text:
Westerham

Westerham is a town and civil parish in the Sevenoaks District of Kent, England. It is located 3.4 miles east of Oxted and 6 miles west of Sevenoaks, adjacent to the Kent border with both Greater London and Surrey. It is recorded as early as the 9th century, and was mentioned in the Domesday Book in a Norman form, Oistreham (compare Ouistreham in Normandy, Oistreham in 1086). Hām is Old English for a village or homestead, and so Westerham means a westerly homestead. The River Darent flows through the town, and formerly powered three watermills. The total population in 2021 was 4,498.

History
There is evidence that the area around Westerham has been settled for thousands of years: finds such as a Celtic fortification (c 2000 BC) and a Roman road are close by, along with the remains of a Roman encampment just past the ruins of a tower south of the town at the summit of Tower Woods.

The tower dates back to the 18th century, and was originally constructed by the owners of Squerryes Court as a folly for their children's amusement.

The manor was originally run by Godwin, Earl of Wessex and later by his son Harold Godwinson the last Saxon King of England. The first Norman lord of Westerham was Eustace II of Boulogne, and the town appears in the Domesday Book as Oistreham. By 1227 Henry III granted Westerham a market charter, making the new village a major player in the buying and selling of cattle in Kent, a tradition that survived to 1961 when the last cattle market was held. St Mary's Church is thought to date from the 13th century, although it was much altered in Victorian times. In 1503 the Protestant martyr John Frith was born in the town.

The church is unusual in that it displays the only known representation of a royal arms of King Edward VI (reigned 1547–1553) in a church. There is little doubt that it is the king's arms as the supporters are a lion and a dragon, and there is a curious Latin phrase beside the arms: "VIVAT REX CURAT LEX" (Long live the King, custodian of the law). England did not have another male monarch until the Union of the Crowns in 1603.

In 1596, there was a peculiar subsidence of a hill measuring 80 by 28 perches, which was transformed into a dale.

James Wolfe was born in the town in 1727 at what is now known as the Old Vicarage due to a terrible storm on the night he was born. He lived in Quebec House—many streets and buildings are named after him and St Mary's contains not only the font in which he was baptised but also a memorial window to him by Edward Burne-Jones. The town square contains statues to both Wolfe and Churchill.

Interior and exterior scenes for the 2009 BBC mini-series Emma were shot at Squerryes Court with the house appearing as Emma Woodhouse's home Hartfield, while exterior scenes were shot at Chilham, Kent.

Alice Liddell, cited as the inspiration for Lewis Carroll's children's book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland lived in the Vicarage for a brief period. Alice rented 'The Breaches' just before she died and then when she became very ill she went to stay with her sister Rhoda at Hoseyrigge in Westerham. She was born at Westminster and when she died aged 82 a memorial service was held for her at St Mary's Church. She was not buried in Westerham. Record producer Brian Higgins, whose Xenomania production team produced hit singles and albums for artists such as Girls Aloud, Kylie Minogue, Sugababes, Pet Shop Boys, Texas and Franz Ferdinand, now occupy what used to be known as the Old Vicarage.

BBC Children's TV founders Freda Lingstrom and Maria Bird lived together in Westerham and named their production company Westerham Arts which was commissioned by the BBC to create The Woodentops, Andy Pandy and the Flower Pot Men.

During a January 1967 visit to Knole Park in Sevenoaks to shoot a promotional film for Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane, John Lennon stopped at a Westerham antiques shop and purchased a poster for Pablo Fanque's Circus Royal, which later inspired the song, "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!"

As well as the parish church (a Grade II*-listed building), there is a Grade II-listed chapel associated with the Congregational Federation and a Roman Catholic church. Westerham Evangelical Congregational Church dates from 1839 and St John the Baptist's Catholic Parish Church opened in 1955.

Economy
Westerham was home to the Black Eagle Brewery, which was taken over by Taylor Walker & Co in the 1950s, becoming part of Ind Coope in 1959 and closing in 1965. Yeast from the brewery was preserved at the National Collection of Yeast Cultures and is now used by the present day Westerham Brewery which was established in 2004 by Robert Wicks. The brewery produces a range of ales, including Westerham British Bulldog.

Westerham was home to Crayford Engineering, a successful car conversion company, from 1962 to the 1980s, working from a workshop at Squerryes Mede.

Chartwell

In 1922 Winston Churchill MP purchased Chartwell Manor on the outskirts of Westerham, which, apart from the time he spent at 10 Downing Street and 28 Hyde Park Gate (his London Home), was his home for the rest of his life. Chartwell is now administered by the National Trust.

There is a statue of Sir Winston Churchill on the village green at Westerham. It was sculpted by Oscar Nemon and stands on a base of Yugoslavian stone, the gift of Marshal Josip Broz Tito.

Rail
The nearest National Rail station to Westerham is Oxted station, located 4 miles away.

Buses
Westerham is served by London Buses route 246, Southdown PSV routes 236, 594 & 595, Go Coach route 1 and Arriva route 401 (Sundays only). These connect it with places including Bromley, Biggin Hill, East Grinstead, Edenbridge, Hayes, Oxted, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge & Tunbridge Wells.

Roads
Westerham lies south of the M25 motorway. The A25 road goes west to Oxted, Redhill & Guildford and east to Sevenoaks and Wrotham. The A233 road goes north to Biggin Hill and Bromley. The B2026 road goes south to Edenbridge.

Media
Since the town is close to London, television signals are received from the Crystal Palace TV transmitter, placing Westerham in the BBC London and ITV London areas. BBC South East and ITV Meridian can also be received from the Bluebell Hill TV transmitter.

Local radio stations are: BBC Radio Kent (96.7 FM), Heart South (103.1 FM), Gold (603 AM) and KMFM West Kent, which broadcasts from its studios in Strood on 96.2 FM.

The town is served by these local newspapers, Westerham County Border News and Sevenoaks Chronicle.

Local sports clubs
Westerham Cricket Club was founded in 1831, folded in 2004 and reformed in 2019. Previous home grounds: 1831 to 1874 Farley Common, Westerham; 1875 to 1987 Squerryes Park, Westerham; 1988 to 2004 Costell's Meadow, Westerham. In 1990, the cricket club invited the football, rugby and netball clubs to join them in forming the Westerham Sports Association (WSA) which secured a grant to build a new clubhouse which opened in 1990 and still exists. The Cricket Club now plays its home matches at Valence Park, a picturesque cricket ground on the outskirts of Westerham.

Sir Winston Churchill Boxing club located at the Royal Standard Public House.

Westerham is also home to a football team, Westerham Football Club, which was founded in 1888. Westerham Junior Football Club provide football for 5-18 year olds playing in the Tandridge and Crowborough leagues. Both clubs are located at King George V Playing Field.

Westerham has two ladies netball teams that compete in the Tunbridge Wells League. Westerham also hosts a weekly parkrun on part of the Squerryes Estate.

title: Westerham


text:
Talk:Julian Tuwim

Untitled
"(felt obliged by his given name, perhaps?), " - this verse is unnecessary and unobjective, in my humble opinion.

.

Thanks for the article - Tuwim's poetry also set by (some?) composers, e.g. by Mieczyslaw Weinberg/Moisei Vainberg in some of his symphonies, songs and cantatas (incl sym 8 & 9 but also works as early as his op. 4.) - Schissel 09:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(not) celebrating Stalin
I'm pretty sure the bit about celebrating Stalin in his later years is true. See for example here http://www.niniwa2.cba.pl/towarzysze_nieudanej_podrozy_05.htm (in Polish). Tuwim's one of my favorite poets but one shouldn't whitewash that kind of thing.radek 00:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto --Beaumont (@)  12:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tuwim is mentioned in the given article (by Anna Bikont & Joanna Szczęsna) 3 times, very marginally, despite being the greatest living (but not active) poet in those years. Tuwim was not a party member. There is no citation from any Tuwim's poem in that article. The other two outstanding poets, Broniewski and Gałczyński, indeed had written significant poems about Stalin, but not Tuwim. The article claims that Tuwim had written some, without adding that virtually nobody paid attention to them or remembers them--they were not of any consequence (I personally don't know any, not one).

