person's legal case has been resolved. The current follow-up process consists of notifying a community of the offender's status once a person has been arrested and convicted.

To begin the follow-up process, the site's volunteers do a reverse-directory lookup to obtain their target's name, as well as checking on the Web for any other information they can find about them. They then post the target's name, address, and photograph if available, on the website, as well as the chat log: a record of the conversation they had with the volunteer. In a process called "Follow-up," additional volunteers on the site's forums, operating under rules and restrictions set up by Perverted-Justice administrators, will contact the target's family, friends, neighbors, and employer to alert them to the website posting.

All telephone numbers are removed from the site's main pages after two months (though still available on the site's forums), to avoid another case like that of the Milwaukee bank teller, who received a threatening phone call from a man who had obtained her number from the website. The woman had never been online or even owned a computer, and was forced to change her number, which had previously been registered to the subject of a Perverted-Justice sting.

Media
Volunteers also take part in what the site's operators call "group media busts," where people are invited to a house by a self-proclaimed minor, who is actually a Perverted-Justice volunteer. When they arrive, they are greeted by a television news reporter. The first of these events were conducted in late 2003, in co-operation with investigative reporter John Mercure at Milwaukee's WTMJ-TV, whom the site credits with initially conceiving the concept. Similar events with other local news organizations took place in the following months.

In November 2004, the site teamed up with Dateline NBC in New York City to conduct a large sting operation, or "group media bust," entitled To Catch a Predator. Dateline rented a house and wired it with hidden cameras, while volunteers posed as minors in chat rooms, telling users who talked to them that they were home alone. "Within hours there were men literally lining up at our door," Dateline reported. In two-and-a-half days, 18 men showed up at the house after making a date with a Perverted-Justice volunteer.

After the third installment of To Catch a Predator, Perverted-Justice hired an agent and put the group's services out for bid to several television networks. NBC came out ahead and continued the highly rated series. Since then, the To Catch a Predator series of reports has grown into a widely recognized phenomenon, with busts all over the United States and numerous references and parodies in the media.

Convictions
Perverted-Justice's website documents convictions that include disorderly conduct, indecently soliciting a child, attempting to entice a juvenile to travel with intent to engage in sexual act, transporting child pornography, and possession and dissemination of child pornography. According to the official website, Perverted Justice contributed to at least 623 convictions while stating that the actual number is likely closer to 650.

Other activities
Perverted Justice formerly ran a website targeting individuals and groups involved in the online pedophile activist community. The site's stated objective was to "house our voluminous research regarding the identities and pursuits of those in the pedophile activist community". It listed a number of arrests of pedophile activists that it stated were based on its profiles.

They have also built a list of "corporate sexual offenders", which they define as "[a]ny company who is informed of pedophiles using their service to advocate the lifestyle of child/adult rape which then does not remove the pedophiles from their service", with corresponding lists of pedophiles who make use of the services.

Perverted-Justice volunteers also worked to match up MySpace profiles with convicted sex offenders from state registries and alert MySpace officials to their presence. They say they have identified almost three thousand such profiles, most of which have been deleted.

Commendation
Perverted-Justice, as well as its volunteers, have been commended over the years by a number of individuals and organizations, including many active-duty law enforcement officials and child-safety advocates.

 * The March 2007 issue of Law Enforcement Technology magazine covered Perverted-Justice.com and their operations with law enforcement. "We have 2,000 sworn officers, and there is no way we have the resources to do what Perverted Justice did for the NBC Dateline sting (where 51 offenders were arrested in three days)," says Lt. Chad Bianco of the Riverside County (California) Sheriff's Department. "They had 45 people working around the clock."
 * Those praising the site include the host of America's Most Wanted, John Walsh. He has said: "Well, I think it's great. ... My hat is off to Chris Hansen, to NBC, to the people at Perverted-Justice for showing the American public repeatedly that the creep who preys upon our children could live next door. And he could be a rabbi, a school teacher or a priest or anybody. ... I think they've done a great job. Now that they've partners with law enforcement and they're putting these guys away, I think they've provided a tremendous educational tool to the American public."
 * Child-safety advocate Marc Klaas has come out publicly in support of Perverted-Justice and the work they do, suggesting that they go from city to city with their efforts. "I think if you were to take this 'Dateline' piece and turn it into a regular program, where Perverted-Justice and Chris Hansen or somebody else were to go from city to city to city on a weekly basis, you would create a real deterrent effect that would put some fear into the minds of these perverts."
 * Child-safety advocate Ross Ellis, founder and executive director of Love Our Children USA, sent out a press release praising the efforts of Perverted-Justice, while sending a plaque to the organization. "We owe it to our children to keep them safe. The work that Chris Hansen, Dateline and Perverted Justice are doing should be a wake up call to every parent—because no child is immune from these predators. We are proud to present them with awards and express our gratitude for the courageous work they have done on behalf of children."
 * Internet safety website ChildSeekNetwork set up a webpage praising Perverted-Justice. "The Child Seek Network has come under fire by a Texas Organization because of our link to Perverted-Justice web site. It is our belief that children's safety is of the utmost importance. Peej works very hard to see that children are safe on the internet from online predators. Although some of their methods seem harsh or controversial they get results, and have aided the police in getting convictions on those who prey on minors. Every child has a right to be protected and feel safe, we will continue our efforts and applaud Peej for the work they do to assist in that goal."
 * A letter was sent from the office of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to Perverted-Justice praising their efforts, especially in regards to getting the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed. "The Efforts of Perverted-Justice.com deserve a very special 'Thank you' from everyone interested in stopping the seduction and sexual attack on our children. NBC's Dateline has highlighted your efforts at catching sexual predators, using the internet to hunt the hunters. I believe these shows have directly impacted the timely passage of my bill. So I want to join Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist who acknowledged your efforts from the floor of the United States Senate the day the bill was passed. I want to say "Thank you" for your tireless efforts to stop sexual predators."

