text:
List of convexity topics

This is a list of convexity topics, by Wikipedia page.
 * Alpha blending - the process of combining a translucent foreground color with a background color, thereby producing a new blended color. This is a convex combination of two colors allowing for transparency effects in computer graphics.
 * Barycentric coordinates - a coordinate system in which the location of a point of a simplex (a triangle, tetrahedron, etc.) is specified as the center of mass, or barycenter, of masses placed at its vertices. The coordinates are non-negative for points in the convex hull.
 * Borsuk's conjecture - a conjecture about the number of pieces required to cover a body with a larger diameter. Solved by Hadwiger for the case of smooth convex bodies.
 * Bond convexity - a measure of the non-linear relationship between price and yield duration of a bond to changes in interest rates, the second derivative of the price of the bond with respect to interest rates. A basic form of convexity in finance.
 * Carathéodory's theorem (convex hull) - If a point x of Rd lies in the convex hull of a set P, there is a subset of P with d+1 or fewer points such that x lies in its convex hull.
 * Choquet theory - an area of functional analysis and convex analysis concerned with measures with support on the extreme points of a convex set C. Roughly speaking, all vectors of C should appear as "averages" of extreme points.
 * Complex convexity — extends the notion of convexity to complex numbers.
 * Convex analysis - the branch of mathematics devoted to the study of properties of convex functions and convex sets, often with applications in convex minimization.
 * Convex combination - a linear combination of points where all coefficients are non-negative and sum to 1. All convex combinations are within the convex hull of the given points.
 * Convex and Concave - a print by Escher in which many of the structure's features can be seen as both convex shapes and concave impressions.
 * Convex body - a compact convex set in a Euclidean space whose interior is non-empty.
 * Convex conjugate - a dual of a real functional in a vector space. Can be interpreted as an encoding of the convex hull of the function's epigraph in terms of its supporting hyperplanes.
 * Convex curve - a plane curve that lies entirely on one side of each of its supporting lines. The interior of a closed convex curve is a convex set.

 * Convex function - a function in which the line segment between any two points on the graph of the function lies above the graph.
 * Closed convex function - a convex function all of whose sublevel sets are closed sets.
 * Proper convex function - a convex function whose effective domain is nonempty and it never attains minus infinity.
 * Concave function - the negative of a convex function.
 * Convex geometry - the branch of geometry studying convex sets, mainly in Euclidean space. Contains three sub-branches: general convexity, polytopes and polyhedra, and discrete geometry.
 * Convex hull (aka convex envelope) - the smallest convex set that contains a given set of points in Euclidean space.
 * Convex lens - a lens in which one or two sides is curved or bowed outwards. Light passing through the lens is converged (or focused) to a spot behind the lens.
 * Convex optimization - a subfield of optimization, studies the problem of minimizing convex functions over convex sets. The convexity property can make optimization in some sense "easier" than the general case - for example, any local minimum must be a global minimum.
 * Convex polygon - a 2-dimensional polygon whose interior is a convex set in the Euclidean plane.
 * Convex polytope - an n-dimensional polytope which is also a convex set in the Euclidean n-dimensional space.
 * Convex set - a set in Euclidean space in which contains every segment between every two of its points.
 * Convexity (finance) - refers to non-linearities in a financial model. When the price of an underlying variable changes, the price of an output does not change linearly, but depends on the higher-order derivatives of the modeling function. Geometrically, the model is no longer flat but curved, and the degree of curvature is called the convexity.
 * Duality (optimization)
 * Epigraph (mathematics) - for a function f : Rn→R, the set of points lying on or above its graph
 * Extreme point - for a convex set S in a real vector space, a point in S which does not lie in any open line segment joining two points of S.
 * Fenchel conjugate
 * Fenchel's inequality
 * Fixed-point theorems in infinite-dimensional spaces, generalise the Brouwer fixed-point theorem. They have applications, for example, to the proof of existence theorems for partial differential equations
 * Four vertex theorem - every convex curve has at least 4 vertices.
 * Gift wrapping algorithm - an algorithm for computing the convex hull of a given set of points
 * Graham scan - a method of finding the convex hull of a finite set of points in the plane with time complexity O(n log n)
 * Hadwiger conjecture (combinatorial geometry) - any convex body in n-dimensional Euclidean space can be covered by 2n or fewer smaller bodies homothetic with the original body.
 * Hadwiger's theorem - a theorem that characterizes the valuations on convex bodies in Rn.
 * Helly's theorem
 * Hyperplane - a subspace whose dimension is one less than that of its ambient space
 * Indifference curve
 * Infimal convolute
 * Interval (mathematics) - a set of real numbers with the property that any number that lies between two numbers in the set is also included in the set
 * Jarvis march
 * Jensen's inequality - relates the value of a convex function of an integral to the integral of the convex function
 * John ellipsoid - E(K) associated to a convex body K in n-dimensional Euclidean space Rn is the ellipsoid of maximal n-dimensional volume contained within K.
 * Lagrange multiplier - a strategy for finding the local maxima and minima of a function subject to equality constraints
 * Legendre transformation - an involutive transformation on the real-valued convex functions of one real variable
 * Locally convex topological vector space - example of topological vector spaces (TVS) that generalize normed spaces
 * Macbeath regions
 * Mahler volume - a dimensionless quantity that is associated with a centrally symmetric convex body
 * Minkowski's theorem - any convex set in $$\mathbb{R}^n$$ which is symmetric with respect to the origin and with volume greater than 2n d(L) contains a non-zero lattice point
 * Mixed volume
 * Mixture density
 * Newton polygon - a tool for understanding the behaviour of polynomials over local fields
 * Radon's theorem - on convex sets, that any set of d + 2 points in Rd can be partitioned into two disjoint sets whose convex hulls intersect
 * Separating axis theorem
 * Shapley–Folkman lemma - a result in convex geometry with applications in mathematical economics that describes the Minkowski addition of sets in a vector space
 * Shephard's problem - a geometrical question
 * Simplex - a generalization of the notion of a triangle or tetrahedron to arbitrary dimensions
 * Simplex method - a popular algorithm for linear programming
 * Subdifferential - generalization of the derivative to functions which are not differentiable
 * Supporting hyperplane - a hyperplane meeting certain conditions
 * Supporting hyperplane theorem - that defines a supporting hyperplane

title: List of convexity topics


text:
Horatio Balch Hackett

Horatio Balch Hackett (December 27, 1808 – November 2, 1875), American biblical scholar, was born in Salisbury, Massachusetts. His father, Richard Hackett, was a ship-builder who died when Horatio was only five years old. Hence, Horatio and his brothers were raised mostly by their mother, Martha née Balch.

He was educated at Phillips Academy and at Amherst College, where he graduated as valedictorian in 1830, and at Andover Theological Seminary, where he graduated in 1834. He was adjunct professor of Latin and Greek Languages and Literature at Brown University in 1835-1838 and professor of Hebrew Literature there in 1838-1839.