 * Then a letter of Tuwim to the then president of Poland is quoted. Tuwim promised that he will translate Russian classic Niekrasov into Polish--a classic of Russian literature--not Soviet, and not any communist, socialist, bolshevik or anything like this. So what's the big deal? Tuwim was pressed by communists but got away with not giving in except for a forced gesture.

 * Finally, on the occasion of Stalin's death, when communist terror was at its high, the article quotes the following Tuwim's phrase: "Przed taką trumnę przychodzi się z pochyloną głową. Ale odchodzi się od takiej trumny z głową podniesioną. Z ustokrotnioną energią do kontynuowania świętych i wzniosłych trudów naszych", which means: "to such a coffin one comes with their head down, and leaves with their head up; with energy increased a hundred times, to continue our holy and lofty efforts".

 * In the days of extremal terror, and in the face of extraordinary pressure to which he was subjected by the regime as a famous poet, Tuwim managed to preserve his integrity. But he couldn't write poems anymore, except for a few for himself. (One could say a lot about Tuwim as a good man in ugly times, but this is not the best place to do so). Wlod (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Rzecz Czarnoleska
Translating "Rzecz Czarnoleska" as "A Czarnolas Thing" appeares to me as thoroughly wrong. What "thing" would it be? Rzecz means "speech, tale" in old Polish (in Kochanowski's time, and some time later). "A tale from Czarnolas" should be a much more correct translation, though somebody can propose something better. 193.212.171.26 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Humanist

What about "Rzeczpospolita"? Does the word 'rzecz' have anything with 'speech' or 'tale' in common in this expresion? I am afraid, that this is not a good translation either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.198.76.130 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you heard about worlds with prular meaning, didn't you? Like bum in English. By the way I would add some informations about more vulgar poems, like "Wiersz, w którym autor grzecznie, ale stanowczo uprasza liczne zastępy bliźnich, aby go w dupę pocałowali", which translate as "Poem, in wich autor politely, but firmly asks huge crowds of people to kiss his ass" (Yup, it's real poem, ther's even article about it in polish Wikipedia) 78.131.215.1 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that 'dulcimer' anecdote really necessary?
To be sure Tuwim was a great wit. But the anecdote presented in the article fails spectacularly at conveying this. Basically, it's untranslatable. But if we were to translate it perhaps a better word would be "gong". I can see, sort of, insulting someone in English by calling them a "gong". But I just cannot imagine any English speaking person feeling offense at being called a "dulcimer". The awkwardness of the story in English and the this-joke-has-to-be-explained little print lower the overall quality of the article. How about just getting rid of it until an example understandable to English speaking readers can be found?radek (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lithuanian?
Currently the article claims Tuwim's family were descendants of the Lithuanian Jews while most of my books mention they indeed came from the East, but none mention specifically Lithuania. Tuwim's father Izydor (1858-1935) was pretty much from anywhere: born in Kalwaria (Lesser Poland), he studied in Koenigsberg (Prussia) and Paris before settling in Łódź. Any more info on that?  // Halibutt 12:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tuwim's grandfather published a Polish-language newspaper in Łódź . Maybe the father of the mother.Xx236 (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kalvarija is not in "Lesser Poland". Tuwim's mother, like his father, was also born in Lithuania, in Marijampolė. They were both educated people. Part of the Litvak intelligentsia. If you want to get technical about it, Julian Tuwim, and his parents, were all born in the Russian Empire. Not in Poland or in Lithuania. Tak to to, tak to to, tak to to, tak to to!... Right? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

antisemitic right wing
Sanacja had its own "antisemitic right wing" but here "antisemitic right wing" sounds fuzzy. Who exactly attacked Tuwim?
 * In 1929 Sanacja ruled, discriminating the "antisemitic right wing" Endecja.
 * The context of the poem - the First Five-Year Plan started constructon of the biggest army of the world, NSDAP obtained 10% of votes in local elections.Xx236 (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dang, I messed this up.
I was trying to add a couple of categories, I hit control-z to (I thought) undo one change, and something happened to the reference list that i don't understand. Sorry, can somebody fix it? Jane Peppler (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I think you accidentally copy/pasted the article on Moishe Broderzon into this one. It happens ;). Anyway, I've removed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Murzynek Bambo
Surely this is one of his most famous poems? Isn't it worth mentioning (by someone who knows more about Tuwim than me)? Malick78 (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

B-class review
For WP:POLAND - failed, due to insufficient inline citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The titles ?

 * Are the English titles sourced or self-translated? Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julian Tuwim. 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/20120426050823/http://www.qlturka.pl/profil_autora_ilustratora%2C71%2CJulian_Tuwim.html to http://www.qlturka.pl/profil_autora_ilustratora%2C71%2CJulian_Tuwim.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203213527/http://www.polish-jewish-heritage.org/eng/05_04_Julian_Tuwim_My_Polscy_Zydzi.htm to http://www.polish-jewish-heritage.org/eng/05_04_Julian_Tuwim_My_Polscy_Zydzi.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 * The link to "Julian Tuwim We Polish Jews" is currently directing to a domain that is now for sale. Johndurkan (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Poland's independence in 1918
It is a mistake. Who has written it? Poland's return to independence in 1919 - it is wrong. It happened in 1918. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.177.2.232 (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Julian Tuwim


text:
Slotket

In computer hardware terminology, slotkets, also known as slockets, (both short for slot to socket adapter) are adapters that allow socket-based microprocessors to be used on slot-based motherboards.

Slotkets were first created to allow the use of Socket 8 Pentium Pro processors on Slot 1 motherboards. However, only a few number of chipsets supported these slotkets, and so did not see widespread use. Later, they became more popular for inserting Socket 370 Intel Celerons into Slot 1 based motherboards. This lowered costs for computer builders, especially with dual processor machines. High-end motherboards accepting two Slot 1 processors (usually Pentium 2) were widely available, but double-socketed motherboards for the less expensive Socket 370 Celerons were not (with a few exceptions). The slotkets remained popular in the transition period from Slot to Socket-based Pentium III processors by allowing CPU upgrades in existing Slot 1 motherboards.

Slotkets were never introduced to take advantage of the AMD Athlon processors' transition from the Slot A form factor to the Socket A form factor. Additionally, adapters that go the other way around (from socket-based motherboards to slot-based CPUs) were also never introduced, especially since Socket 8 based motherboards do not support the higher clock frequencies of Slot 1 based processors.

Today, slotkets have largely disappeared, as Intel and AMD have not manufactured CPUs in slot form factors since 1999.

title: Slotket


text:
Persian lime

Persian lime (Citrus × latifolia), also known by other common names such as seedless lime, Bearss lime and Tahiti lime, is a citrus fruit species of hybrid origin, known only in cultivation. The Persian lime is a triploid cross between Key lime (Citrus × aurantiifolia) and lemon (Citrus × limon).

Although there are other citrus species that are referred to as "limes", the Persian lime is the most widely cultivated lime species commercially, and accounts for the largest share of the fruits sold as limes. The fruit turns yellow as it ripens, but it is universally sold while still green.

Description
The tree is nearly thornless. The fruit is about 6 cm in diameter, often with slightly nippled ends, and is usually sold while green, although it yellows as it reaches full ripeness. It is larger, thicker-skinned, with less intense citrus aromatics than the Key lime (Citrus aurantifolia). The advantages of the Persian lime in commercial agriculture compared to the key lime are the larger size, absence of seeds, hardiness, absence of thorns on the bushes, and longer fruit shelf life. They are less acidic than key limes and do not have the bitterness that lends to the key lime's unique flavor.

