text:
Talk:Battle of Leipzig

Numbers for the battle
The numbers for this battle were placed at 220,000 for the French and 350,000 for the Coalition previously. However, according the Stephen Pope's Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars the armies nubmered thus:

COALITION: Schwarzenberg - 230,000 Blücher - 54,000 Plus Bernadotte and Bennigsen with 150,000 reinforcements between them (arriving on second day of battle). TOTAL: 434,000 Allied troops (probably slightly lower, given that Bernadotte and Bennigsen probably didn't have quite the full 150,000 - but certainly not lower than 425,000).

FRENCH: Napoleon: 177,000 Plus Sebastiani with 14,000 reinforcements arriving on he second day of battle. TOTAL: 191,000 French troops

Where the extra 29,000 French troops that were previously mentioned in the battle box came from I do not know. Nor do I know where over 80,000 Allied troops went missing from the lineup. I have rectified the figures accordingly.

Second Battle of Leipzig
Shouldn't there be a note that the Battle of Breitenfeld (1642) is sometimes called the 'First Battle of Leipzig'?
 * I would think so, sir.--Anglius 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Coalition forces and their commanders

 * I would also think that General-in-Chief Barclay de Tolly, the Russian commander, would be mentioned.--Anglius 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Barcaly (Alexander I) was NOT the commander-in-chief. There were were four coalition armies. I have added their composition and their commanders. Nominally, Karl Johan of Sweden was the overall commander. Largely as a political compromise between Prussia, Russia, Austria and Sweden.

Agree with tha above comment. There is no reliable source mentioning Barclay de Tolly as supreme commander. Some sources mention Schwarzenberg. Other sources mention prince Karl Johan as the compromise described above.

Liberation???
As people enjoyed more liberties and rights under Napoleon than they did under the Prussian, Austrian or Russian aristocracies, how can anyone consider Europe east of the Rhine as being 'liberated'??
 * Says who? In which cases? - The people in "Matrix" have also been happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.56.0.113 (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Napoleon abolished serfdom, thats liberty bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.59.146 (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

130 000 Germans were forced to march with the Grande Armee against Russia in 1812, most of them died. And you wonder, if it was a "Liberation" ?!! Yes, it was !!, in Germany the Wars of 1813/1814 are called the "Befreiungskriege" (the "liberation wars"). For Germans the Napoleonic Regime was nothing but a terror regime and many German historians regard the Befreiungskriege as the hour of birth of the renewed German nation, despite it took another 60 years before the 2nd German Reich was founded in 1871. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ED:F70C:BD00:F0F3:D95C:B475:3618 (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 * It was political liberation. Napoleon's administration had been milking the Germanic nations for some time. Most, but certainly not all, the German armies that marched into Russia got out. The Austrian Army was a good bit of it and was never in serious danger. The Prussian Corps joined the Russians. I'm pretty certain that the Saxon contingent got mauled.Tirronan (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Napoleon's rule was considered to be very libertarian -- his various reforms were the opposite of oppression. The entire Napoleonic period can be seen as various aristocracies/kings fighting against an enlightened despot (Napoleon). So in that sense, it was not a political liberation, not a civil rights liberation. It was a restoration of political power to the original parties -- whether they were more or less oppressive. Nobody thinks that the Czar and Prussian/Austrian kaisers were somehow more in favor of individual liberty than Napoleon. He was the arch enemy of kings. Not exactly Cromwell -- but you get the idea. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Expansion
Given that in many ways this battle was at least as important as Waterloo I have decided to start expanding it. I would sure like some help its a fairly massive job. Tirronan 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

French Generals
Even thourh there is lack of historical documents, especially battle maps, on the Battle maps it shows Marshals Ney, MacDonald, and Murat as being important commanders during the Battle. Kommisar Yan 16:39, 3 March 2007

I believe the article does as well Tirronan 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your judgement that this battle was at least as important as Waterloo both from a military standpoint and a political standpoint. The Prussians vs. Russians debate is in many ways a backward projection of contemporary 20 century politics that has little to do with Leipzig. The same goes for the "liberty" discussion. It seem to me, that it is in fact the Austro-Hungarian monarchy's contribution that is underrated in the discussion of this battle as well as the Napoleonic wars in general. I am currently preparing the diary of one of my ancestors who participated in the battle for publication and can give numerical data on the battle. Some may be relevant for the maps. These data can of course not be taken at face value but at the very least can be used to cross check statements in the secondary literature for their validity. A table with participating commanders, commanded units, days participated and locations held, taken or abandoned might be necessary to give an overview over this complex piece of history. Mdenk (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 * It really gets silly when you consider that the Prussians and Russians got on wonderfully at this time. Looking at the order of battle you will often notice that Prussian and Russian formations were paired together to make an army and together they accomplished much.  As a footnote you might notice that Blucher seemed to prefer his Russian formations for urban fighting as they were more disciplined at it than his own troops.  Both the the countries backed each other up at the congress of Vienna as well.--Tirronan (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian flag
Instead of the white-blue-red Russian flag, shouldn't either the Russian imperial flag (horizontal black-gold-white) or the green Russian army flag be used in the overview box? Uly 03:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

order of allies in the box
...while many russian soldiers reached the battlefield when the battle was already decided. The numbers don't say anything about the influence in it. As it is now it suggest the reader that it was a battle fought mainly between french and russians. But this is just not true. Forget the website stated below, (with the numbers of soldiers each nation provided for the battle). It is just wrong. This page does not say anything about the 36.000 Poles in the ranks of the russian contingent but declares them as "russians".--88.74.45.127 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Register an account and make your case do not just change things. Tirronan 20:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. you are an unregistered IP address.
 * 2. I wrote much of this article and I am not anti-prussian by any means.
 * 3. You need to put what you want changed with citation of source before this would be considered.

Ok, because my english is not good enough I am not going to work here. I have an account in the german wiki. I did this revert because the user who changed this first is also activ in the german wiki. He is well known as an russian-nationalist, and he did this change in the german article, too. I gave him an fundamental answer, with sources and facts, why he was wrong. Hava a look in the german version please. There hes is called "Voevoda". That is the reason why I wanted to change it here to. It is only the remains of sovjet propaganda as it was teached in the ex-sovjet and ex-GDR educationssytem (like the imperialisttheory as justification for the "anti-Fascist protective barrier" in Berlin. Do you want me to write the german sources here?? I think its useless for you, or?--88.72.254.161 20:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC) What are your sources? where do you got the idea that the russian contingent was so dominant in this battle that it has to stay on top?

An info box is a silly thing to get into a revert war on. The Prussian contribution is all over the main article and I know because I wrote 95% of it. Blucher lead the Northern forces for instance. I know about York's contributions. I am an American and I don't have a national axe to grind. In fact I wrote most of the Prussian sections in the English Battle of Waterloo and took a great deal of heat for it. Anything I write will be cited and I stick to what unit moved where and what it accomplished. Now please if you edit in here do so with an English account. I appologise if you didn't understand but we get about 100 IP edits and most of it is out and out vandalism by kids. I am going to revert this until I get a handle on what was done by whom and why. This is history and not national honor, what happened happened and that is it. Prussia had much to do with the Battle of Nations, so did every nation mentioned. Tirronan 00:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you! no more to say.--88.72.196.216 07:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, the flags of Saxony and Prussia in the box are wrong. Both were used later. (Saxony had yellow-black colors at this time and before, Prussia a black eagle on white ground until 1896? I guess--88.74.60.183 09:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll change them to the correct colors later on when the all this has calmed down. Tirronan 17:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

please delete of dead links
many weblinks not working and please remove of these weblinks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.90.150 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag Box Reverts
This is a formal request that all parties cease reordering the flag box. Please bring your issues here for discussion and resolution. Please to not revert on reorder the flag box before coming to a resolution here. Any more of this and I will be talking to the admins about losing editing rights Tirronan 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexander I
According to Henri Troyat, Alexander I took a certain amount of personal control over battle command, disagreeing with Schwarzenberg at certain points and redirecting the troops under his command (to good effect, as it turned out). Should this be reflected somewhere? Is it not significant enough, or is Troyat not a good source? - 24.193.251.27 (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Cvx52IEGO4gC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=alexander+admonished+Schwarzenberg&source=bl&ots=j9ioX3Ph-F&sig=uBHLHFGg3V-lFsCFJxDOURq_eXo&hl=en&ei=O9oGTrT5J8je0QHlnuDFCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=alexander%20admonished%20Schwarzenberg&f=false