Active-duty law enforcement who have worked with the website on arrests have also gone on record speaking about the organization.

 * Detective Mike Burns of the Darke County, Ohio Sheriff's Department commented on what Perverted-Justice brought to the table, "It was just a miracle from heaven as far as meeting our needs because we are just struggling so badly to get things going that here it is. Here’s the answers for you." Sgt. Chad Bianco of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department in California said, "We were approached by Perverted-Justice to do this large sting and they told us that 'Dateline' would be following along. We jumped at the chance." Police Chief Hilton Daniels of the Fort Myers Police Department wanted his department to learn how to do an online internet predator sting: "We decided 'Well, let's get a hold of Perverted-Justice' and have them teach us how to do this operation."
 * Officer Kevin Pineda of Flagler Beach, Florida was tasked by his department with researching Perverted-Justice prior to using their services. Although the department "was a little wary at first", Officer Pineda indicates that his research revealed "[nothing but] overwhelming joy from other departments that have actually utilized their services."
 * The Laguna Beach Police Department gave Perverted-Justice administrators Del Harvey and Dennis Kerr an award for the sting they performed in their city.
 * Speaking on the possibility of more sting operations, Lt. Matthew Stapleton of the Petaluma, California Police Department said: "[I]f we have the resources in the future, absolutely, we might do one. ... I don't think we would do a Dateline sting again, but we established a partnership with Perverted Justice, so they could help us, if necessary." He also commented, "Perverted Justice did everything, as promised. They were a perfect partner."

Criticism
Perverted-Justice and its volunteers have been criticized over the years by several individuals and organizations. Individuals opposing Perverted Justice see it as an organization that encourages extrajudicial violence and harassment against individuals who have not yet been convicted of any crime in the legal system. Also, NBC journalist Stone Phillips from a Perverted Justice related event conceded that, "in many cases, the decoy is the first to bring up the subject of sex", leading to claims of illegal entrapment by the targets of Perverted Justices actions.