He was ordained to the Baptist ministry in 1839—he had become a Baptist at Andover as the result of preparing a paper on baptism in the New Testament and the Fathers—and in 1839-1868 he was professor of Biblical literature and interpretation in Newton Theological Institution where his most important work was the introduction of the modern German methods of Biblical criticism, which he had learned from Moses Stuart at Andover and with which he made himself more familiar in Germany (especially under Tholuck at Halle) in 1841.

He traveled in Egypt and Palestine in 1852, and then in 1857 published a book on his observations and experiences entitled Illustrations of Scripture: A Tour Through the Holy Land.

In 1858-1859 he traveled around Greece, becoming proficient in modern Greek. From 1870 until his death in Rochester, New York, he was professor of Biblical literature and New Testament exegesis in the Rochester Theological Seminary. He was a great teacher but a greater critical and exegetical scholar.

Published work

 * Exercises in Hebrew Grammar And Selections from the Greek Scriptures to be Translated Into Hebrew, with Notes, Hebrew Phrases and References to Approved Works in Greek and Hebrew Philology (Andover: Allen, Morrill & Wardwell, 1847)
 * Illustrations of Scripture: Suggested by a Tour Through the Holy Land (New York:T. Nelson and Sons, 1857)
 * A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1858)
 * Christian Memorials of the War: Or, Scenes and Incidents Illustrative of Religious Faith and Principle, Patriotism and Bravery in Our Army. With Historical Notes (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1864)

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

title: Horatio Balch Hackett


text:
Talk:Mölndal Municipality

The link to Astra Zeneca (Astra Zeneca AB) refers to the Swedish subsidiary of the British entity AstraZeneca plc. Before merging Swedish Astra AB and Britsh Zeneca plc were separate companies. Regarding matters of cooperation with local authorities and conducting research in conjunction with universities in Sweden, the Swedish entity is the legal signatory not the entity of the British public limited company. Changing the link to to AstraZeneca plc, itself a redirect, implies conditions different from the actual mater of fact. -- Mic 10:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * AstraZeneca PLC holds 100% of the shares of AstraZeneca AB. There is no such company as Astra Zeneca AB (with a space).  Please stop making misleading edits, especially without checking your facts first. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 15:20, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Third largest?
Under geography, the article claims "Mölndal is the third largest municipality [...](after Gothenburg and Borås), and about the 20th largest in Sweden." Clearly this is not in area. I suspect population, but then it wouldn't fit under Geography, would it? Not sure enough to change it myself. JöG 14:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Parts of Mölndal
Removed the regions in the list of the parts as they were unnecessary since the whole Mölndal is the part of Västra Götaland region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.160.191.242 (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mölndal Municipality


text:
Talk:Södertälje Municipality

The link to Astra Zeneca (Astra Zeneca AB) refers to the Swedish subsidiary of the British entity AstraZeneca plc. Before merging Swedish Astra AB and Britsh Zeneca plc were separate companies. Regarding matters of cooperation with local authorities and conducting research in conjunction with universities in Sweden, the Swedish entity is the legal signatory not the entity of the British public limited company. Changing the link to to AstraZeneca plc, itself a redirect, implies conditions different from the actual mater of fact. -- Mic 10:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chart[er]
I've changed "Chart" to "Charter" in the history section, but I'm not certain I've got that correct. The article appears to be translated and "chart" doesn't really fit. I'm guess it meant "The city had a charter," but I guess it could be "the city appeared on charts (i.e. maps)". If someone can check the Swedish version and confirm for me? tack John (Jwy) 05:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The Swedish version (which is far more detailed than the English one) doesn't mention either term - the time in the town's history is rather late to care about maps (it was burned by the Russian invaders and hit by pestilence); it's been a well-mapped area for the last thousand or so years.... so I don't know what the original author intended. --Alvestrand 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. John (Jwy) 18:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I wrote it. It should be charter (as in royal charter). / Fred-Chess 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Södertälje Municipality


text:
All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling

All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling (全日本女子プロレス), nicknamed Zenjo (全女: 全 meaning "All", 女 meaning "Woman") was a joshi puroresu (women's professional wrestling) promotion established in 1968 by Takashi Matsunaga and his brothers. The group held their first card on June 4 of that year. For close to 33 years it had a TV program on Fuji TV called Women's Professional Wrestling.

History

The All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling Corporation, established in 1968, was the successor to the All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling Association, which had been formed in August 1955, to oversee the plethora of women's wrestling promotions that had sprung up in Japan following a tour in November, 1954, by Mildred Burke and her World Women's Wrestling Association (WWWA). These promotions included the All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling Federation, and the All Japan Women's Wrestling Club, started in 1948, which was the first women's wrestling promotion in Japan. For a time the Club pushed female wrestling as a legitimate sport, booking sporting arenas.

By the mid-1960s, the association had fallen apart, due to infighting between the member promotions, and female wrestling was relegated back to being a sideshow act in strip-tease theaters. In 1967, another attempt to organize the sport of women's professional wrestling was made with a new All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling Association. This time the Fabulous Moolah, the NWA Women's Champion, came across from the United States and traded her title with Yukiko Tomoe, to lend legitimacy to the promotion. The new Association broke up later that year. Finally, in 1968, Takashi Matsunaga, who had been the promoter for All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling Federation, formed the All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling Corporation (AJW) with his brothers Kenji, Kunimatsu and Toshikuni. The promotion held its first card on June 4, 1968, and got a television deal with Fuji TV in the same year.

In the fall of 1970, AJW, which had been contesting the American Girls' Wrestling Association Championship since the previous year, hosted Marie Vagnone, new holder of Mildred Burke's WWWA World Single Championship which had been revived in a WWWA tournament earlier that year in Los Angeles. On October 15, 1970, in Tokyo, Vagnone lost the WWWA title to Aiko Kyo, and AJW had a new world championship singles belt. The next year, AJW acquired the WWWA World Tag Team Championship as well, when Jumbo Miyamoto and Aiko Kyo were made the first champions on June 30, 1971.

During the early 1970s, AJW's championship booking was dominated by the traditional trading between a Japanese face and a foreign (usually North American) heel. The tag belt, for example, was traded fifty-six times between 1971 and 1975, each time between a Japanese team and an American team. This pattern began to change in 1975 with the new stardom of Mach Fumiake and the Beauty Pair (Jackie Sato and Maki Ueda). On March 19, 1975, Mach Fumiake won the WWWA Championship from Jumbo Miyamoto, breaking the pattern in the singles division. After that, only three non-Japanese women ever won the belt, the Canadian Monster Ripper, on July 31, 1979, and March 15, 1980, the Mexican La Galactica, on May 7, 1983, and the American Amazing Kong, on June 4, 2004.

On July 6, 1980, the promotion had enough popularity to run more shows throughout the country, which resulted in AJW splitting into two teams. Team A featured wrestlers such as Jackie Sato, Jaguar Yokota and Mimi Hagiwara while Team B featured Nancy Kumi, Lucy Kayama and Chino Sato. This lasted until June 1981.