 * Rather a side note but Alexander provided good direction at times and proved he had grown up as a commander.Tirronan (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Henri Troyat is about as reliable as... Henri Troyat i.e not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibnrustah (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

UK in the infobox
Why is the UK in the infobox of this battle? To my knowledge, they had nothing to do whatsoever in terms of military contribution. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They actually provided a rocket battery for the battle.Tirronan (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, a battery, that's what? 50-100 men and 8-15 guns? That's really marginal for a battle involving some 600,000 men and 1500-2000 cannon, isn't it? I mean, there were dozens of staff officer of different nationalities in the various armies during the Napoleonic Wars, does that mean that we have to put the country's flag each time?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, Alex if you want it out take it out, I reversed an anon IP because I don't trust anything they do.Tirronan (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok ;-) Best, Alex --Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

UK at Leipzig
There was actually a brigade of British rocket troops at Leipzig, however their contribution to the battle was fairly small as the rockets had basically no effect at all on enemy troops. However they did well in lighting the village of Paunsdorf on fire. The British rocket troops were commanded by Bernadotte as they were with Bernadottes Swedish army.Also Perhaps the only British contribution in the main theatre of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.242.162 (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1813 - The Battery fought as the only British Army unit present at the Battle of Leipzig. They were attached to the bodyguard of Bernadotte, Crown Prince of Sweden. During the battle Captain Richard Bogue, the troop Commander was killed in action. The troop were awarded the battle honour Leipzig but this ceased, when the Royal Regiment of Artillery were awarded the battle honour Ubique. During the Eve of Battle Dinner (17 October) the Battery toasts "the King" [of Sweden] with akvavit and on the anniversary of the battle the reigning monarch of Sweden sends greetings to the battery....Andy Devenish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.199.40 (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Date discrepancy
The caption of the painting: "Richard Caton Woodville - Charge of Polish uhlans at Leipzig 1912", which is included in this article indicates that it is from an event that took place in 1812. However, the Battle of Leipzig took place in October of 1813. Something is amiss here... --Saukkomies talk 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is "von Bulow" used throughout the article, rather than "von Bülow"?
I mean, I can't understand why in Bülow's case, the umlaut is omitted, while it is (correctly) used for Blücher.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 * That is entirely my fault. I am an American and don't have that character on my keyboard. Please feel free to edit the article to change it.Tirronan (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

French forces did not enter Germany again until World War I.
That is a common myth but wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War#Occupation_of_Saarbr.C3.BCcken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.242.87 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusing infobox
Could anyone fix the infobox please? It's currently very confusing. In strength, one could mix up that the 25,000 Swedes (which are real Swedish soldiers) is how big the "Army of the North" was, when it was actually a lot bigger. However, on the casualties, it says 4,000 dead and wounded Swedes which is obviously the casualties of the "Army of the North" and not the 'real Swedish soldiers' which was only 170 or so. Same goes for Russian casualties where it says 4,000 when they were, obviously a lot more. I only have limited information about the battle, so I hope anyone with better knowledge could fix this. Imonoz (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Coaliton Army
Hello. I think in the infobox in section unit involved shouldn't be write Army of Poland but: Army of Russia. Poland fought on the Napoleon side against the Coalition. -89.228.232.64 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's some errors in the infobox unfortunately, however, the "Army of Poland" is the accurate name for it (doesn't mean the army was made up of Poles but that it was operating from there), just like the "Army of the North" had over or around 100,000 soldiers if I'm not mistaken, but there was only 25,000 Swedes in there. However, the strength reports, indicates there was 25,000 Swedes in the battle, which is correct, but then it says there was 4,000 Swedish losses which is incorrect, these were the losses of the "Army of the North" and not the Swedes (which was, in reality only 170 or so). The infobox is very confusing. Imonoz (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry that was my mistake, I just thought that if there's flag of Russia,and next to it the signature of: Army of Poland, there must be something wrong. 89.228.203.35 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

More references
There are a lot of paragraphs that are completely lacking citations, as well as long paragraphs that need more citations than they currently do. — howcheng  {chat} 15:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Bernadotte and Napoleon.
The article states "The Swedish prince was the ex-French Marshal Jean Baptiste Jules Bernadotte. He had been one of Napoleon's most trusted field marshals, but Napoleon had stripped him of command in 1810, which led to his defection to the Coalition cause." This is too simplified and not 100% accurate. The Bernadotte-Napoleon relationship was strained and had been for a long time. In fact for the most part Napoleon seemed to have actually mistrusted Bernadottes loyalty as he thought Bernadotte was too ambitious and even suspected him of planning a coup against him at one point. (this was proven false however) Obviously Bernadotte was trusted enough to be made Field marshal, but to say he was "..one of Napoleon's most trusted field marshals" does not resonate with the facts. Also: Bernadotte was stripped of command yes, but this was just the last straw in a series of events that made him accept the offer of the Swedish Crown. He was already disillusioned by his experiences under Napoleon. The article excludes this part of the facts and makes it sound like everything was peachy (or at least nominal) until his removal from command afterwhich he went to the Swedes as a sort of revenge. 81.227.190.9 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Russian contingents in every field army?
In the info box, it shows that Russia had troops in every field army, but, in sourced sections, all army's are all one nations. Is this true? Kai2004 (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 * The Army of Bohemia is not so shown in the infobox. The Army of Poland was a Russian army. It is well cited that the Prussian Army of Silesia included Russian troops under Blucher's command - see the action of October the 16th. On October the 19th the Army of the North is reinforced from the Army of Silesia, the reinforcements including Langeron's Russian Corps. The only thing I'm not quite clear on is whether a significant number of Prussians end up under Bernadotte. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 * There were Prussian Corps under Russian Command, Russian Corps under Prussian Command. This was in fact a measure of just how close the two countries had become. At the Battle of Deniwitz Bulow was serving under Bernadotte. I believe that in this battle he was just leading the Swedish Army. Blucher had overall control of the Northern armies.Tirronan (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Saxon and Württemberg defections 18 October
What was the scale of the Saxon and Württemberg defections on 18 October? German Wikipedia notes: "Dagegen griff erst am Nachmittag der rechte Flügel der Böhmischen Armee unter Bennigsen ein. Er eroberte Zuckelhausen, Holzhausen und Paunsdorf, woraufhin 3.000 bis 4.000 Sachsen und 500 württembergische Reiter unter General Karl von Normann-Ehrenfels auf die alliierte Seite wechselten. Dieser Verrat sorgte dafür, dass in Frankreich noch Jahrzehnte später Abtrünnige mit dem Ausspruch „C'est un Saxon“ – „Das ist ein Sachse“ – beschrieben wurden."