 * One criticism of the site, made before Perverted-Justice began working primarily with law enforcement, was leveled by Tina Schwartz, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) director of communications. She said: "It's really not the safest, most effective way to combat this problem ... From what I've seen ... they embarrass the people, but I don't know that complete justice is ever served".
 * Scott Morrow ran Corrupted-Justice.com, a now-defunct Canadian-based web site that was critical of Perverted-Justice. Morrow told ABC News in 2005 that, in his opinion, there is currently no way to hold Von Erck or any other administrators, operators, or volunteers at Perverted-Justice accountable for mistakes. "When you're running an organization or running a group of people with the potential to do as much damage to people's lives as this does, I think there also has to be some accountability." Morrow suggests many of Perverted-Justice's tactics are harassment "designed to destroy a person's life." He points out that even sex offender registries don't "list the names and background information of neighbors, employers and family members of the accused", as the Perverted-Justice website does. Perverted-Justice members are encouraged to spread information about their targets on internal forums and to contact their targets' families, employers, and neighbors.
 * In an October 2007 preliminary hearing for the case of Maurice Wolin, Wolin's attorney Blair Berk argued that Perverted Justice's founder has a financial incentive to badger suspects. Von Erck testified in the hearing that he is paid an annual salary of $120,000 stemming from Perverted Justice's deal with NBC. Said Berk, "Xavier Von Erck had a problem. He had a television show to get on and a fancy cancer doctor to ensnare in his web, and he wouldn't let it go." The prosecutor in the case, Brian Staebell, stated, "The whole business of this preliminary hearing has been an attack on the Petaluma Police Department and Perverted Justice. But every time I go back to the chats and I look at how he was grooming this 13-year-old girl." After the hearing, Judge Raima Ballinger held Wolin over for trial, ruling that there was sufficient cause to believe Wolin committed the crime.
 * Lee Tien, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is quoted as being concerned that the organization could send real predators into hiding. The site's operators respond that this is in fact their goal, to have real predators hide away from the places that children go; they liken the site to putting up a Community Watch sign at a local playground, which could be argued to discourage predators from kidnapping children there. Tien also argued that chat transcripts can be easily doctored. In order to bolster credibility, the organization claims it has implemented a number of safeguards to prevent this from happening, including routing all chats through an encrypted proxy server that mirrors the data. However, when pressed to provide the hardware he used to record evidence used in the Dr. Maurice Wolin case, Von Erck refused, claiming that the hard disk drive had "experienced a complete failure". As of December 2008, Perverted Justice has not produced any of the hardware it alleges to have used in gathering evidence in the Wolin case.
 * Before Perverted-Justice began working primarily with law enforcement, child safety advocate Julie Posey described Perverted-Justice's tactics as "a gross invasion of privacy." Posey indicated that she did not feel the methods employed by Perverted-Justice were completely effective. "What it does is embarrass them for the moment... but then they'll go and get a different screen name and know to check things out a little more thoroughly next time." Posey and Perverted-Justice founder Xavier Von Erck appeared on Fox News Channel shortly thereafter, where Posey remarked, "It’s more of an entertainment site, actually. You go there, you click on a link of a picture that takes you to that person’s chat-log and that person has a scale—a sliminess scale as he calls it—and you can rate the pervert from, I think it’s, one to five. To me, that kind of gives a sense of entertainment. Anybody that finds entertainment value in exploiting children, I have a problem with it."
 * Some law enforcement experts have also stated that, while they appreciate the site's mission, they do not agree with some of the operators' and volunteers' practices. In a December 2004 article in the New York Sun, Bradley Russ, the training director for the federal Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce (which has trained about 200 law enforcement agents nationwide) said that the tactics of Perverted-Justice sometimes run counter to the task force's standards. For instance, Russ said, by accepting child pornography from their "busts" to bolster a potential legal case, the volunteers are themselves in possession of unlawful images. He said federal authorities have begun considering whether to seize Perverted-Justice contributors' computers. "It's a noble effort gone too far," Russ told the newspaper. He also said the site's tactics can make it more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute cases they present because those cases can be considered tainted by entrapment claims. According to Russ, "I have a real problem with any citizens' group conducting any investigation into any crime ... It's a mistake for law enforcement to abdicate its responsibility to citizens." Said Russ, "I think it's a huge mistake when law enforcement partners with citizens to do investigations. ... I'm very concerned about entrapment issues." Tom Nolan, a Boston University professor and former Boston police officer, echoes Russ's criticism, "I have an issue with private citizens engaging in these kinds of investigatory practices. ... Perverted Justice, even though they are in fact acting as agents of law enforcement, are not abiding by the policies. ... This is vigilantism. It's sensational vigilantism."
 * Criminal defense attorney Angelyn Gates of Chase Criminal Defense Attorneys raises concern that citizen groups are not subject to the same standards as trained law enforcement officials. She notes that laws are designed to keep police officers from violating citizens' rights, and that the same rules don't apply to citizens who may be violating other citizens' rights. "Police officers are trained in theory," Gates said. "[Members of Perverted-Justice] are not watching out for themselves by trying to pretend they're a child on the Internet," she said. "They're doing it for the thrill, fun, and notoriety they seem to be getting out of it." Detective Mike Burns of Darke County asserts that Perverted-Justice sets stricter criteria than many law enforcement agencies do for arrest. He contends that Perverted-Justice subscribes to protocols well within those followed by law enforcement. He does however concede, "Sometimes it was a fine line, but they provided us with 140 people they were chatting with after 10 days with possibilities of showing up for a meeting. There's no way a department five times our size could have done that."
 * The site has also been criticized for "disseminating its own brand of child pornography." Criminal defense attorney Peter D. Greenspun, who represented Rabbi David Kaye (a man convicted after a Perverted-Justice sting operation) argues that the content posted on Perverted-Justice.com could encourage child predators. "They are putting out for unfiltered, unrestricted public consumption the most graphic sexual material that they themselves say is of a perverted nature." The site's operators state that when they or their volunteers are sent child pornography, they "immediately report it to the police and without fail." Furthermore, they assure that every time this has happened it has resulted in a conviction against the one sending the pornography, not against Perverted-Justice.
 * In a Riverside County case, Judge Dallas Holmes commented on the merits of a Perverted-Justice-related case. Said Judge Holmes: "I don't like the smell of this case." Furthermore, he described the Perverted-Justice witness testifying in the case as "odd," "weird" and "repulsive". These comments were made after the jury deadlocked 10–2 in favor of acquittal in a case involving U.S. Marine William Lawrence Havey. Linda Dunn, a chief deputy district attorney in Riverside County, said she thought the outcome of the Havey trial had more to do with jurors' unwillingness to convict a Marine than with negative perceptions of the Perverted Justice witnesses.
 * In May 2007, Perverted-Justice was criticized in a now-dismissed employment lawsuit brought by former Dateline producer Marsha Bartel. In the filing, Bartel alleges that NBC provides financial incentives to the group to use trickery and to humiliate targets to "enhance the comedic effect of the[ir] public exposure." According to Bartel, some of the men caught in the Predator sting operations have reported that the decoys begged them to come to the sting houses, even after they had decided to walk away. Perverted-Justice responded to the criticism by labeling Bartel a disgruntled former employee motivated by financial gain. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed after the New York Supreme Court ruled that "an employer is free to terminate an employee at any time for any reason or no reason."
 * The father of a man arrested in a July 2006 sting by Perverted-Justice appeared before a Georgia Superior Court judge to seek an arrest warrant for Perverted-Justice founder Xavier Von Erck, stating that Von Erck solicited the commission of a felony from the man. The judge found that probable cause existed to believe Von Erck impersonated a girl and solicited the man with the intent for him to commit a felony, but declined to issue the warrant because when the act occurred, there was no actual girl and thus no crime occurred. The act of soliciting a felony is itself a felony. Attorney Gary Gerrard filed an appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals, alleging that under Georgia law, solicitation is a felony whether or not a crime occurred. That appeal was ultimately rejected.
 * In June 2007, Perverted-Justice was criticized following a sting operation in Collin County, Texas that resulted in the charges against 23 suspected online sex predators being dropped. Collin County Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis said the cases were dropped after Perverted-Justice failed to provide enough usable evidence. "In many cases, we could not prosecute because Perverted Justice refused to answer our questions, refused to participate as witnesses, or refused to turn over potential evidence." Susan Etheridge, director of the Children's Advocacy Center in Plano, Texas, was not surprised the cases were thrown out. She doubts the efficacy of a citizen-based group in conducting such a sting, "I know that law enforcement works very hard to find and prosecute Internet predators. When citizens do it -- I don't know whether that can work. Perhaps policing is best left to the police." Responding to the criticism, members of Perverted-Justice have stated on their website that they were never asked for the relevant evidence, never refused to provide witnesses, and answered all the Murphy Prosecutor's questions. They describe the Collin County District Attorney's Office as "corrupt", "inept", and "incompetent", while labeling Collin County, Texas DA Greg Davis "the biggest liar we've ever dealt with in our lives."
 * On January 10, 2008, a multi-count pro se (self-represented) civil lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Arizona by Jan Kruska seeking a change in current sex offender laws. Kruska is suing the group and a number of others, including Myspace and Go Daddy, claiming defamation, cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment after she was added to the now defunct Wikisposure site. Kruska's claims against Perverted-Justice were dismissed on August 9, 2010.