Cultivation
Persian limes were first grown on a large scale in Persia (now known as Iran) and southern Iraq.

The trees are propagated clonally, by grafting or air layering. Persian limes are commercialized primarily in six sizes, known as 110s, 150s, 175s, 200s, 230s and 250s. Large numbers of Persian limes are grown, processed, and exported every year primarily from Mexico to the American, European and Asian markets. In 2014, Brazil was the major exporter of fresh limes to Europe (about 70%) with Mexico supplying most of the remainder.

Cultivars
Cultivars include:
 * Bearss lime (named after John T. Bearss, who developed this seedless variety about 1895 in his nursery at Porterville, California)
 * Page lime
 * Persian lime SPB-7
 * Pond's lime
 * Tahiti lime

Uses
It is widely available dried, as it is often used this way in Persian cuisine.

title: Persian lime


text:
Talk:City of Wakefield

Discussion of City & District vs. merged pages
There is currently a discussion on WikiProject_UK_Subdivisions, discussing whether it is better to have a single article for, for example Wakefield (the city) and City of Wakefield (the district).

If this issue is of interest to you, please comment on WikiProject UK Subdivisions.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben@liddicott.com (talk • contribs) 09:55, 15 October 2004 (UTC)

"District" or "Borough"?
Should the City of Wakefield have the description metropolitan district or metropolitan borough?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.32.142 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coat of arms of Wakefield (district).jpg
Image:Coat of arms of Wakefield (district).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on City of Wakefield. 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/20120402235056/http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/CouncilAndDemocracy/ElectoralServices/Elections/localelection2011.htm to http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/CouncilAndDemocracy/ElectoralServices/Elections/localelection2011.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927032115/http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/CouncilAndDemocracy/ElectoralServices/Elections/localelection2012.htm to http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/CouncilAndDemocracy/ElectoralServices/Elections/localelection2012.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205123032/http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/about-the-council/elections/current-elections/local-election-results-2014 to http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/about-the-council/elections/current-elections/local-election-results-2014
 * Added tag to http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/News/PressReleases/news/pr2418.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Five Towns
I ask for clarification of this and a reference was supplied, but it is still not clear as to the meaning of this. Can someone explain, as the document mentions it but does nothing to clarify the meaning. Keith D (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sport : Pontefract racecourse
No mention in the "Sport" section, of Pontefract racecourse being within the borough of Wakefield (Doh!). 82.44.9.199 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for note, I have copied a bit from Pontefract for this. Keith D (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Other Culture
Could someone more in the know add to the Culture Section? It is odd that The Hepworth Wakefield, the Theatre Royal Wakefield, and the Wakefield History Museum aren't mentioned. I'd also be a proponent of adding Art House, but I'm not from there and may have not have the best understanding if a commercial enterprise like that should be included here. 73.130.240.146 (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:City of Wakefield


text:
User:Mbanno

My name is Motohiro Banno.

I am a first-year doctoral course student in the Department of Chemistry, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo. My research subject is vibrational dynamics in solutions. I observe them with time-resolved infrared spectroscopy.

title: User:Mbanno


text: Talk:Greater and Lesser Tunbs

title: Talk:Greater and Lesser Tunbs


text:
Baa Baa, Black Sheep (short story)

"Baa Baa, Black Sheep" is a semi-autobiographical short story by Rudyard Kipling, published in 1888.

The story deals with the unkind treatment that Kipling received between the ages of 6 and 11 in a foster home in Southsea. This subject is also discussed in the novel The Light That Failed published in 1890, and occupies most of the first chapter of his autobiography Something of Myself published in 1937.

Kipling and his younger sister are named Punch and Judy in this story. Following established custom for English families living in India, the Kipling parents sent their children to stay in England (in this case, in a foster home) for several years. Judy was treated warmly, but Punch was miserably abused and driven to a point of murderous and suicidal desperation. He also became nearly blind at this time.

Adaptations
The story has been dramatized on film in the following teleplays:

 * In 1960 as The Black Sheep, an episode of the TV anthology series Shirley Temple's Storybook.
 * In 1974 as a TV movie Baa Baa Black Sheep directed by Mike Newell,  which aired on ITV in the UK and on PBS three years later in the U.S.

In 1993 it was used as the basis of an opera, with a libretto by the Australian novelist David Malouf and music by English composer Michael Berkeley.

title: Baa Baa, Black Sheep (short story)


text:
Talk:City of Leeds

Discussion of City & District vs. merged pages
There is currently a discussion on WikiProject_UK_Subdivisions, discussing whether it is better to have a single article for, for example Leeds (the city) and City of Leeds (the district).

If this issue is of interest to you, please comment on WikiProject UK Subdivisions.

Barwick
Minor edit to note that Barwick-in-Elmet is sometimes known (locally) as just 'Barwick', and Scholes-in-Elmet is sometimes known as just 'Scholes'. 62.252.224.17 23:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Executive incorrect
Why is the executive listed as "Labour / Liberal Democrats / Conservative / Green"? It's "Liberal Democrats / Conservative / Green". - 87.194.6.158 20:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is NO green in the executive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.187.28 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Leeds 'metropolitan area'?
How can this be correct? "Taking into account the problematic nature of administrative boundaries, Leeds, as a city and cultural entity, is best defined in terms of its immediate metroplitan (sic) area. This would give the city a population of circa 700,000 Leodensians (sp)", when a quick glance at Wetherby, Otley and Garforth will reveal that these settlements alone account for 40,000 people. With a quoted Leeds administrative area of 725,000, this would leave only 685,000 Loiners. No, the best way to definition is the only one we've got - not some arbitrary system, and that in the ONS areas, which give Leeds' population as 443,247.  L.J.Skinner wot 01:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Leeds
City status would have been transferred from the original urban core to the whole metropolitan district by letters patent for the district to use that style. This article should be merged with Leeds or should be renamed Leeds local governance or something along those lines. See London Gazette (Issue 46255) published 04 April 1974. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Might I suggest that we keep the discussion on this in one place, on the Talk:Leeds page? PamD (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Please see Talk:Leeds for further discussion. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
This article has been renamed from Leeds city council to City of Leeds as the result of a move request. - unopposed move back to original name. Keith D (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should be moved back to the title "City of Leeds", because all other editors who commented were against the move. The editor moving it did not follow procedure for a controversial move.