Soon after, however, the Saxon King was taken prisoner by his own troops. It seems they acted on their own accord, and were not following orders. This presumes some Saxons and Würtenbergers remained loyal to Napoleon until the end of the battle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Need help finding more information/history on Mecklenburg-Schwerin
We should expand the article about Mecklenburg-Schwerin...Its role in Various wars, like its war with Denmark, its involvement in the Napoleonic wars, and wars of German unification. Mecklenburg98 (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry...I meant for this on the Mecklenburg-schwerin article...However, more info on Mecklenburg involvement at Liepzig would be nice. I have information on Mecklenburgs involvement, but I'm not sure, if it needs to be added Mecklenburg98 (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing
Sweden did participate with 1,500 canons Sao saosson (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sweden did not. The cite you have produced says that the Allies overall had 1,500 guns; these were not all Swedish, and they are already listed in the infobox so there is no need to list them twice.
 * Do not accuse users of vandalism just because you don't like their edits. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom in infobox
There is really no basis for excluding UK from infobox, their troops participated in battle and suffered casualties. General standard in battle infoboxes is to include all participants, regardless if their participation was limited to only some small unit(s) operating as part of some larger formation of another country, just some examples: Battle of Borodino (GA), Battle of Waterloo (GA), Normandy landings (GA), Guadalcanal campaign (FA), Battle of Musa Qala (FA). Weight complaint is a nonsense, by putting UK at bottom below smaller German states, and including their strength figure, we make it very clear for readers that their participation was minor. Also we don't have any issues with infobox getting overly large here currently, so there is really no practical reason to start inventing some arbitrary cutoff point to exclude some countries.--Staberinde (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 * You need a source which clearly states that the UK was a belligerent in the battle (this is absolutely not made clear in the article), the one which merely mentions a British company under Swedish command, as part of the Swedish force, is not going to cut it; it was not an independent British unit with its own command structure, the company was more or less leased to the Swedes (and there's really no reason to have every nationality displayed in the infobox). One problem this is causing is that their number [150] is counted twice, since they're already accounted for in the number the sources are giving for the Swedish strength [18000-25,000], thus creating inaccuracies which should be avoided, even if it's minor. Also, what do we know about the 6,000 troops from Mecklenburg-Schwerin? They're not mentioned anywhere in the article, which makes me suspicious that they too might be counted twice. This infobox needs an overlook.. 81.224.71.102 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * British Army unit participating in battle is very much sufficient to establish UK as combatant. This leasing argument is nonsense, as by that logic most French client states should be removed from Napoleonic wars battle infoboxes, as all those contributions were basically such "leased units". Only reasonable reason to exclude some nationality from infobox would be if infobox was getting excessively long, that's actually a valid issue in some articles but clearly not a problem here. This inaccuracies complaint about strength figures would be a relevant concern if Swedish figure was given with 100 soldier accuracy, but as it has only vague range of rounded estimates this is quite silly issue, although I guess there is always option to add a short clarifying footnote. Btw, regarding Mecklenburg-Schwerin, there is a source but with no page number it is hard to check, quick google also gives some indication that it may be confused with Mecklenburg-Strelitz, although I didn't dig much deeper at the moment.--Staberinde (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Order of battle
I've noticed that the French counterpart of this article has an entire order of battle page dedicated to the battle, going into greater detail the orginisation of both the French and Coalition armies. Should this article have something similar? 86.128.65.111 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Leipzig


text:
Talk:Bibliotheca Alexandrina

Egyptian anti-semitism in the Bibliotheca
I was wondering what the general feeling was as to whether this should be included?

EXCERPT from wiki article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: On November 17, 2003, an Egyptian weekly al-Usbu‘ reported that the manuscript museum at the Alexandria Library, displayed the first Arabic translation of the Protocols at the section of the holy books of Judaism, next to a Torah scroll. The museum's director Dr. Yousef Ziedan was quoted as saying in an interview: "...it has become one of the sacred [texts] of the Jews, next to their first constitution, their religious law ... more important to the Zionist Jews of the world than the Torah, because they conduct Zionist life according to it ... It is only natural to place the book in the framework of an exhibit of Torah." It also quoted him as saying that no more than one million Jews were killed by the Nazis, but Zionists manipulated the "knowledge that has reached the world".

Dr. Yousef Ziedan strongly denies these quotes, accusing al-Usbu‘ of attributing "fabricated, groundless lies" to him and stating that "the Protocols is a racist, silly, fabricated book":

 * "The story began with an article in an Egyptian newspaper, al-Usbu‘, two weeks ago (on November 17th, 2003), which alleged quoting from me utterly senseless statements intertwining facts with fancies. A month before, a journalist from the aforementioned newspaper interviewed me concerning the recent refurbishment of the manuscript and rare book museum. I handed her a written statement, as was the case with other journalists who covered the same news. Although, she concluded her article with my exact words, she started it with fabricated, groundless lies. She falsely reported me saying that I placed an edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion at the center of the museum alongside the Jewish Torah and divine books. Moreover, she claimed that I told her that this book is more significant then the Torah... On my part, I would like to maintain to the visitors of ziedan.com that the Protocols is a racist, silly, fabricated book. Perhaps, I should consider more thoroughly the Jewish issue on the academic level and furnish my vision of the interaction of religions. As civilized people, we totally renounce racism and call for tolerance and constructive interaction between people."

After the publication, director of the Library Dr. Ismail Serageldin issued a statement: "Preliminary investigation determined that the book was briefly displayed in a showcase devoted to rotating samples of curiosities and unusual items in our collection. ... The book is a well-known 19th century fabrication to foment anti-Jewish feelings. The book was promptly withdrawn from public display, but its very inclusion showed bad judgment and insensitivity..."

The 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty demands the sides "to refrain from organizing, instigating, inciting, assisting or participating in acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, subversion or violence against the other Party."

end excerpt

Does anyone object to my adding this information? It would seem to cast doubt on the "rekindling" of "brilliance", if true. -Kasreyn 04:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Egyptian anti-semitism in the Bibliotheca
As long as this can not be confirmed I see no point of adding it. It doesn't further our knowledge with the library in any helpful way.
 * What makes you think it isn't confirmed? I quoted the source above.  Kasreyn 08:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * hunh ?, and what you meant is confirmed, the newspaper's (al-osbou') quote, or its denial by Dr. Ziedan ?
 * please, wikipedia isn't the right place for funny/weird senseless news.
 * by the way, anti-semitism doesn't mean anti-zionist doesn't mean anti-jewish, Egyptian people themselves are now half semitist, like arabs (from arabia) are.
 * no mean to spread such propaganda in the FREE wikipedia, keep it for israeli officials, and its denial for egyptian officials.
 * Khaled.khalil 06:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Location near ancient library?
I've read in several sources that the ancient library was located near the centre of the city, within 50m of the intersection of the streets that are today named Sidi al-Metwali and An-Nabi Daniel. The new library is about 1.5km away, on the Corniche. Saying this is "near" the site of the ancient library is stretching the truth somewhat. Can anyone verify this? --Gene_poole 05:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

 * can you list (at least) one of your sourses, if you can you may modify the article.
 * Khaled.khalil 06:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic Rewrite Needed
This article has clearly been authored primarily by those who do not speak English as a first language. It is in dire need of a rewriting by a native speaker. At that point, it will be easier to guage whether there are POV issues or whether they are arising out of poor semantics.

One and a half kilometers is walking distance, I'd call that "near."81.7.91.43 11:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV discussion
The editor (User:Xiaphias) who placed the POV-template gave the following reasons for his initiative: Both of the arguments seem vague to me. The cited sources are established magazines and can be easily looked up in a library. I'll actually do that myself now that I think of it. It's not because you have to physically move to check a source that it automatically is an invalid citation.
 * Seems not neutral to him
 * Cited sources are not available on the internet, so the citations can't be checked on the internet

If the sources turn out to be cited correctly I'm removing the POV template for sure.

But if there are people in favor of keeping the template, can we please have a more thought through discussion about this section and its possible POV problem? Key to the city 20:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, here is result n°1:

 * reference Bruce Watson, "Rising Sun", Smithsonian, april 2002, I quote:

"Though it possesses far fewer books than any other celebrated library--about 500,0o0 as compared with the 9.6 million books and other printed materials in the Library of Congress--it is drawing worldwide attention, both for its bold architecture and for its proximity to the site of the most famous library of the ancient world."

"'Everyone knows it is a beautiful building,' said one Egyptian businessman, 'but they should ask what's inside it. What are the books?' In fact, the collection specializes in the history of Mediterranean cultures. Treasures include copies of rare manuscripts from the Arab conquest of Spain, donated by the Spanish government; documents from the Suez Canal construction; and thousands of Arabic manuscripts culled from Egypt's other repositories. Yet the businessman's question contains a barb. The world's ships no longer dock in Alexandria, and Egypt is no longer as rich as it was when the Ptolemies paid a king's ransom for Aristotle's personal library. Library directors have funds to buy only about 50,000 books per year (they expect as many annually from donations). But at that rate, the library won't reach its capacity of eight million titles for 80 years. Even more problematic: Can the library be 'a lighthouse of learning,' as former project manager Zahran likes to boast, in Egypt's censorious climate?"

 * Contents of the Criticism section: correct. This even covers the censor issue too. Key to the city 10:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Result n°2: Michel Arseneault, "Alexandria, from papyrus to the internet", The UNESCO Courier, (april 1999), I quote:

 * "The BA is due to be officially opened at the end of this year by president Mubarak, who will be running for a fourth term of office in October. Will his opponents criticize him for spending so much money on a fancy library when half the country's adult population cannot read or write? Egypt is forking out almost two-thirds of the $172 million cost of the building itself..."