Notable incidents
According to Von Erck, Bruce Raisley, a private pilot and software developer made graphic violent threats against Perverted-Justice contributors and volunteers, and threatened to expose the online identities they used when posing as children. Raisley stated that he was a former Perverted-Justice member who left the group after he discovered that Perverted-Justice used a photograph of his son in a Perverted-Justice decoy profile, and failed to get a swift response from law enforcement. Allegations were made that Von Erck had "set out to destroy [Raisley] by posing as a woman, seducing him online with graphic sex chats, posting the transcripts on the web, and threatening to release a purported video of the individual masturbating." Raisley was lured to an airport waiting area, where he was secretly photographed by associates of Von Erck. The photos were later posted online along with a warning against further threats and attacks. In 2010, Raisley was convicted of orchestrating a DDoS attack against sites carrying the story. Raisley was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $90,383 in restitution for the attacks.

Cessation of operations and final mission
In late 2018, the official site announced that they would end active decoy operations at the start of 2019. In addition to formally ending the chat room decoy operations that they were well known for, Perverted-Justice founder Xavier Von Erck announced that the organization would be suspending all active operations in 2019. The Perverted-Justice website is no longer functional as of June 2024 in terms of viewing predators' chatlogs.

title: Perverted-Justice


text:
La Gaceta (Tampa)

La Gaceta is a weekly newspaper in Tampa, Florida, founded in 1922. Published in English, Spanish, and Italian, it is the only trilingual newspaper in the United States.