During the 1980s, AJW continued to feature extraordinarily talented and popular female wrestlers, including Wrestling Observer Newsletter (WON) Hall of Famers, Bull Nakano, Jaguar Yokota, Devil Masami, Dump Matsumoto, and the Crush Gals (Chigusa Nagayo and Lioness Asuka). The feud between the pop culture sensations, the Crush Gals, and the heel stable, Gokuaku Domei, led by Matsumoto, was possibly the most popular angle in all of Japanese wrestling during the 1980s, bringing very high ratings to AJW's weekly television program which caused the show be aired during prime-time. This also resulted in record numbers of girls wanting to become wrestlers with the 1984 auditions having 2,000 candidates.

Up until 1986, AJW had been the only major women's wrestling (joshi puroresu or simply joshi) promotion in Japan. Then, on August 17, 1986, Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling (JWP) was started, by former AJW stars Jackie Sato and Nancy Kumi, as well as boxer Rumi Kazama and others. As All Japan Women's popularity cooled off after the Crush Gals retired, the promotion's television show was moved to midnight.

While AJW remained the top promotion through the early 1990s, due to talent including Akira Hokuto, Aja Kong, Manami Toyota and Kyoko Inoue, the number of joshi puroresu promotions kept increasing, with Ladies Legend Pro-Wrestling and JWP forming in 1992 after the collapse of Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling. This created an unprecedented era of co-operation between the various companies which resulted in many inter-promotional shows including Big Egg Wrestling Universe, the first ever all women's show at the Tokyo Dome. Competition increased again as Gaea Japan formed in 1995 and JDStar formed in 1996 with both promotions having former All Japan Women's stars including Chigusa Nagayo, Akira Hokuto, Lioness Asuka and Jaguar Yokota.

1997 would prove to be a nightmare year for All Japan Women as the owners of All Japan Women's went bankrupt after losing money in real estate, the stock market and other business ventures. Due to this, they lost 14 wrestlers from July to September 1997. Kyoko Inoue, Etsuko Mita, Mima Shimoda, Chaparita Asari, Yoshiko Tamura and others left to form NEO Japan Ladies Pro-Wrestling. Toshiyo Yamada left for Gaea Japan. Aja Kong, Mariko Yoshida, Reggie Bennett, Yumi Fukawa and Rie Tamada left to form Arsion. In October 1997, the promotion's building which held the AJW office, the wrestler dormitories, the training area, the garage (where small events were sometimes held) and a restaurant where the younger wrestlers worked was handed over to creditors. In October, they also lost their television show on Fuji TV which they later regained in July 1998.

In 2002, AJW lost its television spot again and the promotion closed its doors in April 2005 after 37 years, making it the longest-running promotion in Japan up to that time (Men's promotions New Japan Pro Wrestling and All Japan Pro Wrestling have since reached 50 years as of 2022).

Promotion company Tajima Kikaku re-established "New" AJW in 2006, however they only acquired the rights to the promotion's name and logo from the Matsunaga family, not the titles. The talent was mostly borrowed from JWP Project and the cards were sporadic. In 2012 the "New" AJW stopped promoting cards.

Events
The most notable annual events in AJW were the Japan Grand Prix and Tag League the Best. The Japan Grand Prix was held each summer, from 1985 to 2004, and was a tournament to determine the number one contender for the WWWA World Single Championship, similar to the G1 Climax or Champion Carnival seen in the men's promotions New Japan Pro-Wrestling and All Japan Pro Wrestling, respectively. Tag League the Best was held each fall, also from 1985 to 2004, and was a tag team tournament.

AJW also held several regular annual events during the 1990s. The first was Wrestlemarinpiad, which was held in the fall or spring from 1989 to 1997, and for the last time in 2000. Also prominent was Wrestling Queendom, held from 1993 to 1997, the first held in November and the rest in the end of March.

AJW Hall of Fame
The AJW Hall of Fame had its first inducted class enshrined on November 29, 1998, at the Yokohama Arena in Yokohama, Japan. This was at AJW's 30th anniversary event. All but two members of the Hall of Fame (indicated with a †) were inducted at the initial ceremony.

title: All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling


text:
User:Dirksv

User page Dick Vestdijk - for editing an article on Geertgen tot Sint Jans

title: User:Dirksv


text:
Paul Crouch

Paul Franklin Crouch /kraʊtʃ/ (March 30, 1934 – November 30, 2013) was an American television evangelist. Crouch and his wife, Jan, founded the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) in 1973; the company has been described as "the world’s largest religious television network."

Biography
Crouch was born in St. Joseph, Missouri, the third son of oft-traveling Assemblies of God missionaries, Andrew F. Crouch (January 7, 1889 – June 1, 1941) and wife, the former Sara Swingle (September 26, 1891 – September 29, 1976). Crouch had two older brothers, the Rev. Philip Crouch (1918–2005), and John Mark Crouch (1923–1991). Crouch, whose father died when he was seven years old, was mainly raised by his mother with the help of his grandparents. He soon became interested in amateur radio and announced he would use such technology to send the Gospel around the world. He graduated from the Central Bible College (Assemblies of God) in Springfield, Missouri in 1955 with a degree in theology.

Crouch also received three honorary doctorates: a Doctor of Litterarum (D.Litt.) on May 29, 1981, from the California Graduate School of Theology, Glendale, California; a Doctor of Divinity on May 29, 1983, from the American Christian Theological Seminary, Anaheim, California; and a Doctor of Laws degree on May 5, 1985, from Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Crouch and Janice Bethany met in 1957 and were married in Missouri. They have two sons, Paul Crouch, Jr. and Matthew Crouch.

Early broadcasting career
Crouch began his career in broadcasting by helping to build an educational AM station (KCBI) on campus while a student at Central Bible Institute and Seminary. In 1957 he became a radio announcer at KRSD in Rapid City, South Dakota, and progressed rapidly to program director. Shortly thereafter he was promoted to manager of sister station KRSD-TV, the NBC affiliate in Rapid City.

In 1961, he was appointed by the general council of the Assemblies of God to organize and operate their newly formed Department of Television and Film Production in Burbank, California, a position he held for four years. Crouch was responsible for the ongoing production of films focusing largely on foreign missions and foreign missionary works, as well as the Assemblies of God's large inventory of audiovisual materials and children's teaching aids.

From 1965 to 1970 Crouch was general manager of KREL radio in Corona, California. In 1966, he purchased a minority stock interest in KREL. During his time at KREL, he successfully completed the station's application for an increase in power to 5,000 watts.

After leaving KREL in 1970, Crouch was invited to serve as general manager for KHOF-FM and KHOF-TV in San Bernardino, California.

Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) history
Crouch left KHOF in 1973 and with his wife, Jan, founded the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) along with Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker (the Bakkers left in 1975). In 1974, TBN purchased its first TV station, KLXA-TV (now KTBN-TV). Since then, TBN has grown to become the United States' largest Christian television network, and the third largest group owner of broadcast TV stations in the  U.S., with CBS, FOX, and NBC holding fourth, fifth and sixth place, according to TV News Check's annual listing of the Top 30 Station Groups. Forbes.com indicated that Paul F. Crouch had compensation of $402,244 in the Fiscal Year ending on 12/31/08.