 * Check. I'm not even going to look up the other article. The editor who wrote the criticism section did his homework. I'm removing the template. I'll tone it down a bit too, to make it more in harmony with the cited articles. Key to the city 10:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for verifying these sources! -kotra (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird POV sign?
Why is it that the only references in this article are in the criticism section? Murderbike (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Because the guy who wrote the criticism section used sources and the other people didn't? I don't get what you're trying to say... Key (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What language is "Bibliotheca Alexandrina"?
Is it ancient Greek? This should be noted, I think. Even though it doesn't have any direct importance, it's useful to know what language something is in. -kotra (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Its Latin; which makes sense could the Romans were the first to burn the original library, i guess. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks! confirms that it is Latin. I've added (Latin for "Library of Alexandria") now. -kotra (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Four years of high school Latin and i finally had a chance to apply it to a practice situation;)--Dudeman5685 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Literacy criticism
I've removed the illiteracy issue criticism here. While there are sources about Egypt's illiteracy rate, there isn't a source that anyone is connecting the library's cost with that issue. It feels like synthesis to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Digital Assets Repository
Hello. I recently edited the article by adding a new section called Digital Assets Repository, but I figured out after editing that there is a separate page for it Digital Assets Repository on the wiki. I guess this means an editor has to undo my [my edit]. A newbie mistake, sorry! SamzY (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A brief summary of a sub-article within a main article is totally fine, and any further expansion should be made there instead. However, I'm of the opinion that the digital assets article should be merged into this one because it doesn't appear to be notable enough for a separate article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The separate article about this system has resources including 3 books and 2 external links. I already add 2 other book references while editing the current article (here). If this is notable enough, then I suggest updating the digital assets article with the new resources while adding a brief summary here as you already suggested.SamzY (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do what you deem fits. It's just that I was unsure whether the subject merits a separate article or not, but per the sources you just mentioned, it could be notable. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll make the required modifications. Thank you!SamzY (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I used reputable and both primary and secondary sources and cited every use. Please give further information about this before deletion. Also, the cited references were not created by me.Stephbarth (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephbarth (talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be deleted. The sources used were cited, not reposted. What is the problem?

I see that the page has been reverted to a much less informative version than what it was after all of my contributions. I cited every word I added to the page. Elaborate specifically how copyright was infringed upon.Stephbarth (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright infringement, what you are claiming, is an incorrect analysis of my contributions to this page. "Almost never appropriate," "usually should," these statements in the Copying text from other sources is very subjective and not relevant here. I cited everything and made clear when it was not my own words. Reverse this deletion.Stephbarth (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The user who deleted the page referred us to the Bibliotheca Alexandrina website- " The Center for Islamic Civilization Studies was established in 2013, in response to the need for reforming the Islamic religious discourse on one hand, and bridging the gap between Islamic Fiqh and our contemporary world on the other. The center aims to contribute to the construction of a contemporary and systematic Islamic discourse, interwoven with reality, and create a space for interaction between Islamic Fiqh and thought, and the modern world we live in, with all its entanglements and complications. To this end, the center presents the contemporary perspectives and thoughts sweeping our modern world in a scientific and cognitive way that introduces Islamic thought to new horizons. It also attempts to mobilize Islamic scholars and intellects to interact positively with global issues, and encourages them to engage in the areas of ijtihad (Islamic diligence), and contemporary social issues without fear or sensitivity."- Furthermore, also from the website, here is the Bibliotheca Alexandrina's mission statement, "The Bibliotheca Alexandrina aims to be: A center of excellence in the production and dissemination of knowledge and to be a place of dialogue, learning and understanding between cultures and peoples."

Who appears to be acting in the spirit of the Bibliotheca? User Stephbarth? Or the person who deleted this effort arbitrarily and with great contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TlyleSheph3rd (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism?Bad Faith??
This pages has been worked on faithfully by Stephbarth who has gone to secondary sources and been careful in her editing. The deletions seem to me to be vandalism and bad faith. This is heedless trolling of a hard working newq editor and I seek other input bad support. Please see above entry" Contested Deletion.

I was looking through the edit history on the Bibliotheca Alexandrina page, and I didn't see notes giving the reason WHY Stephbarth's contributions were deleted, other than not citing sources (which clearly is not the case here). Given the subject of that paragraph, I wouldn't be surprised if it was deleted on the grounds of some political or religious reason. That clearly demonstrates bias on the deleting party's end, if that were the case. Amflis16 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006091343/http://speakmemory.org/uploads/ArchiveMapEgypt.pdf to http://speakmemory.org/uploads/ArchiveMapEgypt.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Mostafa El-Abbadi
According to the last issue of The Economist, Mostafa El-Abbadi was instrumental in the creation of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina but his name doesn't appear yet on the page. Would anyone know anything about the subject? Un historien (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016143739/http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/global-reach/how-bibliotheca-alexandrina-supporting-2011-egyptian-revolution to http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/global-reach/how-bibliotheca-alexandrina-supporting-2011-egyptian-revolution

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Bibliotheca Alexandrina


text:
Talk:Tetragrammaton/Archive

Merged
Considering the many requests on both entries, Yahweh and Tetragrammaton are now merged together. See below and Talk:Yahweh. --Wighson 05:02, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

I find the information on this page redundant with regard to the page Yahweh, and so I'm considering replacing it with a redirect. What do you think about it? --Uri

I think that while redundancy may be high right now, this page could contain a lot of information not suited for placement in Yahweh: Metaphysical meaning of the letters, polymorphism in pronounciation, relation to the various sephiroth of the tree of life and so on. Too bad i'm not knowledgable enough to write about it myself, being an engineer, rather than a doctorate in comparative religions ;-) --Anders Törlind

 * Yes, but what can go into Tetragrammaton that can't into Yahweh?

 * Well, I just thought that Yahweh would get a bit inflated by a future discussion on how the various parts of the letters correspond to the Ain and the sephira, the role of the tetragrammatron in kabbalistic charms and so on. Seems like a subject worthy of an article by itself to me, thats all. --AT

 * Yeah, but considering the fact that Tetragrammaton and Yahweh are two different names for almost exactly the same thing, I think it would be best to cut the total bloat of having two articles with a very unclear difference between them and have only one. I think that having two articles is justifiable only as long as we propose some criterium to differentiate between them --Uri

 * Ah, that's rather simple actually: Everything that is about the godhead of judaism that does not pertain to the actual lettering of the tretragrammatron and interpretations of it should go under Yahweh. This is actually a quagmire to enter, as the tetragrammatron has aquired meaning outside the original "textual representation of the jewish god", and entered the mainstream of western occultism (via syncretism and the kabbalah, no less :-). That in itself should warrant an article of itslf... --AT

Er, no. Yahweh is G-d. The Tetragrammaton is the name of G-d. A thing is not the same thing as its name (unless it's a fixed point!).

 * True, but since now most of Yahweh deals with the name, I feel that it (and The name of God in Judaism) is redundant, and should be merged into a single article ("The Name of God in Judaism" is the best). I volonteer to re-write Yahweh about the subject. --Uri

 * Some suggestions here. The tetragrammaton is Yahweh (Jehovah) and should be identified as such. However, the way the two terms are used today calls for some distinction to be made. I suggest the following: Tetragrammaton focus on the religious and mystical aspects of the name, i.e., the refusal by Orthodox Jews to write or even pronounce it, the role it plays in the sephirot of Jewish mysticism, its role in the Temple ritual (surmised), its relationship to the seventy letter name of God in Jewish mysticism, the divine atribute of mercy (Elohim is justice), etc. Yahweh, on the other hand, can be a more historical survey of the name, including the history of its pronunciation (Yahweh is wrong), the grammatical structure of the word as an indication of omniscience (its all-important Hebrew root is based on the verb "to be"), its role in biblical criticism (J documentation vs. E documentation), and even the LDS (Mormon) hypothesis that Jehovah and Elohim are two distinct persons. Sure there would be overlap, but together the two articles could offer very thorough coverage of the topic. Danny

 * I broadly agree with Danny about the need to separate out various aspects, some historical/factual others specific to particular religious groups. Unfortunately with religious texts the same words have differing significance and use in various traditions. It would seem useful to put in a section that which is commonly shared, and use a different one to outline the differing uses and rationales, ~I would be interested to see Uriyan's draft, perhaps a brief systematic outline would be a useful first step rather than see the proposal as a completed article which might have a variety of proposals for re-structuring. An outline; followed by redrafting to the skeleton would seem the way to get, and most efficient. [[User:Tedclapham]

 * I have noted, ironically, that folks spell the word "God" as G-d, and then go on to spell out the full word "Yahweh", thus compromising their own custom! See, the rationale behind spelling the word in English as "G-d" is to caution against "pronouncing" the sacred Name. When one spells the word (in transliterated Hebrew), one is kinda "pronouncing" the Name. Now, I'm not criticizing anyone here, I just find it humorous. As for the controversy over the Name, I believe Tedclapham's idea is a good one - a common POV, followed by the POVs of disagreeing sides, is a good way to approximate NPOV. Rickyrab 06:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't want to do revert edit, but I think this statement is not NPOV.