Note also that there are a large number of links pointing to "City of Leeds" which refer to the metropolitan district and not the city. I have changed the redirect from "City of Leeds" so that it points to the original article at its current title of "Leeds city council", so that these links continue to point to the intended article. PamD (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The earlier discussion on this is at Talk:Leeds Keith D (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree Leeds city council should be about the organisation running the area, not the area itself. Barry m (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The article Leeds City Council is already is in place, and is probably why lower case was used in the move. Keith D (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree. It is a basic category mistake to confuse the area administered by a local authority with the local government body that does the administering. Indeed, this very confusion led to many uprisings and protests when kings and queens confused themselves with the office they held or the country over which they ruled. Let's not step back into committing a similar kind of archaic error with this. Additionally, the move was done in a way that ignored proper procedures for controversial moves.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree though I've made my views clear on Talk:Leeds already, I believe this move was a mistake, albeit a good faith one. More communication and community involvement in future please! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree The area is not the council and vice-versa. Leeds is not the City of Leeds and vice-versa. Regan123 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree The article is patently about the area that has been named City of Leeds, not the Leeds city council administrative body.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree An inappropriate name for the article. As Leeds City Council already exists anyway this could possibly be relisted as uncontroversial, in that it is uncontroversial that we do not want two articles on the same thing albeit with difference of capitalisation. MRSC • Talk 10:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We were advised to go for a full move request to avoid possibility of original mover objecting and reverting the move. Keith D (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a unanimous consensus amongst us. This, coupled with the existence of Leeds City Council means I don't think the mover would have any grounds to revert the move. Seems like an awful mess that could've been avoided. Has the move been requested formally? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it has been formally requested - as shown by template at top of page. PamD (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its 5 days are up tomorrow, and I will be acting on the move, if another admin does not do it. Keith D (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keith, might it be better to hope that another admin moves it, as you've been involved in the discussion? Not sure what the rules are for admins closing discussion they've been involved in, but just in case anyone then claimed the decision was invalid. PamD (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of people looking at moves is small but one of the other admins may look at it so I will not be acting until close of play today, which is when I tend to look and tidy-up easy ones before they go in to the backlog. But the discussion is clear as to what the outcome should be, even the original mover has not turned up to oppose, so I cannot see anyone complaining. Keith D (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Leeds City Council
I have made some bold changes as a result of a discussion in Talk:Leeds. In particular, I have merged the article Leeds City Council into this one, among other reasons for consistency with other English cities. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Middleton's pre-1974 status
I think that Middleton was part of the Rothwell Urban District rather than the Leeds County Borough before 1974. See the map of Rothwell's boundaries here http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10055131&c_id=10001043 It seems as if Middleton was within this area. There is no source for the boundaries of Leeds C.B. at present. From my knowledge, it is mainly correct at present but we still need a source for this, especially when it is going into a lot of detail. Epa101 (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I nearly replied that you are right and changed it in the article, but I think it's not true after all. I think the problem is that the name "Morley" is in an odd position. If you choose "zoom in" on the right-hand side and click near the western apex of the Rothwell district, you will see that it is Thorpe Wood, and you will see Middleton outside the district. There is also a similar map of Leeds County Borough, which shows Middleton inside. Unfortunately this only means that there was a time when it was inside, but then it seems relatively unlikely that it was part of Leeds at an earlier time but not in the early 1970s. Even better, we have a sentence under "Boundary Changes" that claims Middleton became part of Leeds CB in 1920. This is sourced to "Guide to the Administrative Units of England". Perhaps this guide contains a map or sufficient data to check our information. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, sadly Youngs Administartive Units has no maps. this, however is the entry for Middleton (paraphrased as it is all in abbreviations):

MIDDLETON (W Riding) Township in Rothwell Ancient Parish, separate civil parish 1866, separate ecclesiastical parish in 1849. Local Government: Agbrigg Wapentake, Gret Preston Gilbert Union (until 1869), Hunslet Poor Law Union (1869 - 1920), Hunslet Rural Sanitary District, Rural district. Abolished civilly 1920 entirely to Leeds County Borough (associated with West Riding) and to Hunslet Civil Parish.

 * Of course this refers to Middleton as it lay within official, formal boundaries. It may well be that the actual community of Middleton as understood by the people living in it was different.Lozleader (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I know what you mean. I have seen the boundaries of Hunslet when I first researched these things – it seems that at some time one of the administrative units named after Hunslet almost surrounded Leeds. But in the case of Middleton I would say that the combined information from your source and the Vision of Britain site is good enough to be reasonably sure it was part of Leeds CB in 1973. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift responses! I zoomed in on the map that I put up before and could indeed see that Middleton was just outside of the boundary. I looked up Hunslet Rural District, and Middleton seems to have been a part of that at one point. Zoom in on the western half of the district on this map http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10136039&c_id=10001043 It suggests that all of this district became part of the Rothwell Urban District in 1937 http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10136039&c_id=10001043  But then you can also find Middleton on the boundaries of the Leeds map  http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10108809&c_id=10001043  yet the boundary history for Leeds does not mention any enlargement in 1922 at all. I think that the Vision of Britain website has made a mistake somewhere on this one. Much of its information seems to come from the book that Lozleader quoted anyway. One idea would be to look up in that book the reference given for the abolition of Hunslet R.D. and the enlargement of Rothwell U.D. 1931 Census of England and Wales, County Report Part II, Table B; M. of H. Order No. 87427. The County of York, West Riding Review Order, 1937. Epa101 (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Garforth was a separate urban district pre-1974
The article currently suggests that Garforth was part of the Tadcaster Rural District before 1974. It was actually an urban district, which covered Allerton Bywater and Kippax as well. http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10213540&c_id=10001043 I think that a large edit soon is in order to remedy this. Epa101 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, I seriously blundered there. I should have read Local Government Act 1972 a bit more closely, which contains most of the necessary information. I made a small immediate fix, but if you want to make any sweeping changes, go ahead. I wrote this section mainly to replace the alphabetical list of areas, and as an exercise for me to learn about my new surroundings. I have only very vague ideas what these places are like, and perhaps they should be grouped differently. It would be great to have short geographical comments about the former districts, mentioning the Rhubarb Triangle and any other, similar characteristics. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Population
The intro says: "the 2001 population of Leeds itself was 443,247". Since the Leeds article is now about the City of Leeds this reference here to "Leeds" is now short of a definition. The quoted source (line 645 of this excel document from the 2001 Census) doesn't seem define "Leeds" either. What area, exactly, is this Census document referring to? IMO the consensus at Talk:Leeds that decided that Leeds = The City of Leeds needs to sort this out  almost - instinct 18:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

 * My understanding of the ONS Key Statistics for urban areas is that they are intended to enable a wider comparison of urban settlement across England and Wales by using a statistical definition of what it means to be 'urban'. I think that under the changes that DDStretch proposed and I have started to make to the Leeds articles the key statistics for urban areas data would be discussed in a new 'main article' on the demography of Leeds, perhaps at People of Leeds. —Jeremy (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think a seperate article on this topic, relevant to both the City of Leeds and the Continuous urban area formed around Leeds City Centre, would be an excellent idea.  almost - instinct 19:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on City of Leeds. 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/20081009215103/http://www.upmystreet.com:80/local/police-crime/figures/l/Leeds-4292.html to http://www.upmystreet.com/local/police-crime/figures/l/Leeds-4292.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060525140007/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/RegionalGVA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204141101/http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Advice_and_benefits/Tourism_and_travel/Town_twinning/Leeds__Dortmund_partnership.aspx to http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Advice_and_benefits/Tourism_and_travel/Town_twinning/Leeds__Dortmund_partnership.aspx
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5lctsW5KG?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twins2010.com%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_upload%2Fpic%2FDokumente%2FList_of_Twin_Towns_01.pdf%3FPHPSESSID%3D2edd34819db21e450d3bb625549ce4fd to http://www.twins2010.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pic/Dokumente/List_of_Twin_Towns_01.pdf?PHPSESSID=2edd34819db21e450d3bb625549ce4fd
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130705094933/http://www.completefrance.com/language-culture/twin-towns to http://www.completefrance.com/language-culture/twin-towns

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on City of Leeds. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.upmystreet.com/local/police-crime/figures/l/Leeds-4292.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reform.co.uk/filestore/pdf/Urban%20crime%20rankings%2C%20Reform%2C%20July%202006.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115084015/http://www2.brno.cz/index.php?lan=en&nav01=2222&nav02=1249 to http://www2.brno.cz/index.php?lan=en&nav01=2222&nav02=1249
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.twins2010.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pic/Dokumente/List_of_Twin_Towns_01.pdf?PHPSESSID=2edd34819db21e450d3bb625549ce4fd

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

technically the second largest city in England
Does "technically" add anything here? Isn't it just the second largest city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.142.73 (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Number of parishes
There 38 civil parishes in Leeds district, the 31 figure is only those that have parish councils and there are 6 unparished areas not just 1 namely Leeds, Aireborough, Ardsley East and West, Garforth, Pudsey and Rothwell.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The reference in the article indicates 31 parish councils, there is no mention of 38 parishes. You need to supply a reference that supports the numbers / areas to be changed to. Keith D (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The reference provided was the Mapit one. Bramhope and Carlton seems to be a joint council and the likes of Wothersome may just have a parish meeting. The ref for the councils is from over a decade ago and refers to parish councils not civil parishes.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The 841,000 population is a lie
As someone who works for 'Invest in Leeds', we have to know everything about Leeds to attract investors. Leeds Council population is 541,000 people. There is no 800,000+ population in Leeds. This can also be confirmed using percentage maths on the Census 2021. The person stating such a claim is proving why Wikipedia is not taken as a reliable source within Educational institutions. 2A02:C7F:9B14:E500:A02E:ABC7:7EB7:9023 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Are you perhaps confusing the City of Leeds the Borough, with the city that is Leeds itself? Leeds had an estimated population of 516,000+ in 2020, this article covers the district named after Leeds and is one of five within West Yorkshire, the others being Bradford (not the city, but the District), Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield. The joy of all things (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image(s)
Until recently the infobox image was of Leeds Civic Hall, the seat of government of the area.