TBN is viewed globally on 70 satellites and over 18,000 TV and cable affiliates. TBN is also seen on the web globally. TBN is carried on over 287 television stations in the U.S. and on thousands of other cable television and satellite systems around the world in over 75 countries, where their programming is translated into over eleven languages. He was also executive producer for such Christian films as China Cry (1990), The Omega Code (1999), Carman: The Champion (2001), Megiddo: The Omega Code 2 (2001), and Time Changer (2002).

In the U.S., TBN's coverage grew through agreements with national cable operators. TBN is viewed via major cable and satellite companies such as Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, Verizon FIOS, DirecTV, AT&T, Dish Network, and Charter.

In addition to TBN, Crouch and his wife developed and oversaw operations for TBN's affiliated television networks: Smile of a Child – children's channel, JCTV – youth network, The Church Channel, TBN Enlace USA – Spanish language network,   TBNE-Italian, The Healing Channel – Arabic language network, TBN-Russia, TBN Nejat TV – Persian-language channel, and TBN-HD, TBN's new high definition network.

Death
Crouch died at his home in Orange, California, on November 30, 2013, after 10 years with degenerative heart disease.

Criticisms and controversies
In 2000, Crouch was sued for $40 million by author Sylvia Fleener, who accused Crouch of plagiarism in his popular end-times novel (and subsequent movie), The Omega Code. Fleener's lawsuit alleged that the movie's plot was taken from her own novel, The Omega Syndrome. A former Crouch personal assistant, Kelly Whitmore, revealed that she had encountered a loose-leaf binder in Jan Crouch's luggage that the Crouches referred to as "the End Times project" and that he often called it "The Omega" but said he disliked the working title, "especially the word 'Syndrome'. After the defendant's motion for summary judgment failed the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

In September 2004, the Los Angeles Times reported that in 1998 Crouch paid Enoch Lonnie Ford, a former employee, a $425,000 formal settlement to end a wrongful termination lawsuit. The paper also reported that Ford had alleged a sexual relationship between the two men. TBN officials denied the allegations. On March 15, 2005, Ford appeared at the taping of the ION Television show Lie Detector. The show's producers decided not to air the show, and the outcome of the lie detector test was never released.

A May 2012 New York Times article reported on the personal spending of Paul and Jan Crouch, including "his-and-her mansions one street apart in a gated community" in Newport Beach, California. Paul Crouch received $400,000 in executive salary as president and his wife $365,000 as first vice president of TBN. Brittany Koper, a granddaughter of the Crouches who had authority over finances, claimed that TBN appeared to have violated the IRS ban on "excess compensation" by nonprofit organizations.

Awards and citations

 * Parents Television Council Seal of Approval for TBN
 * Parents Television Council Seal of Approval for JCTV (now JUCE TV)
 * Parents Television Council Seal of Approval for Smile of a Child TV
 * Appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the Private Sector Initiative Project
 * In May, 2009, the United Nations officially recommended the Smile of a Child Foundation to receive special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council for the Democracy Coalition Project

title: Paul Crouch


text:
Jan Crouch

Janice Wendell Crouch (née Bethany; May 14, 1938 – May 31, 2016) was an American religious broadcaster. Crouch and her husband, Paul, founded the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) in 1973.

Early life and ministry
Crouch was the daughter of Reverend and Mrs. Edgar W. Bethany, and grew up in Columbus, Georgia. Her father served as an Assemblies of God pastor, and was the founding president of Southeastern University (Florida). While attending Evangel College in Springfield, Missouri, Crouch met Paul F. Crouch. They married in 1957, and have two sons, Paul Jr. and Matthew, both of whom are high-ranking officials and program hosts on TBN. Jan Crouch also loved children and was well known in the early days of TBN for a child's puppet (a little pink girl in a dress) she called Babushka.

Founding
In 1973, Paul and Jan Crouch co-founded Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) along with Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker (the Bakkers left in 1975). In 1974, TBN purchased its first TV station, KLXA-TV (channel 40, now KTBN-TV) in Southern California, and began distribution through cable systems in 1978. Under the Crouch family, TBN grew to become the United States' largest Christian television network, offering 24-hour commercial-free programming, and TBN is currently the  third-largest over-the-air station group in the United States (measured as percentage of homes reached), with CBS, Fox, and NBC holding the 4th, 5th and 6th place, according to TV News Check's annual listing of the Top 30 station groups.

Growth of TBN
Since its founding, Crouch served as TBN's vice president and director of network programming, as well as the director of programming for TBN's affiliated networks, such as the Smile of a Child children's channel, the JUCE TV youth network, The Church Channel, the TBN Enlace USA Spanish language network, and others. She was also the President and manager of The Holy Land Experience theme park in Orlando, Florida. Jan Crouch and her husband Paul Crouch, senior also signed off on Matt Crouch (TBN) and his wife Laurie—now in charge at TBN, i.e. PTL (Praise the Lord) their signature & original show, as now becoming rather the primary hosts, as well as Behind the Scenes— to have produced over 4 plus major motion pictures, along with other associated and film entertainment groups to make namely Faith-based movies like 'End Times' films The Omega Code (1999) and its sequel Megiddo: The Omega Code 2 (2001).

Lawsuits
In March 2012, Crouch was accused by her granddaughter, a former employee and chief finance director of the network (a registered charity), of misappropriating network funds to spend on a lavish lifestyle. Expenditures included expensive homes, private jets, massive custom wigs, numerous face lifts and breast augmentations and a $100,000 air conditioned mobile home solely for her dogs. The New York Times wrote that Crouch, for nearly two years, rented adjoining rooms for herself and her two Maltese dogs at the deluxe Loews Portofino Bay Hotel while she was building the Holy Land Experience theme park in Orlando, Florida. The suit includes allegations that Jan had an affair with a Holy Land Experience employee.

Also in 2012, another of Crouch's granddaughters sued TBN, alleging that she had been molested and raped by a TBN employee at the age of 13. She alleged that Jan Crouch screamed at her and blamed her for the assault. The employee was subsequently fired but was never reported to authorities. Crouch's lawyers said the network was attempting to cover it up to prevent a scandal, but a spokesperson for the network said they acted on what her mother had told them to do. In 2017, a year after Crouch's death, a jury award the granddaughter $2 million in damages for past and future "mental suffering."

Illness and death
Crouch suffered a massive stroke on May 25, 2016, and was hospitalized. She died in Orlando, Florida, on May 31, 2016, at age 78.

Awards and honors

 * 1990: Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree from Oral Roberts University
 * Golden Angel Award – Excellence in Media
 * Two-time Parents Television Council Entertainment Seal of Approval recipient (for TBN and Smile of a Child).

title: Jan Crouch


text:
Talk:Uruk

Anointing king Mesh-Kiang-Gasher
Mesh-ki-ag-gasher is a more appropriate form; Mec-ki-aj-gacer comes from the ETCSL encoding convention for ASCII representation of Sumerian transliteration.