 * Jehovah's Witnesses differ sharply from peer-reviewed scholarship and custom and use only Jehovah as God's personal name. Thus, they will use Jehovah to name God, even in New Testament contexts.  This reflects an important item of faith to Jehovah's Witnesses; nonetheless, it is an anachronistic interpolation, since the New Testament was written almost entirely in Greek, and not at all in Hebrew.  Although the headquarters of this religion (the Watchtower Society) recognize that Jehovah is no longer an accepted representation of the ancient word, they maintain their own spelling since it is the most familiar to their followers who must study their materials.

 * Jehovah's Witnesses think that the Tetragrammaton was written on the Greek Text of New Testament in 1st Century, and that Today's Greek Text was interpolated by manuscripts. And Gospel Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and readers could see the Tetregrammaton in New Testament. No Witnesses recognize that Jehovah is no longer an accepted representation of the ancient word, because they think it's not important what is true pronunciation. K.M. 13:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * A non neutral point of view is not the only problem with this (since excised) paragraph. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I think I can provide some clarification.  The writer seems to think that Jehovah's Witnesses as a group take a firm stand on the question of how the Tetragrammaton was pronounced by the ancient Hebrews and have ranged themselves against the 'peer-reviewed scholarship' in some sort of battle to the death.  In fact they do not take so firm a position.

 * The writer also seems to have a mistaken idea about the authority and applicability of peer-reviewed scholarship. One should remember that the peer review process is designed to weed out poor quality work and help the community to refine its knowledge.  It represents current concensus, not immutable truth.

 * In fact, the question of which vowels belong in the divine name is a matter of ongoing research, with a number of scholars expressing doubts about the linguistic plausability of "Yahweh" and pointing to the antiquity of "Yahowah".  There is also ongoing examination of other Hebrew names which may contain initial or trailing parts of the name to see if their vowel pointing provides clues as to the vowel pointing of the name from which they borrow.  I am disappointed that this work is not mentioned in the article.

 * Finally, K.M. is correct in stating that Jehovah's Witnesses do not regard the ancient Hebrew pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as an issue of overriding importance for English speakers. The English pronunciations of proper names are quite often significantly different from the native pronunciations.  I should also point out that Jehovah's Witnesses are an international organizations with publications in over 200 languages.  We try to use a pronunciation accepted in each language's liturature rather than attempt to reconstruct ancient Hebrew pronunciation.

 * --David Chappell

Protected page & arbitration
It is a good thing we are in discussion now. Here are some points I would like to make.

1. There are many differing opinions on the subject of the divine name. Anyone trying to submit their opinion as the only one of merit to the total exclusion of even the mention of other opinions or research, is working against the idea of free thought and NPOV. To be honestly academic an article should include many points of view. The article "Yahweh" did include many inputs, even including the viewpoints of relgious scholars who are not of the "Judeo-Christian" variety, and this made for a flavorful reading as well as an informative piece of reference. Just before the merge to "T" someone had gone a little too far in promoting a particular line of thought - the JW one. This did not cal for an entire removal the information, just and edit.

2. Theological differences will always color a person's input, I am as guilty as anyone in my sole contributions as anyone. We must realize however that to completely remove another person's work because we don't agree with it or because it is not a majority opinion, is not honest. It reveals a fear of a search for truth. So here are the problems I have with the article as it exists:

A. "This is the ineffable name of God in Hebrew, and it is so holy that observant Jewish people read it as "[Adonai]" to mean "My Lord" in their prayers and when learning and studying the Torah or Talmud."

should be "This is the ineffable name of God in Hebrew, and it is believed to be so holy by observant parcticers of Judaism that they read it as "[Adonai]" to mean "My Lord" in their prayers and when learning and studying the Torah or Talmud."

Obviously, we avoid promoting the Jewish religion excusively by changing the wording of this sentence, I have not been allowed to make this adjustment, it has been removed twice.

B.This practice reflects the oldest Jewish tradition: Judaism both at the time of the writing of the Tanakh and today believe it blasphemy to utter this name of God; it was encrypted in Hebrew script in Aramaic texts, and was pronounced Adonai, or "The Lord." Indeed, the commandment of the Decalogue not to take the name of "THE LORD thy God in vain" literally means not to utter the name.

Recommended change: This practice reflects the Jewish tradition that it is blasphemy to utter this name of God; it was encrypted in Hebrew script in Aramaic texts, and was pronounced Adonai, or "The Lord."

I have changed these comments because they are speculation influenced by theology rather than established fact. Again, is it our goal to promote the Jewish religion?

C. Peer-reviewed scholarship proved that "Jehovah" was a completely erroneous rendition of the word, and subsequently, scholars have adopted Yahweh, Yahwe, or Yahveh.

Recommended change: Modern theology has influenced the belief that "Jehovah" was a completely erroneous rendition of the word, and subsequently, the majority of scholars have adopted Yahweh, Yahwe, or Yahveh.

Like it or not this is more honest. Opinions change. This is a contested point and not just by JW's. Therefore the suggested change.

D. These facts are also relevant: The KJV contained the name "Jehovah" in four places has continually been removed. The article was being written in such a way as to hide this fact. I did not try to include the fact that near the turn of the century many bibles were including the divine name in the form of Jehovah in most places THE LORD appeared. Another point I have not included until now is that J.P. Green's interlinear translation (which is a modern translation) contains the form "Jehovah" in all the places THE LORD appears in the KJV.

My argument is for balance, not my own opinion. All attempts I have made to balance out the article have been quickly removed. Please, let us work this out in a fair and intellectual manner, regardless of our theological biases.

george m

OK, so is there going to be discussion on the page or what?
I posted my argument several days ago, there has been no response... How long will the page be protected with no dialogue?

george

so, I'll talk to myself
I think the page should be divided clearly into sections bearing the titles:

1. Meaning

2. Pronounciation

3. Theology Surrounding The Name

Each section should give an overview of the Historical and Current views & developments surrounding the topic. The information should include a wide variety of viewpoints because, quite obviously....there are a wide variety of viewpoints.

can anybody hear me? george

I agree, the current article is poor.

 * Yes, the current article leaves us with the impression that aside from a use in the 16th century it had no currency until the publication of the American Standard version around 1900. I think we are meant to believe that it is some sort of new invention.

 * It appears that the article has been cleansed by a rather pedantic person who is offended at the idea of a spelling widely accepted in liturature which is at odds with the current scholarly concensus. The result is an article with strong assertions but few hard facts.

 * This article really needs some material on how the Tetragrammaton has historically been rendered in a variety of languages in Bible translations, in art and liturature. It should also cover the origins of the scholarly spelling "Yahweh" with the arguments for and against the misconstrued vowel points theory.

 * There should also be some mention of the specific issue of transliteration, such as whether to transliterate the Tetragramaton YHVH, YHWH, JHVH, or JHWH. I used to wonder how it could be done so differently, but then I found out that in many languages, such as German or Polish, j is pronounced y as in the English word "hallelujah".

 * -- David Chappell

Alright, I intend to produce a draft soon of inclusions that would be helpful.

george

 * I notice that the article is much improved. Debious absolutist statements have been removed or properly qualified.  There has also been a healthy injection of hard information to replace opinions.  Is this your doing?

 * I have two suggestions. At the end of the first paragraph we find this odd sentence (which remains from an earlier revision):
 * When they refer to the name in conversation or in a non-textual context such as in a book, newspaper or letter, they call the name "Hashem" which means simply "The Name".

 * I think the writer is using the word "textual" in an escoteric sense. Clearly, books, newspapers, and letters are texts.  I can only assume that "textual context" here refers to a particular set of religions texts such as the Bible and commentaries upon it.