If we are going to move to a collage which shows multiple images, can we please have a selection which is more representative of the area, rather than a collection of Victorian and earlier buildings? And please remember that the first landscape-format image is the one which a mobile phone user will see as the top of the article: Harewood House is really not representative of the area.

I suggest that if we go for multiple images, they should include a river or canal (perhaps the river/mill view used in Otley), something ancient such as Adel Parish Church, some open countryside, a striking modern building (Leeds Arena or Headingley cricket ground perhaps), a cityscape (the Leeds skyline or the image in City Square, Leeds?), a town centre like Otley (eg a market place/town square scene, rather than just town hall building), etc.

Or we could just go back to a single image of the Civic Hall (I prefer the images which show the two pinnacles with their golden owls). Is there a consensus that a collage is preferable?

But, please, not an architectural tour of the district. And remember the point about which image gets onto mobile phones.

Any thoughts? Pam D  08:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 * My preference would be the single image option. The other images could be distributed across the article. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:City of Leeds


text:
Talk:Martha Mitchell effect

Another case
I seem to vaguely recall another famous case: a U.S. naval officer who insisted that he was being followed everywhere by Israeli secret service agents was committed to a military psychiatric hospital, where he committed suicide. Later, his claims were found to have been real. Timeframe: 1960s or 70s? Can anyone pin this one down? -- The Anome 10:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * An article by Mayerhoff et al (link to PubMed entry) is a similar case, but I've not yet tracked down the original so don't know the details yet. - Vaughan 10:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Is it worthwhile to point out similarities between this and the Cassandra Syndrome? -R. fiend 20:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll change if not dissuaded
Any patient, they explain, can be misdiagnosed by clinicians, even one with a history of paranoid delusions.

It appears this should read "especially one with a history of paranoid delusions". Why am I wrong? --Gtg207u (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Howe about

Any patient, they explain, can be misdiagnosed by clinicians, even one withOUT a history of paranoid delusions. 195.137.93.129 (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed original research tag
I've removed the OR tag from the page as it's just a description of what's already written in the published, referenced sources. Full disclosure: I am the co-author on one of the papers, but I wasn't the editor who added it as a reference to this page. - Vaughan (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

At the beginning of the Discussion section, "According to Bell et. al,", is unsourced. What is the citation here? Isn't this frowned upon (unsourced citations could be bogus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.21.84 (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day
Is this article giving undue weight to the claims of folks who otherwise shouldn't be given such consideration? 24.240.67.157 (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Martha Mitchell effect