Some rephrasing is needed for "brought the official kingship with him from the city of Eanna", as Eanna (named after the temple therein, "the House of Heaven"="the House of An") was just one of the two districts of Uruk, separated by the river; the other was Kulaba, which is also referred to in some Wikipedia articles. (Would it be better two write two stubs on Eanna and Kulaba, or redirect these two on Uruk?). In "Gilgamesh and Akka" (from the Sumerian Gilgamesh cycle), Gilgamesh is several times referred to as "Lord of Kulaba", which suggests there was originally two independent settlements. --Oop 10:29, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Lord of Kulaba, versus Mistress of Eanna (Inanna/Ishtar), right? I agree with the basic fact that two settlements grew together (with two quays, two centers of administration.) But in Sumerian society there was also the "En" versus "Nin" (masculine versus feminine), two distinct roles in city administration, (which is not to imply that the two roles were filled by people of corresponding sex.) Somewhere we have Bilgames/Gilgamesh promising Inanna/Ishtar that he won't pass judgement from the temple seat of Inanna. Alan Canon 17:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Masoretic Genesis creates a sothic 243-year Venus from Flood to (80-year old Serug) Mesh-Kiang-NaNa of Ur ruling 36 years, and Mesh-Kiang-Gasher of Ereck on the same dates. I find these Venus dates to be 2369bc Jan 6 (600-3-27) and 2126bc Jan 6 (846-10-13), with anointing on 10-1 (Dec 25) to rule new year 847 (2126bc March 25). As a new year of Greg.March 7 is it possible for the barley of EnMerkar to exist this early on this Venus date, or do we look at Venus 80 Julian years earlier (81 of 360-day and 2 months 60 days) where new year is Greg.May 6 in 2206bc. By reading this Wikipeda article i do not think Enmerkar is the Nimrod who founded Ereck, but rather Nimrod founded Ereck by making Enmerkar its king (presiding Elder). I guess this means EnMerkar precedes this 2127bc of Mesh-King-Gasher (or is it Cush-Shar). The 3077bc Saptarsi Manu (Noah) in India puts Nimrod's death of age 500 in year 950 (2127bc) as if Mesh-Kiang-Gasher becomes king because Nimrod dies. Interesting how Ereck becomes a wall around two cities before Nineveh becomes a (2058bc) wall around 4 cities, and makes me wonder if the 2060bc Marduk Temple of Babel included a wall around (2240bc) Tower and this Temple-foundation by Haran who at 18 left Ur. Using 39-year Mars (Marduk) I can see the confusion between 215-year Nimrod (212 Julian) in Nineveh's 2058bc and the 215-year death of Ur's AmarPal (1881bc). 72.133.177.118 (talk)

, After The Sumerian Translation
Is it part of the transliteration?198.166.59.152 14:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing table placing the Uruk culture in a Neolithic timetable
00:53, 22 January 2007 Codex Sinaiticus (Talk | contribs) (This is one specific, historic city in South Mesopotamia, no need to link all these global archaeological cultures when the article content is not related)

I would disagree with you. I've read a lot of stuff about the Uruk period which can be defined as an culture that spread and innovated civilization in the Mesopotamian region. Thus, not being just an historic city. The Uruk period is critical to the understanding of the rise of civilization, and with a table those interesting in placing the Uruk culture in a bigger picture could do that. It should not be several Uruk-artickles (1) the city, (2) the culture etc. I find the article conted very related.

Do you disagree Codex Sinaiticus?

raven_rs :)

 * Well if the article mentioned anything at all about "Uruk period" - the nebulous, roughly defined archaeological theory - as opposed to Uruk - the actual, known city that definitely existed in a precise location, it would be better. But as it stands, this article is entirely 100% about Uruk, the historical city. I would suggest your "Neolithic timetable" might be more appropriate at Uruk period than here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Population Census Date
"At its population height [WHICH WAS WHEN??], Uruk probably had 50,000–80,000 residents living in 6 square kilometres of walled area, the largest city in the world at its time [AND THAT TIME WAS??]. Uruk represents one of the world's first cities, with a dense population. Uruk also saw the rise of the state in Mesopotamia with a full-time bureaucracy, military, and stratified society. Cities that coexisted at this time [WHICH IS WHAT TIME??] with Uruk were only about 10 hectares in area showing that is was vastly larger and more complex." GeneCallahan (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Asking when i presume you mean was its height of Sumer 2000bc or of Seleucus 300bc or of Moslem 600ad.72.133.177.118 (talk)

Uruk - Erech
Looking at the old Erech article, I agree that stuff should have been merged with this article. However, I think the Biblical material should now be the Erech article. Historicpastime (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I dont - there's just too little there to warrant it. A paragraph here is appropriate. When I first looked at the merge the amount of unique information in the Erech article was so small it was a prime merge prospect. The amount of information regarding the Biblical Erech and the archeological links to Uruk barely warrant a stub.
 * I'd be all for a new Erech article but not until the amount of information in the 'Biblical Erech' paragraph at least triples.210.7.132.71 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 * A started article with suitable stub templates will encourage contribution better than the material being buried in Uruk. Some topics simply have less material, and that shouldn't be the criteria for putting that material in other articles. Historicpastime (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 * True, but the old article was simply a dump of the Britannica lightly edited with no cross-referencing, so trying to imply gravitas just because it was a 'started article' isn't much of an argument either. It's not as though the current position is irrelevant, either. Uruk IS Erech. The reason its here is because more than one person thought it fit better here, and I think it does. If in the end it inspires someone to create an Erech article that's correctly templated and has more material, then its all good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdw0 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I never said Erech should go back to Britannica version, and as I recall, much of the article that was merged was about the archaeological site and belonged in Uruk article. But the "Erech" section in this article should now be used to start a new article. The Bible has its own traditions and should be developed in its own article. Historicpastime (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Why can't the 'Bible traditions' be mentioned here? Does every mention in the Bible need a separate article? 210.7.132.71 (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, Bible traditions can be mentioned here, and linked as well, but they should be developed in their own articles. Historicpastime (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but I'm still not getting it. Do people doing a search of Bible terms expect to find articles with only Bible references and nothing else? That's a bit untrealistic, especially for such an obscure reference. Or do you think the section won't be developed by Bible experts because its not in its own article? Mdw0 (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, yes, people looking up Biblical terms should get what they are looking for. The Biblical Erech is not too obscure for Uruk to have been called Erech for a long time. And yes, an article of its own will encourage Bible experts to edit in their field. Historicpastime (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * (unindent) OK some things are bothering me now:
 * You proposed the merge *one day* before you went and did it.
 * You claim above that "more than one person thought it fit better here", and I see no response at all to your merge proposal.
 * Stylistically, you are using rhetorical questions instead of presenting arguments for keeping these two topics together. Maybe I am assuming wrong, but this smacks of Biblical literalism. In any case, no case has been made for keeping these two topics together.
 * I'm moving the Biblical Erech material to Erech now, where a searcher would expect to find it. Historicpastime (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I had some help on getting the merge right because I was making a mess of it from someone who agreed the merge was a good idea. Given that you've agreed with the vast majority of the merge the one day gap isn't really relevant - but you're right, I probably should've given it a couple of days. But I was happy with the merged text I'd put together and I thought - Be Bold.
 * As for the rhetorical questions - they're not rhetorical. They just might be difficult for someone who likes to makes assertions such as "Bible traditions... should be developed in their own articles' without saying why. To put it mildly - citation needed. That's why I was asking you questions - to see if you had any more than 'it SHOULD be separate.' But you didn't, which was a disappointment.
 * I sense a desire to protect people with a religious bent from being exposed to science or historical debate, especially since you haven't even bothered to link the Erech article back to Uruk AT ALL. Putting 'citation needed' on the last line makes me wonder if you've even READ the Uruk article, because the Sumerian Kings List is the archeological link you need.
 * The reasons for keeping the two together, mentioned earlier is that they're the same place, and there's archeological evidence for it, so people searching for the Biblical reference can see how big and important Uruk is in the scheme of things. I think that sort of redirection is very important for researchers of all types.
 * Why cut the information out of the Uruk article? Don't you think its an important addition? Or are you deliberately trying to separate the two articles? It's going back in.
 * But having said all that - if I'd come across the Erech article as it is now I wouldn't think 'This shouldn't be a separate article.' I'd probably just make the text more explanatory (the simple cut and paste was a bit lazy) and fix the links. Mdw0 (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * 1. Don't call other editors too dumb to understand your questions.