The paper was founded by Victoriano Manteiga, a former lector in the cigar factories of West Tampa and Ybor City, to serve the needs of the immigrant population of Tampa.

Later, his son Roland Manteiga took over as editor and publisher. Roland was very well connected, and his column "As We Heard It", became the local mid-20th century version of today's political blogs, often breaking stories and predicting events before the area's "major" newspapers.

Today, La Gaceta is still published weekly under the direction of Roland's son, Patrick Manteiga, who has assumed authorship of the "As We Heard It" column. Additional editors are Manuela Ball (Spanish Section) and Giuseppe Maniscalco (Italian Section). Other columnists include Arturo Rivera, Joe O'Neill, Richard Muga, Emily Carney, Paul Guzzo, Leonardo Venta, Harvey Grajales, Gene Siudut, Kyle Dion and Travis Puterbaugh.

title: La Gaceta (Tampa)


text:
High King of Ireland

High King of Ireland (Ardrí na hÉireann ) was a royal title in Gaelic Ireland held by those who had, or who are claimed to have had, lordship over all of Ireland. The title was held by historical kings and was later sometimes assigned anachronously or to legendary figures.

Medieval and early modern Irish literature portrays an almost unbroken line of High Kings, ruling from the Hill of Tara over a hierarchy of lesser kings, stretching back thousands of years. Modern historians believe this scheme was crafted in the 8th century from the various genealogical traditions of powerful dynasties, and intended to justify their status by projecting it far into the past. John T. Koch explains: "Although the kingship of Tara was a special kingship whose occupants had aspirations towards supremacy among the kings of Ireland, in political terms it is unlikely that any king had sufficient authority to dominate the whole island before the 9th century".

The concept of national kingship is first articulated in the 7th century, but only became a political reality in the Viking Age, and even then not a consistent one. While the High Kings' degree of control varied, they never ruled Ireland as a politically unified state, as the High King was conceived of as an overlord exercising suzerainty over, and receiving tribute from, the independent kingdoms beneath him.

Sacred High Kings
Early Irish kingship was sacred in character. In some early Irish sources, High Kings can gain their power through a marriage to, or sexual relationship with, a sovereignty goddess. The High King is free from blemish, enforces symbolic buada (prerogatives) and avoids symbolic geasa (taboos).

According to 7th- and 8th-century law tracts, a hierarchy of kingship and clientship progressed from the rí tuaithe (king of a single petty kingdom) through the ruiri (a rí who was overking of several petty kingdoms) to a rí ruirech (a rí who was a provincial overking). (See Rí.)

Each king ruled directly only within the bounds of his own petty kingdom and was responsible for ensuring good government by exercising fír flaithemon (rulers' truth). His responsibilities included convening its óenach (popular assembly), collecting taxes, building public works, external relations, defence, emergency legislation, law enforcement, and promulgating legal judgment.

The lands in a petty kingdom were held allodially by various fine (agnatic kingroups) of freemen. The king occupied the apex of a pyramid of clientship within the petty kingdom. This pyramid progressed from the unfree population at its base up to the heads of noble fine held in immediate clientship by the king. Thus the king was drawn from the dominant fine within the cenél (a wider kingroup encompassing the noble fine of the petty kingdom).

The kings of the Ulster Cycle are kings in this sacred sense, but it is clear that the old concept of kingship coexisted alongside Christianity for several generations. Diarmait mac Cerbaill, king of Tara in the middle of the 6th century, may have been the last king to have "married" the land. Diarmait died at the hands of Áed Dub mac Suibni; some accounts from the following century state that he died by the mythic Threefold death appropriate to a sacral king. Adomnán's Life tells how Saint Columba forecast the same death for Áed Dub. The same Threefold Death is said in a late poem to have befallen Diarmait's predecessor, Muirchertach macc Ercae, and even the usually reliable Annals of Ulster record Muirchertach's death by drowning in a vat of wine.

A second sign that sacred kingship did not disappear with the arrival of Christianity is the supposed lawsuit between Congal Cáech, king of the Ulaid, and Domnall mac Áedo. Congal was supposedly blinded in one eye by Domnall's bees, from whence his byname Cáech (half-blind or squinting), this injury rendering him imperfect and unable to remain High King. The enmity between Domnall and Congal can more prosaically be laid at the door of the rivalry between the Uí Néill and the kings of Ulaid, but that a king had to be whole in body appears to have been accepted at this time.

Succession order
The business of Irish succession is rather complicated because of the nature of kingship in Ireland before the Norman take-over of 1171. Ireland was divided into a multiplicity of kingdoms, with some kings owing allegiance to others from time to time, and succession rules (insofar as they existed) varied. Kings were often succeeded by their sons, but often other branches of the dynasty took a turn—whether by agreement or by force of arms is rarely clear. The king-lists and other early sources reveal little about how and why a particular person became king.