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/172

172
This nomination has been withdrawn. This archive is historical, and should not be edited.

Vote here
 * (9/14/3) ends 10:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a bureaucrat, I will act strictly according to the precedents and conventions established by more senior bureaucrats. Beyond that, I hope that it will afford me a position to advocate a way of standardizing voting across Wikipedia, to mitigate, for example, the disruption of the process of admin nominations caused by sockpuppets. (This subject received considerable attention on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, but nothing was accomplished.) Regarding my background on Wikipedia, I have been with the project since late 2002 and an admin since May 2003 ... I usually rank within the top 50-70 most active users (all namespaces)... I've written a few featured articles, along with many others that have made it to FAC. (Articles of which I'm the main author are listed on my user page, if anyone wishes to refer to my contributions before voting.) Thanks for hearing me out, 172 10:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Xed 12:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Everyking 13:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 13:36, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Gzornenplatz 14:29, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Stewart Adcock 20:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) AndyL 20:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) I usually don't vote on adminships if for no other reason than that, since there is a high probability that I may be in the position of promoting or not, I prefer to let the nominations take their course without my influence. In this case, while I understand those who vote against 172 for cause (I had conflict with him myself many months ago) I saw his relationship with the community hit a low after which he has better engaged the community on many fronts. I'm not certain he "needs" bureaucratship to accomplish his stated goals, but I approve his goals and feel he is well suited to carrying them out. He is one of our best and most incisive contributors, and I believe that it is a positive to engage these top editors whenever possible in trusted positions in the community, absent evidence that he would somehow abuse the specific powers of a bureaucrat. That said, speaking for myself only as an individual Wikipedian, I feel bound to support. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) I support this serious and level-headed scholar. IZAK 12:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Strongly oppose. BLANKFAZE | (что?!) 10:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly oppose. {Ανάριον} 11:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. This user previously falsely accused me of sockpuppetry after I voted a way he didn't like on VfD and RfA. At the time, I had 3-4 months' tenure and ~150 edits.  Bureaucrats are trusted to judge which voters are sockpuppets, thus I cannot support him as a bureaucrat. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 11:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Although you link this page to your statement above as evidence, it tells a different story. I did not accuse you of being a sockpuppet outright. Instead, I was merely alluding to charges that your vote was a sockpuppet meant to undermine the nomination of User:Neutrality, which did indeed attract an unusually high number of oppose votes from users whose tenures have been very short and/or from users who have not made a relatively large number of edits. Something fishy was going on, irrespective of whether or not your vote was legitimate. Thus, I stand by my talk page postings with respect to voting on Neutrality's RfA as reasonable given the information available at the time I was writing them. 172 12:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose, user currently in arbitration for defiance of policy, and regular, vigorous conflict with Foundation issues. Sam [Spade] 12:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. User has very controversial history unbecoming a bureaucrat. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:17, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * So this vote is based on innuendo? I could've voted against your nomination based on, say, age, claiming that that demonstrates a likelihood of immaturity. (After all, according to your user page, you're younger than all of my students.) But I don't base my votes on hearsay and innuendo. 172 14:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This vote is not based on hearsay. It is based on firsthand experience of conduct unbecoming. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:14, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * 1) David Cannon 23:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC). Over my dead body.  I've seen quite a bit of this user in the past.  Although a valuable editor, I think the position of bureaucrat calls for someone who doesn't allow matters to go to his head so often.
 * That's odd. I don't know who you are or even remember working with you... Ad hominems aside, if you have any specific objections to my work, please let me know. 172 04:18, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right, we haven't worked together. But I've seen you around.  I have high regard for the quality of your work.  That said, my confidence in your judgement was severely tested by your highly emotional outburst last July or August against Muriel Gottrop (whom I respect enormously).  Yes, I know she was expressing opinions that not everyone would agree with, but she did so politely and in a way that would not offend any reasonable person.  I don't think the same could be said for you.  You hit below the belt.  I may not have said anything, but I thought a lot.  Now, I know we all have "off-days" on which we act out of character - I have them myself, and if I had not read of similar complaints from other users, I could write that incident off as a one-off lapse of judgement.  Unfortunately, however, it seems to be part of a regular pattern, and I think it wisest to give you time to show that you have learned better.  Who knows, if another six months pass with no more such occurrences, I will be happy to vote for you.  But not this time.  Sorry. David Cannon 09:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I hate to tell you, but your friend Muriel was the one who accused me of fascism, not the other way around. If you don't believe me, find the VfD archive yourself. As it turns out, I was the one expressing myself politely, while she was accusing a Jew whose grandparents died in fascist death campus of fascism... For your edification, this is the kind of misunderstanding that can arise if you make strong judgments about someone about whom you don't know anything and with whom you've never interacted. 172 13:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's "the kind of misunderstanding that can arise" when you make tactless remarks and only AFTERWARDS use as your defence something that nobody previously knew. What happened to your grandparents was a terrible thing, but Muriel couldn't have known about that prior to your revealing it.  In the initial debate that you were having with her, I'm NOT saying, necessarily, that she was right and that you were wrong (I regarded the whole issue as overblown); what I AM saying (and yes, I stand by this), is that she expressed her opinions politely and you didn't.  That's how it seemed to me, anyway.  Her "fascism" remark was, IMO, something of an overreaction, but it was not unprovoked.  Your own defence was NOT fair: she couldn't have known about your grandparents and probably didn't know you were Jewish (I certainly didn't know until I read that), and I found it offensive that you accused her of insulting "a Jew those grandparents died in fascist death camps," when she couldn't have known that.  I felt that such attribution of malice, to someone who could not have known, bordered on slander.  The fact that you have come up with the same defence again now raises questions in my mind about whether you have learned anything at all from the incident, and removes whatever lingering doubts I may have had about my vote.David Cannon 09:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That's blathering nonsense. I had to stop reading that bullshit after the first couple of sentences. Associating anyone with fascism, especially for something as trivial as starting a page on VfD, is a filthy slander; I don't regret the way I responded to that girl one bit... Unless you have something constructive to say, or unless you don't mind being ignored, don't bother communicating with me again. 172 10:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. See Requests_for_comment/172, etc. - Nat Krause 06:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Nat Karuse's opposition doesn't bother me at all. The only time that I'd encountered this user was at Origins of the American Civil War, one of the featured articles that I'd written. This user was trying to muck up the article, which was well engaged in wealth of serious academic literature on the subject, and turn it into a libertarian/neo-confederate polemic, which had no place in an encyclopedia article. Fortunately, John Kenney and I managed to put a stop to him... I invite everyone to take a look at Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1, and examine the issue at the root of the vote above. 172 07:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't so much that you "put a stop to me" as it was that I decided I was wrong and that the discussion was not productive so I voluntarily stopped editing the article. I wonder how often you have realized you were wrong and backed down from a position?  Anyway, your response here illustrates some of my objections to your becoming a bureaucrat: inflammatory mischaracterizations of your disputes with other users; an apparent sense of ownership over certain articles; and a desire to "put a stop" to contributions from users that you don't approve of.  172, you contribute a lot of useful material to Wikipedia, and everyone should be grateful for that, but I definitely don't see how you can be trusted with any higher levels of responsibility. - Nat Krause 17:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad attempt at saving face, but the discussion in Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1 tells a completely different story. It doesn't matter why you decided to "back down" because John Kenney and I clearly explained in a way that any intelligent and reasonable editor with somewhat of a background on the subject could grasp why the libertarian/neo-confederate polemics from which you were drawing had no place in an encyclopedia article. If John and I hurt your feelings in the process, that's just too bad; this is an encyclopedic, not an online debate forum. 172 18:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Nat has no need to save face, its not him who is asking for a show of confidence from the community whilst simultaneously undergoing arbitration. IMO it might be better if you bragged a bit less about your copious violations of Civility. Sam [Spade] 19:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * John and I handled the dispute on OACW with Nat as civilly as he allowed us. Now, if you are able and willing to dispute the substance of the arguments made by John Kenney and me regarding Nat's proposed changes to the article, as opposed to your red herrings accusing me of incivility whenever I get in the way of your POV agenda (well-documented by User:IZAK and User:Spleeman), please see Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1. 172 19:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not about me, its about you. I don't need to investigate your interaction w Nat; I automatically assume he is correct on this subject due to my experiences with him and yourself. If User:IZAK and User:Spleeman are your idea of impartial editors, careful to accurately cite sources in a verifiable manner, that is particularly damning evidence against your abilities to effectively discern a quality editor from a POV warrior. That is relevant here, as it is precisely the job requirements of the position you are requesting. Sam [Spade] 20:04, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * So the merits of the arguments don't matter so long as you decide that you like one user more than another, right? BTW, the idea that I called Spleeman an impartial editor is your fantasy (reread my comments). My comments were not based on the assumption that IZAK and Spleeman are credible. Instead, the links provided on User:Spleeman/Sam Spade speak for themselves. (My assumption is that the page histories on Wikipedia are reliable.) That aside, since you admit that you won't take the time to look into the substance of the arguments on Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1, I have no reason to continue to respond to you. 172 20:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You think you have no reason to listen to me, because you refuse to learn. As with everyone, I agree you are an excellent contributor here. My concern is that you are arrogant, biased, and a poor judge of others. That tells me that you should be kept an eye on, and should not be revert warring, but rather making the copious additions, which you are so very good at. Now is not the time for a bureaucrat election. Sam [Spade] 23:07, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No way. Pushes an agenda.  RickK 07:47, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Damn right I push an agenda: accuracy, proper placement, and scholarly standards, along with fighting against ethnocentrism and U.S.-centrism. This is at the root of the opposition by Sam Spade, Nat Krause, and Anárion (the clone of the far-right German nationalist Jor). 172 07:54, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I am nobody's clone. Stop spreading lies. {Ανάριον} 07:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 08:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. When Shorne insulted Stan, calling him an "idiot" and a "propagandist", (4 days ago) 172 expressed his support for Shorne  instead of disapproval for insulting other Wikipedians (see: User_talk:Shorne). The reason is that Shorne and 172 have similar political orientation. I think it raises doubts as to 172's ability to maintain his impartiality. Boraczek 10:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not share Shorne's politics, but even if I did, I would have every right to do so... It is because I am impartial that I am willing to break with other editors and state when the merits of Shorne's contributions should not be reverted at random by you and VeryVerily. 172 20:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Lst27 15:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, with regret. The conflict currently going on between Shorne, VV, Gzornenplatz, Boraczek, Stan, myself, and a number of others on a multiplicity of pages relating to the Soviet Union and communism serve as a prime example of the difficulty in reconciling multiple divergent points of view on this great experiment.  Through all of this, tempers have been heated at times, with Shorne in particular showing anger and frustration.  172, who seems to show some sympathy for Shorne's position if not his views, could perhaps have acted as a mediating influence. Instead, I feel that he encouraged Shorne by calling Stan a "rude and erroneously self-righteous active editor."  Be that as it may, that's no way to settle a dispute between users of different persuasions. Mackensen 00:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If you want to go from page to page and stalk a user, reverting his edits at random, that's your business. Just don't expect me to mediate. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee; and I don't want to be caught in the crossfire. BTW, quit inferring that I share Shorne's politics. I expressed sympathy for him given his unfair treatment, not his ideology. 172 10:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe you have confused me with someone else. The only person I went around reverting was Turrican and his IP sockpuppets, and I'm certainly not alone in doing that. Shorne and I have been discussing changes on a number of talk pages, and I have never, to my knowledge, edit-warred with him. I'm not sure what unfair treatment you refer to, as some of us have endured considerable abuse at his hands with equanimity. Please don't assume that every person who disagrees with Shorne is some insane POV revert-warrior with an agenda. Some us happen to be kindly academics who happen to insist upon proper documentation. I'd like to further note that once Shorne provided such documentation on List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945, I withdrew my objection, in part (while we're on the matter, 172, I'd love your explanation for why that article remains, but you changed List of Soviet Cold War power plays to a redirect to Cold War). Mackensen 15:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose fvw 07:57, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
 * 2) I know nothing about User 172. However, his/her comments on this page and the hostility to any criticism they display render this user totally unsuited to any position of trust, IMHO. Filiocht 13:57, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 13:25, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC) Changing vote to support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 13:36, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) At the very least, it seems to be a poor lack of judgement to place one's name forward when they are currently involved in an arbitration dispute. Also, is it true that you recently blocked an anon IP (216.20.9.22) for 204 hours? func(talk) 16:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I stand by my judgment call. I simply don't recognize my involvement in this so-called dispute, as it is not a legitimate request by legitimate users. (I admit, Lir, Rex, Plato, and Sam Spade don't seem to like me; but they've been harboring grudges against scores of users, including many bureaucrats and admins. So the best strategy is to ignore them and their games, i.e. this arbitration request, and to not feed the trolls.) Also, I did block that user. Around dozen contributions as puerile as the following demonstrated that this anon was here only to cause disruption:
 * "Well harry truman was born with an extrememly large _____. You can well imagine what the blank is but lets just say they called him the general. He was large and incharge in the bedroom. Many people have come to respect him as a president but i have come to respect him for this other reason. Thats why i am voting Harry Truman as my P.I.M.P of the century. God bless Harry Truman and nobody else." 172 16:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Right, I don't dispute the vandalism. I was just my understanding that IP numbers should never be blocked for long periods of time due to the possiblity that they are often dynamically assigned to a great many people. func(talk) 18:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I think we have enough bureaucrats right now. —No-One Jones (m) 23:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) This User currently is in Arb Committee, however I find Abe's edit to be most excellent which causes me to be Neutral--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 12:48, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