 * 2. Who agrees that your merge is a good idea? I can't find that anywhere.

 * 3. The vast majority of the merge is staying merged, just as you did it. It appears your focus was to make an WP:OR merge of a Biblical tradition with an archaeological site.

 * 4. Cut-and-paste is what splitting is. If you want to add to Erech, add to it. Don't call other editors lazy.

 * Historicpastime (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I didnt say you were too dumb. That's your paranoia coming out. I just said you were wrong to label questions as a rhetorical stylistic argument when they were actual questions.
 * The discussions were on other talk pages. Anyway it doesnt matter now since you said the majority of it was good.
 * The main reason for the merge is that the majority of it was reproduced and better updated in Uruk. I also noticed that there was no mention of Erech in the Uruk article apart from the top line, so an extra section in there would be interesting and relevant. The Uruk site isnt just an archeological site - there's plenty of social and economic history too. I think things relating to Erech belong on the Uruk site, especially since the first line says Biblical name - Erech.
 * I also didn't say you were lazy, I said this was a lazy edit. If you care so much about the Erech article being separate you could at least make some basic fixes to the text so that its separate and makes sense too. Splitting isnt just cut and paste, its creating a new article which ought to be as good as you can make it. You could've changed the references to sections that used to be above it in the Uruk article but now aren't, and added cross references back to the original. All easy stuff. This is your baby, not mine. I'll maintain and maybe even add to the section in the Uruk article.
 * I mentioned before that I think you have an ulterior reason for wanting this information separate, a reason you don't want to reveal here. That was possibly inaccurate, but you haven't responded to that, so I guess we can let that go. Checking the Erech information again, I realise now that the actual link between Uruk and Erech is not very strong. I just assumed it was from all the archeological information in the old Erech article. The primary source which shows Uruk is erech and vice-versa definitely needs to be in the article. If I find a better source for the link I think that should go onto the Uruk page. Mdw0 (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

edits for clarity
I did some edits to fix the problems with the dates and added the first citations also fixed some ambiguity in the growth section--Gurdjieff (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made many edits for clarity nothing was deleted only moved to the paragraph with the matching topic sentence. wherever I could cite a date population or land area I added this information. I also fixed the lead in sentance to meet wiki standards this article still needs alot of work for example when why and how did kullaba form? what happens to uruk after 2000bce? when was the city walled and why? ect.--Gurdjieff (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Erech
Does anyone not believe that the Bible's Erech is Uruk? john k (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * As usual belief doesn't matter - the issue is verifiability. There's a lot of assumptions out there, but what we need is a clear source in the cuneiform to indicate that the Uruk site is Erech. Mdw0 (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * What does that even mean? Erech is a place name in Genesis which apparently refers to a Sumerian city.  It's generally taken to refer to Uruk.  What exactly would constitute confirmation in the cuneiform?  The point isn't confirmation in the cuneiform.  The point is what scholars say.  As far as I'm aware, they all take "Erech" to refer to Uruk, just as they assume Babel refers to Babylon, for instance, or what have you.  Where is the controversy? john k (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Well of course I'm not fluent in Sumerian cuneiform, but if you can find a researcher who is, and who confirms that Uruk and Erech are definitely the same place rather than assuming I'd love to see it. I know that it's generally 'taken' to be the same place, but what proof is there? Of course there doesnt have to be a cuneiform 'quote' to be verifiable, but it would be great if there was one out there - a primary source (cunieform) beats a secondary source (historians writing about it) every time. What would constitute confirmation? Maybe a languages text which offers Uruk and Erech as translations of each other, or a description of Erech that puts it in the same area. Something from the period that confirms Erech is where Uruk is, and not an assumption made centuries later. Mdw0 (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholars consider them to be the same place - obviously the description of "Erech" in the Bible indicates that it's in "Shinar," which scholars take to apparently mean Babylonia. There are no other cities in that region that are phonetically similar to "Erech".  Britannica's article on the city is actually at "Erech"!  Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia also indicate that the two names reference the same city.  Until fairly recently, "Erech" was used in English to refer to Uruk, so sure was everybody that the names meant the same thing.  I don't understand the resistance here.  This is not a wild guess.  It is generally agreed that the Biblical mention of "Erech" is identical to the Sumerian city of "Uruk".  This isn't controversial.  It ought to, at this point, be up to you to point out somebody who doubts the identification, given that all the general reference sources point to it without any further discussion. john k (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Erech" was the name assigned to this site when ANE archaeology was called, and considered, Biblical archaeology. The current reading of the cuneiform name for this city is now UNUG, moving even further away from the Biblical association. For all we know the Biblical tradition might have referred to traditions associated with this city, or another city associated with Nimrod, or more likely it is an amalgamation of different traditions. In any case, making sweeping associations between the Biblical Erech and this site would be original research. Emobatic (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I can gather, "Unug" is the current understanding of the Sumerian name, but the Akkadian name is still taken to be Uruk. And it would certainly not be original research to associate them, as they are certainly associated.  At the very least, listing Erech as a name in the beginning would not be inappropriate, because many older works call the site that, even if we maintain some ambiguity about whether the Biblical Erech actually is Uruk.  I still think that someone should provide some evidence of people who actually don't think Erech is Uruk before we act as though this is a controversial claim. john k (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a distinct lack of evidence, otherwise we'd have something by now. Like you I assumed they were the same place, but I had nothing to back it up. I'd have no problem at all saying they were 'associated' but then you'd have to site the lack of hard evidence weakening the association beyond credibility. Mdw0 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I genuinely don't understand what people are talking about here. Firstly: the lack of activity on a wikipedia page is not evidence of absence of evidence.  Secondly: I just don't understand what you are looking for here.  We have encyclopedias that give "Erech" as an alternative name for "Uruk."  They are, so far as I'm aware, basically phonetically identical.  When the Bible uses "Erech," it is clearly referring to a city in Mesopotamia.  Is there another candidate for the job?  What exactly would constitute evidence that they were the same place?  The basic issue is that Biblical references to "Erech" are taken to refer to Uruk.  Also that early archaeologists called Uruk "Erech" on this very basis.  Is either of these disputed?  Once again, who actually disagrees with this, besides Emobatic, who falsely claims that "Uruk" is not a correct name for the city? john k (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We can make assumptions from now till doomsday, but there is a distinct lack of primary evidence coming forth from interested parties. Of course lack of evidence is not a disproof, but for a major article like this one we need something contemporary which proves Erech and Uruk are names of the same city. Mesopotamia is a big place, and when the Bible refers to Nimrud's second city, it is somewhat incongruous to think his second city was at the opposite end of Mesopotamia to Nineveh, with different kings and cities between them. Encyclopedias can be wrong, and biased in favour of scripture being literally accurate. If the source in the encyclopedias can be found then we can use it. On the other hand if the only reason some scholars refer to Uruk as Erech is because of a tenuous possible link in the Bible then further investigation is required to prove it. Assumptions need to be questioned and tested. You say the early archeologists referred to it as Erech. But why did they? Where is the evidence? Mdw0 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Nimrod's "Erech" is in fact Uruk, Erech is undoubtedly a somewhat obsolescent alternative name for Uruk. So much so that the Britannica article is still actually called "Erech." The Bible refers to Erech as Nimrod's second city after Babel (Baylon), not Nineveh, and lists it alongside Akkad, as well, which are both in the southern half of Mesopotamia.  The Assyrian cities are listed in the next verse.  Beyond that, you say I need to cite sources, or find primary sources that support the identification.  But that's not how it works.  There are tons of sources which unproblematically associate the Biblical name "Erech" with the city of "Uruk".  What you need to find is somebody who actively disputes that identification.  Otherwise it's noncontroversial. john k (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have no problem with that being in the text, the fact that its referred to as Erech. It would just be nice to have more definitive proof. Mdw0 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Uruk Location
In which municipal district of Muthanna is Uruk located in? --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Said to be in As Samawah but looking at Districts of Iraq it's a close call.Ploversegg (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