 * At the end of the second paragraph we find the sentence:
 * Because of the strictures in Judaism, the pronunciation is controversial.
 * This can be taken two ways:
 * Since these strictures in Judaism have discouraged pronunciation, the precise ancient pronunication is uncertain.
 * Because of these strictures in Judaism, the propriety of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton is a controversial question.
 * I think both statements are appropriate at this point in the article.

 * Finally, I would suggestion the addition of the following sentence at the end of the last paragaph (which discusses the Tetragrammaton in English Bibles):

 * Changes in English-language orthography occuring shortly after the release of the first edition of the Authorized Version transformed IEHOUAH into JEHOVAH.

does someone have a magical power?
To remove an entire change from the server? I made and edit to the page and it is now completely gone. No trace of it in the page history.

george

 * Ah, you have seen the hand of God.--Administer

Seriously, that has happened to me sometimes, too. I've found that leaving Wikipedia entirely and then reloading the page restores my recent edits. Fire Star 22:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, although it disappeared two days later, not immediately. I am sure you understand my curiosity now.-george m

title: Talk:Tetragrammaton/Archive


text:
Computer font

A computer font is implemented as a digital data file containing a set of graphically related glyphs. A computer font is designed and created using a font editor. A computer font specifically designed for the computer screen, and not for printing, is a screen font.

In the terminology of movable metal type, a font is a set of pieces of movable type in a specific typeface, size, width, weight, slope, etc. (for example, Gill Sans bold 12 point or Century Expanded 14 point), and a typeface refers to the collection of related fonts across styles and sizes (for example, all the varieties of Gill Sans). In HTML, CSS, and related technologies, the font family attribute refers to the digital equivalent of a typeface. Since the 1990s, many people outside the printing industry have used the word font as a synonym for typeface.

There are three basic kinds of computer font file data formats:
 * Bitmap fonts consist of a matrix of dots or pixels representing the image of each glyph in each face and size.
 * Vector fonts (including, and sometimes used as a synonym for, outline fonts) use Bézier curves, drawing instructions and mathematical formulae to describe each glyph, which make the character outlines scalable to any size.
 * Stroke fonts use a series of specified lines and additional information to define the size and shape of the line in a specific typeface, which together determines the appearance of the glyph.

Bitmap fonts are faster and easier to create in computer code than other font types, but they are not scalable: a bitmap font requires a separate font for each size. Outline and stroke fonts can be resized in a single font by substituting different measurements for components of each glyph, but they are more complicated to render on screen or in print than bitmap fonts because they require additional computer code to render the bitmaps to display on screen and in print. Although all font types are still in use, most fonts used on computers today are outline fonts.

Fonts can be monospaced (i.e. every character is plotted a constant distance from the previous character that it is next to while drawing) or proportional (each character has its own width). However, the particular font-handling application can affect the spacing, particularly when justifying text.

Bitmap fonts

A bitmap font is one that stores each glyph as an array of pixels (that is, a bitmap). It is less commonly known as a  or a pixel font. Bitmap fonts are simply collections of raster images of glyphs. For each variant of the font, there is a complete set of glyph images, with each set containing an image for each character. For example, if a font has three sizes, and any combination of bold and italic, then there must be 12 complete sets of images.

Advantages of bitmap fonts include:
 * Extremely fast and simple to render
 * Easier to create than other kinds.
 * Unscaled bitmap fonts always give exactly the same output when displayed on the same specification display
 * Best for very low-quality or small-size displays where the font needs to be fine-tuned to display clearly

The primary disadvantage of bitmap fonts is that the visual quality tends to be poor when scaled or otherwise transformed, compared to outline and stroke fonts, and providing many optimized and purpose-made sizes of the same font dramatically increases memory usage. The earliest bitmap fonts were only available in certain optimized sizes such as 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 points (assuming a resolution of 96 DPI), with custom fonts often available in only one specific size, such as a headline font at only 72 points.

The limited processing power and memory of early computer systems forced the exclusive use of bitmap fonts. Improvements in hardware have allowed them to be replaced with outline or stroke fonts in cases where arbitrary scaling is desirable, but bitmap fonts are still in common use in embedded systems and other places where speed and simplicity are considered important.

Bitmap fonts are used in the Linux console, the Windows recovery console, and embedded systems. Older dot matrix printers used bitmap fonts; often stored in the memory of the printer and addressed by the computer's print driver. Bitmap fonts may be used in cross-stitch.

To draw a string using a bitmap font means to successively output bitmaps of each character that the string comprises, performing per-character indentation.

Monochrome fonts vis-à-vis fonts with shades of gray
Digital bitmap fonts (and the final rendering of vector fonts) may use monochrome or shades of gray. The latter is anti-aliased. When displaying a text, typically an operating system properly represents the "shades of gray" as intermediate colors between the color of the font and that of the background. However, if the text is represented as an image with transparent background, "shades of gray" require an image format allowing partial transparency.

Scaling
Bitmap fonts look best at their native pixel size. Some systems using bitmap fonts can create some font variants algorithmically. For example, the original Apple Macintosh computer could produce bold by widening vertical strokes and oblique by shearing the image. At non-native sizes, many text rendering systems perform nearest-neighbor resampling, introducing rough jagged edges. More advanced systems perform anti-aliasing on bitmap fonts whose size does not match the size that the application requests. This technique works well for making the font smaller but not as well for increasing the size, as it tends to blur the edges. Some graphics systems that use bitmap fonts, especially those of emulators, apply curve-sensitive nonlinear resampling algorithms such as 2xSaI or hq3x on fonts and other bitmaps, which avoids blurring the font while introducing little objectionable distortion at moderate increases in size.

The difference between bitmap fonts and outline fonts is similar to the difference between bitmap and vector image file formats. Bitmap fonts are like image formats such as Windows Bitmap (.bmp), Portable Network Graphics (.png) and Tagged Image Format (.tif or .tiff), which store the image data as a grid of pixels, in some cases with compression. Outline or stroke image formats such as Windows Metafile format (.wmf) and Scalable Vector Graphics format (.svg), store instructions in the form of lines and curves of how to draw the image rather than storing the image itself.

A "trace" program can follow the outline of a high-resolution bitmap font and create an initial outline that a font designer uses to create an outline font useful in systems such as PostScript or TrueType. Outline fonts scale easily without jagged edges or blurriness.

Bitmap font formats

 * Portable Compiled Format (PCF)
 * Glyph Bitmap Distribution Format (BDF)
 * Server Normal Format (SNF)
 * DECWindows Font (DWF)
 * Sun X11/NeWS format (BF, AFM)
 * Microsoft Windows bitmapped font (FON)
 * Amiga Font, ColorFont, AnimFont
 * ByteMap Font (BMF)
 * PC Screen Font (PSF)
 * Scalable Screen Font (SFN, also supports outline fonts)
 * Packed bitmap font bitmap file for TeX DVI drivers (PK)
 * FZX a proportional bitmap font for the ZX Spectrum

Outline fonts
Outline fonts or vector fonts are collections of vector images, consisting of lines and curves defining the boundary of glyphs. Early vector fonts were used by vector monitors and vector plotters using their own internal fonts, usually with thin single strokes instead of thickly outlined glyphs. The advent of desktop publishing brought the need for a common standard to integrate the graphical user interface of the first Macintosh and laser printers. The term to describe the integration technology was WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). This common standard was (and still is) Adobe PostScript. Examples of outline fonts include: PostScript Type 1 and Type 3 fonts, TrueType, OpenType and Compugraphic.

The primary advantage of outline fonts is that, unlike bitmap fonts, they are a set of lines and curves instead of pixels; they can be scaled without causing pixelation. Therefore, outline font characters can be scaled to any size and otherwise transformed with more attractive results than bitmap fonts, but require considerably more processing and may yield undesirable rendering, depending on the font, rendering software, and output size. Even so, outline fonts can be transformed into bitmap fonts beforehand if necessary. The converse transformation is considerably harder since bitmap fonts require a heuristic algorithm to guess and approximate the corresponding curves if the pixels do not make a straight line.