In response to some of the comments above, I admit to having been surrounded by more controversy during my tenure than most admins. This is the consequence of my commitment to making Wikipedia into a viable encyclopedia and my willingness to fight for scholarly standards. We must be wary of privileging process over product; accuracy and proper placement and location of content are higher priorities than, say, the three revert rule. (However, editorial considerations will not play a role in my actions as a bureaucrat. I remind everyone that I have a record going on longer than a year demonstrating my ability to distinguish administrative tasks from editorial considerations. Otherwise, I would've not remained an admin since 5/03.) 172 13:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You have remained admin due to a broken system of accountability, which is now on the mend. You and other rogue sysops will slowly be weeded out, not promoted to positions of greater danger to the project. Sam [Spade] 13:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You will not be able to point to a single instance of admin abuse (wrongfully protecting, moving, and deleting pages; and wrongfully blocking users). This is just your petty grudge against me talking. Get over it. (BTW, I will ignore your comments following this posting.) 172 13:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've never understood how people who are nominated for adminship or bureaucratship think that arguing with the people who vote against them will do them any good. RickK 23:44, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, I most certaintly agree with that sentiment. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Non voting comment to be apreciated: I think bureaucrats *at least* should be able to understand basic grammar. Trying to make wikipedia a fascist regime is not exactly equal to calling somebody a fascist. The-Friend-Muriel
 * That's a moot point. Your behavior was inappropriate and I do not regret at all how I responded to you, or David Cannon on this page for that matter. 172 03:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I was not expecting nothing else from you. Anyway, if you want this badly, maybe you should listen to Rick's comment two paragraphs above. I wish you well. Muriel G 10:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't want this badly at all. (As evidence, I could have campaigned for this among people likely to support, but I didn't bother. I'll just find another way to restart the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_20) While I admit that it I didn't expect the polling to turn out like this, I'm nevertheless compelled to rebuke some of the stupid and malicious comments above, as they pertain to my work. 172 10:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:IronWolve

I decided to add a quote that was always mis-quoted on Mahatma Gandhi. But I wasn't logged in, so I created an account.

Might add some historical BBS information as it seems to be lacking. Also, I noticed some technical terms are not in Wikipedia.

Mens Rights Issues
I have started adding mens rights issues to Wikipedia, I have not seen the many of the topics that used, MGTOW is one, and has been added. The licensing under creative commons is fixed, and im sure the article could be fixed up by some better editors, but the page is at least online.

title: User:IronWolve


text:
Kurgan hypothesis

The Kurgan hypothesis (also known as the Kurgan theory, Kurgan model, or steppe theory) is the most widely accepted proposal to identify the Proto-Indo-European homeland from which the Indo-European languages spread out throughout Europe and parts of Asia. It postulates that the people of a Kurgan culture in the Pontic steppe north of the Black Sea were the most likely speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE). The term is derived from the Turkic word kurgan (курга́н), meaning tumulus or burial mound.

The steppe theory was first formulated by Otto Schrader (1883) and V. Gordon Childe (1926), then systematized in the 1950s by Marija Gimbutas, who used the term to group various prehistoric cultures, including the Yamnaya (or Pit Grave) culture and its predecessors. In the 2000s, David Anthony instead used the core Yamnaya culture and its relationship with other cultures as a point of reference.

Indo-European expansions.jpg dispersals from c. 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan hypothesis. Center: Steppe cultures

Not shown: Armenian, expanding from western steppe
 * 300x300px]]

Gimbutas defined the Kurgan culture as composed of four successive periods, with the earliest (Kurgan I) including the Samara and Seroglazovo cultures of the Dnieper–Volga region in the Copper Age (early 4th millennium BC). The people of these cultures were nomadic pastoralists, who, according to the model, by the early 3rd millennium BC had expanded throughout the Pontic–Caspian steppe and into Eastern Europe.

Recent genetics studies of late 2000s, as well as 2010s and 2020s have demonstrated that populations bearing specific Y-DNA haplogroups and a distinct genetic signature expanded into Europe and South Asia from the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the third and second millennia BC. These migrations provide a plausible explanation for the spread of at least some of the Indo-European languages, and suggest that the alternative theories such as the Anatolian hypothesis, which places the Proto-Indo-European homeland in Neolithic Anatolia, are less likely to be correct.

Predecessors
Arguments for the identification of the Proto-Indo-Europeans as steppe nomads from the Pontic–Caspian region had already been made in the 19th century by the German scholars, Theodor Benfey (1869) and Victor Hehn (1870), followed notably by Otto Schrader (1883, 1890). Theodor Poesche had proposed the nearby Pinsk Marshes. In his standard work about PIE and to a greater extent in a later abbreviated version, Karl Brugmann took the view that the urheimat could not be identified exactly by the scholarship of his time, but he tended toward Schrader's view. However, after Karl Penka's 1883 rejection of non-European PIE origins, most scholars favoured a Northern European origin.

The view of a Pontic origin was still strongly supported, including by the archaeologists V. Gordon Childe and Ernst Wahle. One of Wahle's students was Jonas Puzinas, who became one of Marija Gimbutas's teachers. Gimbutas, who acknowledged Schrader as a precursor, painstakingly marshalled a wealth of archaeological evidence from the territory of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc that was not readily available to Western scholars, revealing a fuller picture of prehistoric Europe.

Overview
When it was first proposed in 1956, in The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Part 1, Gimbutas's contribution to the search for Indo-European origins was an interdisciplinary synthesis of archaeology and linguistics. The Kurgan model of Indo-European origins identifies the Pontic–Caspian steppe as the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) urheimat, and a variety of late PIE dialects are assumed to have been spoken across this region. According to this model, the Kurgan culture gradually expanded to the entire Pontic–Caspian steppe, Kurgan IV being identified with the Yamnaya culture of around 3000 BC.

The mobility of the Kurgan culture facilitated its expansion over the entire region and is attributed to the domestication of the horse followed by the use of early chariots. The first strong archaeological evidence for the domestication of the horse comes from the Sredny Stog culture north of the Azov Sea in Ukraine, and would correspond to an early PIE or pre-PIE nucleus of the 5th millennium BC. Subsequent expansion beyond the steppes led to hybrid, or in Gimbutas's terms "kurganized" cultures, such as the Globular Amphora culture to the west. From these kurganized cultures came the immigration of Proto-Greeks to the Balkans and the nomadic Indo-Iranian cultures to the east around 2500 BC.