Article Changes
Looks good. Might want to take a look at Warka Vase, Mask of Warka and Short chronology timeline. I would say "mask" could be put in for deletion, "vase" could either be folded into Uruk or pointed to in the text or See Also, and "chronology" could just go on the See Also list. Minor. Ploversegg (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)ploversegg

Merged "mask" into the article and pointed to the other two in see also--Gurdjieff (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

one more thing that can be done to upgrade the article quality would be to add more categories and add uruk to the see also section of relevant articles--Gurdjieff (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Eanna4composite.svg proposed for deletion
Deletion is proposed and discussed at : commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eanna4composite.svg. Teofilo talk  08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

'Uruk' is not the etymology for 'Iraq'.

 * The Arabic name for Uruk is Warkā'. Uruk was discovered in modern times in 1849. the name 'Iraq' was used a geographic name for at least 1300 years, but doesn't date back into antiquity.
 * The name Iraq comes from Middle Persian, 'Eragh', meaning lowlands, and historically included areas in what is now southern Iraq and low-lying parts of Iran as well (Eilers 1983, 481).
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

7033, date
Now I don't know if this would be all that notable, and even if it was, whether it would fit here, anywhere. But there are people, me included, who instead of considering the date as 2010 from the supposed birth of Jesus Christ, consider it 7033 from the founding of Uruk and thereby notable human civilization. So... Just thought I'd put that out there.99.229.252.229 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Building C
I find nearly nothing here about "building C", it is not in the legenda of the picture. It is called "temple C" by the archaeologists and some people think it is the most beautyful temples there. --Dlugacz (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Harmansah, 2007" source (?)
Hi everyone. Can somebody possibly help understanding what Harmansah, 2007 is. i s not a "conventional way" o list a source at all and some data is used from there that makes absolutely no sense. like 80 000 inhabitants in the bronze period. Sounds absurd because these many inhabitants in a city are very rare even in middle ages. Can anybody explain this "source"?

Algaze (2013), basing estimates on Nissen (2003), suggests an Uruk metro area population of 80-90,000 people in the late period (second half of fourth millennium). References:

Algaze, Guillermo. 2013. "The end of prehistory and the Uruk period." In The Sumerian World, ed. Harriet Crawford. London: Routledge, pp. 68-94. Nissen, H.-J. 2003. "Uruk and the Formation of the City." In Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus, ed. J. Aruz. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, pp. 11-20. Bapu vaitla (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Oldest Writing
I'm interested in the actual age of the oldest writing. Has it been carbon dated, and if so, reliably? The reason is that someone I know keeps saying that the oldest writing is Mesopotamian (without ever sourcing his claim, of course). However, the oldest Egyptian writing is dated to the 34th century BC and King Scorpion. These were pictographs, which very quickly turned into Hieroglyphs in the 32nd century BC. I'm not finding a similar development of Cuneiform from pictographs to the stylized cuneiform, before that date. In fact Mesopotamiam writing goes from pictographs to cuneiform in the 26th century BC. I take it there is no evidence of Egyptian pictographs being based on Mesopotamian pictigraphs? So what exactly is the claim that Egyptian writing came from Mesopotamia and therefore isnot the oldest, based on? MrSativa (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi MrSativa, I found this, after reading your post, because it spiked my interest:

"The Dispilio tablet was discovered by a professor of prehistoric archaeology, George Xourmouziadis, in 1993 in a Neolithic lake settlement in Northern Greece near the city of Kastoria. A group of people used to occupy the settlement 7,000 to 8,000 years ago. The Dispilio tablet was one of many artefacts that were found in the area, however the importance of the table lies in the fact that it has an unknown written text on it that goes back further than 5,000 BC. The wooden tablet was dated using the C12 method to have been made in 5260 BC, making it significantly older than the writing system used by the Sumerians."

The web link is http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-writings-ancient-places-europe/dispilio-tablet-oldest-known-written-text-00913

How true this article is, I do not know. I could not find anything on your unknown source, the only reason I am on the article of Uruk/ Erech is because i am writing a fictional book, but would like certain things in it to be accurate as possible. Anyways, I will continue to do more research on this subject matter, because I am including Egyptians in my book as well. Mrs.Decker (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Supplementary Information
I only wish to contribute that archaeologist David W. Anthony states in a book I'm reading on a different region's archaeology that the information on Uruk in this article "has been completely rewritten" in recent times. Anthony's information relying on North Mesopotamian and European archaeology as well as pre-Persian archaeology describes a period from 3,700 BCE to 3,100 BCE when Uruk and Ur were the urban anchors of an extensive trade and resource extraction network that involved significant mass-production of finished goods found in burials in Susa, Arslantepe, and Maikop while sourcing gems from as far away as land in today's Tajikistan. My long-term observation of Wikipedia is that all trace of these remarks I'm making will be obliterated by personally offended young residents of New York City who personally don't like the plausibility that what I'm saying has been commercially print-published in a legitimate source of information for a Wikipedia article, by Princeton University Press, so I'm not squandering my own resources editing this article; but if I'm wrong then perhaps the thirty-years-out-of-date information in this article could be updated by means of reliance on more recent science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.39.188 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong translation from Arabic
The two translations are mistakenly exchanged. I am not able to manage these confused codings.HJHolm (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The following photo does not depict the White Temple
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:White_Temple_ziggurat_in_Uruk.jpg