To add to the uncertainty, genealogies were often edited many generations later to improve an ancestor's standing within a kingdom, or to insert him into a more powerful kindred. The uncertain practices in local kingship cause similar problems when interpreting the succession to the high kingship.

The High King of Ireland was essentially a ceremonial, pseudo-federal overlord (where his over-lordship was even recognised), who exercised actual power only within the realm of which he was actually king. In the case of the southern branch of the Uí Néill, this would have been the Kingdom of Meath (now the counties of Meath, Westmeath and part of County Dublin). High Kings from the northern branch ruled various kingdoms in what eventually became the province of Ulster.

In 1002, the high kingship of Ireland was wrested from Mael Sechnaill II of the southern Uí Néill by Brian "Boruma" mac Cennédig of the Kingdom of Munster. Some historians have called this a "usurpation" of the throne. Others have pointed out that no one had a strict legal right to the kingship and that Brian "had as much right to the high throne as any Uí Neill and... displayed an ability sadly lacking amongst most of the Uí Néill who had preceded him."

Brian was killed in the Battle of Clontarf in 1014. Mael Sechnaill II was restored to the High Kingship but he died in 1022. From 1022 through the Norman take-over of 1171, the High Kingship was held alongside "Kings with Opposition".

Early Christian High Kings
Even at the time the law tracts were being written, these petty kingdoms were being swept away by newly emerging dynasties of dynamic overkings. The most successful of these early dynasties were the Uí Néill (encompassing descendants of Niall of the Nine Hostages, such as the Cenél nEógain), who (as kings of Tara) had been conquering petty kingdoms, expelling their rulers, and agglomerating their territories under the direct rule of their expanding kindred since the fifth century.

Gaelic and foreign, pagan and Christian ideas were comingled to form a new idea of Irish kingship. The native idea of a sacred kingship was integrated with the Christian idea in the ceremony of coronation, the relationship of king to overking became one of tigerna (lord) to king and imperium (sovereignty) began to merge with dominium (ownership).

The Church was well disposed to the idea of a strong political authority. Its clerics developed the theory of a high kingship of Ireland and wrote tracts exhorting kings to rule rather than reign. In return, the paruchiae (monastic federations) of the Irish church received royal patronage in the form of shrines, building works, land, and protection.

The concept of a high king was occasionally recorded in various annals, such as an entry regarding the death of Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid in 862 in the Annals of Ulster, which lists him as rí Érenn uile (king of all Ireland), a title which his successor Aed Finliath apparently never was granted. It is unclear what political reality was behind this title.

Later High Kings
By the twelfth century, the dual process of agglomeration of territory and consolidation of kingship saw the handful of remaining provincial kings abandoning the traditional royal sites for the cities, employing ministers and governors, receiving advice from an oireacht (a body of noble counsellors), presiding at reforming synods, and maintaining standing armies.

Early royal succession had been by alternation between collateral branches of the wider dynasty, but succession was now confined to a series of father/son, brother/brother and uncle/nephew successions within a small royal fine marked by an exclusive surname.

These compact families (the Uí Briain of Munster, the Meic Lochlainn of the North, the Uí Conchubhair of Connacht) intermarried and competed against each other on a national basis so that on the eve of the Anglo-Norman incursion of 1169 the agglomeration/consolidation process was complete and their provincial kingdoms divided, dismembered and transformed into fiefdoms held from (or in rebellion against) one of their number acting as king of Ireland.

title: High King of Ireland


text:
Talk:Three-domain system

36s ribosomal unit
''However, by comparing the 36S ribosomal subunit it is clear that Eukaryota are genetically closer to Archaea than Archaea are to Bacteria, suggesting an early evolutionary divergence between Archaea and Bacteria and a later branching of Eukaryota from Archaea. Chloroplasts and mitochondria which inhabit almost all eukaryota are known to have evolved from Bacteria.''

This misses the entire point of the criticism. If Bacteria are paraphyletic to Archaea, and Archaea paraphyletic to Eukaryota, then it's only natural that archaeans should have closer sequences to eukaryotes than bacteria do. So it doesn't support the three-domain system over the alternative two-empire-one-paraphyletic system, as this suggests. The 36S ribosomal unit info could still be valuable, but I'm not sure how to work it in. Josh

Typo?
I'm no biologist, but shouldn't the word "eukaryotes" in the first line read "prokaryotes"? Rbraunwa 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It should; fixed. Josh

should it be "bacteria" or "prokaryotes"? just a doubt... av: march 30, 2009

Clean up terminology
I'd like to echo what this person says (below): please rewrite for the layman! Thanks!