Outline fonts have a major problem, in that the Bézier curves used by them cannot be rendered accurately onto a raster display (such as most computer monitors and printers), and their rendering can change shape depending on the desired size and position. Measures such as font hinting have to be used to reduce the visual impact of this problem, which requires sophisticated software that is difficult to implement correctly. Many modern desktop computer systems include software to do this, but they use considerably more processing power than bitmap fonts, and there can be minor rendering defects, particularly at small font sizes. Despite this, they are frequently used because people often consider the ability to freely scale fonts, without incurring any pixelation, to be important enough to justify the defects and increased computational complexity.

Type 1 and Type 3 fonts
Type 1 and Type 3 fonts were developed by Adobe for professional digital typesetting. Using PostScript, the glyphs are outline fonts described with cubic Bezier curves. Type 1 fonts were restricted to a subset of the PostScript language, and used Adobe's hinting system, which used to be very expensive. Type 3 allowed unrestricted use of the PostScript language, but did not include any hint information, which could lead to visible rendering artifacts on low-resolution devices (such as computer screens and dot-matrix printers).

TrueType fonts
TrueType is a font system originally developed by Apple Inc. It was intended to replace Type 1 fonts, which many felt were too expensive. Unlike Type 1 fonts, TrueType glyphs are described with quadratic Bezier curves. It is currently very popular and implementations exist for all major operating systems.

OpenType fonts
OpenType is a smart font system designed by Adobe and Microsoft. OpenType fonts contain outlines in either the TrueType or CFF format together with a wide range of metadata.

Stroke-based fonts

A glyph's outline is defined by the vertices of individual stroke paths, and the corresponding stroke profiles. The stroke paths are a kind of topological skeleton of the glyph. The advantages of stroke-based fonts over outline fonts include reducing the number of vertices needed to define a glyph, allowing the same vertices to be used to generate a font with a different weight, glyph width, or serifs using different stroke rules, and the associated size savings. For a font developer, editing a glyph by stroke is easier and less prone to error than editing outlines. A stroke-based system also allows scaling glyphs in height or width without altering stroke thickness of the base glyphs. Stroke-based fonts are heavily marketed for East Asian markets for use on embedded devices, but the technology is not limited to ideograms.

Commercial developers include Agfa Monotype and Type Solutions, Inc. (owned by Bitstream Inc.) have independently developed stroke-based font types and font engines.

Although Monotype and Bitstream have claimed tremendous space saving using stroke-based fonts on East Asian character sets, most of the space saving comes from building composite glyphs, which is part of the TrueType specification and does not require a stroke-based approach.

Stroke-based font formats
Metafont uses a different sort of glyph description. Like TrueType, it is a vector font description system. It draws glyphs using strokes produced by moving a polygonal or elliptical pen approximated by a polygon along a path made from cubic composite Bézier curves and straight line segments, or by filling such paths. Although when stroking a path the envelope of the stroke is never actually generated, the method causes no loss of accuracy or resolution. The method Metafont uses is more mathematically complex because the parallel curves of a Bézier can be 10th order algebraic curves.

In 2004, DynaComware developed DigiType, a stroke-based font format. In 2006, the creators of the Saffron Type System announced a representation for stroke-based fonts called Stylized Stroke Fonts (SSFs) with the aim of providing the expressiveness of traditional outline-based fonts and the small memory footprint of uniform-width stroke-based fonts (USFs).

AutoCAD uses SHX/SHP fonts.

Subsetting
A typical font may contain hundreds or even thousands of glyphs, often representing characters from many different languages. Oftentimes, users may only need a small subset of the glyphs that are available to them. Subsetting is the process of removing unnecessary glyphs from a font file, usually with the goal of reducing file size. This is particularly important for web fonts, since reducing file size often means reducing page load time and server load. Alternatively, fonts may be issued in different files for different regions of the world, though with the spread of the OpenType format this is now increasingly uncommon.

title: Computer font


text:
Levant sparrowhawk

The Levant sparrowhawk (Accipiter brevipes) is a small bird of prey. It measures 32 – in length with a wingspan of 65 –. The female is larger than the male, but the difference is not as marked as with Eurasian sparrowhawk. The adult male is blue-grey above, with dark wingtips, and barred reddish below.

The adult female is slate-grey above with darkish wingtips. She is barred reddish brown below and may show a dark throat line. The juvenile is dark brown above and has dark-streaked underparts. It shows a dark throat line. It breeds in forests from Greece and the Balkans east to southern Russia. It is migratory, wintering from Egypt across to southwestern Iran. It will migrate in large flocks, unlike the more widespread Eurasian sparrowhawk.

The Levant sparrowhawk nests in trees, building a new nest, lined with green leaves, each year. The normal clutch is 3–5 eggs. It hunts small birds, insects, rodents, and lizards in woodland or semi-desert areas, relying on surprise as it flies from a perch to catch its prey unaware.

This bird is a small raptor with short broad wings and a longish tail, both adaptations to manoeuvring through trees. It is similar to the Eurasian sparrowhawk, but its shorter tail and more pointed wings give it a more falcon-like appearance.

The flight of this hawk is a characteristic flap – flap – glide.

The call is a sharp kee-wick.

Taxonomy
First described by Nikolai Alekseevich Severtzov in 1850, the Levant sparrowhawk is a small bird of prey in the genus Accipiter. It is sometimes considered to be a subspecies of the shikra, though it differs in measurements, proportions and plumage, and breeds contiguously with the latter (typically considered a reliable indicator of speciation) over at least part of its range. Along with the shikra, the Chinese sparrowhawk and the Nicobar sparrowhawk, it makes up a complex species group. It is known to have hybridised with the shikra and the Eurasian sparrowhawk. Despite its extensive range, it has no subspecies.

The genus name Accipiter is a Latin word meaning "hawk" (from the Latin word accipere, meaning "to grasp"). The species name brevipes is a combination of the Latin words brevis, meaning "short" and pes, meaning "foot"; this is a reference to the bird's short toes.

Description
The Levant sparrowhawk is small for a raptor, measuring 32 - 38 cm in length with a wingspan of 65 - 75 cm. As with all raptors, the female is larger than the male. The adult male is blue-grey above and pale below, with underparts and leg feathers finely barred in rufous and white. His head is blue-grey as well, with a white throat bisected by a dark central stripe (sometimes quite faint). The female is similar, though her plumage is generally a darker brownish-grey. Both sexes have orangish-yellow legs and a yellow cere.

Breeding

The Levant sparrowhawk breeds from mid-May through August. The pair is territorial while breeding, often performing high-circling aerial displays. The female is thought to make the nest. She builds a new one every year, a small structure of twigs on a branch or in a fork of a broad-leaved tree. The nest tree is often near running water, typically in open woodland, on a forest edge, or in an isolated clump of trees. The nest, which measures up to 30 cm across and 15 cm deep, is lined with green leaves. Most nests are located between 5 - 10 m above the ground, but they have been found as low as 4 m and as high as 20 m.

The female lays a clutch of 2–5 eggs which she alone incubates for 30–35 days. Hatching is asynchronous. Nestlings fledge some 40–45 days after hatching and are independent about 15 days later.

Flight and migration
Though able to flap continually (like most birds), Levant sparrowhawks typically use soaring-and-gliding flight while migrating; they also use thermals when those are available, and are known to occasionally hover.

Population
In Armenia the population of Levant Sparrowhawks is estimated as 180–220 breeding pairs.

Conservation and threats
Because of its vast range and stable population, the Levant Sparrowhawk is listed as a species of least concern by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The development of wind farms may affect its numbers.

title: Levant sparrowhawk


text:
Knock on Wood (film)

Knock on Wood is a 1954 American comedy film starring Danny Kaye and Mai Zetterling. Other actors in the film include Torin Thatcher, David Burns, and Leon Askin. The film was written and directed by Melvin Frank and Norman Panama, with songs by Kaye's wife, Sylvia Fine.

Plot
Jerry Morgan (Kaye) is a ventriloquist who is having trouble with love: just when his relationship with a woman gets around to marriage, his dummy turns jealous and spoils everything. Jerry's manager Marty threatens to quit unless Jerry sees a psychiatrist, Ilse Nordstrom (Zetterling), who tries to discover the source of his problem. The two of them eventually fall in love.

At the same time, Jerry becomes unwittingly intertwined with spies and has to run from the police. In his escape, he finds himself impersonating a British car salesman, trying to demonstrate a new convertible with loads of bells and whistles. Later on, he finds himself on stage in the middle of the performance of an exotic ballet.