The photo linked above is claimed in the article to depict the White Temple, which was located in the Anu District. In reality it shows the Eanna Ziggurat, located in the Eanna District. 79.167.148.97 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Uruk


text:
Gernikako Arbola

Gernikako Arbola ("the Tree of Gernika" in Basque) is an oak tree that symbolizes traditional freedoms for the Biscayan people, and by extension for the Basque people as a whole. It is located in Guernica, Biscay, Basque Country, Spain. The Lords of Biscay (including kings of Castile and Carlist pretenders to the throne) swore to respect the Biscayan liberties under it, and the modern Lehendakari of the Basque Country swears his charge there.

Dynasty
In the Middle Ages, representatives of the villages of Biscay would hold assemblies under local big trees. As time passed, the role of separate assemblies was superseded by the Guernica Assembly in 1512, and its oak would acquire a symbolic meaning, with actual assemblies being held in a purpose-built hermitage-house (the current building dates from 1833). It was the Spanish regent Maria Christina accompanied by her infant daughter Queen Isabella II the last Spanish monarch to swear an oath to the charters under the iconic oak in 1839.

The known specimens form a dynasty:
 * "the father", planted in the 14th century, lasted 450 years
 * the "old tree" (1742–1892), re-planted in 1811. The trunk now is held in a templet in the surrounding garden.
 * the third (1858–2004), re-planted in 1860, survived the Bombing of Guernica in 1937 but had to be replaced because of a fungus. The gardeners of the Biscayan government keep several spare trees grown from the tree's acorns.
 * the fourth (1986–2015) was replanted on the site of its father on 25 February 2005. It died of a humidity related disease on 15 January 2015.
 * the fifth was planted in March 2015, aged 14.

The Tree of Gernika came to prominence during the First and Third Carlist Wars as a symbol of Basque liberties, whose renown and appreciation spread among the Basque diaspora world over during the late 19th century and mid-20th century thanks to the popularity of Jose Maria Iparragirre's namesake anthem. Maria Cristina of Savoy, regent during her daughter Isabel's minority in the First Carlist War, swore the Basque charters under the Oak in 1839.

The tree's significance is illustrated by an event which occurred shortly after the Guernica bombings. When the Francoist troops took the town, the Tercio of Begoña, formed by Carlist volunteers from Biscay, put an armed guard around the tree to protect it against their Falangist allies, who had wanted to fell this symbol of Basque nationalism. On 26 June 1950, Xavier of Bourbon-Parma, Carlist claimant to the Spanish throne during Franco's dictatorial regime, swore the Basque charters in the Oak of Guernica.

An oak tree is depicted on the heraldic arms of Biscay and subsequently on the arms of many of the towns of Biscay. An oak leaf logo is used by the local government of Biscay. The logo of the Basque nationalist party Eusko Alkartasuna has one half red and the other green, the colors of the Basque flag. An old version of the logo of the Basque nationalist youth organisation Jarrai also display oak leaves. The Basque authorities present descendants of the tree as a symbol of friendship to Basque diaspora groups and related cities.

Other fuero trees in Biscay

 * Árbol Malato in Luiaondo, another tree of special significance for the Basques.
 * The Abellaneda oak for the Encartaciones Juntas.
 * The Gerediaga oak for the Durango area.
 * The Aretxabalagana oak, where Biscaynes had to receive their lord when he came to put his oath on the fuero under the Gernika oak.

title: Gernikako Arbola


text:
Redcliffe, Western Australia

Redcliffe is a suburb of Perth, Western Australia, located in the City of Belmont local government area.

The boundaries of the suburb are determined by the Great Eastern Highway, Tonkin Highway and Epsom Avenue, Belmont, and the grounds of the Perth International Airport which lie on the eastern edge of the suburb.

The story of its name is ambiguous: while some claim it was named after steep red clay deposits that lined the banks of the Swan River when settlers first arrived, others claim that it was named after the ancestral home of an early settler. The suburb was once a single property near modern-day Water Street and the main house, "Nulsen Haven" still stands today. The local primary school was built in 1908 and at this time, Redcliffe had been transformed from one property into many small farms after being subdivided in 1897.

Modern Redcliffe is a mix of residential, semi-industrial and retail buildings. It is 18 minutes from the Perth central business district and a short walk from the Swan River.

Transport
Redcliffe was previously only served by Transperth bus routes 39 between its terminus on Grand Parade and Elizabeth Quay bus station, and the high frequency route 935 between Perth Airport and Kings Park via the Belmont Forum Shopping Centre and Perth City, along with several other routes operating along the Great Eastern Highway.

On the 9th of October 2022, the new Redcliffe railway station opened as part of the Airport line. The station provides a rail link to High Wycombe to the east via Perth Airport, and Claremont station to the west via Perth. It also resulted in changes for bus routes in the area. Route 935 was changed to terminate at Redcliffe Station instead of Perth Airport, while also operating a more direct route along Stanton Road instead of Johnson Street and Treffone Street. Route 39 was extended to operate to the railway station, serving the aforementioned streets instead of the 935. A new high frequency route, the 940, travels directly to the Perth CBD via the Great Eastern Highway along the north part of the suburb. Route 293 travels to High Wycombe railway station and provided a connection between Stanton Road and Great Eastern Highway via Epsom Avenue. Other services to the Redcliffe Train Station include the 290 and 291, which connect to Midland railway station, and the 292, which operates as a circular route to the Perth Airport Terminals 3 & 4 from Redcliffe Station to replace routes which previously travelled to the Airport such as the 935. This route is usually operated by buses equipped with luggage racks for passenger convenience.

Bus

 * 39 Redcliffe Station to Elizabeth Quay Bus Station – serves Second Street, Stanton Road, Morrison Street, Treffone Street, Towton Street, Johnson Street and Epsom Avenue
 * 290 and 291 Redcliffe Station to Midland Station – serve Dunreath Drive, Fauntleroy Avenue and Great Eastern Highway
 * 292 Redcliffe Station to Redcliffe Station – Circular Route, serves Dunreath Drive
 * 293 Redcliffe Station to High Wycombe Station – serves Second Street, Stanton Road and Epsom Avenue
 * 935 Redcliffe Station to Kings Park (high frequency) – serves Second Street, Stanton Road and Epsom Avenue
 * 940 Redcliffe Station to Elizabeth Quay Bus Station (high frequency) – serves Dunreath Drive, Fauntleroy Avenue and Great Eastern Highway

Rail

 * Airport Line
 * Redcliffe Station

title: Redcliffe, Western Australia


text: File:Randwick sydney.png

title: File:Randwick sydney.png