I generally know about prokaryotes and eukaryotes, but I have no expertise in the field. I had to read the article several times to make sense of the terminology; it reads like one expert describing it to another, throwing around jargon loosely.

It would help to, 1) Clearly define the terms and their relationships to each other.  Also putting all the terms in the graphic would help tremendously by providing a quick reference.  2)  Simplify, simplify, simplify: Eliminate synonyms and re-use the same terms as much as possible. For example, just this phrase creates much confusion: "biologists like Mayr criticized him for over-emphasizing the uniqueness of the archaebacteria and ignoring strong genetic similarities between the groups" What are archaebacteria? Archaea? Bacteria? I looked at the graphic, but archaebacteria isn't there. I had to re-read the first paragraph (not a good sign) to find, ... originally called Eubacteria and Archaebacteria, which raised more questions: 1) They were originally called that: Are the terms obsolete? Why use them in the next paragraph? What are the proper terms? 2) Which term corresponds to what on the graph? Also, what exactly is a group? How does it relate to a domain?

I'm not asking for help -- I believe I figured it out. I'm asking that someone help the next non-expert reader. I would re-write it, but I'm not qualified.

Thanks, phrustrated in philly

Date Discrepancy
This article states that the Three Domain System was introduced in 1960. The article on Domains indicates 1990. Please correct the wrong one. Artworksmetal 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

 * For the record, that appeared to be vandalism and 1990 was correct. I fixed it before I saw this post. 66.92.53.49 22:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither is fully correct. 1977 marked the birth of the essence of this taxonomy scheme Pagelm (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Viruses
This is an interesting position. Viruses aren't considered a life-form therefore they do not belong to any of the three branches, but viruses themselves are defined as non-life because they depend on a pre-existing living organism to maintain themselves.... So viruses, deducing this logically, had to have evolved (come into being) after life-forms of some kind evolved; therefore viruses must have a starting point with one of the branches, they had to have been an offshoot of one of them and therefore a "branch off" of one of the branches. Can any one make an argument any other way? Nagelfar (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 * There is a simple way to deal with this problem: the three-domain system applies to cellular life, and so viruses are excluded. There are some theories about DNA viruses playing an important role at the birth of the three domains (see Patrick Forterre, Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:3669-3674, 2006 doi:10.1073/pnas.0510333103), and are as ancient as the main cellular lineages, but I think that the question is outside the scope of this article (at least for its current size). Szentendrei (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 * This point has been clarified more recently. Virus evolution - at least at the RNA/DNA sequence level has been too rapid for the standard evolutionary methods to resolve this problem completely. Having said that the current consensus is that viruses have co evolved with their hosts for most of their existence. Precisely when the viruses of these lines evolved seems unlikely to be answered in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.58.241 (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure it was 1990?
Hi,

I am not an expert on the subject but I have a "gut feeling" the date 1990 might be a typographical mistake. Maybe it was meant to be something like 1890?

It's just my gut feeling... I've never studied this subject in depth but I was taught about this subjects in Middle School and I graduated from High School some 5 years ago, so my "gut feeling" is that 1990 is too fresh of a date for the theory to have been first presented and become world famous and be included in my school's Biology program (unfortunately I did attend a quite "backwards" school system... in Mexico... and I'd be surprised if they are so "up to date"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.125.31 (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it was 1990. It reached widespread acceptance rather quickly because it explains the realities better than any competing system. --Khajidha (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I can't confirm when Woese published, but I CAN confirm that US high school textbooks described a Five-Kingdom system, did not distinguish Archaea from Bacteria, and did not recognize Domains as root-level taxa as recently as 1989. Though my observations probably count as personal research ;) --Raduga (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly was not a concept proposed in 1990. In '77 Woese showed a phylogenetic tree based on 16S and remarked upon bacteria being divided into two groups (the traditional bacteria and the archaebacteria), which he called kingdoms (thus demoting the traditional kingdoms, including "animalia"). Science textbooks are often hideously out of date, especially those that upset the old system of order. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagelm (talk • contribs) 01:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on whether to include a criticism section
Hi there. I can understand where the user Headwes is coming from in deleting the "criticism" section I've been trying to put up. Believe me, I do. I understand that 99.9% of scientists see no issue whatsoever with the 3-domain system. However, I don't believe that they've given it much thought, actually. The criticisms of Ernst Mayr (one of the most respected biologists of the 20th century) and the much less well-known Radhey Gupta, not to mention Thomas Cavalier-Smith, are real and I think they are pretty convincing, actually. But either way, they are real criticisms.