Production notes
The film features dialogue with linguistic play (particularly the names of the dummies "Clarence" and "Terrence" and the Slavic names of the spies) which would also be a feature of Kaye's later film The Court Jester (likewise written and directed by Frank and Panama).

The title song "Knock on Wood" should not be confused with "Everybody Thinks I'm Crazy" from the 1941 cartoon entitled Woody Woodpecker, starring the character of the same name; or the song "Knock on Wood" from the 1942 film, Casablanca (with music by M.K. Jerome and lyrics by Jack Scholl). Kaye performed renditions of both the title song from Knock on Wood and "The Woody Woodpecker Song," which are found on the album The Best of Danny Kaye [Spectrum, 2000].

Home media
Knock on Wood was issued as a region 2 DVD in March 2009.

title: Knock on Wood (film)


text:
Oregon Route 99

Oregon Route 99 is a state highway that runs between the southern border of Oregon, and the city of Junction City. Oregon Route 99 was formed from parts of the former U.S. Route 99; it shares much of its route with I-5, but much of it is also independent. Between Portland and Junction City, the highway is forked into two routes: Oregon Route 99E and Oregon Route 99W.

Route description
Oregon Route 99 technically starts at an interchange with Interstate 5 at exit 11, south of Ashland. There it departs from the freeway, running parallel to I-5 as it passes through the cities of Ashland (as Main Street), Talent, Phoenix, and Medford. The highway rejoins I-5 at exit 35, just northwest of Central Point.

OR 99 departs from I-5 several more times through the mountains of southern Oregon, only to rejoin again a short distance later. Junctions are found in Gold Hill (2nd Ave), Grants Pass, between Myrtle Creek and Sutherlin (crossing I-5 in Roseburg), through Drain and Yoncalla, and Cottage Grove and Goshen. These departures serve as business routes for I-5, as Oregon does not have or sign Interstate business routes.

When it reaches Eugene, OR 99 departs from I-5 for a final time. It heads west into downtown, along Franklin Boulevard past the University of Oregon. Downtown, OR 99 is on the 6th and 7th Avenue couplet. (Much of the section in Eugene is co-signed with either Oregon Route 126 or OR 126 Business.) West of downtown it heads north on an expressway alignment, which continues to Junction City. In Junction City, OR 99 ends, as it splits into eastern and western forks.

Highways comprised
OR 99 comprises the following named highways (see Oregon highways and routes) and roads, from south to north:

 * The Rogue Valley Highway No. 63;
 * Part of the Pacific Highway No. 1 (concurrent with I-5);
 * The Gold Hill Spur No. 486;
 * The Sams Valley Highway No. 271 (concurrent with OR 234);
 * The Rogue River Highway No. 60;
 * Part of the Redwood Highway No. 25;
 * Part of the Pacific Highway (concurrent with I-5);
 * Part of Fifth Street in Canyonville;
 * Part of the Tiller-Trail Highway No. 230;
 * Part of the Pacific Highway (concurrent with I-5);
 * The Dillard Highway, which is no longer a state highway;
 * Part of the Coos Bay-Roseburg Highway No. 35 (concurrent with OR 42);
 * The Oakland-Shady Highway, which is no longer a state highway (concurrent with OR 138);
 * Part of the Pacific Highway (concurrent with I-5);
 * The Drain-Yoncalla Highway, which is no longer a state highway;
 * Part of the Umpqua Highway No. 45;
 * Part of the Pacific Highway (concurrent with I-5);
 * The Goshen-Divide Highway No. 226;
 * Part of the Pacific Highway (concurrent with I-5); and
 * Part of the Pacific Highway West No. 1W.

It followed the Myrtle Creek Highway previously. This section was removed by 2018.

title: Oregon Route 99


text:
User:Holyjoe

 * User:Holyjoe/Joshua Samola/scientist
 * User:Holyjoe/K-League
 * User:Holyjoe/FC Seoul
 * User:Holyjoe/Jeju United FC
 * User:Holyjoe/Adidas Cup
 * User:Holyjoe/Korean FA Cup
 * User:Holyjoe/Korean League Cup

title: User:Holyjoe


text:
Talk:Kepler's Supernova

Caveman analogy is scientifically wrong
>Since 6 kiloparsecs is ca. 20,000 light-years the >cosmic event itself happened no earlier than 18,000 BC.

This sentence makes no sense. Since the speed limit is c, and no information can be transmitted faster than c, our time is not the same as the SN1604 time, so a comparison like that is both misleading and incorrect. The sentence would need to be amended to be correct such as:

Since 6 kiloparsecs is ca. 20,000 light-years the cosmic event itself happened no earlier than 18,000 BC, provided supra-luminar travel is possible. If superluminar travel is impossible, which is the firm scientific opinion today, than it is both impossible and meaningless to state when the explosion took place, since a common frame for us and the SN1604 does not exist and cannot be established.

 * If you know something the author didn't, you're allowed and even encouraged to correct the article. However, the sentence you propose would definitely not improve the article. I've removed the statement that offends you as it is indeed a bit silly and unscientific. I've also messed up the lay-out a bit, I hope someone can improve this. Piet 16:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

- The last I heard, we measure our experience of time here on Earth using clocks that are also here on Earth. With respect to our own frame of reference, which is a perfectly valid and useful frame of reference, we experience the event in question as having occurred about 18,000 of our years ago. The idea that we need to know what a clock read at the supernova in order to figure out when the event happened as we see it, and that we have to burden our discourse with long-winded relativistic blither to do so, seems neurotically over-complicated to me. 98.243.173.66 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Euro-centric angle of article
The Chinese version of this article states that this supernova has also been recorded in the Chinese Imperial Archives, the article however suggests that the sighting (and other sightings) are a completely European phenomenon. Article should be rewritten to include Chinese sighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.230.178 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This supernova was easily visible to the unaided eye, with a magnitude of -2.5 at its maximum. I agree that records of observations in China would be interesting. How far they were accurate enough to detect any parallax, I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Chinese and Korean observations are now mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Visible during daytime?
At magnitude -2.5 ??? That's "about" as bright as Mars as a Grand Opposition. Not as bright as Jupiter or Venus. So visible daytime????? Doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.165.70 (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Could not have been visible in the daytime at magnitude -2.5. Venus peaks at about -4.x, and it can't be seen during the day. Well, close to sunset or sunrise. Betaneptune (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No farther?
A "no nearer" distance would be very nice to have, as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C54:4400:C76:55B4:8DAC:E7FC:21DC (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Why so many page views?
I was looking a the statistics for page views for astronomy articles, and this one seems to have by far the most, over articles such as the Solar System and Einstein. I know this is an important supernova, but this is still kind of surprising. Does anybody have an explanation for why this is? Sam-2727 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This page is used to advertise Wikipedia and draw in viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.225.229 (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are so many people viewing this page?
It's insane how in the last few months there have been an absolutely mind-boggling amount of people viewing this article, I mean above Earth. Anyone know why? MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Publishers Clearing House for some reason included a link to it in email (promoting daily contests) for awhile. Has it stopped now?  Where do you look for such numbers? —Tamfang (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Click on "view history" and go to "pageviews". 53,000+ people view this article daily. It's crazy how many people view this article for no apparent reason. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A similar issue is happening with Neatsville, Kentucky, and now both are being discussed at the Village pump. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 08:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's up to 1.3 million weekly views now, something extremely weird is happening. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It has been reported to site administrators. I don't know as of yet if there are plans to do something about it. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 03:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kepler's Supernova


text:
Talk:David II of Scotland

Untitled
I'm unsure that the article should start with David's Gaelic name - is there any indication that he was generally addressed like that in life? Surely he would have been a French or Scots speaker? After all, we don't have "Seamus IV" (anglicised as James IV). - TG (not signed in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.207.198 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC) A good point. It is difficult to imagine that David would not have spoken the language of his parents and of the Scottish court - Scots. Equally, given the lenght of his stay in France and the fact that French was the principal language of literature, it is unimaginable that he could not speak the French laguage, however there is no particualr reason to assume that he could speak Gaelic, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.104.16 (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

According to a recent biography of James II, he is the first Scots monarch who we know what he looked like, a contemporary drawing survives. Therefore all images of earlier Scots monarchs are artists's imaginings. PatGallacher (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:David II of Scotland