Cultural horizon
Gimbutas defined and introduced the term "Kurgan culture" in 1956 with the intention of introducing a "broader term" that would combine Sredny Stog II, Pit Grave (Yamnaya), and Corded ware horizons (spanning the 4th to 3rd millennia in much of Eastern and Northern Europe). The Kurgan archaeological culture or cultural horizon comprises the various cultures of the Pontic–Caspian steppe in the Copper Age to Early Bronze Age (5th to 3rd millennia BC), identified by similar artifacts and structures, but subject to inevitable imprecision and uncertainty. The eponymous kurgans (mound graves) are only one among several common features.

Cultures that Gimbutas considered as part of the "Kurgan culture":
 * Bug–Dniester (6th millennium)
 * Samara (5th millennium)
 * Khvalynsk (5th millennium)
 * Dnieper–Donets (5th to 4th millennia)
 * Sredny Stog (mid-5th to mid-4th millennia)
 * Maykop–Deriivka (mid-4th to mid-3rd millennia)
 * Yamnaya (Pit Grave): This is itself a varied cultural horizon, spanning the entire Pontic–Caspian steppe from the mid-4th to the 3rd millennium.
 * Usatove (late 4th millennium)

Stages of culture and expansion
Gimbutas's original suggestion identifies four successive stages of the Kurgan culture:
 * Kurgan I, Dnieper/Volga region, earlier half of the 4th millennium BC. Apparently evolving from cultures of the Volga basin, subgroups include the Samara and Seroglazovo cultures.
 * Kurgan II–III, latter half of the 4th millennium BC. Stone circles, anthropomorphic stone stelae of deities. Includes the Sredny Stog culture and the Maykop culture of the northern Caucasus.
 * Kurgan IV or Pit Grave (Yamnaya) culture, first half of the 3rd millennium BC, encompassing the entire steppe region from the Ural to Romania.

In other publications she proposes three successive "waves" of expansion:
 * Wave 1, predating Kurgan I, expansion from the lower Volga to the Dnieper, leading to coexistence of Kurgan I and the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture. Repercussions of the migrations extend as far as the Balkans and along the Danube to the Vinča culture in Serbia and Lengyel culture in Hungary.
 * Wave 2, mid 4th millennium BC, originating in the Maykop culture and resulting in advances of "kurganized" hybrid cultures into northern Europe around 3000 BC (Globular Amphora culture, Baden culture, and ultimately Corded Ware culture). According to Gimbutas this corresponds to the first intrusion of Indo-European languages into western and northern Europe.
 * Wave 3, 3000–2800 BC, expansion of the Pit Grave culture beyond the steppes, with the appearance of the characteristic pit graves as far as modern Romania, Bulgaria, eastern Hungary and Georgia, coincident with the end of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture and Trialeti culture in Georgia (c. 2750 BC).

Timeline

 * 4500–4000: Early PIE. Sredny Stog, Dnieper–Donets and Samara cultures, domestication of the horse (Wave 1).
 * 4000–3500: The Pit Grave culture (a.k.a. Yamnaya culture), the prototypical kurgan builders, emerges in the steppe, and the Maykop culture in the northern Caucasus. Indo-Hittite models postulate the separation of Proto-Anatolian before this time.
 * 3500–3000: Middle PIE. The Pit Grave culture is at its peak, representing the classical reconstructed Proto-Indo-European society with stone idols, predominantly practicing animal husbandry in permanent settlements protected by hillforts, subsisting on agriculture, and fishing along rivers. Contact of the Pit Grave culture with late Neolithic Europe cultures results in the "kurganized" Globular Amphora and Baden cultures (Wave 2). The Maykop culture shows the earliest evidence of the beginning Bronze Age, and Bronze weapons and artifacts are introduced to Pit Grave territory. Probable early Satemization.
 * 3000–2500: Late PIE. The Pit Grave culture extends over the entire Pontic steppe (Wave 3). The Corded Ware culture extends from the Rhine to the Volga, corresponding to the latest phase of Indo-European unity, the vast "kurganized" area disintegrating into various independent languages and cultures, still in loose contact enabling the spread of technology and early loans between the groups, except for the Anatolian and Tocharian branches, which are already isolated from these processes. The centum–satem break is probably complete, but the phonetic trends of Satemization remain active.

Further expansion during the Bronze Age
The Kurgan hypothesis describes the initial spread of Proto-Indo-European during the 5th and 4th millennia BC. As used by Gimbutas, the term "kurganized" implied that the culture could have been spread by no more than small bands who imposed themselves on local people as an elite. This idea of PIE and its daughter languages diffusing east and west without mass movement proved popular with archaeologists in the 1970s (the pots-not-people paradigm). The question of further Indo-Europeanization of Central and Western Europe, Central Asia and Northern India during the Bronze Age is beyond the scope of the Kurgan hypothesis, and far more uncertain than the events of the Copper Age, and subject to some controversy. The rapidly developing fields of archaeogenetics and genetic genealogy since the late 1990s have not only confirmed a migratory pattern out of the Pontic Steppe at the relevant time but also suggest the possibility that the population movement involved was more substantial than earlier anticipated and invasive.

Invasion versus diffusion scenarios (1980s onward)
Gimbutas believed that the expansions of the Kurgan culture were a series of essentially-hostile military incursions in which a new warrior culture imposed itself on the peaceful, matrilinear, and matrifocal (but not matriarchal) cultures of "Old Europe" and replaced it with a patriarchal warrior society, a process visible in the appearance of fortified settlements and hillforts and the graves of warrior-chieftains: "The process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical, transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of successfully imposing a new administrative system, language, and religion upon the indigenous groups."

In her later life, Gimbutas increasingly emphasized the authoritarian nature of this transition from the egalitarian society centered on the nature/earth mother goddess (Gaia) to a patriarchy worshipping the father/sun/weather god (Zeus, Dyaus).

J. P. Mallory (in 1989) accepted the Kurgan hypothesis as the de facto standard theory of Indo-European origins, but he distinguished it from an implied "radical" scenario of military invasion. Gimbutas' actual main scenario involved slow accumulation of influence through coercion or extortion, as distinguished from general raiding shortly followed by conquest: "One might at first imagine that the economy of argument involved with the Kurgan solution should oblige us to accept it outright. But critics do exist and their objections can be summarized quite simply: Almost all of the arguments for invasion and cultural transformations are far better explained without reference to Kurgan expansions, and most of the evidence so far presented is either totally contradicted by other evidence, or is the result of gross misinterpretation of the cultural history of Eastern, Central, and Northern Europe."

Alignment with Anatolian hypothesis (2000s)
In the 2000s, Alberto Piazza and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza tried to align the Anatolian hypothesis with the steppe theory. According to Piazza, "[i]t is clear that, genetically speaking, peoples of the Kurgan steppe descended at least in part from people of the Middle Eastern Neolithic who immigrated there from Anatolia." According to Piazza and Cavalli-Sforza (2006), the Yamna-culture may have been derived from Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers who migrated to the Pontic steppe and developed pastoral nomadism. Wells agrees with Cavalli-Sforza that there is "some genetic evidence for migration from the Middle East." Nevertheless, the Anatolian hypothesis is incompatible with the linguistic evidence.

Anthony's revised steppe theory (2007)
David Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel and Language describes his "revised steppe theory". He considers the term "Kurgan culture" so imprecise as to be useless, and instead uses the core Yamnaya culture and its relationship with other cultures as points of reference. He points out: "The Kurgan culture was so broadly defined that almost any culture with burial mounds, or even (like the Baden culture) without them could be included."

He does not include the Maykop culture among those that he considers to be Indo-European-speaking and presumes instead that they spoke a Caucasian language.

title: Kurgan hypothesis