I'm not sure what you mean by "never amounted to anything." At first you were hesitant to include the section because I only put up one reference. I agree that one reference from an unknown scientist is probably not enough. But again I have to point out the prominence of Ernst Mayr and his absolute disdain for this theory. He published a completely devastating paper criticizing this theory of three domains -- why would that not be allowed in a criticism section, if we are being completely unbiased?

I am willing to work with you on the actual text of the section, but I think people have a right to know that not every scientist (and indeed, some prominent ones) are not on-board with this idea and still promote the 2-empire theory instead. I see no reason not to include a section detailing the real criticisms that have been brought forth. It's as if you want me to believe this 3-domain model is a fact when it is far from proven, despite its widespread acceptance.

Okay, so I've been reading up on POV forking on so forth (I've never edited Wikipedia before this article). It says the best way to include criticism is line-by-line inclusion without a "criticism" section. I think this would be a mistake for this article, because it would give undue attention to the criticisms. I'm not trying to debate the scientific consensus here (I agree there is one, even if I disagree with it), but only to provide resources for people to look into other points of view. It saddens me to see the three-domain hypothesis treated as fact when it is so poorly supported, imo. If you really think the criticism section is a bad idea, we at least need one or two sentences in the actual article proper to point people to the 2-empire theory (which has a much longer history of scientific acceptance than does the 3-domain). Would that be more acceptable to you? IMO, leaving the main article untouched is a better idea, and actually serves to support the theory more, but it's up to you since you seem so dedicated in deleting my section.

I beg you to read Gupta's work, as a side note. It is extremely convincing and well-supported.

Continuing some more... if we're going to do this line-by-line in the main part of the article, I'm going to tear into the concept of a "progenote" -- it was always ridiculous and even Woese has backed away from the idea. It's hard to imagine someone actually put that into the article. There is no backing for it whatsoever. These are the sorts of things we'll have to work out if you are still unwilling to let me have a simple criticism section. We'll have to debate the actual components of the 3-domain theory, some of which are easily disprovable. I don't think that simple popularity among scientists (who have no background in classification -- they really have no expertise here whatsoever) is enough to treat this very young idea as fact. The fact that it has become so prominent so quickly is a testament to the social power of molecular biology. I'm a molecular biologist myself. I understand the appeal. But once you look at classification systems more closely, I think you and many scientists would change their perspective on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowdcc (talk • contribs) 02:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording
The first sentence under the heading "Domain Archaea" seems ambiguous to me. The sentence reads: "The Archaea are prokaryotic, with no nuclear membrane, distinct biochemistry, and RNA markers from bacteria." The grammar and punctuation suggest a reading of the sentence that is contrary to what I as a layperson would expect the intended meaning to be. Specifically, the comma and "and" following "biochemistry" strongly suggest that the meaning of the final part of the sentence is that Archaea have distinct biochemistry (not distinct from anything in particular), and that they have RNA markers that come from bacteria. However, I would have expected the intended meaning to be that Archaea have biochemistry that is distinct from bacteria, and they have RNA markers which are distinct from the ones that bacteria have. As I say, this is a lay guess as I don't know what RNA markers are.

Whatever the intended meaning is, it is possible for the layperson to misinterpret it. If the latter meaning is the correct interpretation, may I suggest rewording the sentence to read: "The Archaea are prokaryotic, with no nuclear membrane, and biochemistry and RNA markers distinct from bacteria." Alternatively break the sentence into two sentences.

--Biirnats (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I came to the talk section with exactly the same comment. I couldn't have expressed it as clearly as Biirnats.Jpipersson (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Traded for a horse?
Eukarya has 5 kingdoms: Plantae, Protista, Animalia, Chromista, and Fungi [says Domain (biology)].

Bacteria looks like nil on wiki. Ditto for Archaea.

So, 7 kingdoms all-up? Or 5?

MBG02 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Caption to Tree image
--Whschirmer (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC) The caption to the tree image includes the statement: "It's now known to be grossly incorrect." What's the source of that statement? Does that mean the three-domain classification system is grossly incorrect? Is there a correct article to which one should be referred?

I noticed this too. Is it because it doesn't include horizontal gene transfer? That image is used within several articles on wikipedia. In any case, I think the statement of it being grossly incorrect needs to be clarified. 86.130.124.146 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Not sure what's going on here, but it seems that someone has seen to "fix" that problem by "correcting" the Woese et al 1990 tree using ... undocumented sources ... I think we call that WP:OR? Anyway, the tree is NOT Woese et al's, so the article with it blazoned at the head is now grossly incorrect. I don't know what would be best, but I would suggest that if people want to illustrate Woese et al as a piece of history, they provide that tree, warts and all; if they ALSO want to have a "correct" tree (whatever that might mean), then they provide a second (third, fourth, ...) diagram, citing it to a reliable source. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Three-domain system